Do ballistics experts agree Oswald was the lone gunman?

By Don B. Thomas

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

The back wounds

JFK Postcard

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

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

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

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

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

The head wound

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

JFK head wound

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

623 comments

  1. Ed Ledoux says:

    Ballistic experts would not be able to determine “whom” fired.
    As such this is a loaded question.
    Starting from the beginning, Lee Oswald never owned a rifle.

  2. Conclusion

    “We have rebutted the central ten points used by the Warren Commission as the heart of its case. We have identified a large amount of possible evidence tampering and alteration. I believe that a reasonable judge would come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not met the basic test required for a case to go to a jury: Would a reasonable juror be able to make a finding that Oswald was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

    I think the prosecution would be unable to make any basic case. We have looked at the primary evidence identified by the Warren Commission. We haven’t blinked. If you have questions, go to maryferrell.org and take your own independent look at the facts, attend the Dallas conference hosted by JFK Lancer on November 21-22, or take citizen action at aarclibrary.org.

    After reviewing this evidence, I think you will agree that there’s no way that a reasonable case can be made against Oswald for the murder of either JFK or Officer Tippit.

    What we need now is a citizens’ board with subpoena power, similar to the Assassination Records Review Board of the 1990s. The Board freed millions of documents that have transformed our ability to analyze the JFK case. A new board can provide an opportunity to resolve the murders of JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X and many others. “~Bill Simpich, Attorney at Law

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-Warren-Commission-by-Bill-Simpich-Assassination_Evidence_JFK_JFK-Assassination-141119-717.html
    \\][//

  3. Bill says:

    Leslie 3. About the comment as to what you see with help from me or the SS narrator: You asked me. You do remember that. Right? Your last sentence about the window frame and the brick facade making the shots unlikely actually demonstrates one of two things: The First, you have no clue about the mechanics involved in the shooting and; The Second, you have no clue about the mechanics involved in recreating a demonstration because it completely undercuts your view on risk taking.

    Leslie: Oswald walked out of that building didn’t he? So he did exactly what this position selection allowed him to do. Fire a gun, kill a man, and WALK AWAY.

    I would look at 12:15 section and want to discuss more but I feel as though it would be wasted on you. The short answer, that you apparently don’t want to hear, begins at 11:06.

    Please don’t mention the curbing again. If you would like to know the route planning refer to interviews with the Secret Service. It is printed as part of this link. I especially like how liars like Jean Hill are exposed as just plain old liars and money seekers (The last dissenting witness).

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

    Peace out.

    • Justin says:

      Bill,

      First time commenter, long time reader….

      Your hubris is second to none on this site, and that is saying something when you consider the likes of neutron, Ronald McDonald -err McAdams-, Nickerson, Davison, among others. Your -peace- comments warrant no significance to this site or the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

      As for my personal apprehensions concerning the -crime of the millennium-, I have yet to see anyone on this site, namely, the loose nut (yes, loose) crowd, cogently and completely convey motive, nor, as Curry stated some 46 years ago, has anyone placed Oswald on the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63. Fuhget about the plethora of anomalies that follow suit and fold like a house of cards in a subtle wind, because that’s all it takes (Ruby, Hoover, Dulles, Johnson, Ford, Specter, the rifle (Mauser), shell casings, the SBT (CE399), witness accounts, Shelley, Lovelady, Baker, Frazier, Odio, “Oswald” in Mexico City, defecting/re-defecting and not a single eyebrow is raised, Tippit, and on and on and on), explain, if you will, the first two accounts I have listed above. If you could be so kind as to -peace- those together, it would be greatly appreciated.

      I’ll wait with bated breath….

      • Tom S. says:

        Welcome Justin,
        I’ve recently taken on the responsibility for what appears in the reader’s comments section of each article. I am acutely aware that the vibe, atmosphere, or culture in these comments threads will, depending on what I do, be welcoming to new contributors or intimidating. If comments were not moderated, the readers would be left to the challenge of navigating through the insults, name calling, and “my neighbor’s pool man’s sister makes $95 per hour on her home computer”. I only approved your comment because you described it as your first here. Compare any of your further comments to recent comments of others. You will read no comment exceeding 500 words, or less than five words, and almost no comments devoted to OT personal criticism, name calling, or other insult(s).

  4. Bill says:

    Leslie: 2. Please feel free to argue any point you would like. You simply do not have a working knowledge of the scene and the amount of coverage that Oswald had. The barrel, during the shooting, was seen to be sticking out the window and being aimed (see Jackson Statements during Motorcade. He was a photographer and yelled for others to look up to see the barren sticking out). So it’s not an argument. It’s a fact.

    Howlett depicting that position as a refusal?? Respectfully. Are you high?? The point is he didn’t have to move a muscle. Just from sitting and leaning anyone (except you apparently) could do the job. My God. The Rifle was over 40 inches long when assembled.

    I really do not care what other posit or not. It is what it is and EVERYONE (but you apparently) knows that this position offered a commanding view of the target. Just because you are unable to figure out what you see or don’t see isn’t an issue that I have. It’s your issue.

    Hey, Leslie, about what you see with help from me or the SS narrator: You asked me. You do remember that. Right? Your last sentence about the window frame and the brick facade making the shots unlikely actually demonstrates one of two things: The First, you have no clue about the mechanics involved in the shooting and; The Second, you have no clue about the mechanics involved in recreating a demonstration because it completely undercuts your view on risk taking.

  5. Bill says:

    Leslie. The boxes are placed back in the position the investigating detectives found them in. There was only photographer in the building Ayela and he was there covertly. No photos of the boxes as they were found in the minutes after the shooting ‘and untouched/moved’ were taken. They are placed as Detective Studebaker said they were at his direction for the recreation.

    The tilted box question: Gravity doesn’t work this way. The box was pinned up against the other boxes. It was tilted ‘backwards’ from the window sill so that it came to rest up against the supporting boxes. Angle of Repose- The angle at which an object would move due to its own weight. In this case it is supported by the lower pedestal boxes supporting it. End of Story.

    Riffle Barrel Comment: Then you just don’t understand the situation and there is nothing I can add to help. The gun was extended out of an open window for ‘x’ number of inches (and the length of the barrel after it clears the stock is a measurement that you can look up). All I can say is that NO SHOOTER will hold a rifle barrel by the iron when a stock is present. The length of the barrel from the forward end of the stock to the business end of the gun should be well-documented and I encourage you to find it.

  6. Bill says:

    David part 2:
    You ask when he could have taken the time to assemble the rifle. I’d say he could have taken his sweet time all morning. In fact, he could have been completely finished with it and simply used his unsupervised free time to move it closer to the point he was going to use it from. In fact, because of the position of the snipers nest he could have set up everything he needed long beforehand. Note: The clipboard was found near the place the rifle was located after the shooting after the TSBD reopened that floor during the first week of December.

    The fact is that Oswald was doing nothing on November 22nd but walking around planning his crime. He performed no book delivery collections. He was a ghost that day. Why everyone insists that he did not have the time is pretty simplistic and less than genuine. He was busy, in my view, preparing all morning.

    Mr. Arnold is an interesting man. I really have no reason to doubt his story and, quite frankly, to try to piece together events that one deems as unimportant at the time, in light of them now being important, something I would avoid. He saw something important.

    Regarding Mr. Carr: You actually feel this man’s story is viable? So this man is on the 6th (?) floor of the newly rising building and see’s/hears shots and then he leaves that building and sees men running out of the building? Did they use a ‘time-stop’ device in order to get away?

    I feel this man was simply telling a tale. Reminds me of Bob or willy.

  7. Bill says:

    David: Carolyn Arnold gave two statements and both contradict each other. Her first ever comment about seeing Ozzie at 12:25 didn’t even come to light until something like 1978. More importantly, she and her co-workers all went out to see the motorcade at slightly before 12:15 and she saw him there at/around that time (but she got the room wrong because only the lunchroom had a water cooler). I can’t help it if she changes her testimony after years and years and years. She sounds like Jean Hill.

    Bonnie Ray Williams. He did mention his whereabouts and that is totally true. But what you are not mentioning is that he initially told different FBI Agents different accounts of what time he left.

    Here is what Williams says: He left the 6th Floor to go to ‘Wash up’. He stated he usually left for lunch 5 minutes to 12 and then added that because they were going to see Kennedy they all went down at 10 minutes to 12. He did return to the 6th Floor searching for his buddies. He did not find them and sat there, alone, for differing amounts of time: First he said 3 minutes (11/24/63), then he changed that to 5 minutes (1/14/64), and eventually told the WC it was closer to 12:15.

    Williams admits, under oath, that he does not recall the time he left the 6th Floor to go find the others he had planned to watch the Motorcade with.

    Oswald and the Gun Assembly. Oswald was given 3 book orders to be filled that day and he didn’t deliver one single order. He was spotted by Williams, coincidentally enough, ‘kicking around in the boxes’ near the Elevators furthest from where the flooring was being installed ( the full length of the TSBD from behind the building to the front (Elm Street facing side). He saw Oswald kicking around on the side of the building closest to Houston Street. He had a clipboard…and he had orders to fill. He filled no orders that morning (unless one was Assassinate the 35th President of the United States).

  8. Steve Stirlen says:

    Tom S.:

    I would like to join Bill and Bill Clarke in thanking you for bringing this website to a new level. I have also thanked Tom for his diligence via his personal e-mail.

    Without you Tom, most of America would only know less than half-truths, which we know today as the WO report. We would have to “trust” men of deceit such as Hoover, Dulles, McCloy, and others as they tried to peddle a report that was supposed to “settle the dust” and “follow every lead wherever it may end.” We would be forced to believe the beginning of less than half-truth, the FBI and its non-existent chain of custody about the missile that struck both men, which Tom has carefully and accurately refuted himself on this very site, and on and on and on. Less than half-truth built on a previous less than half-truth.

    I would also like to give a word of thanks to Jeff Morley, who, unlike most of us on this site—myself included—has the balls to take the CIA to court to demand, as Blakey could and should have done back in the 70’s—that everything CIA related to the assassination be released to the public. He does not sit in a Starbucks or his parents basement and quote a report that failed to answer even the most basic question—motive. He has the courage to put his money and reputation on the line. I don’t wish to speak for Jeff, but I would imagine that he is not satisfied with the destruction of photos and voice recordings of LHO, or whoever it was, in Mexico City. There was a time in this country that kind of behavior would have been illegal and resulted in jail time. But that was when America was a democracy,

    That time period was probably before the agents of corruption—the Dulles Brothers and Prescott Bush and the Rockefellers for example, were able to manipulate the constitution because of money, and the belief that they were better than the people and their families they destroyed because God was graceful enough to allow them to be born in America.

    So, thank you Tom and Jeff, for allowing people a voice as our democracy continues to erode and slip through our fingers.

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Tom,

      If you don’t mind, I am going to borrow from Willy, a man that has more knowledge about the assassination in his index finger than the rest of us have combined:

      At a January 27 [1964] Commission meeting, there was another dialogue [among Warren Commissioners]:

      “John McCloy: … the time is almost overdue for us to have a better perspective of the FBI investigation than we now have … We are so dependent on them for our facts … .

      Commission counsel J. Lee Rankin: Part of our difficulty in regard to it is that they have no problem. They have decided that no one else is involved … .

      Senator Richard Russell: They have tried the case and reached a verdict on every aspect.

      Senator Hale Boggs: You have put your finger on it. (Closed Warren Commission meeting.)”[130]
      http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1b.htm
      \\][//

      I would guess the next BEST question is why these FINE men did not take the next step and remove the FBI and J. Edgar Worthless Hoover, and acquire the services of INDEPENDENT investigators.

      I guess only they know why that next step was not taken (wink, wink)

  9. Now so far we have only discussed the problems of the chain of custody for the slug designated CE399. But there are other problems as well, and that is with the shell hulls said to have been found in the so-called “snipers nest” on the 6th floor of the Book Depository Building.
    We pick up that story, reading from the article by Bill Simpich, ‘How the Warren Commission Covered Up JFK’s Murder. See:
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-Warren-Commission-by-Bill-Simpich-Assassination_Evidence_JFK_JFK-Assassination-141119-717.html

    “The chief of the Dallas police crime lab, Carl Day, said he initialed all three hulls found on the sixth floor at about 1 pm on the afternoon of November 22.

    When Day testified on 4/22/64 to the Warren Commission, he had to admit that he did not initial any of them during the time that they were found at the 6th floor of the book depository.

    As the hulls are nondescript, initialing them is essential if anyone hopes to recognize such an item again. Detective Richard Sims wrote that after Day took pictures of the hulls, he picked up the “empty hulls”, Day held open an envelope, Sims dropped them in. Sims held onto an unsealed envelope with three hulls in it at 2 pm; at some point, homicide chief Will Fritz was given the envelope by Sims. Fritz later gave the envelope to a sergeant, who eventually brought one hull back to Fritz and the other two hulls back to Day.

    Day admitted during his Warren Commission testimony that he only initialed the two hulls in the unsealed envelope when he got it back at 10 that night. Day passed the shells on to FBI agent VinceDrain in the early morning, and I am similarly unaware of any record of Drain initialing any of these materials before he passed them on to firearms expert Robert Frazier at the FBI lab. Frazier’s testimony doesn’t mention anything about these shells being initialed by either of these men.

    These hulls should have been excluded based on the failure to have a reliable chain of custody.”~Bill Simpich
    \\][//

  10. Bill says:

    I would like to actually thank the moderators of this website for their hard work. Seriously. I would like to thank them for keeping this site as real as it can be with such a wide (and sometimes wild) collection of conspiracy ideas floating around. But please keep remembering: Guilt or Innocence is always dependent on an unbiased review of actual evidence. It this case the accused was killed. But the fingerprints, physical evidence, motives, modus operandi squarely indicate that the right man gets the blame. From Mark Lane’s erroneous comments, implicating Jack Ruby by photo in DP, to Thompson’s 6 Seconds in Dallas, to Stone’s JFK, and all they way up to Jean Hills, The Last Dissenting Witness, there is nothing but a desire to fly stories that are only rooted in myths and half-truths. The truth hurts in this case because it leave the CTer’s with nothing but injured feelings. I would say JFK would be proud of the work put forward here…but only that which is provable..and sadly, it just exists in one version. And it won’t be accepted by those that are blind or pushing for profits!

    Peace out and Happy Holidays!

    • Bill Clarke says:

      I’d like to join you in showing my appreciation for the moderator. The poor fellow has worked very hard to keep up with everything on just this one thread.

      Thank you much.

  11. Rob says:

    The parkland doctors interview/movie seemed to me to say things were really amiss. Anyone know when this hits the public mainstream?

  12. The suggestion being made here by some on this thread, that Boswell would have “just happened to…by mere coincidence” place the point of JFK’s back wound at exactly the same spot: T3, as all the other pertinent evidence, the death certificate, JFK’s jacket and shirt; is simply preposterous.

    So it gets to the point of choosing between the likelihood of those suggesting such absurdities being just downright dumb, or are they being disingenuous as per an agenda of cognitive disruption in an organized effort to bury the real facts of the JFK assassination.

    Personally I don’t buy that these characters are just simpletons. So for myself, I consider them agenteur and provocateurs.
    \\][//

  13. Bill says:

    I think that, sometimes, people fail to realize that Connally was sitting much further to the left and therefore forget (or choose) to rant and rave about what they do not understand. Bobby for example. Totally fabricating scenario to fit a nonalignment of wounds. Dude. The Single Bullet Damage is no theory. It is proven, provable, and documented by the WC/FBI study, the autopsy findings, and the intervening examination by both researchers and govt. alike.

    Cheerios.

  14. Bill says:

    http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm

    And the entire matter is discussed completely in DM’s book. But in case anyone needs refreshing the link is provided above.

    Kennedy’s movement, Connally’s movement, Road declination, Witness Testimony, SS Statements, Fingerprints, Oswald’s lying, etc.

    It all adds up to a single male sniper. L.H. Oswald. A man prone to fits of depression and extreme anger. So desperate to become a big shot that he decides to kill a bigger shot. Proven by science, physics, and visual proof.

    • Bill,

      Dale Myers has the entry wound to Kennedy’s back at T1. It has been established here that the entry wound was at or just slightly below T3.

      Whether you are willing to accept this or not is no matter. It is settled whether you like it or not.

      Again; The death certificate signed by Burkley — the official death certificate in this case says that the back wound was located at the Third Thoracic Vertebrae – The same location as the Boswell “Face sheet” the same location as the hole in the back of Kennedy’s jacket. The same location as the hole in Kennedy’s shirt.

      To argue against this is futile Bill.
      \\][//

    • David Regan says:

      Jeez Bill, could you offer some posts behind your opinions that are actually credible? I’ll give you points for pretty graphics though.

      • Bill says:

        Thanks Dave. Around here I learn from the best!

        • Steve Stirlen says:

          David,

          I don’t wish to speak for Bill or anyone else for that matter, But I believe the answer to your question could be that when a question is asked that was not asked or investigated during the WO causes believers in the government’s “official” version to spin their wheels, or begin to have a deer in the headlights look. I would imagine it is the same look that LBJ would have had if he had to answer during the Baker hearings, or Hoover might have had if he had been forced to share the fact that he kept secret files on “subversive” Americans such as MLK Jr., and others like him who wanted the same rights that were guaranteed to him by our constitution.

      • Bill says:

        David: I look at it like this to be truthful. I imagine myself sitting in a jury box. I can see the Prosecutor and the Defense arguments. I do not concern myself with ANY ALLEGATION that can’t be proven. Bringing up the ‘evidence’ that is presented is the rub here isn’t it?

        The Gun: Well. It was Oswald’s. He signed for it. He carted it around. It was tied to him by multiple documents, his own wife, his handwriting and on and on.

        The Motive: He was, according to his wife. A nut-case. He was prone to violence against her. He was angry with this life in this country. And, apparently, the week or so before he killed JFK, he demonstrated to his wife that she loved her new friends in the Dallas Area more than she wanted to be with him.

        The Opportunity: He went to Marina’s house and returned to his apartment and picked up that gun. The same gun that he tried to use to kill someone else, and this comes from his wife. He was assigned to the 6th Floor area where he didn’t do any work that could be packaged up and/or delivered. He was seen DOING NOTHING on the floor the morning JFK was killed.

        The Means: He owned a gun. His fingerprints and palm prints were found on the boxes he set up. He fled the scene. He killed a police officer. He lied about everything they asked him that afternoon.

        3 shots were heard. Witnesses saw the gun sticking out of the window. Alignments and ballistics prove, AGAIN, that one bullet killed JFK and wounded Connally.

        If you toss out the wild accusations of those who have an interest in selling books or having an ego stroke contest…we have facts. Would all of the governments ‘Facts’ be admitted in court? Who knows? It is probable that Oswald’s rights were violated. But, mistakes by the DPD not withstanding….

        …the evidence, not the rumors of 5 6 or 7 shooting, hiding in trees, sewers, other floors, in the drivers car, in the secret service car, put the man in the window, shooting the gun…and despite the cry-baby nature of you and others…

        …this is how it stands today.

        Peace.

        • Steve stirlen says:

          David,

          Now that you have heard WO version 2015, complete with the same half-truths or tainted/no evidence version 1963/64, you can now rest easy knowing that the “dust has been settled.”

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Dust settled? I think not. Over 600 post on this one thread and I see nothing settled between the two groups. It is the same old arguments with the same old answers we’ve heard for years.

          • “Dust settled? I think not”~Bill Clarke

            The Obscurati will NEVER stop the campaign of disruption. That is why the ‘dust will never settle’ … an endless carousel.

            BUT:

            The point in arguing with an agent provocateur is not to convince the agent. The point is to reveal the techniques of obfuscation that the propagandist uses to a candid world.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten November 13, 2015

            Pure BS Willy. But I like your stuff about the propagandist since you are one of the best I’ve know.

            Willy, I hope you aren’t suffering from a delusion that we all here agree with Steve Stirlen’s salute to your knowledge of the subject. I’m sure I’m not the only one to dismiss this statement by Steve.

          • “Willy, I hope you aren’t suffering from a delusion that we all here agree with Steve Stirlen’s salute to your knowledge of the subject. I’m sure I’m not the only one to dismiss this statement by Steve.”~Bill Clarke

            Have no fear Mr Clarke, I know just where the lines are drawn here. And I know which side of the line you are on.
            \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. Clarke,

            With all due respect to you, if you have something to say about something I posted, then speak to ME. I wrote what I believe, it is my opinion and I still have that RIGHT as an American citizen.

            Willy has studied ALL aspects of the assassination. You have not. You know the WO report. You refuse to look at the other reasons that were in play in 1963. You scoff at what I said, but you don’t wish to believe what people like Blakey said about the CIA and the FBI’s withholding/destruction of evidence and their LYING about what they knew in ’63. That is YOUR choice. You are wrong. Again, that is your choice.

            So, in the future, if your beef is with ME, then speak to ME.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. Clarke:

            This might help you:

            Part 1

            G. Robert Blakey’s 2003 Addendum to this Interview:

            I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated with the committee. My reasons follow:

            The committee focused, among other things, on (1) Oswald, (2) in New Orleans, (3) in the months before he went to Dallas, and, in particular, (4) his attempt to infiltrate an anti-Castro group, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil or DRE.

            These were crucial issues in the Warren Commission’s investigation; they were crucial issues in the committee’s investigation. The Agency knew it full well in 1964; the Agency knew it full well in 1976-79. Outrageously, the Agency did not tell the Warren Commission or our committee that it had financial and other connections with the DRE, a group that Oswald had direct dealings with!

            What contemporaneous reporting is or was in the Agency’s DRE files? We will never know, for the Agency now says that no reporting is in the existing files. Are we to believe that its files were silent in 1964 or during our investigation?

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

            Obviously, too, it did not identify the agent who was its contact with the DRE at the crucial time that Oswald was in contact with it: George Joannides.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. Clarke:

            This should also help with your education:

            Part 2

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

            I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.

            Significantly, the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.

            We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.

            Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.

            I am now in that camp.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. Clarke,

            Mr. Blakey, a man more intimate with the “detail” of the assassination NO LONGER BELIEVES anything from the CIA. So, the WO was A COMPLETE AND THOROUGH investigation, huh?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. Clarke,

            In an earlier post, you indicated that Allen “Deceiving” Dulles did not do a thing without the president’s consent. I would like to play along with that line of reasoning.

            Can you tell me, Mr. Clarke, the EXACT part or phrase in our constitution that allows our president to overthrow a democratically elected government because that country dares to have a say in how THEIR country conducts its business? Can you help me? I can find NO part in the constitution that states that the United Fruit Company runs this country, or its foreign policy. Can you show me where this part of our constitution is located, Mr. Clarke?

            You also mentioned “draft dodgers” of Vietnam. Let me see if I have this correct. George W. Bush, the once PRESIDENT of these US, used “Poppy’s” connections to avoid the conflict, where he spent his time in Texas and Alabama in, I believe, the Champagne Unit. So, GWB, dodged the draft because of money and power by his father, YET he was elected president. Tell me, Mr. Clarke, did you vote for GWB? Because he dodged the draft the American way—by relying on deceit, corruption and outright lying.

            However, some poor kid from, let’s say Mississippi, refuses to shoot another man so that General Dynamics or Bechtel can make scads and scads of money “bringing democracy to the world.” This kid, in your opinion, is he a bigger draft dodger than GWB? What if someone in this country—myself included—refuses to shoot another man so a soulless company can make billions of dollars, does that make us less American?

            I am guessing that you believe in the notion that because you hail from America that you are somehow superior to a man from North Vietnam. Therefore it is perfectly okay for you and the “leaders” of this government to loot, destroy, and mutilate other countries because of our “moral superiority.” Would that be a fair assessment?

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Steve Stirlen
            November 15, 2015 at 9:20 am

            Mr. Clarke,

            With all due respect to you, if you have something to say about something I posted, then speak to ME. I wrote what I believe, it is my opinion and I still have that RIGHT as an American citizen.

            BC. My apologies Steve. I didn’t post a response the first time you bragged on Willy trying to avoid any loss of civility in the group. Willy pushed it too far so I spoke to Willy. In the future I’ll enjoy my rights and speak to anyone the moderator allows me to speak to.

            Willy has studied ALL aspects of the assassination. You have not.

            BC. That would be true. The problem being that in the areas in which I do have expertise Willy is very far off base.

            You know the WO report.

            BC. No, I really don’t. I’ve stated before that I have little faith in government reports. I’ve actually read very little of it. I’m guessing there is more than a little BS in the report.

            You refuse to look at the other reasons that were in play in 1963.

            BC. I’ve always prided myself on looking at both sides. What particularly are you referring to here?

            You scoff at what I said, but you don’t wish to believe what people like Blakey said about the CIA and the FBI’s withholding/destruction of evidence and their LYING about what they knew in ’63. That is YOUR choice. You are wrong. Again, that is your choice.

            BC. I scoffed because what you said was funny. I have no trouble believing Blakey or anyone else that speak the truth. I certainly believe there was some piddling with the evidence. So I’m not as “wrong” as you claim I am. You would like to make me a hard core right wing nut. I am not.

            So, in the future, if your beef is with ME, then speak to ME.

            BC. I really have no beef with you Steve.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Mr. Clarke,

            In an earlier post, you indicated that Allen “Deceiving” Dulles did not do a thing without the president’s consent.

            BC. I don’t remember us discussing “did not do a thing without the president’s consent”. I’m sure Dulles did a lot of stuff without the president’s consent. However, overthrowing foreign governments isn’t one of them. I still don’t understand why you could think Dulles could pull this off without the president’s consent. We know Dulles certainly had JFK’s consent for the Bay of Pigs.

            Can you tell me, Mr. Clarke, the EXACT part or phrase in our constitution that allows our president to overthrow a democratically elected government

            BC. Of course I can’t. As we know it isn’t there. Not the first time our constitution has been trampled on and as we have seen it wasn’t the last time. Not that this makes it right but simply that is the way it was. For the record Steve, I wouldn’t have voted for either overthrow and including Cuba.

            You also mentioned “draft dodgers” of Vietnam. Let me see if I have this correct.

            BC. No, I don’t think you have it correct; it seems out of context. Here is the way it went down; As you pointed out Bush avoided service in Vietnam, Dick Chenney (who never met a war he didn’t like except the one he dodged) avoided it 5 times with student deferments and Paul “they’ll welcome us with open arms” Wolfowitz dodged it. Do you know who started the 2nd Gulf War? I can’t explain my disgust at these war hawks that failed to go when their name was called but sent troops to their death later. They started a completely unnecessary war. I would have voted against this one, Steve.

            However, some poor kid from, let’s say Mississippi, refuses to shoot another man so that General Dynamics or Bechtel can make scads and scads of money “bringing democracy to the world.”

            BC. You and that youngster from Mississippi don’t have to shoot anyone. Over 80% of the Army is support so you can go there without the killing usually.

            I am guessing that you believe in the notion that because you hail from America that you are somehow superior to a man from North Vietnam. Therefore it is perfectly okay for you and the “leaders” of this government to loot, destroy, and mutilate other countries because of our “moral superiority.” Would that be a fair assessment?

            You need to stop guessing about me Steve. I believe this is the third time you have guessed wrong. But your statement has some vitality to it. When we first went to Vietnam there was this superior attitude you speak of. After a few firefights with this man form North Vietnam such arrogance disappeared. In the ranks at least, I don’t think our politicians and generals ever caught on.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Steve Stirlen
            November 15, 2015 at 9:27 am

            Mr. Clarke,

            Mr. Blakey, a man more intimate with the “detail” of the assassination NO LONGER BELIEVES anything from the CIA.

            BC. Careful you don’t push Blakey past his capacity too.

            So, the WO was A COMPLETE AND THOROUGH investigation, huh?

            BC. I’ve never said it was. Are you confusing me with someone else?

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Steve Stirlen
            November 15, 2015 at 9:26 am

            Mr. Clarke:

            This should also help with your education:

            BC. What happens when a man becomes a bit too full of himself is he never ever considers that he might be the one needing an education. I hope you can benefit from some of the things I’ve explained to you here.

            BC. You used two long post to tell me what I already knew. The CIA will lie! For crying out loud, they are in the lying business. That is their game. If they told the truth and said “the president ordered me to do it” there wouldn’t be much use in having the CIA.

            BC. I have to say I think blaming the CIA for the death of JFK is rather silly.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            BC, if you think the idea of cia involvement in the jfk assassination is silly you need to read more. Your simple acceptance of what we were told by our government is naive.
            Retired and “Rouge” elements deserve further scrutiny from information currently available.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Ronnie Wayne
            November 16, 2015 at 12:09 am

            BC, if you think the idea of cia involvement in the jfk assassination is silly you need to read more.

            BC. Read more what, Ronnie? More junk? There is a lot of junk out there.

            Your simple acceptance of what we were told by our government is naive.

            BC. What is naïve is you believing I believe our government after I spent a year in a combat unit in Vietnam. Now that will really take the blinders off a person.

        • J.D. says:

          I don’t find any of the potential motives for Oswald put forward by the lone-assassin advocates to be very convincing. It’s not at all credible to me that Oswald would have decided to kill the president because he was angry at his wife. That is such an irrational motive that it basically amounts to saying that Oswald did it for no reason at all. Whatever else Oswald was, he doesn’t seem to have been a completely irrational person, and everything else he did in his life, from joining the Marines to trying to defect to the Soviet Union, seemed to have some sort of rationale behind it, however strange.

          There is also something a little too neat and pat about arguing that Oswald did it because he was angry at how his life had turned out and wanted to blindly lash out at something. Oswald was not a character in a Mickey Spillane novel. I think the lone-assassin advocates’ arguments would be more convincing if they admitted that, if Oswald did the deed on his own, his motive cannot be determined and probably never will be.

          • Photon says:

            His motive cannot be determined and probably never will be. But that is a far distance from saying he didn’t have one.
            He had an opportunity presented by fate-the fate of JFK coming to Dallas, the fate of the parade route finishing in front of his place of work, the fate of nobody being on the sixth floor during lunch hour, the fate of the parade running late enough to pass by the TSBD during the lunch break, the fate of a rainy day clearing up enough to allow JFK to drive from Love Field without the bubble top that he disliked.
            Fate certainly can affect and influence motivation. Even private motivation .

          • Charles says:

            Yes Photon…fate…

            The fate of being a false defector, the fate of being the paper plaything of Dulles, Angleton, Harvey and Phillips.

            The fate being at 544 Camp St, the fate of being set up for a job by likes the intel connected Paines. The fate of being interrogated without recording or transcription, the fate of being denied access to a defense lawyer who could have collected his story, the fate of careless cops leading him to his execution by mobster Ruby whom Warren declined to press for more information.

            The fate of an inquiry directed to the conclusion of a lone assassin under threat of WW III.

            Oh the fates, the cruel fates!

            I consider your intellectual rigor a joke.

          • Photon’s song about “Fate” is almost as funny as his lyrical poem about “Kennedy’s Weird Neck”.
            He should be writing for the back of kid’s breakfast cereal boxes.
            \\][//

  15. At a January 27 [1964] Commission meeting, there was another dialogue [among Warren Commissioners]:

    “John McCloy: … the time is almost overdue for us to have a better perspective of the FBI investigation than we now have … We are so dependent on them for our facts … .

    Commission counsel J. Lee Rankin: Part of our difficulty in regard to it is that they have no problem. They have decided that no one else is involved … .

    Senator Richard Russell: They have tried the case and reached a verdict on every aspect.

    Senator Hale Boggs: You have put your finger on it. (Closed Warren Commission meeting.)”[130]
    http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1b.htm
    \\][//

  16. Destruction Of Original Autopsy Evidence

    In JFK’s autopsy, as with any post mortem, the contemporaneously gathered data from the examination, usually recorded in hand-written, even bloodstained, autopsy notes, carries the greatest scientific and evidentiary weight. These notes detail the measurements of wound sizes and locations, the organ weights and appearances, all the raw data that serve as the basis for conclusions about the cause of death. It is difficult to overstate the importance of such information. Without a reliable base record of fact, conclusions are less certain.

    Certificate in which Dr. Humes admitted destroying “certain preliminary draft notes” related to JFK’s autopsy. In 1996, Humes admitted under oath that the destruction included original autopsy materials.
    (see ARRB MD #9, and also his 1996 ARRB testimony, p. 128 – 139)

    On August 2, 1998, the Associated Press reported an important new ARRB finding that raised questions about the original autopsy record: “Under oath [before the ARRB], Dr. Humes, finally acknowledged under persistent questioning – in testimony that differs from what he told the Warren Commission – that he had destroyed both his notes taken at the autopsy and the first draft of the autopsy report.”[105] The Review Board had extracted Humes’ sworn admission of something that had long been known: he had burned both a preliminary draft of the autopsy report, which he had told the Warren Commission about, and he had also destroyed original autopsy notes taken on the night of the autopsy, something Humes had kept from the Warren Commission, if not one of the Commission’s lawyers.

    Only three groups of original, hand-written autopsy papers have survived. One of the three is autopsist Boswell’s so-called autopsy “face sheet ” – notes that were made about Kennedy’s wounds by the surgeons during the autopsy. The other two consist of scribbled notes Humes made after the autopsy: the first, after he had called Dallas the day after the autopsy to learn, supposedly for the first time, that JFK had a wound in the throat upon arrival at the hospital; the second, a hand-written draft of the final autopsy report. The surviving hand-written draft of the autopsy report is apparently the second of two drafts. Humes claims that he incinerated the first draft in his fireplace. Except for the first, torched draft of the autopsy report, Humes swore that no other notes ever existed. And he swore that he surrendered all the surviving notes.
    http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1b.htm

    \\][//

  17. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Tim Nickerson wrote:

    “Really? You mean actual bone? You’ll have to forgive me for not taking just your word on it. I’m going to need some numbers. What would be the maximum vertical spacing distance between C7 and T1 on someone with a physique like Kennedy’s? Be it in between the transverse processes or any other section of the vertebrae. We’ll start with that and we’ll consider other factors later if need be.

    In case you’re wondering, the 5 degree right rotation of Kennedy’s upper torso comes from the HSCA. I’m not sure, but I think that Canning may have come up with the figure.”

    Now Tim, you’ll have to forgive me but, I get a bit confused on this issue. The Lame Nuts just can’t seem to be able to stick to one story, can they? The official version of events has, for the most part, always seemed to rely on the Magic Bullet clearing the outer tip of the right transverse process of C7. Did the story change? Why did I not get the memo on this?

    FYI, for the bullet to pass between the transverse processes of C7 and T1 is just not possible. The space between them is not large enough to allow passage of a bullet and, to make matters worse, the bullet was fired, supposedly, from the 6th floor. Any opening would be closed off by the steep angle. Do you not recall all the anatomical drawings I presented at Troll Central (Duncan’s forum) that clearly demonstrated how closely together these vertebrae were stacked?

    Wiggle wiggle, Timbo, but a lie is still a lie, no matter how many times it is repeated.

    • JFK Death Certificate signed by Burkley — the official death certificate in this case says that the back wound was located at the Third Thoracic Vertebrae – The same location as the Boswell “Face sheet” the same location as the hole in the back of Kennedy’s jacket. The same location as the hole in Kennedy’s shirt.

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Orientation.PNG

      Denying that the back-wound was at the T-3 position in the face of this overwhelming evidence is simply a preposterous and disingenuous game by the Obfuscati who distort and misrepresent both history and science.
      \\][//

    • Tim Nickerson says:

      Bob Prudhomme wrote:

      The official version of events has, for the most part, always seemed to rely on the Magic Bullet clearing the outer tip of the right transverse process of C7.
      ==============================================================

      I must have missed that briefing.

      ================================================================
      FYI, for the bullet to pass between the transverse processes of C7 and T1 is just not possible. The space between them is not large enough to allow passage of a bullet and, to make matters worse, the bullet was fired, supposedly, from the 6th floor. Any opening would be closed off by the steep angle. Do you not recall all the anatomical drawings I presented at Troll Central (Duncan’s forum) that clearly demonstrated how closely together these vertebrae were stacked?
      ================================================================

      Bob, what I see in all of that is opinion. I never asked you for your opinion. I asked for numbers. So, here it is again: What would be the maximum vertical spacing distance between C7 and T1 on someone with a physique like Kennedy’s? Be it in between the transverse processes or any other section of the vertebrae.

      • “What would be the maximum vertical spacing distance between C7 and T1”

        It would be around 3mm Nickerson/ But the bullet did not transverse the C7, T1 intersection. It hit Kennedy in the back at T3. The only controversy to this is in your mind.

        Boswell is a proven liar, and his supposed replacing of his original point of entry on the back at T3, with an ‘X’ as T1, flies in the face of other known evidence that the wound was at T3: original Boswell facesheet – JFK’s suit jacket and shirt, all show a T3 bullet hit to his back.

        Humes and Boswell were intimidated by the perpetrators, that being the flag officers that had a part in running the coup d’etat. They had no choice but to play along, for the sake of their military careers and their retirements.
        \\][//

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          The spacing may be 3 mm vertically, Willy, but even this is misleading. the transverse processes of the cervical vertebrae tend to overlap each other so that, viewed from the side, this “gap” is on a slope to the rear. Viewed from behind, there would be no gap at all, especially if viewed from six storeys up.

          This is merely a distraction on Tim’s part, typical of “their” game plan, designed to keep our attention away from more pertinent realities.

  18. The throat wound to Kennedy was described as an entry wound by Dr Perry on the first day, just after he had been working on Kennedy:

    PRESS CONFERENCE PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DALLAS, TEXAS
    NOVEMBER 22, 1963 – 2:16 P.M. CST

    QUESTION-
    Where was the entrance wound?
    DR. MALCOM PERRY-
    There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say.
    QUESTION-
    Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?
    DR. MALCOM PERRY-
    It appeared to be coming at him.
    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/press.htm

    “In the criminal trial of Clay Shaw in New Orleans in 1969, one of the pathologists, Dr Pierre Finck, was cross–examined by an assistant district attorney, Alvin Oser. His testimony, part of which is reproduced below, is remarkable for two reasons:

    He states that senior military officers had taken an active part in proceedings, and he implies that they were in charge of the autopsy.
    He admits, after trying hard to avoid the question, that the pathologists were forbidden to dissect the president’s back and throat wounds and the connecting tissue.

    Dissecting the wounds was a basic procedure, and would almost certainly have determined whether the president’s non–fatal injuries had been caused by one or more bullets, and from which direction or directions the bullet or bullets had come.”
    http://22november1963.org.uk/pierre-finck-jfk-back-throat-wounds
    \\][//

    • J. Thornton Boswell, revealed three decades later that the Justice Department was greatly concerned by Finck’s testimony. Carl Eardley, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, got in touch with Boswell:
      He was really upset. He says, “J, we got to get somebody in New Orleans quick. Pierre is testifying, and he’s really lousing everything up.” … They showed me the transcript of Pierre’s testimony for the past couple of days, and I spent all night reviewing that testimony. And it was this bit about the general. Jim [Humes, the chief pathologist] said, “Who’s in charge here?” And when they asked Pierre in court who supervised and ran the autopsy, he says, “Some Army general.”(Boswell’s testimony to the ARRB, pp.208ff)

      http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=786#relPageId=210&tab=page

      \\][//

  19. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Why did Humes spend the majority of the time occupied by the autopsy slicing up JFK’s organs in search of a bullet, if it was so obvious the bulet did not go into JFK’s pleural cavity? Humes was not an idiot, and he would have had strong indications the bullet impacted JFK’s back below the top of the right lung, in order to prosecute such a lengthy and involved search.

    • Photon says:

      Sorry Bob, it is called an autopsy.That is what you do during an autopsy. The prosector, after making an incision identifies the principle organs of the chest and abdominal cavity, removes them, weighs them, takes tissue samples of selected organs. He wasn’t searching for a bullet, he was completing the standard protocol for an autopsy. Every standard autopsy includes evaluating the lungs, pleura, mediastinum just as Humes did. Trying to make the routine unique?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Yes, Proton, we are quite aware of the fact they were performing an autopsy. You get no extra marks for that astute observation.

        2nd Lt. Richard Lipsey assisted in the autopsy and, in an interview with an HSCA investigator, related his observations regarding the autopsy. He had already, in his short career, assisted in a good number of autopsies, and had come to understand what is normal and what is abnormal in an autopsy.

        According to Lipsey, Humes was quite convinced a bullet had gone into JFK’s right upper pleural cavity, and was quite surprised when no bullet showed up on any thoracic or abdominal x-rays. Lipsey stated that Humes et al then proceeded to slice up all of the organs into small pieces in what he was told was a search for either a bullet or fragments of a bullet. This “slicing and dicing” of JFK’s organs was, Lipsey felt, rather a lot more than what would normally be required in an autopsy, and took up most of the time spent in the autopsy.

        Don’t you think it odd they would go to this extent, and yet not explore a potential wound track from back to throat?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          It appears I have confused Lt. Richard Lipsey with one of the lower ranks assisting in the autopsy. While Lipsey observed most of the autopsy, he was not a trained medical person. Rather, he was an aide-de-camp to General Wehle, and his duties involved movement of JFK’s casket from Andrews to Bethesda.

        • Photon says:

          Bob, you are making things up.FIRST Lieut. Lipsey was a military aide who had never even seen a dead human body before Nov. 22, 1963. Assisted with the autopsy? Where did you get that information? Lipsey himself stated that he was overwhelmed by the situation and didnot understand everything that was going on, except that he noted that the prosecutors were extremely thorough and came to conclusions unanimously. He stood 12-15 feet away from the autopsy table-hardly a place to make close observations.
          Bob, your position must be pretty weak if you have to make up false stories to support it.

          • steve stirlen says:

            But, Sibert and O’Neill were a mere two feet away, and you discredit them because they lacked “medical knowledge.” Tell us, Photon, your medical knowledge is based on what exactly? A reading of the WO?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            However, lipsey was present for almost the entire autopsy. His HSCA interview relates his memory the autopsy doctors were quite confused that they could not find the bullet that caused the back wound, and that they had extensive discussion about where it might have ended up. Because of the steep angle of the shot, and the location of the back wound, Lipsey stated the doctors believed the bullet would have gone into the pleural cavity, and possibly as far as the abdominal cavity.

            According to Lipsey, Humes was obssessed with finding this bullet, and spent two hours of the autopsy doing so. While no intact bullet was found, Lipsey recalled them finding “traces”, “pieces” and “particles” of a bullet.

            Another strange thing reported by Lipsey; he stated the bullet entering the rear of JFK’s head “blew away part of his face” when it exited.

          • Photon says:

            That should be enough to tell you how accurate his perception really was. Also, as he had never seen an autopsy his interpretation of spending ” two hours looking for a bullet” is nothing but mistaking standard autopsy procedure for something else.
            Why do CTers have to resort to peripheral figures at the autopsy who had limited if any contact with the body or procedure to support their claims? Since when is a military aide who had never seen a dead human body an expert in autopsy procedure, let alone a credible witness for anything more than general impressions of the event?

  20. Audio/Video Sync

    5 shots:

    shot 1. a miss, curb hit (??)
    shot 2. JFK throat hit (frontal shot),
    shot 3. Kennedy hit in back (shot from rear) ,
    shot 4. Connally hit in the back (shot from rear),
    shot 5. Kennedy head-shot (frontal shot).

    Also, there may have been more shots from silenced rifles (??)
    https://youtu.be/pgHllYzzFWc
    \\][//

  21. Bill says:

    And for some closure on the clarity of the film used. It is useful because you can see the reactions of the Agents on the Follow-up Car running boards. Landis was the Agent closest to Kennedy to the TSBD. His statement describes exactly what he said he did..just as Mrs. Kennedy’s describes what she did at the sound of the first shot…just as Governor Connally’s statement describes what he did at the sound of the first shot.

    In conclusion, the EVIDENCE you can read and see with your own two eyes, that can be corroborated by a stop-watch experiment as well, certainly points to a very easily accepted view of the following:

    1. First shot at or about frame 160 + or minus 2 frames.
    2. That the Oak Tree did obscure the path of the bullet in/at that time.
    3. The first shot missed (as Kennedy continues to wave and Connally/Jackie/Landis/Ready begin to react.
    4. The second shot hits both Kennedy and Connally about 3.3 seconds later, just as the Engineers and ballistic experts, and FORENSIC EXPERT concluded without having to use one single WC/WO factoid (they used only the Zapruder Film’s landmarks) that could only come from the 6th Floor window.
    5. That Kennedy was killed by another shot which was fired about 4.9 seconds later, also fired from the 6th Floor window proven by…the Nix Film showing Ejecta..and.
    6. Discussed by Dr. Vincent DiMayo, who wrote the ME Book on Forensic Investigations, describing how the bullet angle could only have come from the 6th Floorl and strock the top portion of JFK’s skull and caused the eruption of brain and materials that is also shown on the NIX FILM in front of KENNEDY’S SKULL in vivid detail.

    Which of course makes short work of the nonsense most allegations described by willy, ronnie, bonnie, tommy, davey, et al, try to propagate.

    The clear, stabilized, and enchanted version of the Zapruder Film, with the ability to see the data between the sprocket holes, establishes the statements of those in the first two cars as totally congruous and valid. Right down to Landis, Ready, Jackie, Gov. Connally.

    When you rule out the rumors by using practical evaluation methods you will wind up with the probable.

    Peace out.

    • jeffc says:

      The Single Bullet Theory is patent nonsense, as even those who devised the theory surely knew.
      The wound on the President’s back is too low for the theory to have any validity. Critics had established this fact many many years ago, forcing autopsist Humes to appear on national television in 1967 and tell the blatant lie that the Rydberg drawings were accurate. Since that moment, all attempts to validate the SBT have been, in effect, swirling winds of hot air and b.s.
      Time wasters, as Salandria noted.

      • Tim Nickerson says:

        Jeff, the wound on Kennedy’s back is not too low. We can view its location for ourselves in the black and white autopsy photo of the back. The Clark Panel, in viewing the autopsy photos, measured the “back” wound to be approximately 3.5 cm above the exit wound in the front. That would be with Kennedy in a fully upright position.

        • David Regan says:

          According to sketches drawn for the HSCA by FBI agents James Sibert and Francis O’Neill, who were both present at the autopsy, Kennedy’s back wound was considerably lower than the throat wound. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md86/html/md86_0011a.htm http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md85/html/md85_0009a.htm

          According to a summary sent a few hours after the autopsy and the Sibert-O’Neill report,Dr. Humes probed the wound in Kennedy’s back and “determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees” which would make it impossible to exit from the throat. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=625&relPageId=6 http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=680

          • JohnR says:

            Mr. Regan, I want to agree with you, I really do. If a bullet hit JFK in the back at a 45 degree angle where did the bullet come from?

          • Bill says:

            And apparent it is all waived of because you say so. So the study led by Dr. DiMayo and looked over by the (ex) Hero of multiple shooters Robert Grodin, is incorrect?

            So we have Sibert and O’Neill who did just as much guessing as to what they were looking at as did Humes and Boswell. Now the entire thing hinges on the sketches drawn for the HSCA by these two almost 17 years later?

            OMG.

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            David,

            Sibert and O’Neill said that Humes probed the wound with his finger. Based on the size of the wound, we know that the finger couldn’t have went in very far. Humes et al did not attempt to accurately measure an angle of declination. Nor did they record such an angle. They did however determine and record that the wound was one of entry. The x-rays revealed that no bullet remained inside of Kennedy’s body. It had to have exited his throat.

            The drawing that Sibert and O’Neill placed their markings on of where they recalled that the wounds were is a very poor representation of a human’s physique. And especially a poor representation of Kennedy’s physique. Fortunately, we don’t have to rely on the 14 year old recollections of Sibert and O’Neill. We have the pertinent autopsy photos available to us.

        • Nickerson,

          The Rydberg drawings are absolutely worthless as per accuracy in depicting any of Kennedy’s wounds.
          This, like the broken chain of evidence, has been established for years now.

          “The Commission was expected to draw its conclusions based on palpably unreliable information, when the most accurate images existed and should have been utilized. This failure to scrutinize the best evidence is a glaring example of the Commission’s obviously preconceived agenda.

          These drawings were for many years the only visual representations of Kennedy’s wounds the public were allowed to see. They gave a misleading impression of the injuries sustained by Kennedy bolstering the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald was the sole assassin, if indeed he fired any shots at all.”
          ~Barry Keane
          http://assassinationofjfk.net/for-the-sake-of-historical-accuracy/
          \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Tim,
            “very few people have read the WO report.”

            With all due respect, I think the question should be “Why would anyone want to read that piece of fiction/crap/deception?

            A close look at the “distinguished members” of the WO should have led any free thinking American to realize that the government was about to again screw us. Why would I read something that I knew was going to reach a pre-ordained conclusion. Take a look at the “facts” and you can see why no one read that hunk of crap.
            1. LBJ was the president. The single most corrupt president in the history of the US. Right there, people should have known it was going to be a whitewash. In case you have forgotten, LBJ led this country into the most disastrous war in the history of this country. And he did so with a lie. Why did he never see a jail cell? I am supposed to believe anything he said? Nope, not for me.
            2. J. Edgar Hoover. I know, let us have an investigation led by a man who kept his job not because he was good at it, but because he had a picture of me having sex with a donkey. Quite a resume, huh? In addition, he was supposed to be helping keeping the president safe. He failed. Now, I am going to let him investigate his failure? Oh yeah, let me have a copy of that! And get this: his actions were so repugnant to other politicians that there is a move afoot right now to have his name taken off the FBI building. Wrap your head around that, Tim. Politicians are so disgusted by the actions of a fellow government employee they want his name removed. YES, I will believe ANY thing he has to say.
            3. Gerald Ford: The biggest lapdog in US politics. The man who chided people for trying to make money off of JFK, and then wrote a book about LHO and his motives. The man who pardoned RMN, to allow the country to heal. Uh-huh. Not to uncover the dirty secrets in Washington, but to let me heal. Brings a tear to my eye! Oh, yeah, the man who fed info to JEH so that Hoover could provide the info the WO needed. Yep, I MUST HAVE that book!
            4. Allen Dulles: The man who was NOT elected to any job. The man who believed HE should overthrow ANY foreign government that would not prostitute itself to the greedy American businesses that paid Mr. Dulles. Reming me, Tim, where in our constitution does it allow the CIA director to overthrow a foreign government because he is on the take? I am supposed to believe a WORD that CRIMINAL has to say? Oh, I know. Mr. Dulles, did his dirty work for national security. YES! Honduras (see United Fruit Company) was on the VERGE of rampaging through Texas had not Dulles acted!

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Very few people have read the WO report.”

            With all due respect, I think the question should be “Why would anyone want to read that piece of fiction/crap/deception?

            Perhaps this is true Steve. But cannot we say the same about the other side also? Why would anyone want to read “JFK and Vietnam” by John Newman? How about “JFK and the Unspeakable” by James W. Douglass? Both are “fiction/crap/deception too but they receive high praise from the conspiracy side. They are just as predictable as any other propaganda.

            The first attack in the Tonkin Gulf was true. The second was a mistake; it was not true. So I think most we can charge LBJ with here is One half a lie. Some think we went to war in Vietnam over the Tonkin Gulf incident. This is very foolish and shallow scholarship at best.

            The United Fruit Company was also in Honduras but it was Guatemala that we overthrew their government by force. I have never seen any evidence that we feared an invasion by Honduras. Do you have any?

            I’m shocked that you actually think Allen Dulles could go around overthrowing foreign governments without approval from the president. I write this off as the common blame the CIA so you can keep Camelot shining propaganda that is so common.

        • jeffc says:

          The Clark Panel was convened specifically to deflect or refute criticism of the Warren Report. The Panel met for two days in early 1968, reviewing the medical evidence, and then issuing a report which has since required corrections by later official panels.

          The black and white autopsy photo clearly shows the wound as below the clavicle and therefore below the location of the tracheotomy. The Clark Panel had no basis to determine relation between wounds in the front and back, particularly as the measurement of the back wound was not properly located (instead of the spine, the autopsy doctors measured from a location on JFK’s head). However, the autopsy FAC sheet , the death report, and the Sibert-O’Neill report place the wound as near the T3 level of the spine, which is clearly far below the tracheotomy. These three reports match the holes seen in Kennedy’s shirt and jacket.

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

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Jeffc,

            If the Clark Report was corrected by later official panels it certainly was not on their placement of the entry wound. The only “correction” that I’m aware of is their misinterpretation of “shadows” seen in x-ray of the neck as being metal fragments.

            The black and white photo does NOT show the wound as below the clavicle. In fact, the black and white photo doesn’t show the clavicle at all. The wound was at the base of the right side of the NECK. It was above the T1 vertebrae.

          • jeffc says:

            Tim N: “The only “correction” that I’m aware of is their misinterpretation of “shadows” seen in x-ray of the neck as being metal fragments.”

            The Clark Panel’s “misinterpretation” was precisely the evidence you cited as proving the back wound was 3.5. centimetres above the alleged exit wound in the throat.

          • Kennedy’s back wound was at the Third Thoracic Vertebrae
            JFK Death Certificate signed by Burkley > Backwound:

            https://i0.wp.com/1.bp.blogspot.com/-oyKHM5l7VQI/UEehgNrnG0I/AAAAAAAAAEE/M8CeG0p2NEw/s1600/JFK+Autopsy+face+sheet.jpg
            \\][//

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Jeffc wrote:

            The Clark Panel’s “misinterpretation” was precisely the evidence you cited as proving the back wound was 3.5. centimetres above the alleged exit wound in the throat.
            =========================================

            Jeff, that doesn’t make sense. The misinterpretation was of the shadows seen on an x-ray, not in the placement of two wounds using photographs of the exterior of the body.

            The wound was 13.5 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process, as measured by the Bethesda pathologists. I believed that they rounded it up to 14 in their report. In using the photos of the back, the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP determined it to be 14 cm below and 13.5 cm below respectively.

            “the base of the right side of the neck”

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. Clarke,

            If you have ever read ANY of my posts, you would know I was not, nor have ever been, a fan of JFK. He was a serial womanizer, with connections to the mob, all fueled by his dad’s money, which was also obtained illegally. So, I really don’t know what a “Camelot shiner” is. However, I would rather be a Camelot shiner than a butt-kissing Warren Omission believing lapdog. You?

            So, LBJ is guilty of only “half a lie?” You mean the half of a lie that cost 58,000 innocent American lives and an estimated 3 million Vietnamese lives? Is that the mistake you are referring to? Does it bother you that most of the Americans who perished in Vietnam were the poor and less fortunate? Does that mistake bother you at all, Bill?

            The fact that you believe Vietnam was fought to stop the “domino theory” is even less than scholarly as to be insipidly stupid. I am guessing that you also believe the Gulf War’s 1 and 2 were fought to protect American lives, as well? If so, you are the kind of American our government relishes!

            I am shocked that you think Allen Dulles was allowed to have his job, keep his job, and have any influence in American society. Maybe you should re-read what Harry S. Truman said about the agency he created. You see, Bill, Harry was ACTUALLY there. You and I were not. If he thinks it was an out of control agency that answered to no one, I tend to believe him—not you.

            Why don’t you take a moment and read Naomi Klein’s book, Shock and Awe. Then we can talk about the CIA and its role in “helping” foreign countries experience the joys of “American democracy,” after refusing to prostitute their resources out to greedy and soulless American corporations.

            The big difference between the WO report and Newman and Douglass? Their books are their opinions. You and I can buy them, or not buy them. They are not part of the public record. The WO is. The WO report, is, much to a large majority of the American population’s chagrin, the ONLY thing we have for “official truth” about the killing of a US president. Gee, Bill, how have their conclusions played out over the past 50 plus years? They certainly did “settle the dust” didn’t they Bill?

          • jeffc says:

            Tim N – “The misinterpretation was of the shadows seen on an x-ray, not in the placement of two wounds…”

            The Clark Panel identified metal fragments as evidence of the track of a bullet: “There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-ray…”

            Tim N = “the placement of two wounds using photographs of the exterior of the body.”

            The Clark Panel identified a “transverse fold in the skin of the neck” seen in the autopsy photo of the back wound, and then observed the same fold was viewed in a “lateral view of the neck” which also showed the tracheotomy incision. The Panel claims that, using this “fold”, the levels of the two wounds can be compared. This is specious. In one photo, the body is face down on a table and held in position by a gloved hand. In the other photo, the body is face up with the head placed on a metal stirrup. The body is therefore in two differing positions and no accurate measurement can be made from such a malleable landmark as a fold of skin.

            Just like no accurate information is transmitted by stating the wound was “13.5 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process” because it is not a fixed landmark. The autopsy doctors were either incompetent or were deliberately creating a document which prevented a true understanding of the wounds. Dr Humes lied about the back wound on national television in 1967.

            The true nature of the back wound is revealed by the autopsy FAC sheet, Dr Burkley’s death report, the observations of Siebert and O’Neill, and the holes in Kennedy’s shirt and jacket. It was in the back, too low to activate the SBT. This can be seen in the autopsy photo, the wound is below the line of the shoulder – in the back, not the base of the neck.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            However, I would rather be a Camelot shiner than a butt-kissing Warren Omission believing lapdog. You?

            Actually I’d rather not be either one. And I’m not, never have been and never will.

            Does it bother you that most of the Americans who perished in Vietnam were the poor and less fortunate? Does that mistake bother you at all, Bill?

            What bothers me, Steve, is when someone takes it upon themselves to tell me about our fallen warriors in Vietnam. I lived with these men 24/7 for the year I was in Vietnam. No offense but you won’t be telling me anything about these men.

            The fact that you believe Vietnam was fought to stop the “domino theory” is even less than scholarly as to be insipidly stupid.

            I hope I’ve never claimed the war was fought to stop the domino theory. You form a theory in 1954 (speech by Ike) and you fight until 1973 (January 27, 1973); a total of 19 years. In reality the theory had been in effect long before Ike gave it a name in 1954 but 19 years is good enough. Now what I find insipidly stupid is the thought that since the DT didn’t work in 1975 it was a failed theory. Does one having these thoughts think nothing changed in those 19 years? Have you ever thought the theory was true in the early years? But that is another story.

            I am guessing that you also believe the Gulf War’s 1 and 2 were fought to protect American lives, as well.

            You guess wrong. If you know any combat veteran they will probably be the most anti-war person you know. It breaks my heart when I watch them send our young men and now women off to war. I know what they face for the rest of their lives. Gulf War 2 was particularly offensive to me since we had a bunch of Vietnam draft dodgers that started it. There was no need for that.

            I’m well aware of Truman thoughts on the CIA. Harry was quick to bust up the OSS and didn’t want the CIA. I think this a bit naive of old Harry. Harry was retired when he made those comments but if the CIA was out of control then it was the job of the president to begin firing people. The CIA has long taken the blame for the president, plausible denial being one of the main reasons the CIA was formed.

            I’ll just have to pass on your thinking that Dulles went around overthrowing foreign governments all on his own. Do you think Dulles “slipped” these operations by the presidents or what?

        • The wound on Kennedy’s back is located at the Third Thoracic Vertebrae. That would be approximately six inches below Kennedy’s collar line.

          The wound to Kennedy’s throat was an entry wound, according to Dr Perry who performed the Tracheotomy.
          Before that procedure he described the wound as a small puncture wound.
          \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            The back wound placement at T-3 is further verified by simply looking at JFK’s shirt and suit coat in the National Archives. A shot from the sixth floor entering there would have come out in his lower chest or abdomen.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-JFKCLOTHES

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Jeffc wrote:

            The Clark Panel identified a “transverse fold in the skin of the neck” seen in the autopsy photo of the back wound, and then observed the same fold was viewed in a “lateral view of the neck” which also showed the tracheotomy incision. The Panel claims that, using this “fold”, the levels of the two wounds can be compared. This is specious. In one photo, the body is face down on a table and held in position by a gloved hand. In the other photo, the body is face up with the head placed on a metal stirrup. The body is therefore in two differing positions and no accurate measurement can be made from such a malleable landmark as a fold of skin.
            ===========================================

            There’s a perfect illustration as to why you should leave photographic analysis wounds up to the experts. Kennedy’s body is not face down on the table in the photo that you are referring to. He has been turned on his side.

            The two photos accurately show the placement of the two wounds and allow for an accurate determination of the vertical distance between the two wounds. Your complaint about the Clark Panel’s use of those photos is without merit.

            =========================================== Just like no accurate information is transmitted by stating the wound was “13.5 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process” because it is not a fixed landmark.
            ===========================================

            The tip of the mastoid process is not best point of reference to use, that’s true. But no amount of movement of it will put the wound down close to where you purport that it was. The photos tell the true story.
            ===========================================

            The true nature of the back wound is revealed by the autopsy FAC sheet
            ===========================================

            Notations on the autopsy face sheet say 13.5 cm below the tip of rt mastoid process. Thornton Boswell, who filled out that facesheet, said that notations were correct but that the marking on the diagram was not accurate. Placement accuracy is not the purpose of those diagrams. Boswell then placed an x at where he recalled that the wound was. In actually, the x is probably a little high.

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

          • Kennedy’s back wound was at the Third Thoracic Vertebrae.
            JFK Death Certificate signed by Burkley > This is exactly at the spot on Boswell’s sheet. It is exactly where the hole is on Kennedy’s coat. It is exactly where it is on Kennedy’s shirt.

            For whatever reason, the story about Boswell changing the position of the wound at the dot to the position now called [X]; simply does not wash. This is one of those shifting stories that is infamous in this case. All adjustments to the tale lending towards verifying the magic bullet theory.
            This can not be coincidence and positing that such shifts in the story such as these are clear evidence of pressure being put of Boswell, like it was put on Dr Perry. like it was put on Tomlinson in that early morning threatening phone call he received.
            As this fits in with the wholesale coercion manifest in this obvious whitewash–and the fact that this is a clear indication of what is called ‘Habit Evidence’:

            “The proponent may also introduce evidence of habit or routine practice to establish the chain of custody. Federal Rule 406 provides that evidence of the routine practice of an organization is relevant to prove that the conduct of the organization “on a particular occasion was in conformity with the … routine practice.” — Giannelli (1996)

            That such coercion and intimidation is in fact the “routine practice” of the intelligence agencies, gives us again the MO of those running the assassination, and it’s subsequent cover-up.
            \\][//

          • jeffc says:

            Tim N- “The two photos accurately show the placement of the two wounds and allow for an accurate determination of the vertical distance between the two wounds.”

            The photos expressly do not allow for an accurate determination at all. For the reasons stated – the body is in a different position and the neck fold is malleable.

            The autopsy photo shows the wound in the back, not the neck.

            Boswell’s notation matches the Burkley death report, the Siebert-O’Neill report, and the holes in the jacket and shirt.

            No matter how many times you assert the above is “without merit”, or whatever, you are incorrect and, obviously, will continue to insist on being incorrect. Good luck with that.

      • Bill says:

        And apparent it is all waived of because you say so. So the study led by Dr. DiMayo and looked over by the (ex) Hero of multiple shooters Robert Grodin, is incorrect?

        • Tim Nickerson says:

          jeffc wrote:

          The photos expressly do not allow for an accurate determination at all. For the reasons stated – the body is in a different position and the neck fold is malleable.
          =================================================

          The neck fold is malleable? WTF?

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

          The autopsy photo shows the wound in the back, not the neck.
          ==================================================

          The autopsy photo shows the wound in the neck. The Bethesda Pathologists and the two official forensic investigations that came later all determined that the wound was in the neck. The Clark Panel showed us how we can see for ourselves that the wound in the back of the neck was higher than the exit wound in the front.

          Jerry Organ illustrated it rather nicely:

          http://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/bunch/necktransitbunch.gif

          =================================================
          Boswell’s notation matches the Burkley death report, the Siebert-O’Neill report, and the holes in the jacket and shirt.
          =================================================

          Boswell’s notation is the notes on the side, not the marking on the diagram. As Boswell himself has told us, the notation is correct, the marking on the diagram is not. Burkley, Sibert and O’Neill were not forensic examiners and it’s likely that none of them ever saw the wound close up. The jacket and shirt were both bunched up at the time that the bullet went through.

          Your whole argument is laughable.

          • David Regan says:

            Bill, the holes in the rear of Kennedy’s jacket and shirt were both approximately 5 3/8 inches below the collar, far too low to account for the exit wound in his throat and the subsequent wounds to Governor Connally. Although the jacket had bunched up slightly from time to time during the motorcade as Kennedy waved to the crowd, it had never bunched up sufficiently to allow a bullet to enter at the required angle. President Kennedy’s buttoned-up shirt had been made to measure; it was held in place by a belt; it had a long tail, on which Kennedy was sitting; and the hot weather would have caused the shirt to stick to the president’s back. It could not have bunched up significantly. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62264&relPageId=85
            http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/88/Photo_naraevid_CE394-3.jpg
            http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/e/e8/Photo_naraevid_CE393-2.jpg
            http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/8d/Photo_naraevid_CE393-1.jpg

            Vice Admiral, George Burkley, the personal physician to JFK, signed a death certificate on the 23rd stating that the second wound was located in the back “at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra” http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=587&relPageId=2

            The third thoracic vertebra is typically 4-6 inches below the point at which the shoulders meet the neck.

          • jeffc says:

            Tim N – “The neck fold is malleable? WTF?”

            Determining an anatomical position based on two photos in which a body is positioned differently is voodoo science. The neck fold is malleable because it cannot serve as a fixed point in these conditions. The Clark Panel supported their voodoo science by incorrectly asserting metal fragments could be seen in an X-ray.

            Tim N – “The Clark Panel showed us how we can see for ourselves that the wound in the back of the neck was higher than the exit wound in the front.”

            By using voodoo science. Their assertion seems to be the origin point of any number of highly deceptive diagrams, including the one you linked to.

            Tim N – “As Boswell himself has told us, the notation is correct, the marking on the diagram is not.”

            Boswell, along with Humes, directed the creation of the Rydberg drawings, which depict a neck wound that is wildly incorrect and misleading. Boswell would claim, in late 1966, that the autopsy photos clearly showed a wound in the neck. Humes, in 1967, appeared on national television and claimed that the Rydberg drawing was accurate and matched the autopsy photo. Neither man has any credibility on this issue.

            The autopsy photo does not depict a wound in the neck. It does not. It is plain to see. Your argument is that Boswell’s drawing, Burkley’s report, and Sibert-O’Neill were not only wrong, but somehow coincidentally wrong in exactly the same way. And equally coincidentally wrong in a way which matched the holes in the jacket and shirt. That’s five interlocking evidential items, which you claim are vitiated by say-so of a man with proven credibility issues.

            The SBT is wrong before it even starts, and then wrong again in multiple ways. It was deliberately concocted BS, and those responsible knew it. The fact that later “experts” would sign on to this nonsense simply demonstrates that fealty to establishment doctrine often overrides loyalty to the truth.

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Bill,

      Speaking only for myself, I remain unconvinced by your expert, and your conclusions. I know you were talking to Willy and David and others, but your “expert” can be ruled out by other experts with a different view. So, for me, the issue of Oswald and the head wound and the ballistics is just as clouded as they were in 1963. The fact the easiest shot was missed, whatever reason you would like to give—the tree, the sign, the sign pole, someone farting in the crowd, Billy Lovelady wearing a dress— still has not been explained to any degree of satisfaction.

      A word of help for you. Please don’t tell Photon that you believe Ruby and Oswald and the mob and the DPD were in concert on the big event. The WO is his bible and hope, and to tell him that you believe that Ruby drove Oswald ANYWHERE might send him into a tailspin…

      • Bill says:

        Steve. It is perfectly fine for you to remain unconvinced. But it’s not a fair evaluation of the ‘evidence’. Maybe you haven’t thought of it like that? Only you know the answer to that.

        I don’t tailor my views on theories, or cherry-picked points, etc. I’ve seen so many people just run from argument to theory every time a new one is formed. So, I JUST USE THE EVIDENCE that was collected. The evidence is what the CT’ers can’t produce. Not a single shred of any ‘evidence’ that can point to any other conclusion exists. What is left is only another theory that a CT’er will embrace. They keep coming all the time and, one-by-one the new Theory falls to the wayside.

        Dr. Vincent DiMaio be ruled out? I don’t think that observation is valid. Dr. DiMaio was actually one of the Doctors who participated in the Exhumation of Lee Harvey Oswald. He completely and firmly establishes that any mention of a right/frontal shot at JFK is purely ‘make-believe’ and ‘out of an Arnold Swarzenagger’ movie. He is nationally recognized as an expert on this case.

        The Tree. Look. I didn’t put the tree there. It is seen to be EXACTLY where it appears to be, from looking at the FBI frame-by-frame- recreation and the SS recreation. At frame 161 +/- it was in a position to impede a shot and therefore deflect the first shot.

        The fact is that the Governor, Mrs. Kennedy, Agents Ready and Landis, all say the same reactions they are seen doing were begun at PRECISELY THAT MOMENT. We call it evidence.

        As for Photon. Is it important for you to tell me what I can say or not say?? Is it SUCH A BIG DEAL? News Flash: People are allowed to formulate their own opinions based on EVIDENCE (me) or Ridiculousness (willy/Ronnie/Dave/et-al), or Gut.

        The issue is being able to state the opinion.

        I’m sorry that the EVIDENCE given by two Agents and an ex-First Lady, and a Governor aren’t enough. The adage is true: It’s not the ruler that lies…it’s the guy reading it!

        Peace.

        • JohnR says:

          Bill, no matter what “evidence” you think is pertinent, you still can’t place Oswald anywhere above the second floor anytime after noon. Everything else you call evidence is just as likely to have been planted as not. No one else but Oswald was ever investigated. So how is this other evidence supposed to exist?

          • Bill says:

            John. Thank you for the note. But the issue is that there is plenty of time for Oswald to have gone back up to the 6th floor after being seen in the Lunchroom area.

            Carolyn Arnold gave two statements about seeing LHO in the Second Floor Lunchroom. One time she said 12:15…and another time she said 12:25 (near the front door). However, he motorcade viewing partner told the WC that she went out to see the motorcade, with Arnold at 12:15.

            4 Employees, Arce, Givens, Lovelady, and Williams ALL put Oswald on the 6th Floor asking for an elevator to be sent up. One Employee, Givens, had to return to get his cigarettes and actually asked Oswald if he were going down.

            So, his gun, his work-schedule vs. his work out-put that day, his co-workers, and his own actions and lies (come on…why lie about being outside with Shelley in the first place.

            The evidence that was collected is just exactly what it was. Part of the totality of evidence that physically puts LHO in that window pulling that trigger.

            I’d say that Givens, returning to grab his smokes, where he see’s Oswald standing with his Order Clipboard does him in pretty good. 12:15 or so. Interesting that the Clipboard was found right near where the rifle was discovered after the shooting.

            Everything was just as likely to be planted???? Ok. No one else but Oswald was ever investigated? Ha. The man killed a cop. He ordered a rifle. He was on the floor.

            I have no idea as how to interpret your last sentence? Why investigate anyone else when you have everything within you need?

          • David Regan says:

            Bill, the FBI report on November 26th states that, Carolyn Arnold caught a fleeting glimpse of someone she thought might be Oswald, standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse, located on the first floor when she was leaving the building around 12:15, however, Arnold was not given the opportunity to check and did not sign that report and has since challenged its accuracy regarding the time. http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald
            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=44

            According to his Warren Commission testimony, Bonnie Ray Williams arrived on the sixth floor with his chicken sandwich and a soda-pop about, or shortly after, 12 noon. Williams testified that he neither saw nor heard anyone else on the sixth floor and left at approximately 12:20 http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39&relPageId=181

            So, when exactly did Oswald have time to get back upstairs, build the snipers nest, assemble the rifle (with a dime as Photon has postulated) and been ready to fire by 12:25 – which evidently was when the motorcade was scheduled to pass through Dealey Plaza.

            Not to mention, Arnold Rowland claims to have seen a man with a high powered rifle standing a few feet back of the southwestern window of the 6th floor of the TSBD about 15 minutes before the motorcade arrived. He could not identify this man as Lee Harvey Oswald.

            On January 4th 1964, Richard Randolph Carr told the FBI that from the sixth floor of the new court house under construction on Houston Street he had seen a white male, wearing a hat, glasses, and a tan sportcoat looking out from the top floor of the TSBD. http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd_hsca/wcd_hsca_0042a.gif

          • JohnR says:

            This is for Bill: You may want to rethink the degree of incrimination you assign Charles Givens. It might not have occurred to you, but I can read.
            You wrote “…Givens, returning to grab his smokes, where he sees Oswald standing with his order clipboard does him in pretty good. 12:15 or so…”
            I’d like to present to you Given’s Warren Commission testimony: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/givens1.htm
            According to his testimony, the last time Givens saw Oswald on the 6th floor was 11:55. I don’t know where you got 12:15, but I’m guessing it’s where you keep your wallet. So, do you want to admit being wrong, or do you prefer being known as a liar?

          • JohnR says:

            Bill, another sentence with which you seem to taken exception referred to my suspicion that the evidence against Oswald could have been planted. This suspicion is buttressed by it being shared by none other than Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, whom I would assume even you would not consider an Oswald supporter.
            The famous Katzenbach memo:
            https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Katzenbach_Memo.html
            If you can interpret “seems too pat, too obvious” in some other way that doubt about whether or not it could have been planted, you’re more creative than me. Then again, if your posts are any indication, you are indeed more creative than me.

        • steve stirlen says:

          Bill,

          Did Dr. DiMaio exhume Kennedy’s body? No? Well, crap. Pssssss…Bill, hate to be the first one to tell you, but LHO was shot with a revolver in the stomach, NOT in the head with a 12.99 high powered rifle preferred by all assassins because of its wonderful reputation earned on the battlefields during WWII…oops, wrong thread.

          EVIDENCE, you say? The CT’ers have no evidence. Well, that is troubling, because the federal government and the WO has been soooooooo forthcoming with their “evidence” collected during the crime of the century. Let’s take a look, shall we:

          1. Let’s start with the note that LHO himself—cold blooded killer, crazed madman, ready to make a name for himself—delivered to James Hosty, FBI man in Dallas. Why that note contained threats and all kinds of mean things that would “prove the case.” Let us see the note! LHO is guilty! Oh, wait….the note has been flushed down a toilet? Help me, Bill, what FBI procedure calls for flushing EVIDENCE down a toilet? Maybe they wanted to scrub his fingerprints off of the note? Hope they used Tidy Bowl because it contains the most bleach. Hmmmm…

          2. Let’s get the CIA voice recording of LHO in MC, where he visited two embassies and made all kinds of vague threats and drew cartoon animals on the walls. That recording, which JEH, lead cop of the world, tells LBJ that it is NOT Oswald’s voice—will surely put LHO behind bars! Oh, wait…the recording has been destroyed as a matter of “routine practice.” Well, crap. The CIA must know better than anyone that EVIDENCE like that cannot be used in a court of law. Oh, wait….LHO did not make it to a court of law….

          3. Well, since the CIA destroyed the voice recording, let us look at the picture of LHO entering or leaving the embassy, because as everyone knows, MC in the 60’s was THE place for espionage. The photo will clearly show the “lone nut” and “crazed madman” with ice in his veins, murder in his heart, and a condom in his back pocket (OK, the condom part I made up). Oh, wait, that EVIDENCE has also been destroyed? Routine practice? Thought it was a recording of Oswald the rabbit TV show? Well, crap. That photo would have surely helped. The CIA surely must know what it is doing destroying EVIDENCE.

          Gee, Bill, I am not quite sure which EVIDENCE you are using to come to your conclusions… . I guess you must be right. When you destroy or throw away critical pieces of information, one HAS to depend on those same agencies that has given us the REST of the evidence…

          • Bill says:

            Looks like a lot of yelling going on around here.

            1st Para? Seems kind of crazy so I’ll pass on trying to figure it out.

            2nd Para? I don’t deal with wild speculations. But you go right on. By all means.

            3rd. Para. Hosty. Do you think that any Agent would not burn that note. If so…about that bridge in N.Y.

            4. Voice. Pure speculation. Dealt with in 2nd Para. But do continue. By all means.

            I do think I would be doing you a solid by advising you to calm down a bit. I am truly sorry to have ruffled your feathers. I actually feel very poorly about that. Sorry!

        • steve stirlen says:

          Bill,

          More EVIDENCE you say? Goody! I am READY to hear how the small man made it to the BIG TIME!

          4. The chunk of concrete that the stray bullet hit before sending a piece into Mr. Tague’s cheek? The one the FBI said did not exist? The one they were finally forced to travel to Dallas and dig up, then send it to Washington for “analysis” by the world’s greatest sleuths? Wait, what? The concrete had been patched before they dug it up? Really? The city of Dallas is that concerned about the appearance of its streets that it must patch bullet sized indentations in curbs? That is what I call community pride! I want to live in Big D!!!! Clean, bullet patched street curbs for everyone!!!! Wait, what? The FBI refuses to release its findings until Harold Weisberg files a FOIA lawsuit? What??? A chunk of concrete is protected by the FBI??? It requires a FOIA lawsuit? Man, I take that back. There is NO way I can afford to live in Dallas! If a chunk of concrete is that protected, hell, how much does it cost to walk on a sidewalk?

          5. How about photos? Better yet, how about X-ray photos? Surely they will prove that LHO had crossed the Rubicon into deranged state of madness, driving him to kill gophers and presidents. Wait, what? Saundra Kay Spencer says, under oath, that the photos she took are not included in the ones she is looking at in her deposition? What? Bad lighting? I know, someone burst into the developing room to yell “Happy Festivus” as they were being developed, causing their ruination? No? They can’t be found? Well, crap… .

          6. How about Win Scott’s personal notes about LHO, in his safe in MC. Mr. Scott falls of a ladder, and tragically dies. Surely, Scott’s notes will give us keen insight into MC and the assassination, because it is well known that Scott is a highly astute and seasoned veteran of espionage. Let us look at this notes—they will have clues that will solidify LHO as the wild eyed lunatic that traveled across Dallas with a 30.06 to shoot Gen. Walker while riding his Back to the Future hoverboard. Wait, what? His notes have been confiscated by his friends, Angleton and Phillips? That’s okay. They are honest CIA men who have given the WC “everything they asked for and then some.” Oh, wait. Scott’s notes have never seen the light of day? Oh, yeah, I know! National security concerns, right? Mexico City was about to raise the price of Coca-Cola 5 cents a bottle, and the CIA was going to send in the goon squad to beat anyone with a Coke with a piece of macaroni.

          Good gosh, this EVIDENCE thing is sure hard to pin down, especially when it comes to the CIA and FBI’s part…

          • Bill says:

            Looks like you’re reaching pretty deep into a magician’s hat.

            Tague: Felt he was hit by SECOND SHOT. I don’t know why you insist on moving the curbing issue to the first shot? Interesting misuse of EVIDENCE isn’t it. Actually, Tague was sure he was hit by something that flew up off the curb at LEAST upon the 2nd shot or the 3rd shot. At NO TIME does he feel/state that material hit him in conduction with the 1st shot. That is just a convenient way for you guys to play games with EVIDENCE.

            You cite Ms. Spencer. Two things that may cloud the issue: One is that she herself, goes into great detail about the body being cleaned and presented in a reverent manner. And as a reason for this she then points out that there may well have been two sets of ‘autopsy’ photographs. She even went into detail about the possibility of Mrs. Kennedy (family) wanting to reduce the shock-value of any autopsy photos that may or may not ever become public.

            The other issue is that she cites ‘runs’ of paper. To buttress her remarks she bought along a photo which she had taken and printed 10 days before. Well. Has it occurred to her that, possibly the paper that her ‘photo’ was printed on had run out and more was ordered? Apparently not. So, she gives two entirely plausible explanations.

            And Let’s not even go over that she was reviewing materials taken 34 YEARS EARLIER for crying out loud.

            But more on Ms. Kay: She states no blood. Obviously he memory is incorrect because there is a dramatic about of blood on Kennedy’s wounds. She does state that she took photo’s of others who didn’t ‘make it’. She seems to not understand that Kennedy’s body was cleaned and wiped down in Dallas BEFORE being sent out. Hello? Mr. Lifton???

            Scott: Comical. Oswald was acting so strange in the month before the assassination. He wanted to go t Cuba. In fact, EVIDENCE presented to the WC by his own wife, depicts a man using false names (A Hidell…remember him?? Hmmm?) who wanted to hijack a commercial airliner to get there. Is it so preposterous to speculate that Oswald would have had someone pretend to be him to see if he was being followed? He was more paranoid than you guys apparently.

            But, as I said, thanks for allowing me to review the facts. Simply put. You have none.

        • steve stirlen says:

          Bill,

          The tree? Yep, know it well. Stood underneath it on four separate occasions and looked up into it, looking for that sinister, bullet deflecting branch that dared to blow in the wind, causing the crazed LHO to miss his chance at destiny… . Oh, wait. The FBI or the DPD did not cut the tree down and take it to headquarters to search every inch because? Oh, I know. The FOIA the FBI needs to release information only applies to concrete, not fruit or flowering trees of any kind. Whew, problem solved…

          • Bill says:

            No. They didn’t. They had no reason to do so. They had all the answers they needed plainly put out before them and gathered through evidence. All we’re doing is speculating on EVIDENCE. Seemingly…you have a problem dealing with it. Oh well.

        • steve stirlen says:

          Bill,

          As far as Photon, I was trying to do you a solid, not cause you any grief. He was about to ask you to “give him one example, one shred of evidence that can be found in the WO report that indicates that JR gave LHO a ride to any Dairy Queen in any suburb of Dallas or Dallas itself…. ” Sorry, trying to help you.

          • Bill says:

            Who needs a solid? Photon is dead on with his presentation of facts and in addressing the issues. He doesn’t need help with a single thing as far as I can tell. It appears to me that he feeds lunch to the bears here often. Ha Ha. As for me needing a solid because of what YOU THINK PHOTON WAS GOING TO ASK???

            Now you’re able to predict the future???? Amazing.

            Anyway. The issues as to the physical assassination of JFK are clearly played out when ‘real’ evidence is aired. I don’t have time for silencers (willy), bullet characteristics (bubbly), or just plain fanaticism.

            Solid? Funny stuff.

        • steve stirlen says:

          Bill,

          You said that you believe that JR and LHO and the DPD and the mafia were in on the crime, and that LHO pulled the trigger by himself. Remind me, which member of the DPD did the WO bring up on charges for helping LHO, that nutty, deranged, crazed, doughnut loving SOB, gun down Kennedy in broad daylight? If you could, remind me of ANYONE that the WO brought charges against, or at least recommended for investigation by the Hoover and the FBI—(assuming Hoover had his dress picked out for the night.) None? Gosh, that is a head scratcher. So, your theory cannot be proved by the “official version?” The version that settled “all the dust, and followed every lead?” Uh-oh! Sounds like the CT’ers are going to foam at the mouth, howl at the moon, and run to Starbucks for a “Conspiracy Spiced Cider.”

          • Bill says:

            I think you are stabbing yourself on your own petard. What I said was: “I Believe”. This does not constitute anything more than what I believe. Right? There is no fact that has turned up to link any of the figures together. This however, does not affect what ” I believe”.

            I have no thesis. No Agenda. No grand scheme of conspiracy (that grow and grow and grow…lol). No Silencers. No multiple shooters. Nope. Just my belief based upon Oswald’s actions and J. Ruby’s movements and Tippet’s movements.

            So, unless I’m mistaken, my belief is therefore my own and since it is simply my belief, would not cause a single investigative effort to be initiated. But that is not what happened here is it laddie?

            There is one flaw to your little diatribe here: You asked if the FBI investigated others: Why YES. THEY DID.

            Jack Ruby. If I’m not mistaken the WC looked into his associations and found none. And Stevie….isn’t that the Official Version??

            I thought so. So THANK YOU. Once again..

        • steve stirlen says:

          Bill:

          How about this for an adage?

          “What luck for rulers that men do not think.”

          • Bill says:

            I agree with that. Especially when they adopt every last crazy conspiracy theory…or better yet: Ask which conspiracy theory they like best.

      • Bill says:

        No they can’t be ruled out be any true expert. Opinions are always welcomed. But they are, like rear-ends…everyone has one and they all stink.

        • steve stirlen says:

          Bill:

          To help you for the FINAL time about the issue of your EVIDENCE that was collected by liars, crooks and men of deception.

          Page 542:

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

          I posted this last week on this thread, but you did not respond. Here is but ONE example of what you refuse to acknowledge, or, to use your words, “play in that park.”

          I have no EVIDENCE you say? You have tainted and manipulated evidence. Which is worse, Bill?

          You may continue to believe what you wish to believe and I will do the same. I really don’t care what you believe, as you don’t care what I believe. That is okay, as this is still America. Just know that as you continue to try and “tell” people about the evidence, I will continue to tell people about the deceit with which your “evidence” was collected.

          • Bill says:

            Which is fine by me. Just make sure that you aren’t creating falsehoods with what you present.

          • Steve stirlen says:

            Bill,

            No need to worry about me and falsehoods. I don’t use the WO report as a reference.

            The best to you.

        • steve stirlen says:

          Bill,

          “why YES. THEY DID.”

          You mean the same FBI that was headed by JEH, and his band of thugs? The same FBI that said “we have the basic facts of the case” by the third day after the assassination?

          WHY YES, BILL, YOU HAVE NOW CONVINCED ME…

          • steve stirlen says:

            Bill:

            Let me leave you with a last piece of information that may help you with your EVIDENCE. This information comes from Tom, the moderator that so graciously allows us to have this debate by posting our views so quickly. Please enjoy what Tom has to say, and I wish you the best of luck!

            Your concerns seem rather narrow and you may owe an apology to someone who you tactfully question the motive and integrity of.
            http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm#_ednref10
            The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?
            Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson
            ……
            Summary
            …..
            “….What we are left with is the FBI having reported a solid chain of possession for #399 to the Warren Commission. But the links in the FBI’s chain appear to be anything but solid. Bardwell Odum, one of the key links, says he was never in the chain at all and the FBI’s own, suppressed records tend to back him up. Inexplicably, the chain also lacks other important links: FBI 302s, reports from the agents in the field who, there is ample reason to suppose, did actually trace #399 in Dallas and in Washington. Suppressed FBI records and recent investigations thus suggest that not only is the FBI’s file incomplete, but also that one of the authors may have been right when he reported in 1967 that the bullet found in Dallas did not look like a bullet that could have come from Oswald’s rifle. ”

          • Bill says:

            Steve. You asked a question to me. I gave you the answer. If you don’t like it then deal with it. As I said. I’m sorry you are injured by evidence and rebuttals.

            Happy Holidays to you.

          • Steve stirlen says:

            Bill,

            You gave me an answer based on tainted and/or tampered evidence. I don’t believe you, or anything that comes from the WO report.

            I wish you the best.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      As the autopsy results tell us, the Magic Bullet purportedly cleared the outside tip of the right transverse process of JFK’s C7 cervical vertebra, and grazed the top of the right transverse process of JFK’s T1 thoracic vertebra. It then, supposedly, continued on through the muscles of the right side of JFK’s neck, passing through the right side of his trachea before exiting his throat.

      As the official investigation revealed that Oswald would have been 9° removed, laterally, from a centre line running the length of the limo, and that JFK was facing forward at the time he was shot, and that to follow the path this bullet supposedly did through JFK’s neck required it to be travelling at an angle of over 26°, how could this bullet have originated from the SE corner of the TSBD?

      • Tim Nickerson says:

        JFK was not facing forward when he was shot. His head was turned to the right. His upper torso was rotated about 5 degrees to the right.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          That would reduce the number to 21°, Tim. You’re still a long ways from 9°, but keep trying.

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            I’m not trying anything Bob. I’m merely correcting you.

            You seem think that 21° is a number that I need to conquer. But you haven’t actually explained why. You’ve also said that the autopsy results tell us that Bullet purportedly cleared the outside tip of the right transverse process of JFK’s C7 cervical vertebra, and grazed the top of the right transverse process of JFK’s T1 thoracic vertebra. I believe that that is the postulation of some pathologists of the HSCA panel but it’s not one that I would see as a settled conclusion.

          • Photon says:

            It certainly wouldn’t have graze the top of the right transverse process of JFK’s T1 to cause the disruption seen. The shock wave of the round passing through the neck can easily account for any fractures noted on the radiographs.
            What I find amusing is that none of the “experts” posting can understand why exact landmarks on JFK’s neck were probably altered from those seen on typical males of the same size. None of these claims about exact location of the back wound bring up the problem that I am mentioning.

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Bob Prudhomme wrote:

            Anything less than 21°, and it had to go THROUGH JFK’s cervical vertebrae.
            ===========================================

            Really? You mean actual bone? You’ll have to forgive me for not taking just your word on it. I’m going to need some numbers. What would be the maximum vertical spacing distance between C7 and T1 on someone with a physique like Kennedy’s? Be it in between the transverse processes or any other section of the vertebrae. We’ll start with that and we’ll consider other factors later if need be.

            In case you’re wondering, the 5 degree right rotation of Kennedy’s upper torso comes from the HSCA. I’m not sure, but I think that Canning may have come up with the figure.

          • “None of these claims about exact location of the back wound bring up the problem that I am mentioning.”~Photon

            Because the trajectory is impossible for the bullet to hit both Kennedy and hit Connally, The “problem” you are mentioning isn’t the essence of the real problem. The bottom line is your argument is a moot point by a penumbra of reasons. First there is no chain of evidence supporting that the bullet in question was even fired in Dealey Plaza that day.

            Secondly no one has ever been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Oswald fired either of the weapons claimed to be used to kill officer Tippet, or President Kennedy.
            Plus, the many other problems spoken to in this thread; including the present argument about the trajectory from the 6th floor window.

            All of your commentary turns out to be scurrilously out of context of the actual facts of the case.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            What I don’t understand is how if ,every forensic scientist to review the findings has no problem accepting the the back -neck trajectory and subsequent wounding of Connolly from the same bullet, you can’t . Are you claiming to be more knowledgable about wound ballistics and post-mortem evaluation then the most experienced and prestigious forensic pathologists in the U.S.?

          • “Fracture Patterns

            When a projectile strikes the skull, radial fractures are created which extend outward from the wound. Internal pressure from temporary cavitation produces concentric fractures create that are perpendicular to the radial fractures. Research addressing the sequencing of radial and concentric of skull fractures in gunshot injuries indicates the radial fractures stem from the point of entry (Viel, 2009; Karger, 2008; Smith, 1987; Leestma, 2009).

            The Clark Panel observed extensive fracturing in the autopsy X-rays. The panel report specified there was extensive fragmentation “of the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind”. The report goes on the state, “throughout this region, many of the bony pieces have been displaced outward; several pieces are missing”. The Clark Panel report indicates the majority of the fracturing and displaced bones fragments are closer to the location they described as the exit wound; this is in direct conflict with scientific research concerning skull fractures resulting from gunshot injuries.

            The Kennedy autopsy report stated multiple fracture lines radiated from both the large defect and the smaller defect at the occiput, the longest measuring approximately 19 centimeters. This same fracturing pattern was discussed in the Assassinations Records Review Board deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, the X-ray technician on call at Bethesda Hospital the night of the Kennedy autopsy. Custer testified the trauma to the head began at the front and moved towards the back of the head (CE 387 16H978; ARRB MD 59:10). Kennedy’s autopsy X-rays have distinct radial fractures propagating from the front of the head, with the preponderance of concentric fractures located at the front of the head. Current research indicates fracturing patterns of this nature correspond with an entry wound located in the front of Kennedy’s head.”~Sherry Fiester, CSI
            \\][//

          • ed connor says:

            Paul, the autopsy photos and the president’s clothing clearly show a wound of entry in the region of the upper thoracic spine, not the cervical spine (neck).
            If LHO is shooting from a 30 degree incline and if Elm street is on an 8 degree decline, a round entering at the thoracic level cannot cause a neat wound, first described as a wound of entry, above the knot of JFK’s necktie.
            Moreover, any missile fired from the rear and exiting in the centerline above the knot of the necktie would cause obvious fractures to the cervical vertebral bodies (NOT the transverse processes).
            Your “shockwave theory” cannot explain these missing fractures.

          • Photon says:

            The round did not pass through a normal neck.Therefore, many of the assumptions made by Mr. Prudhomme are simply not correct.

        • “His upper torso was rotated about 5 degrees to the right.”~Tim Nickerson

          And you take these measurements from where Nickerson?
          And you adjust these measurements to the exact angle of the rear seat of the car by what perspective?
          Are you an expert at Photogrammetry Nickerson?

          Perhaps you are going to claim your are a physicist? A medical practitioner? Maybe a detective in law enforcement?

          Why do I keep thinking you might be a used car salesman?
          \\][//

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            It is a VERY critical number, Timbo. It presents two unassailable problems with the SBT:

            1. If the bullet travelled at a right to left angle of 21° through JFK’s neck, it would emerge following a path that would take it far to the left of Connally’s right armpit. In fact, it likely would have been to the left of Connally’s left armpit, as well. Anything less than 21°, and it had to go THROUGH JFK’s cervical vertebrae.
            2. Any lateral angle greater than 9°, such as 21°, and the bullet had to be fired from a point further west in the TSBD than the SE corner of the 6th floor.

            Why not just admit it was impossible, instead of making yourself look foolish with senseless arguments?

  22. Bill says:

    Leslie:4. Yes. I can see the window frame that you mention. But the car had already gone far past the place where Kennedy was killed by then. Try to think the of Scope as a device which ‘zooms’ in onto the target and the dissimilarity of it to a ‘fisheye’ view that you eye would have as compared to it. Not that an eye is a fisheye, not by any stretch…but in this case the ability of the scope to demonstrate a target vs. the human eye is apparent. But please notice that the sign that comes into view at the very end is far past where kennedy was killed. I’m going to put a link that some person took of the view coming down the steps onto the Elm from the knoll. Keep in mind that JFK was killed at about the mid-point of the two light poles (or about directly opposite Zapruder).

    Here is that link:

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

    In the Moorman Photo, Nix Photo, Zapruder Film, Bronson Film etc the shot that killed JFK was fired long before the little stairs that lead up/down to Elm (where the men were standing) from the knoll. In the SS Film you can actually see the Stairs come into view as the car is headed into its sweeping turn.

  23. Bill says:

    Leslie: 3. Curbing Question (?). I’m not sure of what you are referring to. I see the film of the underside of the Triple Underpass and the reason for it being called that (Elm Street, Commerce Street, Main Street) and then it goes on to show the Court Building etc. Is this the part you mention here for discussion? If it is…the reason for the car taking the kill zone (your words) route: There is no way for a car to get onto the correct road to get to the Trade Mart (the target for the Luncheon) that day. The Limo would have had to jump over a curb to do so. This is why it took the turns in such an awkward manner.

    Note: The car did not have bullet proof tires. It has special rims and the SS was very wary of the weight of the car and the curb-jumping idea was nixed. Apparently the car was not the safest vehicle for a President to be in protection-wise (i.e., no bullet-proofing). But the testimony of the curb-jumping was part of the WC report so I don’t believe it was missed as far as discussion about the street/route was investigated.

    • leslie sharp says:

      No Bill, I’m referring to footage later in the video where we are shown the right turn onto Stemmons, after the motorcade passed thru the underpass. David vonPein has several photos of the curb as it appears at that juncture posted on his site. I drove that route dozens of times so I know the possibility that if you fail to stay right as directed (and the traffic cops don’t stop you first) that you can actually jump the curb at the very end of it and easily catch the exit to Stemmons. The exercise I describe was in full traffic; we are here deliberating a similar maneuver under conditions that were present for the parade motorcade. No traffic to the left, no traffic to the right, a clear route from that centre lane with a bump over the curb to catch Stemmons, avoiding the kill zone by a significant number of yards at a speed that would ensure appropriate safety of the president. Instead, the motorcade took two slow turns and passed thru a kill zone.

      • leslie sharp says:

        “But the testimony of the curb-jumping was part of the WC report so I don’t believe it was missed as far as discussion about the street/route was investigated.” –

        Bill, If you turn from watching the video and only listen to the narration – a reverse process from the one earlier – you will hear that virtually every question that could have been posed in those early months following the crime is anticipated, including the question of the curb. Clearly some Warren Commission investigators recognized the failure of the Secret Service to protect the president when they did not insist that a diversion thru Dealey represented a kill zone. You acknowledge that jumping the curb was on the table which insists that the SS knew there was a problem with the route. You argue that the tires weren’t bullet proof and the limo wasn’t either. Why didn’t the SS insist they install proper tires that would allow the jump if they were cognizant of the problems with the route? Times are different now, but it is reasonable to ask why didn’t the SS demand the curb be removed for that occasion and then replaced? If the FBI or whoever was able to extract the curb where evidence existed of shots fired (Tague), why couldn’t they have preempted the tragedy in the first place by removing the curb for access to Stemmons if it was such an impediment?

        • Bill says:

          Really simple reason: Busses and other cars weren’t going to be fitted that a way. You’re really reaching on this issue Leslie. I am wondering why, at every point, you become paranoid about some plot? The issue is/was well discussed. In fact, it WAS KENNEDY’S Parade…in Texas…a State that was at war with it’s own political bosses and that KENNEDY NEEDED. AND KENNEDY wanted the parade and he wanted that motorcade and the press and everything that goes with the production of it.

          But thanks for your questions. Have a great Holiday Season.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Signing off with blaming the victim? That is a real stretch, Bill. When advocates of Oswald’s guilt become frustrated that they have failed to spin the facts, they walk away. Good for your mental health perhaps as it’s unsettling for some to have a fixed belief challenged. No, I’m not reaching. I am calling attention to your own acknowledgement that the route down Elm was as it should have been a very significant issue for those planning the motorcade precisely because they knew it would expose Kennedy unnecessarily, a slowing of the limo AND placing him in the crosshairs of any number of positions in the kill zone. If the SS knew that jumping the curb was unfeasible, then every measure should have been taken to examine the buildings surrounding Dealey, closing off windows, sealing manhole covers and positioning law enforcement as deterrents. That’s 101 stuff is it not? It was an appalling failure and precisely because it was so far outside ordinary procedures, it suggests a deliberate decision on someone’s part.

          • Bill says:

            Leslie. Are you seriously saying that the Secret Service, IN 1963, had the manpower to do as you suggest????

            Yeah. It does suggest a deliberate decision by someone else. Lee Harvey Oswald.

            You are confused with a seething desire to blame this entire event on anyone other than what/where the facts lead. And, by the way, I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE that the path down Elm Street KNOWINGLY PUT KENNEDY into a kill zone. That is your view of the world not mine.

            This was 1963 dear. The crazy world that JFK told his wife was ‘real nut country’. There were only 350 SS Agents in 1963 and only a few of those were actually on Protection Detail. Most were in the PRS (Protective Research Section). Agent Hill worked worked by jumping one city ahead of the President just to be ready for a visit. The Budget in 1963 was 5 million dollars. Today it is 1.6 Billion dollars and to follow it there are about 3500 people in the SS.

            That’s 101 stuff. Here is a link to some interesting stuff on the Secret Service. Especially Mr. Hill…who is tortured to this day. EVEN his story changes, sadly. I’m sure one day he will actually put himself onto the back of that Limo by this own words. Over the years he has moved closer and closer to the shot point at 313..but the reality is that he was as slow as everyone else and was really only at the front wheel well of the Follow up car.

            Oh. Please pass this on to Willy. It’s another photo of the ‘glob’ of tissue he insisted was Skull Tissue on the trunk after the last shot. Looks like one of the radio antennae to me.

            Peace.

            http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/19/how-secret-service-has-changed-50-years-lafter-jfk

          • leslie sharp says:

            Bill, A “seething desire”? Surely you wrote that in a pique of frustration; and “This was 1963 dear.” Condescension is equally unbecoming of you.

            The Secret Service worked in tandem with local enforcement authorities; the Dallas Police Department and the Sherriff’s department were well staffed on that day and equally responsible for ensuring their president’s safety. So the numbers game simply will not wash. Distracting the discussion by introducing Agent Hill is transparent.

            ‘”the crazy world that JFK told his wife was ‘real nut country’.”

            If Oswald is your assassin and you agree with Jean Davison that he was a Communist (or was it Marxist?) who decided to murder the president because of his political views and did so in a spontaneous act, are you then arguing that Kennedy was referring to Dallas as communist-infested nut country? If you do your research you’ll discover that he was reflecting on the earlier assault on Adlai Stevenson, the Bruce Alger/ Edwin Walker/JBS alliance, the extreme right independent oil cabal, the segregationists (and in the extreme), the KKK …. not the potential threat of a 24 yr old former Marine who had defected to Russia.

            “That is your view of the world not mine.”
            I wouldn’t exactly characterize it as a “world view” – a term as inflated as “seething desire”, but aside from those taunts, would you concede that the Elm Street detour was tantamount to a kill zone whether Kennedy was placed in it wittingly or not? If not, can you give a definition of kill zone, and perhaps provide a link to diagrams that fall within the category.

        • Bill says:

          Because, unlike the conspiratorial mindset that you insist on demonstrating…they never consider it. Just as simple as that.

  24. Bill says:

    Leslie, the Scope was mounted for a camera to be allowed to be fit onto a box because, as a shooter using the sights/scope, in the position the boxes were discovered, you wouldn’t see the hand holding the stock (part of gun under barrel) as it would be obscured. So, what you are seeing is the way it would be seen.

    2. Howlett leaning forward: Keeping it real here. Howlett can be viewed as someone sitting on the toilet to keep it simple. All he needed to do was lean forward a few inches and get nice and cozy on the pedestal he built. He even had the box not he window there to help him rest his arm onto something firm while shooting (it cuts down on wavering the gun up or down slightly…as in support). So, in the end all that Oswald had to do was lean forward and shoot. The smaller box on the window, the one that was tilted meant that Oswald would not have had had to move his entire torso to balance the guy. Just his right hand. He never had to make any of the moves that one would typically associate with sighting his target (such as violently and hurriedly reacquiring the target.

  25. Bill says:

    Leslie: I had to break up my response to your questions so bear with me. 🙂
    1. Leslie: the ’tilt’ in the box actually insures a more stable perspective for the shooter for one…and the second thing it does is allow for the gun to be rested further from the shooters eye/face. It also allows for a bit more screening from below.

    I think there may be a few shooters here who understand that there is a way to sight a gun by actually having it further from their face/sights. It is an illusion that the target is actually bigger than it appears. Almost as if it ‘fills up’ the sight/scope (whichever was used). I once had some hunting friends who would actually lay on their backs and place their guns between their crossed legs/feet and sight from more than 3 feet away from the gun. I don’t suggest that occurred here…but it is just another way to improve shooting skills.

    An example is this: Hold up a pencil about 2 inches in front of your eye and pretend you were looking at the ‘a’ in the “Leave a Reply” box here. Now move the pencil point about a foot closer to it and look again. You’ll see that now you can actually target the grey o in the middle of the word ‘a’. Perspective. Aim Small Miss Small. 🙂

    • leslie sharp says:

      Bill this is an impressive and concise précis. You have embellished on the narrative offered by the SS .

      I’ll try again: Is the replica of the boxes exactly as they were discovered on 11.22.63 and if so, what would a shooter have done if the 3rd box perched at that precarious slant had slipped?

      Your explanation of the barrel in proximity to the right window frame as the limo disappears from sight is unsatisfactory for me regardless of how the SS staged the reenactment. It would only make sense that the barrel would tip the window frame at some point, and the likelihood that a shooter could be assured he would get off exactly the shot that would kill the president before the barrel made contact with the extremities of the window is beyond calculation. I argue he would have had to stop shooting because of the window frame. I argue that he did stop shooting and that Kennedy’s lethal wounds came from another direction. Some even posit that no shots were fired from the window for the precise reason that the position a shooter would have to assume – that you say is entirely feasible although Agent Howlett appears reluctant to depict (I still don’t understand that) – and the configuration of the window frame and brick façade makes all of the shots unlikely and a shooter would not have taken the risks.

      I’ll tell you what else I see – just one example – without you or the SS narrator telling me what I see:

      At minute 12:15++ I see a curve to the 6 stacks of boxes that appear to have created the outer extremity of the ‘nest’. From the other perspective, it appears there are other boxes at approximately the same height, but they do not appear to be the ones that are placed in a curve. If there are at least two separate rows of stacked boxes, one of which is curved, that would allow a space between them for a shooter to hide until the critical time. Why weren’t all of those boxes simply shoved up against the windows in the first place as are many others along the South wall?

      I’ll refer back to the curb, and the filming of the curb in another comment.

  26. The Magic Bullet Theory is Dead

    This issue needs to be put to bed.

    The rules on ‘Chain of Custody’ is explicit and final.

    There is no legitimate chain of custody on the matter of the Parkland Bullet.

    CE399 shows up magically later in the chain and cannot legitimately be linked to the Parkland Bullet.

    That is the bottom line. That is ALL THERE IS TO IT.
    \\][//

    • Bill says:

      No Willy. What is dead is Groden’s Claims, Thompson’s nonsense, and your dissertation of CE 399.

      Sorry.

      • Bill, Mr. Brown is it?

        Your current comment that I herein answer has no substance other than an empty assertion.

        It is proven beyond the slightest doubt that the chain of custody of the Parkland Bullet cannot be linked to CE # 399.

        Your complaints to the contrary simply have no merit.
        Your aim here is clear. That is your attempt to create a controversy out of a matter that is firmly settled. It is a redundant carousel of blather, meant as a simple diversionary tactic to conceal the facts of this matter.

        You fail to reason, and fail again, and yet you persist. This can only be accounted for in that you are a toady carrying putrid water for the illegitimate state.
        \\][//

        • Bill says:

          Mr. Brown???? Only two ways to interpret this one Willy. The Dood way: As in there is a Mr. Brown who had something to add/detract from the subject OR, the Bad way: As in you think my name is Brown.

          In both cases, as in this one as well. You are simply, totally, and completely dead wrong.

  27. Bill says:

    Photon. At the 3:00 minute mark of this link is a very clear view of the actions of Paul Landis. He was the Secret Service Agent on the right rear running board of the follow-up car. I happened to be reading his Statement about the Shooting and he also begins to do exactly what he said, react to a shot being fired at 161 (so slightly before), the same instant that Jackie and Connally begin to move. So does Agent Jack Ready.

    This link is from a very high definition of the Zapruder Film. It’s obviously the most clear. Actually…incredibly clear.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyECKcK0uCw

    And Lastly. About Ejecta. There is also a copy of the Nix Film that was also subjected to digital clarification. It shows the material exploding out of the front of JFK’s Skull. Please pass this on to Silly Willy who, the other day had an issue of my describing the fatal head wound path. Apparently he is a better forensic pathologist than Dr. DiMayo. Who knew??

    Here is the link. Watch for Jackie to start her turn…then watch for Landis and Ready to do just as they said. Reaction at 161 tells it all. They all line up perfectly.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyECKcK0uCw

    Peace.

    • Bill says:

      The Nix Ejecta pattern is seen at the 25:56 mark.

      Later.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      What about Agent Ready. He was ready to try but was stopped.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        See Survivor’s Guilt.

      • Bill says:

        And he was stopped because of two reasons. One, Hill had already made his move and number two is the SS Vehicle began to move away from Hill (who jumped off the left running board) which caused the SS Limo Driver to veer slightly to the right (cutting of the path of Ready).

        It’s that simple.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Not quite. “Agent John Ready was recalled by Agent Emory Roberts to the follow up car when he started to react to the gunfire on 11/22/63. Mr. Roberts had ordered the men not to move even after recognizing the first shot as gunfire”. Survivor’s Guilt, pgs. 9-10. Why? Their job was to protect the President with their lives if necessary. They were gong 12 mph. Why the hell didn’t Roberts yell GO, Go, Go!!! if he recognized the first shot as gunfire?
          As Jackie’s personal requested agent Hill disobeyed the order.

  28. Mark Spitz says:

    Also…after I read that Oswald’s brother had said after Lee was accused of the murder of President Kennedy, “I’m not Surprised”. i traveled to Arkansan and the brick company he worked at, at the time of the assassination, it is near near Fort Smith. I had the grand tour, and i can tell all that Arkansan is a poor state, and the working conditions there are not so good. I can only imagine how they would be in the 60’s… with some pressure, I think he (Oswald’s brother) would say anything against Lee to improve his life…what do we know about him? especially after the assassination?

  29. Bill says:

    Photon/Leslie:

    I was looking for this link to help understand the actual position of JFK’s car for descriptive purposes. I had not really paid much attention to it until after looking over frame 161 as the starting point. Anyway…this link is pretty interesting. One can see Robert Groden just about crying in his beer about being proven wrong…and Tink Thompson is not far behind. Especially in light of the length the assassination took from missed shot to head shot. ( About 8.3 seconds total time. This does NOT including the sighting before the first shot..that missed….another shot at 223/224 3.38 seconds later that hits both JFK and the Governor…followed 4.9 seconds later at z-313 ). Sound of first shot/reaction by Jackie, the Governor is the starting point. Since the Zapruder Camera was thought to have been operating at 18.3 fps it is just basic subtraction and then division by 18.3 to determine the seconds required.

    Interestingly. Run a stop watch from those places and you’ll have a vivid timeframe for the shooting. Here is the link. Of note is the decision by the Engineers, Dr. Vincent DiMayo (who wrote the book on forensics btw) and the Surveyors using laser sighting scopes TO NOT USE THE GOVT. (WC) NUMBERS AT ALL. They used the Zapruder film and landmarks visable on the film, in agreement with Groden, to conduct the analysis. The bottom line: WITHIN AN INCH of the WC valuations.

    Pay special attention to the logic used by the investigators. The discussion of what positions to use begins at the 2:55 minute mark.

  30. Mark Spitz says:

    Lived about a mile from a restaurant in suburban Melrose Park, Illinois where another prominent mobster was executed near the time of Sam Giancana. Name of the restaurant was the “Golden Horns”

    Mob hits are usually up close and personal, like Ruby to Oswald….Mob was probably used again as disinformation and cleanup…not who paid for the bullet.

    United Fruit, who the Dulles bros law firm represented= Domino Sugar who lose Sugar cane investments in Cuba due to Castro, and Chicita Banana in Guatemala…hummmm

    George Orwell protected the interests of “the East India Trading Corporation” in the far east long before he wrote his book “1984, and guess who’s Tea our founding fathers threw into Boston Harbor in the Boston Tea Party…yup, The east India trading Corporation’s tea…we fought Vietnam over rubber trees for Michilan tire.

    Multinational corporations will do anything to protect their interests…and the Dulles broths represented them legally!

    More information needs to be extracted about Dulles and the CIA priject MKULTRA, and any connection to Sirhan Sirhan

  31. leslie sharp says:

    Photon on Nov 7: “How can any conclusion based on a story with multiple contradictions and factual errors possibly be logical, let alone correct?”

    An exemplary question that tens of thousands of Americans have posed since the publication the Warren Commission Report

    • Tim Nickerson says:

      Leslie, the vast majority of those who gripe about the Warren Report have never actually read it or it’s supporting volumes.

      • “….the vast majority of those who gripe about the Warren Report have never actually read it or it’s supporting volumes.”
        ~Tim Nickerson

        Are you implying that you have read the Warren Report and the supporting volumes?

        I have read the complete Report myself, at the San Diego Library. As well as quite a few references in the supporting volumes. This at the urging of Jim Marrs, whom I met in San Diego.

        As other researchers have discovered, there is much in the Report that flatly contradicts the body of the supporting volumes.
        \\][//

  32. Mark Spitz says:

    Also…been on the fence about Oswald for years, but now do not believe he was an innocent. Most likely let one of the shooters into the building, but thought Connolly was the target, as to why he was discovered eating his lunch and not near the sixth floor.
    Shooter also brought Oswald’s rifle in with his own, an Oswald figured things out pretty quickly… So, who shot tippet?

    • Roy W Kornbluth says:

      Roscoe Anthony White shot J D Tippit and after he fired the make-sure shot into JDT’s head, he said, “Poor dumb cop.” And then he didn’t go to his neighbor’s and fellow policeman’s funeral. I get this from several witnesses, esp. the supermanly brave Acquilla Clemmons, another woman like Jean Hill, though not white.

      Don’t feel too sorry for Tippit’s widow. He was an especially dirty, racist policeman; though, to his credit, he balked at killing LHO and that’s what got him killed. The survivors of the Tippit family received nearly a million dollars in donations, six million in today’s money. So JD really did provide for his family.

      • Photon says:

        ” he was an especially dirty,racist cop…”
        Please post any reputable source for that statement.Please post any Dallas PD or State of Texas records that confirm in any way the claim that Tippit was a “dirty cop”.
        Please post any evidence that Tippit was a racist, even in the climate of 1963 Dallas.
        Please post any source aside from Ricky White that Roscoe Wright was anywhere near Tippit at the time of his death. Please post any source aside from Ricky White and Geneva White (who had been getting intermittent shock treatments since the late 1950s) that Roscoe White even knew Tippit.
        If you can’t make your case without smearing an honorable man praised by the President’s widow and brother, perhaps you showed rethink your case.

        • David Regan says:

          Dirty or not, Edgar Lee Tippit (JD’s father) tells an interesting story to Joseph McBride http://www.ctka.net/2014/mcbride_01.html

        • Steve Stirlen says:

          Photon,

          Was Tippit an “honorable man?” Let me play your game. Give me an example of Tippit being honorable? Here is a fact. Tippet was having an affair and did father a child out of wedlock. Here is another fact. Dale Myers does give a portion of the money from his website to Tippit’s widow, or helps her in some financial way.

          If Oliver Stone was James Tague’s PR man, you would be howling at the moon. You would bark so loudly as to drown out all of the noise on the entire website.

          Double standard, Photon?

          Or, a classic example of Photon’s mantra (or double standra)?

        • Roy W Kornbluth says:

          Photon, my brothah,
          You misquoted me but who’s counting? It was “dirty, racist policeman” not “cop” which is gangster talk, like from JDT’s murderer as he leaned over his dying body.
          Racist–JDT wore on his sleeve the insignia of some KKK organization, as did the majority of DPD. They might’ve called themselves The Mighty Brotherhood of Stonewall Jagass or The Sons of Marse Robert. I forget, but they were KKK, the most cowardly, racist organization that this old world has ever known.
          You may say, “Consider his milieu” or “Gotta go along to get along.” No excuse. And that milieu ruined this nation, all because they didn’t get their stupid way on every single idiotic thing they wanted. We gave em the Military Industrial Complex, royal treatment on oil, and on and on. Made em rich as Croesus. Let them make us their slaves. But that still wasn’t good enough.

          “Dirty” — I feel bad about that now, if only for one small anecdote. The morning of 11-22-63 when JDT left for “work”, he hugged his son, unprecedented, and said, approximately, “No matter what happens today, (name), I want you to remember that I love you.” JD was no new-agey type of guy. He knew he was taking a big chance that day, that his life could change for the worse. Sure, compared to Roscoe White and Larry Crafard, the LHO lookalike who also shot Tippit dead, JDT was an OK guy.

          PS: I waded through a lot of your David Perry’s “investigation” regarding RAW. I think you owe me at least a cursory Google of Adele Edisen’s most excellent work RE Roscoe A. White.

          • Photon says:

            Adele Edisen is a fraud and I would question everything she says. In an attempt to prove her claims she made certain embellishments related to the D.C. area which were obviously false It was the same tactic used by CT fraudulent witnesses over and over-claim to have experienced or witnessed something and then going into details which actually turn out to be false.
            Is your fantasy interpretation hereditary ? In the 1950s there was a fantastic sci-fi writer named Kornbluth .As I recall there was only one episode of Rod Serling’s disappointing series “Night Gallery” that was enjoyable-an adaptation of a Kornbluth story about a set of medical instruments from the distant future inadvertently sent back in time to the present. As I recall it was one of Chill Wills’ last roles. If you are related to that masterful author I can see how you can believe in fantastic stories and impossible theories.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Photon old chum,I don’t know what you’re talking about Edisen embellishing. She’s too careful and polite with her reporting and analysis. More like understating.

            “CT”–haven’t you heard? That’s so 2 years ago. It’s been CR for a while, Conspiracy Reporter or Researcher or Realist. Our dear Mr. Whitten authored and codified that, and has recently nominated “CA”, for Analyst. It’s taking the community by storm.

            I will have to check this out, that OUR Willie had anything to with my literary father’s most anthologized short story, “The Little Black Bag,” maybe the greatest short story of all time, sci-fi or not. I KNEW there was something super chill about WW that cannot be entirely explained by his erudition, comity, patience, perseverance, ad infinitum.

            Sorry, Kornbluth is a pen-name, a nickname, like Photon. I believe you’re the same Photon I attended college with in the late 1970s. I was there when a great good friend of ours gave you that nickname, and I believe I was the first to second that emotion. Of course the Cosmic Charge Account will never let me reveal your true identity because I’m still in your debt, treatment-wise.

            C. (Cyril) M. Kornbluth was the Shakespeare and the Nostradamus of the 20th century. His novels with Frederick Pohl, starting with The Space Merchants, and his solo novels ending with Not This August, predicted the assassination and The New Dark Age. But we’re going to come out the other side stronger, better.

            Someone asked Cyril what the M stands for. “Middle name” he said.

        • leslie sharp says:

          “In an attempt to prove her {Adele Edison} claims she made certain embellishments related to the D.C. area which were obviously false ” — photon

          “Please post any reputable source for that statement.” — photon

      • David Regan says:

        Roy, what is your take on the Wes Wise allegation and Tippit’s association with Carl Mathers of Collins Radio? http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/pdf/HSCA_Vol12_OswaldTippit.pdf

        • Roy W Kornbluth says:

          David Regan,
          Wow. That is the most clear, concise brief about LHO and JDT associates, and what happened in Oak Cliff around 1:00 and after. It’s a gold mine as rich as Vittorio Peak. I glanced through it. It’s #1 in my bookmarks now and I will study it very closely and soon, and get back to you. For now, what strikes me, random thoughts:

          I haven’t considered the greatness of Wes Wise in some time. If not for him…I shudder to think. Also he almost singlehandedly stopped the demolition of TSBD, I believe when he was mayor.

          Larry Crafard (Jack Ruby’s live-in handyman at The Carousel) was the guy in that red and white car, waiting in the parking lot of the Mexican restaurant, who the mechanic saw and took down the license plate #. (I don’t believe that LC is mentioned in this precis.) He looked so much like Oswald that, when Ruth Paine saw a picture of LC, she was sure it was her sometime housemate LHO. LC was at the Tippit murder-scene with Roscoe White. LC impersonated LHO many times. LC fancied himself an expert on cars, both the driving of and mechanics of. Serviced JR’s cars and took the wild test-drive from Downtown Lincoln-Mercury.

          Carl Mathers and Collins Radio–in a nutshell, what’s worst about America. You probably know LBJ was given carte blanche to give CM carte blanche for fixing up Air Force Two with all the latest electronic communication gizmos. No telling what he did for LBJ after usurping the presidency. CM was probably key in the walkie-talkies for the assassins. There’s a lot more but I’m going from memory, pretty vague at this point.

          Crafard, Tippit, White, and Mathers knew each other all too well, though their stations in life cannot explain that. Oswald knew all of them except maybe Mathers, but even that wouldn’t surprise me. CM probably knew to keep hapless LHO at more than arm’s length.

          Thanks so much for that, David. If there’s anything I can do…

        • Roy W Kornbluth says:

          David,
          One mistake in my previous post: the car in the El Chico parking lot right after the murder of JDT, owned by Tippit’s close friend Carl Amos Mather, was a light blue over medium blue 1957 Plymouth, NOT red and white. The very important red and white car happened upon the murder scene.
          Haste makes waste.
          It seems strange that bigshot, electronics wizard CAM, who lived in Garland, was such good friends with JDT. There’s probably an innocent explanation. Still perusing HSCA Oswald–Tippit.

        • Roy W Kornbluth says:

          David,
          Haste makes waste again. Lord have mercy.
          The upshot, final: the car, with LHO lookalike in it, at El Chico’s around 2:00 (when the real LHO had just been arrested not too far away) was a red 1961 Falcon with Mathers’ license plate PP4537 on it, which was registered to CAM’s blue 1957 Plymouth. Nearly an hour previous, a red Ford was at the murder-scene parked in front of the pickup truck of Domingo Benavides’, whose lookalike brother was shot dead, in the head, not long after. A month? Two?

          All the car-loving Larry Crafard had to do was use Mathers’ plates for a couple hours. Maybe he switched them, maybe not.

          If not for 1.)the mechanic, TF White, walking across the street to check out the suspicious Larry Crafard, half-hiding behind a billboard but with a panoramic view in both directions; and taking down that plate number (LC peeled out immediately), and 2.)Wes Wise taking mechanic TF White’s story seriously, and pursuing it…….it could be a different ballgame.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            The Tippits and Matherses had known each others since 1958, when they were neighbors on Glenfield St. The older, brighter CAM ‘moved on up’ soon after and had a high security clearance at Collins. But the families stayed good friends. Kind of the odd couple, ey?

          • Photon says:

            What are you trying to state with the above?

          • David Regan says:

            Roy, though you would be interested in the following on Wes Wise and Carl Mather: http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.ca/2012/02/wes-wise-and-carl-mather.html

            As you mentioned, it must have been an Oswald double the mechanic spotted in the Thunderbird at El Chico. Perhaps the same man seen by Robert Vinson on his flight from Dallas? http://22november1963.org.uk/robert-vinson-jfk-assassination

          • David Regan says:

            Certainly makes you wonder, Roy. The Tippit-Mather friendship was just as unlikely as the Oswald-Paine/de Mohrenschildt association. Nothing to see here, right?

          • leslie sharp says:

            David Regan, … ‘the Oswald-Paine/de Mohrenschildt association’ involved a series of encounters that seem to have been dismissed as insignificant or purely coincidental over the years.

            Ruth Paine, according to a composite of the testimony, did not meet Lee and Marina thru the deMohrenschildts except circuitously. She met them through her friendship with Magnolia Labs employee Everett Glover. Glover and the Paines had met while singing in the same church choral group.

            In early 1963, Glover met Sam Ballen at the home of Lauriston Marshall, president of the Graduate Research Center of the Southwest, founded by Eric Jonsson and his business partners in Texas Instruments. Ballen – a close friend of George deMohrenschildt – suggested to Glover that they take up doubles tennis with M/M deMohrenschildt.

            Over a period of weeks Glover, thru the deMohrenshildt’s, met Marina. Oddly enough, Sam Ballen testified that he only met Lee Oswald in his downtown Dallas office, yet his doubles tennis partner Everett Glover had encountered Marina on several occasions that spring.

            Glover then decided to host a dinner gathering and invited Marina and Lee and also invited the Paines but only Ruth could attend. These are the circumstances under which Ruth Paine met both Lee and Marina Oswald.

            The deMohrenschildts did not arrange the meeting between Lee and Ruth, and in fact they were vague in having attended the event at Glover’s at all.

            There is no indication in testimony that the deM’s knew Ruth Paine prior to that evening. There is no indication in Ruth Paine’s testimony that she even met the deMohrenschildt’s that evening because they arrived rather late and stayed only a short time.

            So the direct conduit for the fateful connection between Ruth Paine and Lee Oswald can be distilled down to Everett Glover and ‘by pure chance’ Sam Ballen.

            Was deMohrenschildt hung out to dry along with so many in this saga? Was he another obvious patsy? Did his friend Sam Ballen betray him as Jeanne deMohenschildt argued. Have the shadow characters in a compartmentalized conspiracy been overlooked for decades?

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            David R 8:04p, that first link RE Wes Wise and Carl Mathers via Bill Kelly really rounds out the picture. BK is only one of a thousand serious researchers, yet the last few years it seems that he’s doing about half the good work. If you know Mr. Kelly could you ask him for me and a thousand others, “When the heck are you coming out with THE book?” Maybe you could team up with him.

            For me, a good thing about that link is it shows the confusion surrounding that piece of the puzzle, the red 1961 Falcon with Mathers’ plate, which was supposed to be on his blue 1957 Plymouth. I don’t feel so bad now about my own confusion evidenced in the posts above. Even Wes Wise and HSCA had trouble getting it straight.

            RE your second link, the 3:30p Robert Vinson flight from Dallas with another LHO double. This has always been major to me. I’m not married to it, but now I’m pretty certain there had to be (at least) two LHO impersonators. One, the real Larry Crafard hitchhiked out of Dallas on Sunday after JR shot LHO in the DPD basement; he ended up in places around Lake Michigan. So if the “LHO” on Vinson’s strangely marked cargoplane was LC, he had to return to Dallas from Roswell, NM in less than 36 hours. I guess it’s possible. Also, the LHO double who was with Roscoe White (“the stockier man with dark bushy hair”) at the Tippit killing, who was definitely Larry Crafard IMO, was busy a boy in that hour and a half from 12:39 to 2:00—
            1.dashing into Ruth Paine’s Rambler at TSBD
            2.at the Tippit murder scene at 1:08
            3.hustled out of the Texas Theatre, from balcony and out back door around 1:50
            4.in El Chico’s parking lot around 2:00
            I guess it’s all possible.
            But then again, the “Leon Oswald” at Sylvia Odio’s, the LHOs at target ranges, the other LHO in Mexico City, the loud attention-attracting LHO at the Mercury dealership—–If they were all Larry Crafard, that was one busy boy leading up to, during, and shortly after the assassination. Nearly as busy as his boss, Jack Ruby. Maybe Jack gave Larry some of his Prellies.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            David Regan, to your 8:32 post, the unlikely Tippit-Mathers friendship. It has always mystified me.
            From your great posts the last few days, I have a new theory. Both had a “spook” bent. I blame TV and the James Bond movies. They both loved gadgets, though JDT was inept with them, and they fancied themselves ladies’ men. Birds of a feather, right? Hardscrabble JDT looked up to the older, wealthier CAM.
            CAM saw JDT as a useful, willing tool, though he must have felt awful when the panicking RAW and LC gunned down his trusting friend. Mathers was nearly inconsolable; he was probably a driving force behind the munificence showered on the surviving Tippits.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Sam Ballen testified that at the behest of his friend George deMohrenschildt he interviewed Lee Oswald at his office located in the Southland Centre in downtown Dallas.

            Earlier this year, jfkfacts.org featured a story about an individual who claims that he and his girlfriend encountered Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas prior the assassination. What makes his claim distinct from others is that he alleges he witnessed Oswald in the company of two men he believes were David Atlee Phillips and Antonio Veciano. The building where this encounter is alleged to have taken place was the Southland Centre.

  33. “Considering the time zones, it was between 90 minutes and 2 hours after the arrival of those fragments at the FBI labs, that Tomlinson was awakened by someone from the FBI, demanding that he “keep his mouth shut” about the bullet he found at Parkland hospital.

    This is from the recorded 1967 interview of Tomlinson by Ray Marcus. The interview is also documented in the HSCA records.

    Tomlinson: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o’clock – uh, excuse me, that’s Saturday morning – after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on the phone and told me to to keep my mouth shut.

    Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?

    Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found…

    Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it’s pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say – was there any particular thing about what they said or they just didn’t want you to talk about it period?

    Tomlinson: Just don’t talk about it period.
    […]
    In contrast to all of these very solid corroborations, we have 100% denial by the four men who examined the bullet that Tomlinson found, that it was CE399. Unlike many other issues related to the case, this one is not a tough call. It seems that J. Edgar Hoover agreed, because in recordings of telephone conversations between him and LBJ, he suggested that Connally was wounded because he came between the President and an assassin, and that if Connally had not come between them, JFK would have taken his bullet.”
    http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

    \\][//

    • Tim Nickerson says:

      Willy Whitten wrote:

      In contrast to all of these very solid corroborations, we have 100% denial by the four men who examined the bullet that Tomlinson found, that it was CE399.
      ===============================================================

      Willy, that is FALSE. Not being able to positively identify the bullet as being the one they handled is not the same as saying that it definitely was not the same bullet. ===============================================================

      http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
      ==============================================================

      That Bob Harris article is a rather poor one. Not by his standards, mind you. But he has a hard time defending it when challenged. He still maintains to this day that Bobby M Nolan received a bullet, not bullet fragments, from one of the Parkland OR nurses assisting with Connally.

      • Earlier I said:
        We have confirmation that none of the four primary witnesses were able to confirm the bullet found at Parkland was C399 in a memo from the FBI.
        You have seen that memo as we all have seen that memo.

        Nickerson responds with “Willy, that is FALSE. Not being able to positively identify the bullet as being the one they handled is not the same as saying that it definitely was not the same bullet.”
        . . . .

        Look Nickerson, your opinion has no bearing on this whatsoever. The rules and law and evidence are all that matter. An item to be ruled legitimate must have a clear chain of custody. That there is a broken chain of custody of the Parkland bullet AT THE FIRST 4 LINKS is the only consideration there is.

        This issue needs to be put to bed. There is no legitimate chain of custody on the matter of the Parkland Bullet.
        CE399 shows up magically later in the chain and cannot legitimately be linked to the Parkland Bullet.
        That is ALL THERE IS TO IT. That is the bottom line.

        No mass!
        \\][//

        • Tim Nickerson says:

          Willy,

          Not being able to positively identify the bullet as being the one they handled is not the same as saying that it definitely was not the same bullet.

          That’s not an opinion. It’s a fact.

          Anyone who seriously believes that CE399 has a real chain of custody problem is someone who is ignorant of how chains of custody are viewed in Courts of Law. If you had taken the time to read the Paul Giannelli paper ,that you’ve linked to a couple of times, you might have absorbed that.

          There is no real chain of custody problem with CE-399 that would prevent it from being admitted as evidence in any court of law. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE.

          Read the Giannelli Paper and learn.

          • Nickerson,

            I have read the Paul Giannelli paper, and there is nothing in it that supports your position.

            Your first 4 links to the Parkland Bullet cannot be linked to CE399 – this gap is conclusive.
            \\][//

          • David Regan says:

            Tim, speaking of courts of law, WC staffer, Alfredda Scobey, pointed out major issues with the state’s case against Oswald from a legal standpoint.

            As you know, with the accused assassin dead and buried, the WC had carte blanche to print any unsubstantiated claims about Oswald as they saw fit, including circumstantial evidence that would never had been admissible at trial. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/v1n1scobey.pdf

        • Tim Nickerson says:

          Willy Whitten wrote:

          I have read the Paul Giannelli paper, and there is nothing in it that supports your position.

          Your first 4 links to the Parkland Bullet cannot be linked to CE399 – this gap is conclusive.
          =================================================

          Sorry Willy, but I cannot take you seriously.

          • Tim Nickerson Says, “Sorry Willy, but I cannot take you seriously.”

            Lol, and this is supposed to have some effect on me?

            You have cited a document on ‘Chain of Custody’, as if simply citing Giannelli as an authority is sufficient argument on your behalf. You make no specific argument derived from Giannelli work – you simply assume to make an argument from authority. And this no lucid thinker would take seriously.
            \\][//

    • Tim Nickerson says:

      Willy Whitten wrote:

      This is from the recorded 1967 interview of Tomlinson by Ray Marcus. The interview is also documented in the HSCA records.
      ===============================================================

      I think that interview was in 1966. Marcus asked Tomlinson if the FBI had shown him the bullet:

      Marcus: And as far as you could tell— of course, you weren’t making a ballistics test of it— but as far as you could tell, did it look like the same one to you?

      Tomlinson: Yes, it appeared to be the same one. July 25, 1966

      That same year or the year after, Tomlinson had no doubt in his mind that the stretcher that he found the bullet on was the stretcher that came off of the elevator.

      • Nickerson,

        In this interview Marcus asked only one question about the bullet “Did you notice if there was blood on it?”
        Tomlinson replied, “Well it was a copper colored bullet..and I couldn’t tell if it had blood on it or not..”

        The rest of the interview was about the stretcher.
        But again, this is an interview with a reporter and does’t have the validity of a sworn statement of testimony, as that given to the WC.

        Which I have to point out here is your bible, UNLESS it contradicts some point YOU want to make.
        \\][//

        • Tim Nickerson says:

          Tomlinson’s WC testimony doesn’t contradict any point that I want to make. Don’t you remember?

          Mr. TOMLINSON. I told him that I was not sure, and I am not–I’m not sure of it, but as I said, I would be going against the oath which I took a while ago, because I am definitely not sure.

          Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, today or any other day, I’m just not sure of it, whether it was A or B that I took off.

          Mr. TOMLINSON. It could have been–I’m not sure whether it was A I took off.
          Mr. SPECTER. But did you tell the Secret Service man which one you thought it was you took off of the elevator?
          Mr. TOMLINSON. I’m not clear on that—whether I absolutely made a positive statement to that effect.
          Mr. SPECTER. You told him that it could have been B you took off of the elevator?
          Mr. TOMLINSON. That’s right.

          You CTs needed Tomlinson and used him in your desperate attempts to rule out CE-399 as being the bullet that struck Connally. For a short period of time, he was your guy. If the stretcher that he found the bullet on was not one that he had taken off of the elevator then the bullet could not reasonably have been the one that had fallen out of Connally. Unfortunately for you, he was confused in his WC testimony and he ultimately ended up conceding to the fact that the stretcher he found the bullet was indeed one that he had removed from the elevator. And in reality, that concession was really just admitting to the accuracy of his earliest officially recorded statement.

          • David Regan says:

            Tim, it is WC apologists who fight desperately to defend the brainchild of Arlen Specter, since your case without it crumbles like a house of cards.

            Members of the Commission itself and other insiders didn’t even agree it was a valid theory.

  34. Martin Fackler Carcano Bullet Tests

    ABSTRACT

    >PURPOSE — Tos show that a 6.5mm full metal jacketed (FMJ) Mannlicher-Carcano bullet, traveling at teh approximate speed of (1000 – 1100 ft/s) it would have possessed after perforating the junction of the neck and torso of one adult human, and the chest of another, would perforate a human radius bone just above the wrist without becoming deformed.
    >METHOD — Bullet velocities were measured while lowering powder charges until the appropriate powder charge was obtained. Cadaver forearms were then shot at this lower velocity and bullets were caught in a bullet trap.
    >RESULTS — One bullet traveling at 1108 ft/s and one at 1335 f/s perforated cadaver radius bones and were caught in the bullet trap. Neither bullet had any deformation whatsoever, except for firing impressions.
    >CONCLUSIONS — The FMJ Italian military 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano bullets perforated cadaver radius bones travelling at (or slightly higher than) the approximate velocity they would have had when striking Governor Connally’s wrist and remained truly “pristine” undeformed bullets.
    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/fackler.pdf
    _________________________________________________
    CRITIQUE

    It is glaringly obvious that Dr. Fackler did not account for the other material that the bullet encountered on the way to the wrist.
    Merely lowering the powder charges to reduce velocity is a clear and willful misrepresentation of the actual circumstances of the bullet that actually hit Connally and is proposed to have traveled through Kennedy’s neck.

    The bullet would have encountered the skin, muscle and gristle of Kennedy’s neck.
    It would have encountered and passed through Connally’s clothing, skin, the muscles of his back, shattered a rib, gone through the muscles and skin, and encountered the clothing on his front side, before ever reaching the wrist.
    Absolutely none of this is taken into account in Flackers experiment.

    Note:
    Dr. SHAW. The bullet, in passing through the Governor’s chest wall struck
    the fifth rib at its midpoint and roughly followed the slanting direction of the
    fifth rib, shattering approximately 10 cm. of the rib. The intercostal muscle
    bundle above the fifth rib and below the fifth rib were surprisingly spared from
    injury by the shattering of the rib, which again establishes the trajectory of
    the bullet.
    http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Shaw.pdf

    Also see: Melicent Cranor:
    http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Cranor%20Millicent/Item%2006.pdf
    \\][//

    • Tim Nickerson says:

      Willy Whitten wrote:

      CRITIQUE

      It is glaringly obvious that Dr. Fackler did not account for the other material that the bullet encountered on the way to the wrist.
      Merely lowering the powder charges to reduce velocity is a clear and willful misrepresentation of the actual circumstances of the bullet that actually hit Connally and is proposed to have traveled through Kennedy’s neck.

      The bullet would have encountered the skin, muscle and gristle of Kennedy’s neck.
      It would have encountered and passed through Connally’s clothing, skin, the muscles of his back, shattered a rib, gone through the muscles and skin, and encountered the clothing on his front side, before ever reaching the wrist.
      Absolutely none of this is taken into account in Flackers experiment.
      ==============================================================

      Geez louise, didn’t you bother reading the Fackler paper that you linked to?

      “The reason for this experiment was to disprove the assertion by one of the foremost “conspiracy theorists,” that a full metal jacketed bullet could not have passed through Connally’s distal radius without becoming more deformed than the recovered bullet. This “conspiracy theorist” claimed that the US Government’s own studies proved that the Carcano FMJ bullet would be deformed by perforating the distal end of a radius bone, referring to studies done at Edgewood Arsenal in which a 6.5mm FML Carcano was shot through a cadaver forearm, just above the wrist, at the distance Governor Connally was from Oswald’s rifle when he was hit. This shot was made directly into the wrist without any intervening target and was considerably deformed in the process. The “conspiracy theorist’ apparently did not recognize, however, that the deformation of the Edgewood bullet confirms that the relatively undeformed (so-called “pristine”) bullet that perforated Governor Connally’s wrist had to be travelling considerably slower than if it would have been a direct shot. The only rational explanation for this velocity loss was that it had to have passed through something prior to passing through Governor Connally’s wrist.”

      As the Edgewood Arsenal experiment showed, the bullet wouldn’t have been deformed in passing through the flesh of Kennedy’s neck and the flesh of Connally’s torso. The longitudinal flattening that we see on CE 399 was due to the strike on Connally’s rib.

      • “Geez louise, didn’t you bother reading the Fackler paper that you linked to?”~Nickerson
        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
        But of course I did.
        https://i0.wp.com/izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-don-t-get-your-knickers-in-a-knot-nothing-is-solved-and-it-just-makes-you-walk-funny-kathryn-carpenter-289608.jpg
        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
        “As the Edgewood Arsenal experiment showed, the bullet wouldn’t have been deformed in passing through the flesh of Kennedy’s neck and the flesh of Connally’s torso.” Nickerson
        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

        Dr Joseph Dolce, who was their emmidiate supervisor and advised those experiments as Edgewood, said this:
        “Olivier and Dziemian, did not testify in accordance with their experimental findings.” And; “The CE 399 bullet could not have caused so much damage and remained virtually intact: “one bullet striking the President’s neck, the Governor’s chest and wrist, should be badly deformed, as our experiments at the Edgewood Arsenal proved.”
        \\][//

        • Tim Nickerson says:

          Willy Whitten wrote:

          Dr Joseph Dolce, who was their emmidiate supervisor and advised those experiments as Edgewood, said this:
          “Olivier and Dziemian, did not testify in accordance with their experimental findings.” And; “The CE 399 bullet could not have caused so much damage and remained virtually intact: “one bullet striking the President’s neck, the Governor’s chest and wrist, should be badly deformed, as our experiments at the Edgewood Arsenal proved.”
          =================================================

          Dr Dolce was NOT the immediate supervisor of Olivier and Dziemian. He was a consultant to them. Nothing more. And he was wrong wrong wrong.

          I watched a video of Dolce being interviewed and here’s what he said:

          “No, it could not have caused all the wounds because our experiments have showed beyond any doubt that merely shooting the wrist deformed the bullet drastically and yet this bullet came out as almost a normal pristine bullet.”

          Did you get that? No wonder he was ignored.

          • ““No, it could not have caused all the wounds because our experiments have showed beyond any doubt that merely shooting the wrist deformed the bullet drastically and yet this bullet came out as almost a normal pristine bullet.”
            ~Dr Dolce
            . . . . . .
            “Did you get that? No wonder he was ignored.”
            ~Nickerson

            Yes I get that, that is why I posted Dr Dolce’s comments!

            Dolce was ignored for the same reason that you hand-wave his conclusion; because it destroys your Magic Bullet Theory.
            \\][//

  35. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Tim Nickerson
    November 6, 2015 at 7:14 pm
    That is untrue, Tim, and you know it to be untrue. CE 399 has been closely examined, and SA Elmer Todd’s initials are NOT on that bullet. Neither are SS SA Richard Johnsen’s.
    ==========================================
    Bob,

    If it’s untrue then demonstrate how or why.

    Johnsen’s initials wouldn’t be expected to be on it. He was in the protection side of the Secret Service. He wasn’t involved in enforcing the Law or as an investigator. Whether or not Todd’s initials can be made out on the bullet today is not important. The fact is that he positively identified his marking on it in 1964. It’s part of the official record.

    __________________________________________________

    Tim, I have a real problem here with your logic. SA Elmer Todd was only asked to ID CE 399 after the Parkland employees, Tomlinson and Wright, and SA Rowley and SA Johnsen would not ID CE 399 as the bullet they had seen.

    SA Elmer Todd positively ID’ed CE 399, but do you know how he did that? He ID’ed the bullet as CE 399 by his initials on the bullet! Yet, the only initials on CE 399 are Frazier’s, Killion’s and Cunningham’s, and Todd’s initials are nowhere to be seen on CE 399.

    Oh, and, once again, please explain to me how SA Robert Frazier, the final person to receive CE 399 for analysis purposes, can rectify the chain of custody problems for CE 399, beginning at Parkland Hospital.

    • Bob,

      I have a 380 bullet sitting on my desk that I marked with my \\][// sign more than three years ago. Such a mark simply does not vanish with time. This bullet has been sitting out in the damp and dusty environment of southern Indiana all this time.
      I would assume that the bullets stored for forensic evidence are cared for better than that, at least put in a plastic baggie to keep moisture from attacking the metal.
      It is to my mind absurd to assert that a mark etched into metal would simply disappear in time.

      Regardless of all else however; The government is responsible for proving their case. They have not done so in the matter of CE399. The break in custody from the proximate point, Tomlinson, and the three next steps of the chain of custody, puts CE399 in the category of INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, squarely and firmly with no doubt whatsoever.

      The implications here are also inescapable, The entire case against Oswald as the shooter falls – as does the entire Warren Commission case, which despite their disclaimer, hinges on the myth of their Magic Bullet.
      Case Closed.
      \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      P.S.

      It’s not a matter of whether or not SA Elmer Todd’s initials can be “made out” on CE 399 or not, Tim. The simple fact of the matter is, Todd’s initials are just not on CE 399, and never were, and Todd told an outright lie by claiming they were on CE 399.

    • Tim Nickerson says:

      Bob Prudhomme wrote:

      SA Elmer Todd positively ID’ed CE 399, but do you know how he did that?
      ===============================================================

      Because he documented it, that’s why. Keep in mind that he also documented that Johnsen and Rowley couldn’t positively identify the bullet.

      ===============================================================
      Yet, the only initials on CE 399 are Frazier’s, Killion’s and
      Cunningham’s, and Todd’s initials are nowhere to be seen on CE 399.
      ===============================================================

      Todd’s can’t be seen on the photos available to us today. Neither can Joseph Nicol’s. Here again are three possible reasons why:

      1) The photos do not show the part of the bullet where they placed their initials.

      2) The section(s) of the bullets containing their initials has been removed in obtaining samples for testing.

      3) Their initials were not scratched on deep and, as such, have faded from view over time.

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

      Barry Krusch made a big deal out of Day’s markings not being visible on the shells in the National Archives. He got the NARA staff to take hi-def photos of the shells for him. They pointed out to Krusch any markings on the shells that they could see themselves. Day’s were not among them. Krusch has made the hi-def photos available for others to view. I imagine that he probably still maintains that Day’s marking cannot be found on any of them.

      ===============================================================
      Oh, and, once again, please explain to me how SA Robert Frazier, the final person to receive CE 399 for analysis purposes, can rectify the chain of custody problems for CE 399, beginning at Parkland Hospital.
      ===============================================================

      Frazier’s own marking on the bullet would be enough to rectify any chain of custody problem. But you’re seeing a problem where none exists. There are numerous other “items” that bolster the chain of custody.

  36. Moving on…
    This article is worth extended and deep study; as here we have a primer for modern ballistics and crime scene investigation by a veteran investigator:

    When a projectile strikes the skull, radial fractures are created which extend outward from the wound. Internal pressure from temporary cavitation produces concentric fractures that are perpendicular to the radial fractures. Research addressing the sequencing of radial and concentric of skull fractures in gunshot injuries indicates the radial fractures stem from the point of entry (Viel, 2009; Karger, 2008; Smith, 1987; Leestma, 2009). The Clark Panel observed extensive fracturing in the autopsy X-rays. The panel report specified there was extensive fragmentation “of the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind”. The report goes on the state, “throughout this region, many of the bony pieces have been displaced outward; several pieces are missing”. The Clark Panel report indicates the majority of the fracturing and displaced bones fragments are closer to the location they described as the exit wound; this is in direct conflict with scientific research concerning skull fractures resulting from gunshot injuries. The Kennedy autopsy report stated multiple fracture lines radiated from both the large defect and the smaller defect at the occiput, the longest measuring approximately 19 centimeters. This same fracturing pattern was discussed in the Assassinations Records Review Board deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, the X-ray technician on call at Bethesda Hospital the night of the Kennedy autopsy. Custer testified the trauma to the head began at the front and moved towards the back of the head (CE 387 16H978; ARRB MD 59:10). Kennedy’s autopsy X-rays have distinct radial fractures propagating from the front of the head, with the preponderance of concentric fractures located at the front of the head. Current research indicates fracturing patterns of this nature correspond with an entry wound located in the front of Kennedy’s head.”~Sherry Fiester, CSI

    https://enemyofthetruth.wordpress.com/
    \\][//

  37. Tim Nickerson says:

    I have read Dr. Martin Fackler’s flawed arguments base on his flawed experiments before. And this was discussed at great length on another thread on JFKfacts sometime last year.
    ===================================================================

    Whitten,

    Fackler wasn’t making an argument. Although he’s certainly among the most qualified to do so. He was presenting the results of a test that he assisted Failure Analysis Associates with. The results of that test destroys one of the main arguments that many CTs have against CE399. Reasonable CTs have accepted that and moved on.

    • “Reasonable CTs have accepted that and moved on.”~Tim Nickerson

      “CT” is a common and known term to this forum, and to some portion of the outside world. It means “conspiracy theorist”. SO let us get something straight for the record; I am not a “conspiracy theorist”, I am a conspiracy analyst. The conspiracy is manifest. My work is an analysis of that conspiracy.

      Now, As far as Martin Fackler’s flawed experiments. These were based simply on incomplete and uncontextualized theory. This being that it was simply a matter of guestimating the speed of the bullet when it hit a cadavers wrist.

      There are more complex integers to contend with than just the speed at the time the bullet hits the wrist. Some of those being the actual material encountered in the real life setting Fackler was attempting to illustrate.

      A’theory’ like a ‘hypothesis’ is a type of ‘argument’ in that it posits a point or points to be proven. Therefore the framing my original comment about Flacker are valid.

      As per your comment as quoted above, it is mildly humorous, nothing more.
      \\][//

      • Tim Nickerson says:

        Willy Whitten Wrote:

        incomplete and uncontextualized theory.
        ========================================================

        Nope. An actual test using the same type of bullet and firing it into the wrist of a human cadaver at a velocity greater than that of CE 399’s strike on Connally wrist. Your claim that it was a flawed experiment is not based on anything specific that you could honestly breakdown. It’s much easier for you to just dismiss it with a wave of the hand than to explain exactly how it is flawed.

        • “It’s much easier for you to just dismiss it with a wave of the hand than to explain exactly how it is flawed.”
          ~Nickerson

          Lol.
          You certainly are not the one to speak of hand waving.

          I am moving on to another aspect of ballistics here for the time being before this thread becomes unmanageable and clogged.

          However, I will return to Flacker at my pleasure, not yours.
          \\][//

  38. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Earlier in this thread, discussion was erroneously based on the mistaken assumption that Parkland Hospital employee O.P. Wright had compared CE 399 to a 30-30 bullet, and that this automatically made CE 399 a round nosed bullet.

    It is true that 30-30 bullets are typically round nosed or flat nosed. The reason for this is that the 30-30 is a lever action rifle with a tubular magazine. In such a magazine, bullets are stacked end to end, with the nose of one bullet up against the primer of the next. If the bullets were pointed, there is a chance a sudden jar would drive the point against the primer, and set the bullet off.

    However, the first thing O.P. Wright told author Josiah Thompson, before being shown photos or asked questions, was that the bullet he saw had a pointed tip. He then retrieved a .30 calibre bullet from his desk, not a 30-30 bullet, to demonstrate what he meant. That bullet definitely had a pointed tip, as the photo of it in “Six Seconds in Dallas” shows, and it appears to be a spent FMJ bullet, likely from an M1 Garand.

    Now, this is what greatly disturbs me. It was Willy Whitten who mistakenly quoted Thompson’s book by labelling the bullet as a 30-30 bullet, and he can be forgiven for that.

    What cannot be forgiven is how Photon took this obvious mistake and ran with it, in an attempt to state this was proof that the bullet found was round nosed, as is CE 399.

    Is anyone here naive enough to believe Photon did not really know O.P. Wright was describing a pointed .30 calibre bullet to Josiah Thompson, and not a round nosed 30-30 bullet? Is Photon seeking truth, as we are, or is he attempting to generate disinformation?

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      To avoid confusion, I should point out that the 30-30 is also a .30 calibre bullet; just not the particular .30 calibre bullet O.P. Wright was describing to Josiah Thompson.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        I’m often shocked that so many people do not understand this. As you say, you can go to the gun store and buy a box of .30 caliber bullets. Not rounds but bare bullets. You can then use this box of bullets to load a 30-30 or a 30-06 or a 300 magnum. In fact, Hornady list over 20 different rounds that use the .30 caliber bullets.

  39. Bill says:

    Tim: I was referring to your post on Nov 5. At 903 pm

  40. Allen Dulles, Warren Commission member, fired by JFK as CIA Director stated during the Commission Executive Session just prior to the report publication, “But nobody reads. Don’t believe people read in this country. There will be a few professors that will read the record…The public will read very little.”

    As it turns out this prediction by Dulles has turned out to be incorrect. Many of us do read. And luckily a certain district attorney read the entire record and realized that the “Summery Report” by the Warren Commission was not supported by the evidence and information contained in the bulk of the voluminous work.

    More information emerged largely due to the original efforts by this district attorney, Jim Garrison. A key piece of evidence brought out in the trial of Clay Shaw was the Zapruder Film. This evidence was never supposed to see the light of day. It had been sequestered almost as soon as it’s existence became known. The lies propagated about the film by the corporation that bought the film where revealed shortly after as bootleg copies of the movie began to circulate…

    So here we are, more than half a century later and the controversy still swirls . The controversy is not maintained so much by the historical researchers and analysts who have proven for many years now that the assassination of John Kennedy in 1963 was a military industrial coup d’etat. No, the controversy is maintained by the Public Relations Regime of that military industrial complex.

    And that controversy is maintained here on this site, JFKfacts, by the hard core agenteur of that military industrial complex, who will deny material facts, and the most sound reasoning to maintain this fiction, this preposterous myth of one lone gunman as the killer. This despite the fact that this “deranged individual” had no clear motive whatsoever. Despite the fact that there is not the slightest bit of real evidence that this individual fired any weapon or killed anybody on November 22, 1963.

    So here we sit at this impasse, just a few short weeks from the 52nd anniversary of the Amerikan Coup D’Etat; stuck on that same lame and tired old carousel of denial propagated by the vile fascist state that came to fruition in Dallas that day.
    \\][//

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Willy,

      May I just add that the same elements that were active in 63′ are still spinning the carousel in 15′?

      Beautifully written and beautifully said.

    • Bill Clarke says:

      “Amerikan Coup D’Etat”

      Amerikan? Really Willy? Really? Your use of words seem to support my theory that you use emotion and preconceived falsehoods to form your opinions on this subject.

      That is why you make false statements about NSAM 263.

      • “That is why you make false statements about NSAM 263.”
        ~Bill Clarke

        I have never made a false statement about NSAM 263. It is your OPINION that I have.

        Note that this argument is spun out beyond it’s shelf life and isn’t topical to this thread at any rate.
        \\][//

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Willy; I have never made a false statement about NSAM 263.

          ————————————————-
          Willy Whitten
          September 3, 2015 at 11:53 am

          “I am not the one that made a false claim about what NSAM 263 had to say.”~Bill Clarke

          Willy; Oh yes indeed you are, those of us here who have dug into this controversy know you are the one who is making false claims. Kennedy was pulling 1000 troops by he end of 1963, and all of them by 1965 – yes, come hell or high water.
          \\][//
          ———————————————–

          Please send evidence of JFK order for “all” the troops and “yes, come hell or high water”.

      • Mr Clarke,

        You seem to take umbrage at my spelling of “Amerika” herein.
        You seem to have an emotional reaction of “disgust” at such a term as that. And yet my use of the term is merely a logical extension of the distinction between the ‘America’ of the original Republic, and the ‘Amerika’ of the fascist panoptic maximum security state that has grown as a consequence of the coup d’etat.

        That we have a clear epistemological divide between us is very clear. I see your mind-set as stunted by state indoctrination, you see mine as grandiose and beyond the bounds of rational analysis.

        Which analysis is more valid in this world at this present date and state it is in? I would point out how obvious it is that the US imperial drive to Full Spectrum Dominance cannot be denied. That the System is driven by pathological realpolitik is simply unmistakable. The US is mired in the ancient regime of “Might Makes Right” and driven by the false agenda of “Means are Justified by the Ends”.

        The proximate cause of this shift from the republican form can certainly be put further back in history than the 1963 coup, to the institution of the National Security State in 1947, or further to the regime of Woodrow Wilson, who brought us the constitutionally ultra vires national income tax, and plunged the nation into the first world war … “The War to End War” as it was hailed by the PR of the day.

        It has been a long slippery slope to the advent of the Total State, that Hegel envisioned so long ago. Perhaps it is there in the Hegelian Dialectic itself that the real proximate cause of the loss of the Unalienable Rights to Liberty began. the serious historian has many dates to choose from. But they are all in a compound sequence, and all in that gyre must be considered.
        \\][//

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        This thread is not about NSAM 263. You wouldn’t be trying to hijack or derail it would you Bill?

        • Bill Clarke says:

          No Ronnie. Someone mentioned it and I took it up. My apologies.

          • “No Ronnie. Someone mentioned it and I took it up. My apologies.”~Bill Clarke

            Nonsense Clarke, you are the very first person to bring up NSAM 263. The sequence of commentary right on this very page shows as much.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            I thought JohnR had mentioned the NSAM earlier in this thread. I ran a quick review and can not find this so perhaps I am mistaken about not being the first to mention the NSAM. So my apologies for being incorrect as it appears.

            It was certainly not my intent to change this thread. I love ballistics.

  41. Bill says:

    Photon. You have the patience of Job and I commend you for it. The other day I wanted to ask you what your view of the claims of Marina Oswald that Lee was always seeking ways to be a bigger man, and was angry with Russians who fled from Russia (whom he labeled as traitors) or even his discussion with her about possibly hijacking a plane to get to Cuba fits in. I know that she labeled him as being ‘a nut’.

    I find it terribly ironic that the life of JFK possibly came to an end because of his anger over Marina not speaking to him after he decided to use another name, or that he felt that she was happier with her traitorous ex-patriots than she was with him. He certainly seemed to be rapidly going over the cliff.

    Anyway, from his living in Ms. Bledsoe’s rooming house on Marsailles (if only briefly), to his shooting of Tippet only a few hundred yards from Jack Ruby’s Apartment on Marsailles keeps me wondering what he was up to. I think that, in the end, he was as crazy as his mom. Paranoid and subject to severe fits of panic and depression. His persona and flare for making up things belies his true motives. In the end…both his brother and his wife knew the deal.

    The small man finally made it to the big time.

  42. Tim Nickerson says:

    Willy Whitten wrote:

    CE399 is some 3 inches long
    ================================

    Hmmm…that is rather telling.

    • Willy Whitten wrote: CE399 is some 3 inches long

      “Hmmm…that is rather telling.”~Nickerson

      Not as “telling” as you might hope. Yes I mistook mm for inches on the tape measure. Nevertheless Wright found a pointed lead bullet that was not jacketed. This cannot possibly be confused as the shiny jacketed CE399.

      You still have he first 4 witnesses who cannot identify that slug as CE399. The conclusion that the bullet on exhibit is in fact a planted bullet is undeniable.

      That bullet was never fired in Dealey Plaza.
      \\][//

      • Tim Nickerson says:

        Willy,

        That bullet was never fired in Dealey Plaza.
        ========================================================

        The odds for that statement being true are astronomical.

    • Bill says:

      LOL…and another expert bites the dust. How to smoke them up Tim.

  43. What the WC cult here disingenuously fail to admit, is that the first 4 links in the chain of custody of the bullet found a Parkland are unable to identify it as CE399.
    They are:

    1. Orderly Darrell Tomlinson >>
    2. Parkland hospital security director O.P. Wright >>
    3. SS Agent Richard Johnsen >>
    4. Agent Rowley (Secret Service Chief).

    A break in the chain of custody at this proximate point proves that the bullet of record, CE399 is NOT the bullet found at parkland, and therefor CE399 is a planted bullet by the highest authorities themselves.
    . . . . . . . . . .

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

  44. Bill says:

    Tim. I can’t be any more clearly explained and soundly reasoned that that. Actually, it can be but it wouldn’t be factual. Thanks for putting that nonsense to bed! 😉

    • Continued, 2

      From Mr. Frazier, FBI firearms expert:

      Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the exhibit-that is, 399?
      Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains.

      Mr. EISENBERG. How much weight loss does that show from the original bullet weight?

      Mr. FRAZIER. We measured several standard bullets, and their weights varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two grains, from 161 grains–that is, they were all in the vicinity of 161 grains. One weighed— 160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains.

      Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, was there any weight loss?

      Mr. FRAZIER. There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be approximately 3 or 4 grains.

      . . .

      Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, is it possible for the fragments identified in Commission Exhibit 840 to have come from the whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399?

      Mr. FRAZIER. I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is–its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains.

      Mr. SPECTER. Referring now to 399.

      Mr. FRAZIER. Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall–2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing.

      http://www.jfk-info.com/fragment.htm
      \\][//

    • Steve stirlen says:

      Bill,

      Can you pinpoint exactly when the WO was EVER concerned with being factual?

      Take your most recent position that LHO and Ruby and the mafia were in cahoots, which I believe is spot-on correct. However, that puts you in direct disagreement with the conclusions of the WO. They could not establish ANY link, even though Ruby was at Parkland and at police headquarters that day. According to the LN, the commission “did a most thorough and remarkable job” and “settled the dust, wherever it falls.”

      However, your revelation does not support the official version, which is a problem that a lot of people on this site share.

      • Steve stirlen,

        What does “WO” stand for in your posts?
        \\][//

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Warren Omission? Some book references this. Was it Walt Brown?

        • Steve stirlen says:

          Willy,

          It is for Warren Omission, because the “work” (if you can all it that) they did, certainly did not include ALL of the information available, such as the small fact that the CIA and the FBI lied, manipulated, and deceived their “efforts.” And, here is the best part, David Slawson, the man charged with “investigating” the CIA, says that he was “naive” and “assumed” the agency would be straightforward with him and the commission.

          Uh-huh.

          And what is left is to us is an 800 plus page load of information not worth the paper it is printed on.

      • Bill says:

        My comments on what I feel are pretty straight forward. Yet, I’m still trying to figure out who the heck the WO is??? And what event you feel was the Crime of the Century that occurred in 1969???

        • Steve stirlen says:

          Bill,

          The WO is the Warren Omission. If my educational background is correct, leaving out critical information is called an omission. That is what happened in 1963-1964.

          I made a typo—first one all year—when referring to the crime of the century. I left out the word speaking, which, I believe, was when Mr. Curry, printed those words in 1969.

          However, I feel better, because Photon assured me earlier this year that Mr. Curry was just “trying to sell books.” So, that has been solved…

          Oh, wait. Someone trying to profit off of JFK’s assassination? Why, that is what the CT side does EVERY day.

          I guess I have just experienced, again, the double standard that exists in this case.

          • Bill says:

            Steve: Got it. And I was not breaking your chops. I thought that there was something else that occurred later on.

      • Bill says:

        It’s not a most recent position at all. You just feel that it was and then spout on incessantly about it. I do not care about the Ct’ers or the LN’ers (actually…I do care about the humanity within them…but not their views).

        Oswald and Ruby. I find it hard to believe that Ruby, who professed to love the President and his family, and was driven to carry out a death sentence through that ‘love’, is not a tenable outcome. Here is Ruby who loved the man enough on to kill Oswald on Sunday… for killing Kennedy on Friday….but yet he was too busy to walk the few hundred yards to see Kennedy drive past his position at the Dallas Morning News? Are you kidding me? Jack Ruby NOT wanting to see THE MAN?? Jack Ruby, who then decided to go to the News Conference…who was filmed outside the Homicide Bureau door….did not go see his hero go past??? Doubtful.

        Oswald lived on 621 Marsailles for a couple of days…Ruby for a long time before that lived on 223(?) S. Ewing. These streets intersect. All Oswald did after this move was head across the large park to the Rooming House at 1026 N. Beckley.

        Nothing on either side of ANY version is supported by anything.

        • Steve stirlen says:

          Bill,

          The addresses you mention?

          I have been by them on multiple occasions.

          Which puts me SO FAR AHEAD of the members and investigators of the WO.

          • Bill says:

            Steve. These are the addresses that are attributed to Oswald. He sure must have like this side of town. Personally I think it is because Ruby was his buddy and driver. Interestingly enough, there is discussion in the WC/WO of the owner of the place, Mrs. Bledsoe who also witnessed Oswald getting on the Bus after killing Kennedy. She also noticed the tear in the fabric of his shirt (and the likely hood that this may (or may not have occurred in working the bold action is in play). I doubt that an Ex-Marine would wear clothes that had holes in them but ‘some’ may.

            Interesting note. Years later there is a discovery of an altercation that occurred at the 621 Address rented by Oswald. It was discovered in the police files (but I may be wrong about that). In any case it lists the name of Jack Rubenstein as being involved in a domestic dispute at that address.

            The issue of the document is that the time resorting hours are incorrect (DPD didn’t list the time the way the document did) and the feeling is that someone placed it into the files to connect Ruby to Oswald years later.

          • Bill says:

            I think it may put you ahead of the WC/WO investigators except for one thing.

      • Bill says:

        Pinpoint the WC/WO as looking for facts? Sure: November 29, 1963.

    • Tim Nickerson says:

      Thanks Bill, even though I’m not sure which post you’re referring to.

  45. Tim Nickerson says:

    I’ll also note again that Frazier, Killion and Cunningham all initialed the bullet as well.

    • The chain of custody is already broken by then Nickerson. It is clearly not the bullet found at Parkland. This has already been established whether you are willing to admit it or not.

      This round’about you are running here is flagrantly obvious.
      \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Hilarious. Frazier, Killion and Cunningham were the FBI agents analyzing the ballistics of this case, and were the last in line to receive CE 399.

      What do their initials on CE 399 prove?

      • Tim Nickerson says:

        Bob, their initials, together with Todd’s confirmation of his own and the Johnson letter and envelop, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that CE399 was the bullet that Tomlinson found on the stretcher at Parkland.

        • David Regan says:

          Really? Then why was Tomlinson never called to identify CE 399 before the WC considering he was the one who supposedly found it on the stretcher? Or Wright, Todd or Johnsen for that matter?

          You don’t think defense counsel would have had them on the stand at State of Texas v. Lee Harvey Oswald?

          According to WC Exhibit No. 2011, Chief James Rowley could not identify CE 399 as the bullet he received from Special Agent Johnsen and given to Special Agent Todd.

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            David,

            Since Tomlinson never marked the bullet he wouldn’t have been expected to be able to positively identify it. A Defense counsel would get nowhere in challenging the chain of custody and no competent Judge would allow Defense to carry on about it.

            The Johnsen letter, the envelop with Todd’s signature and the initials of RF JH and CK on it, the initials of RF JH and CK on CE399, Todd’s confirmation of his own initials on CE399, and Frazier(under oath) positively identifying CE399 as being the bullet he received from Todd on Nov 22/63. That is substantial. It more than meets a chain of custody requirement.

          • David Regan says:

            Nonsense Tim. That’s just par the course for WC apologists sweeping dissenting testimony under the rug.

            On the envelope that CE 399 was transported in Agent Elmer Lee Todd wrote “Received from Chief Rowley, USSS, 8:50 PM.11-22-63” and signed it. However, on the Laboratory Work Sheet compiled by FBI agent Robert Frazier and a list presumably written at a later date are references to Frazier’s having received the bullet from Todd an hour and 20 minutes earlier; at 7:30 PM. http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html

            In a telephone interview in 1966, Parkland hospital engineer Darrell C. Tomlinson made it clear that he did not find the bullet immediately after he removed the stretcher from the elevator but only after having made a few more trips up and down between floors. A secret service report from December of 1963 states that Tomlinson said the stretcher was “left unattended for about an hour” http://jfk-archives.blogspot.ca/2011/12/marcus-tomlinson-interview-7-25-66.html
            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1194&relPageId=121
            https://sites.google.com/a/patspeer.com/www2/tomlinson_darrell_c.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            David Regan wrote:

            Nonsense Tim. That’s just par the course for WC apologists sweeping dissenting testimony under the rug.
            ==========================================

            Dissenting testimony? What dissenting testimony? A phone call made three years after the fact is not dissenting testimony. In his WC testimony, Tomlinson is confused and his memory is hazy. He’s not sure. One can understand that , with the passage of four months and him likely being nervous.

            How is the December report that you referred to a “dissenting testimony”? It’s not. Tomlinson said that he found the bullet on the stretcher that he had pulled off of the elevator.

            ==========================================
            David Regan wrote:

            On the envelope that CE 399 was transported in Agent Elmer Lee Todd wrote “Received from Chief Rowley, USSS, 8:50 PM.11-22-63” and signed it. However, on the Laboratory Work Sheet compiled by FBI agent Robert Frazier and a list presumably written at a later date are references to Frazier’s having received the bullet from Todd an hour and 20 minutes earlier; at 7:30 PM. http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html
            ==========================================

            You must have forgot about this so I’ll repost it:

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

            Frazier told us himself that he never got home until sometime on Sunday and then he only got 5 hours of sleep before starting again. Also, we know for a fact that some of the other “times” that Frazier scribbled on the sheet of paper are erroneous as well. Like the “Rec’d from Sibert and O’Neill}1:45pm” for example. We know from the White House Garage Logs, and from a schematic of the limo that Frazier drew and notated, that he was in the White House Garage at 1:45pm.

          • Tim Nickerson in post of November 6, 2015 at 7:58 pm,

            Your linking the testimony of Tomlinson to the Warren Commission with questioning by Arlen Specter is very odd.

            I seem to recall your arguing that there was only one stretcher in question in your commentary. I cite your comment of November 5, 2015 at 9:24 pm.

            However this testimony before Specter makes it very clear that there were two stretchers involved.

            Further you claim that Tomlinson seemed very confused. Well I ask all here who have read this questioning by Specter, how could such a confused manner of up and down back and forth disconnected questions as he put them NOT confuse someone?!?!
            I assert that Specter was confusing in his manner of questioning on purpose. He was also biding time and making it appear that Tomlinson had been thoroughly interrogated. the FACT is that Specter never ONCE asked Tomlinson to actually describe the bullet that he found – which in fact should have been of the essence of Specter’s questioning.
            I assert that this is a subtle form of badgering a witness by intimidation. Specter is quite infamous for these “lawyerly” tactics.

            So all of this begs the question: Why has it been left to independent researchers to finally question Tomlinson on the matter of the essence; the appearance of the Parkland Bullet?

            Allow me to answer that question with a most reasonable conjecture; the questioner, prosecutor Arlen Spector KNEW that the Parkland Bullet was not CE399, and he treated Tomlinson as a hostile witness to his covert agenda of falsification of material evidence.
            \\][//

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Willy,

            You’ve just conceded to my point. Thanks. Tomlinson was confused in his WC testimony. He was unsure. Fortunately , we have the report of the Dec 4, 1963 interview of him in which there was no confusion noted by the interviewer. Tomlinson found the bullet on the stretcher that had been on the elevator. The same bullet was given the designation Q1 later on that night and eventually would be designated as CE399 by the WC. The evidence for that is overwhelming.

          • “You’ve just conceded to my point.” ~Nickerson

            Hardly, I pointed out Specter as a badgering prosecutor – one who failed to ask the most pertinent question as to the Parkland Bullet.

            You go on to say:
            “Tomlinson found the bullet on the stretcher that had been on the elevator.”
            But you fail to mention that there were 2 stretchers, as revealed in the Commission testimony, and the fact that these stretchers had been moved back and forth in the hall in front of the elevator.

            And you go on with this:
            “The same bullet was given the designation Q1 later on that night and eventually would be designated as CE399 by the WC. The evidence for that is overwhelming.”
            Which simply skips all of the steps in between in the chain of custody!

            I have to say Mr Nickerson, I find your mode of commentary to be among to most disingenuous to be found on JFKfacts. You have in a single hand wave dismissed the entire conversation that developed here. And I find this extremely scurrilous.
            \\][//

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          That is untrue, Tim, and you know it to be untrue. CE 399 has been closely examined, and SA Elmer Todd’s initials are NOT on that bullet. Neither are SS SA Richard Johnsen’s.

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Bob Prudhomme wrote:

            That is untrue, Tim, and you know it to be untrue. CE 399 has been closely examined, and SA Elmer Todd’s initials are NOT on that bullet. Neither are SS SA Richard Johnsen’s.
            ===========================================

            Closely examined by who Bob? Certainly not John Hunt. He examined four photos of the bullet, not the actual bullet itself.

            Just to repeat:

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

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

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            So, how does this sound, Tim?

            Counsel: “Did you get a look at the alleged perpetrator, Mr. Tomlinson, and would you be able to identify him, if you were to see him again?”

            Tomlinson: “Yes, sir, I got a very good look at him, but I’m afraid I would be unable to identify him, should I see him again.”

            Counsel: “And why would that be, Mr. Tomlinson?”

            Tomlinson: “Well, sir, it’s like this. I neglected to put my mark on this man and, for that reason, I don’t think I could positively identify him.”

            It may sound like a ridiculous analogy, Tim, but, if you think about it, the only ridiculous thing here is your belief Tomlinson could not identify a bullet, simply because he had not marked that bullet.

            For your information, the 6.5mm Carcano bullet is a unique, freakishly long bullet that does not resemble the more popular of the common North American bullets. While being round nosed, as some (but far from all) 30-30 bullets are, it is FAR longer than any bullet ever made for a 30-30.

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            That is untrue, Tim, and you know it to be untrue. CE 399 has been closely examined, and SA Elmer Todd’s initials are NOT on that bullet. Neither are SS SA Richard Johnsen’s.
            ==========================================
            Bob,

            If it’s untrue then demonstrate how or why.

            Johnsen’s initials wouldn’t be expected to be on it. He was in the protection side of the Secret Service. He wasn’t involved in enforcing the Law or as an investigator. Whether or not Todd’s initials can be made out on the bullet today is not important. The fact is that he positively identified his marking on it in 1964. It’s part of the official record.

          • “Johnsen’s initials wouldn’t be expected to be on it. He was in the protection side of the Secret Service. He wasn’t involved in enforcing the Law or as an investigator.” ~Tim Nickerson

            Absolutely preposterous Nickerson. Johnsen is the very first Federal officer to handle the Parkland Bullet. As per the rules of custody chains he was required to initial that bullet.
            \\][//

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Willy Whitten wrote:

            Absolutely preposterous Nickerson. Johnsen is the very first Federal officer to handle the Parkland Bullet. As per the rules of custody chains he was required to initial that bullet.
            ==========================================

            Ok, that’s a claim that you’ve made previously. You said:

            “..despite regulations mandating Secret Service agents to initial forensic evidence.”

            I asked you to substantiate that claim. You failed to do so. Would you care to try again?

          • “I asked you to substantiate that claim. You failed to do so. Would you care to try again?”
            ~Tim Nickerson

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

            There is nothing in Secret Service protocols that exempts them from the standard crime scene protocols of all of the other arms of law enforcement.
            From the crime scene protocol handbook above, I reiterate:

            “an object that is inscribed with the initials or markings of a police officer or other person may be readily identifiable.”

            This means in 1963 it was standard practice for everybody…EVEN CIVILIANS as it is written. If you handled evidence in a chain of custody you marked it to make it unique.
            –IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE UNDER THE LAW–
            \\][//

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        That the FBI was trying to cover for the 1st 2 people to handle it who said it was not the same type bullet they saw handled?

        • Tim Nickerson says:

          That the FBI was trying to cover for the 1st 2 people to handle it who said it was not the same type bullet they saw handled?
          ===================================================
          Ronnie,

          The 1st 2 people to handle it never said it was not the same type bullet they saw handled.

  46. Tim Nickerson says:

    Willy Whitten,

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

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

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

    • David Regan says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

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

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

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

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

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

          Commander HUMES. I think that that is most unlikely … The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.

          Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Humes, under your opinion which you have just given us, what effect, if any, would that have on whether this bullet, 399, could have been the one to lodge in Governor Connally’s thigh?

          Commander HUMES. I think that extremely unlikely. The reports, again Exhibit 392 from Parkland, tell of an entrance wound on the lower midthigh of the Governor, and X-rays taken there are described as showing metallic fragments in the bone, which apparently by this report were not removed and are still present in Governor Connally’s thigh. I can’t conceive of where they came from this missile.

          Representative FORD. The missile identified as Exhibit 399.

          Commander HUMES. 399, sir.

          http://www.jfk-info.com/fragment.htm
          \\][//

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Willy,

            Humes thought it was unlikely. He was wrong. Wound ballistics was not his area of expertise.

            http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy291/kegeshook/facklerbullet.jpg

            The above bullet had been fired into a human wrist during tests by Failure Analysis Associates in 1992. They had reduced the powder charge in order to decrease it’s velocity.

            “The test bullet was non-deformed. It was not flattened in the least and had nowhere near the damage of CE 399.” — Dr. Martin Fackler (Live by the Sword, by Gus Russo)

            They don’t know the exact velocity that CE399 was traveling at when it hit Connally’s wrist. They approximated it to be 900 f/s. That approximation was made after a series of tests. The Fackler bullet was traveling at 1100 f/s.

          • Nickerson,

            I have read Dr. Martin Fackler’s flawed arguments base on his flawed experiments before. And this was discussed at great length on another thread on JFKfacts sometime last year.

            Again, I will not be digging up that thread for you. You and Photon fail to see that your “Magic Bullet Theory” has been dealt a decisive (final) blow. It makes any orbiting argument moot. CE399 was a planted bullet.

            The facts of this matter go beyond simply disregarding the Chain of Custody as unreliable. The facts prove chicanery, and fraudulence by the authorities who produced this slug. The authorities, acting under color of law are accessories after the fact; and may be held liable for, inter alia, obstruction of justice.

            As this is a case of First Degree Murder, there is no statute of limitations. Charges could be brought today some fifty years after the fact and be within the jurisdiction of prosecution on a state and federal level.

            In fact those who continue to attempt this cover-up today are liable to the same charges.
            That includes several of the commentators on this very thread.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Totally in keeping with the known stability of the Carcano round, a characteristic not well publicized in 1964.
            Unfortunately some CTers are still aware of the true physical properties of the round-or prefer to close their eyes.

        • Continued:

          Colonel Finck was a lieutenant colonel in the Army Medical Corps. He obtained his medical degree at the University of Geneva Medical School in Switzerland in 1948. He experienced 4 years of training in pathology after his internship, 2 years, including 2 years of pathology at the University Institute of Pathology in Geneva, Switzerland, and 2 years at the University of Tennessee Institute of Pathology in Memphis, Tenn. He was in the Army since 1955. From 1955 to 1958, he performed approximately 200 autopsies, many of them pertaining to trauma, including missile wounds, while stationed at Frankfort, Germany as pathologist of the United States Army Hospital in Frankfurt, Germany. He was Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, personally reviewing all the cases forwarded by the Armed Forces, and some civilian cases from the United States and forces overseas, totalling approximately 400 cases. Finck was certified in pathology anatomy by the American Board of Pathology in 1956, and by the same American Board of Pathology in the field of forensic pathology in 1961.

          Mr. SPECTER. And could it [CE 399] have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally’s right wrist?

          Colonel FINCK. No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.

          http://www.jfk-info.com/fragment.htm

          \\][//

          • bogman says:

            Pretty damning to anyone claiming a single shooter with a straight face.

            And from the sacred scroll itself!

          • Photon says:

            Finck never examined Connolly’s wrist. He apparently was unaware that the operative surgeon described the fragments to be of ” postage stamp weight”.

          • bogman says:

            The authorities didn’t even ask to examine Connally’s clothes until AFTER they were dry-cleaned a month later. What makes you think they’d let anyone examine his wrist?

            At some point, so many “mistakes” in an investigation look like pure skullduggery.

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            ============================================
            Colonel FINCK. No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.
            =============================================

            Did Finck even ever see the fragments? He certainly wasn’t the one who removed them from Connally. Let’s take a look at what Dr. Gregory had to say about them:

            ARLEN SPECTER — “Will you describe, as specifically as you can, what those metallic fragments are by way of size and shape, sir?”

            DR. CHARLES GREGORY — “I would identify these fragments as varying from five-tenths of a millimeter in diameter to approximately two millimeters in diameter. And each fragment is no more than a half millimeter in thickness. They would represent, in lay terms, flakes…flakes of metal.”
            ….
            DR. CHARLES GREGORY — “A fragment of metal, again microscopic, measuring about five-tenths of a millimeter by two millimeters, lies just beneath the skin, about a half-inch on the medial aspect of the thigh.”

            ARLEN SPECTER — “What is your best estimate of the weight of that metallic fragment?”

            DR. GREGORY — “This again would be in micrograms, postage stamp weight thereabouts. Not much more than that.”
            ——

            Dr Gregory removed four fragments from the wrist. He left one tiny fragment in the wrist. It was about the size of the smallest fragment that he removed.

            CE-399 weighed 158.6 grains. That’s almost 3 grains less than a WCC bullet weighed by Robert Frazier. One grain is equivalent to 64.8 milligrams. The density of lead is about 11.35 g/cc. In total there were 6 fragments; 4 removed, 2 left in Connally. If we were to say that all six fragments each had the dimensions of the largest dimensions given by Gregory – that being 0.5mm x 2mm – the total mass of the fragments still won’t add up to 3 grains.

            After converting mm to cm:

            .05 x 0.7854 x (0.2^2) = 0.0015708cc

            0.0015708cc x 6 = 0.0094248

            0.0094248cc x 11.35g/cc = 0.10697148 grams

            0.10697148 grams is 107 milligrams
            ——————————————-

            Three grains is equivalent to 194.4 milligrams. As you can see, there’s plenty of room left over. And that’s using dimensions for the fragments that are exaggerated for effect. Three of the fragments removed are considerably smaller than the largest one.

            Here are the fragments removed from Connally:

            http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/yy291/kegeshook/CE842.gif

          • David Regan says:

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

            According to a memorandum from Melvin A. Eisenberg of the Warren Commission staff regarding a meeting on April 21st 1964, Dr. F.W. Light, Jr., Deputy Chief of the Biophysics Division and Chief of the Wound Assessment Branch of the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland and Dr. Joseph Dolce, Consultant to the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal, “expressed themselves as being very strongly of the opinion that Connally had been hit by two different bullets, principally on the ground that the bullet recovered from Connally’s stretcher could not have broken his radius without having suffered more distortion.” http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wcsbt.htm

            According to the testimony of Commander James Humes to the Warren Commission, CE 399 did not cause the wounds to President Kennedy and Governor Connally because of the amounts of bullet fragmentation found on their respective X-rays and the lack of damage to the bullet. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38#relPageId=382

      • Tim Nickerson says:

        Tomlinson, Wright, Rowley, and Johnsen could not positively identify CE399 as being the bullet that they handled. And it’s perfectly understandably why they couldn’t do so. None of them had actually marked the bullet. However, Todd did mark the bullet and was able to positively identify it as being the bullet that he received from Rowley and then passed on to Frazier. That alone would be enough to satisfy a chain of custody requirement. The letter from Johnsen, the envelop received and signed by Todd and initialed by Frazier, Killion and Cunningham, and the sworn testimony of Frazier make the chain of custody a slam dunk.

        • “Tomlinson, Wright, Rowley, and Johnsen could not positively identify CE399 as being the bullet that they handled. And it’s perfectly understandably why they couldn’t do so. None of them had actually marked the bullet.”~Tim Nickerson

          No Nickerson, it is because the bullet they handled looked NOTHING like CE399 It was pointed and unjackeded; nowhere near the breadth or length of CE399. See:

          http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide4_thumb.jpg

          \\][//

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Willy,

            No Nickerson, it is because the bullet they handled looked NOTHING like CE399 It was pointed and unjackeded; nowhere near the breadth or length of CE399. See:

            http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/images/Slide4_thumb.jpg
            ===========================================

            Uncorroborated hogwash.

          • David Regan says:

            In an interview in November 1966, O. P. Wright said about the bullet found, “that bullet had a pointed tip” and when shown pictures of CE 399 said that they did not look like the bullet found that day. Wright was a former Dallas police detective and was familiar with looking at bullets. http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm#_edn9

            Nathan Pool, an employee of the Otis Elevator Company, was interviewed in 1977 by Belford V. Lawson of the House Select Committee on Assassinations and said that he was present when the bullet was discovered and described the bullet as bronze, long, pointed, and smooth. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48684#relPageId=48

          • The “Uncorroborated hogwash” Mr Nickerson, is that there is a solid chain of custody for CE 399.

            It is necessary to be redundant here in pointing out the first four people to handle the bullet found in Parkland will not identify it as CE399, that is the bottom line.

            And as far as “Uncorroborated” is concerned; David Regan noted earlier, Nathan Pool saw the Parkland bullet and described it as, “as bronze, long, pointed, and smooth.”

            This is distinct from the round nose full metal jacket slug on exhibit as #399, that has very obvious deep rifling grooves.

            At some point Mr Nickerson, you are going to have to put an end to this endless carousel, and admit that the first and proximate points in the chain of custody of the Parkland, prove it is not CE399. Thus, the Magic Bullet is a plant, a fraud, and a sham. Like most everything else asserted in the Warren Report.
            \\][//

        • Photon says:

          Are you claiming that one of the biggest conspiracy claims about the ” Magic Bullet” is simply a misunderstanding about the actual facts of the case?
          The next thing that you will tell me is that forty years of conspiracy dogma related to the Harper Fragment is based on it being found at a spot yards away from where the discoverer actually found it.
          Or that it is not impossible to get off 3 shots with a Cacano in 5.6 seconds-as proved in the movie “JFK “.
          Or that it is not impossible for a Carcano bullet to remain undamaged despite penetrating 3 feet of a substance as hard as wood that has been proven to disrupt other similar military rounds.
          Or that a statistical study of Neutron activation data iwhich has been claimed to prove that NA is inaccurate actually proves that instead of being accurate to a measure of 98% it is only accurate to a measure of-90%.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Could it be possible that a “cold-blooded” and “lone nut” crazed killer, intent on changing the “course of the world,” the one who missed the easiest of the three “alleged shots” may have not pulled the trigger at all?

            “No one has been able to prove that man fired that gun from that building.” Jesses Curry, ACTUAL “investigator” of the crime of the century, which happened on HIS watch, in 1969.

          • bogman says:

            The Harper fragment. You mean the one a separate medical facility from Parkland identified as being from the blow-out region of the head Parkland doctors had described?

            And that the FBI then “LOST”? That Harper fragment?

          • “Why has there been no confirmation of this story in 49 years, nor any other independent source stating that Wright ever made a similar claim?”
            ~Photon

            We have confirmation that none of the four primary witnesses were able to confirm the bullet found at Parkland was C399 in a memo from the FBI.
            You have seen that memo as we all have seen that memo.

            I don’t have a copy of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS. This is where the content of that interview was drawn for that article. This was published in 1966.

            “Six Seconds in Dallas reported on an interview with O.P. Wright in November 1966. Before any photos were shown or he was asked for any description of #399, Wright said: “That bullet had a pointed tip.”

            “Pointed tip?” Thompson asked.

            “Yeah, I’ll show you. It was like this one here,” he said, reaching into his desk and pulling out the .30 caliber bullet pictured in Six Seconds.”

            It is not Thompson that has changed his story over the years Photon, it is the authorities changing their stories over the years to cover their collective asses, that should concern all of us.

            Regardless of all else the first 4 individuals to handle the Parkland Bullet refused to identify it as CE399. Live with it.
            \\][//

        • David Regan says:

          As Bill Simpich demonstrates, competent defense counsel could point out enough holes in the state’s case on this matter: http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-Warren-Commission-by-Bill-Simpich-Assassination_Evidence_JFK_JFK-Assassination-141119-717.html

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Oh, Tim, you haven’t changed a bit!

          Are you seriously suggesting the only reason Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley could not identify CE399 as the bullet the had seen on 22/11/63 is because they had not put their own identifying mark on it?

          Seriously?

          • It is rather astonishing isn’t Mr Prodhumme?

            CE399 is some 3 inches long and has a round nose. The one Wright pulled out of his desk and showed Josiah Thompson is no longer than a single inch and has a pointed tip. The photo of it next to a key that Thompson took while with Wright has been offered here plenty of times.
            Anyone who seriously proposes that anybody could mistake the two slugs is…well, either delusional, disingenuous or both.
            \\][//

          • Tim Nickerson says:

            Oh, Tim, you haven’t changed a bit!

            Are you seriously suggesting the only reason Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley could not identify CE399 as the bullet the had seen on 22/11/63 is because they had not put their own identifying mark on it?

            Seriously?
            =========================================

            Hi Bob,

            You haven’t replied to my previous post to you in this discussion. How come?

            And yes Bob, that’s exactly what I’m saying.

            Seriously.

          • “And yes Bob, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
            Seriously.”~Nickerson

            You stand on this untenable position even though it is firmly established that the slug found in Parkland was a pointed unjacketed dull lead bullet, easily distinguishable from the round nosed shiny jacketed CE399.
            “Seriously” … quite telling.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Both Tomlinson and Wright stated on June 12, 1964 that the slug (CE399) looked similar to the one discovered on Nov. 22, 1963. They simply were not confident that it was the exact same round.
            I have noted a rather disturbing pattern here. Tink Thompson is the source for the O.P. Wright pointed round story, but there is no transcript of the conversation that he claimed took place. There is no recording of it. Why would Thompson have brought a camera to the interview? There is not a single piece of information aside from Thompson’s claim that this interview took place. There isn’t a single piece of evidence that Wright ever made a similar claim to anybody else.or showed anybody the pointed .30 cal round.as a matter of fact, if you google O.P. Wright, you not find a single source that references this story that isn’t based solely on Thompson’s claim
            We see the exact same situation with the claim that Hargis was “struck with such force that he thought he was hit” Every story that references that claim has the same source-Tink Thompson. Hargis never said it to anybody else-and actually described running into debris, not being struck by it.Where is the transcript of this statement, or even a similar claim from a different source?
            Thompson’s claim of a shot from the front is based on a colossal mistake-the belief that the Harper fragment was found 25 feet to the left of the kimo’s position at the time of the head shot.But his source,Harper’s uncle actually said that it was found 25 feet to the SOUTH which would have put it ahead of the limo. Of course Harper himself puts the location where he picked up the piece of skull far to the front of the limo.
            Thompson has always pushed his comments to the edge of credibility. It has obviously been a good living But I didn’t realize that too many of his claims have no independent variation-leading me to question his whole line of claims.

          • Tom S. says:

            Photon,
            Your concerns seem rather narrow and you may owe an apology to someone who you tactfully question the motive and integrity of.
            http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm#_ednref10
            The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?
            Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson
            ……
            Summary
            …..
            “….What we are left with is the FBI having reported a solid chain of possession for #399 to the Warren Commission. But the links in the FBI’s chain appear to be anything but solid. Bardwell Odum, one of the key links, says he was never in the chain at all and the FBI’s own, suppressed records tend to back him up. Inexplicably, the chain also lacks other important links: FBI 302s, reports from the agents in the field who, there is ample reason to suppose, did actually trace #399 in Dallas and in Washington. Suppressed FBI records and recent investigations thus suggest that not only is the FBI’s file incomplete, but also that one of the authors may have been right when he reported in 1967 that the bullet found in Dallas did not look like a bullet that could have come from Oswald’s rifle.

            In June, 1967, CBS News broadcast a four part news investigation. CBS commissioned Stephen White to chronicle this CBS News report broadcast in four segments over four evenings, in the form of a book titled, “Should We Now Believe the Warren Report?” Although the author included transcripts of telecasts of interviews of some Warren Commission witnesses, in the case of the telecast of a brief interview of O.P. Wright, only a reference to Wright’s statement (pg. 91) was included, but it seems consistent with Josiah Thompson’s representation of his Wright quotes in the same era.:
            The single-bullet theory has come under attack for still another reason. At Parkland Hospital, under circumstances in which the Report itself did little to make clear, a nearly intact bullet was found after the President and the Governor were carried to the emergency rooms. In the broadcast the manner in which the bullet was found is fully related. It is an interesting story, and one that does no credit to the Secret Service…..” Video of O.P. Wright’s 1967, CBS News interview.:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dNP1kz2PJA#
            O.P. Wright’s statement gives little indication he gave the bullet he handed over to a Secret Service
            agent a close, visual inspection. According to Wright, the bullet was in his possession for less than an hour, most of the time in his pocket. He stated that neither he nor the Secret Service agent even exchanged names.

          • Photon says:

            Tom, I appreciate your comments. I actually think that the passage you have written vindicates my concern. “O.P. Wright’s statement gives little indication he gave the bullet he handed over to a Secret Service agent a close, visual inspection.” I have reviewed the YouTube video and agree with that conclusion. And yet Tink Thompson claims that Wright examined the round so closely that he determined that it was a pointed-nosed .30 cal bullet ( NOT a complete round) similar to one he conveniently keep in a drawer. Now why would a hospital security chief have a pointed rifle bullet ( not even a complete round) in his hospital office drawer? Was he reloading .30 caliber rounds in his office in his spare time? It doesn’t make sense. Coupled with the fact that there is no record anywhere that Wright made a similar statement to anybody else and the fact that on June 12, 1964 he went on public record stating that CE399 resembled the round found at Parkland on Nov. 22 we appear to have a serious contradiction-and even more so if he only gave the round a cursory examination. All we have to confirm Thompson’s claim is-Thompson’s claim. In nearly 50 years there has been no independent evidence to prove the story.Why is that?
            It is the same thing with the Hargis story. The whole scenario of Hargis saying that he was struck “with such force that he thought that he was hit” is contradicted at least 3 times by descriptions of the incident by Hargis himself.Can Thompson point out where Hargis made the statement? Can Thompson give us any evidence that he has a transcript of an interview where he said it? Or is that statement merely Thompson’s interpretation of the event? Why would he make a claim without anything to back it up?
            The 1967 Thompson interview on YouTube is also interesting. His medical knowledge is limited and apparently he does not understand that the autopsy is the final determinant of bullet wound direction in firearms murders. However, he bases his belief that the headshot came from the front in large part because of where skull fragments were found. He initially correctly states that the fragment was described as being found 25 feet south of the limo’s position at the time of the head shot.But then he brings up the claim that it was found 25 feet to the left. As the limo was going southwest that description is not accurate.Why would he do that? Of course this whole line of reasoning has been rendered obsolete since 1997 when Hargis posted the position of where he found the fragment on a map – several feet in front of where the limo was positioned for the head shot. Has Thompson ever brought up this discrepancy in any of his presentations since? Does he still base his claim for a frontal head shot on the erroneous position of the Harper fragment? Why?

          • Taking note of the argumentum verbosium made by
            Photon -November 7, 2015 at 7:16 am;

            I have just a few remarks. the first is that just a cursory glance at the Parkland Bullet is sufficient for anyone paying even the vaguest attention a smaller pointed tipped unjacketed slug.
            And second, and with finality, despite anything said by the WC apologists, the first 4 steps in the chain of custody are nonexistent.

            The Parkland Bullet is not CE399. Whatever CE399 is, it cannot honestly be said to be the bullet found at Parkland.
            The implications of this are staggering for anyone paying attention.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy, do you have any evidence that the bullet pictured as Wright’s pointed bullet actually IS wright’s pointed bullet?
            Why is the picture of this bullet on exactly the same type of background as we see with the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet?
            Remember, Thompson NEVER showed Wright a Carcano bullet, only PICTURES of it.
            Please refer to Thompson’s interview from the assassination conference recorded on the Mary Ferrell site concerning this-as referred to by JFK Facts. He makes no mention of Wright producing a bullet, but states TWICE that Wright thought that it looked like a .30-.30 round, well known to have a ” pointed nose”.
            But the .30-.30 was well known to have a ROUNDED nose-and was almost unique for that characteristic that it shared with the virtually unknown Carcano 6.5 mm round.
            So I ask you ( and others) : how can Tink Thompson be possibly credible on this issue? How can any conclusion based on a story with multiple contradictions and factual errors possibly be logical, let alone correct?
            Why hasn the CT community looked into the accuracy of Dr. Thompson’s claims instead of a 45 year history of celebratiing his excellence as a researcher and accepting those claims despite an absence of corroborating evidence to support those claims? These are questions that I am sure CTers do not want to address, but the truth is a hard mistress.

          • “Why is the picture of this bullet on exactly the same type of background as we see with the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet?”~Photon

            You claim the picture of the pointed bullet next to a key is “exactly the same type of background as we see with the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet”

            What picture of the Carcano has “exactly this type of background”?

            There were two other witnesses with Thompson when he interviewed Tomlinson, and he repeated what he had told Thompson while they were there with him.
            You keep asserting that Thompson has given contradictory stories, insinuating that he is a liar. I see no grounds for this; other than perhaps the facts he has brought forth spoil your day.
            \\][//

          • EDIT
            “Why is the picture of this bullet on exactly the same type of background as we see with the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet?”~Photon

            You claim the picture of the pointed bullet next to a key is “exactly the same type of background as we see with the Carcano 6.5 mm bullet”

            What picture of the Carcano has “exactly this type of background”?

            There were two other witnesses with Thompson when he interviewed Wright, and he repeated what he had told Thompson while they were there with him.
            You keep asserting that Thompson has given contradictory stories, insinuating that he is a liar. I see no grounds for this; other than perhaps the facts he has brought forth spoil your day.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Where are the so-called witnesses? Do they have names?
            Why has there been no confirmation of this story in 49 years, nor any other independent source stating that Wright ever made a similar claim?

          • He makes no mention of Wright producing a bullet, but states TWICE that Wright thought that it looked like a .30-.30 round, well known to have a ” pointed nose”. But the .30-.30 was well known to have a ROUNDED nose..”~Photon

            No he did not state the it was a 30-30. he states it was a 30 cal. – I made the mistake of saying he said 30-30 – we have already been through this with Bob Prudhomme.

            >>Note to TOM S. can your remove my first comment that is a repeat of what I say before the one with EDIT? I just needed to replace Tomlison with Wright. Thanks, Willy
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            To quote the HSCA Critics Conference of 17 Sept 1977-as reported on JFKFacts13 Dec 14 entry” CSI JFK: The Chain of Custody for the Magic Bullet: Thompson : ” He said it looks just like that 30-30 round that I ave you to re-enact the finding of the bullet. A 30-30 round has a very sharp point to it and doesn’t resemble 399 at all.”
            Thompson was fortunate that he was among conspiracy theorists who would never question that ludicrous statement. It is also illustrative of the general ignorance of the CT community when it comes to firearms and ammunition-despite the claims of many “experts” who have never fired a weapon.
            Willy, Thompson made the statement. Either 1. Wright had no idea what a .30-.30 round looked like, which seems unlikely considering that it was the most popular deer round in the US during the first half of the 20th Century or 2.Thompson made up the quote and embellished it with a claim that he thought would give it an air of authenticity,-unaware that the .30-.30 had a rounded nose and resembles the Carcano 6.5 mm round after all.
            I hope that you can see beyond your CT point of view and accept that Dr. Thompson has been caught in some very serious credibility issues.
            I am merely pointing them out-as apparently nobody else has had the interest in doing so, despite 45 years of free passes by the CT community.

    • “How to you get around that? You can’t. You just ignore it.” ~Tim Nickerson

      To the contrary sir. I haven’t ignored those points at all, YOU are the one who ignored my disputation.
      David Reagan reminds you yet again of the facts of this matter, in his latest commentary.
      \\][//

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Tim,

      What is also known is that no one at Parkland could say for certain on which stretcher CE 399 was found. Most people involved seemed to believe it came from the stretcher of a youngster that had been brought into the hospital. So, for me, the chain of custody is far from certain.

  47. Bill says:

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

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Bill,

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

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

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

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

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

  48. Bill says:

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

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

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

    Thanks.

    • J.D. says:

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

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

      • Bill says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Thanks!

  49. Bill says:

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

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

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

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

  50. Bill says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  51. Bill says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  52. Bill says:

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

  53. Bill says:

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

  54. Gary Aguilar says:

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

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

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

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

    • Photon says:

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

  55. Bill says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Charles says:

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

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

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

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

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

      • Bill says:

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

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

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

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

        Anyway. Peace.

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

    • Fearfaxer says:

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

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

    • bogman says:

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

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

      or

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

      One other possibility could be:

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

      • Bill says:

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

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

    • J.D. says:

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

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

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

  56. J.D. says:

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

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

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

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

    • Charles says:

      EXACTLY RIGHT J.D.

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

  57. Bill says:

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

    • leslie sharp says:

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

      • Bill says:

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

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

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

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

        • leslie sharp says:

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

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

          • Bill says:

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

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

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

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

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

          • leslie sharp says:

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

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

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

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

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

          • Tom S. says:

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

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

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

    • Bill,

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

      • Bill says:

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

      • Bill says:

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

    • leslie sharp says:

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

      • leslie sharp says:

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

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

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

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

      • Bill says:

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

        • Bill says:

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

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

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

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

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

          • bogman says:

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

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

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

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

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

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

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

          • Photon says:

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

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

        • leslie sharp says:

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

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

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

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

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

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

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

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

          • Bill says:

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

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

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

          • leslie sharp says:

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

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          • leslie sharp says:

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

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

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

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

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

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

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

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

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

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

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

          • leslie sharp says:

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

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

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

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

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

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

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

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

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

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

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

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

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

          • leslie sharp says:

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

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

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

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

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

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

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

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

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

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

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

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

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

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

      • Bill says:

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

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

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

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

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

        • Bill says:

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

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

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

          • Bill says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            All of these numbers are available in the WC Report.

            Hope it helps.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Bill, thanks for those measurements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • leslie sharp says:

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

          • Bill says:

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

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

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

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

            Your idea/thought?

  58. Russell says:

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

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

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

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

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

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

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

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

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

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

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

          Did Sam Holland get “rocketed to stardom” too?

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

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

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

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

      • Charles,

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

        • Photon says:

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

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

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

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

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

          • Charles says:

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

          • Photon says:

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

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

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

          • Photon says:

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

  59. leslie sharp says:

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

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

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

  60. Bob Prudhomme says:

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

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

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

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

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

    • Bill Clarke says:

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

      • JohnR says:

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

        • Bill Clarke says:

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

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

          • JohnR says:

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

          • Bill Clarke says:

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

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

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

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

  61. Bill says:

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

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

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

    • Charles says:

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

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

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