Skip the theories and focus on what 216 witnesses said.
Days
Hours
Minutes
Technical assistance courtesy of the Mary Ferrell Foundation | Designed by iWebResults
Skip the theories and focus on what 216 witnesses said.
Technical assistance courtesy of the Mary Ferrell Foundation | Designed by iWebResults
I know you’re all out there somewhere. I can hear you breathing.
Can anyone guess how a shot originating from behind the limo can be made, to ear witnesses, to sound as if it came from the direction of the Grassy Knoll?
Give up?
We can’t just focus on the numbers who say TSBD vs Knoll, we also have to look at what witnesses said about three crucial aspects of the assassination: 1) how many shots were fired?; 2) how many witnesses reported hearing shots from multiple directions?; 3) what do witnesses say about seeing the/one of the sniper(s)?
The claims shots were fired from the knoll collapse because 1) ~95% said three – or fewer – shots were fired, while most “knoll” scenarios require four or more shots; 2) a similar percentage, around ~95%, report that the shots came from ONE direction, when most “knoll” scenarios require two – or more – sources; 3) Ten witnesses or so SAW a sniper firing from the TSBD, or saw the rifle in the window, or heard the shots from overhead and heard the shells dropped on the floor above thus establishing beyond no serious doubt that SOMEONE fired shots from that location. Indeed, NO witnesses reported seeing a knoll assassin – until years later under dubious circumstances (Hoffman, Hill). And those who would have seen a knoll sniper – like Bowers, Sitzman, said explicitly there was NO ONE behind the fence at the time of the shooting.
We can reasonably conclude a) shots were fired from the TSBD; b) no shots were fired from any other location; c) those who reported “knoll” or any other location were confused about the source of those three or fewer shots.
To elaborate on c) confusion – there are not only two or three (including Dal-Tex) reported possible sources for the shots – there are in fact something like TWENTY. For example, Bill Newman, often referred to as a “knoll” witness, in fact stated the shots came from the pergola behind him, not the section of fence often cited. Others said the TSBD, but different parts than where it is said Oswald was at, or different buildings. Still others say the overpass, etc. thus underlining the confusion many witnesses had.
Further, and I’m amazed that this simple point is also glossed over, since we know there was a TSBD sniper, and many witnesses say the shots came from there, those who claimed “knoll” were obviously HEARING THE SAME SHOTS but were mistaken about the direction. Recall, ~95% reported a single direction for the shots, not the two or more directions REQUIRED if more than one sniper was involved. Sure, some may have been in a location where it would have been hard to discern, but it strains credulity that for those witnesses on Elm Street between the knoll and the TSBD – and there were many – somehow couldn’t tell the shots came from opposite directions. Yet that is what we are told to believe while focusing on irrelevancies such as which witness count is more accurate. If ever there was an “emperor has no clothes” aspect to a common debating point, it’s that. Where are all the multiple-direction witnesses?
Based on visual evidence from the Z-Film and ear/eyewitness testimony, gunfire appears to have originated from at least 2 distinct places.
Despite the asinine trolling of those who claim “outlier” testimony shouldn’t matter just because certain details of those outlier observations are too unique and differ from the majority, this isn’t a scenario where stratification is applicable. I stratify when forecasting and to pulling ETL’ing large data sets for audits, but that would never apply to an investigation of a specific crime where specific details are required. Discarding specific details in a criminal investigation because they are rare across an already incomplete data set is absolute buffoonery. Unique testimony provides breakthroughs in cases where the incurious bandwagon version of events would otherwise prevail with no dispute.
This use of the term “outlier” to label the testimony of people who were actually there while some current day, nonsensical keyboard warrior wasn’t is akin to suppression of evidence after the fact. In response to that behavior, we have a choice – we can observe a blithe, ignorant silence as those who think “mistakes happen” nearly every step of the way in a high level investigation would have us to do; or each individual can think for him or herself and spell out their own individual observations, exposing the official and current day attempts to titrate the reality at every given opportunity.
Lee Bowers had more to say about what he saw on 11/22/1963 less than 2 1/2 years later:
“At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I’ve described were, there was a flash of light or there was something which occurred which caught my eye in this immediate area on the embankment, and what this was, I could not state at that time, and at this time I could not identify it other than there was some unusual occurrence, a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there.”~Lee Bowers
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment — From Lane’s March 31, 1966, interview with Bowers
\\][//
In other words, Bowers did not describe any shooter, in spite of the fact that he was looking and could have seen a shooter.
In fact, the two people he described were in front of the Stockade Fence. And Bowers told Lane he could see the back of the fence, and nobody was there shooting.
Bowers said a bunch of stuff Lane edited out:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/lane_interviews/bowers.pdf
“Bowers said a bunch of stuff Lane edited out:”
~McAdams
Yes, like his answer to how many shots did you hear and what was the sequence. Bowers answers with “Knock….knock, knock”, indicating that the last two shots were close together; too close together to have been fired by a bolt action rifle like the one that Oswald was alleged to have fired.
He did mention the “flash of light, or smoke…something..” coming from that area that caught his eye.
So now you have the conundrum of the quick sequence of the last two shots as described by Bowers. Hmmm….
\\][//
Willy, he also told his preacher (and a acquaintance his family disavows)he didn’t tell authorities everything he saw on 11/22/63 if memory serves me correctly. I do remember that when he died, suspiciously to some, shortly after the Mark Lane interview, his wife lamented “they told him not to talk”.
So he was a conspiracy witness, except that he wasn’t a conspiracy witness because the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy ordered him not to talk.
Great.
Thanks for the bump on my post John. But yeah, whoever, told him not to talk, according to his wife.
So you will go with the one fellow who said there were eight shots, and discard the scores who said three or fewer.
Anything that gets you the result you want, I suppose.
No, I never said to discard any testimony. You are the one suggesting doing that by labeling a few who were actually there as outliers. You repeatedly reach suppositions before understanding the topic. Is that deliberate? There is a cure for that …
McAdams, as I’ve stated to you on another thread in recent days, if you can’t help but disinfo your way into a rabbit hole that you seem warm in while trying to pull others with you, leave my posts unmolested by your tomfoolery. You aren’t offering anything to the conversation and are blatantly trolling the entire JFK debate at this point.
But if witnesses contradict each other, you can’t just go with the one you find most convenient, and disregard all those who gave contradictory testimony. Both can’t be right.
You chose to ignore the overwhelming majority, and go with the outlier.
Frustrating when you are called out on buff nonsense, isn’t it.
You can’t win a debate by refusing to engage. Doing that is, in fact, a loss by default.
It’s like communicating with the human manifestation of ransomware. Comprehend comment(s) before flat out lying about what was said. Please help a new visitor wherever you post said disinfo by adding a satire disclaimer to the beginning of your posts before hitting “submit”. I never advocated discarding, disregarding, culling, or ignoring any Dealey Plaza (DP) earwitness’ testimony. I have stated numerous times that ALL earwitness testimony counts, but you seem prone to focalizing on your slants by doubling down on your newspeak to fulfill whatever your agenda may be, sustaining your disinformationist tactics. By all TRUTHFUL means, feel free to pinpoint where I advocate for discarding/disregarding what you inculcate to constitute an “overwhelming majority” of similar testimonies in favor of elevating only the GK earwitness and unique, distinct, and/or rare details of certain testimonies (hint: re-read this alleged discarding/disregarding for comprehension if “mistakes happened” in your post of contrivance).
The fact that there are what you call “contradicting” testimonies means there were potentially under-investigated/uninvestigated occurrences during the JFK murder. Subsuming individual testimonies because their details deviate from the typical testimony is suppression, whether that’s your unique idea or it came from some “reputable” publication you believe. Try going to see the Big Bang at Summerfest (you have plenty of time) and try counting just the first few firework explosions of the closing climax for no more than three seconds. Count how many you hear and then compare that count to what others counted hearing. It’s possible DP earwitnesses heard shots at points within the short window of time that others did not necessarily hear as the shooting occurred. It’s also possible that 95-99% of all the witness’ ears were working properly that day and that they all were right about what they heard and from where; it seems unlikely that even the “overwhelming majority” heard and only heard with absolute certainty the exact same things originating from the same specific spot at exactly the same points in time. Your philosophical problem is you think an “on paper” grouping of similar witness testimonies should be the only cogitation of what details count and what details should not count for any and all testimonies. Extrapolate to the exclusion of detail much? “Outlier” details led to legal standards of reasonable doubt that could lead to you winning your lawsuit, but that was preempted for Oswald by WCR pretensions made to the exclusion of unimpeachable due diligence.
Seemingly “contradicting” testimonies CAN BOTH BE RIGHT when neither are a sign of contradiction at all when, taken together, the “overwhelming majority”, the 30+ GK earwitnesses, and the more unique details of a couple testimonies are matters that contraindicate that gunfire originated only “from above”.
Frustrating when your pretensions lead you to proclaim victory where there is no competition, yes? You don’t win debates when your truth is the lie. No one here (even you) is a “buff”, especially not in your pejorative use of the word. You and I aren’t debating. You are throwing a philosophically stunted tantrum with no support for your specious whining (your “PhD” doesn’t count outside of employment). As for losing by default, is that why you have accelerated your slanting of people’s words? To win based on said slants? To have your disinfo prevail as the telling of the actual story?
There is no engaging or refusing to debate those who think this is even a debate to “win” – in this instance, there is just you assuming some unearned primus inter pares position standing on the frail shoulders of a suborned investigatory effort while expecting silent, unquestioning assimilation to your gospel of coincidence and traffic to your feckless website.
If “all information counts,” why would you tout a single witness who heard eight shots, and then ignore the 90% plus who heard three or fewer shots?
That’s not counting “all information.” That’s latching onto an outlier and throwing away all the other information.
P.S. You fussing and fuming doesn’t help your case.
But your eight shot witness does not “seemingly” contradict the other witnesses.
He flatly does contradict the other, much more numerous, witnesses.
“If “all information counts,” why would you tout a single witness who heard eight shots, and then ignore the 90% plus who heard three or fewer shots?”~McAdams
This question is such nonsense on such an elementary level that it should shock the sensibilities of any lucid thinker.
Just as a general concept, it is a fact that certain witnesses have certain advantages and disadvantages. In order to assess such, one must consider the specifics of each witness; such as the vantage point, or POV of each witness. An assessment of their perceptions generally; such as their vision – did they need glasses? Was their sight or hearing capable? Were there obstructions to a witness’ site or vision? What are the limits of human perception to sight and sound? If an event happens in split seconds, how reliable is human perception?
What is the psychological state of a witness? How prone to hysteria might a certain witness be? There are simple tests to measure such.
So now it comes to the reliability of the interrogator of specific witnesses. Again there is a great variance in the quality of such people, their own powers of perception, their experience and temperament, etc.
…
Which brings us back to McAdams himself. How does he rate when these standards are applied?
Well, it will be each of our own capabilities in that same realm of reasoning as I have just outlined above, to decide whether McAdams is a reliable ‘witness’ in the proceedings on this blog.
My opinions on this have been made clear enough that it would be redundant to say it again.
\\][//
Again with the lies, McAdams.
In what comment did I “tout a single witness who heard eight shots, and then ignore the 90% plus who heard three or fewer shots”? (the first mentioning of that on this post appears to have come from you …) Pinpoint where I ever brought up an eight shot DP earwitness, latched on to that specific detail to the exclusion of your 90%+, and “touted a single witness”. You completely ignore posts where I state clearly that, including your “overwhelming majority” of testimony, all details count. This eight shot witness and ignoring your 90%+ that you keep projecting on to me doesn’t exist in any of my comments on jfkfacts.org. This is at least the second time I’ve asked you to show where I specifically stated what you are saying I did and you have only added more lies about things I never said. You are behaving like a little sociopathological liar.
You have gone beyond debate and even being uncivil. You are flat out lying. This exchange is about three posts deep from both directions. You are knowingly inventing statements and sentiments I’ve never made on jfkfacts.org, actions which do not:
• pertain to the subject of the original post
• advance the conversation
Scroll up McAdams. Ronnie Wayne is who is discussing 8 shot witness. You’re on the wrong train and track.
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/where-did-the-gunfire-that-killed-jfk-originate/#comment-862241
Then why were you arguing with me when I took exception to Ronnie Wayne treating a single outlier witness as probative.
Are you agreeing it’s more sensible to go with the overwhelming majority (if one thinks witness testimony is probative at all)?
Paul-John Nolan-McAdams,
As you clumsily started out firing at the wrong target and on a foundation of multiple origins of fallacy (once again), I could not have been “arguing” with someone so irresponsible to take up the exception with Ronnie Wayne’s position with a different individual who was not promoting that an outlier testimony discounts all other witness testimony. You best discharge the pompous dialect that can’t handle being told anything that doesn’t convey serfdumb to your intellectual toxicity – no breathing individual is subordinate to you.
Before commenting, it is your (and everyone’s) responsibility to reread and ascertain the origins of ideas before taking up exception so as to maintain continuity of whatever is being discussed. My comments clearly specify to not favor unique details of a few witnesses to the exclusion of any other witness testimony, but also vice versa, regardless of your “overwhelming majority” misnomer that you feel is “sensible” to agree and exclusively “go with” to the exclusion of the entire set of witness testimony that would, when conveyed in its virgin detail, include the witness testimony that contraindicates the Warren Commission’s exclusions. I have specified that all the witness testimony should count when taken together. When taken together, all the individual characteristics of each witness testimony contraindicates the TSBD as the single and only origin of gunfire. So why do you keep asking monotonous, condescending questions to dumb down the topic to being about favoring overwhelming majorities? You have a dizzying balance with reality and are repeatedly falling over argumentum ad populum, among other fallacies, in appearing to surmise that only your “overwhelming majority” can have “probative” value because they are the WC’s majority.
Your septic linguistics (e.g. “Are you agreeing it’s more sensible …”) don’t work to cajole the reader to fall for your foolish Leninist-Pavlovian-Skinnerian attempts – your attempts at operant conditioning of repeating something (“overwhelming majority”) through purposeful phrasing structures using certain “families” of words until it becomes the only truth for those have developed the cognition to surpass those limits of your lecturing methods. Politics is persuasion (regardless of the entirety of the facts) and science is the method to effect that behavior being acceptable or “sensible”, it’s clear that persuasion to the exclusion of reality isn’t just your day job – it is your constitution; if people “dare” surpass it, you take it upon yourself to indict them with no consideration for your own room for constitutional improvement.
Classify comments that “take up exception” directly with you as “nasty attacks” all you want, but it is you who is making a mockery of everyone who reads from you to learn something; willing readers deserve better than your insidiousness.
Blatantly trolling is what he’s done around 20 years. He used to have graduate assistants to help him keep up while teaching. Now he’s on his own. Or was he ever?
If McAdams were possessed of normal human modesty, he would be embarrassed to be seen on JFKfacts in his new transparent dressing gown provided by theNewDanger.
Yes I admit I was laughing out loud at the exquisite eloquence of tND’s dressing down of “the professor”.
\\][//
Do you buffs think you are impressing anybody with your mean-spirited attacks on people here who disagree with you?
It’s obvious to anybody who’s paying attention that you turn to insults when you have been beaten on the evidence.
NewDanger was actually trying to claim their were eight shots on the basis of one witness who was radically at odds with all the other witnesses.
He got schooled. He could have taken it gracefully. Instead he fussed and fumed.
“He got schooled. He could have taken it gracefully. Instead he fussed and fumed.” ~McAdams
Very interesting “professor”. You post things here AS IF you were here participating, and actually paying attention to what each of the rest of us say here. But you are utterly disconnected, and do not grasp a single thing happening here!
And I know you will interpret this very post as an “attack”, when in fact I am actually pointing out what most people paying attention here can see themselves.
It is utterly bizarre. It reads to me like a form of psychosis, as if you have taken leave of your senses.
Perhaps you should calm yourself and go through the commentary on this thread again, and make note of who said what when.
Really, take notes. You will find that it was Ronnie Wayne who brought up the the Marine, and quoted his remarks about the number of shots he heard. The NewDanger and myself have not actually agreed with the particular words of this “marine”, but have stated philosophical and rational concepts concerning how to assess witness testimony. Such as pointing out not all witnesses have equal abilities of perception.
Perhaps you have confused yourself Dr McAdams. Read what has actually been written here, not what you have read into what has been written.
\\][//
Anybody can see that you buffs turn nasty when called out on your misuse of evidence.
You substitute attack for evidence.
It’s pretty transparent, and while it may make you feel better to vent, it really creates a nasty spectacle.
“Anybody can see…”~John McAdams
Actually,what anybody can see is that it is certainly no surprise that those dedicated and determined to find nothing sinister in any situation involving “Honorable Men”, will invariably find nothing sinister in any of their acts.
Willful blindness and dreadful naïveté are common ailments among coincidence theorist and statist apologists on the dole of conformity.
For them the ‘King’ MUST BE! IS by god! Fully clothed in his spectacular regalia! Any hushed whispers throughout the crowd are merely “buffs” turning “nasty” because they “hate” the King and what he stands for, fully clothed or not.
\\][//
Among some Warren Commission Patriots (WCP), an “outlier” is anyone who disagrees with the Oswald scenario.
Truth isn’t any more determined by vote in the JFK case than it is anywhere else, no matter what the WCPs say. The govt-hired medical experts of the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission and the HSCA offer multiple examples.
The point to be emphasized is not that these men weren’t recognized authorities. They were. Nor is it that they were less than perfect. No one is. It is rather that, in interpreting clues to the murder – the trail of bullet fragments on the X-rays, the location of the bruising on the abrasion collar in JFK’s back wound or the snapping of JFK’s skull – the government’s experts invariably found that the evidence supported the government’s original conclusion: Oswald did it. Or at least that the shots emanated from Oswald’s alleged position, above and behind. Their errors are plain as day. No advanced degree or university appointment is required to see them.
Thus, expert opinion from government-appointed “blue-ribbon” experts is not always as hard, or as reliable, as the John McAdamses of the world would have you think. Who, after all, paid these fiddlers? Perhaps more importantly, who choose them, and why?
Just as McAdams sedulously ignores the peccadillos of witnesses who say what he wants to hear, as the above examples show, he just as sedulously goes hammer and tong after witnesses who say what he doesn’t want to hear.
Since you think all the experts were wrong (toadies of the Evil Minions, apparently) why don’t you tell us what you think the nature of the wounds was.
You are honest enough to answer, right?
At various times in the not so distant past, the tobacco companies and drug manufacturers have never had trouble finding experts with distinguished credentials to pronounce that the dangerous and/or deadly products they foisted on the public were either harmless, or that the dire medical conditions they caused might have resulted from something else. Similarly, the NFL has never had trouble finding experts to refute claims that the violence inherent in the sport left the players with extreme brain damage.
Back in the 1960s, when hockey players were by far the lowest paid athletes in pro sports, a sportswriter named Leonard Schechter quoted a bookmaker’s explanation of why there was very little betting on hockey as opposed to other sports. “Because you can buy a hockey goalie with a bag of lollipops.” When such blue ribbon panels look for expert testimony, there are all sorts of lollipops that can be offered to those willing to sing the right song. A career academic such as yourself cannot possibly be unaware of this.
It’s amusing, and telling, that you don’t cite one example of where I’ve been wrong about the glaring, tendentious inaccuracies and falsehoods of the various “expert” panels. http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong.htm
Since you can’t, you apparently instead claim I’m calling them “toadies of the Evil Minions.” [It’s this sort of stuff that has repeatedly put you in hot water at Marquette, .John!]
I expect Boswell’s face sheet diagram gave a reasonable depiction of JFK’s wound: “17-cm missing,” he wrote, and later testified to that number before the HSCA. https://www.google.com/search?q=jFK%27s+autopsy+face+sheet,+boswell&rlz=1C1AVNE_enUS661US661&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCg5uOuMbLAhXEmoMKHaiSDbIQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=Fjg5zwLeLagBgM%3A
If 17-cm was indeed missing, and here I’m acceptingg that Boswell knew how to use a ruler, then JFK’s skull defect extended from the edge of the frontal bone well into the occiput. I use the term “occiput” as a neurosurgeon would use it, including, I’m sure, the way Kemp Clark, MD did.
So you think the x-rays that show occipital bone intact (although riven with nasty fractures) were faked?
Will you answer this question honestly.
“OK. Yes, we are bored. We’re all bored now. But has it ever occurred to you Wally that the process that creates this boredom that we see in the world now may very well be a self-perpetuating, unconscious form of brainwashing, created by a world totalitarian government based on money, and that all of this is much more dangerous than one thinks? and it’s not just a question of individual survival Wally, but that somebody who’s bored is asleep, and somebody who’s asleep will not say no” ~My Dinner with Andre
\\][//
Experts? What!
Tell me, .John, do you accept the expert opinion of Rockefeller Comm. expert-panelist Robert R. McMeekin, MD, Chief of the Division of Aerospace Pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology? He claimed, “The motion of the President’s head is inconsistent with the shot striking him from any direction other than the rear.” [http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_4.htm]
I would hope not. I’d guess Dr. McMeekin was bending over to help David Belin’s anti-conspiracy “team” in the recently proven, corrupt Rockefeller Commission. [I’ve got loads of similar examples of govt-paid, anti-conspiracy medical-forensic experts saying things that are just as silly up at “How 5 Investigations … Got it Wrong.”]
And you reject credentialed experts yourself, don’t you?, particularly when the Koch brothers don’t like the particular experts.
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded, “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC (global warming) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are SUBSTANTIALLY BELOW that of the convinced researchers.” http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract
You prefer the “substaintally below” scientists, right?
The Koch brothers, whose oil & gas industries would be hurt by curbs on warming emissions, took action: they lavishly funded the climate skeptic “Heartland Institute” to refute credentialed authorities. And you’re one of their experts, aren’t you? You’ve certainly been loyal to the Koch cause; you claimed there’d been no global warming since 1997. http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2015/12/no-hysteria-about-global-warming-needed.html
But that’s not what the best evidence shows, is it? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds
Heartland also published an Alan Caruba article claiming that Obama was a Marxist who “uses the presidency to destroy the nation.” http://blog.heartland.org/2013/11/myth-and-reality-surround-kennedy/
Do you share Mr. Caruba’s view?
The Koch brothers ALSO funded the NOVA anti-conspiracy show you were featured on (“Major funding for NOVA is provided by the David H. Koch Fund for Science”: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html%5D
And since you’re listed as one of Heartland’s “experts,” doesn’t that mean they fund you, too? https://www.heartland.org/john-mcadams
Thus, we both differ with some experts. The difference is that I don’t earn any money doing it.
Hmm, Koch brothers fund McAdams? John, is this true?
Gary, do you think the autopsy photos and x-rays are faked, forged or tampered with.
If you won’t provide an honest answer to that question, your evasiveness will speak loudly.
“If you won’t provide an honest answer to that question, your evasiveness will speak loudly.”
~McAdams to Gary Aguilar
McAdams insisting on a simple yes or no answer to his question is merely a tactic to avoiding addressing the more subtle and comprehensive response of Mr Aguilar.
I ask the “professor” to be honest in admitting that he seeks to dumb down the conversations taking place here to simpleton black & white terms. I ask him to be honest in admitting that he has one single agenda, and that is as a propagandist for the unquestioned authority of the state to frame the totality of the thinking of the people: To demand obedience to the official authority, to huddle in fear of speaking out in dissidence, to fear resisting illegitimate authority, to fear even mention of the illegitimacy of the totalitarian syndicate squatting in Washington, DC.
\\][//
Hell, McAdams doesn’t even accept Carlos Hathcock’s learned and experienced opinions and facts!
Tom, why do you pass ad hominem stuff like this?
Willy just starts fussing and fuming when beaten on the evidence.
“Willy just starts fussing and fuming when beaten on the evidence.”~McAdams
What evidence specifically are you referring to McAdams? I was replying to your asking for Agular to answer “Yes” or “No” to a question that is best answered by considering the evidence that makes such an answer self evident.
If all of the witnesses at Parkland saw a large avulsive wound in the rear of Kennedy’s head, and the autopsy photo’s show a pristine full head of hair where that wound was seen, what is the logical conclusion one would come to?
Now YOU get to answer the question, or avoid it as you have been doing for this whole thread.
\\][//
“Thus, expert opinion from government-appointed “blue-ribbon” experts is not always as hard, or as reliable, as the John McAdamses of the world would have you think. Who, after all, paid these fiddlers? Perhaps more importantly, who choose them, and why?”~Gary Aguilar
Excellent points that will be hand-waved by the apologists for the official narrative(s) that have been fed to the people for more than half a century.
\\][//
From Jim Marrs “Crossfire” in an interview of Mr. Millican, pg. 28. “…told authorities he was standing on the North side of Elm Street about half way between Houston and the Triple Underpass. … I heard three shots from up toward Elm right by the book Depository, and then I immediately hear two more shots from the arcade between the Book Store and Underpass, then three more shots came from the same direction only sounded further back. …”
Superintendent Speaker said “I was a combat Marine … WWII, hand to hand combat,missions behind enemy lines, and i know wht i am talking about. I’ve said for years there more than three shots fired”.
You understand you are quoting outliers, right?
Over 90 percent of the witnesses claimed to have heard three or fewer shots.
Check the bottom of this page:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
“Over 90 percent of the witnesses claimed to have heard three or fewer shots.”~John McAdams
What is this oinkage you are spinning here McAdams?
Not but a few days ago you were squealing that witness testimony is unreliable.
Your argumentation is clearly based on promoting whatever is convenient to the topic at hand at the moment you are arguing it. And then you can do a complete about face within the same thread – somehow thinking readers aren’t going to notice this bizarre behavior.
\\][//
If it’s unreliable, Ronnie Wayne had no business quoting Millican.
If you want to dispense with all earwitness testimony, fine with me. But don’t quote an outlier and claim his opinion is probative.
“If it’s unreliable..”~McAdams
YOU are the one that claims that witness testimony is unreliable, not Ronnie nor myself.
It is in fact reasonable to assert that an “outlier” is more reliable than most, if that witness has expert experience in hearing gunfire in echo prone landscapes.
You have the habit of sidestepping obviously hypocritical statements that you make “professor”. Your excuses become more lame with each passing day.
\\][//
Outliers count. This isn’t some virtual retroforecast of what might have happened.
Unreliable? How so? “Outlier”? I guess I don’t have a professorial understanding of the term. So I googled it. “standing on Elm about half way between the overpass and Houston” is not an outlier to me. Tague and Craig may have been outliers but not Millican. He could see and hear clearly from where he was.
Claiming eight shots makes him an outlier.
I forgot to mention, Speaker also said “I heard at least five shots”.
Wilson is a crackpot, whose “technology” is bogus.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm
Wilson actually testified in a court case once, and the results were as catastrophic as Bob Groden’s testimony in the OJ civil trial.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/Tom_Wilson.pdf
John,
Pardon for interrupting this thread, but now that the best site on JFK is up and running again, I wanted to ask you a couple of questions that you either did not answer, or due to technology issues, never arrived on the site.
I believe you have said that “Roger Craig was unreliable.” And, I also believe that you think Jean Hill is unreliable. And, you are probably right. There were many, many people that came out after the murder, and their stories did change throughout the years.
Which brings me to my questions.
You KNOW that Gerald Ford lied and tried to block evidence to/from his own Rockefeller Committee. Yes, John, the VERY committee that you quoted as saying that “the Rockefeller Committee also supported the evidence that the HSCA investigated. You also KNOW that Gerald Ford worked closely and opened a back channel to the FBI and DeLoach, telling them where the commission was heading and what angle it would pursue next. This, in spite of Earl Warren and LBJ’s INSISTENCE it would be an INDEPENDENT investigation.
Tell me, without trying to use the word “hate” somewhere in your answer, what exactly is the difference between Gerald Ford and Roger Craig and Jean Hill? You bitch and moan about not having “evidence” to debate, but I think a valid question that you fail to answer is how do we know what evidence Ford altered or simply hid from the public view? He LIED to a committee that he created. We are supposed to believe that a man who LIED to his own committee and the American people would also not lie about anything else?
I think it is hypocritical of you to ravage Craig and Hill, but not Ford. No where on your website is there any link or piece of information about Ford and Dulles and their lies to the American people, but Jean Hill and Roger Craig have information about their story telling all over your site. How about a balanced view, John? Or, do you simply believe that since Ford was president during the Rockefeller Committee, he was “entitled” to lie under the guise of “national security?”
Is it possible that one day on your site, you will encourage a dialogue that will call into question the “credibility” of people like Ford and Dulles? Or, will you continue to bitch and complain about the “buffs,” while ignoring the fact that you have never once, to my knowledge, questioned men who were known LIARS?
I’m going to tell you this once, knowing you are going to ignore it and continue to spew hatred toward Ford.
Gerald Ford was not a witness. Nothing in the case against Oswald depends on believing what Gerald Ford said.
Evidence is evidence.
Richard Russell was a segregationist, but you folks are happy with him because he expressed disagreement with the WC. But that doesn’t matter in judging the case against Oswald either.
You never want to discuss evidence. You just want to attack people whom you hate.
So I’m not going to respond to any more posts of yours unless you want to debate evidence.
John,
Oh, when any one wants to debate the “evidence,” you reply with your usual “it is their opinion” crap. You will ONLY debate what is in the WR. You REFUSE you debate anything that was not in the WR, except, of course, Priscilla’s book because it paints ol’ Lee as the dreaded assassin.
I could care less if you don’t respond to my posts. You are a hypocrite, and you are allowed to bully people over on your site, but here, people “firs shots across your bow” (I believe you used that phrase last week.
Well, I am going to continue to fire shots across your bow. Don’t answer them. However, I will answer this one for you. There is NO difference between Ford and Craig and Hill. A liar is a liar is a liar.
You believe the words of liars and murderers. Well, certain ones. LHO was a damned criminal. The only difference between him and Ford and Dulles was the number of victims.
Keep sticking your head in the sand, John, and one day you will suffocate.
Let me see if I get your logic, .John: Ford falsified evidence for the “President’s Commission” in favor of the Oswald scenario, and that’s not important, right?
Moreover, Richard Russell’s opinion doesn’t count because he was a segregationist, right?
Does Larry Sturdivan’s opinion not count because he disagrees with the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission and the HSCA (Sturdivan says the bullet hit JFK low in the rear of the head, not high, where the experts said it hit)?
Does the Clark Panel’s conclusion not count because it sloppilu misread JFK’s X-rays? It/they reported that the X-ray trail of bullet fragments aligned with the 10-cm higher, entrance wound they picked. Wrong. As this author discovered for himself, and as the HSCA later determined, and as anyone looking even at the lateral skull X-ray as published by the HSCA can see, the actual fragment trail did not align with the higher entrance wound they picked; it was at least 5-cm higher than that.[v] http://www.ctka.net/reviews/McAdams_Aguilar.html
One could be forgiven for believing that the only ‘sloppines’ you don’t reject, .John, is patriotic, pro-Warren Commission sloppiness.
That’s a conspiracy factoid. You are way behind the curve:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ford.htm
It doesn’t count because it’s just an opinion. He missed most of the WC testimony, and had less information that we have.
Does Sturdivan’s opinion count when he believes that Kennedy was hit in the head from behind, and not in front like most buffs think?
Are you saying he’s correct?
Yes or no. Do you agree with Sturdivan about the entry wound in the skull?
So you agree with the HSCA about the entrance defect in the cowlick area?
Yes or no. Do you agree?
And while we are at it, do you think the autopsy photos and x-rays are faked?
Yes or no. You are honest enough to answer, right?
“Yes or no. Do you agree with Sturdivan about the entry wound in the skull?”~McAdams
I don’t agree with the entry at the occipital as Sturdivan indicates. In fact Sturdivan’s experiments seem to prove the exact opposite, and back up Fiester’s analysis of a shot from the front hitting Kennedy in the right temple:
Mr. STURDIVAN – “There is another section of film here, before we get to the skulls, which we forgot to mention. Perhaps we should go ahead and go through it since it is already there. This is a can of tomatoes which I think demonstrates some of the principles of physics that are involved here. The picture will be much the same as those with the skull. The bullet will be coming in from the left, will strike the can and you will see pieces of the can moving toward the right in the direction of the bullet, but you will also see pieces of the can moving in other directions.
**Notably, the top of the can will be moving back toward the left in the direction from which the bullet came.**
You notice the backsplash as the bullet has entered the left-hand side of the can. The material is beginning to move back out. This is called the backsplash of the projectile. In the next case, the bullet is still within the can and, in fact, has stopped within the can.”– HSCA testimony
\\][//
John,
“Yes or no. You are honest enough to answer, right?”
That’s odd. You demand that other people answer honestly about the questions that support the official version, but you refuse to answer any questions that cannot support the WR.
I have asked you numerous times about Mr. Blakey’s comments and the CIA. You have yet to even acknowledge the man who basically ran the HSCA. You will tout all over hell’s creation about the HSCA verified this and proved that and agreed with this, but the part about Blakey and the CIA lying and the law usually follows the idea if one part of the testimony is a lie, the rest is disregarded.
Why won’t you acknowledge ALL of what the chief counsel of the HSCA had to say?
Are you honest enough to answer?
What does that mean? I’ll accept you are quoting him correctly, but I want to know what evidence of conspiracy he has, other than the old discredited “acoustic evidence.”
But you don’t care about evidence, do you?
You just want to fuss and fume about how this or that person is a “liar.”
If you actually had any evidence of a conspiracy, you would post it.
So what evidence of a conspiracy to kill JFK has Blakey provided?
Larry Sturdivan claims the bullet entered JFK’s skull low, in occipital bone, after John Canal. Do you agree with him? (Tink also thinks one of the shots struck low, remember?)
Regarding the skull shooting tests, Larry Sturdivan reported that, “the skull … moves forward at approximately 3 feet/sec, just as it must from the momentum deposited by the bullet.” [In “JFK Facts,” p. 164.]
The trail of tiny fragments was very high in JFK’s skull https://www.google.com/search?q=jfk%27s+skull+xrays,+images&rlz=1C1AVNE_enUS661US661&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&imgil=qbVQORH3YfiIgM%253A%253BtruBZzm-y8_ErM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fjfk-archives.blogspot.com%25252F2010%25252F08%25252Fjfk-x-ray.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=qbVQORH3YfiIgM%253A%252CtruBZzm-y8_ErM%252C_&usg=__nCtgknnYeLVR3zyP78pBepSD3AE%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjJ8pT3tcbLAhUGxGMKHT6OAJ8QyjcILw&ei=ffTpVonAM4aIjwO-nIL4CQ#imgrc=qbVQORH3YfiIgM%3A
It was most likely left from a tangential shot that struck JFK high, from the right front – the shot that imparted the left-rearward momentum to JFK’s skull that we see in the Z-film. The momentum moved JFK’s skull since, as Sturdivan has suggested, JFK was probably paralyzed by the first shot, and the shooting tests prove skulls are moved rapidly away from the shooter when struck.
No, I think Canal has lead some otherwise sensible people down the garden path.
So you disagree not only with Sturdivan, but with all the other forensic pathologists who have examined the data.
But thanks, at least, for giving me a straight answer.
John, I guess in your mind the only reason you think Groden’s OJ testimony was “catastrophic” was because…he was a high school dropout? I read that the lawyers at that trial simply tried to paint him in a bad light because that’s what lawyers do when it suits their case. But just because Groden goes against the grain to find the truth as in the JFK case, it doesn’t make him a bad person or a crackpot.
If you say Groden is no expert, then let me ask you this – what exactly makes one an expert in something? You can have 50 degrees hanging on your office wall but not have the ability to figure things out in a creative way; on the other side of the coin, you can have a high school degree and nothing more but have a real knack for coming up with solid conclusions based on accurate and creative analysis.
I applaud Groden because, after all, he shed more light onto the assassination by bringing the Z film on a TV show 12 years after the fact. Ask yourself – if the government really wanted to vigorously pursue the truth about 11/22/63, why did it take a single citizen to bring the Rosetta Stone into the light for all to see?
No, because he made a fool of himself by claiming that a pair of Bruno Magli shoes that OJ was seen wearing in a photo showed the photo was faked.
Then the plaintiff introduced 30 additional photos of OJ in those shoes, leaving Groden to claim that all 30 were faked.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/index/nns153.htm
As to the witnesses, much has been written regarding the reliability of their testimony. For me, they were there. Some had mistaken impressions but overall the enormity of their observations is overwhelming. In 1970-71 a white haired barrel chested man used to come in the store where I worked (14-15 at the time) in a suburb of Dallas to the northwest. He joked and talked with the owner. He came out from Dallas where he worked as a plumber to check on his car wash across the street.
When I read Cross Fire and came across the name of A J Millican I thought no way, couldn’t be the same guy. I still don’t know.
An interesting aside.
The point is why didn’t the Warren Omission want to hear from the supervisor of their star witness (Howard Brennan), Sandy Speaker, or his co worker A J Millican.
Their story is in the latter part of this:
http://dealeyintimidation.tripod.com/index.htm
Regarding a ms n search for aj milican or milican / kgl,
http://www.bing.com/search?q=a+j+millican+jfk&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&refig=1b001a8684414701bcbcff68feb8975d&pq=a+j+millican+jfk&sc=0-12&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=&cvid=1b001a8684414701bcbcff68feb8975d
Note. Two of the first five links are to McAdams, the sixth is wickipedia.
Based on reading the last 35 years when my interest was piqued and several trips to Dealy Plaza as I live 100 miles away and lived in the DFW metromess most of my life I think there may have been four sources of shots.
1. The TSBD. Many witness thought so, a gun and shells were found there. Somebody shot from there even if they were just distraction shots to draw attention back and up, away from the front of the limo. Most have seen the pictures (Altegens) of the SSA’s looking that way. Some have speculated about a second shooter on the sixth floor from a different window (with the mauser?).
2. The Dal-Tex building. The open window under the fire escape in another Altegens picture (a broom closet?). The arrest and release of Jim Braden/Eugene Hale Brading that leads to, the mob resort in Palm Springs Nixon frequented, Roselli, etc. Standing underneath this window looking down Elm St. Going in the TSBD museums newer store on the elevated 1st floor of Dal-Tex and looking out the window from a floor below. Thinking man, this would be a kill shot from a tree stand deer hunting. JFK’s back shot? A slight miss of the right side of his head goes into Conally’s arm pit?
3. The grassy knoll. The throat shot at a minimum. Good chance of a head shot. Witness diving for cover from shots over their heads. Witnesses rushing up the knoll. Smoke smelled and seen. Lee Bowers. Somebody shot from the GK IMO. The discussion goes on.
4. The South Knoll. I’ve walked all the way across the triple overpass but not around the area there. Not a long shot for say Chris Kyle or someone of his caliber. Ms. Fiester’s analysis of this possibility intriguing coming from a Scientific/experienced crime scene investigation basis. I want to go back and look around from there in greater depth.
Ronnie, the South Knoll is the likely origin. Look at it on Google Earth and the ZFilm. This area has hotten short shrift from the beginning. The distance is equal or less that from the SBD… And it’s within perfect view of Umbrella Alan’s, and Dark Complected Man’s signals. The parking behind the Post Office offered a perfect escape during the confusion and aftermath of the shooting…
Hello!… Well this aspect is certainly an intriguing one. With my limited couple-of-hundred hours of looking into the jfk murder, I still often wonder why more people don’t refer to or mention (or know about) the interview with Tom Wilson in Episode Five of “The Men Who Killed Kennedy”, which is on Youtube. Using a technology called “Photonics” he clearly saw that last shot to jfk’s head is coming from the storm drain on the curb below the sidewalk. Also, apparently men were seen exiting the drain system about a half mile away (or whatever it was….) as well.
The interview absolutely convinced me.
And I have bunch of interviews made by Gary Null which include the findings of a former Navy photographer who, using infrared photographic techniques on the Zapruder film, found traces of eleven shots fired….
“The Men Who Killed Kennedy” was CIA sponsor City of London’s BBC-produced limited hangout with contrivance galore. A shot from the front and to the right did tear a hole in JFK’s head, but the storm drain appears to have had an incongruent line of sight with Z313 (http://www.jfklancer.com/draintn.html).
McAdams comments didn’t have a reply at that level — so allow me to repeat the facts, THE TRAMPS HAVE NEVER BEEN IDENTIFIED — there aren’t biometric matches to Holt or Harrelson, and that Houston female wasn’t an expert, etc. (Her mother got her that job.) Anyone looking closely at the so-called comparison photos can figure that out!
This is a bizarre assessment from Galanor, since Bowers clearly says “either . . . or” and not both.
Galanor is just ignoring what Bowers said.
Bowers went on:
McAdams you are spinning word games here. “either or’ does not mean specifically one rather than another; it means one OR the other. Deducing that the sounds of the shots Bowers heard as coming from the TBDB is absurd, as he said plainly “No; I could not”, to Ball’s question; “Can you tell me now whether or not it came, the sounds you heard, the three shots came from the direction of the Depository Building or the triple underpass?”
Since Bowers couldn’t tell which himself, no one – not the Commission nor McAdams can deduce the shots he heard came from the Depository Building. That was EXACTLY the point that Galanor makes.
But as Galanor points out the Commission did consider Bowers to mean he heard shots from the TBDB, which is utterly dishonest.
\\][//
Aren’t you even paying attention to what you post?
You posted this:
No, it’s consistent with “not sure of location” which is how I classify Bowers:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
“No, it’s consistent with “not sure of location” which is how I classify Bowers”~McAdams
Which is how Galanor considers Bowers testimony.
Galanor was pointing out that the Commission considered Bowers testimony as saying the shots came from the TBDB.
Galanor ADDED Bowers to both categories; TBDB and the Triple Underpass – McAdams subtracts Bowers from both categories. It amounts to the same thing either way.
\\][//
You are going to need a citation from the WCR to support that.
No, it doesn’t. Bowers did not have an opinion that the shots came from both locations.
His opinion was that he did not know where the shots came from.
“No, it doesn’t. Bowers did not have an opinion that the shots came from both locations.”
~McAdams
It is like arguing with a head of cheese discussing things with McAdams.
Nobody even intimated that Bowers opinion was that the shots came from both locations. Bowers clearly meant that the shots he heard could have come from either on or the other.
But it wasn’t only the sounds that Bowers heard there that day was it McAdams? No he witnessed two men behind the picket fence there who had come in by car or cars. Isn’t this a fact. And just as the shots were fired he noticed “some sort of commotion” there that caught his eye.
Before that he witnessed 3 cars come into the area behind the fence:
The first car was a 1959 Oldsmobile, blue and white station wagon with out-of-State license.
About 15 minutes later he saw was a 1957 black Ford, with one male in it that seemed to have a mike or telephone or something that gave the appearance of that at least. It had a Texas license. After 3 or 4 minutes cruising around the area it departed the same way as the first car had.
The third car was a 1961 or 1962 Chevrolet, four-door Impala, white, showed signs of being on the road. It was muddy up to the windows, bore a similar out-of-state license to the first car I observed, occupied also by one white male. Bowers did not notice this car leave before the shots were fired.
So being of sound mind and using reason, it would be rational to assume that the two men by the fence had arrived in the Chevrolet. It is also quite possible that the “commotion” Bowers noticed at the time he heard the shots was one of these men firing a rifle.
Perhaps not certain proof, but reasonable deductions considering all of the factors.
\\][//
Have you forgotten what you posted?
Odd that you would post something, and then a few posts later claim “Nobody even intimated that Bowers opinion was that the shots came from both locations.”
No, he did not say they had come by car or cars.
And he said they were not together.
And he didn’t see them do anything suspicious.
And one stayed around after the shooting. As for the other, Bowers didn’t know, since his clothing blended in with the foliage.
He said:
Had he seen somebody shooting Kennedy, he would have had no trouble describing that.
If I remember right two of the three cars mentioned by Bowers had either Arizona license plates or Goldwater bumper stickers.
This makes me think of Chauncey Holt’s tale…
I made it very plain on March 14, 2016 at 12:29 am, what I was saying to you “professor”:
*McAdams you are spinning word games here. “either or’ does not mean specifically one rather than another; it means one OR the other.*
. . .
McAdams, you are dragging this out on purpose, turning this into another of your preposterous roundabouts, meant to aggravate me and the readership; and to generate cognitive dissonance.
\\][//
“Had he seen somebody shooting Kennedy, he would have had no trouble describing that.”~McAdams
How can you be more confident in this than Bowers was “professor”? You are asserting your opinion as though it were fact – yet again.
I explained very carefully that I was making reasonable deductions, and not stating them as fact, but as reasonable hypothesis. On the other hand you make these pronouncements as though they are hard fact. They are NOT and is it this disingenuous mode of argumentation that you make that disturbs a rational thinker.
\\][//
No, it’s not. Especially since Bowers was well-positioned to see somebody who got out of those cars, was clearly paying attention, and did not see any such thing.
If he had seen somebody firing a rifle, he could have described somebody firing a rifle.
You said:
I said:
Where is the citation?
But Holt claimed to be one of the tramps.
But that was a lie. The tramps have been identified.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/3tramps.htm
“No, it’s not. Especially since Bowers was well-positioned to see somebody who got out of those cars, was clearly paying attention, and did not see any such thing.”~McAdams
Not according to Bowers testimony:
Mr. BOWERS – Third car, which entered the area, which was some seven or nine minutes before the shooting, I believe was a 1961 or 1962 Chevrolet, four-door Impala, white, showed signs of being on the road. It was muddy up to the windows, bore a similar out-of-state license to the first car I observed, occupied also by one white male.
Mr. BALL – What did it do?
Mr. BOWERS – He spent a little more time in the area. He tried-he circled the area and probed one spot right at the tower in an attempt to get and was forced to back out some considerable distance, and slowly cruised down back towards the front of the School Depository Building.
Mr. BALL – Then did he leave?
Mr. BOWERS – The last I saw of him he was pausing just about in–just above the assassination site.
Mr. BALL – Did the car park, or continue on or did you notice?
Mr. BOWERS – Whether it continued on at that very moment or whether it pulled up only a short distance, I couldn’t tell. I was busy.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bowers.htm
\\][//
So now you are arguing that the men might have gotten out of a car.
But earlier you said they did come in by “car or cars.”
Here is what you said:
Just so show how sloppy Galanor is: Boone was standing in front of the Sheriff’s office. He had no direct line of sight to either the Depository or the Stockade Fence.
“Where the president’s car was” could be either the Depository (if early in the shooting sequence) or the Knoll (if later).
But the fact that he had no light of sight to either posited shooting location means his testimony is meaningless.
Is Galanor any sloppier than McAdams is?
In his book, McAdams writes, “Clint Hill was the Secret Service agent who ran to the presidential limo after the shooting started and huddled over John and Jackie Kennedy on the wild ride to Parkland. Aguilar quotes him (correctly) as telling the Warren Commission that he saw a “large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the [president’s] (sic) head.” Aguilar interprets this statement as supporting his position (that JFK had a rearward skull wound) despite its vagueness. But Hill told National Geographic, in a TV special titled Inside the U.S. Secret Service, that there was a ‘gaping hole above the right ear about the size of my palm.’ (p. 29) ‘Above his right ear’ implies parietal bone and is consistent with the autopsy photos and X-rays.”
McAdams never mentions that I prefaced my witness compilation with, “It was not the author’s intent to list every comment ever made by every witness, but rather to gather the earliest, presumably most reliable, accounts for consideration and comparison.” That aside, apparently McAdams considers me massively selective and quite tendentious because I failed to include in my 1994 essay [http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm] statements that Hill (may have) made to National Geographic in 2004. (see http://www.ctka.net/reviews/McAdams_Aguilar.html)
You can’t make this stuff up!
The distinction that is trying to be drawn between “large gaping wound in the right rear” skull and “gaping hole above the right ear” strikes me as ridiculous. You can see from one post mortem picture that virtually the entire back of the skull behind the right ear is blown out, i.e. if you divided the skull into four quadrants (e.g. right/left front and right/left back), you would say that the right back quadrant is mostly missing.
So probably this supports the idea that the shot from the front was partially tangential, but it’s still very consistent with a shot from the front, an impression reinforced by the Zapruder film.
Aguilar should have known that Hill’s earliest statements were perfectly consistent with the wounds we see in the autopsy photos and x-rays. But he chose to interpret them as at variance with those materials.
Sloppy work on his part.
And when Hill clarified his view, it was clear that Aguilar was wrong.
But .John,
I’m just sure it was inadvertent (;~>), but you missed the point, again!
Was it selective and tendentious of me to not quote what you say Hill said in 2001 when I quoted what he said in 1994?
Moreover, you ignored my preface:“It was not the author’s intent to list every comment ever made by every witness, but rather to gather the earliest, presumably most reliable, accounts for consideration and comparison.”
But, you claim, “Hill’s earliest statements were perfectly consistent with the wounds we see in the autopsy photos and x-rays.” It that true, or are you just making it up?
Here’s CLINT HILL “The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed…There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.” http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0075a.htm
In Wisconsin, is a right, fronto-temporal wound the same thing as “the right rear portion of the head?” I only ask, .John, because out here on the West Coast it sure isn’t. ;-}
Gary, you are missing my point. You took the very vague and imprecise early testimony of Hill, and interpreted it to mean there was a defect in occipital bone.
But when he gave more precise testimony, he made it clear that was not the case.
“Right rear portion” was, for Hill, “above his right ear.”
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ClintHill.htm
So you were caught out on your tendentious interpretation of his early testimony.
.John,
You write:
“Gary, you are missing my point. You took the very vague and imprecise early testimony of Hill, and interpreted it to mean there was a defect in occipital bone.”
Is that what I said or, as usual, are you imputing this to me?
Please point out where I said Hill meant occipital bone.
You just can’t help inventing things, can you?
And, again as usual, it is you who’s missing the point: my compilation of witness statements in 1994 was just that, a compilation of what they said early on, before Warrenistas had attempted to massage their memories.
Please explain how my citing in 1994 what Hill had said early on was misleading and tendentious because, as you wrote in your book, I didn’t mention what Clint Hill MAY HAVE said in 2001?
Is it that hard to understand that quesion? Or are you reluctant to admit that my “overlooking” something Hill might have said 7 years after I quoted him was no failure on my part, but a false smear on yours?
I mentioned a link where I laid everything which could be verified out, and McAdams said it had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination. I suspect this is just another McAdams site?
Mr. Aguilar, RE, Size of my palm. I’ve also read years ago, with no source at the moment, it being described as the size of a softball and grapefruit. Has anyone else ever come across anything on this?
using blood spatter analysis of the infamous head shot, forensic investigator Sherry Feister followed the trajectory back to the southern end of the overpass. That’s right: she believes that a rifleman positioned on the South Knoll fired the killshot. Elm Street slopes significantly downward as it approaches the over pass, which would favor a South Knoll shooter who would have had a clear shot from that location plus easy getaway via the parking lot there.
not sure about the science involved, but you’ve got to give Sherry credit for thinking outside the box.
Mr Tarby,
Having studied these matters for a good many years I am very sure about the science CSI Fiester put to the analysis of the location of the shooter that fired the head shot. Both photogrammetry and ballistics are based on some of the simple Newtonian Mechanics one learns in HS.
It is a matter of putting ones mind to it, and studying the literature, to take that simple physics the bit further to grasp the issues. I am convinced that the analysis offered by Fiester is correct. Of course as she herself points out several ‘Sacred Cows’ must be dispensed with; the notion of the “Grassy Knoll” as the origin of the head shot, the notion that all of the autopsy photo’s and X-rays have been faked – on the “CT” side of the equation. And the idea that there was an adequate investigation on the Warrenista side of the equation.
\\][//
___________________
REDRAFT:
If you believe the vast majority of the doctors and surgeons who treated President Kennedy at Parkland Hospital, you recognize his rear head-wound could not have been an entry wound from the TSBD as the trajectory of the bullet ran parallel to his skull’s mid-line; a trajectory at some 23 degrees to the car/Elm Street, and some 30+ degrees to Main Street. However, the kill-shot, emanating from the South Knoll had an unhindered path to the President’s rear seat through gaps between the limousine’s windshield and port-side window pillars toward which his head was turned.
The kill-shot could not have come from the 6th floor window -perhaps others did, but not the kill-shot. Its origin point would have been from the parking lot behind the Post Office (which, BTW, had military recruiting offices in it at the time -if I’m not mistaken…). The shooter, stationed from that point, was obscured by postal vehicles, trees, parked cars, and moving traffic on Commercial St. The trucks seen in the Zfilm on Commercial St -at the exact moment of the shooting- appear restless at the time of the kill-shot (see for yourself on the stabilized YouTube videos).
To my knowledge, none of the motorists on Commercial St -some of who were just as close to the President as Zapruder, and certainly closer than Oswald- were ever interviewed by the WC. It is confounding that Commercial Street was allowed to be open at the time of the motorcade. Likewise the “white puff of smoke that came from under the trees” -likely from a large “m-80” firecracker detonated to distract the crowds and fool observers to look to the grassy (North) Knoll- was seized upon as the origin of the kill-shot. Had that been the case the First lady would have been seriously injured or killed herself.
In all likelihood the deadly shot was coming from the South Knoll, or Post Office parking lot. With ensuing confusion and Dulles-style subterfuge, and quite possibly with mobsters or Cubans driving those trucks as if on cue (Umbrella-man & DCMan signalling away and in view from the South Knoll), that parking lot offered an easy and escape route obscured from public view.
As to the origin of the kill-shot, the misinformation and obfuscation, intended or not-is astounding. Even in the FBI’s film recreation of the shooting we witness an erroneous interpretation of the President’s posture during the kill-shot, in which the actor has his head turned in the opposite direction (-23 degrees!) to Elm Street.
Lastly, I believe my scenario is strong not because of Sherry Feister’s thesis (which I trust and support) but because I drew the very same conclusion on my own and prior to Ms. Feister’s pronouncements through her book and public speaking efforts.
“Didn’t the FBI and WC differ on the shot sequence as well ?”~DB
Yes, the FIB claimed three shots were fired and all hit their targets, the first hit Kennedy in the back. The second hit Connally in the armpit. The third hit Kennedy in the back of the head.All shots coming from the DBDB according to the FBI.
This was also the Warren Commission view. That remained until the Teague wounding was brought into the equation. Needing to keep the three shots from the 6th floor window of the TBDB intact, the “Single Bullet” theory was devised and it was off to the fabrication of total burlesque.
\\][//
To date it appears JFK was shot from the back and right front IMO
From witness and video that’s probably about as far as I can go at the moment with where one was standing at the time of the shots being a principal driver of their shooting statements .
Didn’t the FBI and WC differ on the shot sequence as well ?
The Art and Science of Misrepresenting Evidence
by Stewart Galanor
In reexamining my analysis (54 Knoll, 46 Depository), I have found that the knoll category was overcounted by only two (52 Knoll, 48 Depository). This article covers issues on evaluating evidence that are often overlooked by Warren Commission apologists.
For a comprehensive list of the witnesses and links to their testimony, see “Witness Testimony and Statements on the Origin of the Shots in Dealey Plaza as Published by the Warren Commission,” online at http://www.jfklancer.com/galanor/.
. . .
House Speaker Tip O’Neill revealed in his autobiography that five years after the assassination: “I was surprised to hear [Presidential aide Kenneth] O’Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence. “That’s not what you told the Warren Commission,” I said. “You’re right,” he replied. “I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn’t have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn’t want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family.” “Dave Powers [another Kennedy aide] was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O’Donnell’s.” (Man of the House,178)
. . .
Overzealous Analysis
The testimony and reports of the following eight
witnesses reveal that McAdams has misinterpreted their
opinions on the source of the shots.
• Eugene Boone, a Dallas Deputy Sheriff, was standing
at the intersection of Main and Houston when he
heard the shots. In his statement to the Sheriff’s Office
he said, “I heard three shots coming from the vicinity
of where the President’s car was.” Directly in line with
Boone and the President’s car was the fence on the
Knoll. From Boone’s position, his perception of the origin
of the shots is consistent with a shot from the knoll.
(19H508)
• Lee Bowers, a railroad switchman, was questioned
by Warren Commission counsel Joseph Ball.
Mr. Ball. And were you able to form an opinion
as to the source of the sound or what direction
it came from, I mean?
Mr. Bowers. The sounds came either from up
against the School Depository building or near
the mouth of the triple underpass.
Mr. Ball. Were you able to tell which?
Mr. Bowers. No; I could not. (6H287)
In the questioning of Bowers, Counsel for the
Commission assumed that the shots came from one
direction. However, Bowers’ testimony is more consistent
with shots coming from both the Book Depository
and the triple underpass.
• John and Faye Chism
• Peggy Hawkins
• Dallas assistant district attorney Samuel Paternostro
• J. C. Price
• Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrells
. . . . . . . . .
Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 2, Summer 2001
http://jfklancer.com/pdf/galanor.pdf
\\][//
Here’s the problem with witnesses. Some are good and some not so much. Keep in mind that absolutely no one was standing around waiting for shots to be fired. All they wanted to see was Kennedy in the parade. Because of this, you’re going to have a lot of variations from the witnesses.
There’s been date about shots starting before Kennedy goes behind the freeway sign. They say it’s because he jerked suddenly to his left and waved. If you look at other photos and film of the parade prior to the assassination, you’ll find that he does that throughout the parade. He’s often fluffing his hair, waving, his arm freezes in mid-air, he’ll look the other way, and so on.
I’ve read that the group of ladies over on the curb to Kennedy’s right yelled out to him to look over to them. I think that’s what happened – he’s looking over to his left, hears them yell out and quickly looks over to them. His arm just slightly comes down and hangs there, then he disappears behind the sign. As soon as he reappears, the throat shot hits him, then immediately after that, the back shot hits. You can clearly see it in the Z film – his arms splay up toward his throat and then he’s pushed forward from the back shot.
I think the best witness statement of all was from Kellerman. When you read his statement and then watch the Z film, he’s pretty close to describing things like they happened. And his “flurry of shells” statement pretty much clinch it about there being more than one shooter.