• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Erick A. Bovik

Members
  • Content count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Erick A. Bovik

  1. Except for the matter of Supreme Court appointments it makes no difference which qualified candidate becomes president, because the government is bankrupt. The national credit card is maxxed out at 9 trillion dollars. With regards to the war in Iraq, that will end because the US simply cannot afford to prosecute it much longer. The government cannot raise taxes without damaging the economy and the government can only cut domestic spending gradually; to do so precipitously would put a lot of government workers out of jobs and reduce citizens’ benefits. The government is the largest employer and sugar-daddy. Talking about a national health care system is ridiculous; it is un-affordable and un-workable. Having one which works would cost more than the present Pentagon budget. Having one which costs considerably less would likely put lives at risk. Having one which “mandates” citizens to buy coverage won’t work either, because a lot of people won’t bother, and enforcing it would entail repressive “police-state” tactics. I would like to hear one candidate say what he or she is going to do about reducing the national debt and balancing the federal budget. The silence on these topics has so far been deafening. Erick
  2. There is a magazine which is the trade publication for those who blow up buildings for a living. They published an article on the WTC towers. Perhaps those who seek the truth will read the article. http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%...209-8-06%20.pdf http://www.implosionworld.com/ Erick Erick That excellent paper has already been brought up here but it was worth bring up again. I think the only truther on this forum who looked at it was Ron. Can we assume your views on 9/11 differ from your wife's? Len, The way I look at 9-11 is that there are three points of view. One POV is that the government did it. Another POV is that the government didn’t do it but obscenely exploited it. Another POV is that the government didn’t do it, and all the actions the government took in reaction to it were appropriate. My POV is that the government didn’t do it but obscenely exploited it, which is exactly how I would expect politicians to act. I am not an idealist with regards to government; I am a cynic. Erick
  3. There is a magazine which is the trade publication for those who blow up buildings for a living. They published an article on the WTC towers. Perhaps those who seek the truth will read the article. http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%...209-8-06%20.pdf http://www.implosionworld.com/ Erick
  4. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=000_1189987768
  5. Someone should send a copy of this book to the actor, Tom Hanks, who is producing a documentary of Vincent Bugliosi's book of lies about the JFK assassination.
  6. Here is a BBC article on it. The video is no longer available on the BBC websites. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/6169006.stm CIA role claim in Kennedy killing New video and photographic evidence that puts three senior CIA operatives at the scene of Robert Kennedy's assassination has been brought to light. The evidence is a result of a three year investigation The evidence was shown in a report by Shane O'Sullivan, broadcast on BBC Newsnight. It reveals that the operatives and four unidentified associates were at the Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles in the moments before and after the shooting on 5 June, 1968. The CIA had no domestic jurisdiction and some of the officers were based in South-East Asia at the time, with no reason to be in Los Angeles. 'Decoy' Kennedy had just won the California Democratic primary on an anti-War ticket and was set to challenge Nixon for the White House when he was shot in a kitchen pantry. THE CIA CONNECTION Are you convinced by the evidence in the report? A 24-year-old Palestinian, Sirhan Sirhan, was arrested as the lone assassin and notebooks at his house seemed to incriminate him. However, even under hypnosis, he has never been able to remember the shooting and defence psychiatrists concluded he was in a trance at the time. Witnesses placed Sirhan's gun several feet in front of Kennedy but the autopsy showed the fatal shot came from one inch behind. Dr Herbert Spiegel, a world authority on hypnosis at Columbia University, believes Sirhan may have been hypnotically programmed to act as a decoy for the real assassin. Evidence The report is the result of a three-year investigation by filmmaker Shane O'Sullivan. He reveals new video and photographs showing three senior CIA operatives at the hotel. What were they doing there? It's our obligation as friends of Bob Kennedy to investigate this Paul Schrade Three of these men have been positively identified as senior officers who worked together in 1963 at JMWAVE, the CIA's Miami base for its Secret War on Castro. David Morales was Chief of Operations and once told friends: "I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard." Gordon Campbell was Chief of Maritime Operations and George Joannides was Chief of Psychological Warfare Operations. Joannides was called out of retirement in 1978 to act as the CIA liaison to the Congressional investigation into the JFK assassination. Now, we see him at the Ambassador Hotel the night a second Kennedy is assassinated. Memory There have been calls for a fresh investigation into the shooting Monday, 20 November would have been Bobby Kennedy's 81st birthday. In Los Angeles, his son Max has just broken ground on a new high-school project in memory of his father on the old Ambassador Hotel site. Paul Schrade, a key figure behind the school project, was walking behind Robert Kennedy that night and was shot in the head. He believes this new evidence merits fresh investigation: "It seems very strange to me that these guys would be at a Kennedy celebration. What were they doing there? And why were they there? It's our obligation as friends of Bob Kennedy to investigate this." Ed Lopez, a former Congressional investigator who worked with Joannides in 1978, says: "I think the key people at the CIA need to go back to anybody who might have been around back then, bring them in and interview them, and ask - is this Gordon Campbell? Is this George Joannides?" This report was shown on Newsnight on Monday, 20 November, 2006. Erick
  7. That's a good one Erick, It seems that SOS has a stronger case than DT and CM have let on. I hope we hear from all three of those guys soon. There you have two, very credible witnesses who ID Morales in the Ambassador films - BEA and Wayne Smith, and BEA saying the other guy is the Gordon Campbell he knew at JMWAVE. Ayers and Smith may be convinced, but I'm not. There's got to be something more positive, especially if it is them. And Erick, a legal opinion - is such photo identification admissible in court? BK BK, Photo identification is admissible in court. It's done frequently. Erick
  8. I don't know whether there was an exit would in Oswald's back. Those more familiar with his autopsy could enlighten us on that. However I do know that a wound to the torso, with no exit wound, may not emit much blood. Nonetheless the victim could still bleed to death ("exsanguinate" is the medical term) internally. Entrance wounds from .38 caliber bullets are not very large. In a wound to the abdomen the skin would close in on the entrance wound and keep most of the blood in. Note that Oswald was wearing a dark sweater, which would conceal blood spots.
  9. A subsonic round would not have sufficient velocity to be accurate at the distances in Dealy Plaza. Only supersonic rifle rounds could be used effectively. Professional assassins would not have used under-powered (hand-loaded) subsonic rounds in their rifles.
  10. I found this on the Internet so it must be true: http://uforeview.tripod.com/gleason.html Jackie Gleason & The Little "Men From Mars" From the book: UFOs Among the Stars By Tim Beckley by Timothy Green Beckley Way back in the mid-1960s, I got a letter in the mail from Jackie Gleason Productions, Hollywood, Florida, ordering a copy of a mimeographed booklet I had put together relating to UFOs. This, to me, was confirmation of what I had heard rumors about for a long time ... that "the Great One" was personally involved in researching UFOs. Supposedly - and I've since found out that this is true - Gleason had one of the greatest UFO book collections in the world. This is where the tale gets a bit wilder. A story circulated by Gleason's ex-wife, Beverly, has Jackie actually viewing the bodies of several aliens who died when their craft crashed in the Southwest. The story was carried originally in the National Enquirer, and though Beverly Gleason later confirmed it to members of the press who were able to track her down, independent confirmation of Gleason's supposed experience could - for the longest time - not be certified. Now with the striking revelations of a young man who knew Gleason personally, it can safely be said that such an event did take place... Larry Warren was an Airman First Class stationed at Bentwaters Air Force Base in England (a NATO installation staffed mainly by US. servicemen) when an incredible series of events took place over Christmas week of 1980. A UFO was picked up on radar and subsequently came down just outside the perimeter of the base in a dense forest. On the first of several nights of confrontation with the Unknown, three security police ventured into the area across an eerie-looking object hovering just above the ground. One of the MPs was mesmerized by the UFO and was unable to move for nearly an hour. While in this mental state, he received some sort of telepathic message that the craft would return. For the next few nights, up to 80 US. servicemen, British bobbies, as well as civilians from some nearby farms, witnessed an historic event. According to Larry Warrenwho stood within feet of this craft from another world-three occupants came out of the ship and actually communicated with a high ranking member of the U.S. Air Force. This close encounter at Bentwaters has become the subject of several books (see "From Out Of The Blue", Jenny Randles, Inner Light Publications) and has been given wide publicity on CNN, Home Box Office and more recently "Unsolved Mysteries." Warren has, in a sense, become somewhat of a celebrity himself as he remains in the public eye, willing to talk about what he observed. "Jackie Gleason was interested in hearing my story first hand," Warren offers as a means of explaining how he met the famous comic in May, 1986. "At the time I was living in Connecticut and both CNN and HBO had run pieces on the Bentwaters case. Through mutual friends who knew members of his family, I was told that Gleason would like to talk with me privately in his home in Westchester County, and so the meeting was set for a Saturday when we would both have some time to relax'". After being formally introduced, the two men ventured into Gleason's recreation room complete with pool table and full-size bar. "There were hundreds of UFO books all over the place," Warren explains, "but Jackie was quick to tell me that this was only a tiny portion of his entire collection, which was housed in his home in Florida." For the rest of the day, UFO researcher and UFO witness exchanged information. "Gleason seemed to be very well informed on the subject," Larry says, "as he knew the smallest detail about most cases and showed me copies of the book "Clear Intent" that had just been published, as well as a copy of "Sky Crash", a British book about Bentwaters that was published, actually, before all the details of this case were made public. I remember Gleason telling me about his own sightings of several discs in Florida and how he thought there were undersea UFOs bases out in the Bermuda Triangle." But it wasn't till after Warren had downed a few beers and Gleason had had a number of drinks-"his favorite, Rob Roys"-that conversation really got down to brass tacks. "At some point, Gleason turned to me and said, 'I want to tell you something very amazing that will probably come out some day anyway. We've got em!' 'Got what', I wanted to know? 'Aliens!' Gleason sputtered, catching his breath." According to Warren, Jackie proceeded to tell him the intriguing set of circumstances that led him to the stunning conclusion that extraterrestrials have arrived on our cosmic shores. "It was back when Nixon was in office that something truly amazing happened to me," Gleason explained. "We were close golfing buddies and had been out on the golf course all day when somewhere around the 15th hole, the subject of UFOs came up. Not many people know this," Gleason told Warren, "but the President shares my interest in this matter and has a large collection of books in his home on UFOs just like I do. For some reason, however, he never really took me into his confidence about what he personally knew to be true... one of the reasons being that he was usually sur- rounded by so many aids and advisers." Later that night, matters changed radically, when Richard Nixon showed up at Gleason's house around midnight. "He was all alone for a change. There were no secret service agents with him or anyone else. I said, 'Mr. President, what are you doing here?' and he said he wanted to take me someplace and show me something." Gleason got into the President's private car and they sped off into the darkness - their destination being Homestead Air Force Base. "I remember we got to the gate and this young MP came up to the car to look to see inside and his jaw seemed to drop a foot when he saw who was behind the wheel. He just sort of pointed and we headed off." Warren says that later Gleason found out that the secret service was going absolutely crazy trying to find out where Nixon was. "We drove to the very far end of the base in a segregated area," Gleason went on, "finally stopping near a well-guarded building. The security police saw us coming and just sort of moved back as we passed them and entered the structure. There were a number of labs we passed through first before we entered a section where Nixon pointed out what he said was the wreckage from a flying saucer, enclosed in several large cases." Gleason noted his initial reaction was that this was all a joke brought on by their earlier conversation on the golf course. But it wasn't, as Gleason soon learned. "Next, we went into an inner chamber and there were six or eight of what looked like glass-topped Coke freezers. Inside them were the mangled remains of what I took to be children. Then - upon closer examination - I saw that some of the other figures looked quite old. Most of them were terribly mangled as if they had been in an accident." According to Larry Warren's testimony (regarding Gleason's lengthy conversation about UFOs and space visitors), "I forget whether he said they had three or four fingers on each hand, but they definitely were not human...of this he was most certain!" For three weeks following his trip with Nixon to Homestead Air Force Base, the world famous entertainer couldn't sleep and couldn't eat. "Jackie told me that he was very traumatized by all of this. He just couldn't understand why our government wouldn't tell the public all they knew about UFOs and space visitors. He said he even drank more heavily than usual until he could regain some of his composure and come back down to everyday reality." Larry Warren is convinced that Gleason wasn't lying to him. "You could tell that he was very sincere - he took the whole affair very seriously, and I could tell that he wanted to get the matter off his chest, and this was why he was telling me all of this." And as far as Larry Warren was concerned, the Great One's personal testimony only added extra credibility to his own first hand experience with aliens while he was in the service. "Jackie felt just like I do that the government needs to 'come clean,' and tell us all it knows about space visitors. It time they stopped lying to the public and release all the evidence they have. When they do, then we'll all be able to see the same things the late Jackie Gleason did!" Hopefully this day may arrive soon. NOTE! The book UFOs Among the Stars can be purchased directly from the Conspiracy Journal Bookshop.
  11. In a separate thread, some forum members compared Holocaust deniers to those who deny a conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. See: FROM FRED LEUCHTER to VINCENT BUGLIOSI, "Science" and the Denial of Truth Rather than respond on that thread, I felt that comparison was so erroneous that I should begin a new thread on that subject. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Virginia v. Black, a case involving the question of a First Amendment right, i.e. whether it is “protected speech,” to burn crosses with intent to intimidate. Since 1866 the Ku Klux Clan has used cross burning as a method of intimidating and terrorizing black citizens. During arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas said that cross-burning has no other purpose than to cause fear and terror (meaning that it is not protected speech). It is thought that Justice Thomas’s comment heavily influenced the Court’s final opinion. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the majority opinion which held that a state may, without offending the First Amendment, outlaw cross-burning done with intent to intimidate because burning a cross is a particularly virulent form of intimidation. The Holocaust--which was the systematic extermination of six million human beings, primarily Jews, but also Gypsies, homosexuals, and other so-called “undesirables”--like cross-burning, has a special meaning in history. The most important element of its meaning is that we must carefully preserve the evidence of what occurred and continue teaching it to future generations, so that it will be remembered, and it never happens again, to any group of people. Even one generation removed, we have too quickly forgotten the lesson of the Holocaust. The Cambodian killing fields, Rwanda, Kosovo and Darfur are reminders that genocide and ethnic cleansing can happen again. The evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming. The Nazis kept meticulous records which were preserved, and there were thousands of survivors who gave first-hand accounts of the horrors. The gas chambers, crematoria and silent remains of millions in the concentration camps shout the truth of what occurred. For these reasons, and especially because we must preserve history for the coming millennia, I believe that Holocaust denial for the purpose of revising history, like cross-burning with intent to intimidate, is not “protected speech.” I do not believe there should be a right of free speech to cast doubt on the Holocaust. As for comparing Holocaust deniers to those who deny a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, that is a false comparison. The Holocaust was open and notorious, the Nazi government kept records of it, and some of the perpetrators were tried and convicted in trials which were open to international scrutiny. The assassination of JFK was carried out by unknown men firing rifles from shadows. The other conspirators kept virtually no records of the plot, and the guilty were never brought to justice. Comparing Holocaust deniers to conspiracy deniers, elevates JFK’s assassination to the same historical significance as the Holocaust. I do not mean to diminish the importance of JFK’s assassination. It was a coup d’État which subverted the foundations of our democracy, and led to a decade of war that killed millions of Vietnamese and thousands of Americans. Our freedoms and democracy in the United States survived the 1960's and remain largely intact, the Patriot Act notwithstanding; if it were not so we wouldn’t have the freedom to debate on the Education Forum. We cannot, however, compare the casualties of war, even an unjust war, to the victims of the Holocaust. The truth of the Holocaust must remain unchanged and preserved forever in history so that future generations do not allow its repetition. Erick A. Bovik
  12. Interesting idea, but if true Ruby would logically have been at the hospital waiting for JFK to arrive. (Where else would they take the wounded president?) He would have needed to be in position to get to the limo and shoot, just as he was in position two days later in the DPD basement to get Oswald. But wasn't Ruby (at least said to be) in a newspaper office up to the time of the shooting? Ron, What better place to be than a newspaper office to find out whether the job was done? Initial news reports did not say the President was dead, thus Ruby's trip to Parkland. If the President had lingered Ruby would have gotten past the police guards the same way he did in the basement of the police station--by familiarity--and shot the President in his hospital bed. The Secret Service, of course were in on it and would have been on a coffee break when that happened. Obviously Ruby knew he was on a suicide mission. To solve the case, look for the payoff to Ruby, or what "they" had on him. Erick
  13. Ashton, Here is a possibility to consider for discussion: The President's back wound could have been caused by the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the 6th floor of the Book Depository. That rifle was never intended as the primary killing weapon, because no serious sniper would have used it. It was a throw-down gun, a diversion, but someone fired it nonetheless. Old military surplus ammo can have what is called a "dud round" whereby not all of the powder propellant burns. This results in a low-velocity discharge, with a rapid bullet drop rate. This would explain the shallow back wound. It could also explain the so-called pristine bullet found at Parkland Hospital. I realize that bullet was not found on the President's stretcher, but the person who found it could have been mistaken. The bullet could have been forced out during resuscitation efforts. Erick Erick: Admittedly you know all about guns and I know zero. But I seriously doubt that the Mannlicher-Carnaco was fired on 11/22/63. And CE 399 was found, allegedly, on Connolly's stretcher. Most researchere, including myself, are of the belief that it was planted, possibly by Jack Ruby who was seen at Parkland hospital, by journalist Seth Kantor, about an hour after JFK had been shot. (Now just what would Ruby be doing at Parkland?) Dawn Dawn, Below is an excellent link to photos of the “magic bullet,” courtesy of the Mary Ferrell oganization. The bullet has clearly been fired, as you can see from the rifling. Also note from the bottom view of the projectile, that is ovalized. The ovalizing would most likely occur as a result of the bullet tumbling in flight, and striking its target in a somewhat sideways profile. The entrance wound in the back was also ovalized, which corresponds to the deformation of the bullet. A low-velocity dud round would be more likely to tumble in flight. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php?..._-_Magic_Bullet Even a team of professional snipers cannot know in advance the precise location of their shots, and they cannot know in advance the precise damage their shots will cause. Thus, the assassins could not have known in advance that it would be necessary to “plant” a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet on a stretcher at Parkland to support a “magic bullet” theory. The simplest explanation is usually truest. The CE 399 bullet came from the rifle in the Book Depository. This brings us to what Jack Ruby was doing at Parkland Hospital. Again, the simplest explanation is usually truest. We know Ruby was a hit man because we all saw him kill Oswald. There may be a few naive folks who still believe Ruby’s explanation that he wanted to spare Mrs. Kennedy the trauma of testifying at Oswald’s trial, but I doubt any of them visit this forum. I suggest that Ruby was at Parkland Hospital that day with a Colt Cobra .38 special in his pocket with instructions to finish off the president if the other gunmen hadn’t done their jobs properly. I further suggest that Ruby knew a lot more than he ever attempted to tell Earl Warren and Jerry Ford. He hinted at it when he warned them, "a whole new form of government is going to take over this country, and I know I won't live to see you another time." Jack Ruby knew this because he was in the thick of it. Erick
  14. Ashton, Here is a possibility to consider for discussion: The President's back wound could have been caused by the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the 6th floor of the Book Depository. That rifle was never intended as the primary killing weapon, because no serious sniper would have used it. It was a throw-down gun, a diversion, but someone fired it nonetheless. Old military surplus ammo can have what is called a "dud round" whereby not all of the powder propellant burns. This results in a low-velocity discharge, with a rapid bullet drop rate. This would explain the shallow back wound. It could also explain the so-called pristine bullet found at Parkland Hospital. I realize that bullet was not found on the President's stretcher, but the person who found it could have been mistaken. The bullet could have been forced out during resuscitation efforts. Erick
  15. Are you saying that sworn testimony before the Warren Commission or the HSCA would not be admissable today? Granted that neither of these esteemed bodies saw fit to allow defense attorneys to cross-examine witnesses, but it seems to me that anyone defending Lee Oswald today would have no objection to any of the WC testimony or affidavits, and I can't imagine that the Government would object. If there are no objections, should'nt the testimony be admissable? Would it not be admissable in any case under the "Official Records" exception to the Hearsay Rule? If the argument that witnesses are dead means their testimony is inadmissable, then one could argue that the Zapruder film is inadmissable, since Abraham Zapruder is dead and cannot now authenticate his film. The reason I brought up court-admissibility is because there are still living conspirators who could potentially be brought to justice. There are two perspectives from which to approach this case, the legal and the historical. Historians are not obligated to follow the rules of evidence, however good ones do well to keep them in mind lest the veracity of their work fall into question. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8), which is the public records exception to the hearsay rule, allows statements setting forth the activities of the agency, matters observed which there was a duty to report, and factual findings resulting from an investigation, unless they are for some reason untrustworthy. Police reports are specifically excluded from this exception. Committee testimony may or may not fall into this exception. If challenged it would be the subject of much brief-writing. Under Fed.R.Evid. 804((1) former testimony is a hearsay exception if the opposing party or a predecessor in interest had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Committee testimony could arguably be admissible if there was an opportunity for cross-examination, otherwise it violates the 6th Amendment right of cross-examination. The Supreme Court recently ruled on this issue. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004). The Zapruder film could be admissible utilizing this exception. The chain of custody would have to be proven first, which, after 43 years, could be problematic. One useful hearsay exception which would likely apply to this case is Fed.R.Evid. 803(4), statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. Anything said by any doctor during the President’s hospital treatment and autopsy, would be admissible under this exception. Below are links to the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Crawford decision. http://expertpages.com/federal/federal.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html Erick
  16. This has probably been covered before, but I thought I’d give my take on the subject and see what others say, regarding the fatal head wound. Initially, without considering what Dr, Crenshaw and other witnesses said about a large exit wound to the back of the head, examine the head wound on the Zapruder film. The flap of skull we see exploding to the right side above the ear is not, in my opinion, indicative of an exit (or entrance) wound. Exit wounds are generally round albeit much larger than entrance wounds. This wound in my opinion, is a shock wave wound. Bullet engineers often test bullets in a substance known as “ballistic gelatin.” This is a rectangular block of thick, clear gelatin of flesh-like consistency, which, when a bullet is fired into the end, allows the engineer to view the path of the bullet and the “wound channel” it would create in flesh. Round-nosed or pointed full-metal-jacket (FMJ) bullets at low subsonic velocity, 700-800 feet per second (fps), (such as fired from a handgun) will create a channel in the gelatin not much large in diameter than the actual projectile. FMJ bullets are usually copper-clad. The same FMJ bullet fired at supersonic speed (above 1130 fps) will enter the gelatin and create a shock wave near the entrance, then as the velocity decreases, the channel reduces in diameter. The shock wave increases in size with the velocity of the projectile. Muzzle velocities of handgun rounds are generally 700 to 1500 fps. Rifle rounds are generally above that. The muzzle velocity of a typical .30 caliber bullet fired from a deer rifle is between 2200 and 2800 feet per second (fps). A 6.5 by 52mm Carcano rifle round has a muzzle velocity of about 2100 fps. (6.5mm refers to the diameter of the projectile, 52mm refers to the length of the cartridge case.) A high velocity rifle bullet creates a shock wave, and sonic boom--this is the cracking sound heard when a high-powered rifle is fired. I once knew a fellow who served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam. He recounted being on guard duty at the perimeter of camp one night when the Viet Cong attacked unexpectedly. The soldier had laid his —16 rifle on the embankment in front of him and only had time to pick it up with one hand as an enemy soldier came over the top. He fired and the attacker immediately dropped dead. Later upon examining the body, they discovered the round had barely grazed the side of the enemy’s head. The shock wave of the bullet had shattered the skull. This was a 5.56 by 45mm (.223) round with a muzzle velocity of 2985 fps. There are wide variations in rifle bullet velocities depending on the size of the gunpowder charge and the weight of the bullet. Lighter bullets e.g. .223 and .243 caliber, usually have higher muzzle velocities (2900 fps+) than heavier .30 caliber bullets. Each particular caliber of bullet is manufactured in two or three, sometimes more weights, depending on the popularity of the round. Some hunters hand load their own cartridges to achieve a particular ballistic objective. The typical rifle bullet used by hunters for deer and other mid-sized game is a partial metal jacket. That type of bullet has a soft lead nose, sometimes with a hollow point, and the base is jacketed with copper, for controlled expansion. Upon penetration, the soft lead nose begins to flatten, which expands the lead within the copper base. The copper base in turn serrates and peels back. This creates several cutting surfaces on the expanding projectile which causes a great deal of tissue damage. Depending on the location of the impact and whether the projectile encounters thick bone tissue, the controlled expansion bullet may remain in the target or create a large, gaping exit wound. Viewed in ballistic gelatin, this projectile will cause an expanding pocket of damage, representing both high-velocity shock wave and gelatin disruption from the copper serrations. Another type of rifle bullet is what some refer to as a “fragmenting” round. These are bullets which rapidly disintegrate upon penetration. The tissue or gelatin contains and absorbs all the energy of the projectile, and depending on the entry location, there may not be an exit. This type of round causes a great deal of tissue damage. Fragmenting rounds are currently manufactured for both rifles and handguns. In 1963, fragmenting bullet technology was more primitive than today, although the concept has been around for quite some time. Old-time Mafia hit men used to carve deep X’s in the tips of their lead bullets, which would cause fragmentation. In Frederick Forsyth’s The Day of the Jackal there is an interesting description of the assassin making fragmenting rounds by sealing drops of mercury into hollow point rifle bullets. Getting back to the head wound shown in the Zapruder film, the X-rays of the President’s skull show small metal particles dispersed in the brain matter, and the autopsy doctors at Bethesda recovered two larger fragments. This is indicative of a fragmenting rifle bullet, not an FMJ Carcano round, such as the legendary “magic bullet.” The skull flap indicates a shock wave from a high-velocity round. The backward movement of the head indicates the shot originated from the front. The fact that the skull flap occurred on the right side of the head indicates that the shot came from the right front, i.e. the grassy knoll or the right side of the railroad bridge. Mrs. Kennedy climbed onto the trunk of the limousine to retrieve a large chunk of tissue. Again, this indicates a bullet from the front. The same round which caused the shock wave resulting in the right skull flap and metal particles, could have remained sufficiently intact to create the exit wound to the back of the head, as observed by Dr. Crenshaw and others. I’ve heard an argument that a bullet wound to the human central nervous system could cause an involuntary spasm which could cause the victim to move counter to the force of the bullet strike. This is an attempt to explain the President’s backward head movement as not necessarily indicative of bullet trajectory. Let’s consider a typical rifle round which might have been fired from the Grassy Knoll. The .308 Winchester is a high velocity round with a fairly flat trajectory. It would be an ideal sniper round. In fact, that is the round the U.S. Army, police departments and Special Forces have used for decades in sniper rifles. A 150-grain .308 round has muzzle energy of 2648 foot pounds. At 75 yards, a probable distance from the grassy knoll, it would retain 2365 foot pounds of muzzle energy, in other words, the force of 2365 pounds moving one foot against the President’s head. That’s about the weight of a small car. The velocity of the .308, which is a component of the bullet’s energy, is 2820 fps at the muzzle and 2654 at 75 yards. So if a .308 was used, the velocity of the bullet striking the President’s head was more than twice the speed of sound. The physics of high velocity rifle bullets defy any attempt to explain the backwards head movement as being a mere spasm.
  17. Erick, We can't assume anything of the sort, in fact, quite the contrary: we must proceed, on the basis of abundant evidence, that the film is a fake designed to hide key elements of truth, not least the entrance point on the left temple. The selection of Greer is a subject in itself. His son hints at a fairly pronounced dislike of Catholics, but, of course, there are very many other factors at work, not least in the minds of those who selected him. You've forgotten to factor in the limousine's swerve to the left, against the southern curb of Elm., where it came to rest. Insert that into the paradigm, and you have congruence. Otherwise, how to explain Hargis's left windscreen being hit with brain matter? The limo's swerve placed him to Kennedy's right rear. Paul Paul, Without considering the Zapruder film, we have precious little evidence which would be admissible in court. The statements of now-dead witnesses 43 years ago are hearsay. Erick
  18. Hugh Betzner, Jr. made explicit reference to doing just that. At least one other well-placed eyewitness described guns in the hands of Kennedy's detail before he was shot. Three further points. The murder took place at the motorcade's fag-end, at the least populated part of the route. Second, can you be sure that witnesses were expressly asked the question by statement-takers? Third, how would you react to seeing a presidential bodyguard shoot a man in broad daylight? Would you not be intimidated by what you saw? On the day of his death in June 1993, a close friend of Connally's was asked on a local Houston, Texas, radio station, why it was that Connolly had been the only presidential candidate ever to refuse Secret Service protection when he ran against Ronald Reagan in the 1980 primaries. He replied: "Well, John always said that having the Secret Service around was a good way to get yourself killed." But not if the car was slowed to walking pace or stationary. The list of witnesses who said the presidential limo stopped is, as I'm sure you're aware, formidable. Besides, is a rifle shot from 15 to 100 yards away easier than that from a hand-held weapon fired from under 10 feet? It is not self-evident to me that it is. Or simply landed on the grassy southern curb of Elm, assuming the presidential limo swerved to the left as Greer concentrated on things other than driving. Interestingly, witnesses from the front, rear and side of the Lincoln stated that the limo did indeed veer into the southernmost curbside lane of Elm; and there is a close-up sequence of a suited gent pocketing a discharged case from the grassy south curb. Fair point, if hardly dispositive. According to the Parkland doctors, the fatal head shot did indeed enter the left temple. McClelland wrote exactly that, while a surprisingly large number of his colleagues raised the question of a left-front headwound in their testimony before the Warren Commission.Remove the blinkers, Erick, and have a good, long, honest look at what was actually said and written, not what the grassy knollers have fruitlessly parroted for the past 5 decades. By the way, I think Cooper either a nut or a disinformationist. He was beaten to the punch on the Greer-did-it scenario by twenty years. Newcomb and Adams' Murder From Within remains indispensable reading. Paul I must concede that the argument for the limousine driver being one of the shooters is appealing. Assuming this was a conspiracy, a professional hit, with triangulated rifle fire, the team would have wanted to make certain the job got done. It would make sense to have someone in or near the car be the last gunman in the shooting gallery we call Dealey Plaza. A good pistolero can draw, fire accurately and reholster in a split second. A 230-grain, .45 slug will usually get the job done if it hits any vital organ or major blood vessel. The late gun writer Elmer Keith said of large calibers such as the .45, “Big holes let a lot of cold air in and let out a lot of blood.” In Zapruder film frame 312, if we expand the image (click in the lower right corner) we can see the driver’s head is turned around, sort of facing the President, looking over the stricken Governor Connally. The President has turned towards Mrs. Kennedy, exposing his right temple to the driver. We can also see a bright white line just below the driver’s face which could be the white collar of his shirt, or the refection of the sun on the front passenger’s head--or it could be the nickel-plated .45. A shirt collar and the barrel of a .45 pistol are about the same in length visually. In expanded frame 313, we still see the white line below the driver’s face. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z312.jpg http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg The Zapruder film, assuming we can trust its veracity, does not indicate a left front temple impact. The visible blood spray emanates from the right front, with a crater-like appearance in the center of the spray. This indicates the bullet entered the right-front portion of the head, just above the right temple. The center of the crater is the impact point. If the blood spray were an exit wound we would not see the crater. That being said, a .45 round is capable of tearing off a big chunk of skull, due to is size and mass. However, the bullet would have to strike at the proper angle. Think of it this way: Take a carpenter’s hammer and hit a big pumpkin in the center with it. The hammer will make a hole in the pumpkin. Hit the pumpkin with a glancing blow, and you will likely take of a chunk of it. Below is a link to a website about the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp during World War II. (These images are not suitable for children and the faint-of-heart): http://www.humanitas-international.org/arc...hau-liberation/ When the U.S. Army seized the camp they captured a large number of Nazi Waffen SS who had been running the camp. They summarily executed most of them. About halfway down the webpage is a photograph of a dead SS with the front of his head blown off by a .45. Keep in mind the ammunition used in government .45's was full metal jacket, not hollow-point or so-called “dum-dum” rounds. The deceased was shot from somewhere in front, probably tangentially near one of the temples. His entire forehead above the eyes, front skull and brain are missing. This is a similar type of wound to that which President Kennedy suffered to the right side of his head. There are two ballistic problems with the “limo-driver shooter” theory, however. One concerns the bullet fragments in the President’s head. Two large bullet fragments were recovered during the autopsy. Many smaller fragments are seen in the x-ray, which were not recovered. A .45 caliber ACP round is subsonic. Even in the “dum-dum” configuration, the fragmentation will not be as complete as seen in the x-ray. The type of round used is more indicative of a supersonic fragmenting rifle round. It is possible, however that the hitman driver could have used some sort of exotic fragmenting round. Another problem is the brain matter which hit the motorcycle cop to the left and rear of the presidential limousine. That would be more indicative of a shot from the right front of the vehicle. It would be interesting to learn whether the limo driver was left-handed or ambidextrous, and whether he had a reputation as a quick-draw artist with a .45
  19. This is implausible. If the driver had pulled out a nickle-plated .45 and shot President Kennedy with it, dozens of witnesses would have seen it. The Connallys would have seen it too. Besides that, an over-the-shoulder shot, although not impossible, would have been difficult while steering the car. The ejection port on a .45 is on the right side. The shell would have hit the shooter in the head. Also, if the driver planned to shoot the president, why would he choose an extremely visible weapon? A blued-metal .45 would not have been as reflective, but still highly visible. Furthermore the angle of trajectory was wrong for that shot. The bullet would have entered the left temple rather than the right temple. Erick A. Bovik
  20. Dawn’s cousin Howard Tattrie, who has not studied the case, but has knowledge and experience with 8 mm cameras had some comments on the film which I have extracted from his emails, omitting personal comments: I saw it mentioned that the film was running at 18fps. Is that known for sure to be true? I remember hearing somewhere (not there) that the camera was a Bell and Howell 8mm. The most common fps for 8mm was 16 fps. Then in the early sixty's (but I'm not sure what year it was) some camera's started running at 18fps, (not sure if Bell and Howell was one of them) unless they were sound, and then they ran at 24 fps. I was just wondering what he had, because change happened in early 60's and because Kennedy was shot in '63 I'm wondering if Zapruder had a new camera, or one he'd been using for a while it may have been running at 16 fps. Previously some of them even ran at 12 fps. Ugh! I've got many old 8mm as well as super-8 sound films and the 8mm is terrible for clarity, even in an editor. I also noticed the four frames that somebody put up. I think his name was Ashton. He mentions, and shows the head going forward. But what he doesn't mention and no one that I read mentioned ( I didn't read them all, maybe somebody did) is the fact that also in those four frames you can tell that either Zapruder was moving backwards, or he had a zoom lens and was zooming out. That would have to be taken into consideration for any movement in the frame, of Kennedy's head. You can see, not only the seat of the car "zooming" out, but also a green border comes into the frame from something. Not sure what that is, because I don’t think it can be the car because the car was black wasn't it? Anyway, just wondered about those things. I did continue to look at more of the postings after I sent the email. Someone else (I'm not sure who it was, I can't remember the name) seemed to want to contradict this Ashton guy and posted a piece of the film that was a couple or three more frames than the one that Ashton posted. After watching the longer bit, I'm not really sure if the motion I saw was a "zoom out" or if it's just the jittery movement of the camera. Because in the second bit, the camera does back off in the same spot as with the first one, but then moves back in. There's also a lot of sideways movement as well, in the whole thing. So I'm thinking that this might be just "jitter". I'm pretty sure that Zapruder wasn't on a tripod, but was shooting hand-held, so there would be a bit of movement anyway, depending on how expert he was at holding the camera steady. Also not sure if the frames that they show there are complete frames or if they've been cropped just to show John and Jackie. If they're full frames then the movement is from the camera, but if they're cropped then the movement could be from a "lazy" crop. Not sure. In any case I think that when either Ashton, or whoever did the other one, draws a line around Kennedy's head to show movement, they should also draw a line around some other outline in the frame, to show how the movement of the head corresponds to the movement in the rest of the scene. Because the rest of the scene is in movement as well. Either in, out, or to the side. I still wonder about the speed of the film, and if people know that the camera really was running at the 18fps, as an absolute known fact, or is it just assumed that it was. That little difference in fps could mean a whole huge difference in what is seen in the film, considering what I read there about the ballistics and how things were moving at the "speed of sound" or higher. I don't really know anything about the film other than I've seen it on TV a couple times. Never have looked at it frame by frame or anything like that except for what I saw there. I do know that from editing my own films (an 8mm editor allows you to view the film frame by frame because they were hand cranked. I still have one.) things are seen in an editor (frame by frame) that you don't always see in the regular viewing of the film in a projector. And some of them are weird to say the least. Actions that you look at in an editor sometimes seem to have no relation to what your watching. I just went back to that JFK post and found that Ashton put up a much longer piece of film. ( yes, I admit it's fascinating stuff.) In the new one, the movement I was seeing in the first four frames definitely just looks like a "rocking" back and forth. So maybe there's no zoom after all. (that's part of the problem of just viewing a small number of frames.) However that doesn't discount the fact that there is movement of the whole frame. What I was thinking though is this. The people of the "conspiracy" persuasion see demons everywhere when it comes to the JFK assassination. However...........think about this..............what's this, almost 2007..........that's almost 44 years, and still there's the back and forth..............the shot came from the back......"no, I don't see that".........the shot came from the front...."no absolutely not"........etc etc. All kinds of theories and conspiracies and still there's arguing back and forth. I just can't see how the Warren Commission can be faulted for whatever their final outcome was, when the people who think they were wrong (and I notice that on that problem, Ashton and everybody else is in agreement) 44 years later, still cannot arrive at a final consensus! However, it certainly is fascinating reading to see everybody's different outlooks and views. I just don't see why some people have a "pet" theory and don't like others point of view, when in fact nobody can really agree on pretty well anything except that the Warren Commission got it wrong. Well geez, ya think? How long did they have to come up with their "verdict"? Certainly not 44 years, and it still goes on! I'm reading those posts and I find myself thinking "yea, that makes sense....", and then I'll read another one with another view and I think "yea, that makes sense too". So I end up with it being very fascinating reading but can't really decide what to believe. But then it looks like no one else can either.
  21. John: Why would you even want a CIA apologist, disinformation creep like McAdams around here? Dawn Dawn, Sweetheart, we can't have a debating society of people who all agree with each other. We ought to have all points of view represented so that in the free market of ideas the truth will become evident. I will say however, that prominent invitees who decline debate may be afraid of discussing their claims with experts like you. They're probably afraid of people like you who know so much about the case. Erick
  22. Hi Erick, and welcome to the forum. A very interesting piece. Have you studied the head movements, with the neck as a pivot, vs. the full backward jerk of the torso that clearly pivots from the pelvis/hips? If so, would the ballistics you have described account, by force isolated to the head, for the full body motion, and if so, how? Ashton I am isolating my comments only to the immediate movement of the head upon bullet impact. I will concede that after the initial impact, neurological spasms could have been a factor in any other bodily movements. Excellent. I've done a small anim from the Zapruder film, below, focusing on "the immediate movement of the head upon bullet impact" to see if you could expand on that a bit. First, allow me to credit, then apologize to, John Dolva: I've adopted his ingenious stablization technique for this short series—hence the credit—but haven't done it nearly as well as he does—hence the apologies. I feel it will suffice for these purposes, though. I have the first three of four frames of the anim set to 1.5 second intervals so it goes slow enough to see, then the last frame lingers for 3 seconds before the anim loops. In the first frame—Zapruder 312, immediately prior to impact—I have scribed a white line along the silhouette of JFK's back and head. In the first bullet impact frame—Zapruder 313—I have done the same thing, but left the outline from the prior frame in place, connecting them with motion lines. That stays essentially the same through the next frame—Zapruder 314—but there I have added an arrow to what clearly appears to be ejecta, which arrow happens to align almost exactly with the motion lines showing the sudden change of head position. Finally, Zapruder 315 shows JFK's right arm swinging up after the side of his head has been blown out, as his body arcs back, bringing his head almost to the same position as Zapruder 312. Then the sequence starts again and loops: I'm not really up on ballistics, so since this thread is "The Head Wound Explained," I hoped you could explain the ballistics to me of a frontal shot that would throw his head forward to that degree in the time of a single frame, and send ejecta that far forward in the same direction of the head movement by the next frame. Ashton Ashton, I assume for the purpose of this thread that we are proceeding on the assumption that the Zapruder film actually depicts the terrible event within the capabilities of 8mm color film, and that the film has not been altered. There is a great deal of controversy as to whether the film has been altered, which would properly be a subject for another thread. Pick up a stone and throw it forward like a baseball into water. Some of the water will splash forward of the stone’s impact and some will splash ahead and around the point of impact. Crime scene specialists and forensic scientists will tell you that when an individual is shot, there is ejecta coming backwards out of the wound. That is why, at close range, the shooter will get sprayed with blood and tissue. Mrs. Kennedy would not have been reaching for a chunk of the President’s head on the trunk of the limo if the shot had come from the rear. Any chunk of tissue would likely have ended up in the front seat rather than on the trunk if the head shot came from the rear. Dallas Police Officer Bobby Hargis was on a motorcycle behind and to the left of Mrs. Kennedy when the head shot occurred. He was splattered with blood and brain tissue. This also indicates a shot from the front and to the right. As regards the head movement upon the point of impact, remember, the President had already been shot in the upper torso. Undoubtedly he was reacting to that wound when the fatal bullet arrived. It was a natural reaction to the torso wound and the sound of gunfire, to hunch forward, which is what appears to be occurring as the limo appears after passing the Stemmons Freeway sign. The overall head movement is not just backwards, it is also to the left and downward, towards Mrs. Kennedy, which is consistent with a shooter in front and to the right. The head recedes from the camera. This is what appears to be happening from frame 312 to 315. Each frame of the Zapruder film is 1/40th of a second. Moving objects will be slightly blurred in each frame. It’s not as photographically accurate as a video tape. A slight, rapid head movement in reaction to the initial impact will not be depicted as accurately as the overall head movement over many film frames. We cannot see what is occurring between each film frame. Erick
  23. Charlie, I am blessed by the fact that I have not been in combat or seen someone shot in combat (a long time ago a neighbor accidentally shot himself in the groin with a .22 but that is the subject of another story). I am just basing my comments on the head movement we can all see in the Zapruder film. I offer no explanation for any other body movement. Eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. When I try cases I often find that one witness's testimony may vary significantly from another witness's even if they testify to the same event. It is a matter of perception, memory, stress, etc. Your comment on recoil is well-taken. Don't anyone try this at home or anywhere else: Hypothetically, if a person were to place the unpadded butt end of a deer rifle firmly against their forehead and fire, it would probably produce a similar head movement to the one seen in the film. It would also likely produce injuries. Erick
  24. A bullet wound to the head will sharply increase the internal cranial pressure which affects all parts of the brain. However the explosion of the skull would have the effect of alleviating the pressure. This occurs within thousandths of a second. Some years ago I saw a TV show on the Lincoln assassination. They used a cadaver head in an experiment. They attached pressure gauges which measured the internal cranial pressure. First they fired a .44 caliber black powder derringer, identical to the one Booth used, into the back of the head. The internal cranial pressure sharply spiked. The spike in cranial pressure occurred throughout the entire inner skull. The experimenters were trying to figure out whether Mr. Lincoln would have survived with modern medical intervention. I remember another part of the experiment also. This replicated the initial finger probe of Mr. Lincoln’s wound in Ford’s theater by Dr. Leale and others subsequently. The experimenter probed the cadaver head wound in a similar manner, and again the cranial pressure spiked. The experimenter concluded that probing the wound did not help Mr. Lincoln. I do not recall whether he thought modern medicine would have been helpful. Below are some links on the subject: http://www.thelincolnlegacy.org/timeline/hours.htm http://www.nvrha.com/NEWS.HTM
  25. Over the years I have heard the hypothesis that the President’s reactions may have been slowed by the steroids he was on for his back condition. Also, he probably had Addison’s disease, which affects the adrenal glands, and that may have affected his reaction to the shots. Below is an informative link from the JFK Library on the President’s health problems. http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resou...ons+Disease.htm