Bruce Fernandez Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Just a point to consider and include in the logic of the observations: If we believe that the first wound to JFK came from a "through & through" from the windshield to JFK's throat (I believe this), then a judgment hesitation on the part of the driver is more understandable (though his training should have instructed him as Greg suggests). I know that convoy leadership training is to drive through an ambush. I also know that basic instinct needs to be overcome (training) to accomplish that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 it also slowed down just next to the Umbrella, so many people call that proof that the Umbrella was a weapon. I call it a stretch without further evidence to support that, just like i need further evidence to support a gun from the storm drain... OK, Glenn, what do you think of this narrative about the "umbrella" gun? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcdMlNFL9Bk Regards, --Paul Trejo you completely missed my point, Paul. I have even less of a desire to discuss or consider an umbrella gun at the moment than i do General Walker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) bump Edited August 3, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 so none of you are even willing to consider the validity of my assertion that the NBA assisted in the cover-up of the Celtics' alteration of the famous Wojohowitz film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 (edited) Just a point to consider and include in the logic of the observations: If we believe that the first wound to JFK came from a "through & through" from the windshield to JFK's throat (I believe this), then a judgment hesitation on the part of the driver is more understandable (though his training should have instructed him as Greg suggests). I know that convoy leadership training is to drive through an ambush. I also know that basic instinct needs to be overcome (training) to accomplish that. Say, Bruce, I'm not clear on what you mean by a "through & through" from the windshield to JFK's throat, which you evidently believe. Would you please explain? Also, does the notion of a silent first shot (e.g. umbrella gun) interest you at all? I ask because the only people that seemed to notice that first shot were those seated immediately close to JFK. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 3, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Fernandez Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Paul, all I believe that the "evidence" shows that the windshield showed a "hole that you could put a "pen in"" at Parkland, that's what I refer to as a "through and through". Obviously there are folks who interpret the evidence differently, however I favor that interpretation of early observations. If that (the shot/windshield hole) happened, as I and others believe, then the driver was certainly seriously distracted in the instant. Additionally, if that happened, as I believe, then the Parkland witnesses (Dr's) corroborate an in-shot in the neck and the likelihood (certain hood) of (at least) a second shooter. I am certainly interested in "the umbrella man" and/or a silent poison shot(though not yet persuaded by specific observations of that sort of action). Do you know of any?. I am, as well, certainly distracted by the "English protestation umbrella reference" interpretation, though not persuaded by evidence that there is deadly intent there. Please don't be distracted by what I refer to as evidence or "lack of evidence". For the most part I'm only referring to what I can find on this site, though I've surely tried to sort this stuff out on other sites. If I need to defend "Motorcade Stopping" reference, I'll, at a minimum, suggest the issue of a shot through the windshield, an interesting question in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Kellerman testifies to this "flurry" of shots to the WC and discusses the interaction between he and Greer a bit at this time, of them looking back and seeing Connally and Kennedy, etc. and yelling something, etc. he mentions the SA being the first to look over the car back in washington, and the bullet fragments from the front seat, and the brain and "matter" flying all over them up front. He never mentions a bullet coming through the windshield even though the interviewer questioned him pretty well about the three shots and thier intervals. Either there was no bullet through the windshield or Kellerman was lying through his teeth. what am i missing? if a bullet came through that windshield, then the two in front HEARD it. I haven't read Greer's testimony, but i'm guessing he, too, has said nothing about this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Just a point to consider and include in the logic of the observations: If we believe that the first wound to JFK came from a "through & through" from the windshield to JFK's throat (I believe this), then a judgment hesitation on the part of the driver is more understandable (though his training should have instructed him as Greg suggests). I know that convoy leadership training is to drive through an ambush. I also know that basic instinct needs to be overcome (training) to accomplish that. Say, Bruce, I'm not clear on what you mean by a "through & through" from the windshield to JFK's throat, which you evidently believe. Would you please explain? Also, does the notion of a silent first shot (e.g. umbrella gun) interest you at all? I ask because the only people that seemed to notice that first shot were those seated immediately close to JFK. Regards, --Paul Trejo I've read more than one theory of the positions of gunmen all over the plaza, and of the likelihood of silenced guns - that a shot was heard by an SA on Houston before the turn, etc. I'm quite open to the possibility of silenced weapons, rifles, in the area. would make sense. Don't know why a silenced weapon has to equal a poison or something. Is that not making it more complicated than necessary? is there a reason to insert a secret shooting umbrella if there's nothing to suggest it? yeah, why not silenced guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Paul, all I believe that the "evidence" shows that the windshield showed a "hole that you could put a "pen in"" at Parkland, that's what I refer to as a "through and through". Obviously there are folks who interpret the evidence differently, however I favor that interpretation of early observations. If that (the shot/windshield hole) happened, as I and others believe, then the driver was certainly seriously distracted in the instant. Additionally, if that happened, as I believe, then the Parkland witnesses (Dr's) corroborate an in-shot in the neck and the likelihood (certain hood) of (at least) a second shooter. I am certainly interested in "the umbrella man" and/or a silent poison shot(though not yet persuaded by specific observations of that sort of action). Do you know of any?. I am, as well, certainly distracted by the "English protestation umbrella reference" interpretation, though not persuaded by evidence that there is deadly intent there. Please don't be distracted by what I refer to as evidence or "lack of evidence". For the most part I'm only referring to what I can find on this site, though I've surely tried to sort this stuff out on other sites. If I need to defend "Motorcade Stopping" reference, I'll, at a minimum, suggest the issue of a shot through the windshield, an interesting question in itself. first i've heard a pen could fit in the whole in the windshield. where'd that come from? Kellerman mentioned the bevelled appearance, i think, indicating (suggesting, really) that the direction was inbound from the front. i didn't get the idea that there was an actual hole... Robert knows bullets and holes. What do you say about a bullet piercing a windshield and NOT spiderwebbing the whole thing, Robert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Fernandez Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/ I hope that works for most folks, I think other references are available, but I'll need to deal with other stuff later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 What do you make of Greer saying he swerved, Vince? Did anyone ever follow up on this? Considering a number of witnesses claimed to have seen the limo swerve to the left, as well as stop, I'm surprised no one ever pressed him on this matter. For what it's worth, Rich Dellarosa told me Greer pulled the car to the left and stopped. That was his opinion. I don't know what he based it on. Kathy C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Collins Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Just a point to consider and include in the logic of the observations: If we believe that the first wound to JFK came from a "through & through" from the windshield to JFK's throat (I believe this), then a judgment hesitation on the part of the driver is more understandable (though his training should have instructed him as Greg suggests). I know that convoy leadership training is to drive through an ambush. I also know that basic instinct needs to be overcome (training) to accomplish that. Wasn't it one of the claims the driver, Greer, made for his non-action that he "Didn't want to drive President Kennedy through an ambush? Kathy C Edited August 4, 2015 by Kathleen Collins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 Paul, all I believe that the "evidence" shows that the windshield showed a "hole that you could put a "pen in"" at Parkland, that's what I refer to as a "through and through". Obviously there are folks who interpret the evidence differently, however I favor that interpretation of early observations. If that (the shot/windshield hole) happened, as I and others believe, then the driver was certainly seriously distracted in the instant. Additionally, if that happened, as I believe, then the Parkland witnesses (Dr's) corroborate an in-shot in the neck and the likelihood (certain hood) of (at least) a second shooter. I am certainly interested in "the umbrella man" and/or a silent poison shot(though not yet persuaded by specific observations of that sort of action). Do you know of any?. I am, as well, certainly distracted by the "English protestation umbrella reference" interpretation, though not persuaded by evidence that there is deadly intent there. Please don't be distracted by what I refer to as evidence or "lack of evidence". For the most part I'm only referring to what I can find on this site, though I've surely tried to sort this stuff out on other sites. If I need to defend "Motorcade Stopping" reference, I'll, at a minimum, suggest the issue of a shot through the windshield, an interesting question in itself. first i've heard a pen could fit in the whole in the windshield. where'd that come from? Kellerman mentioned the bevelled appearance, i think, indicating (suggesting, really) that the direction was inbound from the front. i didn't get the idea that there was an actual hole... Robert knows bullets and holes. What do you say about a bullet piercing a windshield and NOT spiderwebbing the whole thing, Robert? As you say, bevelling on the inside of the window is indicative of a force striking the windshield from the outside. This is true of drilling through any brittle substance, such as concrete, for instance. However, such bevelling usually only occurs once the drill is through the concrete. The safety glass made for windshields in the 1960's was made from two layers of glass bonded together with a layer of a clear rubber like compound between them. It may still be made in this manner today. I know I have, for fun, shot through the windshields of abandoned wrecks I found while out hunting in the bush years ago, but I honestly can't recall what the effect was on the windshields. It ust be remembered that the tempered glass found in the other windows of an automobile is not the same as the glass in the windshield. I don't believe glass would behave much differently than skull bone of the same thickness, and I can attest to the fact that hollow point and soft tipped bullets make a very neat hole, not much bigger than the bullet itself, when entering a skull. Being even less prone to deformation, a full metal jacket bullet is almost guaranteed to make a very small entrance hole in skull bone. I have seen photos of windshields, posted by LN's, showing great gaping holes supposedly made by bullets. These very well may be truthful representations of the effect made by a bullet passing through a windshield, but I have always been suspicious of them; mainly because I do not recall bullets doing this. It would have been very easy for someone to shoot several holes in a windshield with a 16 or 20 gauge loaded with buckshot, and attribute the damage to a rifle or pistol bullet. I guess the only way to find out is by taking the deer rifle out and shooting a couple of holes in a windshield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) you're a hunter. a small tree branch can turn a bullet, right? my next question would be: understanding the unreliability of deflections - if you were planning such an intricate scheme to shoot someone from various positions, or even one, would you even risk this unreliability of firing through the windshield, past TWO rows of moving people to target a MOVING person in the third seat? is that something you'd do on purpose in Dealey Plaza with fences and RR underpasses and open windows everywhere? Edited August 4, 2015 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 I have seen windshields that were penetrated by a BB. The nearly-perfectly-round BB leaves a nearly-perfectly-round hole on the side of the windshield it strikes, and a bevelled crater on the opposite side of the windshield. Bullets moving at higher velocities might make a different mark on the inside, but still, any spider-webbing would be concentrated near the hole. As in 3-4 inches in diameter, maybe 6 inches with a large caliber. But I don't recall ever seeing a bullet-pierced windshield spider-webbing across the entire windshield. And there certainly would be some spraying of glass from the impact that causes the hole...because that glass doesn't simply vaporize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now