Jump to content


Spartacus

Stuart Wexler

Member Since 12 Jul 2005
Offline Last Active Jun 22 2013 05:21 AM
*****

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Priscilla McMillan, Aline Mosby, and the Oct. 1959 Defection of Oswald

17 June 2013 - 01:03 AM

David:

 

It is not a matter of intelligence-- it is a matter of maturity. To the extent that the lack of college education reinforces that--  to the would-be employers (often themselves Ivy League elites)--  I think it is a factor. If I had a bunch of examples of 19 year old deep cover agents, I would sign on. I am more inclined to what Larry is describing, a situation where Oswald is "managed" by people from afar, possibly monitored and approached by outside agents. I anxiously await what you have in terms of solid evidence. Is it coming soon?

 

-Stu


In Topic: Priscilla McMillan, Aline Mosby, and the Oct. 1959 Defection of Oswald

16 June 2013 - 09:24 PM

David:  Do you have rock-solid, new evidence for the assertion that Oswald was "definitely" CIA operative in October 1959. I have gone back and forth over this for 20 years. The problem I always come to is Oswald's age and education. I can't imagine they would send a deep cover operative into the USSR who is 19 w/o a college education. I teach some very bright high school seniors, and I wouldn't have faith they could pull it off for two years. I am much more inclined to believe they became aware of Oswald's desire to defect (for whatever reason) and monitored him to guage Soviet interest. I do think he was something akin to an operative in Mexico City 4 years later, but I, too, am skeptical of 1959.


In Topic: The Connally Thorax Wound and the Missing Bullet

22 May 2013 - 11:30 PM

I use to be privvy to arguments about this ad nauseum over at the alt. forums. We should credit the best arguments against our side, not the weakest ones or the ones that confirm our biases. So let me make the case for the lapel flip

 

(A) The jacket shows a low exit, but the shirt shows it to be higher-- the more likely bet is that the jacket rode up. That said, it is still not directly over the lapel, however...

(B) The argument is that there was as much as a jacket bulge as a lapel flip. I think anyone who looks at high quality versions of the relevant frames can see it is not the swift motion we see that caused the lapel flip from Rookstool.  I don't particularly admire the following person's approach to the case, but he has the relevant clip isolated:

 

http://www.jfk-online.com/tempz.html

 

... in short, whatever lapel flip happened, it was a result of the jacket being forced forward. This has also been reproduced in shooting experiments.

 

© You also have what appears to be a flapping of the hat and a sudden movement of JBC's torso.

 

I am not completely sold on it, but I will say that the LN logic on it never made sense either. Even if JBC is hit at 224, it doesn't mean JFK was hit at the same time. JFK is showing a reaction to a wounding, but he is blocked by the sign-- he could have been reacting for several frames. In fact, I believe the most likely JFK hit is between 190-207. Part of why I am so interested in this is because I think James has brought forth one of the more credible cases I have seen that the trajectory has to involve a different frame.

 

The lapel is actually secondary to the point about the limo. Again, I am not doing an Arlen Specter "where did the bullet go" argument in terms of "why wasn't it found?" I am open to the inferences that evidence was deep-sixed in this case, especially given the work by John Hunt. The bigger problem is why there isn't more damage to the limo. A bullet that faces little or no resistance from direct contact with bone and that is not tumbling will retain a large share of its velocity. I can't imagine this not doing serious damage to the limo, in noticeable ways.

 

-Stu


In Topic: The Connally Thorax Wound and the Missing Bullet

22 May 2013 - 07:35 AM

Hi James,

 

I did read your work and just wanted clarification.  This last post goes a long way. I guess there are a few things still confusing to me, that I think would shore up what you are saying.

 

My understanding is that Myers and co. simply play connect the dots between the initial entry and exit wounds. What I am trying to understand is how they could be wrong about where the bullet went if we assume (a) the location of entry and exit are correct and (B) the position of the men in the limo is correct. I am not clear on that from reading the piece. If you are saying that their problem is the Z224 location, I think that makes some sense. But you probably have to do more to explain the lapel flip.

 

Secondly, I think the issue of where the bullet went and what it did is paramount to explain. It's one thing to infer that evidence was deleted or added to the record; John Hunt's work adds to your inference. But we have pretty good documentation on what damage there was to the interior of the limo. There is one interesting 6.5mm dent somewhere, and there is the matter of the windshield damage (I don't believe it is thru and thru) but neither seems consistent with what you are describing with the JBC damage. The angle doesn't work for the windshield, and the damage is too minimal for a bullet that would have been going nearly full throttle. 

 

Keep in mind I am only trying to play devil's advocate to improve your work. Your analysis of the JBC damage seems convincing on its face. In fact, I would strongly encourage you to find independent medical experts, especially wound ballistics experts, trauma surgeons, and forensic pathologists, to verify what you have. You may want to start with conspiracy minded folks because if you cannot convince a Cyril Wecht, it is problematic. But then I would go cold turkey to experts; I found foreign experts are much more likely to offer opinions. I would be willing to help you on that.  You may well have a deal breaker here-- IF you can explain the lapel flap and (more importantly) IF you can account for what happened after.

 

-Stu


In Topic: The Connally Thorax Wound and the Missing Bullet

21 May 2013 - 05:36 AM

(1) To go a step further, are you saying that Myers is wrong because he does not rotate JBC's torso enough? 

 

(2) Side note, what sources are you using for your 3d recreation and what is your margin of error?

 

(3) A comment really...  I think you are really going to have to account for what this bullet is supposed to have done when it exited JBC's torso. That is clearly going to be the area you are attacked on. If even a medium velocity round exited JBC without significant deceleration, and even with a dose of it, I imagine it would have done noticeable damage inside the limo.

 

-Stu