Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Duncan MacRae

Zapruder throat shot BEFORE JFK goes behind the Stemmons sign circa frames Z194 to Z201

Recommended Posts

Glad to introduce you to the subject.

It's just too bad that the subject (and the crap) you've just introduced doesn't have the slightest resemblance to the truth and the facts surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy.

You don't seem to have the slightest idea how to properly evaluate evidence in the JFK case. And you certainly haven't got a clue as to how to separate the wheat from the chaff. (You ALWAYS prefer the chaff, it seems. Typical of rabid conspiracy believers, of course.)

You CONSTRUCT crap from virtual nothingness and then you prop up your mush as a rock-solid foundation of Anybody-But-Oswald truth.

For example---

Let's take your recently invented theory about how Buell Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Mae Randle were coerced by the evil DPD into creating their paper bag stories out of thin air.

That theory is pure bunk--and every reasonable person who has studied this case knows it.

Wesley Frazier never EVER has recanted his story about Oswald having a bag, or about Oswald saying that there were curtain rods in that paper bag. (Wesley never had a pang of conscience strike him in all these years about that whopper of a lie he told? Is that it, Jim?)

It is YOU--Jim D--who invents crap out of thin air. And more people should really slap you down when you do it. Of course, no CTer will ever dare slap down the great and all-knowing James DiEugenio, who has evidently memorized every book ever written about every assassination that has ever occurred since the beginning of time.

Therefore, unless someone like myself or John McAdams or Francois Carlier comes along to expose your nonsense (such as your ridiculous Frazier/Randle fairy tale), then you've got a clear field to run with your BS to the CT Endzone.

In short -- You're a CT caricature, Jim DiEugenio.

And the funniest part of all is -- you don't even realize it.


Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, David W.

I have seen that Ian Griggs piece in the past. I'd forgotten about that.

Well, anyway, Jim D. should be happy. At least he knows he's not completely alone when he continues to peddle his "There Was No Bag At All" fiction.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

What DVP says I said:

"Well, anyway, Jim D. should be happy. At least he knows he's not completely alone when he continues to peddle his "There Was No Bag At All" fiction."

What I actually said:

"Oswald may have taken a package into the TSBD, but its not the one that the DPD brought down from up stairs. And the evidentiary record on the others is so confusing, and Hoover's memos so compromising that the packages would have been a real vulnerability at trial. So, maybe a package, but not from the TSBD paper--since there is no evidence for this, and Hoover knew it."

That's a nice piece of backpedaling that Jim D. has done there regarding Oswald carrying a package into the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of President Kennedy's assassination. (And I assume Jim isn't talking about just a small "lunch" type of paper sack in his quote above. Because if he is referring to that type of small package, he's going to end up looking sillier than he already does concerning this "paper bag" subject.)

Apparently Jim has reversed his opinion on this matter somewhat since January 14, 2010, when he said on Black Op Radio that Buell Wesley Frazier had been "pressured into doing what he did" by the Dallas Police Department.

And the "doing what he did" portion of that quote is referring to DiEugenio's belief (at least as of January 2010) that Frazier had been "forced" (DiEugenio's word) into telling a lie about seeing Lee Oswald carrying a bag into the Book Depository on November 22, 1963.

DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Part 7)

Quoting DiEugenio (which can be heard at the 5:42 mark in the video linked above):

"I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides [Howard] Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; 1/14/2010

Along the same lines, DiEugenio said the following in Part 6 of his review of Vincent Bugliosi's book, which are comments made by DiEugenio that certainly lean toward Jimmy D. believing there was NO PACKAGE AT ALL taken into the Depository by Lee Oswald -- because why on Earth would the cops have needed to coerce or "force" Wesley Frazier into inventing a story about Oswald carrying a paper bag if Oswald really HAD carried a paper bag (ANY paper bag) into the TSBD on the morning of November 22nd?:

"The story of this (these) paper bag(s), Wesley Frazier, his sister, and the curtain rods can be challenged every single step of the way. .... By the early evening of [November] 22nd [1963], the DPD had very little besides the notorious Howard Brennan. Shaky eye witness Howard Brennan couldn't be relied upon to put Oswald on the sixth floor. As Police Chief Jesse Curry later admited [sic], they had no one who put Oswald in the building with a gun in his hand. Therefore, they needed Frazier and his "Oswald carrying a package" story. With what we know about this story now, we also know why Frazier needs to be handled by the likes of Dave Perry and Hugh Aynseworth [sic]. If this case were ever reopened, he would be one of the first witnesses called to the stand. And he would be there a long time. The reason is easy to understand: If there is no bag, there is no rifle." -- Jim DiEugenio

I guess maybe that's part of the problem with being an "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorist like Jim DiEugenio -- he has invented so many ridiculous theories and fantasies about the JFK assassination, perhaps it's hard to keep all of his delusions straight from one week to the next.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW; Do I get royalties for your debate show [below; via full-sized version of the ever-popular and world-famous DVP Vs. JD logo]? Can I give you some advice on selling it: Give my name top billing.

No way, Jose. The winner is always supposed to go on top. Didn't you know that, Jim?


Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
DVP's reluctance to accept the photographic evidence for JFK being shot before he went behind the sign is to me a bit strange.

Why in the world is it strange to you, Pat?

For one (very big!) thing: A shot from Oswald's window in the Z190s means that Oswald was SHOOTING THROUGH THE OAK TREE! And that, IMO, is just silly (even though LNer Mark Fuhrman promotes such nonsense in his 2006 book, and the HSCA, incredibly, thought Oswald was shooting through the tree too).

Bugliosi, after all, successfully pushed this evidence on the jury in the televised mock trial of Oswald. Is he now trying to claim Bugliosi deceived all those jurors?

That's easily explainable, Pat. And you surely know the answer to this:

At the mock trial in England in 1986, Bugliosi was in kind of a tough spot regarding the photographic expert he put on the stand--Cecil Kirk of the HSCA.

It's possible that Vince, HIMSELF, as of the time of the London trial in July 1986, might very well have accepted as fact Kirk's explanation about an early (circa Z190) SBT shot that Kirk presented to the jury in London.

But as Vince studied the Zapruder Film later on (after the trial), my guess would be that he "wised up" in a sense (at least partially), and grew to believe that the SBT shot had occurred quite a bit later than the Z190s. (Although Vince still gets it wrong in his book, saying that the SBT occurs at around Z210, but he never mentions an exact frame. So, after the 1986 London trial, at least VB got closer to the actual SBT frame of Z224 than he was in '86.)

But even if Bugliosi had truly believed, in July 1986, that the SBT occurred at a time other than the Z190s, Vince was still on a spot as prosecutor of Oswald at the London trial -- because he could not subpoena witnesses, and he could not force anyone to testify at the docu-trial against their will.

So, in effect, VB was pretty much stuck with accepting the witness he was able to get regarding the photographic (Zapruder Film) evidence--Cecil Kirk of the HSCA, who endorsed the early (and silly) SBT timeline of around Z190 (although no specific Zapruder frame numbers were ever mentioned for the SBT shot when Kirk was on the stand; never once does Kirk say that he was talking about Z190 or Z200, or whatever, during his mock trial testimony; but we all know he was talking about a circa Z190 SBT hit).

If Bugliosi had been able to get any witness he wanted for this "SBT timing" aspect of the case at the London trial, I'm guessing he would have selected Robert Frazier, who performed extensive tests with Oswald's rifle from the Sniper's Nest during the Warren Commission's reconstruction of the assassination in Dealey Plaza on May 24, 1964.

Whether or not Bob Frazier was ever asked to participate in the London court proceeding, I have no idea. But he certainly would have been my first choice, instead of Cecil Kirk.


I do think Vince Bugliosi should have explained to his readers in "Reclaiming History" why he was no longer supporting Kirk's earlier timeline regarding the Single-Bullet Theory. I don't think, however, that Vince says a word in his book about this discrepancy. And I think he should have. And if he had done so, I'm pretty confident that the explanation I just laid out above would have been Vincent's explanation as well.

Cecil Kirk's testimony at the 1986 television mock trial ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald") can be seen below:


David, you ignore the obvious. At the time of the mock trial, Connally's lapel flip, etc, was not widely recognized as a sign Connally was hit at 224. Once this grew in acceptance, moreover, it became necessary for those swearing by Oswald's sole guilt--to preserve their pre-ordained conclusions--to begin pretending that Kennedy was not hit before this time, and, just as importantly, that THEY never believed he'd been hit before this time. THIS is almost certainly why Bugliosi leaves all references to Kirk's testimony from his book...because he was ascared to admit that he--big ole Vinnie--had changed his mind about some stuff when it pointed him towards a conspiracy, and that he'd let his conclusion of Oswald's guilt guide his interpretation of the evidence, and not the other way around. He was thereby deceiving his readers.

This deception becomes even more clear when, as you point out, he claims Kennedy was hit around Z-210. Well, as you well know--but are afraid to acknowledge here--elsewhere in his book he claims the second shot hit Kennedy and Connally around Z-224. So why the gamesmanship? Well, as you well know, by claiming the second shot was at Z-224, Bugliosi was telling the die-hard LNs what they wanted to hear. Okay. So then why change it to Z-210 later? Ugghh--could the FACT that the SBT trajectory looks possible in the WC re-enactment photo Bugliosi presents for Z-210, but NOT possible in the WC re-enactment photo for Z-225 (that he conveniently leaves out of his book) have anything to do with his suddenly claiming the shot hit around 210? Bet on it!

Now you KNOW all this, as we've been through this for years. And you also know that Bugliosi deliberately misrepresented David Mantik's review of his book on the cover of his paperback. You know, therefore, that he is not above deliberate deception.

So...why are you trying to convince us Bugliosi never believed his witness, and never believed Kennedy was shot before he went behind the sign, and only went along with it because no other experts could be found? Because he couldn't possibly have thought Kennedy was hit before he went behind the sign? Or because YOU can't allow yourself to think Bugliosi could have thought such a thing?

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look closely at JFK at 193. He has spun to his right and is clearly shielding his face with his right hand, which suggests that he was spattered by debris from a shot that struck the pavement to his right, generating the "sparks" that were seen then.

At least you're original, Robert.

Now these " sparks" What is your source for this, to me, new information.

Duncan you should try reading the Warren Commission testimonies.

WC testimony of Mrs. Donald Baker

Mr. LIEBELER. As you went down Elm Street that you saw this thing hit the street--what did it look like when you saw it?

Mrs. BAKER. Well, as I said, I thought it was a firecracker. It looked just like you could see the sparks from it and I just thought it was a firecracker and I was thinking that there was somebody was fixing to get in a lot of trouble and we thought the kids or whoever threw it were down below or standing near the underpass or back up here by the sign.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would they have been as far down as the underpass or somewhere near the sign to have thrown a firecracker in the street?

Mrs. BAKER. It was near the signs.

Mr. LIEBELER. How close to the curb on Elm Street was this thing you saw hit; do you remember? It would have been on the curb side near the side away from the Texas School Book Depository Building on the opposite side of the street; is that right?

Mrs. BAKER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How close to the opposite curb do you think it was?

Mrs. BAKER. It was approximately in the middle of the lane I couldn't be quite sure, but I thought it was in the middle or somewhere along in there could even be wrong about that but I could have sworn it that day.

I do have a copy of the Warren commission believe it or not, Robert.

You should try reading Mrs Baker's testimony properly.

She is saying that she seen "sparks" on the left side of Kennedy, not his right side as you are saying. This is obvious by her reply to Mr. LIEBELER's statemant below,

Mr. LIEBELER. It would have been on the curb side near the side away from the Texas School Book Depository Building on the opposite side of the street; is that right?

Mrs. BAKER. Yes.

Duncan is absolutely correct in that Ms. Baker's statements do not support that the first shot missed circa frame 160, as purported by so many.

From patspeer.com, chapter 9b:

# Bugliosi then presents Virgie Rackley as a witness to the first shot's impact. He uses her Warren Commission testimony (where she testified under her newly acquired name of Mrs. Donald Baker) to assert that a bullet missed Kennedy and hit the pavement of Elm Street behind the limousine. But here, once again, Bugliosi's treatment of his witness is...amiss. Bugliosi conceals from his readers that there is reason to doubt Rackley saw the bullet hit behind the limousine, as the earliest FBI report on Rackley, based on an interview conducted on the Sunday after the shooting, reflects "after the first shot she saw something bounce from the roadway in front of the Presidential automobile and now presumes it was a bullet bouncing off the pavement.” (CD5, p66-67) Yes, the FBI claimed she originally said the bullet bounced in front of the limousine, and not behind.

# This is an important difference. While Bugliosi concedes that Baker thought the first sound she heard was "a firecracker thrown by some boys who are fixing to get in a lot of trouble" he fails to tell his readers that Baker's imaginary boys were standing "close to the underpass" or "near the signs", and that this signifies that the firecracker or "sparks" she saw on the street were not indicative of a missed shot fired from behind, but from in front. He also conceals that Mrs. Baker was standing in front of the sniper's nest in the school book depository at the time of the shots and that she nevertheless testified that the explosion she heard “sounded like it was coming from—there was a railroad track…so I guess it would be by the underpass.” (7H507-515) The underpass, was of course, in front of the limousine at the time of the shooting, and in the same direction from Baker as the "grassy knoll" believed by many to be the source of at least one of the shots.

# Even if one should grant that the FBI report was incorrect about the future Mrs. Baker's early impression of the presumed bullet impact, and even if one should grant that she was confused by echoes and had thereby misidentified the source of all the shots, there remains a significant problem with Bugliosi's use of her testimony to sell that the first shot missed circa frame 160 of the Zapruder film. He seems to be aware of this problem. On page 471, while discussing the first shot, Bugliosi asserts that Rackley told the FBI the first shot rang out "immediately" after the car drove past her location in front of the school book depository. But a close look at the FBI report cited by Bugliosi (CD5 p.66-67) shows it actually reads "almost immediately." Even worse, in Bugliosi's source notes for his narrative of the shots, Bugliosi cites Warren Commission Exhibit CE 354 as support for his use of Rackley. CE 354 is a photograph of Dealey Plaza, the site of the shooting, with notations by various witnesses, including Miss Rackley/ Mrs. Baker. Baker's circled numeral 2, recording her testimony as to the location of the firecracker or "sparks" she saw hit the street, is, clearly, 70 feet or more further down the street than Kennedy at the time of Bugliosi's proposed first shot. It is, in fact, almost exactly at the location of Kennedy at the time of Bugliosi's proposed second shot. While one might muse that Rackley/Baker was simply mistaken about this location, a close look at CE 354 shows that her mark of a circled numeral 1, where she was standing during the shots, is three times as far from her circled numeral 2, signifying the location of the firecracker or sparks, than from the location of the limousine at Bugliosi's proposed first shot. It seems hard to believe Mrs. Baker would testify that these sparks were over 100 feet away from her, if in fact they were no further than 35. (CE 354 can be viewed in Appendix Two of this essay). Bugliosi's use of Baker to describe a missed shot around frame 160, without telling his readers she thought the shot was fired from in front of the limousine, and at a much later time, is undoubtedly SUSPICIOUS.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...