James R Gordon

JFK researcher Bill Miller shared this image of the Stemmons sign with me many, many years ago. I have no idea where Bill initially got the image from.

James.

No offense intended, but what is the point to this exercise? IOW: If we assume you are correct, why exactly does this matter to you? What does it mean to the case?

Greg,

I am very sorry, and I apologise, if my language suggested I had been offended with your response. I was not. My response was more an attempt to make clear why I feel my position has merit. It certainly was not a comment on your reply or position.

As to why this matters?

At the heart of my work is the intent to thoroughly undermine the SBT and by doing that create a need to revise the official position on the assassination. You might reply, “but only those bereft of intelligence would think that the SBT has any merit.” I would agree with you but unfortunately there is a powerful body of opinion, including that of the american government, that still believes that the WC was indeed the correct view on what took place just under 50 years ago.

And now why the importance of this moment. The accepted modern interpretation of the SBT is that the shot occurred at Z 223/4. Establishing that it actually occurred 1.11 seconds earlier is just one more piece of evidence that demonstrates how wrong the establish position is.

James




The
 time duration from your presumed "uninjured JFK frame" @ Z-200 to the "injured JFK frame" @ Z-204 is less than 1/5th of one second and the evidence being studied contains so much blur 
that I find it anything but dispositive.


Greg,

Fair point. I did not say Z 204 was the moment, I said it was my preferred moment.

In total we have a 1.31 second window between Z 200 and Z 224, where there can be no dispute that we see JFK reacting to a wound to his upper chest.

My point is that within the 7 frame window, I have provided, significant changes can be seen to be taking place. True there is significant blur, and the clarity of the frames leaves much to be desired. And it is also true there is ambiguity throughout this sequence: it is impossible to state with 100% certainty what is actually happening.

However the one thing that can be stated with some confidence is that in Z 200 JFK is unlikely injured and by Z 224 he is definitely injured. With that in mind, and knowing that within this window period [ Z 200 – Z 224 ] we know for a certainty, beyond dispute, that JFK sustained an injury and reacted to it.

Therefore I contend that this section I have highlighted, with all its blur and ambiguities, it can still be clearly seen that there is considerable movement changes in posture and position. Knowing, for a certainty that within the wider window of Z 200 – Z 224 JFK was definitely struck, these changes and movements, in the sequence I have provided, acquire a greater significance than they might otherwise have.

Could the bullet have struck after Z 2007 and before Z 224? Yes it is possible. But it is just as possible that the bullet struck within the window I have highlighted. And the reasons I suggest that this is possible is narrative I have provided for the sequence Z 200 – Z 207 as well as the frame sequence.

It is up to fellow members whether they think there is, or is not, substance to my case.

James.

I have spent some time looking at when JFK received his throat wound. I have put together a sequence of Zapruder frames from Z 200 – Z 207. The frames were taken Robin Unger’s site.

I believe I can pin point the moment within a few frame sequence, and have my own preference which one it is, but cannot be certain.

I believe the narrative for the sequence is as follows.

• By Z200 Jackie has turned and is now looking in JFK’s direction. I do not think there is an ulterior motive here, she has just turned in his direction.

• Z200 JFK is uninjured and is waving to the crowds.

• Z201 It is possible JFK has been hit by this point, however he is still looking right and waving to the crowds. It is also a blurred frame. Maybe Zapruder has reacted to the noise.

• Z202 At this point JFK has definitely begun to turn to his left. His arm position has also lowered slightly. There may well be some kind of instinctive reaction here.

• Z 203 Again a blurred frame. There is a slight turn of his head to his left.

• Z 204 Again the frame is a bit blurred but there is a clear change in the position of the arm from Z 203 and further movement of his head to his left. There is such a clear change in the arm that his hand looks like it is something like a fist. This, for me is the clearest moment when JFK reacts to the bullet.

• Z 205 – 207. During this sequence JFK’s right arm begins to seriously drop down. During this same sequence JFK may be looking in Jackie’s direction. It is also possible that he just continues to look forward.

So what can be made from this.

1. I believe at the start of the sequence Z 200 JFK was uninjured.

2. By Z 207 it is my position that JFK had received the shot to his throat and is seen to be reacting to it.

3. Z 204, for me, shows the clearest moment when JFK reacts to this wound.

4. Because of the direction Jackie had turned to by Z 200, Jackie had to have actually witness JFK being shot. That might well explain the expression on her face in Z 207.

5. I doubt we will ever be able to pin point to a particular frame when JFK was injured. However I believe this sequence opens up a window within which JFK did receive his wound.

I have dramatically slowed down the sequence. In order for you see the sequence is sufficient size to appreciate what I am saying I have stored at my account in this site. The file is just over 5MB in size

The link to the file is here

https://www.transfer...roQsdg5Q7VVSfA2

Members will note that this file is only available until the end of November. I will not be extending that term.

James.

So when did the bullet strike JFK in the back and transit his throat, if you are a SBT believer? Or when did the bullet strike JFK in the throat if you do not believe in the SBT.

If you are Dale Myers, the moment was between Z 223 and Z 224. I understand the WC decided it struck around Z 190.

Well they are both wrong. It struck just before Z 211, and probably around Z 209 or Z 210.

And how can one be sure of that. Jackie’s changed head position.

See image below:-

In Z 211 we can see Jackie looking to her right. The bullet has struck by this point, but she is not aware of it

In Z 212 she is now looking towards JFK. It is a major turn she has made, maybe even around 90º. She is aware that something is going on with JFK, even if we are not.

Both Z 116 + 117 are a bit difficult to ascertain what is going on, but the shape of Jackie’s hat ( or what we can see of it ) make it clear she is still looking towards JFK.

In Z 220 not only is she looking at JFK she is even leaning forward.

In Z 221 we get a much clearer view of her. And in Z 222 is has moved a bit further forward to get a better view of what is happening to JFK.

This is one frame before, according to Dale Myers, when the bullet strikes both JFK and Connally. In this whole sequence Z 212 – Z 222 something is going on with JFK that has clearly distracted Jackie. We do not see what it is, but clearly it is JFK reacting to the impact of the throat wound. The position we see Jackie at Z 222 is essentially the same position she remains in, with some changes, until Z 313 when JFK is killed.

And finally at Z 222 we see Connally begin to turn to his left, as he said he did after hearing a shot.

We may not actually see JFK during this sequence but the reactions of Jackie are such that there is only one explanation: JFK’s reaction to the throat wound has attracted her attention.

So when did JFK receive his throat wound? He received it around Z 209 – 210.

James.

The WC makes it appear that Altgen's was describing the 313 headshot

Chris,

It is not just the WC that says that Altgens is referring to the Z313 headshot.

Ike Altgens is on record saying that is exactly what he is referring to.

James.

Thanks David and Bernice.

I am hoping to acquire even better versions of the X-rays, but these will help for the time being.

James.

Does anyone have a copy of Connally's Chest X-rays.

I have the arm, hand and leg X-rays, but I don't have the chest X-ray.

If anyone has a copy, could they post a copy please.

Thanks.

James.

... if the SBD shooter did get a head shot - maybe from that angle the temple area would have been exposed and the kill shot possible to explain. As well as some of the wounds Connolly suffered.

... closer to stairs/elevators.

Chris,

If you have followed the "Inside the Target Car" you will have noticed I have commented on the Sixth Floor West window.

It is a really interesting window. Because of the angle that JFK has turned his head from the 90º forward position as well as the decline in the head, there are problems with the Oswald window.

This has been raised by Don Roberdeau in his map. In early trajectories I have placed on my 3D model I concur.If the bullet were to fly in a straight direction and enter as per HSCA position, then it would exit somewhere around the right ear. This is simply because the head is not in line with the angle and slope of JFK' head. Of course I accept bullets do not always travel in a straight line.

However if you run a line from the West window the trajectory line is compatible with the angle and slop of the head. Now I am not saying that means the west window was the origin of the shop, but it is a curious point.

The boxes on the 6th floor are also an interesting point. I already have the sniper's nest created. However I noticed that the Secret Service film of the recreation describes the state of the sixth floor in some detail. Along with the Friday film of the 6th floor, I believe it might be possible to recreate the positions of the boxes as they were that day. Looking at these films, it was clear that there was no direct line from the Oswald window to the stairs. It would have been an extremely twisted route....and that does not take into account the time required to hide the gun. I am thinking it might be really interesting to see just what the floor actually looked like and what sort of route would have had to have been taken in order to escape.

James.


I agree with you that there seem to be gaping holes in the conclusions of ITTC. You are pointing out one of the big ones, imo, in that they used the x-rays to determine the spot the shooter was to hit, but then the results are completely different from the damage shown on the x-rays. So, are we to question the x-rays? 






Yes I agree there appears to be a serious contradiction between the degree of research, expense and planning that went into the creation of the program and the outcome. Gary has been in contact with me and he feels that critics of the program are being unfair to the purpose of the program. From his perspective what was intended was to establish whether the explosions to the head match what was seen in the Zapruder film. He considers that critics who are looking at other criteria, such as me with regard to the damage to the head, are raising issues that were not relevant to the creation of the program.

I understand his point, but I can’t get out of my mind the question of the dissimilarity of the head wound as shown in the autopsy images and the wound as shown in ITTC. If the criteria during the making of ITTC were as close as it is humanly possible to get to the conditions on 11/22/63, then I would expect there to be similarity in the head wound.

You ask do we question the X-rays ? I know others do question them, but I don’t. What I question is the conclusion of the program ITTC. Their conclusion is that the program has successfully shown that the origin of the head wound originated from the Oswald window.

I say, that cannot be. If the origin of the head wound was indeed the Oswald window then there ought to be similarity in the damage to the head. Because the wounds are very dissimilar that, on its own, proves that the origin of the shot could not have come from the Oswald window.

They also do not answer the question of the source of the shot -- if the shot hit the 'correct' spot of entrance on the skull and the results were different from that shown on the x-rays, does that invalidate the position from which the shot was taken? 

These are very good questions.


I am only just beginning to lay out trajectories for the shots on my 3D model. One thing I noticed from Don Roberdeau’s map was the angle of the trajectory from the Oswald window compared to the angle and slope of JFK’s head at Z 312.5. It looks to me, because of the angle of the head towards his left, that any bullet entering the head as described by ITTC would exit the head just above the right ear. However, and to be fair to the program, I have not yet properly laid down my trajectories. What appears to me, and is confirmed by Don’s map, is that the angle of the head is not in line with a trajectory line from the Oswald window.

What I have found interesting is that the head is in the right position for a trajectory line from the west window of the sixth floor of the TSBD.

My instinct suggests that the shot came from the Grassy Knoll. However, one thing that ITTC has demonstrated is that there are profound difficulties to be overcome for a shot from the knoll. It is not just that one attempt literally blew the head off, another left an exit hole in the left side of the head. I don’t have an answer to these problems at the moment.

You ask if the damage to the head is not the same as has been documented, does that not invalidate that location as being the origin for the shot. My answer is yes. ITTC does indeed demonstrate similarity in the explosions of the head. But explosions are only one aspect of the impact of the shot on the head. Another, and to my mind much more important, is the replication of damage to the head. It is unfair to ask for absolute similarity .. that is an unfair demand. But if all the other criteria are correct and exact, then reasonable similarity in head damage should also occur.

Even though ITTC does demonstrate similarity in head explosion, the fact that the program also creates dissimilarity in the head damage, to my mind, has to invalidate that location as being the origin for the shot.

If the shot has to have originated from the TSBD, then the west window is a far better candidate.

James.




It is also my thinking that these tests are of value because ITTC took the time and effort and money to perform them and share them, whereas the WCR did not. Your post demonstrates my other point -- namely, that the tests can be used to support the fact that the WCR axiom (LHO acted alone, shooting from the SN of the TSBD with his M/C) is false.


Pamela,

I agree with you.

In looking over the posts I have made on this thread, and others, I note that my criticism may have clouded the fact that I also see value and worth in what ITTC attempted to do. Watching the program it is very clear that considerable effort has gone into testing the question of where the head shot originated from.

Although I am critical of the placing of the gunman on the South knoll as well as the proposition that any gunman would be lying down, ITTC were the first to examine the South knoll as a vantage position and I agree that it was shown to be an unlikely position for any gunman. With regard to the Grassy Knoll, not only is there the image of the head being blown off, there is the question of the bullet transiting right through the head. My instincts tell me that the Grassy knoll is the most likely point of origin for the head shot, but I acknowledge that answers will have to be provided for Gary’s findings for a Grassy knoll shot.

So I agree with you that ITTC has provided much of worth into the argument.

My questioning derives from this point. Gary suggests that ITTC has suggested that the shot came from the Oswald window. I acknowledge the careful structure of the test, however if the experiment results in a head wound that is very different from what we see in the autopsy images – not just slightly different but very different – then how is it possible to go on to state that the Oswald window was the point of origin for the shot? I would expect a reasonable similarity in head damage, not perfect just reasonable, but the damage shown in ITTC is so different I suggest that maybe that is a pointer to the fact that although the head can be struck in exactly the same point – maybe the difference in head damage is a pointer to the possibility that the Oswald window is not the point of origin for that shot.

If the experiment ensured that all the criteria, that were present on 11/22/63, have been met in the experiment, then surely in the outcomes, damage to the head should also be similar?

James.


 In our MATH 101 threads we show conclusively that the data offered to represent the Zfilm - in the original legend, revised legends and subsequent recreations.... is horribly wrong
Not only are they wrong, but they can't even be fudged a little to represent the Zfilm... So as Purvis, Chris and I have tried to show, the margin of error is simply not enough for the recreation to create data THAT WRONG...

The entire 161 thru 313 sequence could not happen as offered in the legends and distances from the WCR

David,

In my initial trajectories on my 3D model, and using Don Roberdeau’s reference placement of the Zapruder frame points on his map, the WC trajectory analysis data – I believe it was Robert West who undertook that - is essentially correct. As many members have pointed out, interesting though Chris’s threads are, there have to be in-built errors in his data that are both confusing his analysis and well as compounding his errors.

I believe you have created a “Sketch Pro” version of the plaza, so it should be possible for you to verify what I have said.

James

To my understanding, ITTC focused solely on the Z313 shot, not the entire reenactment.


Pamela,

Whereas it is true that ITTC did indeed focus of Z312.5 / Z 312, it is my belief that their conclusions do not stand up to serious scrutiny.

In the program we are told by Gary Mack that:

“I think this test has shown, quite conclusively, that the shot, that killed President Kennedy by striking him in the head, did come from behind and, apparently, from the sixth floor window of the old book depository building.”

Much of the validation of the test focus’ is on the debris spread. Indeed two witnesses are included to validate that the spread of debris, caused by the test, was what they saw that day. I do not question that there might be similarity in debris spread, but debris spread is of less importance to that of head damage.

See image below:-

Image A:- shows the damage to the model’s head, that we are informed is as close to the structure and substance of a human head, and the quality of JFK's head, that can be created today.

We are informed that this is close to the damage seen on JFK’s head. Unfortunately, it is nothing like the damage inflicted on his head. In the ITTC demonstration the bullet has created a veritable trough through the right hand side of the head.

At a later point in the video we are shown the verification of their findings. This is shown in image B. Yes they have the slope of the head in line with JFK’s. There is even some similarity with debris splatter. However the footprint of damage on both images is widely different. In their diagram in image B they clearly demonstrate the difference in the damage footprints. On its own that should have triggered signals of concern.

As can be seen, the test that we are being shown is the third one. That is because in the first two attempts the gunman was not able to hit the precise point that the Oswald shot is considered to have hit. Therefore there ought to be similarity in the damage inflicted. It may be asking too much for the damage to be absolutely precisely the same, but there should be a reasonable similarity.

In test 3 there is no similarity. On its own, that should have triggered questions. After all the same ammunition was used; the object to be impacted was as close to the structure and fabric of JFK’s head as was humanly possible and the point of impact was exactly the same. Logic suggests that there therefore ought to be similarity in damage inflicted. But there is none, and I am critical that this point was not an issue in the program.

Image D is a magnification of an area of Image C. if you look closely it is clear there is serious damage and loss of brain material in the front of the head. How far down the head that goes is not clear.

Image E shows the back of the head. I accept that this is a contentious area, but this image shows no damage to the back of the head. Yet on the model there is massive damage to this aspect of the head. The argument goes, and is supported by the Dallas doctors who Nova took to the Archives to see the original autopsy images, that the damage to the back of the head is there it is concealed by the scalp being pulled over it. However that is not possible in this test because the impact of the bullet has completely shredded that part of the scalp.

However, this test has shown us one thing: albeit not something they wanted to prove. The test has shown us what damage would be inflicted on the head had a shot been fired from the south east sixth floor window of the TSBD. It is the contention of the makers of the film that this proves the shot came from the south east sixth floor window of the TSBD: actually they are wrong – what it does prove is that the damage inflicted by this test proves that wherever the shot came from - one place it did not come from is south east sixth floor window of the TSBD.

James.

What about ITTC do you find most persuasive?

Pamela,

I have always considered that this program is thought provoking. However there is a fatal weakness to the program...it does not include the Queen Mary in its findings. To be fair, the originator of that was both the FBI and the SS. Everyone else, including Dale Myers, has just followed this decision and assassination recreation structure.

So why is that important? From test trajectories I have been doing on my 3D model of Dealey Plaza, the bullet either wounds John Ready or flies past his left ear by around 6 inches at Z223/4. At Z312.5, the bullet flies over the Queen Mary. The position of John Ready is extremely serious to a recreation of the assassination because he is in clear danger at Z223/4. At Z312.5 I find it extraordinary that no agent would comment on bullet flying very low over their heads at the time of the head shot. It had to be quite low because between Z223/4 and Z312.5 JFK's profile has lowered as he has begun to slump to his left. How low I am still determining. But what is beyond argument, in order for the bullet to strike JFK at Z 312.5, the bullet has no option but to fly over the Queen Mary.

What I find surprising is that in all recreations, including ITTC, everyone assume that during the assassination the Kennedy car was all on its own. It was not, and no one has wondered what would be the consequences were the Queen Mary to be included into the equation.

As to the shots. I can see the argument for the TSBD origin for a shot at Z 312.5. However the trajectory is puzzling. The trajectory of the bullet is not in line with the angle of JFK's head. What is surprising is that the sixth floor west window is aligned with the angle of the head. I am not saying the bullet originated from the west window, but I am saying that the west window is better suited to the angle and slope of JFK's head.

Then, of course, there is the Daltex building. I am finding trajectories from here very interesting. As well, there is the Knoll, dismissed by ITTC. I agree, the explosion of the head is a troubling point. After all the distance from the Knoll is a little over 100 feet, whereas the TSBD is over 260 feet. I have not got an answer to this, but I am not ready to dismiss it in the way ITTC did.

ITTC, dismissed the South Knoll as a point of origin for the head shot. I concur. However although ITTC was in error on their positioning of this position as well as in error in suggesting that any gunman here would be lying down, there is no shot. To get to JFK, from that position, the shot would heave to have gone through Jackie. She was blocking any shot.

For the SBT I am using 3D anatomical models, not the kind of models that Dale Myers used. These models allow verification of findings in a way that Myers models, extraordinarily good though they were, do not allow. By that I mean we have to take on trust that where Myers says he has placed the wounds are ..... indeed exactly where he said they are. Well my initial findings with my models is going to cause a few problems. However that is outside ITTC.

What ITTC did with regard to the head shot was examine the surface aspects of the wound and its implications to where the point of origin was. By that I mean, the initial damage to the surface of the head looked similar. The problem with that kind of analysis, is that it ignores what actually occurred within the head as a consequence of the impact of the shot. It is the damage inside the head that are the true finger prints which point to place of origin for the shot. Replicating a similarity to the damage to the skull bone, does not also replicate the documented damage that occurred within the head. Now I don't deny the similarity of outer damage but it is perfectly possible to have similar outer damage and utterly dissimilar inner damage.

Interesting and thought provoking though the program was, it did not make its case as far as I am concerned.

James

I will assume that would have somewhat of an effect on the rifle angles too.

Chris,

I would like to follow this, but you make it very difficult.

You suggest that there were two reference bases that the WC used. O.k. I can follow that but you do not identify them.

I assume that 2+50 is the first cross. However it is not clear at all what is base Station C. I do not see that on you map.

Hence I can make no sense of the point you make that there is a 15.5ft difference between them.

I also note that the distance is calculated is referenced between JFK and the rifle in the Oswald window.

If the Oswald window is not Station C then what is the relationship between Station C and the Oswald window.

I had understood that these references like the one for Z 161 were taken by Robert West who took a measurement from the JFK position back to the rifle in the Oswald window.

And if I am not mistaken is the Z 161 reference wrong and should it not actually be Z 166? I had understood these positions had been changed by the WC

It is clear that you understand the point you want to make but on this, the first post in what I assume is a series, it is already as clear as mud to me.

If I am to follow this I need a lot more explanation.

James.

Spector blows his own theory out of the water with this photo alone.

David,

The image you have shown is not the official CE 903. What you are showing is the alternate view. The official CE 903 is this one.

It just show underhand Spector could be. He knew exactly what the real entry point was, indeed he had marked it on the model. However from this angle it was hidden from view.

From this view it suggested the SBT might be a logical solution.

That is why this was the official version of CE 903, and yours ( the real view ) was not used.

James.

Joseph,

Now and again I have seen suggestions that Hoover was in the Dallas / Fort Worth area on the day before he assassination. One such suggestion was that he had flown in to attend the party given by Clint Murchison.

A long time ago I did some research on Hoover's movements and discovered that on the 21st he had a full day in Washington and also an appointment at around 7.30 that night. I forget all the details now.

Anyway I came away with the feeling that, interesting though the idea of Hoover being in Texas the night before the assassination was it was not correct.

Hope that is of some help.

James.

James,

I have watched you evolve. You have now joined the body alterationist and photo alterationist camp.

Mike,

I am far too busy for a protracted argument that you have a tendency to create. I accept that the alterationist's view is very difficult to grasp. I certainly had difficulty accepting it. Essentially, although you have adjusted it, you believe in the SBT. That is a rational position to take.

However where such a view crumbles to the ground is determining where the entry point on the back is positioned. As I remember your position your entry point is below CostaIR. The implications from such an entry point is that the bullet MUST strike the lung. To say otherwise is to demonstrate a poor understanding of the human anatomy of the upper chest area.

Some time ago I posted a MRI scan demonstrating the SBT trajectory. One consequence of this was that when exiting the body the trajectory of the SBT has the bullet moving towards Mrs Connally and not her husband. Now of course bullets do not travel in a straight line, but the change of direction to move towards John Connaly would require the striking of a bone or some similar hard object and there is none close to the Trachea.

As I pointed out, I do not accept the SBT, even your modified version. I also do not believe that a bullet was discovered and not reported. That only leaves one option open to me and that is that the bullet had to be removed.

I will add, that your version of the SBT like the official version are fatally flawed when applied to the reality of Dealey Plaza. I am not prepared to inform you what that flaw is, at this point, but there is a major problem you know nothing about that totally undermines your theory.

James.

I believe the the photographic evidence is very clear what happened here and it is supported by almost all of the witness testimony. The first bullet passed through the presidents neck and struck, grazed or startled Connally on his left side. As Connally turned back to his right he was struck by a second bullet which missed the president completely.

Well Mike that is certainly one way of looking at the evidence.

James.

Mr. Lifton,

I was going to compliment you on your thorough explanation regarding the first public airing of the Single Bullet Theory. However I see you had to add the "Aftermath" and your crazy conclusion about body alteration.

Mike,

Until recently I also was skeptical about the idea of body alteration. However, to be fair to David Lifton, he has been ahead of many researchers since 1981.

You say the theory is "crazy." Again I understand you feeling. It is not for me to persuade you whether you are right or wrong, but I will outline why I now know David is right and you are wrong.

At the end of last year I began looking at the medical evidence, especially the travel of a bullet through JFK's upper chest area. I can now prove how a bullet entered his throat, where that bullet traveled and finally where that bullet rested. During that process I was often forced to face comments from people like David Von Pein, who persisted is saying "well if a bullet entered the throat, then tell me where is that bullet?" Like it or not, that is one of the strongest arguments in support of the SBT.

Anyway such taunts focused my attention and made me realise there were only three answers to the question.

Answer 1:- The SBT was right all along. I know that is not possible. Better still I can prove it. During the last few days my work with my 3D model I have proved how wrong the SBT is. So wrong that I am scared what will happen when I unveil my findings next April. I have applied data to the theory that was never applied by the FBI or indeed the Secret Service that should have been applied but was just ignored.. If I am right it will be a "game over" moment. So one reason the bullet is not there is not because the SBT is right. I can prove the SBT is wrong.

Answer 2:- The bullet was discovered, but it was not acknowledged. That is a rational alternative. I rejected that because I could not see how any discovery of a bullet could escape the eyes of Sibert and O'Neill. They were there to create an accurate document of what happened and they they did not leave until it was over. If a bullet was discovered there is no way they would not have seen it and therefore recorded it. Anyone who suggests such a discovery could have been made without Sibert and O'Neill seeing have no understanding of their purpose and who they were. Therefore another reason the bullet was not there was not because one was actually found but hidden from documentation.

That leaves only one alternative. Somehow, and I do not know how, the bullet was removed. David came to this conclusion back in 1981, because the evidence led him to that conclusion.

I have come to that conclusion because logic tells me it is the only possible answer. Yes, there is another alternative, the Ice Bullet, and yes I reject that. I cannot believe men determined to assassinate a President are going to use such ammunition. And that side steps whether it is even a possible kind of ammunition.

I know a bullet entered the throat. I agree with David Von Pein that no bullet was found. I know the SBT is nonsense. I know no bullet was actually found and hidden from view and documentation. I know that serious men intent on assassinating a President wound never depend on such an attack by using Ice bullets.

That just leaves one option. Somehow, somewhere that bullet was removed. The answer to David Von Pein's taunt is because it was removed. Like mathematics, logic cannot be ignored.

You may find the idea of bullet removal difficult to accept, I certainly did for a long time, but when one gets serious about the medical evidence I realised that there is only one logical answer to where the bullet went, it was removed.

You say he theory is crazy. It is not crazy. It may be uncomfortable to accept, but for me it is the only rational explanation. If you have read David Lifton's posts in the last few days you will see his listing of the evidence that he has found to explain why he has come to this view. If you really believe this idea is crazy, then maybe you can provide reasons how that damage came to be inflicted on JFK's body by bullets and not by the attempt of persons unknown to remove the evidence.

James

Mike,

Although it is not an issue that I have followed or am interested in, when did the public first learn about the SBT, I think you will find it had been discussed widely in the media.

Although the report would not be published for some months, I believe aspects of the report like the SBT were already in the public domain.

If you read "Breach of Trust" by Gerald McKnight you will probably find out when the SBT became public knowledge.

If your question is suggesting something sinister, I think you will find it not so.

James.

I estimate that altgens8 was taken about 12-15 seconds after Zapruder frame 313. ( About 12 -15seconds after the head shots)

Mike,

You have no idea what you are talking about.

From Z 313 to the end of the film there is around 9.5 seconds of filming left.

That means, taking your 15 second time, Zapruder has 6 seconds left.

So you are saying it took Zapruder 6 seconds to get off the pedestal. Have you given any time allocation for the fact that he suffered from vertigo?

I don't know the time stamp for Altgens 8 but it certainly not 6 seconds after Z 1313.

James.

Steve,

I have JFK Assassination - A Visual Investigation. I can run it on a Mac Pro running Parallels Desktop + Windows 7 32 bit and it runs fine.

I am running Mountain Lion. However, they would also run on OS Lion. It is Parallels 7 + Windows 7 that is decides whether the CD will run. The JFK Assassination - A Visual Investigation is a Windows CD, not a Mac CD. I suggest you install the 32 bit version of Windows. The 64 bit version might refuse to run the Cd's since they are quite old.

James.

I am not being critical of the man David Lifton. I am being critical of his theories as I have come to know them on this forum.

Mike,

Forming your opinions from what you have found out on this, or any other forum, is no way to understand - let alone criticise - any researcher's work and ideas. Opinions generated on the Internet tend to be watered down versions of the original. If you want to be critical of David Lifton, at least do him the curtesy of reading his work. That way you might at least understand what it is he is saying.

James

Mike,

I have limited time at the moment, but I will make two short points.

The skull image you posted is not John Hunt's view where both the triangular bone and the Harper fragment where quite originated from. I noted over the weekend, when I looked at Fox 2, that Hunt was quite right JFK's temple bone is indeed missing. I had not seen that because of the amount of distorted hair in that area. But at the weekend I suddenly realised that I could look below the mess of hair and noted that the frontal bone structure is actually not there. I do not content that John Hunt is necessarily right, about the placing of the bones but I found his arguments and evidence quite persuasive.

A few weeks ago I sent the Josiah Thompson drum version of Moorman #5 to a couple of serious photographic restorers. I felt if any image might have sufficient data on it to allow restoration, it was Josiah's drum image. Unfortunately even it had insufficient data to allow any meaningful restoration. The point about this is not just that I was interested in getting a better view of the back of the head. I am not at all sure what we are actually seeing. I know you contend that it is damage to the back of the head. It might be, but it could also a photographic anomaly. Also, I am not at all sure what is damage to the right side of the head and what is bleeding of the grass onto that part of the head. I know your opinion is that what we see is the damage to the right of the head. However the quality of the image does not make that certain. hence my attempt to get the image restored.

James.

Mike,

I follow your argument for a twin bullet strike, however the damage does not need two bullets to cause such damage.

Over the weekend I read a very persuasive and interesting article by John Hunt entitled “A Demonstrable Impossibility”. His argument was that the bullet could have splintered and thereby damage different areas in the head, even though his main thesis was where the existing bone fragments might fit on the head and they should fit there.

Just a thought.

James.