Bill Miller

The flash in NIX is behind the wall & in front of the fence.

I will post something for you tomorrow to illustrate this.

I had never heard that from anyone before, but I guess that if the barrel of a gun was sticking over the fence that technically the flash would be between the wall and the fence.

Blackdogman was a person & he was behind the wall in Betzner & Willis(that is, of course, if one trusts these photos).

This is easy to prove & we don't need to go into it here.

The Badgeman & Arnold figures however, are in a different class.

No one can prove that what we are seeing above the wall in Moorman is a true interpritation of the many shapes & shadows above the wall.

Yet you posted that you saw the same face in the figure in Moorman's photo as you do in the figure in Betzner's, so how can one be real in your mind and not the other?

Your scenario has a man filming the motorcade from the pathway with a gunflash ocurring at the corner of the wall which is infront of him & you feel that I need to evaluate my position?

I guess what has messed you up is seeing that light spot on the guys right shoulder and thinking it was a muzzle flash.

If you want me to respond to this then quote the passages where have I have made these claims verbatim, you are quoting me out of context & as such, out of order.

I referenced two post of yours by number. One of your old replies looks to have been edited, but my following response should have some of what you said pasted in it.

Arnold is not in Moormans' photo that's where you are going wrong, it is only a theory(as is his whole precence anywhere near the plaza that day).

Blackdogman is the starting point because he is proven fact.

If you place someone where the you say the Arnold [figure] is in Moorman's photograph, then he will [not] match the Willis and Betzner photo. That is the point I am making.

I don't know what can and cannot happen in your office over in another country ... I can only tell you what happens in Dealey Plaza.

Give me some specifics & I'll try & talk you through your ignorance.

That doesn't deserve an answer.

In your opinion you mean!

What about the gunflash in Nix that coincides with the headshot, that is behind the wall too!

If you are talking to Robert Groden, Mark Oakes, myself, Tony Cummings, Jack White or most everyone who is familiar with the knoll and how it relates to the assassination films, then they would tell you the flash occurs at the fence, which technically is behind the wall. I would like for you to step back and look at the replies you have been making. You mention the muzzle flash in Nix as if it is the BDM (Black Dog Man) who fired it, yet in your last reply you said and I quote, "There is no "person" behind the wall in Moorman, only shapes & shadows that can have different interpritations. So if it is your opinion now that there is no one behind the wall in Moorman, then how do you justify implying that BDM is still being seen at the wall firing a gun? You seem to be trying to make a case for something that is an impossibility from the things that you have been saying.

There is no "person" behind the wall in Moorman, only shapes & shadows that can have different interpritations.

Adressed above.

I believe you have admitted that you see the same face in each photo ... or do I need to post it for you so to refresh your memory?

Boy, you are slow when it suits you!

Do you also remember me saying that in my opinion BDM has left the scene by the time Moorman took her photo?

I have no idea what happened behind the wall during the shooting, anyone who claims he knows is full of it!

Yes, I remember you saying that. I also remember you saying that you see the same face in the figure in Moorman's photo as you do the BDM. Then I remember you saying there is no one there in Moorman and that the image is nothing more than "shadows that can have different interpritations." (interpretations) Then I recall you saying that at the time of the head shot that a flash occurred at the wall as if to apply that more than shadows are still there, unless you meant that shadows can fire weapons and cause flashes. This is what I mean about you talking yourself into circles that have no possible way to connect the ends. You should step back and reevaluate your position.

You see the face too???

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...pe=post&id=1342

No, I see the same thing Jack White and the rest of the world saw when the Badge Man blowups were shown on the MWKK.

What ever it was, odds are it had nothing to do with Arnold.

You have said the image shows the same face as BDM - then you say it's not there but rather it is merely shadows - then you say it was the source of the flash in the Nix film that occurred at the time of the kill shot - now you say whatever it is ... it was not Arnold.

Yes! Blackdogman is on the grass leaning on the southwall, his position in Betzner rules out him being anywhere on the pathway.

If you say so, but that is not what happens in Dealey Plaza.

No, you first place a person in the Blackdogman position, then stand behind him & look up the street to the Willis & Betzner positions. If you are trying to bolster the G.Arnold story, then I guess you can do what you like.

Someone else can explain what you are saying to me for you do not make any sense. If I lean someone against the wall - they will not match what is seen in Moorman's photograph. If I place someone where Arnold is in Moorman's photograph, then he will match the Willis and Betzner photo. That is the point I have made all along.

Well if you had took the correct photos from the correct positions then I wouldn't have to waste my time on such a simple matter.

As I recall, I posted in the beginning that I took a lot of photos - some of which were from the Betzner and Willis location looking back towards the wall with Mike still in position. I emptied the card into my hard drive and then soon afterwards my computer crashed and Tony saved what images he could before rebuilding my system. I paid Tony's motel and meal ticket to come from several states away to help with my studies and at the time he was the tech guy who knew all about digital images and such. Losing those pictures before saving them to a CD meant that my money spent in having Tony come to Dallas was wasted for the most part.

There is no concrete evidence that pinpoints the position of Blackdogman or your Arnold figure behind the wall & until someone grabs correctly placed photos from the west side of the wall we never will.

I look forward to redoing the images and seeing what you have to say about them then.

I look forward to the day we can use photographs to put together a true picture of the geography behind the wall & how it relates to the Blackdogman position & the photographers LOS's.

Cheers!

Alan

We have the Darnell footage taken about 5 minutes after the assassination. Of course, actually being there is the best approach.

Maybe because it is not business?

I have not a clue as to what you have said here.

I have seen you draw your guesstimate at how much the south wall kicks back to the north from Betzners' position & it is wrong & I don't care how many hours you have been pottering around the plaza, what we are talking about here is the south wall & how it relates to the Blackdogman.

Since you obviously didn't notice the true angle of the south wall & its relevance to the position of BDM while you were in the plaza you could not have spent more than an hour on it!

We seem to share one thing in common and that is neither one of us knows what you are talking about. There is only one person in question beyond the wall between the time Betzner took his photo and Moorman too hers. That question pertains to whether the individual in each photo (Betzner/Willis/Moorman) is the same person. I believe you have admitted that you see the same face in each photo ... or do I need to post it for you so to refresh your memory? Whether or not the individual took a step one way or another between that 7+ second time span is of no value to me. The fact that we both have seen the same things in both photos that tells us it is the same idividual has awlays been the issue IMO. Your admission as to seeing the same thing in Moorman as in Betzner can be read in post #162 and I repeated what you said in post # 163.

Okay, hold on a minute.

You have already asked Gary & Robert to look at the LOS that Arnold would of had.

This has nothing to do with my study of the Blackdogman in Betzner & Willis.

My mistake!

I asked that they do what I did and that is to place someone where Gordon Arnold said he was in the Turner documentary and have them seen from both where Moorman and Betzner photographed the assassination and tell me what they found. I think it has everything to do with this issue for it is merely repeating what I had already observed and what you say is impossible.

But if there is a wall blocking your view to important geography then you should take further photos of the view from it's far side!

To show that the same figure seen in Moorman/Willis/ and Betzner is one in the same indiviual - one needs to place a person where Arnold said he stood and take replica photos from each filming location.

Obviously despite my efforts to educate you, you still have not one clue as to what is needed.

What is needed is for you to go to Dealey Plaza and see it for yourself.

That's a matter of opinion, I could say the exact same thing, no one has even said I am wrong, let alone show anything to support such a claim.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess that is how you look at it. When Groden looked at what I presented to him and said that he aggreed with my presentation, he is basically saying that he does not agree with you. When Mack says that Arnold in Moorman's photo is not standing at the South wall, then he is not agreeing with you either. Without using the same specific words as you did, they still implied that you were in error. BTW - Tony Cummings has been there when I walked through this stuff while in the plaza and I gave you his contact information. Avoiding Tony does not constitute avoiding the fact that there are those who don't agree with you.

Richard’s comments about Jack White were unacceptable and was deleted. I do not go along with Jack’s theories about the Moon landings but he deserves to be treated with respect. If people make personal attacks on Jack or on any other forum member they will have their posts deleted.

John - I think a lot of unecessary replies could be avoided if you had just addressed the issues being raised in the beginning. To your credit you did quickly raise the level of posting capabilities for some of us, but never addressed whether or not non-related JFK assassination photos were going to be premitted. I personally feel this section of the forum should remain dedicated to the Kennedy assassination.

Bill

I joined this forum at the special INVITATION of John Simkin, who felt that my photographic research would be a useful addition to his forum. I feel that I am doing John a "favor" by sharing my research for your members. If you wish me to cease, just say so, and I will quit sharing my research.

Jack

I have to agree with a response that Richard Smith posted only briefly before it turned up missing for some odd reason ... and it said words to the effect that 'posting those ridiculous Apollo observations is a waste of forum space, especially one that deals with the assassination of JFK.'

John Simkin also invited me here as well if I am not mistaken and I am sure he wouldn't want me running up photographic space by posting images of Bigfoot and UFO's which happen to be subjects outside of the JFK assassination that I have an interest in.

Bill Miller

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My response was that White's statement was one of the most arrogant obnoxious posts I've read on any forum. I said he was on the moon, his poorly done DP work was crap anyway, and you blow him out of the water. I also said something like "aren't you the guy who found Badgeman?? What a letdown since then". Then I said many researchers, including me, were invited by John to join his forum. I concluded by saying he should poke a hole in his swelled head.

My post was deleted without notice.

RJS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Richard, I certainly understand where you are coming from. I'm sure Jack has his reasons for being interested in the Apollo images - for a man who worked with photographs for as many years as he has tends to take his interest with him into other areas and topics. I just think, as you probably do, that regardless whether Jack is right or wrong in his observations, he is posting on a topic such as "Apollo" that doesn't belong in this section of the forum.

Bill

Mr. Miller... does Big Foot exist???

Denis, You'll need to go to a forum that deals with that subject to make that determination.

I had no idea that each member has an allotment of image space. This seems

odd since most members post NO images, and a few of us deal ONLY in image

research. I do not have time to "manage" postings I have made in the past

and have no interest in taking the time to do so. I joined this forum at the

special INVITATION of John Simkin, who felt that my photographic research would

be a useful addition to his forum. I feel that I am doing John a "favor" by

sharing my research for your members. If you wish me to cease, just say so,

and I will quit sharing my research.

Jack

I have to agree with a response that Richard Smith posted only briefly before it turned up missing for some odd reason ... and it said words to the effect that 'posting those ridiculous Apollo observations is a waste of forum space, especially one that deals with the assassination of JFK.'

John Simkin also invited me here as well if I am not mistaken and I am sure he wouldn't want me running up photographic space by posting images of Bigfoot and UFO's which happen to be subjects outside of the JFK assassination that I have an interest in.

Bill Miller

I personally believe that Castro had every reason to keep Kennedy alive and in office. Kennedy had assured the world that the U.S. would not invade Cuba. Castro could not be assured that the next President would feel the same way. That doesn't mean Casto didn't have people doing things behind his back as Kennedy was experiencing, but the question deals with Casto's involvement, so I have to say Castro would not have wanted Kennedy assassinated in 1963.

Your "view" of the site is seriously flawed in my opinion & many a good observation has been made from an armchair & your in no position to knock it since 99% of your work is done from there.

I may build the photo examples I post from my office, but understanding them and relating them to the real world was done through several hundred hours of work in Dealey Plaza. I thought I had said this once before.

I'm afraid if they do not produce a photograph to back their findings up, then we will be no further forward.

Can't we do this on-line so I may have some input?

I am concerned that any info you get via private e-mail will be edited to support your ideas.

Are you not able to copy and paste a quote and email it back to them to verify it?

I think what was misleading for you is that groden was over the side of the slope slightly which gives a false impressions as to what should be seen looking back the other way.

I already know what you think but you have shown nothing to support it.

Waste of time. We already have the Willis, Betzner & Groden views, a new approach is needed.

Documented replication is always the best evidence as far as showing how things should look in the plaza compared to an assassintion photo or photos.

If we are to move this forward then we need to find out how the south wall & pathway are positioned from Betzners' point of view on Elm St.

If I rent a helicopter and document the LOS from directly above it as well ... would that suffice you? There are 100's of researchers who have followed this topic and many of them have probably been to Dealey Plaza even after this issue started over a year or more ago. Isn't it odd that no one has said they went there and couldn't see what I was talking about?

I think the lack of interest in your Apollo anomilies derives from people thinking that you are simply making mistakes within your interpretations. You posted asking what the odds were that the LEM would land facing a certaing direction and I find one possible answer to be that it landed in the manner that NASA planned it to. Your post offered no data stating that you atemempted to find out if there was a just cause for the LEM to be facing the way it was. NASA usually has a purpose for everything they do. Us not knowing what that purpose is doesn't constitute a conspiracy IMO. Your example should have read "Coincidence or Impossibility or Planned Positioning." I notice that a lot of your examples are always designed to look like there is a conspiracy afoot and seldom, if at all, leaves one with a common sense alternative.

This I have trouble with & hopefully one day we will see some proof one way or the other whether this observation is possible. From everything I have seen so far I strongly doubt it, in fact I think it's impossible.

Arm chair research doesn't hold a candle to actually being on site in my view.

I'm afraid if they do not produce a photograph to back their findings up, then we will be no further forward.

Can't we do this on-line so I may have some input?

The term "we" you use basically applies to yourself. I gathered from an earlier post you made that you wouldn't even believe a photo because you felt it would have been shaded against your favor.

I feel all we need is a one photo, taken from West of the wall, looking up the street @ the Betzner position, with the corner of the wall on a direct line to Betzner.

This alone could pinpoint the BDM in Betzner position.

I think what was misleading for you is that groden was over the side of the slope slightly which gives a false impressions as to what should be seen looking back the other way. Of course the distance back from the Arnold location was another factor. My intention will be to shoot the Moorman photo and Betzner and Willis photos at the same time with one standing in place. I will also try and replicate groden's Shaw view as well.

First of all, you have to believe in the Arnold figure, I do not.  However if I did, seeing his beltline above the wall as we do, would lead me to think that he was about as snug to the southwall as one could get.

Now I am confused. Just prior to this post you had said that you saw a face in the Moorman figure just like you did the BDM. Now you go as far as to say you saw his beltline above the wall. These observations appear to be contradictory to what you are saying now. Furthermore, go back and look at the Shaw photo and explain how someone standing in the low area would have their belt above the wall if they were right against the south side of it. I also wish you'd address how the figure in Moorman can look so small and still be right at the South wall when you have a good photo showing how wide someone looks who is actually touching it. It has been said by researchers that the Badge Man and the Arnold figure are similar in size, however people come in all various sizes. Now with that said ... if Arnold is about the same size as Badge Man and Badge Man is on the RR yard side of the fence, then imagine how small that would make Arnold if he were really against the South wall.

To simplify - the south wall is about 3' long - 4' at the most. Moorman is seeing it at an angle, the figure is looking directly towards Moorman's camera and he isn't hardly 1/3 as wide as the South wall. Now how men men are only 1' to 1.5' in width?

"I think Blackdogman in Betzner & Willis only lines up with what we are seeing in Moorman if he/it is tucked up close to the wall in all three photos."

Below is why that statement is inaccurate ... compare the width of the figure in Moorman's photo to that of a man actually at the South wall. The man in the color photo would have to back across the sidewalk to bring his body size down to that like is seen of the figure in the Moorman photo.

It's one of Bills' scetches Don, not very accurate & not meant to be either.

Alan

Alan is correct. The diagram was drawn to show that anyone standing in the tree shadow and facing Betzner would then be turned slightly to face Moorman when she took her Ploarioid at the time of the fatal shot to JFK. A cursory glance at the illustration would tell someone that I did not attempt to draw the layout to scale, nor would I have insulted someones intelligence by claiming I had.

I would like to say something about the shadow marked with an "X" at the grass and sidewalks edge. If one wants to do the math they can calculate where Arnold would have been exactly to have that tree shadow make the turn on his chest. That turn seen on the ground does not mean that Gordon Arnold stood on the "X" for if he had the turn in that shadow would have been cast on his back. Gordon was about 5'10" and would had to have backed up to a point that the turn in that shadow crossed over his chest. That places him in the grass somewhere between the sidewalk and the fence.

Below is a general example as to what I am talking about. So there is no confusion ... it was not drawn to any particular scale. What it demonstrates is that anyone with that turn of the tree shadow on the ground passing over their chest would have to be back from the grass's edge, which is just where Gordon Arnold said he was in his Turner interview.

In the past I have said Gordon would have to be on that shadow and what I mean by that is Gordon Arnold/BDM has to be on that shadow line and at a point where it would cross his chest as I have shown in the Moorman and Betzner photos. What we see in the Darnell film is where that turn of the shadow meets the ground.

Incorrect!

Shaw was very close to the BDM position already, if you move him back towards the transparent figure more than a foot it will be noticable from Elm street.

The very(outside) corner of the wall is an easy reference point for anyone hoping to replicate the BDM position behind the wall.

Anyone stood on the pathway would not look like BDM in Betzner or Willis!

Do you know that Shaw is around 5' tall? Gordon Arnold was just under 6'. Mike Brown is 6' tall and he was standing west of the steps and in the grass when I took this photograph. Mike was not standing at the South wall. Those who look at this photo can compare it to the figure seen in Moorman's photograph. Don mentioned once that Mike was a little too close to the LOS over the corner of the wall. That means if Mike was to move towards the street to get on the exact LOS - his right shoulder would be even closer to the top of the steps and the LOS over the wall from the Betzner location. When I walked up to the top of Elm Street and looked back - Mike did not appear to be off a half of a step from being over the wall on a LOS to the BDM.

I have recently asked Groden and Mack to each look at the LOS's with someone standing where Arnold said he was in the MWKK and report back to me their findings.

When I asked Mack what he thought about anyone thinking the Arnold figure in Moorman's photo was standing at the South wall, Gary said in so many words that they are wrong. Of course that is what I knew he would say because he has been to the plaza and seen it for himself.

Conover then asks Arnold where he was standing in relation to the north pergola steps, to which Arnold claims, “OK. OK. The steps would be almost----I would say in front of me, but it’s not in front of me because I’m standing askew to the steps----more towards the street than I am the steps.” “And I’m up as… I’m about three feet from the fence.”

Arnold is right, especially as he was tracking the limo to the point when the kill shot occurred. As he is facing Moorman - he certainly is askew to the steps.

Conover then asks, ”Between the steps and the fence?” to which Arnold replies, “Yes.”

Anywhere on the grass west of the sidewalk would fit that description.

Conover then asks, “So, the steps were east of you?” to which Arnold replies, “Right.”

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anyone standing on the grass between the walkway and the fence would be west of the steps, thus Arnold is correct.

....Good Day.... The above claims detail quoted by ARNOLD in the SFM'89 interview are very specific.

Unless I have missed it, I note that of all to-date 166 reponses within this thread, not one person has directly addressed the huge problem of ARNOLD's own claimed very specific description of his attack shots location....

....standing west of the steps

....standing only about 3' from the picket fence

It seems like we have crossed this path before and the above answers were given.

Using an accurate map of the retaining wall/picket fence corner area, and the mandatory line-of-sight of the "Arnold" image "seen" by some researchers in the MOORMAN #5 photo, can anyone provide a map showing the exact ground location point of where you think ARNOLD was standing in MOORMAN #5 also utilizing ARNOLD's very specific claims quoted above?

I have seen a couple versions of your map posted in the past. When you say "an accurate map" ... are you saying the map is "DRAWN" to scale? If a map is not drawn to scale, then trying to cross trajectories will not be correct and is why I try to use overhead photos when ever possible.

Also noted is that if ARNOLD's SFM'89 previously un-disclosed very specific claim of seeing yellow-tinted "shooters glasses" being worn by the second DPD-uniformed/rifle-armed/crying/shaking man AFTER the attack....it directly implies that the second DPD-uniformed/rifle-armed man was wearing the yellow-tinted "shooters glasses" DURING the attack.... yet, unless I have missed it, not one person within this thread has even attempted to illustratively point out the yellow-tinted "shooters glasses" on an un-enhanced MOORMAN #5, nor, has anyone attempted to illustratively indicate the claimed yellow-tinted "shooters glasses" on a WHITE photographic-clear-oils-enhanced MOORMAN #5.

I personally have not said much about "shooters glasses" because Arnold never knew if the hatless cop as shown to him in the MWKK was the man that fired over his shoulder or not. Gordon only considered the idea that he may have been face to face with the man who shot at President Kennedy because he did see an officer without a had soon after the assassination. I do think that Jack White has posted concerning someone claiming the man in the Moorman enhancement did look to have on shooters glasses. I don't know if it is in this thread, but Jack has posted that information on this forum for I have read it in the past. That still doesn't tell us if the man in Moorman's photo really had on shooters glasses and it doesn't tell us if Badge Man was one of the officers who met Gordon after the assassination.

For positive progress, (whatever the ultimate direction and/or epiphany it leads to) new information always needs to be confronted and thoroughly vetted for accuracy and authenticity.

I agree. Using actual photographs and maps that are drawn to scale would be a step in the right direction when ever possible. It is however, unfortunate that the interviews were not always filmed so to eliminate much of the speculation that has arisen in some cases pertaining to what the witness meant by something he or she said or did.

Btw, please explain how I have "read" this picture "Wrong".

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...pe=post&id=1282

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Part of it is because the "X" covers about 8" of space and the BDM was much wider.

You can walk the transparent figure towards Shaw and you will have BDM just where he is seen in the Willis and Moorman photo. (The figure seen at the top of Elm Street is at the Willis location)

See what I mean!

Andy...I have been unable to upload images for two days now.

I just tried a test with a very small image (5.6" x 4.2") and

got a message that it was too large.

Jack

Jack - It's those Apollo pictures you have been posting - they have broken the forum.

I don't think the limo was visible around the corner of the fence yet, at least not long enough to track the target before firing. In which case the first shot had to come not from the east-west segment of the fence, but from the north-south segment where Badge Man was (requiring more deflection of the bullet), unless Hatman could shoot over the north-south segment from where he was.

Ron

In the Willis and Betzner photos the Badge Man is hidden behind the pyracantha bush. I believe the Hat Man is looking in the direction of the limo as Bowers had stated. Whether he is shooting at that time I do not know. See below.

I believe this to be the Hat Man seen looking towards the motorcade as Bowers had stated.

Question: Would a shooter at the Hatman position have a shot at JFK at the time of the throat wound, or would that shot have to be fired from someone in Badge Man's position?

Sam Holland said that he thought the first shot came from the same area over by the fence somewhere.

BTW Hudson testified to only one man being with him on the steps. They had sat together, and stood up as the motorcade approached. Hudson never mentions the arrival of the third man, who is suddenly standing in front of them with the red shirt and dark trousers.

This third man obviously hurried down to join them as the limo was approaching. His blurred image as he is hurrying or starts to hurry down is seen in photos as Black Dog Man.

I think Hudson didn't mention the third man because he wasn't the focus of the discussion at the time. If you look at the Willis photo you will see the man in the red shirt on the lower steps and the man next to Hudson already in place with the BDM still at the wall.

Since I tend to agree with Al that the fatal head shot came from the south knoll area, that's one bullet going straight and one (the throat shot) changing course. I can buy that.

Ron

I don't know what the bullet did - other than possibly break into several pieces upon impact by the way the brain was shredded. Of Course once a missile is split into sections, then the bullet's original path is altered by new projectiles going off in different directions. I do defer to what Dr. Clark had said to the Commision ...

Dr. CLARK - Yes. I graduated from the University of Texas in Austin, 1944. I graduated from the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston in 1948. I interned at Indiana University Medical Center and was a resident in surgery there from 1948 to 1950. I spent 2 years in the Air Force and then took my residency in neurological surgery at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in New York City. This was from 1953 to 1956, at which time I came to the University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School, as chairman of the division of neurological surgery.

Dr. CLARK - I described the President's wound in his head in very much the same way as I have described it here. I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound, but I felt it was a tangential wound.

Mr. SPECTER - Which wound did you refer to at this time?

Dr. CLARK - The wound in the head.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you describe at that time what you meant by "tangential"?

Dr. CLARK - Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. SPECTER - What definition of "tangential" did you make at that time?

Dr. CLARK - As I remember, I defined the word "tangential" as being---striking an object obliquely, not squarely or head on.

Dr. CLARK - The effects of any missile striking an organ or a function of the energy which is shed by the missile in passing through this organ when a bullet strikes the head, if it is able to pass through rapidly without shedding any energy into the brain, little damage results, other than that part of the brain which is directly penetrated by the missile. However, if it strikes the skull at an angle, it must then penetrate much more bone than normal, therefore, is likely to shed more energy, striking the brain a more powerful blow.

Secondly, in striking the bone in this manner, it may cause pieces of the bone to be blown into the brain and thus act as secondary missiles. Finally, the bullet itself may be deformed and deflected so that it would go through or penetrate parts of the brain, not in the usual direct line it was proceeding.

Loose pieces of shredded brain seems to be seen falling out of the President's head on the Zapruder film.

Click attachment to animate.

Thanks for that info. While the increasing size of the holes clearly indicates transit of a bullet from front to back, it leaves the question of the rear seat. Is it possible that after tumbling through the jacket, the bullet had lost enough energy that it bounced or richocheted off the leather seat, rather than penetrating it, and wound up in the street?

The question of shot origin must also be answered. Does such a trajectory line up at all with the south overpass? What other origin could there be? I think it's the overpass or nothing.

Two things that make it an impossibility to ever know.

MR. GUNN: One of the things in the -- during the autopsy, they did not link the wound in the back to the neck. That did not come until after they spoke with Dr. Perry, so there was no tracing. There was an attempt to use the probe, and they found that the probe went in a short degree and then they could not find that it connected anywhere.

I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, but one of the doctors testified that an bullet could have entered the body and changed path for several reasons and that it was impossible to now know the path the missile took. We often think about a LOS from Zapruder to JFK, but a view from the RR yard to JFK when he was first shot would be much more on a level field of view. Kennedy's head was turned to his extreme right by Z193 - Z195, but his sitting posture above the back seat was the same as seen in the Croft photo. Any deflection of the bullet could have caused it to leave the body in a way that it would not have hit the trunk or the follow-up car.

Jack White is correct to search for anomalies in this Cold War

Aeronautic government propaganda films....

If one goes around saying that everything he or she sees and doesn't understand for whatever reason is an anomily, then we all could be doing it. Because one doesn't have the education or skills to know how something was done does not give them the right to claim that a cover-up is afoot or refer to it as propaganda.

Dr. Baxter - It would be unlikely because the damage that the bullet would create would be---first its speed would create a shock wave which would damage a larger number of tissues, as in its path, it would tend to strike, or usually would strike, tissues of greater density than this particular missile did and would then begin to tumble and would create larger jagged--the further it went, the more jagged would be the damage that it created; so that ordinarily there would have been a rather large wound of exit.

Bill Cheslock reminds me of something Stewart Galanor wrote in his book "Cover-Up" ...

On page 26, he points out the sizes of the holes in the clothing and body

of JFK. The throat wound was 5mm, back wound was 7mm, shirt was 10mm,

and jacket was 15mm. These measurements would indicate the bullet tumbled as it penetrated from front to back, and made larger holes as it traversed JFK's body and clothing.

What Dr. Baxter said and what Galanor points out about the bullet holes go hand in hand when so many other things do not.