David Josephs

Was this what you were after Pat?

Greg -

you got it... "ignore" is about the only thing he seems to understand on this forum - not that he gets the hint, and if you've noticed, his posts describe the fun and entertainment he derives from showing off his ignorance and causing nothing but disruption with each and every post.... but enough time on the old man

Having just watched the Costella youtube video when he explains some of his thoughts on zapruder he mentions a ghost image that does not seem to fit.

I've enlarged that area and it dawns on me that it looks like th front of the TSBD....

I did not hear if he spoke of light leaking in in that manner... if this is the TSBD it would make some sense since it disappears as Zapruder pans to his right.... could this be a normal function of the camera?

Would be interested in other's interpretation. This is from frame 180 btw

The other comment that bothers me is the insistance that the people on the sidewalk do not move or turn toward the limo and this is just not true... in the few seconds we see them and the limo actually passes them, they clap, move their heads, the scarf and coats move in the wind, etc... I took the time to stabilize/align the frames within Photoshop so the people remain in the same location... it becomes very apparent that they are live, there and watching the parade.... imo.

I do have a question though...

With as much blood splatter on the rear view mirror

and a frontal shot coming from an angle that would preclude any "back-splash" from going in THAT direction (unless the shot thru the windshield is the kill shot and no one has offered that up)

then how does so much of JFK's blood get on the mirror and windshield as well as JC...? doesn't this support a shot, whether additional or not, from behind?

Hey there Pat... does this help?

Thank you all for your input...

Robert,

I am in agreement with you about the CFR and its influence... yet you don't mention Nixon. During the Ike years what was his relation to the CFR? It seems to me that Nixon was much more involved in the assassination "planning", maybe even moreso than LBJ because of all he was involved in setting up during those years... just my opinion though

It is disappointing to understand that Arthur may not be considered a "reliable" source of information...

so what about his 2 volume book on RFK?

Thanks John,

my problem with the whole Lincoln thing is if indeed JFK did confide in her and was his secretary, a political activist, etc... why does she write such a book at all? I thought people of that time and in those circles had a bit more respect and consideration for the affairs of state. Was it just the money? Her desire to set the record straight?

David L,

Maybe I am not following correctly....

The conversations I am quoting occur in October of 1963 and are directly (supposedly) from JFK and from Stephen Smith. RFK's comments in 1968, denying what EL wrote has little to do with what he is quoted as saying in 1963 as well as the other supporting evidence....

Is Arthur really making this stuff up? O'Donnell? Powers?

I guess I need to cross reference these sentiments with what these other men may have said.. any help there?

Did Bradlee, Smith and Smathers confirm this info?

It does make some sense that JFK would look pretty foolish for not knowing what his VP was doing, or that his administration was by proxy so corrupt... He had fired a number of other people close to him who were doing things behind his back... he took responsibility but dropping the VP would only raise more questions than quiet them - no?

So between what EL writes and what Arthur writes... who do we trust?

I guess it's possible JFK "kept his enemy closer" by spreading rumors he would NOT be dropped to certain people shile those like Evelyn heard the truth???

Back to the books...

DJ

Excuse me if this was already posted... all I've read here is about the dumping of LBJ and no mention of these statements from Schlesinger.

In Robert Kennedy and His Times, chapter 26 pages 631-632

When the campaign group met, without LBJ, to discuss strategy, the press seems to have jumped to conclusions...

On Oct 22, 1963, the President said to Ben Bradlee that the idea of dumping Johnson was "proposterous on the face ot ir. We've got to carry TX in '64, and maybe Georgia."

'When George Smathers mentioned it: "George, you must be the dumbest man in the world. If I drop Lyndon, it will make it look as if we have a really bad and serious scandal on our hands in the Bobby Baker case, which we haven't and that will reflect on me." The footnote refers to O'Donnel and Powers. "Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ya" 5.

With regards to the Lincoln comments... Arthur alerted RFK from an advance copy of the book, while RFK was skiing... He said again there was never any intention to drop Johnson, addin, "Can you imagine the President ever havin a talk with Evelyn about a subject lilke this?"*

*Author's journal, Feb 10, 1968. The nonexistence of any dump-Johnson plan is fully and emphatically confirmed by Stephen Smith. (Smith was in charge of the campaign)

Seems to me then that the press perpetrated this rumor... and we all know who was running most of the press at that time....

DJ

In case people are still looking for that document...

and the U-R-A-F-I-N-K is what we get when we replace the numbers under the "General Offense Report" with the letters in that numerical place in the alphabet....

"...His name was actually Alek Hidel" !?!?!?

Must have gotten that info from one of the 4 wallets he carried

They are indeed very close in appearance.... I wonder if Arthur Vallee had "look-alikes" wandering around Chicago in the weeks before...

If not... while the scenarios are very similiar it appears as if Oswald was much more deeply in place as a "patsy"...

DJ

Huh???????????

Do I have the name wrong...? the mentally impaired, loner, ex-marine arrested/detained in Chicago right before JFK's visit. He worked over- looking the motorcade route and was primed as the "patsy" for that assassination attempt....

I'm simply asking if there was more to that story as well... look-alikes planting/staging incriminating evidence against Vallee..

that may have needed a quick clean up since the assassination attempt never happened.

If not, then I fail to see how the Chicago plot and "Cover-up" was functionaly similiar to Oswald's set-up.

That there was much more involved with the fingering and set-up of Oswald... if JFK was killed in Chicago, would Oswald have been used for something else? just food for thought.

Quite amazing how many people wind up looking like Oswald in and around Dallas....

They are indeed very close in appearance.... I wonder if Arthur Vallee had "look-alikes" wandering around Chicago in the weeks before...

If not... while the scenarios are very similiar it appears as if Oswald was much more deeply in place as a "patsy"...

DJ

Found this while wandering around looking for some Oswald chronology data....

Further confirmation of the occupants and locations.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=40392&relPageId=17

Thought some might be interested.....

Kennedys' Home Movies Kennedys' Home Movies 01/27 - 02/11

Jan 30, 9:00 pm

(120 minutes)

TV-PG (LV)

Three generations of Kennedys as we've never seen them before captured in home movies and rare footage.

Yo Tom....

So you can explain it in 10 minutes to him but can't write a simple paragraph to illustrate how he is so completely wrong with this, and ONLY this specific bullet hitting this specific person....

As the resident ballistics expert then.... can you please take a second and point out how he is wrong in the paragraph below...

I have to assume that his statement "If... an explosive wound of entry." is the problem in that you believe a round that hit JFK in the head was indeed a FMJ 6.5mm bullet and it breaks apart leaving a particle and vapor trail because.....????

thanks

DJ

Massad Ayoob, The JFK Assassination: A Shooter's Eye View, American Handgunner, March/April 1993.

"The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less.

It is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 fps, and probably toward the higher end of that scale ...

An explosive wound of entry occurs when a highly liquid area of the body, such as the brain, is struck by a high velocity round. The tissue swells violently during the microseconds of the bullet's passing, and seeks the line of least resistance. That least resistance is the portal of the entry wound that appeared a microsecond before, and the bullet will not bore an exit hole to relieve the pressure for another microsecond or two--perhaps not at all if the bullet fragments inside the brain.

If the cataclysmic cranial injury inflicted on Kennedy was indeed an explosive wound of entry, the source of the shot would have had to be forward of the Presidential limousine, to its right, and slightly above...the area of the grassy knoll."

The wound we see happening in frame 313 in the Zapruder film--and see the results of most clearly in frame 337--is simply not consistent with this rifle cartridge, at that distance in living tissue. It is particularly inconsistent with a round-nose full metal-jacket bullet of the type Oswald had in his rifle."

Excellent find Duncan... thanks

btw - I did a screen grab at the end of the video... in a different thread Jack and others discussed the retouching of Cabluck and now watching this...

The retouched area is directly infront of the Storm Drain entrance/exit and should only show the picket fence... was there a hole in the fence that day?

side note: I thought the drain-shot was proven impossible... but sure would make up for all those people saying they hear shots "that sounded like firecrackers or motocycle engine pops" since these sounds were all described as AT STREET LEVEL and not 65 feet up and 120 feet back behind the limo. (sorry I forget whether it was DSL or Lane who brought this simple concept to light... but if sounds are all coming from the STREET LEVEL.... it might be prudent to assume that some of the shots also originiated AT STREET LEVEL.

Does no bone edge of the right side flap border on the circumference of the right temple bullet hole?

A matter for interpretation but I don't think so... the temple hole, or above the eye hole is well forward of that flap, imo.

DJ

Sure thing JR....

Be nice too if MR. P weighs in on Mr. Ayoob's conclusions but I imagine like most things there are 10 sides to the issue, each with their own expert.... so this too goes nowhere.

And where is Jim F???? I don't think it works both ways... if the bullet exploded it did not blow out the opposite side of anything... if the damage in front and above the ear is connected to the hole so many claim to have seen in the back, then what?

From what I've seen of witness testimony there is indeed a difference between the very back of the head and the top side so many put their hands... how there can be that much difference in witness recollection is astounding, but there none the less.

I've been studying the xrays and photos trying to see if they make any sense, as well as Pat's F8 chapter trying to find a correct orientation. Unless they were completely breaking from procedure... the scallp is pulled forward over the face...

Given we see the "flap" on the right side of the photo once the pulled forward skin is placed at the top of the photo... be interesting to see how far that one wide crack continues toward the right front...

So I guess, given the questionable source of the autopsy photos, we cannot reconstruct what occurred from these photos/xrays.

But given what the witnesses saw and say... that flap being opened or closed might make a large difference.

Where's Mr. Purvis? Mr. Williams?

If the bullet exploded it could not have blown out the back of his head and would have disintegrated

If the bullet was frangible it could not have blown out the back of his head and would have disintegrated

If the bullet was a 6.5mm FMJ it would have been recovered in much the same condition as CE399 although more probably a bit smashed up.

So once again, anyone who believes in a frontal shot that exploded open his head - what blew out the occipital/parietal area?

"Where's Mr. Purvis? Mr. Williams?"

Can not speak for Mr. Williams, but you may rest assured that I am still around, watching others go around (frequently in circles) about the bullet entrance to the top rear of the head as well as exactly how (and why) this FMJ bullet managed to fragment in the manner which it did.

(Hint): A full review of the anterior/posterior X-ray, along with the lateral X-ray, along with the X-ray of the skull fragments; and the testimony of Dr. Humes (coupled with the autopsy report), and evaluation of the bullet fragments found in the front of the Limousine, will sufficient answer the questions of anyone who properly evaluates this evidence.

Does a FMJ Carcano bullet normally create such a wound as that suffered by JFK?----------Nope!

Does a FMJ Carcano bullet normally fragment in the manner of which this one did?-------Nope!

Did the FMJ Carcano bullet to the top rear of JFK's head severely fragment?------------Yep!

Is there a simple and fully explainable explanation as to why this bullet acted in this manner, contrary to what one would think of as "normal" for a FMJ Carcano bullet?--------------------------------------Yep!

Would it be considered as somewhat "normal" for a FJM Carcano bullet to fragment as well as create the damage to the skull & brain, provided that it struck anyone else in a similar manner?-------------Yep!

Would it be a complete waste of time to attempt to convince "Conspiracy Theorist" of the simplicity of the facts related to this bullet impact to the rear of the head of JFK and it's resulting fragmentation as well as damage to the brain & skull of JFK?------------------------------------------------------------Yep!

In event that one ceases to deal in "theory" and thereafter actually evaluates the factual evidence, would they be considerably more likely to come to the understanding as to why this FMJ Carcano bullet created the majority of the damage attributed to it as a result of it's impact, to include the WHY? this bullet fragmented in the manner which it did?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Yep!

Well Mr. P, this is what I found an expert to write about FMJ bullets and the JFK assassination thanks to Pat Speer's website. the non-quoted text are Pat's words.

Please help me understand why we should be reading this information with an air of disbelief... or is what being said correct?

Massad Ayoob, The JFK Assassination: A Shooter's Eye View, American Handgunner, March/April 1993. "The explosion of the President's head as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is simply not characteristic of a full metal-jacket rifle bullet traveling at 2,200 fps or less. It is far more consistent with an explosive wound of entry with a small-bore, hyper-velocity rifle bullet traveling between 3,000 and 4,000 fps, and probably toward the higher end of that scale ...An explosive wound of entry occurs when a highly liquid area of the body, such as the brain, is struck by a high velocity round. The tissue swells violently during the microseconds of the bullet's passing, and seeks the line of least resistance. That least resistance is the portal of the entry wound that appeared a microsecond before, and the bullet will not bore an exit hole to relieve the pressure for another microsecond or two--perhaps not at all if the bullet fragments inside the brain. If the cataclysmic cranial injury inflicted on Kennedy was indeed an explosive wound of entry, the source of the shot would have had to be forward of the Presidential limousine, to its right, and slightly above...the area of the grassy knoll."

So here we have a respected gun expert and author laying it all out...Kennedy's large head wound is not at all what one would expect from the ammunition used in Oswald's rifle, should it have impacted as claimed by the likes of Olivier and Sturdivan. His words also suggest that, if the bullet impacted as proposed by Olivier and Sturdivan, and Kennedy's head exploded as a consequence of the temporary cavity created by the bullet, blood and brain matter would most certainly have sprayed back out the entrance. But Ayoob doesn't stop there...

"The evidence does not rule out the possibility that a hyper-velocity rifle bullet evacuated the President's cranial vault without any other bullet hitting him in the head. The 6.5mm Carcano throws a 162 gr. bullet at a bit under 2,300 fps muzzle velocity. The closest commonly used cartridge to it in terms of ballistics is probably the .30/30, which has a .308" diameter. The Carcano round, about a .263" diameter. Ask any homicide detective if he's ever seen a .30/30 round blow a man's head up at 55 to 60 yards, exploding the calvarium up and away from the body proper. Ask any hunter of deer-size game if he's ever seen the same thing at that distance. It happens only at very close range with that ballistic technology. The wound we see happening in frame 313 in the Zapruder film--and see the results of most clearly in frame 337--is simply not consistent with this rifle cartridge, at that distance in living tissue. It is particularly inconsistent with a round-nose full metal-jacket bullet of the type Oswald had in his rifle."

Here Ayoob re-stresses the point. Bullets like those fired in Oswald's rifle just don't do what we've been told they do. They just don't send pieces of skull flying across the sky when fired from a distance. This is so clear to Ayoob in fact that, even in the conclusion to his article, where he postulates that Oswald quite possibly acted alone, he does so only under the proviso that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 "for unexplainable reasons did damage out of all proportion to its ballistic capability as most of us would perceive that to be."

Massad F. Ayoob (born July 20, 1948) is an internationally known firearms and self-defense instructor. He has taught police techniques and civilian self-defense to both law enforcement officers and private citizens in numerous venues since 1974. He was the director of the Lethal Force Institute (LFI) in Concord, New Hampshire from 1981 to 2009, and he now directs the Massad Ayoob Group (MAG).[1] Ayoob has appeared as an expert witness in several trials. He has served as a part-time police officer in New Hampshire since 1972 and holds the rank of Captain in the Grantham, New Hampshire police department.[2]

Ayoob has authored several books and more than 1,000 articles on firearms, combat techniques, self-defense, and legal issues, and has served in an editorial capacity for Guns Magazine, American Handgunner, Gun Week, and Combat Handguns. Since 1995, he has written self-defense- and firearms-related articles for Backwoods Home Magazine. He also has a featured segment on the television show Personal Defense TV, which airs on the Sportsman Channel in the United States.

While Ayoob has been in the courtroom as a testifying police officer, expert witness, and police prosecutor, he is not an attorney; he is, however, a former Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), and is believed to be the only non-attorney ever to hold this position.[3][4] His published work was cited by the Violence Policy Center in their amicus curiae brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, and he himself filed a declaration in another amicus brief in this case.[5] His course for attorneys, titled "The Management of the Lethal Force/Deadly Weapons Case", was, according to Jeffrey Weiner (former president of NACDL), "the best course for everything you need to know but are never taught in law school."[4]

Ayoob remains an internationally prominent law enforcement officer training instructor. Since 1987, he has served as chairman of the Firearms Committee of the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers (ASLET).[dated info] He also serves on the Advisory Board of the International Law Enforcement Educators’ and Trainers’ Association, and is an instructor at the National Law Enforcement Training Center.[5]

Ayoob is of Arab descent.[6][7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massad_Ayoob

Tom,

First off why do you call it a "Carcano" bullet... there are 6.5mm FMJ bullets and Carcano rifles... so calling it a Carcano bullet seems to be your way of leading the discussion to your own conclusions. THAT rifle and THOSE bullets from the hulls found on the 6th floor were not fired at 12:30pm on 11-22-63 and there is absolutely no proof that it or they were.

I'm sorry I cant recall WHY you believe that the same FMJ bullet that is NOT supposed to fragment, does so in the case of hitting JFK in the back of the head - if he was indeed hit there. And if it did indeed fragment enough to leave that trail of particles in the xray... what opened the flap over his right ear?

Oh, I forgot, explaining would be a waste of time.... even though the answer is so simply and fully explainable... that allows us to understand how a FMJ bullet leaves a VAPOR trail of particles so small they couldn't even be picked out... and how that bullet, and only that bullet, behaved that way.

A waste... as is discussing with you the value of the ballistic tests that you somehow interpret to mean that someone fired that rifle and those bullets that day and from that window.

So either a FMJ bullet behaves completely contrary to how/why it was manufactured (exploding and fragmenting on impact)- because you say so...

or it was not a FMJ bullet that hit JFK in the head and therefore not from one of the three hulls found.

Either way you have a large opening/avulsion in the back of the head and a hinged opening above the right ear, minute amounts of bullet fragments and only 1 bullet to account for it all... a FMJ 6.5mm hull.

and if it hit at the top of the head... how do you explain all the damage to the skull floor?

and if the bullet does explode or fragment, why didn't the damage radiate from the entry point as opposed to only being on one side of the head?

Finally, is it possible for you to simply answer the questions, given the expert you presentyourself to be? No CT accusations, rhetoric or BS... if you've posted the answer before, a link will do fine

Why should we believe that FMJ bullets behaved completely opposite of their intent and if so, how do you account for the damage to the head as reported by those in Dallas within the first 30 minutes.

thanks

DJ

Bill - It would be interesting to hear what these same doctors think of what is shown on the Z film... Great question.

Have/Had they even been shown this evidence?

But I would like to understand how this bullet which basically disintegrated, blow out the back of the head.

I started a thread asking that same question and concluding that there HAD to be more than one head shot if both front and back get blown out. Is it possible for the avulsion to be caused by a shot from the rear?

And one more example of the SIDE OF THE HEAD versus the BACK OF THE HEAD

It is amazing the contrast in location between BOH and SOH

In the video he claims this ambulance took JFK from Andrews to the White House... in fact even the news caster repeats that.

It gets corrected but...

Was there another ambulance, this ambulance maybe, that took him from Bethesda to the White House the next morning?... or is this simply mis-speaking?

That's kind of my point Cliff... don't the ballistics of the bullets and the visual evidence seriously contradict with regards to the headshot(s)? And if the bullets Oswald supposedly used do not do what we saw "One bullet could not do all this damage" then there HAD to be other ammunition involved. If the bullet exploded/was fragible then there HAD to be another shot to cause the other head injury be it the front one or the BOH.

By definition these bullets lose their enertia within the target.. that's why a hole is not blown out the other side of a deer when shot with these types of bullets.

Both the BOH blowout and frontal "flap" could have been caused by a shot from the front or back - and you're right, unless the actual brain was dissected and analyzed, we may never know.

If this xray if real then the vapor trail of particles across the top of the skull is indicative of a frangible bullet, not a FMJ leaving particles as it slices thru the target...

Where's Mr. Purvis? Mr. Williams?

If the bullet exploded it could not have blown out the back of his head and would have disintegrated

If the bullet was frangible it could not have blown out the back of his head and would have disintegrated

If the bullet was a 6.5mm FMJ it would have been recovered in much the same condition as CE399 although more probably a bit smashed up.

So once again, anyone who believes in a frontal shot that exploded open his head - what blew out the occipital/parietal area?

Jim F wrote:

The only support for your bizarre theory stems from the skull flap, which was blown open when the frangible

bullet exploded after entering his right temple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet

Frangible: Designed to disintegrate into tiny particles upon impact to minimize their penetration for reasons of range safety, to limit environmental impact, or to limit the shoot-through danger behind the intended target.

Exploding: Similar to the incendiary bullet, this type of projectile is designed to explode upon hitting a hard surface, preferably the bone of the intended target. Not to be mistaken for cannon rounds or grenade with fuse devices, these bullets have only a cavity filled with a small amount of low explosive depending on the velocity and deformation upon impact to detonate. Usually produced for hunting airguns with the intent of increasing the bullets effectiveness.

Jacketed Lead: Bullets intended for even higher-velocity applications generally have a lead core that is jacketed or plated with gilding metal, cupronickel, copper alloys, or steel; a thin layer of harder metal protects the softer lead core when the bullet is passing through the barrel and during flight, which allows delivering the bullet intact to the target. There, the heavy lead core delivers its kinetic energy to the target.

DJ: "Back and to the left" and supposedly thru and thru

Now maybe I just don't get it.... if it was a FMJ bullet we could expect it to go thru the skull as intended, and not fragment, disintegrate or explode.

If this was an exploding/frangible bullet - which based on the particle trail (if the xray can be accepted as real) looks like it may have been, if it exploded.. what exactly was propelled thru the back of the head causing the gaping hole?

thanks

DJ

A better shot of the white car... seems to have had the time to back into its spot right in front of the emergency entrance...

doubtful that other cars were already there for that maneuver

(edit: my mistake... pilot car FOLLOWED the limo to Parkland so was not there before limo to park as they did... but still may be the car..)

DJ

Maybe in this one? Not sure what I'm looking for though....

Maybe the white police car next to the limo?

One day General Ed Lansdale came to Fletcher's office and he was all excited about something. He began to "pitch" this new flechette dart weapon system and was beside himself with glee, according to Prouty. He was accompanied by another man who demonstrated how it worked. It could be fired from a fountain pen, a book, an umbrella, a walking stick (cane), a modified Colt .45, and perhaps other delivery systems that had yet to be developed. The demonstration was impressive as the dart, powered by solid rocket fuel, instantly accelerated to a very high speed and embedded into the wall of his office. Prouty told me: "Lansdale was like a kid in a candy store." Lansdale convinced Prouty to fly with him in a chopper that he had waiting outside in order for it to be demonstrated at a more suitable location.

The next demonstration convinced Prouty that this was, indeed, one of the most effective weapons he'd seen. An "operator" fired the dart (I don't remember the delivery system used) at a goat that was approximately 50 yards away and it literally blew the entire hind quarter (including leg and hip) off--obliterating it. Needless to say the Agency got their funding to ostensibly "develop a system" that, in reality, they already had proved was 100% successful before they had even requested the money.

Check out page 107 of the February 1962 issue of Popular Mechanics.

Bizarre Weapons for the Little Wars by S. David Pursglove

http://books.google.com/books?id=reEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA7-IA2&lpg=PA7-IA2&dq=popular+mechanics+february+1962&source=bl&ots=f61QAOeU_Y&sig=hMYw6FZ7Pu0xq5PupV-SHIE-ufc&hl=en&ei=Sz44Tci3M8H68AazgKWrCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=popular%20mechanics%20february%201962&f=false

John Armstrong mentioned this on page 364 of Harvey & Lee.

Excellent link Michael.... that weapon is very similiar to the 2004 patent application for the "ice" bullet gun earlier in this thread... even to the point that "multiple straws can be used"... except the new gun actually creates the slug as part of the process....

Bottom line - To dismiss technological solutions that appear "impossible" in present day is somewhat narrow minded imo....

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."