David Josephs

Good to be on the same path with you BK.... maybe we can get some comments from the LNers??

Maybe you could post the link to your earlier attempts - or were they met with silence from the DVP crowd?

The one in the backyard photo looks homemade from some rope.... even looks tied in a knot at the barrel end.

I assume you've determined that Oswald never bought a strap or owned an Air Force pistol holder?

Is this HUGE??? Jim?

DJ

Wandering thru the TX History archives I find this nice large version of one of the Backyard photos.

I do not remember ever reading that Oswald switched out the shoulder strap.

These two straps are nowhere NEAR the same.

Craig Lamson, Mike Williams, T. Purvis, DVP.... please explain.

You'll need to click the image a few time to get to full size.

The strap in the BY photo is basically a piece of rope and is attached to the underside of the rifle. The thick leather strap with wide shoulder pad is connected to the side sling mount.

How again are these the same rifle?

you mean there is no giant conspiracy.... no multiple shooters???

Thanks Tom... must have been Mrs. White with the Rope in the Study.

and by the way... those Diebold voting machines.... very reliable and safe.

What world do you live in ??

And this illustration by me, provides an even better explanation of what is really being seen.

Duncan... looks like someone moving boxes at Dal Tex as well

That's a much better image and clean up of Alt6 than I've seen... thanks. It really doesn't look like broken glass

plus you'd think with the zillions of eyes all over that place, someone would have said something about broken glass.

I too feel a shot was very possible during Towner - not from the broken-glass window but from one of the other 2 windows or from the roof. That it did miss (other speak of a shot hitting the pavement and kicking up debris) and there may have been a reaction by JFK seems very plausible given other testimony and other reactions...

yet that wasn't the killzone, so for a pro to take a shot prior to his reaching the best triangulation risks giving away his position.

I offer these enhancements... Seems the fire-escape column of windows is more likely the culprit. Even the 3rd floor window there looks

open with someone standing there.... yet it does not appear that way in the full image. and next to that is the 2nd story fireescape window that definitely looks as if someone is there.

Yet another prime example of not having the largest and best images available. After all these years and research how is it we do not have a repository of the very best images for analysis? with free FTP clients all over, file size should no longer matter. soapbox sermon over.....

DJ

In order to bring this full circle I'd like to focus on the timing of Altgens, Yarborough's reaction, and if Rufus is indeed turning around to ultmiately jump over the seat and protect the VP... why does Yarborough completely neglect to mention any of that activity.

The desire of the thread was to determine which shot and when Yarborough connects to the soldier hitting the dirt and to tie that to GA's account. The fact is that both men claim there were shots fired after GA hits the ground.

If Nix and Muchmoore show a tan-clothed soldier diving to his left (and why would he dive TOWARD or INTO the sound of gunshots as opposed to his right and AWAY from the shots??) at this point we have to take your word for it. Why wouldn't Groden publish such great still frames showing this then? Waiting for the 50 year celebration??

Any reason Bowers does not mention this soldier wandering around the RR yard and all the other activities/encounters GA claims?? Bowers seemed very observant in that area and was able to describe in great detail the men he did see...

How does GA look so incredibly BLACK in both Betzner and Willis when the lightness of his clothes are seen in the films and in Moorman? He steps back into DEEPER DARKNESS than would be at BDM's position....

Am still not convinced GA was BDM. Until we can place the black couple somewhere at the that time, and there is no reason to believe they did not move around by the bench, enough to catch the eye of Sitzman. GA needs to be north and west of BDM according to his own description... no one else is seen in Willis or Betzner other than BDM, no GA and no black couple.... an imo no Hudson either...

Guess there really is no evidence of Rufus in the back seat... no clear images after z255 at least...

DJ

Yup you have thoughts or Yup you see a person up there?

Saw this before and its been on my mind...

This is both Dillard's overpass photo, and Cancellare's. One seems to show something and then a slight bit later, nothing.

Any thoughts?

DJ

From the way one reads Phil's post one could assume he thinks LBJ is really not there...

This is not what I was asserting in starting the thread... he is of course there. I assume he meant that the photo may have been altered... on that I prefer not to comment.

Are you implying that Rufus claims he did these things at the urging of LBJ??? Even though he'd know the record and witnesses would not support the story? That too makes little sense... Rufus was very specific about what he says he did.

I heard an explosion--I was not sure whether it was a firecracker, bomb, bullet, or other explosion. I looked at whatever I could quickly survey, and could not see anything which would indicate the origin of this noise. I noticed that the movements in the Presidential car were very abnormal and, at practically the same time, the movements in the Presidential follow-up car were abnormal. I turned in my seat and with my left arm grasped and shoved the Vice President, at his right shoulder, down and toward Mrs. Johnson and Senator Yarborough. At the same time, I shouted

"get down!" I believe I said this more than once and directed it to the Vice President and the other occupants of the rear seat. They all responded very rapidly.

I quickly looked all around again and could see nothing to shoot at, so I stepped over into the back seat and sat on top of the Vice President. I sat in a crouched position and issued orders to the driver. During this time, I heard two more explosion noises and observed SA Hickey in the Presidential follow-up car poised on the car with the AR-15 rifle looking toward the buildings. The second and third explosions made the same type of sound that the first one did as far as I could tell, but by this time I was of the belief that they definitely were shots--not bombs or firecrackers. I am not sure that I was on top of the Vice President before the second shot--he says I was. All of the above related events, from the beginning at the sound of the first shot to the sound of the third shot, happened within a few seconds.

As far as other SS agents reacting already, that has not been demonstrated either:....

And the SS agents in the Queen Mary (in between JFK's and LBJ's car) are doing nothing other than what they did throughout the motorcade - looking all around them, front, behind, sides, just as they always do. The fact that some are looking backwards in that photo does not indicate that they are reacting to anything.

I have to disagree with you here Phil. A Zfilm shows the 2 agents nearest the TSBD slightly scan the area but do not react as they are photographed in Alt6, turning their heads completely around, nor do the others "not" react differently than simply scanning the crowd.

There is most definitely a reaction recorded by z255 that is outside the ordinary. The zfilm frame is 200, the last with the agents visible.

And I maintain that some of the timing/BDM/GA issues can begin to resolve themselves. If Yarborough remembers a man hitting the dirt at the first shot HE hears, and he hears 2 more shots.... GA, if the man he refers to as Bill asserts, must already be on the ground by Moorman. If this was a different person referred to, then GA has one less supporter for his story. Either way, the mystery of BDM and GA and the black couple and the coke remains intact.... for now.

DJ

btw Phil... just receieved your book along with Douglass' and Manchester's.... quite an interesting threesome of perspectives.

Now I just need the time to read...

Thanks Martin,

I began to think the other photo was not from that motorcade, but I'm not sure.

If you're talking about the Willis 02 posted by Martin Hinrichs above, it would have to be. I don't believe Jackie rode with JFK while wearing that now iconic pink outfit other than on the 22nd.

Thanks... was actually speaking of the photo where LBJ has the dark glasses on. That one doesn't seem to be from 11-22-63

DJ

Working on a response Thomas, to your no-response response....

You still provide no reference, no example, no link to support any of your opinions.

One simple example of Purvis logic:

on the one hand:

(note: of course there also exists absolutely no factual proof that it is the weapon which was utilized to shoot JFK with either)

on the other - and earlier in this same thread:

All that can be stated as fact is that JFK was assassinated by a 6.5mm Model 91/38 Short Rifle, which weapon was found on the sixth floor of the TSDB.

Which is it Thomas?

And you are saying THAT rifle was fired on THAT day. Prove it.

Thanks

"It is impossible to win in argument with an ignorant man"

(William G. McAdoo)

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/23566.html

Very poetic Mr Purvis. I for one am not arguing with anyone.

Simply asking that you explain how you can take both sides of an issue in the same thread and expect to be taken seriously.

And we all wonder why you keep avoiding the simple question arising from your conclusions

How do you prove THAT rifle was fired THAT day?

Since you can't by any stretch of the imagination come up with a way to prove it, your conclusions are erroneous at best.

The transparency of your non-answer responses is amusing as well. If you can't answer, ignore.

"You ain't gonna learn, what you don't want to know" - Robert Hunter

My appreciation for having provided a prime example as to exactly how little you know in regards to the evidence:

1. The only reason the "Magic Bullet" CE399 is still with us is becasue it had nothing at all to do with the injuries sustained on 11/22/63 as is with most all the other "evidence".

Answer: Since CE399 has never disappeared, it has never exibited any qualities of "Magic".

In fact, it is merely a plain ole everyday WCC Carcano bullet which is responsible for a given set of

wounds.

(Hint/again: Magic things are good at the ole disappearing act)

In this case Thomas "Magic" means it never did what you are saying it did... NOT that it disappeared. CE399 is THAT bullet, yet you have no idea where that bullet had been. The "MAGIC" is for where you say the bullet went and what you say it did... off a tree limb, tumbling and into JFK's body exactly perpendicular.... there is no evidence whatsoever of tree, blood, tissue or fabric on that piece of "evidence". So you basically have no proof whatsoever that bullet did any of those things.

beyond the 4mmx7mm measurement, what leads you to your conclusions beyond your Prudent Beliefs

2. Thomas talks of reliability yet forgets the age of the MC, the age of the ammo, and the condition of both when found.

Answer: Irrelevant as to the age of the Carcano recovered from the sixth floor, it still "bench-tested" to be as accurate as were the current (1960's) issue U.S. M-14 rifle which also still happens to be the basis for most of the standard issue sniper rifles.

As regards the ammunition, it was (and still is) superior quality military grade/standard ammunition in which virtually 100 out of 100 rounds will fire with excellent results.

CBS conducted a firing test in 1967 at the H. P. White Ballistics Laboratory located in Street, Maryland. For the test 11 marksmen from diverse backgrounds were invited to participate: 3 Maryland State Troopers, 1 weapons engineer, 1 sporting goods dealer, 1 sportsman, 1 ballistics technician, 1 ex-paratrooper, and 3 H. P. White employees. CBS provided several Carcano rifles for the test. The MC rifle WC-139 was not used in this test. The targets were color coded orange for head/shoulder silhouette and blue for a near miss. The results of the CBS test were as follows: 7 of 11 shooters were able to fire three rounds under 5.6 seconds (64%). Of those 7 shooters, 6 hit the orange target once (86%), and 5 hit the orange target twice (71%). Out of 60 rounds fired, 25 hit the orange (42%), 21 hit the blue portion of the target (35%), and there were 14 misses on the target (23%).

One volunteer was unable to operate his rifle effectively so the following statistics are based on the 10 remaining shooters. The average time of all 10 was 5.64 seconds. The mode was 5.55 seconds and the mean was 5.70 seconds. The average for the top five shooters was 5.12 seconds, and for the bottom five shooters 6.16 seconds. There was a high occurrence of jamming during the test. On average the rifles jammed after 6 rounds. The most rounds fired without jamming were 14, 11, 10 in a row. The least was 0 (back to back).

So I guess we both can quote tests that show the rifle and ammo to be either 100% reliable, like yours, or jamming as much as on back-to-back shots. So yes Thomas, if one was to want to kill the president, using WWII surplus stock is always a great idea.

3. "He further neglects to address how Oswald even came into possession of the rifle and how the backyard photo shows a different rifle entirely."

Answer: LHO is holding some version of the Carcano "short rifle". Since I have completely lost my "crystal ball", there exists absolutely no means by which I can define as to whether it is a 6.5mm version (Model 91/38) or whether it is is a Model 38 (7.35mm).

As to where he obtained the weapon, one would most assuredly have to know firstly exactly what caliber it actually is.

Nevertheless, there exists absolutely ZERO factual proof that it is not/was not the weapon which was recovered on the sixth floor of the TSDB, being the 6.5mm version which was (solely) utilized in the assassination of JFK.

(note: of course there also exists absolutely no factual proof that it is the weapon which was utilized to shoot JFK with either)

You are correct... there is indeed no means by which you can identify THAT rifle as the one is the Backyard photos.

You are incorrect – fact is, the recovered rifle has a side mounted front shoulder strap ring while the one in the backyard has a bottom mounted ring (just like the ad from which it was purchased) along with a mountain of previously presented evidence that shows the rifle shipped was not the one found in the TSBD. Regardless, the entire case again LHO falls apart if the rifles are not the same... then the rifle found on the 6th floor was NEVER in Oswald’s possession.

Please read Moyer's excellent paper on the subject - excellent piece.

And finally... now you post:

(note: of course there also exists absolutely no factual proof that it is the weapon which was utilized to shoot JFK with either)

you posted originally, in this thread:

All that can be stated as fact is that JFK was assassinated by a 6.5mm Model 91/38 Short Rifle, which weapon was found on the sixth floor of the TSDB.

Which is it Thomas?

4. "You've got a bullet entering the body, leaving lead fragments yet emerging without a trace of evidence it was in contact with anyone. Nothing on that bullet suggests it ever came close to JFK."

Answer: Had you taken the time and effort to research CE399, then you quite possibly would come to realize exactly how completely inaccurate and non-factual the entirity of that statement is.

Yes I have Thomas and since you are the expert, why not post a reason beyond the chain of events that takes a bullet hitting a limb, tumbling thru the air and entering JFK not only exactly perpendicular based on your entry/bullet measurements, but completely stopped tumbling, did not enlarge the entry hole as a result of this tumbling, and just stops less than a pinkie length in his back after entering at a 45-60 degrees, to then disappear from Xrays and turn up – where again? And completely devoid of anything that suggests it came into contact with anyone.

These are questions you needed to answer not me Thomas. YOU say it did enter JFK.

Prove it.

5. FMJ bullets do NOT leave dust particles

Answer: Incorrect again!

It is unknown within the realm of ballistics for an "armor piercing" round to severely fragment upon contact with any portion of the human anatomy.

However, FMJ rounds commonly do so, leaving behind tremendous amounts of their inner lead core, after impact bone.

Last time I checked, they did not refer to it as "skull bone" for any reason other than it being just that!---BONE!

No argument here Thomas... but “fragments” are not the same as “dust particles” and FMJ rounds are considered armor-piercing...

A full metal jacket (or FMJ) is a bullet consisting of a soft core (usually made of lead) encased in a shell of harder metal, such as gilding metal, cupronickel or less commonly a steel alloy. This shell can extend around all of the bullet, or often just the front and sides with the rear left as exposed lead. (A bullet that is completely enclosed by the shell is alternatively termed a total metal jacket round.) The jacket allows for higher muzzle velocities than bare lead without depositing significant amounts of metal in the bore. It also prevents damage to bores from steel or armor-piercing core materials.

6. High velocity FMJ bullets do not hit flesh and muscle and simply stop short

Answer: First off, for the record, the Carcano, at 2,000 to 2,200 fps does not quite qualify as "high velocity".

Although it is very close and falls within the upper range of the "medium" velocity weapons.

Lastly, you can rest assured that many, many, many bullets have begun their sojurn towards a target only to ultimately penetrate that target for a short distance as a result of having it's velocity interrupted in flight.

Velocity is classified as low (<1000 fps), medium (1000 to 2000 fps), and high (>2000 fps). (Wilson, 1977)

Bullet design is important in wounding potential. The Hague Convention of 1899 (and subsequently the Geneva Convention) forbade the use of expanding, deformable bullets in wartime. Therefore, military bullets have full metal jackets around the lead core. Of course, the treaty had less to do with compliance than the fact that modern military assault rifles fire projectiles at high velocity (>2000 fps) and the bullets need to be jacketed with copper, because the lead begins to melt from heat generated at speeds >2000 fps.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBLST.html

The type of tissue affects wounding potential, as well as the depth of penetration. (Bartlett, 2003) Specific gravity (density) and elasticity are the major tissue factors. The higher the specific gravity, the greater the damage. The greater the elasticity, the less the damage. Thus, lung tissue of low density and high elasticity is damaged less than muscle with higher density but some elasticity. Liver, spleen, and brain have no elasticity and are easily injured, as is adipose tissue. Fluid-filled organs (bladder, heart, great vessels, bowel) can burst because of pressure waves generated. A bullet striking bone may cause fragmentation of bone and/or bullet, with numerous secondary missiles formed, each producing additional wounding. [Note: This does not say a bullet will turn to dust like particles... it says secondary missiles as I showed in the graphic about bullet fragmentation...

The speed at which a projectile must travel to penetrate skin is 163 fps and to break bone is 213 fps, both of which are quite low, so other factors are more important in producing damage. (Belkin, 1978)

Entrance wounds produced when silencers are present lead to muzzle imprints that are erythematous (In medicine, it is often used to describe skin redness caused by infection, massage, therapeutic application of ionizing radiation or ultrasound, allergies, sunburn, or by any of which that can increase blood flow as caused by the dilation of capillaries or irritation of surface capillaries.)rather than abraded and disproportionately large for the size of the wound. http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNINJ.html

Thomas - I've poured over the internet and have not encountered a single example where a FMJ 2000+fps bullet EVER stopped within 2 inches in plain tissue - no bone impacts. None. And if it did happen, it is so rare as to not even deserve mention on Gun/Ammo websties, or even researched based ballistics sites. In fact, most of the sites claim that a FMJ bullet hitting JFK as it did would yaw and rip out most of his neck and not stop even after hitting bone. Yet never, ever look like CE399 when done.

7. Tell you what - answer ONE QUESTION - please explain how you can prove THAT rifle was fired THAT day and by Oswald.

Answer: First off, since I was in Athens, Ohio working at the time of the assassination, I have no proof (other than what already exists) as to who assassinated JFK.

Merely that all evidence points to LHO as the most probable person.

Secondly, the bullets themselves tell a prudent person that they were fired from the assassination weapon.

We’ve already shown you how the bullets themselves can have come from any one of a whole box of bullets based on the tests you hang your hat upon.

And Luckily for us, someone’s PRUDENT BELIEFS doesn’t constitute evidence in a court of law or anywhere else for that matter. The fragments could have come from any number of bullet sources.

And more importantly, even if you could somehow tie these fragments to the rifle

that does not prove it was fired that day.

Finally, when one looks “merely at all the evidence” is becomes obvious to most thinking people that the evidence points to most anyone but the Oswald that Jack Ruby killed.

Thanks Martin,

I began to think the other photo was not from that motorcade, but I'm not sure.

And agree completely, the way Altgens6 looks, the driver seems to be behind Ladybird and the Senator.

Best to you as well...

DJ

I don't believe we can make a visual determination of where LBJ was in the Altgens photo, but after rereading Youngblood's report, I think I have to agree that by frame 255, he has not yet heard or at least recognized a gunshot. As I said many times over the years, none of the Secret Service agents heard anything that sounded like a rifle report, prior to frame 285, after which Hill leaped to the pavement, people started screaming and diving to the ground and all hell broke loose.

As for Arnold, I don't believe a word the man said. And had he actually told the truth about an encounter with one of the assassins, he (Arnold) should have been arrested, tried and convicted for his failure to promptly report the incident. But to the best of my knowledge, no-one has even been able to confirm that he was in Texas that day.

Robert,

I've always enjoyed reading your posts and discussing with you... I'm a bit confused though about the bolded portion of your recent post.

Since Altgens 6 is approx z255... what then are three of these men turning around to see and why is Flyod on the radio? The SS behind the VP's car are reacting as well. Even Yarborough discusses how their reactions were slower than they should have been after the first gunshot he hears, but reactions there were and well before z285....

Hill does not leap to the pavement until just about z313 Robert... Here he is in Muchmoore just as he stepped off...

So I am more than a bit perplexed by these statements from you. Can you help me understand?

Thx

DJ

Working on a response Thomas, to your no-response response....

You still provide no reference, no example, no link to support any of your opinions.

One simple example of Purvis logic:

on the one hand:

(note: of course there also exists absolutely no factual proof that it is the weapon which was utilized to shoot JFK with either)

on the other - and earlier in this same thread:

All that can be stated as fact is that JFK was assassinated by a 6.5mm Model 91/38 Short Rifle, which weapon was found on the sixth floor of the TSDB.

Which is it Thomas?

And you are saying THAT rifle was fired on THAT day. Prove it.

Thanks

I looked at this thread and what each person said concerning how they read the picture ... 'LBJ had already ducked' ... 'LBJ ducked down 40 seconds before the shooting' ... 'the photo has been retouched' ... 'the dark face is LBJ' ... all I was waiting for next was that the head I pointed out was too small to be human. (smile)

While there appears to have been a conspiracy, too much has been attributed to conspiracy because of mis-interpretation in reading the image. I'm glad that at least this matter was resolved.

Bill

Well, the only issue I was considering was the question of whether we see an upright LBJ in that photo. The Altens photo could not have been altered, because Altgens took his film directly to the AP, where it was processed and then wired out to hundreds of affiliated newspapers and magazines, before the authorities ever laid their hands on it.

And four people (Youngblood, Jacks, LBJ, and Ladybird) confirmed that Youngblood pushed LBJ down then. If memory serves, most of them said that happened after the first shot though of course, most witnesses only heard one of the early shots.

FWIW, I am not convinced that we are seeing an upright LBJ then, but I also fail to see why the issue is worth spending a lot of time on.

Hey there Robert....

I started the thread as an tangent to the GA=BDM thread since there is some question as to when Yarborough sees "the soldier hit the dirt" which he syas over and over was after the first shot.

Also after the first shot Rufus is supposed to have done his heroic deeds

By Altgens6, at z255, we ALL agree at least one shot if not two have been fired.

No one in that car looks as if they are reacting to anything, yet Yarborough does appear to be looking in the direction of the GK and where GA might be....

I like Martin's take on where LBJ is yet I have a concern with it... In Bernice's image LBJ is wearing sunglasses... he may have taken them off yet we do not see the glasses' arms in Altgens6. It SEEMS that is the right place for him as he is indeed hugging the side of the car. Yet he seems awfully small given how close he should have been in the back of that car and how much larger than Lady B he was.... as well as being so far over to the right...

So the point of examining this issue helps determine the GA bona fides. Both GA and Yarborough speak of dropping to the ground after the first shot "heard". If GA's shot is diff from Yarborough's then GA was not the guy he sees... if it is the same shot... GA cannot be standing and filming in Moorman.

I tend to discount anything Yarborough says about LBJ... just from an early reading of Manchester's book... they hated each other and I cannot think of any reason the Senator would support ANYTHING LBJ was supposed to have said. Given that... where is that lightening quick reaction on Rufus' part by z255? Does this suggest that from z205 till ?? we have no reaction at all in LBJ's car.

Going now to look for any image showing what Rufus claims to have happened...

Yarborough affidavit

On November 22, 1963, as the President and Mrs. Kennedy rode through the streets of Dallas, I was in the second car behind them. The first car behind the Presidential car was the Secret Service car; the second car behind them was Vice-President Lyndon Johnson's car. The driver and a secret service agent were on the front seat of the Vice-President's car. Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson sat on the right side of the rear seat of the automobile, Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson was in the center of the rear seat, while I sat on the left side of the rear seat.

Rufus Youngblood's report

The following persons were in the Vice Presidential vehicle when the motorcade departed from the airport at approximately 11:50 a.m., CST.

In the front seat: The driver, Herschel Jacks, Texas Highway Patrol

Other side front seat: ASAIC Youngblood

Rear seat, behind driver: Senator Ralph W. Yarborough

Rear seat, middle: Mrs. Johnson

Rear seat, behind ASAIC Youngblood: The Vice President

.....

I heard an explosion--I was not sure whether it was a firecracker, bomb, bullet, or other explosion. I looked at whatever I could quickly survey, and could not see anything which would indicate the origin of this noise. I noticed that the movements in the Presidential car were very abnormal and, at practically the same time, the movements in the Presidential follow-up car were abnormal. I turned in my seat and with my left arm grasped and shoved the Vice President, at his right shoulder, down and toward Mrs. Johnson and Senator Yarborough. At the same time, I shouted "get down!" I believe I said this more than once and directed it to the Vice President and the other occupants of the rear seat. They all responded very rapidly.

I quickly looked all around again and could see nothing to shoot at, so I stepped over into the back seat and sat on top of the Vice President. I sat in a crouched position and issued orders to the driver. During this time, I heard two more explosion noises and observed SA Hickey in the Presidential follow-up car poised on the car with the AR-15 rifle looking toward the buildings. The second and third explosions made the same type of sound that the first one did as far as I could tell, but by this time I was of the belief that they definitely were shots--not bombs or firecrackers. I am not sure that I was on top of the Vice President before the second shot--he says I was. All of the above related events, from the beginning at the sound of the first shot to the sound of the third shot, happened within a few seconds.

Sorry if this is glaringly obvious but I don't see him to the left (her right) of Lady Bird. Do not see how Lady Bird or Yarborough are reacting as Rufus describes (Altgens 6 is AFTER the first shot... we all agree on that, yes?)

Bottom line - shouldn't we be seeing either LBJ, Rufus, or the movement in the back seat by then?

Appreciate the input Mark yet I don't think anything in my post supports CE399 as the Magic Bullet except for mentioning it passing thru JC and the effects on the bullet's weight compared to, supposedly, the same ammunition behaving completely differently.

I've not read where Thomas posted what you describe as his position yet I have not read everything to be sure.

In either case, CE399 still supposedly passed thru someone's body and emerges without any trace of that occuring.

I've also stated that SWITCHING evidence was much more likely than PLANTING evidence

There are some very definitive statements in his post and I believe I've addressed them... If Thomas could reply I am sure we both can be satisfied.

He wrote: P.S. Not that you are likely to believe it either, but if one will follow ALL of the eyewitness statements they will find that sufficient witness testimony exists to document that each of the three shots fired in the assassination sequence were observed to have been fired from the window of the sixth floor of the TSDB.

You in agreement to that statement? or this one given the analysis I posted?

1. CE399, to the exclusion of ALL other weapons, was fired from the recovered 6.5mm Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle that was found/recovered on the sixth floor of the TSDB.

and finally this one:

the fact that these bullets were fired from the recovered assassination weapon and were ABSOLUTELY fired during the actual assassination event.

These are his words and there is simply no way to prove these claims....

DJ

"These are his words and there is simply no way to prove these claims..."

Quite incorrect!

CE399 proves absolutely that it, and it alone, is directly responsible for the upper back/lower neck wound incurred by JFK.

(Hint) The fact that the deformed base to CE399 measures 4mm X 7mm and the fact that the "punch-type" wound of entry into the back of JFK measures exactly 4mm X 7mm, should provide a clue for even those who are not "smarter than a fifth grader".

Actually! It is exactly correct! (Note: see the cone-shaped/flat-based fragment of CE840 for the lead protrusion which squeezed out the base of CE399 and was subsequently sheared as a result of impact with a bone of the vertebral column.

If Mr Purvis actually means that CE399 did NOT pass thru JFK, but entered him EXACTLY perpendicular, base first, after tumbling thru the air after hitting a limb... I see why he prefers to state that this is the "Magic Bullet" as not only does it enter and leave perfect dimensions that match the pre-flatteneed bullet... but it too disappears. Maybe it's the bullet referred to by Belmont here: If this letter is a proven fake, please say so... thx.

And then the Autopsy states it did not hit a bone:

Autopsy report:

The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above

the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and

the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck.

This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura

and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The

missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,

damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of

the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck no bony

structures in its path through the body.

The FBI report may be more in line with Thomas' theory... yet where'd the bullet go? And if a pointed bullet was found on JC's stretcher as having come out of JC's thigh... even more evidence of a 2nd shooter.

Sibert/O'Neill report

During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.

This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.

and from the autopsy again:

2. The second wound presumably of entry is that described above in

the upper right posterior thorax. Beneath the skin there is ecchymosis

of subcutaneous tissue and musculature. The missile path through

the fascia and musculature cannot be easily proved. The wound

presumably of exit was that described by Dr. Malcolm Perry of

Dallas in the low anterior cervical region.

CE399 had no blood, tissue, fibers at all on it... if the bullet entered open end first and left fragments in his chest how is it that the bullet is completely clean?

Finally, Mr. Purvis, you state the rifle was ABSOLUTELY fired during the assassination event.

The fact that a wound matches a bullet has no direct bearing at all as to whether a rifle was fired that day or not.

Or even the fact that bullet matches that rifle... we have no idea how THAT bullet came into being... CE399 is not substantiated by anyone who supposed found it and transported it.

Please explain to us novices how THAT rifle was proven to have been fired THAT day... everything I've read says you can only tell if the rifle was NOT fired - if it was cleaned prior to that day and not fired, it would still be clean... if not clean you would have to prove that the rifle was cleaned and not fired prior to that day, and then found residue from firing it. Are you able to do any of this?

DJ

It would be a complete waste of my time to attempt to explain forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical fact to anyone who operates on hearsay; half-truth; rumor; innuendo; and an occassional outright lie.

As a general rule, those who waste their time chasing mythological creatures (mythological multiple assassins; body kidnappers; wound alteration specialists; bullet planters; and giant conspiratorial concepts which employ virtually every agency of the U.S. Government (+ a few outsiders))

Are most unlikely to either understand the factual evidence and/or accept it when it is demonstrated to them.

And no!

CE399 IS NOT the "Magic Bullet". It is still with us.

A principal concept of "Magic" is the ability to make something disappear.

Thomas,

Not wanting to engage in a conversation with supporting evidence or science is par for course.... None of what you claim to be forensic, ballistic, pathological or physical fact is supportable. and wandering off into direction unknown in your posts doesn't make you any more convincing... The only reason the "Magic Bullet" CE399 is still with us is becasue it had nothing at all to do with the injuries sustained on 11/22/63 as is with most all the other "evidence".

You've got a bullet entering the body, leaving lead fragments yet emerging without a trace of evidence it was in contact with anyone. Nothing on that bullet suggests it ever came close to JFK. And I posted the studies that show how the chemical composition of the bullet fragments can be matched to a variety of bullets... or did you not even both reading something that may disagree with your unsupported opinions?

And we thank Mr Knight for clarifying Thomas' CE399 position... the "oswald fired-hit the limb-tumbled thru the air-entered JFK exactly perpedicular so as to cause a 4x7mm entrance wound-and then is found where?" We can agree that all three of us know that CE399 and the SBT are inconsistent. I agree that CE399 did NOT enter JC... but I also say it did not hit anyone else for that matter.

Thomas talks of reliability yet forgets the age of the MC, the age of the ammo, and the condition of both when found.

5. Although the WCC Carcano ammo was available, the 7.35mm Carcano ammo (Italian Manufacture) is, and was quite reliable ammunition as well.

Therefore, whether one ended up with the 6.5mm version with WCC ammo, or the 7.35mm version with the Italian manufacture ammo, they still had a highly reliable weapon system.

He further neglects to address how Oswald even came into possession of the rifle and how the backyard photo shows a different rifle entirely.

You don't even bother to address the points made in my post linked here from this thread... you simply choose not to deal with them at all. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16626&view=findpost&p=207565

FMJ bullets do NOT leave dust particles

High velocity FMJ bullets do not hit flesh and muscle and simply stop short

Post after post you dismiss evidence opposing your opinions as irrelevent... and offer nothing in the way of support... you bring up everything BUT what was discussed... ala the WCR... misdirect and confuse -

Tell you what - answer ONE QUESTION - please explain how you can prove THAT rifle was fired THAT day and by Oswald. and please don't dance araound it. You and I both know that a fired rifle leaves residue in the barrel but that residue cannot be placed in a timeframe. Either the barrel was clean or it was not. If clean, the answer is obvious... if not, please show how that means it was fired THAT day.

Thanks

All these other questions that you refuse to address have nothing at all to do with it - right?

How and when he built the Snipers Nest, reassembled the rifle that couldn't fit in the paper bag in Wesley's car to begin with... that no on saw him enter the building with, remove it from the garage, practice with it, clean it, purchase ammo for it... etc.... that there are no prints on these snipers nest boxes, or on the assembled rifle, clip or hulls. That he was seen on the 2nd floor as late as 12:25 and definitely at 12:15 when he should have already been at the window - not knowing exactly when the limo would pass. That he encouters Baker less than 90 seconds after the shots, in a place consistent with where he was seen 5-10 minutes before. That the rifle did not work as designed since with the chambering of the last bullet the clip should fall out... Alyea's film shows no such thing nor does any testimony mention a clip falling out when Frtiz works the bolt. Nor is there a photo of a clip at the TSBD, or the paper bag for that matter.

Thomas - I have no disput with you over your knowledge of rifles and ammo, shooting and/or snipering... but your ignoring posts that offer evidence in opposition to your conclusions speaks volumes... so please just address that one question. and maybe give a little thought to the memo describing a bullet lodged behind JFK's ear while they already had the "other" bullet that hit JFK...

thx

DJ

Bill...

I have to agree with you here - Duncan's method, and the same one I employed, completely forgets about key photographic realities, but at the same time, putting some people in "about" the same spots and taking a photo proves nothing scientifically. I've taken the photo Jack offered (qualified that it was not a reproduction attempt although it is eerily similiar to the Moorman set-up) and superimposed it and the sizes are off. Myers shows the sizes are off... All you've shown is that they are close, when eye-balled.

Even though I did not go to NARA like Mantik, his 45 page paper with explanations and images sure goes a long way to support his observations.

We have nothing like that from you Bill. The "light-blob" that we've seen posted that is supposed to be someone falling to their left is not very convincing. If've zoomed in and added brightness and contrast... All I see is one light blob move toward the other white blob... I do not see how this is a person... YET....

I am not doubting what you saw when you saw it Bill... but if you can make out a person in a version of this film AND in Muchmoore, how about showing us? Is There a book, video, photo, anything that shows a person there in these two films that a regular person can make out... that we can agree we both see something there other than a blob of light?

btw - what part of GA is reflecting that light within the shadows that we see falling left to right? and what do you say the other light blob is?

I am reading thru the "GA Competition" thread from a few years back as well.... over 70 pages so need some time... facinating subject...

DJ

Again Duncan... the focal distance and apeture setting of this photo can in no way be compared to the Moorman camera's setting.

Moorman's Lens: 100mm f8.8 3-element glass

What are the specs of this photo?

I completely agree that by sight it just doesn't make sense but I still believe there is much more to the analysis than just doing what you and I did. ALL distance effects are affected by the apeture and focal distance, especially the height of things in a vanishing point photograph.

http://3dsixthsense.blogspot.com/search/label/Focal%20Length

Focal Length : The distance between the lens and the light-sensitive surface, whether film or video electronics, is called the focal length of the lens. Focal length affects how much of the subject appears in the picture. Lower focal lengths include more of the scene in the picture. Higher focal lengths include less of the scene but show greater detail of more distant objects.

Focal length is always measured in millimeters. A 50mm lens is a common standard for photography. A lens with a focal length less than 50mm is called a short or wide-angle lens. A lens with a focal length longer than 50mm is called a long or telephoto lens.

Field of View (FOV) :The field of view (FOV) controls how much of the scene is visible. The FOV is measured in degrees of the horizon. It is directly related to the focal length of the lens. For example, a 50mm lens shows 46 degrees of the horizon. The longer the lens, the narrower the FOV. The shorter the lens, the wider the FOV.

Relationship Between FOV and Perspective :Short focal lengths (wide FOV) emphasize the distortions of perspective, making objects seem in-depth, looming toward the viewer.

Long focal lengths (narrow FOV) reduce perspective distortion, making objects appear flattened and parallel to the viewer.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/telephoto-lenses.htm

TELEPHOTO PERSPECTIVE: A telephoto lens is special because it has a narrow angle of view -- but what does this actually do? A narrow angle of view means that both the relative size and distance is normalized when comparing near and far objects. This causes nearby objects to appear similar in size compared to far away objects -- even if the closer object would actually appear larger in person. The reason for this is the angle of view:

Even though the two cylinders above are the same distance apart, their relative sizes are very different when one uses either a wide angle lens and telephoto lens to fill the frame with the closest cylinder. With a narrow angle of view, further objects comprise a much greater fraction of the total angle of view.

A misconception is that a telephoto lens affects perspective, but strictly speaking, this isn't true. Perspective is only influenced by where you are located when you take a photograph. However, in practical use, the very fact that you're using a telephoto lens may mean that you're far from your subject -- which does affect perspective.

This normalization of relative size can be used to give a proper sense of scale. For full impact, you'll want to get as far as possible from the nearest subject in the scene (and zoom in if necessary).

In the telephoto example to the left, the people in the foreground appear quite small compared to the background building. On the other hand, if a normal focal length lens were used, and one were closer to the foreground people, then they would appear much larger relative to the size of the building.

However, normalizing the relative size too much can make the scene appear static, flat and uninteresting, since our eyes generally expect closer objects to be a little larger. Taking a photo of someone or something from very far away should therefore be done only when necessary.

In addition to relative size, a telephoto lens can also make the distance between objects appear compressed. This can be beneficial when you're trying to emphasize the number of objects, or to enhance the appearance of congestion.

So Duncan, while the composite gif suggests a size difference, there appears to be MUCH MORE to the analysis than what we're doing.

Bill, No doubt much of your argument is sound and solid yet there are a number of conflicts: Bowers statements, Arnold's statment about hitting the dirt after the first shot and hearing more shots while on the ground... that wouldn't work with the Moorman photo as much as you want to explain away the shots and the Yarborough statement yet even Yarborough places the diving man earlier in the assassination timeline than z313(using Z timings at this alos seems a bit foolish, if altered, we have no idea of the time frames supported by that film), we KNOW there were other people behind that wall at the time of the assassination from Sitzman and a variety of other sources... there is no other substantiation for GA being there. GA doesn't mention the 2 black people, the coke bottle, the bench, the lunch, the man that runs up the steps after 313 and would basically run right over or past GA.

I believe I have as much supporting either one or both of those black people as being BDM and the image in Nix/Muchmoore moving to their left as you do supporting it being Arnold. Yet they too disappeared as I remember and have not been heard from since. Arnold's story is convincing no doubt, is it possible that he heard the stories and decided to put himself into the situation? Possible?

And Bill, thanks for the discussion... GA and BDM are extremely interesting subjects, and while they may have no direct bearing on the assassination politics, it is yet another one of the mysteries of the day that gets the thought processes flowing...

DJ

Found this thread when looking for something else and found it interesting... not sure if ever settled...

It sure looks to me like Mrs Frazen is an awfully long distance from her husband and NOT holding his hand in the Nix film whereas in Zap she is next to him and holding his hand. I am NOT saying she disappeared or moved from one second to the next, but if someone could explain this large distance between Mr and Mrs Frazen I's appreciate it...

DJ

Yes Duncan, that's the one.... Although my size comparison results in GA being not as small as yours...

While on the surface this looks like a conclusive analysis - it just doesn't seem right...

Are the lens apeture and focal lengths the same in the image of GA as the Moorman image?

Was the distance to the subject the same?

Obviously, when you add the legs to GA it seems even more ridiculous that he is that close to the camera, or even there at all.

While I disagree with the process of comparing a different photographed person to be scaled and arrive at any conclusions, the addition of legs in what appears the correct scale, makes it very obvious.

Bill/Martin, why is the image of GA with legs not representative of how that image would look without the wall in the way

and therefore prove the GA image to be a result of image enhancement??

Thanks

DJ

Bill -

In my opinion... the measurements of whether BM, GA and Hatman are correct requires much more precise measurements than placing people where you think they were and taking a photo. The amount of space this consumes in the moorman photo is unbelieveably small as you know.

A few % points difference in the size translates to much greater distances than cannot be measured by eye-balling.

I am trying to find the debunking of Dale Myers' analysis yet have not found anything conclusive... Searches come up with Ed Forum threads that go round and round.

I think I am agreeing with the fact that the ground level was different enough from the front of the retaining wall to make those types of size comparisions moot. If you can explain to me and the new reader to these subjects why the Dale Myers' image here is incorrect and the men are not really farther away from the camera then you would place them.

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_3.htm

I am aware of the "Moorman in the street" argument yet I do not believe she was in the street - would that make as much difference in the images as the Myers animation shows?

As i said before to Ken, the grass surface at the inner edge of the RT Wall has the same height level

as the sidewalk adjoining the stairs.

Martin - In reality, the grass surface is actually a bit lower at the inside corner of the wall as seen in the photo posted earlier. It dips quite a bit at the corner in fact. A person standing back, west of the sidewalk would indeed be quite a bit taller than someone standing at the corner of the wall.

DJ

If this is correct - and I seem to remember some of these elevation charts were not correct - then the ground behind the wall is almost 2 feet higher than at the base of the wall facing Moorman.

2 feet difference on a 5 foot wall is 40% - a BIG difference when assuming the ground behind the wall is at the same level as in front for sizing GArnold. With respect to lens apeture and distances I honestly do not know what to believe anymore.

But at least to my thoughts... GA's size is much more of a reality now then before these images...

DJ

Some images that show how much higher the ground behind the wall is compared to the front corner of the wall.

Initially I did an image much like Duncan's in which the size looks as if it doesn't make sense.

But the problem was, up till now, that we never seemed to show a photo of the elevation back there.

How the ground dips near the front inside of the wall and the front outside, what moorman sees, extends well below the level of the walkway.

I simply took an image of another person and placed them in these different locations. Granted, this is 2D representation of 3D space yet from this view if seems that a person standing back toward the fence might be represented as we see in moorman and is much taller than his counterpart by the wall.

and from behind we see the man at the wall much shorter than the other people. Given how the Knoll slopes away so fast... does this change your thoughts Martin... Obviously, Bill believed this all along...

Simple question... which/whose office does that 3rd floor window represent?

This the office next to the broom closet that Braden might have been in?

Wouldn't knowing whose office it was go a long way in helping decide if a shooter in that room was even possible?

And what's the logic in breaking glass when the wondow can be lifted slightly with the same effect and not get noticed.

Let's see... broom closet thru an open window protected by the fire escape... or a broken window in full view..

John... obvious what I posted was a shotgun... but if you look at the shotgun at the beginning of alyea and the 2nd rifle in Duncan's photo... they are nothing alike.

Kinda strange too that this mystery rifle seperates Fritz from Day and where the rifle was found...

finally - to address Len's question... wouldn't finding a second rifle on the 6th floor ice a conspiracy? If you want a plot to be uncovered, a second rifle makes a bit of sense...

DJ