David Josephs
-
Posts
6,154 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Josephs
-
-
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
-
By all means Bill please post a better blow up image of the area behind the wall in Moorman
I would love to have a better blow up
I doubt you will be able to find one thats better then the one I posted but if you have one or can find one post away.
Martin
Are you replying to me or Martin?
I will assume you put his name on accident
I have like 20 different copies of Moorman on my computer, that is the best blowup I have of that area
I will countinue to use it until I come across a better blowup of that area
it this it Jack ??THE JACK GARY MOORMAN FBI PRINT...I AM NoT SURE IF THIS IS THE ONE THAT IS of SUBJECT.....best b
We did NOT use the FBI print. I don't think we even had it. We used the Thompson #1 print.
Jack
I have to agree that in this blow-up it sure does look like a person... My hurdles to this conclusion though includes a look at the sunlight patterns on the FRONTS of these supposed people as well as the reflective nature of the badge, shoulder patch and the sunlight we see on the GA image and Hatman...the right sides of these "people", as we face the photo, should be in darkness, in the shadows. As we can see by the roscoe overlay, the badge should not be seen at all based on how a person holds a rifle, and since there is no light shinning on the arm patch there is no reason it should be illuminated.
If what we are seeing is the first shot from the GK, then Arnold's hittin gthe dirt can be justified... would 2-3 more shots be fired from that location given the distance and how everyone saw JFK's head blow up... conjecture...
Just like the conjecture, as well as the conclusions about Yarborough:
Bill wrote:
Yarborough probably did believe he saw Arnold on the first shot back in 1978. The reason for my saying this is because in Altgens #6 ... Yarborough still seems to be smiling and oblivious to any shots being fired. The same can be said about others like Charles Brehm who are still clapping up to that point. Seeing how Yarborough and JFK were friends ... I think we can agree that a smiling Yarborough probably means that he is unaware at that moment that shots are being fired at the motorcade. This means that the next shot(s) were the first ones he recognized, thus he called the kill shot the first shot.
Don't you think that's a bit of a stretch, to come to conclusions about what people did or didn't see or did or didn't THINK as the result of an image in a photo? In addition, Yarborough specifically says he heard all three shots. That the kill shot was NOT the 1st shot he hears but the last. If you are going to use Yarborough to confirm Arnold then Arnold CAN NOT be in Moorman... he would have already been on the ground based on his own testimony and Yarborough's.
The following affidavit was executed by Ralph W. Yarborough on July 10, 1964.
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
ON THE ASSASSINATION OF
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
AFFIDAVIT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ss:
In response to the oral request of one of the attorneys for the Commission that I send you an affidavit for inclusion in the record of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, I make the following statement:
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. After the Presidential motorcade had passed through the heart of downtown Dallas, experiencing an exceptionally warm and friendly greeting, as the motorcade went down the slope of Elm Street toward the railroad underpass, a rifle shot was heard by me; a loud blast, close by. I have handled firearms for fifty year, and thought immediately that it was a rifle shot. When the noise of the shot was heard, the motorcade slowed to what seemed to me a complete stop (though it could have been a near stop). After what I took to be about three seconds, another shot boomed out, and after what I took to be one-half the time between the first and second shots (calculated now, this would have put the third shot about one and one-half seconds after the second shot--by my estimate--to me there seemed to be a long time between the first and second shots, a much shorter time between the second and third shots--these were my impressions that day), a third shot was fired. After the third shot was fired, but only after the third shot was fired, the cavalcade speeded up, gained speed rapidly, and roared away to the Parkland Hospital.
I heard three shots and no more. All seemed to come from my right rear. I saw people fall to the ground on the embankment to our right, at about the time of or after the second shot, but before the cavalcade started up and raced away.
Due to the second car, with the secret service men standing on steps on the sides of it, I could not see what was happening in the Presidential car during the shooting itself. Some of the secret service men looked backward and to the right, in the general direction from which the rifle explosions seemed to come.
After the shooting, one of the secret service men sitting down in the car in front of us pulled out an automatic rifle or weapon and looked backward. However, all of the secret service men seemed to me to respond very slowly, with no more than a puzzled look. In fact, until the automatic weapon was uncovered, I had been lulled into a sense of false hope for the President's safety, by the lack of motion, excitement, or apparent visible knowledge by the secret service men, that anything so dreadful was happening. Knowing something of the training that combat infantrymen and Marines receive, I am amazed at the lack of instantaneous response by the Secret Service, when the rifle fire began. I make this statement in this paragraph reluctantly, not to add to the anguish of anyone, but it is my firm opinion, and I write it out in the hope that it might be of service in the better protection of our Presidents in the future.
After we went under the underpass, on the upward slope I could see over the heads of the occupants of the second car (Secret Service car) and could see an agent lying across the back or trunk of the Presidential car, with his feet to the right side of the car, his head at the left side. He beat the back of the car with one hand, his face contorted by grief, anguish, and despair, and I knew from that instant that some terrible loss had been suffered.
On arrival at the hospital, I told newsmen that three rifle shots had been fired. There was then no doubt in my mind that the shots were rifle shots, and I had neither then or now any doubts that any other shots were fired. In my opinion only three shots were fired.
The attached photograph from pages 24 and 25 of the Saturday Evening Post of December 14, 1963, shows the motorcade, as I remember it, an instant after the first shot. [Photograph is Yarborough Exhibit A.]
Given and sworn to this 10th day of July, 1964, at Washington, District of Columbia.
Signed this 10th day of July 1964.
(S) Ralph W. Yarborough,
RALPH W. YARBOROUGH.
-
And as I was panning down in this direction, just as I got to about this position, a shot came right past my left ear, and that meant it would have had to have come from this direction. And that's when I fell down, and to me it seemed like a second shot was at least fired over my head. There was a bunch of report [sic] going on in this particular area at that time.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm
Sorry Bill... GA could not have been standing at z313 if he hears shots fired over him.
Yes he has knowledge of the events... but at the same time his own testimony removes him from the Moorman photo...
Please explain, DJ. We have two film sources showing someone in the Arnold location doing what he said occurred and you simply say his testimony removes him from the Moorman photo. You are aware aren't you that when he says the President got to 'this position' that he is demonstrating the limo's location at the time of the head shot. Yarborough independently reads Golz article and contacts Golz telling him that he saw the man mentioned in Earl's article. Yarborough in his TV interview says that he knew that this individual had had his training on what to do when in the line of fire.
So please explain yourself in detail if you will.
Bill
do my best Bill...
Let's start with Yarborough:
As noted previously, Arnold’s story was first publicized in a Dallas Morning News story of August 27, 1978. A follow-up story of Sunday, December 31, 1978, again authored by Earl Golz, noted, “Some assassination researchers said they doubted Arnold’s story because they could not find him in photographs and movie film taken at the time of the assassination.”
64 Earl Golz, “Panel Leaves Question of Impostors,” Dallas Morning News, December 31, 1978.
However, Golz wrote, Arnold’s “presence on the grassy knoll was confirmed Saturday by former U.S. Sen. Ralph Yarborough of Texas, who was riding in the motorcade two cars behind the presidential limousine. He was a passenger in a car with Vice President Lyndon Johnson and Mrs. Johnson.” 65 Earl Golz, “Panel Leaves Question of Impostors,” Dallas Morning News, December 31, 1978.
“Immediately on the firing of the first shot I saw the man you interviewed throw himself on the ground,” Yarborough told The News. “He was down within a second of the time the shot was fired and I thought to myself, ‘There’s a combat veteran who knows how to act when weapons start firing.’” 66 Earl Golz, “Panel Leaves Question of Impostors,” Dallas Morning News, December 31, 1978.
In his affidavit submitted to the Warren Commission, Yarborough stated, “I heard three shots and no more. All seemed to come from my right rear. I saw people fall to the ground on the embankment to our right, at about the time of or after the second shot, but before the cavalcade started up and raced away.” (Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VII, p. 440.)
Yarborough elaborated slightly upon his statement ten years later, in The Men Who Killed Kennedy:
During that shooting my eye was attracted to the right. I saw a movement and I saw a man just jump about ten feet like at the old time flying tackle in football and land against a wall. I thought to myself, “There’s an infantryman who’s either been shot at in combat or he’s been trained thoroughly: the minute you hear firing, get under cover.”
Yarborough saw someone “jump about ten feet like at the old time flying tackle in football and land against a wall;” Gordon Arnold said he “hit the dirt” behind the concrete wall. 67 Earl Golz, “SS ‘imposters’ spotted by JFK witnesses,” Dallas Morning News, August 27, 1978.
Gordon Arnold said he was in uniform that day; 68 Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt (New York: Henry Holt and Co., First Owl Book Edition, 1987), pp. 112-13.
Yarborough surmised that the bystander he saw was an infantryman or combat veteran, because he appeared to know “how to act when weapons start firing.”
Was Yarborough describing Gordon Arnold, or someone else entirely?
In 1993 Ralph W. Yarborough was interviewed at his Austin home by historian David Murph of Texas Christian University. Murph reminded Yarborough that he had been quoted as saying he had witnessed a man on the grassy knoll throw himself down on the ground, and that the man had impressed him as a combat veteran.
Yarborough seemed puzzled to hear that his words had been applied to someone standing on the grassy knoll. That couldn’t possibly be correct, he insisted repeatedly. “Remember where I was in the motorcade — with the Johnsons,” he cautioned Murph, “too far back to have been able to see anyone [on the knoll] drop to the ground when firing began.”
69 David Murph, e-mails to author, July 8 and 10, 2003. Thanks to David Perry for putting me in contact with Dr. Murph.
Whoever Yarborough had described (and there were many people in Dealey Plaza throwing themselves down on the ground as the shots rang out), 70 Journalist Hugh Sidey was a passenger in the motorcade. When the vehicle he was in turned the corner to Elm Street, he would recall, “It looked like a giant hand or wind had swept the place, everybody was lying down on the grassy knoll. At the curb there was a young man [probably a reference to eyewitness Bill Newman] with a little boy. He was hammering the ground with his fist, with his other arm over the boy protecting him, just in anguish.” (The Newseum with Cathy Trost and Susan Bennett, President Kennedy Has Been Shot [Naperville, Ill.: Sourcebooks, Inc., 2003], p. 25.)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold2.htm
Not exactly an unimpeachable source our Senator....
Now the 2 photographic sources: Nix and Moorman.
Neither one can be said to identify GA only that the film suggests something moved in the manner GA described moving after the first shot, not after the head shot. You say the Groden Nix presentation was plain as day... you could tell he had on light clothes, a hat, and a camera in his hand? Is there not one single frame that can be shown to support this claim or are we simply inferring from GA's account that what we see in Nix is him?
Moorman. We can debate the existence of BM, GA and Hatman in Moorman all day and still not get anywhere. Whether the size analysis is correct or not, why there are white sunlight spots intermixed in the shadows on the FRONTS of these men standing in th shadows and resolution issues. But to definitely say that GA is in the photo given the discrepencies, I think, is a stretch.
add Bowers, Hoffman and Holland's recollection and we have even more conflicts with GA's story. We know for a fact that these three were there.
However, Bowers’s description of the men is at odds with the Mack/White interpretation of the images in Moorman. Neither man described by Bowers wore a police uniform, for example; Bowers said “there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.”
2 Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 287.
“Were they standing together or standing separately?” Warren Commission counsel Joseph Ball asked him. “They were standing within ten or fifteen feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew,” Bowers replied.
3 Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 287. Another witness brought forward in The Men Who Killed Kennedy to corroborate Gordon Arnold’s story is Ed Hoffman, who tells an extraordinary story of witnessing Kennedy murdered by a rifleman and a backup stationed behind the picket fence. Neither of the individuals described by Hoffman wore a police uniform, however; and, in truth, Hoffman’s story has changed so many times over the years that his credibility problems rival or even surpass those of Gordon Arnold.
After the shooting, Bowers observed, at least one, possibly both of the men remained in the area as police and bystanders began flooding into the parking lot. 4 Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 288.
These two men were the only strangers Bowers noticed in the area.
5 Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VI, p. 288.
If his testimony is to be believed, he did not see a man fitting Gordon Arnold’s description walk toward the railroad bridge; he did not see anyone fitting the description of a plainclothes officer or agent in a suit; he did not witness a confrontation between two such individuals; he did not see a man fitting Arnold’s description walk back along the fence; he did not witness a second confrontation between the two individuals, in the same approximate area as the two men Bowers did describe; he did not see a police officer behind the fence prior to or immediately after the shooting; he did not see a man wearing a hardhat (a la Mack and White) standing behind the fence; he did not see anyone fire a gun; he did not see a weapon of any kind; and he saw no one flee the area. He simply heard three shots and could not tell which direction they came from.
Hopefully the detail is there for you Bill... when you quote GA "he says the President got to 'this position' that he is demonstrating the limo's location at the time of the head shot" please provide a source... from my readings, his story, like Ed Hoffman's, grows and changes over the years. what he said in '78 is not the same as in '82, 85 or '88. I get the distinct impression that Altgens at z255 gives us a much better idea of where Yarborough was and when the first shot from the front was fired... That an assassin would continue to fire from such close range AFTER blowing his head off seems a contradiction.
-
Interesting analogy Bill....
HI DJ, AND YOUR INPUT IS APPRECIATED.
First off, the King is not allowed to move himself into check or checkmate. The only way a Pawn can win an attack on a King is if the Pawn is protected from capture by the king (or any other piece) and only after the Pawn moves into a position that puts the King into check or checkmate.
The PAWN needs to move:
A stalemate occurs when, for the player with the move:
The player has no legal moves, and
The player's king is not in check
If this happens, the king is said to have been stalemated and the game ends in a draw. A player who has very little or no chance of winning will often try to entice the opponent to inadvertently place the player's king in stalemate in order to avoid a loss.
I would offer that Oswald was the KING in the process of being checkmated while he tried to cause a stalemate - not get killed before getting caught and be in a position to put fear into the other "pieces"
Pawns and more were moved into positions that kept the King on course to his checkmate
JFK was maneuvered into a position of being taken out from the blind side, but I do not think of him as the King here... just another piece taken from the board in an effort to checkmate the real King, Oswald, and accomplish what was ultimately accomplished.
Whether checkmating Oswald was designed to invade Cuba, escalate Vietnam, restore America to its anti-commie stance or one of a large number of reasons... the killing of JFK was only part of the game, the sacrifice of an important piece in order to win.
DJ
David,
Thanks for your attention and input but in this scenario, JFK is a KING and LHO is a PAWN, and I am trying to play this out under those conditions.
If you want to see how an Oswald as King scenario plays out, do so and let me know how it plays out.
I understand your perspective and agree that both JFK and LHO were played as MARKS by the same Inside Men/Outside Men who brought JFK to Dealey Plaza,
and that is the key to figuring out who had the knowledge and connections of what both MARKS were doing and when they were doing it.
While Oswald was certainly a MARK, I can't see him as a KING in any circumstance. \
That's what makes the Oswald PAWN takes KING such an anomally.
As you point out, in the game of chess, the Pawn is never in the position of taking out a King because the King could never move into a checkmate position.
That's why it is so important to determine how and why the KING was maneuvered into such a position.
BK
Always a pleasure reading and joining in on your threads Bill... maybe I just don't get the point though.
When the King dies, the game is over.
When the King cannot move as it will put him into check or checkmate, the game is a draw - no winners
I guess there is a scenario in which the king is put into a positon where the move AFTER the one he makes allows the PAWN to put him into checkmate. Here we go... the Black King tries to block the pawn from reaching the end by moving out of check from the White King.
Problem is in this example, Oswald is more likely the black Pawn than either of the 2 white pawns.
For Our Pawn to take our King he too has to be moved into a position to checkmate him...
A job at the right time and at the right place
the ride home to get curtain rods the night before
Hidell connected to the rifle found at the scene via photos, order forms, etc...
Wallets establish Hidell = Oswald
Photo established that Oswald has the rifle
Oswald at work that day
Oswald on the 6th floor that day
Oswald's fingerprints all over the sniper's nest - (oops)
Oswald's fingerprints all over the rifle - (oops)
Oswald knows when the motorcade is coming by and is in position and prepared - (oops)
Oswald is identified at the window with the rifle - (oops)
No other shots are fired and there are no other people with rifles seen in and around TSBD - (oops)
Oswald takes the easiest of shots as JFK approaches him on Houston - the King is hand delivered for execution - (oops)
Someone sees Oswald escaping from the 6th floor - (oops)
The TSBD is sealed off so no other person can be considered the assassin - (oops)
So... how and why was the KING moved into position to be taken by a Pawn (or at least make it look like the Pawn did it)
Your original post Bill suggests this line of thinking shifts us away from the assassins and to those controlling the movements of the KING into the Pawn's area.
This would suggest that instead of concentrating on the assassin(s), the rules of the game would suggest that it is the hands that are moving the King into the Pawn's square who are most responsible for what happened at that place and point in time.But it was a magic trick... while all were looking/hearing at what was happening it the Pawn's area, the actual killers of the KING are elsewhere ready to spring the trap. I've done it many times playin... get the opponent to think you are attacking from one spot while you sacrifice a piece to gain the correct position to end the game from another.
The creation of the "Pawn's area" was part of the plot and strategy... once the Pawn is identified as the one who took the King, all the other pieces on the board are rendered useless and unecessary. What the Bishop and Knight did during the game is of no consequence since the game is now over and we all know the Pawn did it.
Basic chess, Art of War... deception.... the reason a Patsy was needed to begin with...
my .02
DJ
-
And as I was panning down in this direction, just as I got to about this position, a shot came right past my left ear, and that meant it would have had to have come from this direction. And that’s when I fell down, and to me it seemed like a second shot was at least fired over my head. There was a bunch of report [sic] going on in this particular area at that time.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm
Sorry Bill... GA could not have been standing at z313 if he hears shots fired over him.
Yes he has knowledge of the events... but at the same time his own testimony removes him from the Moorman photo...
BDM MUST be either Hudson or one of the two black "kids" Sitzman and others see.
Badgeman and Hatman are simply too small to be where they need to be
And then there is the Hatman to the west, behind the tree, where all the muddy footprints and cigarette butts were found.
NOT saying he has anything to do with BDM... just that the BM trio was, imo, not there.
-
Bill –
How GA knows what he knows is quite the mystery to me.... He was either
1) there as he says he was, or
2) he saw it from another vantage point, saw the black kids hit the ground and a shot coming from the GK and related the story as if it were him or
3) he somehow hears the story while overseas and adopts it as his own
In TMWKK his reactions seem genuine to the Moorman photo and the supposed proof he was there. But by the same logic, the location he chooses to film the motorcade given all the area there for him to find a great vantage point... and how he steps back into the shadows and farther away from the street... BDM, if sinister, would not be hitting the dirt as seen in Nix or described by Yarborough and Rosemary.
He said he “felt” the first shot come from behind him, only inches over his left shoulder, he said. Now this has to be the frontal throat shot since he talks about more shots to come.
“I had just gotten out of basic training,” Arnold said, “In my mind live ammunition was being fired. It was being fired over my head and I hit the dirt.”
Arnold, then 22, said the first two shots came from behind the fence, “close enough for me to fall down on my face.” He stayed there for the duration of the shooting. The “He stayed there” is not a quote from GA so I am not sure that accurately describes what he did... but that makes sense given the timing of the throat shot, and the witness statements. Problem is... if he was down after the throat shot... he WAS NOT standing up in Moorman filming the motorcade... he was on the ground.
The Moorman BM group is a fabrication... GA could NOT have been in that photo and the size of BM and Hatman leads to them not actually being there either. Much more likely one of these 2 black people was BDM if it wasn't Hudson
Sitzman is very specific about them being there thru the headshot, then throwing the bottles and running... Is there no other mention of this couple seen running behind the pergola and thru the RR yard?
Cliff –
Rosemary was a child at the time and quite a distance from the BDM position. Not saying she was wrong by any means... just that there was also a motorcade between her and the GK. She saw something for sure... being able to pinpoint it as a single, conspicuous person... and to give ANY credibility to HCSA findings it a matter of conjecture... I believe Rosemary and I also believe Sitzman. And if we believe Arnold, he was on the ground right by z205, the 1st shot, the throat shot and NOT seen in Moorman.
I put together this sequence of Rosemary... we don’t see her after z220 or so. 5-6 seconds before the headshot equates to about 100 frames or 213... the graphic does show her following the limo from z214 thru 219 and maybe even looking a bit past (east) of it.
Is the bottle seen in Willis 6? My copy is not clear enough to tell.
I seem to see it in Bond 4, and in the same spot in Moorman. I also see what may be the head of BDM sitting on the bench in Moorman (thoughts?)
If BDM was one of the “kids” Sitzman sees, they are in the perfect position to leave the bottle there. Need to find images between z202 willis 5 and Moorman. Any ideas?
Finally... I have this that I believe shows the bottle even in moorman and someone sitting at the bench... but you have to squint really hard...
-
Herb... you gonna say that 59 witnesses who saw and heard shots from the GK also does not "ring true". What about her statement or person leads you to believe her statement doesn't ring true?
For what purpose would Sitzman make that up?
and if "made up" please explain how the coke, bag and broken glass with liquid winds up where they are, who put them there
and finally, since that bottle is not in any other photo... when did the coke bottle get put on the corner of the wall?
Ken...
So it sounds like you are agreeing with me... that BDM is really the boy and girl standing together... that makes sense to me as well which would explain why they disappeared so quickly yet I would place the boy in front based on Rosemary Willis' and other's description...
I wonder if Arnold ever mentions these two sitting on the bench having lunch... Bill?
-
I respect Gary, but if he can say with certainty that by looking at a 2D image just how far from the wall someone was standing, then his ability far exceeds my own. In fact, in speaking with Gary today, he admits that no one can say for sure how far back from the wall that figure is. That is not to say that Arnold/BDM could not have stepped towards the street and then stepped back .... a shift one way or the other still puts someone at the LOS cross pattern I discovered when I looked into all of this years ago. The fact is that there is a common cross pattern of the LOS from each photographers location to the individual seen over the wall and the photographic record told me that there is only one individual at that location.
When I look back at all of this I still find that when all the images, including the Groden Nix print is examined ... there was only one person between the wall and the fence. There were no others there - plain and simple. One individual who Yarborough referred to as a man who appeared to have his military training on what to do during a shooting. It's unfortunate that Ralph didn't give a better description of this man's clothing in the parts that made it into the interview, but that doesn't mean that he didn't give it and it was edited out. I know that Golz told me that Yarborough said that he saw the man Earl had written about and that man was Gordon Arnold. However, regardless of anything else ... there was only one person standing above the wall when Moorman took her photo ... and the Nix film supports this. The Nix film picks up this area 1.3 seconds before the head shot.
I am aware that some have sought to say that no one is visible in Moorman's photo, but that is an impossibility when two cameras are filming the same area and both show an individual ... the movie film with this person in motion and moving down towards the ground.
As far as Sitzman goes ... around 45 seconds elapsed from the time the parade came into the plaza when she looked off towards Main and Houston and she never said she had looked back to the walkway. If there were two people on the bench the last time she looked in their direction, then they obviously got up and left that area before Betzner took his photo. It was impossible for Moorman's photo to have been altered for she had it still with her when filmed about a half an hour following the shooting. I do not think the Nix film was altered for it supports Moorman's photo.
Bill Miller
Sitzman: And they were eating their lunch, 'cause they had little lunch sacks, and they were drinking coke. The main reason I remember 'em is, after the last shot I recall hearing and the car went down under the triple underpass there, I heard a crash of glass, and I looked over there, and the kids had thrown down their coke bottles, just threw them down and just started running towards the back and I ... Of course, I don't see anything unusual in that because everybody else was running that way, 'cause when I look over on my left side, the people on the hill were all running back the same way too.
So Bill... Sitzman is very specific that she sees and hears them just after z313 and that they had been there a while... if GA was back there based on his lone testimony and the moorman interpretation, then we should definitely see the 2 kids on the bench in some picture, especially wills5 and betzner. I do not support alteration to remove these 2 kids so I have to ask again... if Sitzman is telling the truth we ought to be able to find a photo of someone sitting on that bench and eating.... or at least standing back there...
Cliff: I can't suppose why a person does what they do... so I wont speculate... but you can help by determining where they were in the last 5 minutes before 12:33.
Stating categorically that there is only one person behind the wall in Moorman - GA - does not seem supported by the photographic evidence. I thought Duncan easily showed how the size of GA in moorman is much too large for him to be standing there
Seems more to this than just GA and Moorman and Badgeman and BDM.... where arew those kids or whoeve left that sack lunch and coke bottle there?
DJ
-
Thanks Bill,
I'd love your opinion on my post regarding the black kids Sitzman sees. You'd have to agree that anyone sitting on that bench would have his shoulders and head above the wall as seen from Willis and Betzner
BDM, if sinister, would literally be 5 feet infront of these two... with a rifle? Cliff?
Is the scenario of the black man getting up, going over to the wall, putting his coke down, (z160 - z205) getting photographed as BDM then returning to his seat. If he moved we should see him moving ala BDM, if he stayed seated with the woman...
Where are they?
DJ
-
With this email, Gary Mack has apparently issued a subtle correction to both Bill and Martin.
Bill believes Black Dog Man was Gordon Arnold. Remember, Arnold said he was standing on a mound of dirt.
Martin believes Black Dog Man was crouching behind the retaining wall.
Gary has the Black Dog Man figure standing on the sidewalk at the end of the wall.
So Gary's sidewalk placement of the figure eliminates Gordon Arnold as Black Dog Man. Martin's conclusion that Black Dog Man was crouching behind the retaining wall is also dismissed by Gary's opinion that the figure was "standing on the sidewalk."
The placement of this figure in a standing position on the sidewalk at the end of the retaining wall (meaning at the top of the grassy knoll stairway) is the right one as opposed to standing or crouching on the grass inside the corner of the wall as many have erroneously assumed over the years.
Ken
A subtle correction of Gary Mack from Rosemary Willis via the HSCA, emphasis added...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm
Ms. Willis further described the location of [bDM] as the corner section
of the white concrete wall between the area of photographer Abraham Zapruder's
right side and the top of the concrete stairway leading up the center of the grassy
knoll.
Rosemary Willis was there. Gary Mack was not.
The back of the bench is at the height of the wall...
Sitting there, the boy and girl should have been seen, their heads and shoulders would be above the wall so there should be some indication of them in all three of these photos:
Betzner
Willis
Moorman
Sitzman: Some ran ... I mean ... I finally got back up to the alcove. There was bunches of people just swarming back there, and I think almost everybody on that hill ran back up that way. And another thing that I remember this day: there was a colored couple. I figure they were between 18 and 21, a boy and a girl, sitting on a bench, just almost, oh, parallel with me, on my right side, close to the fence...
Sitzman: And they were eating their lunch, 'cause they had little lunch sacks, and they were drinking coke. The main reason I remember 'em is, after the last shot I recall hearing and the car went down under the triple underpass there, I heard a crash of glass, and I looked over there, and the kids had thrown down their coke bottles, just threw them down and just started running towards the back and I ... Of course, I don't see anything unusual in that because everybody else was running that way, 'cause when I look over on my left side, the people on the hill were all running back the same way too.
I believe we do not know whoe those kids were and I also assume the woman with baby and other black man in the first photo were NOT the 2 people Sitzman describes....
The coke bottle would not just get to the corner of the wall by itself... We do not see the bottle in Moorman, Willis or Betzner so it had to be placed there AFTER Moorman... did they throw them on the ground and only 1 of them broke meaning someone picked it up and put it on the wall... or one of them put it on the wall while the other threw theirs down....?
either way, if we believe her, these kids were there the duration of the Z film and should have been captured on film somewhere...
Is there any reason one of them couldn't be BDM while the other, maybe the smaller women, is out of site on the bench? to me, anyone on that bench would have been seen over the wall....
DJ
-
(snip)
After all, the HSCA identified a "very distinct straight line feature" in the region
of BDM's hands...did the Mom also bring her broom with her and the baby??
On what basis do people impeach the testimony of Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis?
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm
I've yet to see any sort of rebuttal to this.
Not sure why we'd need a rebuttal...
Only if one is inclined to believe it was a woman holding baby, a conclusion
which assumes both Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis of Willis #5 got it
wrong.
For those who hold to the possibility it was, indeed, a woman holding a baby, then
on what basis are Rosemary's statement and the HSCA analysis impeached?
Rosemary does establish someone/something at that spot who disappears right after the headshot, or at least very close to that time period, she is not specific but infers it's after z313.
I don't see where she indicates anything about the person disappearing after
the headshot.
Her rapid headsnap occurs Z214-217, and the only activity on the knoll she described
was BDM disappearing "the next instant."
With a shot to the throat at Z190 and BDM disappearing about a second later with
a "very distinct straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands" seems to me
to make a compelling case for BDM as a shooter, although certainly not conclusive.
Interesting point you make Cliff... will have to do more thinking on the subject.... yet if and I do mean if GA was there, BDM would be right next to him and he does not describe anything like that. At the same token I still have a difficult time seeing GA as BDM.
There are no conclusions regarding the "very distinct straight line feature" due to the fuzziness of the photo. "...could not conclude whether it was or was not a weapon"
Fair enough. It could be a coincidence that someone who went to see Kennedy holding
a very distinct straight-line feature in their hands decided to disappear about a
second after the guy they came to see was shot in the throat.
quite a few leaps of faith in this statement, I supposed if you are inclined to think it was a shooter, a “straight line feature” becomes a rifle.
I don't think anyone disputes it was there and then was gone and it was there well before Betzner's z185 photo since there is not movement betwewn betzner and willis, BDM was not moving thru the area but stationary.
Stationary for how long? There was less than a second between Betnzer 3 and Willis 5.
trying to say that BDM had to get there and leave in some manner. The black couple was sitting right there and this person would just shoot regardless? BDM cannot vanish, he either is GA who dove to the ground, the black man eating lunch and putting his coke on the wall (how else does that get there – anyone?), or someone else. Somehow Hudson walks from behind the steps, past BDM position without being stopped or questioned by anyone whereas others where specifically told to leave the area. Hudson says he’s in the area from 12 on.
Hudson walks right past that spot... the young man runs up to that spot immediately after the shots... (which is pretty insane if the shots came from that area, to run TO that spot in the manner he does)
None of this occurred during the time frame in question, did it?
Rosemary started running west as the limo turned onto Elm Street and she told
the HSCA she saw two "conspicuous people", Umbrella Man and Black Dog Man.
Her description of UM matches Louis Witt's descriptions of his actions -- he was pre-occupied with the umbrella.
Although she doesn't say exactly when "the next instant" of BDM's sudden disappearance
occurred, her rapid head snap was drawn by something that occurred to her left,
and BDM's absence from any other photos is consistent with his disappearing about
the same time as her head snap.
Well if Nix’s interpretation is correct something moves right after the headshot... something falls to their left. This occurs well after the head snap....
Sitzman talks about the two black people on the bench which would have been even farther north than BDM, yet no mention of BDM.
Wasn't she a bit pre-occupied with Abe during the time in question?
not preoccupied enough to NOT know about the 2 black people, what they were doing, where they were and about how old they were.... She was VERY observant of that area.
I imagine if they were sitting on the bench, and one got up with a coke bottle to get a better view he/she would have suddenly appeared there when they stood up and then disappear again shen they ran off leaving the coke bottle behind... they broke the other one.
If you were going to see the President of the United States in a motorcade why
would you disappear just as the limo was approaching your position?
And is a coke bottle a "very distinct straight-line feature"?
you’d disappear because shots were being fired. And depending on the image, photo, lighting, etc... my guess is that yes, a coke bottle could look like a straight line feature.
Your theory is interesting yet a policeman in plain sight shooting into the limo???
If he were shooting a standard round, that would be less likely, perhaps, but the nature
of the throat wound is consistent with non-conventional weaponry, seems to me. And
it doesn't appear as if JFK were reacting to a conventional bullet strike.
One more intriguing thing Rosemary Willis said to the HSCA:
Ms. Willis said she was aware of three shots being fired. She gave no information
on the direction or location of the shots, but stated that her father became upset
when the policeman in the area appeared to run away from where he thought the shots
came from; that is, they were running away from the grassy knoll.
It would have taken a big dose of suicidal bravery for anyone to directly accuse
a cop of shooting Kennedy, seems to me.
I'm not saying that it is a fact that BDM was a shooter, but that could be a reasonable
conclusion that fits the extant evidence better than the other explanations that
are kicked around.
agreed... I think you bring up a very interesting line of thought. Thanks. DJ
-
1.5) Order one rifle and be photographed holding a different one
6.5) After building the Sniper's Lair, removing his fingerprints from each and every box he touched to build it
7.5) Know at the time that the limo was late (plane landing 20 minutes late and the stops in the motorcade enroute) and would not be passing the TSBD until 12:30, instead of the scheduled 11:55 so he did not have to be in position by 11:50 but 12:25.
Just a few additions.
Amazing to me how ferocious the LNer gets when confronted with REASONABLE DOUBT, as if their Church of Oswald's Guilt is being attacked, blasphemy!! kooks... paranoids....
There is no room for rational thought, constructuve discussion or debate... only insults and misdirection...
I don't know Mr. Carlier, all I see is his posts here on this thread... not a single quote, reference, link to evidence or factually supported statement is uttered either for or against Bill's list of questions. How does one have a discussion regarding whether facts are indeed facts comprised soley of opinion statements?
I have no problem with a knowledgeable LNer making their point(s) yet they never seem to employ the "does this make any logical sense" or "what other ways can this info be interpreted" thought processes.
There are witnesses that place Oswald anywhere but the 6th floor right up until as late as 12:25. Rather than argue, show us any evidence that places Oswald where he was supposed to be, when he was supposed to be there.
DJ
-
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
-
As blatant as the assassination was, I find no reason for an assassin to be that exposed as to be in front of the fence and at the end of the wall and I'd have to think the likes of Craig Roberts would agree that a shooter worth anything would never put himself there... but I am only expressing an opinion... I am not a shooter of any kind.
I'm not a shooter, either, but it makes sense to me to put a guy dressed as a cop
in that location, have a very loud round fired from the TSBD to distract attention,
then claim that BDM was returning fire should anybody see him.
After all, the HSCA identified a "very distinct straight line feature" in the region
of BDM's hands...did the Mom also bring her broom with her and the baby??
On what basis do people impeach the testimony of Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis?
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm
I've yet to see any sort of rebuttal to this.
Not sure why we'd need a rebuttal... Rosemary does establish someone/something at that spot who disappears right after the headshot, or at least very close to that time period, she is not specific but infers it's after z313.
There are no conclusions regarding the "very distinct straight line feature" due to the fuzziness of the photo. "...could not conclude whether it was or was not a weapon"
I don't think anyone disputes it was there and then was gone and it was there well before Betzner's z185 photo since there is not movement betwewn betzner and willis, BDM was not moving thru the area but stationary.
Hudson walks right past that spot... the young man runs up to that spot immediately after the shots... (which is pretty insane if the shots came from that area, to run TO that spot in the manner he does) Sitzman talks about the two black people on the bench which would have been even farther north than BDM, yet no mention of BDM. I imagine if they were sitting on the bench, and one got up with a coke bottle to get a better view he/she would have suddenly appeared there when they stood up and then disappear again shen they ran off leaving the coke bottle behind... they broke the other one.
Your theory is interesting yet a policeman in plain sight shooting into the limo???
-
Interesting analogy Bill....
First off, the King is not allowed to move himself into check or checkmate. The only way a Pawn can win an attack on a King is if the Pawn is protected from capture by the king (or any other piece) and only after the Pawn moves into a position that puts the King into check or checkmate.
The PAWN needs to move:
A stalemate occurs when, for the player with the move:
The player has no legal moves, and
The player's king is not in check
If this happens, the king is said to have been stalemated and the game ends in a draw. A player who has very little or no chance of winning will often try to entice the opponent to inadvertently place the player's king in stalemate in order to avoid a loss.
I would offer that Oswald was the KING in the process of being checkmated while he tried to cause a stalemate - not get killed before getting caught and be in a position to put fear into the other "pieces"
Pawns and more were moved into positions that kept the King on course to his checkmate
JFK was maneuvered into a position of being taken out from the blind side, but I do not think of him as the King here... just another piece taken from the board in an effort to checkmate the real King, Oswald, and accomplish what was ultimately accomplished.
Whether checkmating Oswald was designed to invade Cuba, escalate Vietnam, restore America to its anti-commie stance or one of a large number of reasons... the killing of JFK was only part of the game, the sacrifice of an important piece in order to win.
DJ
-
Nice, Duncan. I know its tough to tell, but I do believe that the clothing of Emmett looks somewhat visible just beyond the outline of the younger man in your scan. It is just that the light colored clothing Hudson wore tends to blend into the background.
The only thing with your animation is that both men as I recall had their arms behind them with their hands on their hip area ... that is if in fact the two men were posed in Willis as we see them in the other three film sources previously mentioned in this thread. I have left a message with Gary Mack to email me the time span from the moment Willis took his photo to the point that Muchmore first picks up the south dog leg and steps in her film. I am sure that I posted the figures years ago after discussing it with Mack and I will certainly post them again once I have heard back from him. My memory seems to be that it was only a matter of a very few seconds.
The time frame illustration DJ posted is at 5.5 seconds, but it would be interesting to post the time span before the steps first started coming into view which I think brings the time frame down to around 3 seconds or so. Of course, Hudson would still be off screen, but in the split second when he comes into view - he is already poised which makes it seem even more unlikely he made a mad dash down the steps at the last possible moment.
Thanks for the scan.
Bill Miller
Thanks Bill... good to see/hear from you again. and thanks as well to Duncan for the image yet I beleive Bill is right about the arms as we can see in this frame of Muchmoore
Which is what led me to be so skeptical about the leg area andthe fact that Hudson has white slacks on yet there is no indication to me that there are white pant legs behind those skinny little black panted legs of the other man. Add to this the gusting wind, the man's open jacket and how his arms were and I beleive the entire black area could be his jacket and arms.
Would we say that BDM is moving in willis5 or is that simply the blur of the camera moving...
Would we say BDM is stationary in Betzner?
Can we at least agree that BDM is not GArnold who should have been farther to the north and west of BDM on his mound by the fence
As blatant as the assassination was, I find no reason for an assassin to be that exposed as to be in front of the fence and at the end of the wall and I'd have to think the likes of Craig Roberts would agree that a shooter worth anything would never put himself there... but I am only expressing an opinion... I am not a shooter of any kind.
I don't suppose there are any other statement to be had by Hudson or the younger man who immediately ran up the steps... who by the way as seen in Nix, gets up the stairs and to the BDM position within a handful of frames... I do not think it so immposible for Hudson to go the 15 steps from BDM position to the stairs from z202 thru a283.
But I have to admit is is rather unlikely given the timing, positions and stories told... just seemed to me plausible.
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. I'll tell you - this young fellow that was sitting there with me - standing there with me at the present time, he says, "lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says, "Lay down, lay down." and he kept repeating, "Lay down." so he was already laying down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over on the ground and resting my arm on the ground and when that third shot rung out and when I was close to the ground - you could tell the shot was coming from above and kind of behind.
DJ:Sounds to me like above and behind Hudson which would be the picket fence - Leibeler has other ideas
Mr. LIEBELER - How could you tell that?
Mr. HUDSON - Well, just the sound of it.
Mr. LIEBELER - You heard it come from sort of behind the motorcade and then above? DJ:snuck it in.. leading the witness your honor... what a surprise
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I don't know if you have ever laid down close to the ground, you know, when you heard the reports coming, but it's a whole lot plainer than it is when you are standing up in the air.
-
"In fact, the particle cloud in JFK's skull contradicts this weapon AND this ammunition..."
Only to those who have not taken the time and effort to understand the forensic and ballistic facts as to how and why this full metal jacketed bullet fragmented in the manner in which it did.
All I know is from what Ive read here and researched online to find the hit characteristics of a FMJ and other types of ammo. From what I have seen, a FMJ bullet SHOULD NOT leave a tiny particle trail but either go thru and thru or break up, fragment, into significantly sized pieces. If you have something that shows FMJ bullets leaving particle trails in the way that mercury bullets or non-FMJ bullets might... Id like to see that
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/14th_Issue/overview.html
Next was a "Forensic Techniques" panel that included presentations by Margaret and Art Snyder, which I missed, and Craig Roberts. Mr. Roberts is a former Marine sniper and author of A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza and other books. He said he made a close study of the Zapruder film, "And I'll tell you what I saw --- as a sniper --- through the eyes of a sniper ... I saw a guy hit from the right front, with a frangible mercury bullet." Such a bullet, Roberts continued, will do its destructive work, and essentially disintegrate.
Characteristics of Mercury bullets
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3122
"When those bullets or fragments were fired, where they come from as evidence and where they come from when/where purchased are still big questions."
In event that one is a follower of the all encompassing "planted bullet" theory, then it is most unlikely that any of the factual evidence will ever be believed.
However!
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.
This is the same bullet that did not have any trace of blood, tissue, carbon, clothing and weighed more than it should have with what was left in JC? The one that looked as if it was shot into cotton or water? The one that has no chain of evidence and is not identified as the one found by those who found it, held it and transported it?
The fact it could have been shot from THAT rifle is no great shock to me.
Chemical and forensic analysis of
JFK assassination bullet lots:
Is a second shooter possible?
Cliff Spiegelman,1* William A. Tobin,2 William D. James,3 Simon J. Sheather,1
Stuart Wexler,4 D. Max Roundhill5
1 Department of Statistics, Texas A&M University, 3143 TAMU College Station,
Texas, 77843-3143
2 Forensic Engineering International, 2708 Little Gunstock Rd., Lake Anna, VA
23024-8882.
3 Center for Chemical Characterization and Analysis, Texas A&M University,
3144 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-3144
4 Humanities and Advanced Placement Government, Highstown High School, 25
Leshin Lane, Highstown, NJ 08520
5Chem Consulting, 13325 Black Canyon Drive, Austin, TX 78729
Summary and conclusions:
We presented results from a study where ten bullets from each of three boxes of
Mannlicher-Carcano bullets were analyzed for chemical composition. Compositional
data from the ten bullets sampled from each box were compared to Dr. Guinns
testimony before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (1) regarding
assassination bullet fragment compositions and also to the findings of the NRC in their
report Weighing Bullet Lead Evidence (3). We found that many bullets within a box
of Mannlicher-Carcano bullets have similar composition. Further, we found that one16 of the thirty bullets analyzed in our study also compositionally matched one of the
fragments from the assassination analyzed by Dr. Guinn (1). If we allow for the bias
associated with Dr. Guinns measurements, it is possible that there would be even more
matches among our bullets with the JFK fragments. We have shown that two-element
chance matches to assassination fragments are not extraordinarily rare. Further, we
have shown that if bullets come from the same box, they are even less rare. Given the
significance and impact of the JFK assassination, it is scientifically desirable for the
evidentiary fragments to be reanalyzed. The reanalysis should include at least the
seven elements identified in the NRC report (3), should establish the scientific basis for
matching fragments originating from a single bullet, and should address the critically
important issues of bullet and source heterogeneity.
2. Portions of the copper jacket to the bullet which severely fragmented as a result of the impact to the head of JFK were ballistically matched, to the exclusion of ALL other weapons, to the recovered 6.5mm Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle that was found/recovered on the sixth floor of the TSDB.
See above and please add the unbelievably poor chain of evidence for any of these fragments that supposedly hit JFK. Furthermore, how exactly does a portion of a jacket match back to a rifle as opposed to matching back to a bullet? There were identifiable barrel characteristics on the portion of the jacket that could be matched to the rifle or is it just a bullet that may or may not have been fired from that rifle... please clarify.
3. The bullet that fragmented as a result of impact to the head of JFK also fractured the front windshield of the Presidential Limousine, as well as, to a high degree of probability, is also responsible for the dent in the windshield molding.
Please illuminate for us how you can connect the dots on these specific bullet fragments causing that damage as well as the arguments the windshield hole was thru and thru from the outside in.
Now, for anyone who is of the opinion that there is some logic as to "planting" CE399, when it is not normal for a 6.5mm Carcano bullet to fragment in the manner that the head shot impact did, as Mr. Spock would declare, "this is not logical".
Please excuse my lack of knowledge with this question... is there such thing as a Carcano bullet or simply a 6.5mm bullet that fits into rifles that fire such a size?
Likewise, one would have to assume that persons (unknown) who were at Parkland planting CE399, were also in cahoots with FBI & SS personnel who were busy somewhere along the line planting bullet fragments, which matched the assassination weapon, to be found in the Presidential Limo.
Whether CE399 was or was not at Parkland is still up for debate... all indications and testimony steer toward CE399 NOT being the bullet found there.
IMPORTANT NOTE: WHAT WAS FOUND AT PARKLAND OR IN THE LIMO OR EVEN ON THE 6TH FLOOR HAS TO SHOW A CHAIN OF EVIDENCE UNTIL IT IS ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE. UNTIL THAT IS ESTABLISHED, WHAT WAS FOUND SIMPLY MAY NOT BE WHAT IS IN EVIDENCE SO THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY NEED FOR PLANTING... ONLY SWITCHING AT SOME POINT IN TIME (EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER PROPERLY GATHERED AND CATALOGED) .
The bullets "came from" Western Cartridge Company, and when they were purchased is irrelevant as to the facts that they were fired from the recovered assassination weapon.
So were they WCC bullets or Carcano bullets as you mention above?
For all that I know, they may have been won in a poker game, which too would be irrelevant to the fact that these bullets were fired from the recovered assassination weapon and were ABSOLUTELY fired during the actual assassination event.
The bullets/fragments have themselves proven this fact!
Cmon now you have ABSOLUTELY no way to prove that rifle was fired THAT DAY in fact testimony shows no tests were done at all to determine whether the barrel was recently cleaned and had any new particles left behind. They could prove it WASNT fired that day but can never prove it was.... add to this the fact you cannot also establish the rifle that was found was the assassination rifle beyond your inconclusive bullet data
Unless of course one believes in and follows the giant/encompassing "Planted Bullet (& planted fragments as well I might add) BS.
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.
Wow are you wrong.
More than sufficient testimony exists that a shot or shots were fired from behind the fence at the Grassy Knoll, that multiple men with rifles were seen in the TSBD on the 5th, 6th and 7th floors just prior to the assassination, and that LHO was not even on the 6th floor just prior and just after the shots were fired.
Regarding your other conclusion that the Carcano was a well made rifle that is by no means weak or poorly manufactured.
I am sure this was true when the rifle was new, 20+ years earlier, when the ammo used was new not 20+ years old, when the rifle is kept well maintained and stored in a safe, clean environment. NOT in the condition we find the MC in evidence which repeatedly jammed, did not drop its clip, was poorly and improperly sighted and had a rusted/bent firing pin.
Kind of interesting too that Oswald was at work when Oswald brought his rifle in to have a scope mounted... and was at work when Oswald was taking target practice...
This dog dont hunt Thomas.... leaving a dust particle cloud is NOT what FMJ bullets were designed to do. CE399 hit rib and wrist bones and is virtually pristine... while the same type bullet from the same rifle hitting a single bone virtually disintegrates... why do we not see dust particle trails thru JFK's or JC's chest? and finally, if this FMJ bullet did what you are saying it did... how does his brain still weigh in at 1500cc's?
-
Thank Robin... being focused on the photos/videos myself, I so appreciate your input and opinion.
Do YOU see Hudson in willis5 ??
Did Bowers or anyone see Hudson at the tool shed or walking to the steps?
Interesting how he and so many others line up starting at noon or before to see JFK while the accused assassin sits eating his lunch.
Nerves of steel
-
The Miller thread was what I referred to originally... I was not convinced that Hudson was in willis5 and nothing posted has shown he was either behind the other man or the lamppost...
The willis crop does not extend far enough to the left to show the men on the landing imo...
Biggest problem with the willis image is the lack of a white hat (unless deeply in shadows) on BDM
Sure be nice if Emmett had said something about the woman/baby, or guy in an army uniform, or a mysterious guy with a rifle
hanging out back there as he walked to his spot....once again... nice chatting with ya Bernice...
DJ
-
Thanks Bernice...
I agree that Hudson does talk about the other 2 men with him.... there are no images of him sitting there with them, or the younger man, prior to willis5. Yet no one asks him how he gets from the tool shed to the stairs or if he passes anyone enroute... He'd have to walk right past BMD's position.
I've also been told that he actually IS in willis5, better versions of the photo make it more apparent yet I have seen no post of any image that indicates Hudson is indeed there. Even a close examination of willis 5 in TKoaAP does not make it appear as if he's there.
If Don is around, I would love to know why he concludes Hudson was not there at z202 beyond the obvious - he's not in the photo.
DJ
-
After searching the forum and looking at John's Index I did not find a thread dealing with an issue I raised at Lancer but was not satisfied with the answers...
To summerize... Hudson was at the toolshed and then he is standing up with the younger man we see in this image... yet we do not see Hudson at 202 in Willis
From Hudson's WC testimony
Mr. LIEBELER - Would you tell us where you were on November 22, 1963, at around noon, around the time the Presidential motorcade came by?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I was over there next to that T. & P. Railroad yard where the little toolshed was.
Mr. LIEBELER - What was the nearest intersection to where you were?
Mr. HUDSON - Elm.
Mr. LIEBELER - Elm and What?
Mr. HUDSON - Houston.
Mr. LIEBELER - Elm and Houston?
Do Ihave the correct tool shed??
Mr. HUDSON - Well, I was standing on those steps that came straight down to Elm there, just above that triple underpass, I was about halfway between the tripple underpass and Houston, where the steps are - somewhere near about halfway.
Mr. LIEBELER - I show you a photograph which is No. 18 of Commission Exhibit No. 875. It depicts the street and the triple underpass. Can you show us on that picture, if that picture shows it the place where you were standing?
Could this be the route he takes to the steps which takes him right past the BDM position?
Mr. HUDSON - Well, I was right along - you see, the steps come down the steps for a way and then there is a broad place, oh, I'll say a little wider than this table here on the steps and then some steps and I was standing on this - that would be somewhere around along about there.
Mr. LIEBELER - Let me just mark on that picture the place where you were standing so that we can have that.
Mr. HUDSON - Right along about there.
Mr. LIEBELER - It was right here where I have placed this "X", is that correct?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; right along in there.
>>> I could not find a single one of the CE875 photos has an "X" on it<<<<
Mr. LIEBELER - So, you were standing about where I placed the "X" on photograph No. 18 of Commission Exhibit No. 875. Tell me what you saw - tell me what happened to the best of your recollection.
Mr. HUDSON - Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place over there in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and said he worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat there first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side and I was on the right and so the first shot rung out and, of course, I didn't realize it was a shot, what was taking place right at that present time, and when the second one rung out, the motorcade had done got further on down Elm, and you see, I was trying to get a good look at President Kennedy. I happened to be looking right at him when that bullet hit him - the second shot.
Mr. LIEBELER - That was when the bullet hit him in the head; is that correct?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it looked like it ht him somewhere along about a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear.
Mr. LIEBELER - On the right-hand side or the left-hand side?
Mr. HUDSON - Right hand.
Finally, in Don's plaza graphic it shows:
So unless it has changes, and I just linked to the graphic from Don's recent post, he believes Hudson was not yet there at 202...
1 - How early does Hudson actually get to the steps?
2 - is he seen in wills 5 ?
3 - Could he be the blur of BDM in both Betzner and Willis?
Cause we know it was not Gordon Arnold who should be farther back to the right on his "mound" of earth closer to the fence.
Could Hudson have gotten from BDM position to what we see in Muchmore? We do not see the steps or the BDM position until z282 equivilent in Muchmoore. 202 thru 282 is a bit more than 4 seconds... to walk 15 steps?
-
Remember it takes more than one to have a conspiracy but there is no limit for the total number involved.
No kidding. Just ask Don Adams. He's got eleven shots being fired from God knows how many guns.
And Bob Groden is almost as bad. Bob has 8 to 10 shots being fired from at least 3 or 4 locations.
I think a better question for the conspiracy theorists who think LHO was set up and framed as a lone patsy would be:
WHY would any of the conspirators have even WANTED to risk the whole "patsy" ballgame by utilizing two, three, or four gunmen in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63?
DVP - what answer, if any, would you be willing to have a real discussion about rather than the eye-rolling, name calling BS you usually post?
WHY anyone, or a group of anyones WANTS to do anything is and will always be pure speculation - and you know that, which is why I assume you even ask the question that way. Be like you trying to tell me WHY Oswald WANTED to do it.... you can't know for sure, even if Oswald was to have been quoted as saying, "I killed JFK because....."
The only things you cannot refute are the facts and as we've seen in post after post, all you have against the facts is eye-rolling and insults. Your one sided persecution of LHO in the face of a mountain of evidence borders on maniacal.
Have you never simply stepped back and began anew? Without preconception or conclusion and look at what you believe to be reasonable arguments from both sides - or are you such the LHO zealot that reason and discussion do not have a place. That objective discussion, research and investigation is simply not allowed?
What concerns me most is your inability to accept that there is an opposing argument. that it is valid and well supported.
while time and time again your WCR evidence is shown to be badly flawwed and in most cases inadmissable as evidence.
So I'll ask you... why assassinate the president and then deny it if at each point along the process you are going to CONSCIOUSLY leave clues that lead directly back to you?
Oswald orders the rifle and gun as Hidell - while keeping multiple wallets with Hidell AND Oswald identification together
Oswald somehow gets ammunition for the MC
Oswald goes to Mexico City and is recorded on the telephone exhibiting very suspicious behavior
Oswald carries the rifle to work in a paper bag
Oswald builds the rifle and sniper's nest (with an absolute minimum of fingerprints)
Oswald waits until the very last second, knowing full well that JFK's limo will be late, to get into position
Oswald fires three shots, 2 of which are the most incredible in the history of gun fire
Oswald flees the scene but leaves behind the rifle, the shells, the clip(?) and the paper bag supposedly with his fingerprints
Oswald encounters Truly and Baker, and yet, after pulling off the most daring assassination in history - is calm and unaware
Oswald casually walks out the front door and within 20 minutes of the assassination is basically a free man except for the enormous paper and evidence trail he's left behind, at his own hand and with no indication of any attempt to hide or conceal his actions
so this basically free man, who has in the months prior been shown to drive, practice with the rifle, get the scope mounted, shoot at Walker, talk about killing the president to a number of people, go to Mexico where even more incriminating evidence is generated by none other than Oswald himself.
After all of this David, he's going to say he didn't do it, that he was a patsy due to his Russian past, and that he needs Abt to represent him. He says he didn't kill anyone.
Now, if you have the sincerity of purpose you proport to have, please read thru http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/26th_Issue/2_lho.html and see how your WCR evidence is at the very least questionable, which in turn creates a thing called REASONABLE DOUBT.
You simply cannot convict Oswald because you feel like it. As long as there is any reasonable doubt - which there obviously is - guilt is not an option.
Unlike the others though, I will not be getting into a discussion over this, or any other topic with you for it is obvious to me you "aint gonn alearn what you dont want to know". You remind me of Ptolemy....
Ptolemy, however, claimed to have derived his geometrical models from selected astronomical observations by his predecessors spanning more than 800 years, though astronomers have for centuries suspected that his models' parameters were adopted independently of observations. (just like you DVP... independent of the facts and observation, you refuse to consider anything in opposition to your OPINION.)
Ptolemy's model, like those of his predecessors, was geocentric and was almost universally accepted until the appearance of simpler heliocentric models during the scientific revolution.
The prevailing theory in Europe as Copernicus was writing was that created by Ptolemy in his Almagest, dating from about 150 A.D. Through the Middle Ages it was spoken of as the authoritative text on astronomy, with its author becoming an almost mythical figure, called Ptolemy, King of Alexandria. The Ptolemaic system drew on many previous theories that viewed Earth as a stationary center of the universe. Stars were embedded in a large outer sphere which rotated relatively rapidly, while the planets dwelt in smaller spheres between—a separate one for each planet. To account for apparent anomalies in this view, such as the apparent retrograde motion of the planets, a system of deferents and epicycles was used. The planet was said to revolve in a small circle (the epicycle) about a center, which itself revolved in a larger circle (the deferent) about a center on or near the Earth.
Oswald did it = the world is flat and everything revolves around the Earth
Either one is easily provable, providing one does not look at the arguments against.
-
The CE399 in evidence was NOT the bullet identified as the one found on the stretcher at Parkland.
Not a single person who handled the bullet found on the stretcher said it was the same as CE399.
The fact that something is entered into evidence does not automatically give it a supportable chain of evidence nor is it irrefutable. If those who handled it can not identify it AND the chain of possession is not firmly established the value as a piece of evidence is greatly diminished.
Regarding the shells, DVP, there is also testimony in evidence that the shells were bunched together when first discovered, that they were picked up and put back down prior to the photos (as were the boxes by the window). If we are to accept CE399 on face value then we must also accept other testimony that appears as evidence in the WCR, right?
Please explain how one of those shells has 2 firing pin marks, or the one with a bent lip. and how the MC even came into Oswald's possession, etc, etc...
A rifle fires a bullet that, when recovered, has not a single shred of evidence that it actually hit anyone - no bone, blood, fibers, nothing.... - but is proven to have been fired from a rifle that originally is found not to have ANY of Oswald's fingerprints, any means of coming into Oswald's possession and is not seen entering the TSBD with Oswald that morning.
Finally, you still haven't explained why Oswald was not up at the Sniper's Nest before 12:15 since he was all alone and had no way of knowing when the motorcade would pass... It was just luck that the plane was 20 minutes late???
I am not saying evidence was faked... just that your case hinges on tying the bullets to the rifle to Oswald being in a position to use them - the evidence contradicts this at every point... or at least puts enough reasonable doubt as to question the actual conclusion.
-
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.
You had me right up until that one Thomas....
I thought all we can state as fact was that bullet and bullet fragments entered into evidence were traced back to have been fired from one of the weapons found that day... while supposedly found on the 6th floor, there are numerous contridictions to that statement as well - a Mr. Weitzman comes to mind as well as numerous statements by Insp Sawyer.
When those bullets or fragments were fired, where they come from as evidence and where they come from when/where purchased are still big questions.
There were no fragments taken from JFK or Connally that can be traced back to that rifle
In fact, the particle cloud in JFK's skull contradicts this weapon AND this ammunition...
From where do we find this FACT supported?
To Mark's point about the MC - wasn't there discussion of Oswald being involved in a rifle Mail-order sting which was the reason for the alias and the order in the first place? Something tells me there is some twisted back story to the M/C yet again involving spooks messing with each other... just a hunch.
DJ
The Mauser?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
My Alyea mpeg stops just before this scene would play out... Fritz has the handkerchief ready to take the rifle at the end of my Alyea while the photo shows him holding the scope with it. Assuming Alyea keeps filming to get the 2 rifle screen grab I offer this view as Day finds the rifle... Fritz is past Day from this angle (which you see in Alyea as he stands in front of Fritz).
there is a shotgun behind the box just past Day, which would be directly in front of Fritz... The barrel is pointing up.
What is strange to me about the 2 rifle photo is that the butt of the rifle is at the top leaning against the box... would anyone put a rifle on the ground or lean it that way? with the heavier butt at the top and barrel opening on the ground??
Could the 2nd rifle be that shotgun that gets moved? just a thought
DJ
It also appears as if the splice in Alyea gets rid of Fritz working the bolt action... the rifle chamber is open by then and there is of course no clip to be found.
Could comeone check their Alyea as Day picks up the rifle to see if the bolt has already been opened... I cannot tell from my copy. If it is already open... before Fritz is supposed to have ejected the live round... it would be of some concern... no?