Al Carrier

It is important to keep in mind that the CIA was supplying arms and ammunitions to Fidel Castro, while at the same time still sending arms, aircraft, and tanks to Batista. We were "Arms Merchants" supporting both sides. In order to grasp why some Cubans to this day do not trust the United States is, perhaps, because of these political policies of old. Not much has been written about this M-26-7 to some extend the CIA's involvement is still classified. Most of this information, about the M-26-7 Havana group and the CIA's activities, have been purged from history by the powers that be. I for one think this history should be incorporated into any serious research work. I know of at least three American Pilots who lost their lives while flying weapons which had been stolen from United States National Guard Armories in order to overthrow Batista and bring Castro to power. I know of others who lost their lives while engaged in other secret operations connected to some of the splinter groups of the M-26-7. These brave men lost their lives after the M-26-7 was merged into other operations which were connected with the overthrow of Castro. Tosh, Excellent post! Slightly off-topic here but since you referred to the Armory Burglaries to supply weapons and munitions outside the US, I would just like to add how this is not an isolated practice to the Cuban Operation. In the spring and summer of '81, Ft. McClelland had three such Armory burlaries where M16's, Frag Grenades, M18 Claymore's and LAWs Rockets were lifted. I believe it was Gordon that had at least one at this time and not sure who all else. At McClelland, there was rumor that it was happening on the inside of the 111th MP Company which I had been assigned for a period. Two MP's were shot to death at close range while sitting in their jeep out by the B44 site and rumor was that one of the two was a new arrival who was thought to have been undercover CID. It was evident to me later that these arms were going to El Salvador and to the Contras in Nicaragua. Since you were flying arms at the time, you had probably heard of these incidents. Al

Al, Isn't it true that there was usually a press truck in front of the limo in JFK motorcades, and that this truck was left out at Love Field? This, along with the absence of motorcycles, left the limo wide open for shots from the front. I think that this is one of the clearest signs of some complicity within local LE. The failure to post at both ends of the overpass was certainly convenient for the shooter whom you believe (and I agree) was positioned at the unposted end. And why would conspirators want some people on the overpass right over Elm? A couple of things come to mind. One, someone in that crowd may have been a potential shooter if JFK reached the overpass still alive. And two, allowing people from the railroad yard onto the overpass to watch the motorcade kept them from lining up behind the fence to watch. That fence had to be kept clear. Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ron, The issue of the press truck needs to be addressed by each motorcade individually. Prior to the assassination, a press truck would be utilized to capture fottage of the motorcade and crowd responses as the president entered the areas. In the case of Dallas however, they were dealing with narrow downtown streets with crowds in close proximity to the motorcade. The press truck would have become a barrier for escaping a dangerous situation. In a moving motorcade, mobility is the major safety factor and the SS would not want to be blocked in IMO. I see the lapse in security atop the underpass as poor judgement on the part of the officers stationed there. They did utilize a supervisor of the railroad to screen workers who were allowed there, so that tells me they simply did not understand or appreciate the need to keep this area clear. I have considered the issue of both officers being over Elm and ignoring the south end and can see how they would migrate there as all parties that they saw came from this end. I have a hard time believing their was complicency within the DPD at an officer level within the plaza. I believe the teams simply relied on what they expected to happen and it worked out. Al

Good Work Al The only comment I can make on this issue is the use of the 10% ballistic gel. which I think would give a larger cavity expansion due to the greater impartion of energy due to the greater mass of the gel. But, I undertand completely your need for a [stand-up] target mass. What I would like to see is how a human skull filled with 5% ballistic gel. and covered with fresh pig-skin would behave under the same testing parameters. What do you think? Respectfully: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> John, I worked on a model to produce similar penetration resistance and internal pressures that would similuate as close as possible what we would need for a headshot, using other materials. I used a latex balloon and filled it with 5% ballistic geletin and allowed it to set. This hardened the latex somewhat but still provided a pliable containment as in dura. I then placed five layers of plaster of paris over the latex, allowing each layer to semi-harden to provide a shelving as one would find in skull plates. I then fired this bullet into this material with the same off-set and produced a small entrance, a widening furough and then an explosive exit. The bullet had minimal deformity on the nose cone and extrusion out the open base. While it shows this 6.5mm MC bullet could produce such a wound as seen in Zapruder, it is not inclusive to this bullet but to a FMJ rifle caliber bullet of similar ballistic qualities. I also performed the same with a .308 AE FMJ in 150gr and the difference was a side opening due to the greater internal pressure within the cavity of the heavier and higher velocity bullet. This is actually more comparible to what is seen in the films in DP and especially Zapruder with the skull flap which is also documented in the Bethesda reports and photos. As we both know, minimal offset can create variables in the results of such testing as well as the materials and thickness of same, it does show how such a wound could have occurred. Interested in your comments on this... Al

I have been a serious researcher in the JFK Assassination for almost fifteen years now. I was an interested party some seven years prior to that. I chose to remain outside the research community until 2000. In all the forums and discussion groups that I have seen on this topic, I will stick my neck out and say that Mr. Simkins forum is the most well versed and monitored of all. He has successfully achieved (IMO) the best balance of open discussion and proper monitoring and policing of any forum that is out there. Tim, IMO, it doesn't get any better than this and you are a major part of what is presented here. I really do wish you would stay on. Al

Nancy, In dealing with the JFK Assassination and the RFK assassination, we are dealing with two totally different ballistic issues. In JFK, we are dealing with a heavier, higher velocity projecticle that sustaines velocity much greater than the pistol caliber projectile of the RFK Assassination. In JFK, the velocities would have been greater than 1800fps and bullet weight in the 150+gr range. In the RFK, the velocities would be under 1400fps and bullet weight of under 70gr. Al

Tim, Excellent questions! And there are explanations that clear up alot of the misunderstandings. First of all, the dignitary (President, VP, etc) and his inner circle have final input on how they want things to progress. The SS are tasked with dealing with what they are given. 1 - As far as the positioning of the dignitary in the motorcade, it is generally one of the first two non-LE units in the motorcade. Often times today there is a mock limo either leading or following the dignitary to keep any threats off-balance. 2 - Open Windows - Because this is a rolling security detail (motorcade), this is not a general concern until there is a point of making the dignitary stationary. There is no way to assure that the windows in buildings along long motorcade routes will be closed as the motorcade passes them in such a short timespan. It is the responsibility of the lead units such as advance, pilot and lead LE cars with SS in them to view these possible threats. 3 - Overpasses and such are the responsibility of local LE and the advance car in today's security details assure that they are clear. In Dallas, there was an obvious breakdown in communication with the officers assigned to it as they did not keep it clear and did not post at each end. 4 - Prior to Dallas '63, an open limo was not uncommon. I have photos of Washington, Berlin, Tampa, Miami, Houston that all support the open limo. It is an issue of exposure to the public that was pushed by the Kennedy Staff and most likely JFK himself. 5 - This limo was not equipped with the side running boards and the presidential detail was assigned to the follow-up car with the running boards for quick response. It was a mere five feet to the rear of the presidential limo. 6 - The pace of the motorcade would be at the direction of the Kennedy Staff. The agents had to deal with the security by closing the gap of the limo and follow-up car. This would be an exposure issue and showing JFK and Jackie off to the crowds in Texas is what motivated this slow pace. 7 - Policy is set to be enforced after the fact if there was an issue with it. My agency has a P & P manual that is over five hundred pages in length. Think they don't get violated numerous times a day? Keep in mind the last time a President was assassinated prior to Nov '63. SS as with any law enforcement is handcuffed to being reactive in adjusting P & P to what failed. The JFK Assassination is a classic example of this. Bulletproofing the Limo, cutback on open limo exposure, etc... Part of my class with the SS was history of Dignitary Protection. It gave me an appreciation for what the Dallas Detail went through in the aftermath and how suttle changes have been made over the past forty years. Al

I posted this on Lancer this past summer. For those who have not seen it and are interested in what this bullet does: There has been a great deal of discussion on wound ballistics and shot origin on the forum and I have for some time being planning to do more experimentation to show the results on the forum regarding wound ballistics and how a particular bullet would perform under various circumstances. I have recently competed some testing with a bullet consistent with the WW 6.5mm MC of 160gr FMJ with a similar muzzle velocity. In this test, there are factors that vary from the head wound of JFK. Such as, I utilized a 10% ballistic gelatin block in order to make it self-supportive without being contained. 5% ballistic gelatin composition would be much more consistent with the interior skull cavity, but it would not hold up on its own without being in a container. By having it self- supportive, the wound channel could be much easier viewed and photographed. The other problem with using a self supportive block is there is less containment pressure within the cavity, unlike you would see with an enclosed skull cavity. I compromised this to use it as a starting point for those who are unfamiliar with ballistics, and more importantly, wound ballistics. I have attached a diagram I made of the gelatin block after firing the test shot. I made this diagram off the computer, from a hand sketch I did after the shot was fired. I had not planned on utilizing a diagram, but instead a photo, but unfortunately, my photos did not develop for some reason. Another reason for going to a digital camera, I guess. I have added below the specifics of the testing block and bullet. What it does show is that this particular bullet will not fragment, nor does there need to be a compromised, fragmenting bullet to achieve the wound cavity as seen in the assassination of JFK. It further supports that the brain would not have been intact and have such weight retention, as the autopsy reports led us to be believe. By firing 1’ off-angle to the penetration plate, the direct line of wound path through the gelatin block shows how the bullet will not deflect, but instead turn inward as the energy is absorbed through penetration. Diagram of 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano 160gr FMJ Bullet Fired Into 12”x12”x24” 10% Ballistic Gelatin Block After Bullet Penetrates 3/8” Masonry Plate Bullet Fired From MC Model 91 Muzzle Velocity – 2038fps Impact Velocity – 2019fps Shot Origin to Point of Impact – 15yds Angle of Offset from Origin to Target – 1’ Maximum Wound Cavity Expansion – 7.25” Depth of Penetration – 22” Expanded Bullet Diameter – 8.1mm/.32” Retained Bullet Weight – 139gr Jacket Separation – None Jacket Disruption – Nose Cone at 4.7mm core exposure Comments, questions and concerns are encouraged. Al

Sorry to hear you are leaving the Forum. But, I for one do understand. I want to thank you for what all you have contributed and the support you have given me and my story. I thank You. You are a good historian, something to be proud of. However, another matter has came to my attention which proves there are really sick people out there. And they, for whatever reasons, think they should intimidate and rule what others think and say. History has had them and their back again, on this forum trying to burn our books. The world is full of these idiots and zealots. If they can not get you to see things the way they want them seen or said, then they try to enact Fear and threats, talk loud, and use foul language and tell lies to boost their on self worth as seen by themselves. I was not going to post the following. I was just going to ignore it and pass it of as another nut case. But in view of the attacks on this forum and attacks on others in reference to their OWN research and to some parts my personal story, I now think I should send a signal to whomever: The following Email has been turned over to law enforcement. I have been told, this email was sent from a library on the west coast yesterday. I do not know if it has been posted on the internet. COPY (the original with all the tracing numbers is with Law enforcement. "...... Dear Mr. Plumbee, Novmber 30 2004 If you continue to post the things yo post after you have been warned then there is no hope for yhe safey of you are yours. We have tried to be your friend but you make it inpossible. Just because you have done the things you have done for the CIA does not give you the right to expose them to the world. You had a real problem years ago in Colorado, but if you keep on in the direction youare going then I can no longer be responsible for those who are the gatekeepers as you call them. You Texas friends can not help you now. your in our sandbox and you xxxx ass belongs to us now because you continue to spread your lies about me and others this goes for all your friends to. we no where they are and how to get next to them without them knowing about it. Singed YOU KNOW Now my reply to this ASXXOLE if he reads this forum. Kiss my Asx... take you best shot you coward. I have dealt with your kind for a damn long time. You have now cross the line with me. I too, know how to play these crazy games. I would be damn careful for now on if I were you. Keep reading my post you coward. You might learn something about freedom and democracy.., you puke. And the name is spelled PLUMLEE, TOSH. Lets get it on you coward. MY REPLY TO YOUR SURRENDER THREATS? NUTS <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim, Even though we got off to a shaky start on Lancer, I feel we have developed a mutual respect. I for one, have a great deal of respect for your work and opinions on this issue and strongly believe you are one of those who can make a difference here. I respect and understand your decision to leave, but regret that you are going. Tosh, Never received such a threat as you just did, but like I've said before, I have an insurance policy tucked away in the form of docs that they would prefer stays tucked away. I have had my computer invaded and an identity theft issue resulted in that on forums, but with the help of technology and an excellent computer tech, have a decent firewall where I am somewhat protected and can trace hits on my system. Love the reply from McAuliffe. It is fitting. Al

Ron is correct when he stated that it is impossible to secure all building, windows, etc., along a motorcade route. Where the confusion comes here is that these security precautions are generally made when the protected party is stationary, such as; at airport, speaking engagement, overnight stay location. The motorcade relies on the mobility for security. Recently I have been assigned to work with the USSS on motorcade composition and routes for visiting dignitaries (President, VP, and candidates). During the days proceeding the visit, I worked with the advance team running various routes and coming up with primary, alternate and emergency routes that all have to be approved by the Presidential Detail and the President's staff. In the last Presidential visit here, I put in 86 hours the week of the visit and provided five routes that were approved for a three hour visit. In the case of Dallas '63, they were limited on the route due to the need for exposure and the access from Love Field to the speaking engagement. The only alternate that would suffice would have been straight down Main through DP to Industrial, bypassing the Stemmons. Al

Shanet, What I am saying is not so much the issue of changing of procedures, but to being careful of taking stock in manuals or papers that have been released on clandestine operation procedures. What is being made available may be doctored from the true policy manual/papers as it was in the 1981 manual I referred to. Al

The motorcade in Miami was cancelled. JFK traveled between the airport and his speaking engagement by helicopter because of security concerns. Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not true according to Gordon Winslow (I discussed this very point with Mr. Winslow two days ago) Hopefully Mr Simkin will help post the photo of JFK and Sen Smathers in Miami on Nov 18, 1963. There are riding through a crowd in an open convertible. The photo will speak for itself. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim, JFK's motorcade in Miami was shortened considerably to a helipad where he was taken the majority of the way by copter t the engagement. I have always taken an interest in the USSS Aspect of this case and the possible security breakdown. I have attended the USSS School for LE on Dignitary Protection and have taken part in security details here for the past 21 years, from VP GHW Bush to the current president. I have to use some caution when remarking on security issues as to not violate procedural security, but will it address it the best I can. In March of '03, Barry and Ian over at DP UK published an article I submitted to them in the DP Echo. It details the security issues and action v. reaction to show how it was not neccessarily a security breakdown or at least a conscious security break-down in Dallas. The only issue I could see that differed from previous motorcade's or was beyond the realm of control of the secret service was the positioning of the lead motorcycles. Before writing the article for DP Echo, I went to two of my department's motorcycle officers who have been providing such security longer than I have, and doing so on the bikes. They had trained with the DC Motorcycle police for such details and had an extensive background and experience. Neither was very familiar with the Kennedy Assassination and I interviewed them seperately and advised them of the layout of the motorcade and gave them the motorcycles to place. Both referred to a "Flying Wedge" formation for the lead bikes and diagramed it for me on the TRACs accident investigation software. I have attached the diagram they did. Unfortunately, one, who was my original training officer and close friend who I had interviewed for this, was murdered last year by his step-son. The other officer is still available for comment if anyone has a particular question regarding this. Instead of detailing my support of the USSS actions on November 22, 1963, I will instead respond to any concerns or challenges anyone has. And again, my responses may sound vague, but there are continuing security issues with present policy. Sorry, but I cannot attach this diagram for some reason. If anyone is interested in seeing it, e-mail me at polinst@mchsi.com and I will attach it to a reply. Al

Ron and All, I would like to reply to this thread in regards to dignitary protection but will need to see what I can actually say without compromising protection procedures. I believe I can give input that will put alot of this misunderstanding to rest without compromising procedures that are generically used, but will have to get a go ahead first. I will post as soon as I know what I can say. Al

Shant and Chris, I would take much what is discovered in Document release regarding manuals in Counterinsurgency, Assassination and Covert Ops with a grain of salt. Col. Prouty referred to the 1980's manual on Clandestine Operations in Central America on TMWKK and since segments have been posted by Vernon and others that use terminology that is parrellel but have different meaning than the actual manual that was printed in May of '81. What they quote actually is in contrast with the same terminology of what was actually dispensed at SOA in the summer of '81. I had posted excerpts of this manual prior to Vernon's on Lancer which contradicted what Prouty referred to and what Vernon posted. Much of what is being released is simply a smokescreen as to true operational procedures. And these procedures change through time and need of operation. Al

Tim, is this what you are referring to in Tampa?

Al, Isn't that the same photo with the lines I drew in earlier today? This is the one I created, using your photo with trajectories drawn in, taken from Commerce. As I said earlier, I was just trying to advance your case, applying John Simkin's suggestion that the trajectories be shown on an overhead. Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim, Yes, that is the same photo and your trajectories are correct. I simply placed a black box in for shot origin on the trajectories. I appreciate what you and John are doing to make a better visual presentation for this thread. Al

Hi Al, The overhead photo I posted was an extension of John Simkin's suggestion in this seminar that perhaps that view would be helpful, with the trajectories that you posted into a photo also in this seminar incorporated into the overhead. That is what I did with your photo, which doesn't show the source convergence of the two trajectories you've drawn. Before I actually incorporated your lines into the overhead, it appeared to me that these lines converge fairly closely to the street level, which is why I said: "Reversing these trajectories back to the shooter source, they describe a spot east of the bannister and much lower down toward street level." Once I incorporated those trajectories, creating as much benefit of the doubt for the likelihood that a shooter would be somewhere near the parking lot/treeline, the lines still didn't quite make it to the very top, at the fence, but do appear to converge higher in the overhead than it appeared in your photo, where the source/convergence location was not in the frame, thereby requiring the extending of your lines in the overhead view. I undertook this exercise upon John's suggestion that an overhead view of the trajectories might be helpful. If you see the photos of the South Knoll I took last week, posted earlier in this seminar, perhaps one of those would be helpful for circling the precise spot you consider to have been optimal for the source of the two trajectories you show in your earlier photo. Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim, My photos originating form the actual location of shot origin did not turn out for some reason. I utilized a photo I took from over Commerce and utilized the lines of trajectory to show the angles of trajectory from the South. Hope the attached photo helps. Al

RJ: I have said many times we were standing on the south knoll near the sidewalk in line with the light poles next to the forked tree across from the 'kill zone' (south) That is approximately150 feet (east) of the south edge of the tripple underpass. I have never said " we were near the south end of the underpass", when the shoots were fired..". Also I never said "...I heard a shot from the north knoll...". I have always said, I felt, a shot came from the left of our position. That would make the shooter at the south end of the underpass, around the northwest corner of the parking lot or on the railroad tracks. Why is it so important to clutter what I have said. I think you should re read what I have certified. And to your statement; "....a simple call to the Secret Service...". is a little simplification of speculation on your part. Either you are not versed in the real facts that lead up to that day are there is another reason for what you are indicating. " You do not recall seeing anyone there...". But you have just indicated to me that you were looking in the wrong place.., again indicating that we Sergio and I were not on the south knoll at all, thus implying I am not telling the truth of that day. Thats fine. But RJ get your facts straight as to what I have said before you try to establish you beliefs as facts. If you are going to call me and imply then lets level the playing field and stick with the statements I have made and not drift into speculations based on wrong interpretations. "There is more to my story than meets the eye". Yes there is. That is why I am documenting and attempting to set the record straight when people say I said something I did not. To me it seems some want to lead me off into never never land, instead letting me document and say what I have to say about that day and let it stand on its own merits. I am beginning to suspect there is malice in this rather than simple misunderstandings. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tosh, I don't see this as Richard being difficult or trying to disrupt what you are providing. I do see it as many having difficulty in seeing the motivation to send in a team to disrupt the assassination attempt, instead of getting JFK out of harms way. I have not always agreed with Richard, but have never disrespected his motives for his stances or challenges. If I am reading your situation correctly at the time of the incident, you had little knowlege at the time for what you were walking into or the reasons for sending your team, beyond your objective. Now that is a shocker, huh! Keep the field ops blind and ask them to do their job without proper briefing. Another consistency throughout the years! Richard states "...a simple call to the Secret Service...". That would have likely prevented the assassination, but that also would add another link to the pattern that was already developing from Chicago on the 2nd and Miami on the 18th. Both the previous left a patsy to take the fall and some undesirables who knew the plan and all could start to link back to persons and operational bodies within the government. The problem at the time was nobody likely knew where it would lead back to. By notifying the SS of this third attempt for Nov '63, the SS would obviously start seeing a pattern and call these consistencies out for further formal investigation and that could be embarrassing to say the least to the intelligence community and the DOD. By Dallas, the DOD would obviously see this pattern and would want to stop the 22nd plan and then investigate it themselves to see who in their midst was a part of it. I am sure they would much rather look into their own closets in the DOD and DIA then have the justice department do it and blow the breakdown wide open. I am sure you have a much better grip on these issues now than in '63 and maybe would not want to comment. Maybe I am way off. Or maybe I am not. I understand if you would not want to comment either way. Al

Al You are right about the CIA. Sometimes I forget what I too have seen and been a part of. (well not really forget--want to forget-) I guess I should have been a little clearer and said I hope with the current changes it will become a better agency. However, I really doubt that because in order for it to really change for the better it would have to be totallity disband and started all over again. Thanks for the reality check. My point; within all law enforcement good people are trying to do a good job for their community and their country. The CIA has become a political arm of specialized politics and still wallows in their hidden sins. Thanks again <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tosh, I hope others understand that I do not expect the CIA to be made up of Choir Boy mentality. This is not reasonable for them to do their jobs. The politics dirty their name unjustly in many cases, as in their one time support of Bin Laden in Afghanistan in order to repel the Soviets. It was the politicians who later dropped the ball and failed to give aid to this poverty ridden nation that turned the likes of Bin Laden against us. And this is only one example. Where I see their ability to change, is their habit of supporting rogue operations from left field that places their operatives who do the dirty work, in no win situations and for the wrong reasons to begin with. I am sure you know what I am referring to. Maybe if the agents themselves were forced to get physically dirty and see things first hand, they would be more selective in choosing these type of operations. Pipe Dream, huh! Al

OK, I stand corrected. My question was, is this point, however you define it, behind the banister where it slants. But you have answered this with your statement that there is now a gate blocking the way to the slant in the banister. Was there any reason evident why this area has been blocked with a gate? Not being there to see it myself, only two reasons come to mind: to keep people from going into the parking lot, or to keep researchers like you from checking out a shooter position. The second would be a most telling reason. Al will have to address this. I have a paper copy of one of his Lancer posts, which I can't find by searching at Lancer. In my paper copy (of a post entitled "RE: 312-317 headshot sequence," dated 1/29/04): " . . . to explain my position for the shot origin coming from the south end atop the triple underpass where the railing banks away from parallel, is to consider the following: 1 - This is the first available position from the left front where the shooter is hidden from the others atop the underpass. 2 - This allows for the great elevation over the support rod over the front seat of the limo. 3 - It is the best tracking angle for the limos movement once it hits Elm. 4 - It does not allow for obstruction of Jackie. 5 - It explains the shallow wound trajectory of the resulting skull flap and aligns the occipital parietal blowout in the right rear." I don't understand that at all. Al will have to address it. Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ron, Thank you for posting my previous post on Lancer. That is exactly what I am referring to. I believe this position also fits Tosh's view of where the shot originated from also. I am not locked into the South End atop the underpass, as a shot origin from the adjacent parking area also would achieve this shot angle and create the skull wound that was described by Parkland Medical Staff and what we see in Zapruder and others. Sherry's research into this supports this angle for shot origin and she accepts a range from center atop the underpass over Main to the central south reaches of the lot. The archives on Lancer are not up to find this diagram of hers and I cannot find her diagram that she sent me as part of her powerpoint presentation that I assisted her with. I will contact her in order to obtain it. The overhead photo that Tim posted is the shot angle that I referred to and I don't understand where he is getting the low trajectory angle from a photograph of this nature. Maybe he can shed some light on this. The reason I often refer to the south end atop the overpass is that it gives it the best pan angle on the limo as it proceeded down Elm with the greatest elevation over the limo's obstructions. In order to get a better pan angle, the shooter would have had to expose themselves to Foster and others atop the underpass over Elm. When I went to the plaza in 2001, I noted the ideal location here and had my wife and daughter take up a position where Foster and others were over Elm and they could not see me. Al

David, First of all, let me repeat what I stated to you in Dallas in 11/01, that it was an honor to present with you at the Lancer Conference and I again thank Professor Fetzer for giving me the opportunity to do so and be on that panel. As I stated then, your bone density study is still one of the if not the greatest medical breakthrough in this case to date. I was not able to attend the Wecht Conference last year, but caught a portion of your presentation on the latest History Channel Special and I applaud you for how you represented the research community. I do have some concerns in regards to the mercury filled bullet however. I would prefer to discuss this with you in private e-mail first so that there is no chance of misunderstanding. Please e-mail me at polinst@mchsi.com or al.carrier@waterloo-ia.org when you have time so that we can discuss this before it is posted. Thanks, Al

John, First of all, I want to applaud you for your post here on calling Vernon on his threats of civil litigation. He spouts lawsuits like an ambulance chaser. Pamela, I took offense to your statement "I'm really glad for honest law enforcement and it is a rare and beautiful thing." What are you, Harwood's sister? Maybe you need to get off the islands a little more and experience reality. Please provide facts of law enforcement corruption that shows honesty in law enforcement is a rare. Otherwise, you owe about 180,00 brave persons an apology. You support a low life goon like Files and then call the majority of law enforcement corrupt? When was the last time you risked your life for a wage that could barely support a family, in order to protect individuals you never met before? Tosh, I will have to take your word on it that the CIA has changed a great deal and their are honorable people there. I can only relate to a darker history where they utilized operators for their objectives and only the latter got dirty and bloody. And when they were called on the carpet, they professed their ignorance and deniability and left everyone else to suffer. That is those who lived through it. Okay, I am bitter. What would you expect? Al

Unfortunately, the South Knoll view that was described by Tosh is blocked by an overgrown tree. Here are photos I took last week of the South Knoll trajectory: Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim, Here is one I took in 2001. Al

Yes, the plan required the TSBD shooter to wait in order to have triangulation of gunfire. I imagine a lone nutter would say that Oswald waited because taking an easy frontal shot on Houston would lessen his chance of making a getaway. The source of the shot would be more obvious, and the Secret Service was directly facing the building. Here is J. Edgar Hoover's lying explanation to the Warren Commission: "Now, some people have raised the question: Why didn't he shoot the President as the car came toward the storehouse where he was working? The reason for that is, I think, the fact there were some trees between his window on the sixth floor and the cars as they turned and went through the park. So he waited until the car got out from under the trees, and the limbs, and then he had a perfectly clear view of the occupants of the car, and I think he took aim, either on the President or Connally, and I personally believe it was the President in view of the twisted mentality the man had." Hoover was a fine one to talk about twisted mentality. Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> John, I agree with Ron and the late Harold Weisberg. There is no other explanation for it. Ron referred to a LNer stance that has also been taken by some CPers, that by firing at the President on Houston would have gave away the TSBD Shooter's position. While it is true that the Agents in the motorcade were facing the Depository at the time the limo was travelling down Houston, the reverberration amongst the three buildings at the intersection of Elm and Houston would have created greater confusion than shots being fired as the Limo proceeded down Elm. Due to the sixty foot elevation of the sixth floor and the elevation angle to target on Houston, the shooter could have sat back inside the window and engaged the target without windshield obstruction. Even if the Agents and LE were looking at the TSBD, the shooter could have fired without detection, other than a possible muzzle flash, that would not have stood out with the witnesses outside in the sunlight as they were. I am always happy to see a quote from Harold Weisberg. I always admired him for his work and sacrifices and was fortunate enough to converse with him while he was still with us. I received a letter from him a year and a half before he died and will always keep it preserved as a reminder to the sacrifices that have been made in this research field. Al

I have been seriously researching the JFK Assassination for some fourteen years. What I bring into it is a background in weaponry, ballistics, crime scene investigative techniques and an understanding for sniper deployment and procedures. I have never accepted the official version of a lone sniper achieving the feat from a location 60’ above in the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Then add to this official account, the capabilities of the weapon and shooter that was accepted by the Warren Commission and later the HSCA, it was ridiculous. Wound ballistics became an immediate issue when I began researching the Kennedy assassination in order to determine a shot origin. While there is overwhelming evidence in my opinion of a shooter on the north knoll at the time of the assassination, I had issues with this angle of trajectory creating the head wound suffered by President Kennedy. The discovery of Badgeman by Jack White and Gary Mack in the Mooreman Photograph, witnesses who reported hearing shot(s) on the north knoll, Gordon Arnold’s reporting of a shooter there, as well as other sightings of shooters and smoke from that origin, leaves no doubt in my mind that shot(s) were fired from this location. That does not necessarily mean that the head wound was inflicted by this shot origin and in my opinion from my background in weaponry and wound ballistics, I believe that it was not. There are issues to consider when determining a point of entrance. The greater fracturing of the skull will occur forward of the point of impact as the energy from the penetrating projectile will radiate forward along the trajectory path of the initial penetration point. As seen in the Zapruder film and after the lightening of the top of the head autopsy photos, a large defect was also found high on the head, right of midline and a flap of scalp and partial skull bone was attached to the flap. This is created when the penetration trajectory is shallow below the skull, creating the energy dispersion to push out against the fractured bone. By noting where the skull fracture and flap begins, it is logical that the point of entry is close to that location. By following the trajectory back to the massive wound in the right portion of the occipital parietal, which was clearly seen at Parkland Hospital by medical personnel, it shows a true line of trajectory and shot origin. The challenge to this line of trajectory in support of shot origin of the north knoll comes from many researchers and is supported by forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht. Dr. Wecht believes that a shot fired from the north knoll, striking the right temporal/parietal region of the president’s skull would DEFLECT and turn outward (left), maintaining a wound cavity to the right portion of the skull. The problem with this is that penetration from a rifle caliber projectile that is traveling in excess of 1800fps and most likely above 2400fps, would not deviate outward, but actually slightly inward through skull penetration. The ratio of diameter v. length of the projectile penetrating through a multi-layed resistant surface, such as skull plating, would actually create a rollover effect through surface penetration. This would cause the projectile to turn slightly inward instead of deflecting upon penetration. This has been proven in wound ballistic testing through the work of Dr. Martin Fackler over the past twenty years and accepted by the NIJ in studies of wound ballistics in order to determine effectiveness in ballistic resistant materials in ballistic vests. The problem this shot trajectory creates is that it shows a shot origin that is in conflict with the witnesses who made a determination on shot origin by what they heard. This shot trajectory would place a shot origin in the region of the south end of the overpass over some sixty feet to the south knoll parking lot. No witnesses reported hearing a shot from this location, other than one who has came forward as being part of an abort team. This witness I will address later. With 200 plus witnesses in DP at the time of the assassination and none focusing on shots from this location, most researchers write off the likelihood of a south plaza shooter. They also have concerns with this exposed location. This can easily be explained by a common practice by military sniper teams in both urban and rural environments. Often, the most ideal location for shot origin, especially on a moving target, is a location that exposes the shooter the greatest. Making the shot is only half the objective, the other is escaping either undetected or without being molested. The military found a practice to overcome this obstacle and it has been termed “Canyon Shoot”. This practice utilizes multiple snipers from locations suited to draw attention to those origins where they cannot be accessed, or by allowing the terrain to confuse the shot origin to the enemy present. The term “Canyon Shoot” was unofficially adopted when Sgt. Alvin York utilized various shot origins and the echo effects of the terrain to fool the enemy into believing they were surrounded, when in fact it was only he who was shooting. In the case of Dealey Plaza, a shooter firing from the Texas School Book Depository would initially fire and the other shooters in the plaza would cue off the Depository shooter by startle reaction and fire a round immediately on top of the shot fired by the Depository shooter. Witnesses would detect the first sound and roughly identify a shot origin and this would cover the fire of the others shooters, deeper in the plaza. The echo effect of the Plaza would also aid in making the witnesses believe that it was shot reverberation that they were hearing deeper in the plaza. With another shooter firing from the North Knoll, this would direct witnesses along Elm and at the intersection of Elm and Houston to focus their attention on the area between the Depository and the Knoll. By utilizing startle reaction to cue simultaneous fire from three locations, three shots could easily sound like one. The closest known witnesses to the South End Overpass/South Knoll position were James Tague who was positioned on Commerce under the overpass, two Dallas Police Officers and nine railroad employees atop the underpass over Elm, and Tosh Plumlee and an associate who were on the bank of the South Knoll. Tague did not hear a shot originate from overhead or to his left and rear, but his perception could easily have been hampered by the extreme echo effects of all shots reverberating under the underpass. The persons atop the underpass did not detect the shot fired to their left, but their attention was on the approaching motorcade and their attention was drawn to the shots fired from the north knoll, which was in the direct of the approaching motorcade and of nearly equal distance in comparison to the south origin. Plumlee and his associate, who he has reported as being sent to Dallas as part of an assassinations abort team, clearly heard a shot fired from behind them, that would put it in line with the shot origin I have been describing. Plumlee was also ex-military and was their to stop an assassination attempt, so he would be prepared for the sounds he was about to hear. He apparently also recognized the ideal location of the south knoll region as that is where he chose to station himself. The most recent challenge to the South End of the Overpass/South Knoll shot origin comes from Sixth Floor Museum Curator Gary Mack. Mack has come forward with new reporter Bob Jett, who has claimed to have been in the South Knoll Parking Lot eating his lunch at the time of the assassination. Jett has stated that he saw no assassin and heard no shots fired from that origin. Jett was working at the time of the assassination. My question as to his credibility and presence is why did he not immediately report on air, witnessing the assassination? Why was he not called upon by the Warren Commission to testify as to what he saw and did not see? The Warren Commission directed questions at most witnesses as to whether they heard or saw anything suspicious in this region. Wouldn’t Jett have been the nail in the coffin they needed to disprove a shooter there? Another established researcher who supports my belief of shot origin from the south end of overpass/south knoll region, is nationally recognized Bloodstain Pattern Analysis Expert and Instructor, Sherry Gutierrez. Sherry has presented at JFK Lancer November in Dallas Seminars in 2001 and 2003. In 2003, she partly focused on this shot origin. She has also produced threads on the Lancer Forum regarding this. Beyond the headshot wound issue, I have also aligned this shot origin with the neck wound and have established it by showing Elm at a higher elevation at this point and how the shot would have to penetrate the windshield through its trajectory. This also explains the compromised velocity that would result in a shallower wound path. I have been challenged on this through photos including Altgens 6 and 7 and have provided arguments on both. Because this is already a rather complex subject, I will not go into detail on the throat wound. Al Carrier

Wim, A photograph of a sabot collared bullet can be found in Bob Groden's "TKOAP". I will attempt to attach the photo here but no promises I can accomplish this. I believe this casing was found under a rooftop compressor atop the DCRB. The purpose of a sabot is to allow the firing of a smaller diameter bullet from a larger bore rifle with a larger and more powerfully charged casing. In the case of a 30-06 casing firing a 6.5mm Carcano bullet, you will increase the standard velocity of the 6.5mm Carcano from 2000fps to above 2600fps, which is the average velocity of the 30-06. While this would increase the impact of the bullet much greater, you would compromise accuracy for several reasons; lack of stability as the bullet would not spiral properly down the barrel as it does not meet the barrel twist properly, because of the lack of stability and true trajectory from the barrel, and due to the fact that this bullet is not designed to carry this much velocity. If one was firing a level shot at a range within fifty yards, the bullet would likely strike somewhere on the target, but to fire from this range and elevation, it is highly doubtful it would come close to the limo. Al