Al Carrier

Lattimer used a hollowed skull to show the rear entry and it showed cranial damage across to the right side of the skull, into the frontal. The WC test shots which I will try to attach utilized a filled skull and it was even worse as it took off the entire right side of the skull into the frontal and orbital. Al

Dr. Lattimer's skull test was his proof of a shot from the rear and it only proved that it could not occur. I will attempt to post it only to show this. Let's keep in mind that all the damage was to the right side of the head. Impact and exit restricted to that region with the angle his head was facing shows only a flight path from left to right which would place the shot origin on the south end of the overpass/south knoll, as Sherry, myself and others have been showing. The debris field within the skull cavity was minute in nature and was consistent with extrusions of lead out of the base of a FMJ bullet. An open based FMJ bullet will be squeezed upon impact such as this and the energy would compress the projectile and force the softer lead core out the base, leaving a trail of particles. Al

The off-set scope would not cause impact to the shooter. The long bolt of the Carcano in conjunction with the short stock would force the shooter to pull off the cheek weld to the stock in order to cycle the weapon and then come back on and find the target again in the scope, or the iron sight allignment. Ryan is correct that and we have discussed this numerous times both here and on Lancer, that the fact that the other 16 rounds from the twenty pack were not discovered and there was no discovery of cleaning equipment, solvents or oil, is overwhelming proof that Oswald was not the one firing the Carcano. If I remember correctly, Kleins and Seaport were both under investigation at the time by the ATF for mail order weapon violations. With Oswald's double duties in N.O. shortly beofre the assassination, isn't it likely he would have been doing meanialy duties as an informant for the feds, both FBI and ATF? It is the only thing that makes sense here. Slightly OT but I think relevant, I don't believe the planners were trying to deceive that more than one shooter was firing in DP, only deceiving at the time to allow the other two to escape undetected. The feds were ready to cover this up after the two earlier planned attempts in Chicago and Miami tipped them. Al

Lee, I have posted on here and Lancer several times refuting a rear entry and explaining my stance on a frontal impact. I use the test skulls from Dr. Lattimer and the WC test skulls as proof against them on rear impact. I also use a ballistic geletin block to show sustained velocity within the cavity from a FMJ bullet which is the only realistic approach, IMHO of how the headwound occurred. I have tried to attach them here in response to your post but it will not allow them. If you would like to see the photos and discuss this further, please e-mail me at: polinst@mchsi.com Al

Tim, I beleive the rifle was fired, but not as a primary weapon. It was fired to draw attention to the snipers nest and away from the other shot origins, and to connect Oswald to the shooting. If the Carcano initiated each volley, the other shooters would key off of these shots to fire their own in the volley which is very quickly followed as a startle reaction. This is called a "Canyon Shoot" which has been taught by the military for over sixty years. It draws attention to a less than ideal origin that would allow the shooter to flee and hides the higher percentage shot origins that are at greater risk of being engaged. The shot impact into the windshield frame and the curb strike that wounded Tague is consistent with this shot origin where the gravitation pull factor would not have been realized. The shots would have went high as the gravity does not pull them downward. If the scope is aligned on a level plain and gravity is a subconscious factor when sighting the scope in. The snipers nest IMHO was not utilized to succeed in assassinating JFK, only to allow the other shooters an oportunity to go undetected, and to give evidence as Oswald as one of the shooters. Al

While I'm not a shooter Ron I believe you're absolutely right that the scope would be in the way if one were to try and use the iron sights on a rifle equipped with a scope. The reason their theory doesn't make sense is because they are WRONG, While the CT's take to it because it trashes the WC, the HSCA report is much sloppier and makes even less sense. WC + HSCA = American nightmare. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ron and Pat, While most scope mountings are atop the upper receiver, the scope mounting on the MC found in the TSBD was an offset mounting. It was mounted alongside the upper receiver and allowed for the iron sights to be aligned. The HSCA had to make a possible scenario for Oswald to have gotten off the shots in the allotted time. They did that by saying he used the iron sights, which would have allowed for quicker target acquisition than trying to find it in the scope. What they fail to get into is the issue of accuracy. Scope alignments can be preset to allow for a gravitational pull factor for shooting from an elevation such as the sixty foot height of the sniper's nest, but the iron sights on the Carcano (which I own) has a five preset range settings for the rear sight, and does not allow this luxury that the scope's azmuth and elevation settings would allow. For anyone who is a shooter, they would laugh at the idea at a headshot expectancy on a moving target from this varying range and elevation on this varying moving target. What it comes down to is that Oswald either used the scope for greater accuracy or the iron sights to get the shots off within the time constraints. Either way it does not work. Additionally, Oswald has no background with scoped rifle precision shooting and would not even be aware of elevation shooting and presets for the scope to accommodate this. Al

Great to see you back with us John and hope all is well with you. You have been in my family's prayers. Have you noted that CE399 is consistent with the twisting found in an elongated rifled bullet such as the 6.5mm MC fired into a short ballistic tank (water and gauze filled)? The minimal extrusion out the base is also consistent with minimal resistance found within such a tank as opposed to striking a resistant object through penetration. Al

Mr. Gratz, The key here is that the first two plots were taken seriously enough to alter the presidential visit and security due to the unfolding of intelligence information. I have been part of numerous security details of Presidents, VPs and candidates and all have produced large intelligence data on possible threats. These threats were dealt with in a practical manner of isolation and alert. I have never doubted that the intel in Dallas did not provide certain concerns for the region that were not disclosed and did not have a bearing on the assassination. It was a failure to see the pattern through intel development that is the question here. The Kennedy protection device was one of both protection and political gain that allowed the plot to succeed. It was the failure of the intelligence community, whether FBI, CIA, NSA or combination of that needs to be studied. This was an obvious high level plot that was overriden because of a breakdown within. To believe less is only shortselling the level of the operation of this assassination. The immediacy of the cover-up IMHO shows that there was an alert on and that they failed to detect in time but saw the ramifications of their failure and covered it up in a timely manner. Al

John, Thank for an insightful post that is far from the political spectrum! You have stated much here and without political obligation, which makes the likes of British researchers so valuable! I have closely looked at the research of yours and that of your fellow countrymen such as Ian Griggs in a different light of those who have political motivation. Mr. Gratz, do you really believe what you are saying here? A year and no proof of weapons of mass destruction with intel that brought us into it that could not produce it? And you suggest that if it was a CIA plot to bring us into it they would have produced it without the control of the country that we now posses with military rule? Are you willing to admit a false motivation to intervene in Iraq that is being proven daily? I am not saying the regime was not dictoriate or even ruthless, but what gives us the right to invade there when they do not posess the power or threat to harm us more than let's say North Korea who have admitted to holding nuclear capabilities? W is nothing more than a dictactor of the world than GHWB was in the Contra program. He had no right invading and became more of a terrorist than what he was trying to overthrow. If you want proof, look at what Nicaragua has become since then! Look at what we are dealing with in Iraq now! Isn't it time we realize that we cannot Americanize and police the world? Al

Nancy, I guess I have looked at the timeline issues for motivation in different perspective. I saw the initial revealed plot in Chicago on November 1, 1963 that caused JFK to cancel his trip as strike one and one that would lead the investigators of conspiracy to believe it was connected to Lou Conein's aid in eliminating Diem as a South Vietnamese Plot in order to get us deeper into SE Asia. When that didn't work, they guided it toward Castro in the Miami plot that was foiled with Somerset's recording of Milteer. The intelligence then broke down and it went down in Dallas. The end result was a cover-up to guide away from a conspiracy that may link Castro when all along the end result came. Johnson out of fear dove into SE Asia. The Castro plots ceased. In a murder investigation, one does not need to show motive, but it helps to convince the jury. Motive is generally produced by showing end result of what was accomplished by the act. 65,000 names scream out from the battlefields of SE Asia that JFK would have avoided by the initial draft of his last NSAM. Al

Mr. Gratz, No Name Key was also utilized in the early eighties for black ops training in the field of Counterinsurgency and Scout Sniper final testing (part of The School of Americas field training and testing). For those interested in tracking military operatives of this period for Central and South America, key in on personnel training courses or assignments to Marathon Station, for short term assignment. This was how it was coded. Also look for parrallel date ranges for any operations that begin with FRAN or FRANg which is a alpha coding for small force operations in the field of counterinsurgency and assassination to disrupt the flow of operations in third world nations. The early history of such ops began in Vietnam as part of Phoenix with FRAN13. I am sure Mr. Hemming should be able to add insight to this? Al

Sorry Mr. Hemming, I have never been tutored by wanna-be's, so I would pass if you were offering. You don't know jack about me and other than to look at my bio, a newspaper archive perhaps and my department's website. There are a couple of people in the research community who knew me or of me in the military. If you can't find out, than you are not worthy of knowing what I did. We are different. You shoot off your mouth and brag about things that you wanted to be. I keep my mouth shut and live with what I have been and try to make amends with what I now do. Your Miami airport SCENARIO is almost as rediculous as your DP SCENARIO. But that is to be expected. This is why I lost my CONGENIALITY stutus with you. End of conversation!!! Al

I see your on Gerry, How about a hint to discredit this. Two positions for shot origin disruption on the ground that would serve to view high elevation viewpoints to alert of shooter origins in positions on buildings on Houston and Elm. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to disrupt an ambush in the confines as small as DP. What went wrong? Al

What happened to Gerry. I asked him to provide a simple background and answer and now he has lost his tongue? If he does not want to get into this on the forum, he can feel free to e-mail me privately with his response at either: polinst@mchsi.com or al.carrier@waterloo-ia.org If you have the connections Gerry, you may want to look into this a little closer before committing. Al

PAT ASKED Please explain false flag recruitment and how it applies to RFK meeting Oswald. I'm a little dense. I'd really like to know how someone PROTECTS someone by acting as a spotter at his assassination. I don't mean to insult your intelligence Gerry, I'm just trying to understand. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Apparently I am a little dense here also. I waited anxiously for Gerry's response on this. Can't wait to hear how this all came down in DP with a spotter protecting the president and failing so miserably. Teach us Gerry! Please focus on the subject and not the SOF ramblings that have been present in your other postings. Al

Ron and all, In the attached overhead view of DP, you will note how Elm immediately begins curving back inward from Houston. Since both Houston and Elm were 3 plus lane streets, the limo would be required to stay centrally located within the lanes, thus keeping the crowds back and reaction time increased from immediacy of threat. This is what makes it a tricky turn. The limo must go out beyond the normal pivoy point and then cut sharply in to maintain a central path. Considering the length of the limo, the speed would be reduced considerably for the manuever and to accomodate turining into a blind roadway due to the obstruction of view from the crowds along the edge of the street at the pronounced corner. Many still fail to understand that it is impossible for any route to not slow the limo for turns. Generally when this is done, the crowds are held back some twenty to forty feet and the corners of the intersections are cleared. It is the immediacy of the near threat that is the concern for the slow manuever and the restrictions that would be placed on immediate pullout when into a turn. Greer would have seen the portion of the top of the underpass over Elm before that portion over Main or Commerce, due to the angle of approach and the crowds alongside on the left, which would have obstructed his vision. Also keep in mind that Greer had been driving a considerable stretch on Main where the crowds were heavy and he had to drive to the left side of the roadway to distance the president from the crowds on the right. Often times the wedge formation motorcycle on his side would be forced out and he would have to drive with his door open to create his own wedge for space and to keep the crowds back from Jackie. That is also why Hill was on the limo so often on Main. It is understandable that Greer would subconsciously note the presence of LE on the overpass and then focus his attention to the left front on the subjects standing along Elm. Al

John, Very sorry to hear about this. Seems to be happening alot again lately. God's speed on your recovery. Takes more than a dark jeep to knock off a combat proven jar head. My prayers and thoughts are with you my friend. Al

Just after President Kennedy's limousine passed the front steps of the TSBD, five witnesses saw a bullet strike the pavement on Elm Street near the right rear of the limousine. Witnesses saw this bullet kick up concrete toward the car...Thats just not a miss, that is FUBAR No its not the norm for military snipers shooting at moving targets I agree, yet they do it everday in Iraq. Yes varying speeds and angles, but they were not drastic moves and angles, Did the limo slam on its breaks as a shot was fired? Then I could understand missing the limo all together, or did the ss agent put the peddle to the floor? When I think of shooting and skill from a elevated position by a sniper, I think of SGT. Hancock who has the longest confirm kill's in Iraq, 1050 yards from a elevated position/building.... These are just my opinions, I state nothing on fact, And nobody else can when it comes to how the shots were fired. All anyone can do is give a opinion. IMHO These were decent shooters firing at the president, IMHO Cuban exiles/ and there trainers, I have seen more evidence leading to these people being the feet on the ground then anyone else. This is something that Al and I will have to agree to disagree. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ryan, With all due respect and you know I respect your opinions and abilities a great deal, IMHO you are generalizing here and not addressing what I am getting at. I have recently received a detailed report from the American Association of Snipers which deals with the study and compulation of statistics of 20 years of Law Enforcement Sniper engagements. The findings are consistent with what I have been basing my opinions on as to quality snipers engaging under less than ideal conditions both physically and mentally. I would be glad to scan off stats from the report to you. I have recently had a problem with my system and lost several e-mail addresses. If you would e-mail me, I will reply with the stats for your review. Al

MY LAST POSTING ON AN ASSASSINATION FORUM: Reality is rather simplistic if one follows history. Where we get confused is when we try to make links to what is being provided and when these links to failed operations of lower levels are made comparable to successful operations of higher magnitude. The Cuban Operation is no more comparable to the Kennedy Assassination than the mafia connection is. Neither is comparable in profile as the Cuban Operation dealt with rediculous plans involving derelict operatives (Cuban Exiles/SOF such as GPH) and mafia connections (Files, Mob Bosses such as MoMo, Santo, and the popular New Orleans Connection, where none have ever been showed to involve scoped rifle triangulations of fire for assassination), to show how rediculous these leads have become and taken up so much of active forum of research. I have recently been taken back to over two decades of covert operational procedures that only further convinces me of what went down and who was operation in the elimination of our president. I have posted time and again on what the motive was and how it far supercedes what is overwhelming the forums on motive, and how such an operation is realistically pulled off. I am met with radical claims from those who not only do not understand this, but are already locked into their preconceived notions that they refuse to absorb it. I originally remained silent for ten years of research and then went public through Prof. Fetzer when I found a common ground in research. I was sponsored by Fetzer to appear at Lancer NID 2001 and then later realized how Fetzer was promoting conspiracy through film alteration along with every other rediculous angle. I was an active member of Lancer until I saw how it allowed and supported rediculous research angles. I then became an active member of John Simkins Education Forum and was content that it allowed realistic research and monitored and removed offensive and radical threads and postings. In the past few months, even this forum has gotten so rediculous that it is no longer realistic in further research. As a 22 year veteran of LE, I no longer see where this forum is providing realistic issues that will further research and investigation into the cause and effect of the assassination of a great man as John Kennedy. I see moronic issues and connections being brought up that feeds on only deviating farther from the truth and corrupting what the relevance and respect that anyone who challenges the official findings holds. Are we advancing some forty-plus years later? Review what is being posted and it is comparable to UFO sightings and Big Foot research in a court proceeding relation and see why the GP call us Conspiracy THEORISTS!!! Sorry if I offend anyone. But it needs to be said! Adios!!! Al

So here we are talking about a sixty foot width from the east to west window at a mark some 240 feet away into soft turf to direct the shot origin to? What are the positives v. the negatives to the a second sixth floor shooter? What was the expectations of utilizing this over the risks of adding another team to be discovered? What was to be gained in other words? Al

Very interesting thread, but one that has in common with the majority of the investigative threads that are being posted IMO. Too many are being influenced by what has been released to the researchers as playings in this operation. If one believes that, then they follow the same line in finding the motivation. This is where one needs to look closely and see that the motivation in the case of the overthrow of Castro was never carried out, or even continued in what was being laid out. What we must realize is that intelligence/military covert operations utilizes a smokescreen both within and outside the element to hide what the true objective is, thus hiding the planners and players. A classic example is Iran/Contra for those who have followed my posts both here and on Lancer. Johnson was running scared after the assassination and his primary concern was saving his own life in the days, weeks, months and years that followed. What did Johnson change after JFK's death? It certainly wasn't the Castro Operation as JFK was working on a detent' with Cuba and Johnson left Cuba alone. How about SE Asia? JFK was in the process of pulling out and two days after the assassination, Johnson signed an NSAM that was revised to mean the opposite of what JFK attended to sign in order to escalate the US involvement in SE Asia. Are we talking evidence of motive here? This week I met with a contact in North Carolina who I was prepared to have the upper hand on in digging into a person whom I seriously to believe to be a hands-on conspirator in the assassination. To my surprise, this individual knew more about me than anyone I have come across and shut me down cold. It only further supports my belief that the assassination was carried out by military personnel in SE Asia. If you want to look for a link from the military to the intel community, look no farther than Lucien Conein. To keep digging into the anti-Castro Cuban militants and soldiers of fortune like Hemming, is simply playing into the hands of what the smokescreen originally set out to hide. Hemming is simply making a name for himself in his dribble. If he knows so much, why is he saying so little? Al

Tim, Hemmings knowlege of of the anti-Castro activities of the early sixties is not something to qualify him. Consider the derelicts that were involved in rediculous government sponsored operations that never even came close to succeeding and also the realism of how one like Hemming could get within the community of such derelicts who were desperate to latch onto anyone who they believed to be associated to the government to further their cause, then we can see how he would be aware of these rediculous operations. Leads have to be realistic to follow them. Hemming is not credible either then or now. He is a radical SOF at best and would not be trusted. I will later comment on West End TSBD trajectories as it is not something new and something I have checked out. In the meantime, ask Hemming the need for the silencer (in actuality, supressor) for such a shot origin when it would be a positive step to draw attention to the TSBD higher elevation. It simply contradicts what would have been useful and twofold. From the street, one could not differentiate the two origins of the east and west high elevation windows. Al

All, Hemming is the classic example of why assassination research continues to veer off into the unknowns and wastes time and energy, as well as making this research look like spook chasers instead of true investigative work. He was a wanna-a-be hanger-oner then and he has simply made himself more important as time has passed since then. His associations mirror who he was and this forum as so many other venures of assassination research look into connections in this arena as being realistic participants in the assassination. Hemming was simply convenient for cover projects as he and his derelict associates presented themselves and spun their wheels. Now some forty plus years later, he is presenting himself and being accepted by in large by the research community as someone who would have a clue about such an operation. I personnally put Hemming at roughly the level of Files, with the exception that Hemming did exist in this arena (although on the outside) when Files was nothng more than a gopher and bagman for the mob. Both however are as reliable when it comes to the truth. My question to all is this; If you were to plan an assassination of the president within the government, would you utilize radicals and persons of lower mantality outside of the realm of what was available to you, or would you utilize military personnel who you could bring in and out and eliminate and provide a cover for their demise? It is actually as simple as that and that is why we are all still here discussing this injustice. I am off to North Carolina for five or six days and will check in periodically. Al

Thanks John! Very interesting. Thanks. I'll tell you it troubles me as to the reason why Emmett Hudson would have remained seated for so long following the shots. Shock of course could be a factor. Speculative question: Aside from the proofs that indeed a shot can be taken through a windshield, was this a typical procedure in your opinion, in 1963? Would a professional sniper have risked this type of shot back then? Just another thought - if there was a shot from the South Knoll to the windshield, which I still strongly doubt personally, wouldn't there have been some concussion or shock wave experienced by Greer, or by Connally? - lee <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Lee, If I may jump in here. Something to consider is that the target is moving and being panned. It is possible that the shooter was not even aware of the windshield as his focus was on the unobstructed target and a likely shot sequence that he was keying off other shooters to hide his origin. As far as the occupants of the limo, with so much happening at the time, I would not want to guess what they initially perceived and didn't perceive. I have been shooting windshields for a number of years. I began this several years ago to test various calibers and compositions of bullets to see what effects the windshield had on them both through deviation of trajectory and deviation of composition. This was done for the sake of Law Enforcement as many gunfights occur in and around vehicles. Windshield glass because of the liminents and two layers that the laminent bonds together, grabs a bullet as it goes through and can strip jacketing will almost always alter trajectory. What is seen on the exterior impact side is much different than seen on the penetration side due to the compression of the glass on impact, causing this powdering ring. The greater the angle of impact, the more prominent the powdering ring around the hole on the impact side. Al