Al Carrier
-
Posts
324 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Al Carrier
-
-
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
-
Interpolated and slightly enhanced, with some color shading added.
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
-
A great post by Al! Thank you for the contribution of your expertise.
The question that baffles is: Why would anyone use this rifle in the assassination? And if it was not used, why would anyone use it in the frame? Both ideas seem nonsensical.
Anyone have any ideas about this?
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 realize that most of this business about how fast Oswald could fire all his shots is a bunch of LN nonsense, I was wondering what the HSCA was thinking when it suggested in this passage that Oswald fired his shots using the iron sights and not the scope. My question was, did this mean the scope was not on the rifle, in order for Oswald to use the iron sights? If so, Oswald would have to reattach the scope before hiding the rifle and getting down to the lunch room. I was wondering if the HSCA even thought about that problem or just expected people to swallow the idea without thinking.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0057a.htm
Ron
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.
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
-
"American Tabloid" is an interesting, well-plotted piece of fiction, but, intererstingly, it posits that there was to be an assassination in Miami to be blamed on right-wingers (Milteer would fit that category, of course) but when that did not work the plot was shifted to Dallas and the patsy was shifted to try to blame it on Castro. Ellroy apparently has little regard for JFK (in part because of the womanizing ("the importance of getting laid" as Mr. Healy put it) but in an interview he stated that RFK was the greatest crime-buster in the twentieth century.
I think Mr. Carrier's comments about two plots that failed followed by an intelligence failure that led to Dallas is interesting. Is it also possible that the Miami plot was a deliberate diversion to create a false sense of security (who would think there could be two plots within one week?) On the other hand, one would think that concerns over plots in Chicago and Miami should have heightened security, making the security failure in Dallas more difficult to understand. Certainly not deliberate security stripping, however: else why not let one of the earlier plots succeed?
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 wrote:
But there were no WMD. This was part of a CIA/MI6 disinformation campaign.
John, I am unaware of evidence that the problems were intentional rather than negligent. And even if they were intentional, certainly no evidence Bush orchestrated it. Remember the same info was given to Clinton.
And to say there were no WMD merely because none have yet been found is, I suggest, akin to arguing that there was only a lone assassin because there has not yet been clear identification of another shooter (clear enough to result in a true consensus opinion). If the conspirators in JFK could hide evidence of the real killers, plant disinformation, etc, and throw everybody off track for forty years, why could there not be hidden weapons of mass destruction still in Iraq when the search has only been ongoing for a year or so? And if the CIA was so Machiavellian to intentionally create false information about WMD in Iraq, why was it not clever enough to plant evidence thereof?
Don't assume the CIA is diabollically clever when it may just be stupid (absent evidence of intentional fabrication, etc).
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
-
Just came back from NARA and went through more papers.
What I found started me prior to 11/22/63 I had known that he was in Florida prior and many talked about the fact that there is where they first planned to kill JFK.
What was prior to even that is more of an eye raising to me. That he was on two trips close to each other one is not much of discussion or discription to where JFK was at just that he was on the Maryland and Delaware border. Nothing more of a real discription of where he was at and just before that one was Philadelphia PA.
Does anyone know more details of those two locations and or what they were about?
I do know that one of the first acts that JFK was to do was to give out a medal to Andrew Wyeth for one of the meanings of his paintings that is so up against racial feelings that the black do go through. He depicted that in one of his paintings.
Wonder if that does in fact has some bearing on why also JFK was shot?
Well if anyone knows love to hear your details of what those two meetings were about that JFK done prior to 11/22/63.
IT was eight days prior.
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
-
If anyone tried to use the "navigation bars" to look up places on the map and had difficulty, feel free to drop me a private e-mail.
Thanks!
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
-
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
--------------------------------
OK Mr. Lieutenant of the CSI Nightwatch [i have had both your home & City PD E-mail addresses for months thank you] -- You see that I "am on !!" -- as I stated, my AOL connection got dumped and I was never able to log out of this forum yesterday due to the wierd crash on my server, so, as I noticed, (tonight) I was still logged on. I detect in your numerous snide remarks the very same attitude of our famous fantasizing Kazakh Jew, AJ Weberman. What went wrong?? How the hell would I know??!! I have shot low masters at Camp Perry since 1965 [Nat'l Match F/Bedded M-14 w/ iron sights] and missed the "President's 100 Team" by one "V" -- BOO-Hoo !!
Your file shows that you, as a 42 year old "Techie" in a City P.D., are the recipient of two glorious awards from the Iowa State Police Academy: one for "Most Conscientious", and the other "Most Congenial". So where is "Miss Congeniality" when it comes to decent converstion with yours truly??!!
What SOF ramblings are you pissed most about? I have answered directly what queries were posted, and so far none of the interested parties have reacted like some wannabe "rent-a-cop". I hear that Chief Jennings [is it?] thinks highly of your talents -- have you introduced him to any of your spook mentors??
Why would Izqueirdo [and others] be receptive to being placed in a snipers post as security assist for JFK. The same reason that my team was placed in similar circumstances at MIA on Monday afternoon, 18th November 1963. And this was after FBI S/A George Davis [without his partner Paul Schrand] showed up at my riverside [Just Island] cottage on Saturday the 16th. Davis initially stated that MI & SS had firmly determined that one of the Cubans that we had extracted via the USS Oxford [AGTR-1] during the Missile Crisis [one Ismael Santana, known before the extraction to be a Castro D.S.E. agent]
represented a threat to the Prez during the Miami visit. Upon my challenging same [our Info showed that Santana was attending an Intel course at Las Mercedes School, Oriente Province [eastern Cuba] that weekend !!
Davis then shifted gears and said that the really big threat was from Eduardo "Bayo" Perez and his AM/TILT group. Davis insisted that both myself and HKD attended a special briefing at the MI [covert] HQ sited at SW 12th ave, & 1st Street the following day, Sunday [11/17/62] morning.
Present at that briefing were:
Secret Service S/A Ernesto Aragon [latered authored numerous WC docs.];
Fed. Bureau Narcotics A/SAC Nick Navarro [later of TV "Cops" series fame];
Bernardo G. De Torres;
A now retired Miami PD Homicide dick [who later was promoted to Parole Commissioner during the 1970s] Ray Fontana (the cop who Identifieded the corpse of "Gito" Del Valle at the morgue in 1967;
Two JM/WAVE operators, who coming out of retirement, are currently working for Homeland Security, and;
seven others that will remain unidentified until an NARA check is made.
Who was missing?? The Fed. Bur. Narc SAC [Navarro's boss] S/A Gene Marshall.
[2 months later he was set up with a Miami cop and a Dade Co. Deputy Sheriff on a phony drug deal -- just as the WC was shaping up. At that time, Gene was sharing a condo with our lawyer Chuck Ashmann. I found him during late 1966 working on a construction site -- under an alias given to him after a few months at the Fed nut house at Springfield, MO.
Our instructions were to carry our regular sidearms, pick up a govt. suburban, and enter MIA through the Delta-Dash security gate using the password "Lancelot". We were then instructed to be at the airline stairway set up forward [portside] of Air Force One -- in the receiving line.
After adjourning, we discussed serious flaws in this operation: No attendance at the morning roll-call [MIA west end barracks (Intel Section) "corrosion corner"] that would allow ALL of the civvy & uniformed cops and agents to exchange "face-time"; no issuance of bouttoniers for ID purposes, etc. !!
I instructed my team to go unarmed on this detail, and so informed the agents at the Delta-Dash gate. They weren't happy campers on this. "Little Joe" C. Garman disobeyed and carried his Colt .45 Auto. !!
When we saw that the sundecks were bulging with crowds, and that JFK was stopping to make a speech at a makeship platform nearby, we bailed out of the airport "toot-sweet". We observed Frank Fiorini/Sturgis at one side of the platform, and this caused some dismay from two of our folks who had been under him on "Operation-40".
Lt. Carrier, you made vague reference to the fact that you were in the "Army".
Do you have a DD-214? Gots any jump wings, Ranger Tab, or C.I.B.?? or were you a REMF -- "in-the-rear-with-the-gear-troop"??
If you want to pose some numbered paragraph queries rather than snidely-P-wierdf...k rants, then I will attempt to answer any that are not in violation of NDAs, or the 1982 Intel-Identities Act.
What I know comes from "being there" sonny, not from book-reading, and definetly NOT from swallowing disinformation put out by the damage control artists and "Moles".
I didn't ask to be on this forum, but I do see that you are amongst a large group in the membership who have made intense and tedious study of difficult materials -- so lets get off of the juvenile ad-homonym (sp) blatherings, and simply state your case. I then will state mine [with extensive redactions; due to the bare faced fact that: Most is none of your business, and I am not in a tutoring mood.]
Pat Speer: That was a hand gun, not a rifle [.22 cal. Hi-Standard semi-auto pistol w/ suppressor/silencer] that RVK displayed during late 1961.
J. Tim Gratz: Buy a damn tape-recorder, and use a landline. [Florida law permits consensual taping for press work]. I didn't say that Fidel had anything to do with the 2 thermo-nukes buried [a-la Chernobyl] under tons of domed (w/copper mesh) concrete. It was Raul who made references to Fidel's son {"Fidelito"] -- a Soviet trained and expert nuclear physicist -- that an empathetic "shaped-charge" might set off the decaying Tritium triggers used by the Soviets during that era. "Fidelito" convinced his dad to shut down the Chernobyl model nuke reactor [under-construction] sited near Cienfuegos.
The Soviets lost 2 "Yankee-Class" boomers [submarines] transporting the '62 and '65 warheads [onboard fires caused by decaying triggers]. The 5 kiloton fission scuds remained at the Sov-Naval base at Banes, Oriente -- until late 1966. [47 in total] The 2 thermo-nukes were removed from storage at the Bejucal facility [southwest of Habana] when the Gamma, Beta, rads went of the gauges. Bejucal [becausing of anti-EMP/RFE emission shrouding (we term it "Iron-Clad") is now used to beam "white-sound" against our satellite heretofore used by "Marti/RA/RME" entities to broadcast Farsi language "news" to Iran. [The technology and advisors were provided by Belarus via Iran to Cuba two years back.]
The dawn is breaking, and Fort Bragg is waking, so I am hitting the rack toot sweet,
GPH
___________________________________________
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
-
I view assassination research as an opportunityto develop a greater understanding of the world. For instance, when one engages in eyewitness research, one learns about memory research and psycho-acoustics, the study of how people hear.
Similarly, when one studies the gunshot wounds, one learns about the relative energy of mass and speed, and the relative strength of skin versus bone. I think Salandria's theory, if I remember it right, that some sinister force made all the evidence confusing, is a major cop-out. It only doesn't make sense when you stop when things don't agree with your pre-conceived notions. When you hit a wall, you have to examine the wall, see if it's real, and then follow the wall to where it leads. For instance, for the first year or so I was researching I was intimidated by Guinn's Neutron Activation Analysis. Although my instincts and the rest of my analysis concluded that the bullet found on a stretcher did not go through Kennedy's back and Connally only to be found intact, Guinn said the fragments in Connally's wrist were from that same bullet. When I finally got around to reading Guinn's reports, (examining the wall), however, I nearly went into shock. He was just WRONG. If he'd been deliberately lying, I believe he would have faked his results to begin with so jerks like me wouldn't be able to come along and second-guess him.
In my interpretation, men like Salandria backed off when they had to start arguing with so-called "experts". JFK didn't trust "experts" nor should we. We should educate ourselves on the topics necessary and not trust men like John Lattimer, Robert Groden, Jack White, James Fetzer, David Mantik, Martin Fackler, Ken Rahn, Thomas Canning, Larry Sturdivan, Vincent Di Maio, Michael Baden, Cyril Wecht, or Gary Mack, for that matter, just because they are recognized as experts by some. While it takes time, assassination research is an opportunity to learn how others think, and how they process information. I, for one, am fascinated by Tim's insistance that Castro was behind the killing; something tells me that if I could only understand his obsession then I'll be able to understand why Bush got re-elected after probably the worst four-year performance since Carter, and possibly before.
Anyhow, I'm 100% convinced there are no GIANT POWERFUL EVIL MEN playing with us, just nincompoops like Gerald Posner and John McAdams.
[/quot
With all due respect Pat,
I ask that Dr. Martin Fackler be removed from your list of nincompoops!
Dr. Fackler is the godfather of modern day wound ballistics and it is hard if not impossible to find a serious case study that Dr. Fackler is not a center point of scientific research into this realm. His is used religously by the NIJ and recently by the American Sniper Associations 20 year study on Police Sniper incidents. The man stands alone in this field and should be treated with nothing but respect. I have been given praise now for several years by many researchers relating to my work in wound ballistics on the JFK Assassination, but have used the work of Dr. Fackler as a basepoint for my work. I am a nothing more than a student of HIS.
What so many seem to use to judge his work in this case is his findings for the HSCA. What you need to look at is what was given to him to form his opinions. If the evidence is tainted, then don't blame the expert! He is simply using what is provided to him. He is a scientist, not a researcher or investigator.
Dr. Fackler is aging and is somewhat difficult to deal with when it comes to this. I believe he is bitter that he was drawn into it under the circumstances. The best way to utilize him is not to ask him to open his mind to a new study that is controversial, but to utilize his previous and latter work in determining issues that has come out since 1978.
He does not need to sign off on a new investigation to be an intregal part in determining the original findings were marred and inconsiquencial.
Dr. Fackler should not be put in the catagory with prostitutes with no credibility in the field they are examining such as Dr. Lattimer. He is a true expert within the field of study and I suggest you study his work beyond the JFK Assassination to put the ballistic issues into proper perspective in what we know and are working on today.
Respectfully,
Al Carrier
-
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.
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
-
I checked Greer's WC testimony to see what he might have said about the difficultyof the turn. He says nothing about it being difficult, but it's interesting what he does say:
Mr. GREER. . . . When I made the turn into Elm Street, I was watching the overpass expressway--the overpass, or what was ahead of me. I always look at any--where I go underneath anything, I always watch above, so if there is anyone up there that I can move so that I won't go over the top of anyone, if they are unidentified to me, unless it is a policeman or something like that. We try to avoid going under them. . . .
Mr. SPECTER. At that time, did you make a conscious effort to observe what was present, if anything, on that overpass?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir. I was making sure that I could not see anyone that might be standing there, and I didn't see anything that I was afraid of on the overpass.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you see anything at all on the overpass?
Mr. GREER. Not that I can now remember.
I'm tempted to say Greer is lying, since of course there were about a dozen people standing over Elm on the overpass. But I suppose it's possible, given the curve in Elm, that Greer couldn't see the Elm segment of the overpass from the corner of Houston. Maybe someone else knows.
But what kind of statement is this: "I was making sure that I could not see anyone that might be standing there." It sounds almost like he's saying, "I was making sure that any shooter there could not be seen."
Ron
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
-
First of all, Ryan is quick to rule out military snipers due to the number of shots and misses. What he is not taking into consideration is that we are dealing with a moving target that is not a norm for sniper training to begin with, plus a mover that is moving a varying speeds and angles, which makes a constant pan impossible and causes the shooter to rely on anticipation.
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.
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
-
John,
Simply put, did not JFK resist an invasion for fear that it would invite a Soviet response?
Is it your position that the Soviet Union might have responded miliutarily had we invaded Cuba to get our missiles out but would not have responded militarily if we had invaded Cuba to get rid of Castro because we believed he had sponsored the assassination?
The fact that the United States did not respond to the Soviet suppression of popular uprisings in Hungary and Czechloslovakia (as we should have) does not mean the Soviet Union would not have responded militarily had we invaded Cuba to overthrow Fidel, who was by that time their client (remember Fidel and entourage had spent five weeks in the Soviet Union in the spring of 1963).
And again, Earl Warren did not feel that LBJ's concern over a nuclear war if a determination was made that Cuba had sponsored the assassination "daft".
You may speculate that LBJ's concern was feigned because he KNEW Castro did not do it but you cannot deny that intelligent, rational men such as Warren responded to the argument.
The results of a nuclear war would be cataclysmic. It would be taking quite a gamble that the Soviet Union would not have responded to an invasion of Cuba merely because it was close to the United States and because we believed Castro had killed Kennedy.
Unless LBJ KNEW Castro did not do it because he knew who did, there were plenty of reasons for him to suspect Cuban involvement. Whether those reasons were legitimate (i.e. Castro did it) or illegitimate (the conspirators framed Fidel) is irrelevant to this discussion. If LBJ feared that an investigation MIGHT produce evidence of Cuban involvement, then he had to limit the assassination to Oswald acting alone, even if it meant that the true conspirators would go free. For unless LBJ knew who did it, he feared a complete investigation might open a Pandora's box.
So if the true conspirators framed Fidel to prompt an invasion of Cuba, their plot backfired. If they framed Fidel thinking that would result in the cover-up, they accomplished their purpose. But why then did they kill Kennedy? Simply for revenge over the BOP? If indeed the plot was to link the assassination to Castro, I think it more likely the objective was to prompt a US invasion of Cuba and the LBJ cover-up surpised them.
If LBJ was not afraid of a nuclear war with Cuba, why did he not go along with the evidence pointing at Castro and use it as an excuse to get rid of Castro?
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
-
Mark:
Have you read all of the tapes before you made this assessment?
I think you need to read all of the tapes before you can make an intelligent assessment if it was all just a game being played. The latter does not make sense because there was no plan to release them. So the idea that LBJ was just acting so he could use the tapes to prove he was innocent makes no sense.
I believe LBJ was a crook. I believed that in 1964. But he did not kill Kennedy. The tapes help demonstrate that.
Read the tapes.
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
-
Al, some of Hemming's associates may have been of "lower mentality" but I can assure you that despite Mr. Hemming's lack of a formal education, he is one of the most intelligent people I have talked to, with a photographic memory for names and other details. He is always also very gracious on the telephone.
I recently obtained a copy of the JFK lancer CD on Hemming which has a lot of documents. One interesting one is a 1978 letter from Judge Griffin of Ohio (former WC staff member) to Robert Blakely. Hemming walked into Griiffin's office, made an appointment with him, and proceeded, at the appointed time, to tell Judge Griffin why the WC was wrong that there was a conspiracy. To call Gerry Hemming an interesting persaon would be an understatement.
I understand you do not credit him ("a legend in his own mind", as you cleverly phrase it). Many other researchers believe, however, that he was personally acquainted with people who participated in the assassination. If he is giving us false information, he may be wasting our time, but he was certainly a player in the anti-Castro activities of the early sixties and, in my opinion, his "revelations" should not be summarily dismissed. Certainly many criminal investigations involve checking "leads" that turn out to be false. One cannot dismiss the "lead" without checking it out unless the informant is obviously a nut-case, which Gerry Hemming clearly is not.
Regardless of what you think of Mr. Hemming, I would be interested if you agree with the others that a trajectory from the west window of the sixth floor of the TSBD is consistent with some of the wounds, missed shots, etc.
Thanks!
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
-
The bullet, at that angle of trajectory, penetrated 12.7mm of steel impregnated tempered glass, knocked the nurse out cold from its supersonic shockwave and nearly blew the head off of the prisoner.
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.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot?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.
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?
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.
...
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see anybody standing around there any place with a rifle - on the grassy spot up there near where you were standing or on the overpass or anyplace else?
Mr. HUDSON - I never seen anyone with a gun up there except the patrols.
Mr. LIEBELER - The policemen?
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
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
Headshot Theory
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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