Frank Agbat

AD, I believe, is an Aviation Machinist's Mate R is Reciprocating Engine Mechanic AN would be an Airman (E3)

Hi Len, Honestly -- I'm NOT under the influence of cold meds on this post! I do not dismiss the jet effect, but I do not necessarily subscribe to it, either. (How is that for an evasive position!?) There are several principles of physics involved in considering the jet effect, but the main ones being Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Angular Momentum. Newton's second law of motion (for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction) creeps in to the explanation as well. These are, of course, valid and demonstrable principles of physics. The question is not with the principles involved, but are they being applied correctly to the situation at hand. A secondary question revolves around the completeness of the data set used to create the theory. So... Those elements that favor the Jet Effect: 1 - Conservation of energy and angular momentum indicates that the bullet's energy had to, in effect, go somewhere. 2 - If the "jet" we see is, in essence, "forward and right" then the compensatory reaction would be "back and left" 3 - Some test shots fired into an object did show jet effect behavior was possible. Those elements that call into question the Jet Effect: 1 - The assumption that gave rise to the jet effect is the concept of the ballistic pendulum. The ballistic pendulum's motion is partially restricted in one axis (negative z-axis) and is largely unrestricted in the other two. This is not necessarily consistent with firing into a human skull, which is motion damped in all directions, but not entirely motion restricted in any. In other words, the model that gave rise to the idea may not be the best one for the situation. 2 - There are additional forces that are not accounted for in the theory. Neuro spasms are certainly possible, and virtually impossible to verify, measure, or replicate. The effect of the back brace is also not known. 3 - We do not truly know the angle or location of entry and exit of the headwound. There is confusion and debate on this issue. It makes a difference when considering angular momentum. 4 - The test for plausibility of the jet effect took place using mellons and packing tape. This has convinced me that the jet effect is possible when one shoots at mellons wrapped with packing tape. On the other hand, I'm not the least bit convinced that this is a plausible substitute for a human head. The nature of the materials, when under extreme forces and stress, may not be sufficiently similar to make a valid comparison. The "jet effect" could be exactly as described, but only when the materials involved exhibit certain characteristics... On the other hand, while I do hold a degree in Physics, I'm not a Nobel-winning Ph.D. by any stretch of the imagination! When I get some time, I'll try to write some more on the physics of this...

Ironically, the British "Liberal Democrat" party (at least according to the site's analysis) falls in the same quadrant as do I. In the 'States, the phrase "Liberal Democrat" has an entirely different political orientation...

I always enjoy political quizzes like this one, and the inevitable arguments resulting from the interpretation thereof... It is evident on this thread. I, like John D., would have preferred the availability of neutral answers, as many of the questions were worded as absolutes. The logician in me cannot get past questions like this, as the word "ALWAYS" and other absolutes trigger a nearly immediate degree of disagreement. My score came out: Economic Left/Right: 2.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82 ...putting me squarely in that unoccupied lower-right quadrant! But I expected this. As I elucidated in another post, my views are largely in line (although tempered, as the scores show) with the American Libertarian Party (www.lp.org). Another comment: If one considers the actual distances between various peoples' positions on things, some of origins of the rather heated political exchanges that occur on this forum are visible. To someone who is scoring (for example) -8 for both, someone who scores +2 for both will seem VERY far to the right (there is a delta of 10 for both scores... that is large). On the other hand, the person who score +2 in both will not seem that far to the right to a chap who scored -2 in both... Perspective, as they say....

He did? I read the entire article and it doesn't state that the limo did anything but decelerate at a notable rate. His hypothesis centers around lifting from the accelerator pedal of a heavy car in a low gear in response to a postulated siren sounded by one of the motorcycle policemen. The z-film as we have it (along with the Nix film, et al) does not show the limo stopping... Frank I didn1 say anything about the limo stopping. I should have been clearer Alvarez said it slowed "suddenly". I edited my previous post for clarity. Len Sorry, Len. I must've been more under the influence of cold medicine than I realized! I read your post and was completely convinced you mentioned stopping... Sheesh -- I need to get some sleep!

Ron, I think there is a certain and demonstrable line between "inquiry by a healthy mind" and "conspiracism" (which I think probably does exist and probably is a form of mental illness). Example: There is NOT a massive conspiracy that causes me to hit the same doggone red light on my way to work every day... To see conspiracy in this might move from the realm of healthy inquiry to something less healthy, in my opinion. (The red light is undoubtedly the result of a traffic flow model, and if given all the data, I'm sure I could independently verify its behavior as being benign...) On the other hand, I find no evidence of mental illness to question conclusions that do not seem consistent with available data, to question the data itself, or to question the testing methodology. Heck, in college I was taught and encouraged to do precisely this. I took any number of classes that were directed specifically at honing one's ability to do this... I guess in the new "school of corporate media thought", we are supposed to merely accept "official" conclusions" even though they are accompanied by partial data (or no data), or even worse, by false/fabricated data. All for reasons of what? Security? A "smooth-running society?" If in the days ahead, healthy inquiry and skepticism are to be branded a "mental illness", I suspect I'll be collected by some "nice men in white coats" any day now. I've got dibs on the padded cell with a view of the beach...

They also didn't use the actual limo for the recreation, opting instead to use the Queen Mary. According to various critiques I've read, the result was a slight change in seat height. This, of course, corresponds to some problems even with the angles they bothered to measure, let alone the ones they ignored.

He did? I read the entire article and it doesn't state that the limo did anything but decelerate at a notable rate. His hypothesis centers around lifting from the accelerator pedal of a heavy car in a low gear in response to a postulated siren sounded by one of the motorcycle policemen. The z-film as we have it (along with the Nix film, et al) does not show the limo stopping...

May I respectfully suggest that the previous posting be edited to not include the addresses that appear at the beginning of the post...

Al, Thanks! That is great information, and confirms for me something that my own research had indicated about the MC weapon (having never fired one personally). This is another example of how the facts in this case were selectively accepted or, as in this situation, ignored to force or support a predetermined conclusion. Pat points out that had Oswald been defended by Arlen Specter, he would have walked. I'll go one step beyond that... If Oswald would have been defended by *any* defense lawyer worth a damn, the best the prosecution could have hoped for was (perhaps) a few misdemeanor charges sticking as a result of the scuffle at the Texas Theater. Convictions in the Tippit shooting and JFK murder would be unlikely, at best. But then again, this shows us how absolutely necessary it was to silence Oswald and to do it quickly. A trial would have been sensational and covered extensively by the press. The chances of some truth leaking out, even if payoffs, bribes, threats, etc. were employed, were too great. Pardon the ruthlessness and insensitivity of this next comment, but silencing Oswald was substantially more efficient and effective.

It seems that this article stirred things up a bit... This first page is very hard to read. The jist of it is that Congressman Rousselot apparently received some threats as a result of the article. (The third page below provides a more legible version) As a result of this request, he apparently sent a request to the FBI for information on Harry J. Dean... http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...80&relPageId=26 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...80&relPageId=27 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...80&relPageId=28 http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...80&relPageId=29 In the end, it appears the FBI did not release any specific information, other than some specific denials.

Wade: Here is the text of the document: In an exclusive interview granted to Between the Lines, former undercover operative for the FBI, Harry Dean, has stated that the John Birch Society and the Drive Against Communist Aggression (DACA) had a heavily armed network of citizen soldiers ready to take to the streets in late 1963 and early 1964, if President Johnson and Chief Justice Warren did not quickly find Lee Harvey Oswald (a supposed communist sympathizer) guilty of the murder of President Kennedy. The thread was delivered to Johnson and Warren, within a few days after the assassination, but intelligence sources and by agents of the power structure that eliminated the President. LBJ had the choice - nation-wide internal strife or knuckling under to the thread and thereby giving the minority force a position of recognition. Johnson opted for the second choice. Dean, an undercover operative for the FBI from 1960 to 1965, had been assigned by the FBI to infiltrate the Birch Society. During Dean's tour with the Covina Chapter of the Society he states they planned three major activities against John Kennedy: a planned assassination in Mexico City in 1962 that was called off; the assassination in Dallas, and the threat against a thorough investigation. In each case, according to Harry Dean, Congressman John Rousselot (Rep. San Marino) was involved in the planning. Rousselot was Western Director of the JBS during the first half of the '60's. During the years when Harry Dean had been acting as an active member of the Covina Birch Society, the main meeting place for all the anti-Kennedy activities was at the a residence on San Pierre Street in El Monte. The Birchers were connected with anti-Castro Cubans, often mentioned as assassination suspects, through the DACA. The DACA was an anti-Communist organization directed by members of the JBS, which had attracted certain Cubans who were in the Los Angeles area during 1962-1963, trying to enlist support in another invasions of Castro controlled Cuba. The DACA operated in Mexico as well as the U.S.. According to Dean, World War II hero Guy (Gabby) Gabaldon was the Mexican Director, while Ray Fleishman of Whittier was the U.S. Director. Another active member of DACA and the Covina JBS, who had a close relationship with Gabaldon, was Dave Robbins, who at the time ('62-63) was a high ranking employee of the Fluor Corporation. (J. Robert Fluor and John Rousselot had been known to be close political allies). In a number of different circumstances, Dean was able to determine that Gabaldon, Robbins, Flieshman, and Rousselot had been involved in planning the aborted assassination attempt of JFK in Mexico City, June 1962. Harry Dean had many occasions to observe and relate with much publicized Cuban-American Loran Eugene Hall - aka Lorenzon Pacillo - aka Skip Hall and Laurence Howard - aka Alonzo Escuirdo. Hall and Howard had a close association with former General Edwin Walker, of Texas, whenever Walker visited the Covina JBS. Dean recalls specific meetings where Walker, Rousselot, Hall, Howard, Gabaldon, and himself (Dean) laid the plans to frame LHO, who they thought was a communist, as the assassin. Per Dean, Hall and Howard left the San Pierre Street house in October 1963, with arms and medicines, and the plans to implicate Oswald. The subject of eliminating President Kennedy was never discussed as a subject of the Society's meeting, but Harry Dean claims the plans for the assassination were conceived in small-group meetings. At one time or another, Harry Dean was witness to the plans of the assassination of JFK by different combinations of John Rousselot, Loren Hall, Laurence Howard, Guy Gabaldon, Edwin Walker, Dave Robbins, Ray Flieshman, and not previously mentioned Covina JBS member Ed Peters.

This is a tiny clip from the Weaver picture. JFK's hand is not too far away from where I envision the BE7 wound. The low extent of the wound would be at about the middle fingers of his hand. In other words, matching O'Connor's sketch fairly well...

Duncan, Allan is right. There isn't enough depth between the sill and the boxes to create the illusion of a small image. If I may -- I would suggest that you concentrate your efforts in the lower right (our right as we look at the window) area of the window. In my opinion, if there is a 6th floor west window shooter to be seen, that is where it will be.

First off, I STILL don't see anything resembling a figure. All I see is pixel hash, etc. Honestly, I think you're seeing things that aren't there. A better scan of this picture would probably help -- the ones that are widely available contain a noticeable vertical crosshatch pattern which, not surprisingly, shows up on the enlagements. Perhaps someone knows a location for a high-res scan or can direct us to the right person. I don't know the history of this particular picture, so I don't know what has or hasn't survived. Secondly, I do understand the timing of this picture. My point was that a savvy 6th floor assassin would work hard not to be visible at all *especially* as the motorcade moved *toward* him. I would not expect the assassin to be standing in front of the window. As I said, at the most, a very subtle peek from the "shooting position". I would expect to, at best, see a partial head in the lower right. Thirdly, the size issue is important. (size matters?) Anyway... Your "figure" barely makes it up to the first crossmember of the window, while the kneeling shooter in the re-creation is substantially taller. The known figure on the 5th floor was kneeling and leaning on the window sill. There isn't enough room on the 6th floor with the boxes to assume this position and remain inside... This would make the "figure" short (4-foot something) AND kneeling - probably at an angle.

Perhaps of equal importance, consider the sight lines from the location of the photographer and the supposed location of Oswald as outlined by Allan. If the shooter was in the "sniper pose" as the picture was snapped, most of him would be hidden from a picture taken from the angle in question. I would be more conviced if the image showed someone peering around the corner of the window (lower/right area). The Weaver frame was not taken from an angle perpendicular to the face of the TSBD. The angle from which it was taken and the wall of the building obscures an additional portion of the "nest" area that is behind the wall. Consider: Red area = sight-line obscured area for a straight-on picture. Yellow area = additional area sight-line obscured due to the angle of the Weaver frame. I don't mean to discourage you, but I don't believe that there is an actual figure evident in the enlarged/enhanced photos you have posted.

It's easy to see that as one tilts and turns the head into the correct pose that the other items of interest move into proper position for the AP xray improved version John, Well done! This is the feature match that I saw the other day, but was not able to produce a suitable mapping. The key was the enhancements to the x-rays. I had identified the features you outlined in green as a likely match, but could never match the rest to the "stock" x-ray. This also goes a long way to bolster my theory that BE7 is showing only a portion of the headwound -- the crown/posterior portion, and that there is additional anterior damage that isn't showing in BE7. So, I think the side-effect of this is two-fold. 1 -- our BE7 orientation seems to be verifiable 2 -- the AP x-ray seems more consistent with BE7 than previously thought. Now the problem becomes understanding the lack of facial / forehead deformity if the AP x-ray is factual...

Huh!? I can't see ANYTHING that "looks very much like Oswald." Sorry to be a naysayer, but I call it as I see it (or in this case, don't see it). You're seeing something I'm not, evidently. Can you highlight the area where you see something?

Well, Robin, therein lies the rub, doesn't it? The A/P X-ray, unless we are collectively misreading it horribly would indicate noticeable and substantial frontal damage up to and including the right eye orbital. Counter to this is the *repeated* testimony by witnesses that the President did NOT have noticeable, visible frontal damage and a spate of drawings consistent with the one you posted. There may be some reason to the theory that some - even many - of the "autopsy" photos were taken *after* the autopsy and during the reconstruction process. Several of the images show virtually no damage on the back of the skull -- even none up to the crown (such as the back wound picture). Others clearly show at least parietal damage (substantial parietal damage, perhaps extending even beyond this area). How can this be if there hasn't been some cleanup and reconstruction? Aside -- I really need to talk to a mortician and understand their capabilities in this area. I'm not sure what is within the realm of reason when discussing 'reconstruction' and the like. Some of the autopsy pictures show a nearly intact scalp and clean, neat hair -- hardly consistent with what is seen in BE7, BE2, and BE6.

Duncan, Can you post the original Hughes frame from which you started?

John, I'm thinking we have possible gone the wrong way with the distortion correction. The proximity of the lens to its target will create a fisheye effect on items nearer the lens. To cancel this effect, we need to pinch the image inward, not bow it out...

John, Sorry for the delay in this. It isn't a morph, but it does flip back and forth to show the effects of the distortion-corrected image you created:

John, I think you're most certainly going in the correct direction. with this conceptual picture. It is also consistent with an observer, standing behind, saying they could "look directly into the president's head".

Jim, The WC expended a lot of energy (and killed a lot of trees) in what amounted to a weak effort to assign motive. The "Lone Gunman" had to evolve to the "Lone Nut" because they could never arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to motive. So, as was their way in many areas, they merely "took a powder" and proclaimed LHO a "nut." After all, if someone is a "nut" you don't really NEED to explain motive. That said: In this case, just about anything is possible... I find it most likely that LHO was an unwitting (probably manipulated) conspirator. Although largely circumstantial, it appears likely that LHO was in some way attached to intelligence gathering, probably in the morass that was the Cuba situation. (I find the circumstantial case here to be as strong, if not stronger, that the WC's nearly wholly circumstantial case). I find it less likely that LHO was an actual first-hand, active, conspirator. It is not impossible, of course, especially in light of the Richard Nagell story, but seems to be a less consistently held viewpoint and less bolstered by circumstantial evidence than the previous theory.

Tim, it works both ways. If the neocons continue with what they're doing, they are gonna lose the center and a ton of elephants are gonna jump out of the pen. It could be the election of 64 all over again. The brightest hope I see for the elephants is McCain, and then only if he picks a moderate running mate and disavows Bush. If the elephants kill Roe v. Wade they'll lose the vote of women for the foreseeable future, much as civil rights cost the Dems the southern vote in the sixties. I rarely enter into the political fray on this forum, and will probably end up regretting this post... I think the political venom that flows on this forum is often counter-productive in achieving the ultimate goal: Solving the assassination of JFK. Anyway... Pat makes a good point here. To me, it seems like the two major parties are *both* diverging from the mythical "center" of the left-right political spectrum. Yet, both major parties show no sign of moving away from a "fed-heavy" "statist" mentality (spend, spend, spend, ignore the constitution when it comes to state's rights vs. federal, spend). I'm a confirmed Libertarian (note -- NOT a 'Libertarian Socialist'), which tends to put me in a position where I can provide more neutral observations where others are deep into a passionate argument about something in which they believe. I have left-leaning views on some things (personal freedoms, privacy, etc), and right-leaning views on others (fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility). This tends to freak-out traditional hard-line party politics types (of either party), incidentally. Great fun at parties! What I see is the right moving to the fringe areas of their own supporters -- as Pat noted. Not everyone who votes conservative is a "NeoCon" or a member of the "religious right." The current administration has lost touch with those of us that are fiscal conservatives by spending like a drunken sailor. They have lost touch with those of us that want principled politicians. (They spend a lot of time talking the talk, and little time walking the walk. You know -- the type that go to church on Sunday and put on an epic presentation of their pious righteousness, and then go out Monday and do everything they railed against just 24 hours previously). The left, on the other hand, would *seemingly* seem poised to make gains, yet their inability to develop a more consistent message that resonates with the middle of the country looks like it might limit this. They have adopted a polarized position (undoubtedly in response to the polarization thrown at them by the right), embracing nearly every cause and position that opposes the current administration, regardless of whether that position will sit well, morally or otherwise, with the red or purple states. If McCain is able to shake off the (perceived or otherwise) ties to the current administration, he may have a message that resonates well in "purple" areas. This country never spends too much time on either end of our (rather limited, in reality, when compared to the rest of the world) political spectrum. The pendulum will inevitably swing leftward at some point -- just when, how fast, and how far is the question. So, I won't be spending any time at moveon.org OR moveoff.org... My plug is for: http://lp.org