Cliff Varnell

Ken...

So it sounds like you are agreeing with me... that BDM is really the boy and girl standing together... that makes sense to me as well which would explain why they disappeared so quickly yet I would place the boy in front based on Rosemary Willis' and other's description...

David,

The problem I have with this scenario is that it seems like a strange way

to view the on-coming motorcade, standing behind someone. I'm not saying

it isn't possible, and perhaps the "very distinct straight-line feature" was

something innocent like an umbrella or a coke bottle, but it strikes me as

suspicious that JFK was struck in the throat from the front and about a second

later a figure with a straight-line feature in the region of their hands suddenly

disappears.

And we still have Ike Altgens suggesting there were cops in the area.

Although it is obviously not perfectly analogous, consider the killing of RFK

in a similar light: a loud shot fired from the "patsy" position draws attention

to the front of RFK while the kill shot likely comes from a security guard behind

RFK.

In Dealey Plaza the "patsy shot" came from behind, while the throat shot soon

followed from the front, perhaps from a silenced weapon.

Great thread, btw, David.

1) What "distinct straight-line feature" did Arnold have "near the region of the hands"?

2) Why did Arnold identify his location at a point west of the concrete wall?

3) Why did Arnold "disappear the next instant" several seconds before a shot was

fired from behind the picket fence, or did Rosemary Willis get it wrong?

These questions seem somewhat odd for the evidence stands on its own merit. To start with ...

If Rosemary said the BDM disappeared after a few seconds before the head shot was fired, then she is obviously mistaken for the Nix film clearly shows that someone went to the ground AFTER the head shot.

No, that's not what she said. She didn't identify exactly when this individual

appeared to "disappear the next instant." It is her action in the Zapruder film 5 to 6

seconds before the head-shot, the rapid movement of her head toward the grassy knoll

at Z214-217, which appears to coincide with the sudden disappearance of BDM.

Something startling drew her attention to the knoll in that time frame.

That can only mean that Rosemary is mistaken for I believe the photographic record concerning this discussion is not altered.

It means no such thing, with all due respect.

West of the concrete wall ... the fence is west of the concrete wall ... the underpass is west of the concrete wall ... and the figure seen in all the film sources I presented are west of the wall, thus Arnold said 'west of the wall' because he was west of the wall.

That's not where Rosemary put BDM, and that's not where the HSCA put BDM.

The only straight line feature that I see in the film sources is the shade line to sunspot on his person.

Bill

So the HSCA got it wrong? There was no "distinct straight-line feature" "near the

region of the hands"?

Do we have any reason to dismiss the HSCA analysis on any basis other than its

inconvenience to certain theories?

As blatant as the assassination was, I find no reason for an assassin to be that exposed as to be in front of the fence and at the end of the wall and I'd have to think the likes of Craig Roberts would agree that a shooter worth anything would never put himself there... but I am only expressing an opinion... I am not a shooter of any kind.

. . . the HSCA identified a "very distinct straight line feature" in the region

of BDM's hands...did the Mom also bring her broom with her and the baby??

No shooter. No Mom. No baby. And no broom. Just two kids, a boy and a girl between 18 and 21 -- as barely older, 23 year-old Marilyn Sitzman described them -- standing together at the top of the stairway.

So Rosemary Willis got it wrong? There was no "conspicuous person" standing behind

the concrete wall? Isn't it interesting that she and Louis Witt both described

UmbrellaMan in the same way, but Willis was completely wrong about BDM...hmmm?

And the HSCA got it wrong when they identified a single individual in Willis #5?

Fine by me, but if you are promoting this as an unchallenged fact, well, I think you're

wrong.

Sitzman was busy with Zapruder as the limo came down the street. Rosemary Willis

was running in that direction and clearly reacted to something that occured

on the knoll 5-6 seconds before the head shot.

And let's not forget Ike Altgens suggestion there were policemen in the area.

Now, with Martin's gif of the movement once again supporting GA's story, I have to wonder what it takes to convince some folks.

1) What "distinct straight-line feature" did Arnold have "near the region of the hands"?

2) Why did Arnold identify his location at a point west of the concrete wall?

3) Why did Arnold "disappear the next instant" several seconds before a shot was

fired from behind the picket fence, or did Rosemary Willis get it wrong?

And no ... BDM wasn't holding a rifle.

JFK clearly wasn't shot in the throat with a rifle. The damage indicated

on the neck x-ray is inconsistent with a rifle shot, or any kind of conventional

round for that matter.

We look at poor images ...

And yet the HSCA found a "straight-line feature" that was "very distinct," in spite

of the blur in Willis and Betzner.

those near that area and coming down the street would have had a clear view of an assassin standing there and holding a gun aimed at the President in my view.

There was a prior, loud shot from behind the limo that drew the attention of lots of

people.

A man dressed as a policeman holding a firearm (not a rifle) after that loud

shot rang out would not be suspicious, imo.

And what resident of Dallas in 1963 would accuse a cop of shooting Kennedy, in contradiction of the conclusions of all officialdom?

Seems to me that would take suicidal bravery.

But we don't see these two. We see one figure, correct? With a "very distinct straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands," according to the HSCA.

Rifle? No, not a conventional rifle. A modified, silenced firearm, yes.

Ike Altgens seemed to remember a policeman, or policemen, in the vicinity.

The House select Committee made their call based on what they could see. I would like to know what they would have said once they seen Mack and White's work in conjunction with Arnold's testimony.

Bill

How would that have had an impact on their identification of a "very distinct

straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands" in Willis #5?

Again, what "very distinct straight-line feature" did Gordon Arnold have near the

region of his hands?

Thank you for posting this, Michael. The witness intimidation of Rosemary Willis

evidently continued during the HSCA investigation, as she is reported as hearing

only three shots in the HSCA report.

Is this the witness intimidation you're referring to? http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=109597&relPageId=14

Perhaps the witness intimidation she experienced on 11/22/63 carried over into

her HSCA statements? I have no idea what it would be like to have witnessed

such events while still living in Dallas at that time, under those circumstances.

Or perhaps the HSCA interviewer misrepresented her statements?

Perhaps as a 45 year-old woman in 1998 she felt more comfortable telling the truth

than as a 25 year-old woman living in Dallas in 1978.

Why do you think she failed to mention the two conspicuous figures in her interview with Texas Monthly, to whom she gave a remarkably detailed description of the four shots she heard?

I can't say. Why didn't the interviewer ask her about it?

Why do you think she told Texas Monthly she believed there were six shots, when she heard only four?

She appeared to start to explain herself, but didn't. Hard to say why, or why the interviewer didn't ask a follow up question in that regard.

Do you believe that when Rosemary told the HSCA telephone interviewers that she ran along JFK's limousine almost (within three car lengths) to the triple underpass, that was accurate?

Of course not. But I don't regard this as significant.

What do you think she meant when she said that some of the investigators were impostors?

I wish I knew. I wish the interviewer had gone into more depth with her.

I'd like to point out that the statement of Louis Witt to the HSCA conforms with Rosemary's description of him. Here is Witt to the HSCA (emphasis added):

I think I went sort of maybe halfway up the grassy area (on the north side of Elm Street),

somewhere in that vicinity. I am pretty sure I sat down....(When the motorcade approached) I think I got up and started fiddling with that umbrella trying to get it open, and at the same time I was walking forward, walking toward the street....Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing (the umbrella) in front of me....My view of the car during that length of time was blocked by the umbrella's being open.

From the HSCA report on Willis (emphasis added):

Rosemary Willis...noticed two persons who looked "conspicuous." One was a man near

the curb holding an umbrella, who appeared to be more concerned with opening and closing

the umbrella than dropping to the ground like everyone else at the time of the shots.

That she described the "conspicuous" individual in the Black Dog Man location as seeming

to "disappear the next instant" is corroborated by the Moorman photo which does not show

BDM.

Was her rapid head snap at Z214-217 drawn by the sudden disappearance of this individual?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

Her description of the shot sequence does not seem to indicate a shot from the GK

that early.

In my opinion the testimony of Louis Witt and the photographic evidence corroborate

Rosemary Willis' accounts of the actions of UM and BDM.

Rosemary Willis was there. Gary Mack was not.

The November 1998 issue of Texas Monthly had several very good articles on the JFK assassination. Here is a link to their archives, but the reader has to register

in order to access the articles: http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/1998-11-01/feature4

...Here are a few excepts of what Rosemary Willis had to say:

[snip]

We disagree, between me and her (nodding towards her mom and sister). My ears heard four shots. If you ask me how many I think there were, I really think that there were six, but I heard four and I'll tell you why: the first one, you know I'm right across from Zapruder. I'm wherever the limousine is. It's almost like I could...I'm right there. Anyway, the first shot rang out. It was to the front of me, and to the right of me, up high. The second shot that I heard came across from my right shoulder. By that time, the limousine had already moved further down. And that shot came across my shoulder. And the next one, right after that, still came from the right but not from as far back, it was up some. Still behind me, but not as far back as the other one. And the next one that came was from the grassy knoll and I saw the smoke coming through the trees, into the air.... Fragments of his head ascended into the air, and from my vision, focal point, the smoke and the fragments, you know, everything met. I mean, there's no question in my mind what I saw or what I heard.

[snip]

(Rosemary recalls being interrogated later by investigators)

.... .tell you over and over you didn't see what you saw, you didn't hear what you heard. When they asked you what happened, you say, 'I heard a shot from over here, I heard a shot and saw smoke from other here,' and they're going (assumes mean voice), 'No, you didn't. Look at me: you didn't. I'm telling you, you didn't.' Very adamantly and depending who they were talking to, they were very strong about it, they did not want you to tell the truth. It was messing everything up.

TM: Who were these people?

Rosemary: Well, some of them, like I say, were impostors, and that's where you get into that part about Eastman-Kodak.

Thank you for posting this, Michael. The witness intimidation of Rosemary Willis

evidently continued during the HSCA investigation, as she is reported as hearing

only three shots in the HSCA report.

With this email, Gary Mack has apparently issued a subtle correction to both Bill and Martin.

Bill believes Black Dog Man was Gordon Arnold. Remember, Arnold said he was standing on a mound of dirt.

Martin believes Black Dog Man was crouching behind the retaining wall.

Gary has the Black Dog Man figure standing on the sidewalk at the end of the wall.

So Gary's sidewalk placement of the figure eliminates Gordon Arnold as Black Dog Man. Martin's conclusion that Black Dog Man was crouching behind the retaining wall is also dismissed by Gary's opinion that the figure was "standing on the sidewalk."

The placement of this figure in a standing position on the sidewalk at the end of the retaining wall (meaning at the top of the grassy knoll stairway) is the right one as opposed to standing or crouching on the grass inside the corner of the wall as many have erroneously assumed over the years.

Ken

A subtle correction of Gary Mack from Rosemary Willis via the HSCA, emphasis added...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

Ms. Willis further described the location of [bDM] as the corner section

of the white concrete wall between the area of photographer Abraham Zapruder's

right side and the top of the concrete stairway leading up the center of the grassy

knoll.

Rosemary Willis was there. Gary Mack was not.

Rosemary's placement of BDM corresponds with what we see in the Betzner and Willis photos. In other words, from the perspective of all three, the figure is behind the concrete wall and appears to be inside and flush up against the corner of it. But, again, that's just how it appears. The figure is actually further back behind the wall, outside of but in line with the corner, at the top of the stairway.

Ken, other than the assurances of Gary Mack, on what basis do you conclude this?

If there is a better scenario based on all the evidence, then I have never heard it.

And the "very distinct straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands" would have been...?

Thanks Bill,

I'd love your opinion on my post regarding the black kids Sitzman sees. You'd have to agree that anyone sitting on that bench would have his shoulders and head above the wall as seen from Willis and Betzner

BDM, if sinister, would literally be 5 feet infront of these two... with a rifle? Cliff?

But we don't see these two. We see one figure, correct? With a "very distinct straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands," according to the HSCA.

Rifle? No, not a conventional rifle. A modified, silenced firearm, yes.

Ike Altgens seemed to remember a policeman, or policemen, in the vicinity.

Is the scenario of the black man getting up, going over to the wall, putting his coke down, (z160 - z205) getting photographed as BDM then returning to his seat.

As the charismatic President of the United States was driving toward them, one was

more concerned with a coke bottle and the other couldn't bother to stand up and

get a good look?

Rosemary described this person as "conspicuous" and someone who "disappeared

the next instant," which doesn't seem to match this scenario.

If he moved we should see him moving ala BDM, if he stayed seated with the woman...

Where are they?

DJ

And why wouldn't they be excited enough to stand to see the President and his

lovely First Lady?

With this email, Gary Mack has apparently issued a subtle correction to both Bill and Martin.

Bill believes Black Dog Man was Gordon Arnold. Remember, Arnold said he was standing on a mound of dirt.

Martin believes Black Dog Man was crouching behind the retaining wall.

Gary has the Black Dog Man figure standing on the sidewalk at the end of the wall.

So Gary's sidewalk placement of the figure eliminates Gordon Arnold as Black Dog Man. Martin's conclusion that Black Dog Man was crouching behind the retaining wall is also dismissed by Gary's opinion that the figure was "standing on the sidewalk."

The placement of this figure in a standing position on the sidewalk at the end of the retaining wall (meaning at the top of the grassy knoll stairway) is the right one as opposed to standing or crouching on the grass inside the corner of the wall as many have erroneously assumed over the years.

Ken

A subtle correction of Gary Mack from Rosemary Willis via the HSCA, emphasis added...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

Ms. Willis further described the location of [bDM] as the corner section

of the white concrete wall between the area of photographer Abraham Zapruder's

right side and the top of the concrete stairway leading up the center of the grassy

knoll.

Rosemary Willis was there. Gary Mack was not.

Just a thought re: HSCA Willis 5

wouldn't a coke bottle sitting on the wall appear as a "straight line feature" ?

Perhaps.

Here's what the HSCA said:

The photographic evidence panel also noted that in the first Willis photograph,

which shows the person standing behind the concrete wall, there is visible, near

the region of the hands of the person at the wall, "a very distinct straight-line

feature," which extends from lower right to upper right.

That's one long-necked bottle of soda, I'd say, but a better explanation that Mom-n-Babe

or Gordon Arnold...

I seem to recall Rosemary Willis saying something along the line of her looking away for just a moment and when she looked back again ... the man seen beyond the wall was gone.

What she told the HSCA was that BDM happened to "disappear the next instant."

If you can provide additional direct quotes of hers, please do so.

Yarborough said the man dove to the ground.

Citation please.

The Nix film print Groden owns shows someone heading down behind the wall as if to get out of the line of fire at the precise moment Arnold said he hit the dirt.

Dirt behind the concrete wall? Are you sure about that, Bill?

We know Rosemary Willis was in Dealey Plaza for a fact.

Do we know that Gordon Arnold was there for a fact?

Arnold said he hit the ground immediately after the bullet passed over his left shoulder.

Please cite where he said he was behind the concrete wall in the BDM position.

These things taken as a whole seem to point towards the figure being behind the wall and was why Rosemary didn't see him when she looked back in that direction a moment later.

I wouldn't characterize her rapid head snap at Z214-217 as merely "looking back."

It seems as if something specific drew her attention.

If there is another way of looking at it that makes more sense, then I haven't heard it.

Bill

And what was the "very distinct straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands"

that is consistent with BDM being Gordon Arnold?

His camera?

As blatant as the assassination was, I find no reason for an assassin to be that exposed as to be in front of the fence and at the end of the wall and I'd have to think the likes of Craig Roberts would agree that a shooter worth anything would never put himself there... but I am only expressing an opinion... I am not a shooter of any kind.

I'm not a shooter, either, but it makes sense to me to put a guy dressed as a cop

in that location, have a very loud round fired from the TSBD to distract attention,

then claim that BDM was returning fire should anybody see him.

After all, the HSCA identified a "very distinct straight line feature" in the region

of BDM's hands...did the Mom also bring her broom with her and the baby??

On what basis do people impeach the testimony of Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis?

http://www.history-m...Vol12_0006a.htm

I've yet to see any sort of rebuttal to this.

hi cliff, i have not read of any impeaching her testimony on this f, i could have missed such though if, i believe the witnesses saw and said what they did and do not need others to put it into their words, cause they need to make it fit their theory..

i recall altgens mentions dpd in the area of the wall.......take care b...

LIFTON's book, "Best Evidence."

The following is from a 01NOV65 telephone conversation between LIFTON and

"Associated Press photographer/news photo editor/wire photo operator, JAMES

"Ike" WILLIAM ALTGENS,

<QUOTE>

He was friendly on the phone and mentioned quite casually that just before the

motorcade came by, a number of people suddenly appeared behind the wall on the

knoll. (84) He added that he thought it was an odd place to watch the parade

from since the car would speed up right there as it entered the Stemmons

Freeway. This was new, exciting information, but I was worried that Altgens

might be confusing this recollection with his description of people on the

overpass, which was mentioned in his Warren Commission testimony. But he

assured me he was talking about the wall on the grassy knoll--to the right of

the stairs when one faced the knoll.

When I asked Altgens if there were any police among the "people" he saw, he

replied, "I seem to remember that there were. (85)

(84) Author's memo, 11/1/65 conversation with Altgens

(85) Ibid

<END QUOTE>

Thank you, Bernice. Maybe these were the policeman who ticked off Phil Willis

by running away from where he thought the shots were fired.

(snip)

After all, the HSCA identified a "very distinct straight line feature" in the region

of BDM's hands...did the Mom also bring her broom with her and the baby??

On what basis do people impeach the testimony of Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

I've yet to see any sort of rebuttal to this.

Not sure why we'd need a rebuttal...

Only if one is inclined to believe it was a woman holding baby, a conclusion

which assumes both Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis of Willis #5 got it

wrong.

For those who hold to the possibility it was, indeed, a woman holding a baby, then

on what basis are Rosemary's statement and the HSCA analysis impeached?

Rosemary does establish someone/something at that spot who disappears right after the headshot, or at least very close to that time period, she is not specific but infers it's after z313.

I don't see where she indicates anything about the person disappearing after

the headshot.

Her rapid headsnap occurs Z214-217, and the only activity on the knoll she described

was BDM disappearing "the next instant."

With a shot to the throat at Z190 and BDM disappearing about a second later with

a "very distinct straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands" seems to me

to make a compelling case for BDM as a shooter, although certainly not conclusive.

There are no conclusions regarding the "very distinct straight line feature" due to the fuzziness of the photo. "...could not conclude whether it was or was not a weapon"

Fair enough. It could be a coincidence that someone who went to see Kennedy holding

a very distinct straight-line feature in their hands decided to disappear about a

second after the guy they came to see was shot in the throat.

I don't think anyone disputes it was there and then was gone and it was there well before Betzner's z185 photo since there is not movement betwewn betzner and willis, BDM was not moving thru the area but stationary.

Stationary for how long? There was less than a second between Betnzer 3 and Willis 5.

Hudson walks right past that spot... the young man runs up to that spot immediately after the shots... (which is pretty insane if the shots came from that area, to run TO that spot in the manner he does)

None of this occurred during the time frame in question, did it?

Rosemary started running west as the limo turned onto Elm Street and she told

the HSCA she saw two "conspicuous people", Umbrella Man and Black Dog Man.

Her description of UM matches Louis Witt's descriptions of his actions -- he was pre-occupied with the umbrella.

Although she doesn't say exactly when "the next instant" of BDM's sudden disappearance

occurred, her rapid head snap was drawn by something that occurred to her left,

and BDM's absence from any other photos is consistent with his disappearing about

the same time as her head snap.

Sitzman talks about the two black people on the bench which would have been even farther north than BDM, yet no mention of BDM.

Wasn't she a bit pre-occupied with Abe during the time in question?

I imagine if they were sitting on the bench, and one got up with a coke bottle to get a better view he/she would have suddenly appeared there when they stood up and then disappear again shen they ran off leaving the coke bottle behind... they broke the other one.

If you were going to see the President of the United States in a motorcade why

would you disappear just as the limo was approaching your position?

And is a coke bottle a "very distinct straight-line feature"?

Your theory is interesting yet a policeman in plain sight shooting into the limo???

If he were shooting a standard round, that would be less likely, perhaps, but the nature

of the throat wound is consistent with non-conventional weaponry, seems to me. And

it doesn't appear as if JFK were reacting to a conventional bullet strike.

One more intriguing thing Rosemary Willis said to the HSCA:

Ms. Willis said she was aware of three shots being fired. She gave no information

on the direction or location of the shots, but stated that her father became upset

when the policeman in the area appeared to run away from where he thought the shots

came from; that is, they were running away from the grassy knoll.

It would have taken a big dose of suicidal bravery for anyone to directly accuse

a cop of shooting Kennedy, seems to me.

I'm not saying that it is a fact that BDM was a shooter, but that could be a reasonable

conclusion that fits the extant evidence better than the other explanations that

are kicked around.

The old channel is gone thanks to the CIA-backed lone nut cases. It took them 3 years to do it, but they got it done. My response is to create a new channel that will be better by dealing exclusively with the assassination. I am adding some of the old videos and some new ones to boot. If anyone has any favorites, please let me know and I'll try to do those first. Compilation videos will take longer as I will have to search through the sources and piece them together.

Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/JFK63Conspiracy

Gil

Thanks for taking the time .Bookmarking it now.

Ian

Gil,

"Was JFK trying to cough up a bullet?" is one of the most important pieces

of "internet-era" research, in my opinion.

I'm glad to see it's still available...

As blatant as the assassination was, I find no reason for an assassin to be that exposed as to be in front of the fence and at the end of the wall and I'd have to think the likes of Craig Roberts would agree that a shooter worth anything would never put himself there... but I am only expressing an opinion... I am not a shooter of any kind.

I'm not a shooter, either, but it makes sense to me to put a guy dressed as a cop

in that location, have a very loud round fired from the TSBD to distract attention,

then claim that BDM was returning fire should anybody see him.

After all, the HSCA identified a "very distinct straight line feature" in the region

of BDM's hands...did the Mom also bring her broom with her and the baby??

On what basis do people impeach the testimony of Rosemary Willis and the HSCA analysis?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

I've yet to see any sort of rebuttal to this.

Cliff,

After JFK was assassinated, why did we fail to even attempt an invasion of Cuba, then?

Monk,

I think the answer to that question can be found in the Operation Northwoods documents

brought to light by James Bamford in Body of Secrets. From pg 84 of that book,

emphasis added:

On February 20, 1962, [John] Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on his historic journey. The flight was to carry the banner of America's virtues of truth, freedom, and democracy into orbit high over the planet. But [Chairman of the JCS Lyman] Lemnitzer and his Chiefs had a different idea. They proposed to [Operation Mongoose chief Edward] Lansdale that, should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that...the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba [sic]." This would be accomplished, Lemnitzer continued, "by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans." Thus, as NASA prepared to send the first American into space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glenn's possible death as a pre-text to launch a war.

According to the Operation Northwoods playbook "irrevocable proof that the fault

lies with the Communists" was the necessary pretext for an invasion of

Cuba.

When Oswald was captured alive the "irrevocable proof" vanished. Within a couple

of hours the Yankee blue-bloods pulled the plug on any Castro frame-up.

Thanks for reviving the thread, btw. I've done some work on this that may take

another ten years to finish...

Sure be nice if Emmett had said something about the woman/baby, or guy in an army uniform, or a mysterious guy with a rifle hanging out back there as he walked to his spot....

Well, I guess we could consider what Rosemary Willis said about BDM.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

She described him as a "conspicuous" individual who happened to "disappear the next instant."

We might be able to pin down exactly when that "instant" was by her rapid head turn

Z214-217 as per Don Roberdeau's analysis:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

And then there is the HSCA analysis of Willis #5 (see History Matters page cited above)

in which they identified a "very distinct straight-line feature" "near the region of the hands."

Those who like to promote the woman-holding-a-baby theory pretend that none of the

above exists.

Unless the baby was the very distinct straight line feature?

Why were there not multiple patsies?

For example.

If there was a shot from the Knoll, why did "THEY" who according to almost everyone in my last thread required a patsy for the 6th floor shooting, not also require a patsy for the knoll shooter location? or any other alleged shooting location like the south knoll, Dal-Tex, storm drain etc etc etc.

I would speculate that the three tramps and/or Jack Lawrence were patsies-in-waiting.

This may be it: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TrajectoryOfaLie/TrajectoryOfaLie.htm

Thanks Michael.

I've read that artcile before but I don't seem to remember the stuff about a fragment coming out the throat being in there. I'll check it again...

I think Jim meant the theory proposed by Josiah Thompson in Six Seconds in Dallas.

Cranor posits a possibility that the back wound was an exit, but that presents

a world of trajectory problems all its own.

Cliff:

Milicent and Pat have postulated that the trajectory of a bullet from the wound that Speer has found-near the EOP-- may have left a fragment out the neck.

I fI am not getting this right, Pat will correct me.

Milicent Cranor has an article on this at the Lancer site.

And so everyone who reported the wound as an entrance got it wrong and JFK

reacted to this wound in his throat 6 seconds before it occured?

That dog not only doesn't hunt, it never suckled a mothers' teat.

Or the neck wound was a fragment and the back wound was a "short shot".

Short shot, okay.

But the neck wound resulting from a fragment?

No way. The wound was an entrance, for one, and how was it that JFK was reacting

to a wound in his throat 6 seconds before that fragment could have exited?

Or the Speer-Cranor idea about the trajectory.

Which is?

Trying to say that there could be no other explanation is the last desperate act of a guy who has no way to support his own argument.

But the idea that we are ever going to know what really happened to JFK is ridiculous on its face. Because the autopsy was probably one of the worst ever recorded in the annals of medical history. And according to Al Lewis, one of the lawyers under Sprague, incompetence does not begin to describe its utter failure.

Agreed. But I divide the medical evidence into two categories, which for me explains

a great deal about what happened to JFK.

There is evidence that was properly prepared according to the prevailing professional protocols: the autopsy face sheet diagram, Burkley's death certificate, the contemporaneous notes of two Parkland doctors describing the throat entrance wound, the FBI autopsy report.

There is evidence that was NOT prepared according to proper professional protocols:

the final autopsy report, the measurements recorded in pen on the autopsy face sheet,

the autopsy photographs.

In regard to the x-rays, I dismiss the head x-rays because of the conflicts with the

witness testimonies, and the note in the FBI autopsy report of surgery to the head area.

I accept the neck x-ray as genuine, or at least have no reason to suspect it is not.

Gregory's skepticism is understandable, Michael. I admit that.

But what other option is there, given the bullet evidence in this case (including the LACK of bullets that SHOULD BE THERE if the SBT is not correct)?

Answer: None.

Factually incorrect.

There are three possibilities:

1) The rounds which created the back and throat wounds remained in the

body, indicating fakery of the neck x-ray and the incompetence of the

autopsists (the least likely, in my view).

2) The rounds which created the back and throat wounds were removed

prior to the autopsy (unlikely, in my view).

3) The suspicion held by the prosectors upon completion of the autopsy

that JFK was hit with rounds which "dissolve after contact" was right

on the money (highly likely, in my view).

Given JFK's provable T3 back wound the SBT is impossible, period.