Vince Palamara

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I discuss this on my website. From chapter 20:

 

The Low Down on the Short Shot

A problem has been raised with this scenario that deserves some discussion. It has been pointed out that an undercharged bullet would take longer to reach its target than a normal round, and that a bullet so undercharged it would barely penetrate Kennedy's back would have to have been aimed well above and beyond Kennedy to hit him in that location.

Now, this is indeed difficult to work out. But not impossible, IMO.

If the assassin used the scope on the first shot, the misalignment of the scope would lead him to fire 14 inches high or more at only 53 yards, the distance of the limo from the sniper's nest around frame 190 of the Zapruder film. As the bullet struck Kennedy on his back, and not his head, moreover, it follows that the bullet struck Kennedy a good 10 inches below where it was originally aimed (assuming, of course, that the bullet was aimed at his head.) This suggests, then, that the bullet struck Kennedy about 24 inches below where it was originally headed.

So now let's consider that the presumed target, Kennedy, was moving at the time. Robert Frazier's testimony before the Warren Commission reflects that someone firing the rifle found in the building would need to lead Kennedy by 6 inches or so to strike him at 90 yards. We can extrapolate from this, then, that one might need to lead Kennedy by 4 inches or so at 53 yards. Well, if the bullet was traveling but one sixth its normal velocity, as is suggested by the shallow wound on Kennedy's back, the sniper firing this bullet would have to have led Kennedy by 24 inches or so.

Let's check the math.

1. The rifle, when using the scope and standard ammo, fires 14 inches high.

2. The target moves 24 inches higher in the time it takes the bullet to reach the target.

3. The bullet lands about 10 inches below the center of the target.

Well, this suggests the bullet landed pretty much where we would expect it to land. So what's the problem?

Bullet drop. Ballistics calculators suggest that a bullet traveling but 350 fps (the fastest one can presume it was traveling and still have the bullet barely make a hole on Kennedy's back) would drop about 36 inches over the distance to Kennedy. Well, this suggests that the shot landed about 36 inches higher than it should have, and that the sniper was therefore aiming about 36 inches above Kennedy at the time of the first shot. Hmmm...

While I'm not so sure we can trust these numbers, there is reason to believe that, even if accurate, this three feet of bullet drop is not lethal to the proposition Kennedy was hit with a short shot.

So, how's that?

Since the short shot occurred, we can only presume, due to the sniper's improperly hand-loading the bullet, and since we have separately come to conclude subsonic ammunition was used in the assassination, we can assume the sniper knew full well that this bullet was not gonna travel at its usual velocity, and to have compensated for this by firing 11 inches or so higher than normal. This puts the original target about 25 inches higher than one would expect.

Or less. A Marine Corps sniper book in my possession recommends that right-handed shooters tracking a target from left to right double their lead, as there is a "natural hesitation in follow through when swinging against the shooting shoulder." So, yikes, this suggests the original target may have been as little as 14 inches higher than one would expect

And that's not the only bit of subtraction in order. The bullet, if fired from the sniper's nest, was fired from about 21 degrees above Kennedy at frame 190 of the Zapruder film. Well, this cuts the presumed bullet drop down from 3 feet to as little as 27 inches or so. And this puts the original target around 5 inches higher than one would otherwise expect.

Now, this is all guesswork, of course, but I think we can agree that there are just too many variables to dismiss that an undercharged bullet hit Kennedy--and to say this proves the bullet striking Kennedy in the back actually went into his chest, etc.

Pat---ok, the silence is deafening LOL: WHAT DOES JIM DIEUGENIO HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ALL OF THIS? One is reminded of the JFK movie----right around the time of its release, those police records came out showing that the three tramps...were merely three tramps. That said, despite the flaws, the JFK movie, warts and all, is great and achieved a lot (including the JFK Records Act and ARRB).

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Can't quite make out what he said when showing the location of the wound.

".... primary area which was on the back of the ??? on the right side."

 

Anyway, nice catch Vince. Another back-of-the-head witness I can rub Pat Speer's nose in.  

 

thanks haha!

9 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

The cerebellum isn't just "at the back" of the brain.  It is under the occipital lobes (at the back of the brain).  Unless the cerebral tissue of the occipital lobes had been blasted out, it would be impossible to see cerebellar tissue through a hole in the back of the head (unless it was near the junction of the head and the neck so that the cerebellum itself was exposed).  Several doctors reported seeing cerebellar tissue oozing through the wound and onto the gurney, so that alone makes a strong case for a hole in the lower back of the skull (below the level of the occiput, the bump in the middle and at the back of the skull). but it's probable that a great deal of JFK's brain (including cerebral tissue of the occipital lobes) was blasted out of his skull through the hole in the right rear, which would have made the cerebellum visible through the hole.  Such extensive brain damage could have displaced the cerebellum upward, and would certainly be compatible with JFK's body being anoxic (skin tinged blue because of oxygen deprivation for several minutes), and having other signs of death.  The existence of those compelling death signs certainly contradicts the later testimony about "agonal respiration" claimed by Carrico, Jenkins and some of their colleagues (apparently to justify Carrico's insertion of a tube into JFK's mouth and into his trachea, since that would not be an appropriate thing to do to a dead body). Perry's distancing himself from his own surgical tracheotomy incision (performed after removing Carrico's nonfunctional endotracheal intubation) at the 2:15 Parkland press conference is understandable, since he would have realized soon after cutting JFK's throat that he was dead.  It wasn't until after Perry received "persuasion" from Washington that he began to testify about his own tracheotomy procedure and Carrico's earlier endotracheal intubation -- which apparently fooled him (and Baxter and McClelland) into thinking JFK was still alive -- faded out of focus to the point that most people thought there was just one tracheotomy procedure, not two separate attempts to provide respiratory assistance, performed that day.

thanks!

16 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

The consistency by which medical professionals locate the major visible headwound is striking. Other testimony and photographic evidence lead to doubt whether there was another large wound on the side of the head (a possible skull flap concealing it at times).

 

Vince, do you think the remainder of your lost Zedlitz auditory testimony has any chance of professional recovery?

Thanks! No-that is it. Thank God I did what I was able to do, as the DVDr literally disintegrated! This happened to me a couple times in the past (one was a music DVDr). The great news- the head wound location was "the big reveal" and I obtained that. There wasn't anything else he said of major importance.

20 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Well done, Vince. Great work. 

thanks!

13 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Excellent effort to find another witness, and record his views. 

THANKS!

Pat, you are going to break Tracy's heart with this- so true:

"Whether or not Todd's initials are on the bullet is on the other hand a minor data point that proves nothing in and of itself."

That said, that "E" and "T" look mighty big (and awkward) to have been missed by ANYONE all these years. A clumsy, awkward late addition? 

44 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

But it's a two-way street. For years researchers pointed to nonsense in the WR and claimed it destroyed the case for a lone assassin. if someone is gonna make a case for conspiracy and load it full of stuff, some of which can be discredited, they are taking that same risk. To quote Donnie Osmond--one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch--but to some--in this case a mainstream media anxious to dismiss Jim's research and Stone's movie--it can. 

Pat, do you believe that huge E and T were there all this time and everyone missed it? It seems hard to believe.

40 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

But it's a two-way street. For years researchers pointed to nonsense in the WR and claimed it destroyed the case for a lone assassin. if someone is gonna make a case for conspiracy and load it full of stuff, some of which can be discredited, they are taking that same risk. To quote Donnie Osmond--one bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch--but to some--in this case a mainstream media anxious to dismiss Jim's research and Stone's movie--it can. 

Fair enough. I must admit that I see the "ET" right away and am stunned others who saw the bullet in person missed it...if it was truly there for many decades.

I see the "ET" and, beyond the questions of why others allegedly missed it and the notion that it was added later, even if (if) one concedes this point, there is a whole lot more to the chain of custody of CE399 and other related matters than just this. One is reminded of those who "exposed" the three tramps as just tramps in the movie JFK, as if that debunked the entire movie and all of its many components...epic fail. There is a whole lot to the two and four hour versions of Stone's new doc far beyond just this one component.

***[NOTE: the first one minute and 52 seconds are mostly silent with a little segment (11 to 28 second mark) with sound; the sound kicks in permanently from 1:51 until the end of the video at 7:58***] Dr. William Zedlitz and the JFK assassination: my exclusive major medical evidence discovery

3 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Love me some Cyril Wecht & hate me some Michael Baden.

Yes haha! That is wild that they are dear friends, too.

6 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

Clarity, better late than never.  Thanks, Vince.

Sure!

The one that cracks me up is when the reporter shouts to Oswald "You don't have to sport! Knock it off!" When Oswald denies shooting anyone; different clip.

Loop it over and over at the 4 second mark. I have heard that for decades now.

He doesn't say "behave yourself" LOL! He says "We can't hear anything."

Definitely!

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

 This is  a really good example of the work at Kennedys and King.com, and which could only be done there. 

I have said it before and I will say it again: Malcolm Blunt is the best pure archival researcher that there is right now.  And he is the one who supplied the original info for this important piece, and it was supplemented by Horne, Palamara and Len Osanic.  It indicates a side to the ARRB that went relatively unnoticed: the need to retaliate against JFK and what it represented.This charade with Prouty was probably the most salient example of that.  Thanks to all of these people for their help.  I will not specifically name those who were all too eager to fall  for this faux pas. They know who they are.

I will just say that the  record now stands corrected.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/fletcher-prouty-vs-the-arrb

Fantastic article, Jim! I am honored to have helped.

One thing caught my eye, among others: 

"...investigator Dave Montague got in contact with former Lt. Stephen Weiss, who was with that detachment in 1963 but was now retired. He told Montague that Colonel Robert Jones had requested they get in contact with the Secret Service and offer them supplementary protection for President Kennedy in Dallas. Weiss was surprised that the Secret Service declined. He said the word was that a man, who’s name phonetically sounded like [Forrest] Sorrels, declined the offer. (ARRB memo, p. 1) [emphasis added]."

From my book Honest Answers, pages 132-133 :

"Published for the first time ever, these disturbing comments about the Special Agent in Charge of the Dallas Secret Service office, Forrest Sorrels, who rode in the lead car, the vehicle directly in front of Kennedy’s limousine on 11/22/63 and who helped plan the motorcade route. The FBI got a call on 11/27/1963 from a woman who had heard a recent speech by Forrest Sorrels at her Lady’s Club.  She told the FBI that Sorrels was “anti-government, against the Kennedy administration, and she felt his position was against the security of not only the President but the United States." [reprint of actual doc in the book]

"In light of this disturbing report about Sorrels, the following report, also published for the first time ever, is also troubling- Sorrels told the FBI on 11/20/63 that he did not anticipate any trouble for the upcoming trip to Dallas and did not take up the FBI’s offer of assistance." [reprint of actual doc in the book]

From page 160:

"Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels inexplicably told the FBI (agent Alfred D. Neeley, to be exact) the following: Mr. Forrest V. Sorrels … advised that he was at the Parkland Memorial Hospital when President Kennedy was brought to the hospital and said that he remained there until his body was taken to Love Field. Mr. Sorrels stated that there were no photographs taken of President Kennedy at the Parkland Hospital. He stated there were no photographs taken of him as he was being taken into the Parkland Hospital on a stretcher. [Emphasis added] (2/27/64 FBI interview (CD 735, page 12); see also Murder From Within by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams (2011 edition), page 144)

Sorrels made this bizarre statement, yet there is seemingly no question that he went back to Dealey Plaza soon after arriving at Parkland Hospital. (7 H 332-360 and 13 H 55-83: testimony; 7 H 592: affidavit) Indeed, Sorrels also told the HSCA: He believed the President was dead before he arrived at the hospital. After arriving at Parkland Hospital, he decided that he could be of more help back at the scene of the shooting." (3/15/78 interview with the HSCA (RIF#180-10074-10392).

----------

There's a little more to Sorrels, but this says a lot.

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Vince, I watch and enjoy all of your videos.

This one is just another of your relaxed, easy going, down to Earth, dry humor funny yet thought provoking and general take informing presentations.

New book promoting, yes. I hope you sell 1 million copies.

There is a humble "everyman" style quality to your videos. Like sitting with a friendly next door neighbor on their patio sharing a beer?

Your average Joe demeanor is refreshing to me and contrast the fact that you are a nationally and even internationally known, highly regarded multi-book published icon in the JFK research community the last 20 years. One might expect someone of your stature to have at least a tinge of haughtiness when speaking.

Even your video filming location in this one is a beautiful outdoor "fresh air" scene that is relaxing to view.

Where the heck is that locale? Beautiful trees. Nice long swaths of green grass just below you although it looks like the person mowing this just took a beer lunch break or his riding mower broke down as the mowing is only half finished!

You mentioned your age as 55.

No, I refuse to believe that. Your hair has no grey! You have the smooth facial skin of a teenager? 

I was totally grey haired, wrinkle creased and straggly whisker grisled at 50!

Seriously, you aren't aging like the rest of us!

Is there something in the water there where you live? Or the beer and piroshky?

And lastly Vince, do you realize you are a true "doppleganger" of the famous A-List actor Jonah Hill?

The resemblance is amazing!

I also didn't know that you were a famous band guitar player in your younger days.

The "Silent Choir?"

See pic.

You are an amazing person of incredible talents, will, drive and justice seeking courage Mr. Palamara.

You have added so much to this JFK truth and justice seeking mission world of ours. Thank you.

Thank you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks a lot, Joe!  much appreciated. I have good genes from my mom and dad (I also do not smoke or drink or do drugs). I am married but no kids, so no stress hahaha  We live in a suburb of Pittsburgh, PA near the Montour Trail.

3 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Was a SSA killed?  I have read some of your articles and it seems to be maybe.

I can't help think that this is a pre-conceived story with a SSA agent that is supposed to get killed.

Yes---it seems to be a "maybe." It could also have been a false story started in order to grant federal jurisdiction, even briefly, so the feds (FBI/Secret Service) could take the body illegally and other matters they normally would not be able to do (the murder of a president was NOT then a federal crime, but the murder of an agent WAS!).

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Or perhaps even a radio newsman who lies to his audience?

That could be.