Mike Williams

Tom,

All good stuff!

Guess I need to come off some of those old MC rounds and get to shootin.

Mike

But instead of honoring Clint Hill for magnificently performing his duty to his country

we have the likes of a thousand pet theorists who insist the guy screwed the pooch

and didn't know the difference between 6 inches and 4 inches.

This may be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

So if the man was off by 2 inches then his magnificent performance of his duty is lessened?

How absolutely ridiculous.

Im sorry Cliff you tend to be a bit to "as the world turns" for me.

I guess there are drama queens and then there are DRAMA queens.

Cliff - of course he's grabbing at his throat. I believe he's hit there, frontally, just after the Stemmons sign. Why are his fists clenched, instead of clutching the throat? Possibly a near-simultaneous back wound.

My point is that he is not paralyzed as if by curare. His hands descend, he turns toward Jackie. The hands go back up to throat level. Upon the head wound, the right hand flails forward, resembling a reach forward (it isn't one). I don't find these motions, nor his head and body movements, showing what others describe as paralysis.

Let's not forget that this was the leader of a country, on parade. Dignity in movement would have been self-programmed in him. This was also a brave man, who knew the dangers he was heading into. Did he fail to shield his wife? So did Connally. Kennedy's throat and back wounds were more traumatic - thus more shocking to him - and the throat wound more debilitating, causing him to fight for consciousness and forget all but his duty before the public.

He stopped grabbing for his throat because he was losing consciousness. That's when the right arm descends, and the wrist begins to go limp. Fighting for consciousness, both hands come up as if to protect the throat, and he turns to Jackie for support and attention.

Consciously, and perhaps more unconsciously than even he might have predicted, he bore his wounds with dignity, and held himself upright until the fading of sensation. That's the only "paralysis" that I see. The hand and body motions demonstrate not only continued ability to move, but also a reticence to move too much as the bullets struck him in front of a crowd.

Dave,

Excellent post. I do not believe he is grabbing his throat at all, but other than that I agree 100%. I must have misunderstood your previous post, about the toxin, I thought you were subscribing to this madness.

Best,

Mike

Mr. V.,

I'm not exactly sure of what you mean by " jaunty hail-fellow-well-met routine".

And certainly we have had this conversation before.

If you look at the Zapruder film you see him desperately grabbing for his throat,

and then he stopped grabbing at his throat roughly two seconds after being

shot there.

Can you show me where this happens? I do see his hands come up but I see no grabbing of the throat what so ever. I never see at any point where his hands go below the plane of the chin.

Nellie Connally, Linda Willis, and Clint Hill testified under oath that JFK

was grabbing at his throat, just like we see in the Zap.

Then you should have no problem quickly showing this as it is happening. At no time does JFK "grab" his throat.

Please view the following:

JFK was clearly grabbing or clutching at his throat in the sequence

studied above.

It certainly does not show him grabbing his throat. It does just as Gil has expressed, he is pulling his tie over with one hand, and has his other hand in front of his mouth. Something I might add would be very uncommon for someone who was hit in the throat. Men hit in the throat almost always grab their throat. This is something we never see in the Zapruder film.

The autopsy doctors also discussed that this may have been an exiting fragment. Which seems to make much more sense.

I have to admit, I find the whole ice/poison bullet concept to be best left to the "conspiracy elite" and Hollywood.

Item: in looking at the stabilized Zapruder and Costella's edit for this thread, it seems to me that the motions of JFK's hands and arms, especially the right hand between (circa) frames 240-320, give lie to the notion that JFK is paralyzed by a toxin.

Watch as Kennedy's right hand unclenches, drops limply through reaction to trauma, then rises to the level of his throat again - as if the pain there is so intense (possibly felt more as his head declines), he is guarding the area in a childlike expression of woundedness.

The right hand remains throat-high until the head wound, after which it seems to reach out involuntarily. Hardly the motor behavior of a man paralyzed by more than painful and shocking wounds.

Mr. Andrews,

First and foremost pleasure to make your acquaintance.

Unless I am missing something here, how can a man be paralyzed by a toxin, and still be moving his arms?

Most men that I have seen with injuries to the throat, do not just raise their hands to the level of the throat, they grab it. This clearly did not happen. Further if we are discussing a projectile that passed close to the spine, creating pressure with a secondary wound channel, then the reactions of the target itself would be very unpredictable.

Although the Parkland doctors briefly speculated that the bullet creating the throat wound had entered the chest, the consensus was that the head wound was an exit for the bullet entering the throat, i.e. that a bullet traversed the length of the neck.

This was a factor in my acceptance that this was indeed what happened.

Not following you. And if you are suggesting that the bullet entered the neck and then ended up inside Kennedy's skull? What head wound are you describing?

First day evidence was the best evidence - supported by a myriad of 'events' connected to the whitewash. Jenkins waffling is an all too familiar approach.

"Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."

After studying the medical evidence for several years full time, I came to the conclusion the throat wound was indeed related to the head wound.

Seriously?

So, one of two things occurred prior to the bullet exiting the head:

Either:

1) The round that entered the throat circa Z190 took six seconds to exit,

Or:

2) JFK started reacting to a wound in his throat several seconds before

he was shot in the throat.

Either one is ridiculous...

The Parkland doctors suspected the large head wound was an exit for an entrance in the throat.

The Parkland doctors didn't have the opportunity to view the Zapruder film

or review the witness testimony of Nellie Connally, Jackie Kennedy, Clint Hill,

Linda Willis or Roy Kellerman -- all of whom describe JFK reacting to a hit well

before the head shots.

I suspect the throat wound was an exit for the bullet creating the small entrance near the EOP.

Totally ignoring the neck x-ray, the Zapruder film, Altgens 6, and the testimony of

the folks listed above.

Since the Clark Panel and Lattimer, etc, concluded there was a bullet path visible on the x-rays coming from what they thought was the back wound up above, and since we now know the back wound was really at or below the level of the throat wound,

What can be proven is the back wound was at T3.

Show us where JFK's jacket was elevated more than a fraction of an inch

in Dealey Plaza, Pat. Show us how a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt

rides up more than a fraction of an inch.

Tell us how 15 or so witnesses -- most of whom had a good, prolonged view of

the body -- all got the back wound wrong. Was it a mass hallucination, Pat, or

mere incompetence?

it seems likely the X-rays suggest the missile creating the throat wound descended within the neck.

Are you unaware of the damage shown in the neck x-ray?

Bruised lung tip, hair-line fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and a

subcutaneous air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1. That's a straight front to back

path from between the 3rd and 4th trach rings to C7/T1.

There was no exit. There was no bullet recovered. These are irrefutable facts, Pat.

Anyone that would make the conclusion, after examination that this was a wound of entry does one thing. Shows their absolute ignorance of wound ballistics. This is obviously a wound of an exiting fragment.

I am very interested to see what Mr. Varnell surmises in regard to this wound.

Ice bullet? Flachette?

I would be very interested to do a quick run up of the energy transfer required and expected movement of the target.

One thing is for certain, this was no entry of a projectile(bullet) of any type I have ever heard of.

The speculation that this was a wound of entry is lacking in any kind of credible sense.

It would only be supported by someone who has done little study of the trajectories of this shot, but that is just the beginning.

How does one resolve that a projectile hits nothing but soft tissue, and does not exit?

Further, how does anyone resolve this as a point of exit for a known projectile, and still have entry wound like characteristics?

Mike,

I beg to differ in that the throat wound was small - and in CSI 101 you learn that with gunshot wounds - little in big out is the standard, and the hole in the throat was considered by the doctors at Parkland to be so small that it had to be an entry wound.

Now the lack of an exit wound is an entirely different question, and I can't answer that.

But there is a big bone there, you can feel it, so maybe the bone directed it downward or upwards, but that's just speculation.

The bottom line is that the throat wound as described by the medical personal at Parkland was that it was very small and had all the appearances of an entry wound.

The only real way to learn the truth is to dig up the body and have a proper forensic autopsy, as a president deserves no less.

BK

Bill,

It is that very lack of an exit that bothers me so. Its all soft tissue, according to the reports. Neck wounds are epic and horrific. I have seen a few. Something else to consider is the description itself. Smallish and circular. If that dog gone thing was round Bill it had to hit at almost 90 degrees which makes no trajectory sense at all.

On the flip side of the coin, I have never ever witnessed an exit of the neck that could be called small and circular. NEVER. The secondary wound path of a bullet in soft tissue does not allow for that. I will further say that I have little experience witnessing wounds created by round nosed bullets. Almost always pointed FMJ, and a few shot guns. Perhaps the occasional round nose of a .45, but this is comparing apples to oranges, and I discount it.

I agree completely on a redig. But then that would make sense and why would the Gov. do anything that makes logical sense?

Best to you Sir,

Mike

Hi Mike.

Factor this in: Marion Jenkins noted chest damage.

Doctors Charles Baxter, Malcolm Perry, and Robert McClelland arrived at the same time and began a tracheostomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube, since there was also obvious tracheal and chest damage. Doctors Paul Peters and Kemp Clark arrived simultaneously and immediately thereafter assisted respectively with the insertion of the right chest tube and with manual closed chest cardiac compression to assure circulation.

"The first day I had thought that the one bullet must have...gotten into the lung cavity. I mean, from what you say now, I know it did not go that way. I thought it did."

Couple that with a point blank range shot to Oswald's gut - that round never exited either.

"The bullet passed through Oswald's liver, spleen, and aorta..."

- lee

Lee,

Consider.

A .38 caliber bullet it much bigger and much slower. I would not even expect it to exit LHO. Less energy and more mass make it lose energy much quicker. So really we are comparing apples to oranges here.

If this projectile were in the Chest cavity, why is there no xray evidence of such?

Seymour Weitzman was a very important witness, who was never adequately questioned by the early critics. The HSCA located him in a VA hospital, I believe, where he appeared to suffer from some sort of mental or emotional problems. They did indicate, in their report, that he was still frightened about what he saw and encountered on November 22, 1963, and believed it was all a huge conspiracy.

In reading the Lancer thread there are a few initial concerns.

1) He was held as a prisoner of war by Japan. As this would not have been the E.T.O, I wonder how familiar he was with a Mauser.

2) The comment that he identified it by the scope. Almost any scope can be mounted to almost any rifle. This would seem a less than conclusive method of identification.

Weitzman wasn't the only one there. Roger Craig identified it as a Mauser. Eugene Boone identified it as a Mauser. Weitzman did. Fritz was there. Henry Wade passed this information onto reporters quite certain that it was a Mauser. And then for the next 2 days it was reported as a Mauser.

Did none of these people read what was stamped on the rifle and thereby leaving themselves open to making such a monstrous and monumental mistake?

Craig stuck to his guns and was haunted for the rest of his life. Weitzman didn't stick to his guns and seemed to be haunted for the rest of his life. Looks like catch .22 or should that be catch 7.65?

Let's not mention the Enfield 303...BWF.

This one stretches credulity way past the point of breaking...

You mean in much the same way that the news gives incorrect info today?

You do realize this all could have begun with one person making an off the cuff errant identification?

I do not believe for one minute there was a Mauser up there.

Seymour Weitzman was a very important witness, who was never adequately questioned by the early critics. The HSCA located him in a VA hospital, I believe, where he appeared to suffer from some sort of mental or emotional problems. They did indicate, in their report, that he was still frightened about what he saw and encountered on November 22, 1963, and believed it was all a huge conspiracy.

In reading the Lancer thread there are a few initial concerns.

1) He was held as a prisoner of war by Japan. As this would not have been the E.T.O, I wonder how familiar he was with a Mauser.

2) The comment that he identified it by the scope. Almost any scope can be mounted to almost any rifle. This would seem a less than conclusive method of identification.

Does anyone know if there has been any progress on linking Mac Wallace to the TSBD fingerprint?

John,

One would hope that further work was done.

I would also hope that is would be a bit more academic than the ridiculous paper written titled "The gun that didn't smoke". I am currently working on a dissection of that paper, and it has to be one of the single most illogical writings that I have ever read.

The speculation that this was a wound of entry is lacking in any kind of credible sense.

It would only be supported by someone who has done little study of the trajectories of this shot, but that is just the beginning.

How does one resolve that a projectile hits nothing but soft tissue, and does not exit?

Further, how does anyone resolve this as a point of exit for a known projectile, and still have entry wound like characteristics?

Mike,

I beg to differ in that the throat wound was small - and in CSI 101 you learn that with gunshot wounds - little in big out is the standard, and the hole in the throat was considered by the doctors at Parkland to be so small that it had to be an entry wound.

Now the lack of an exit wound is an entirely different question, and I can't answer that.

But there is a big bone there, you can feel it, so maybe the bone directed it downward or upwards, but that's just speculation.

The bottom line is that the throat wound as described by the medical personal at Parkland was that it was very small and had all the appearances of an entry wound.

The only real way to learn the truth is to dig up the body and have a proper forensic autopsy, as a president deserves no less.

BK

Bill,

It is that very lack of an exit that bothers me so. Its all soft tissue, according to the reports. Neck wounds are epic and horrific. I have seen a few. Something else to consider is the description itself. Smallish and circular. If that dog gone thing was round Bill it had to hit at almost 90 degrees which makes no trajectory sense at all.

On the flip side of the coin, I have never ever witnessed an exit of the neck that could be called small and circular. NEVER. The secondary wound path of a bullet in soft tissue does not allow for that. I will further say that I have little experience witnessing wounds created by round nosed bullets. Almost always pointed FMJ, and a few shot guns. Perhaps the occasional round nose of a .45, but this is comparing apples to oranges, and I discount it.

I agree completely on a redig. But then that would make sense and why would the Gov. do anything that makes logical sense?

Best to you Sir,

Mike

The speculation that this was a wound of entry is lacking in any kind of credible sense.

It would only be supported by someone who has done little study of the trajectories of this shot, but that is just the beginning.

How does one resolve that a projectile hits nothing but soft tissue, and does not exit?

Further, how does anyone resolve this as a point of exit for a known projectile, and still have entry wound like characteristics?

Thank you for your reply.

Good to see that we are on the same page on FMJ rounds and fragmenting.

I'll skip over the "magic bullet" the very slightly deformed one found for now.

However, considering your reply on FMJ's and fragmenting, do you not find it rather bizarre, that there were bullet fragments in both Kennedy's brain as well as Connally's wrist?

As far as I can discern, these were two seprate bullets, and therefore two unusual FMJ rounds pertaining to this case.

I just can't get over how an FMJ round (let alone two) would leave all that led and metal behind, having only struck human tissue?

Just raises a big red flag in my mind.

Any further education on this would be appreciated.

Antti

Sir,

Yes sir I would be glad to.

The 6.5mm Carcano round is a copper jacketed bullet. The reason these are jacketed at all, is because at velocities over 1100fps the lead begins to heat and deform. This can cause serious trajectory issues.

However. When these projectiles are in flight and hit a target, it is not uncommon to lose some lead from the tail of the projectile. It is common given two facts. One the lead is very soft and mailable, so if the jacket deforms at all it squeezes the soft lead out of the tail.

Second, I have seen examples of projectiles that are non jacketed on the bottom, and ones that are jacketed on the bottom. If this projectile had a copper jacket on the bottom as well it would still not necessarily preclude the escape of lead out of the bottom.

It seems at one time someone told me that they were not jacketed on the bottom, but I have been out of the game for a couple years and do not recall.

I hope this has helped and if there is anything I can do I remain

At your service,

Mike

Mike:

Too bad you missed the "photo" works of long ago.

The WCC 6.5mm Carcano round is constructed with the copper jacket partially covering the lead core at the bullet base.

The copper jacket is "crimped" over/around the base to a width of approximately 1mm for the entire circumference of the base of the bullet.

This leaves a 4.5mm width/diameter, virtually perfect circle of the lead core exposed at the base of the bullet.

Tom

Yes Sir and this is the area in cause and effect for the toothpaste to be squeezed from the tube!

I have a few rounds of this era 6.5 Carcano ammo, but have not disassembled any, perhaps I should take just one of them apart for demonstration purposes.

Hope you have been well my friend!

Mike

Something Kennedy was probably used to more than many, was that a cop harley would be running pretty hot by now and backfiring a fair bit.

I would not argue against that John, but certainly this was not the first motorcade for the others who reacted.

First off I'd love to say hi to all and seeing that this board really has all the heavy hitters from my youth! Really the reason I got into the JFK case was because of the 1980's documentaries and I see allot of those researchers are on here!

As for my Theory... I have seen it is picking up steam! The great people of MaryFerrell.org liked my point of view of something I feel has been pretty much glossed over for the most part. We see most people always focusing on the 2nd shot (magic bullet) & the 3rd (head shot), but really the whole case comes down to the First Missed Shot! That is the key to conspiracy! The angles don't match, the timing makes no sense & there is a bunch of Why would anyone do that?? We have seen crazy theories from John McAdams, Gerald Posner trying to explain what they can't with the missed shot! One says it's the 3rd shot coming from JFK's head - hitting the windshield then hitting the curb (ignoring evidence from a officer saying it was the 1st shot - not the 3rd) & another saying it hit the tree even though the tree wasn't anywhere near JFK in Oswalds scope at the 157-160 Z-frame mark.

This is the most important time because as soon as Tom Hanks project comes out, we will see the national media want to accept that and put everything else to bed with this case in the mainstream on it's 50th year. It's all set up, we all know how they have ignored evidence.

I havent really promoted my little quick site and when you see the site it's one page and pretty simple, but to the point! The people at Mary Ferrell was the first place I posted and after that I emailed a bunch of news outlets without any response. But I have now seen Jesse Ventura was on the Joy Behar Show on March 11th I believe and brought up my theory pretty quickly but to the tee.. Since then I have tried posting on his board - hoping he will do a full hour on JFK's The Missed Shot!

So this is the time to get this out there, before Tom Hanks & the mainstream media whitewash the truth and ignore something that is right out there in plan site!

Remember when The Lapel Evidence came out to The Magic Bullet - The Missed Shot is that same kind of evidence...

=======================================

Ok...

The Missed Shot is at Z-Frame 157 but we have to remember the sound has to hit Zapruder's ears to have him shake the camera which Z-Frame 160. But people we are talking about less then a second here... frame to frame. THIS is the POINT of the First Shot which Missed!!

* The House Select Committee's expert Photographic Evidence Panel's analysis of the Zapruder film placed a possible shot "at frames 158-160," based upon the blurring of the film at this point. "The most interesting thing about this hypothetical shot," the panel writes, "is that Mrs. Kennedy and Governor Connally testified before the Warren Commission and Governor Connally testified before the House Select Committee that they turned to their right when they heard the first shot, and both are seen in the film beginning a turn to the right immediately after this hypothetical shot. This appears particularly striking in the case of Governor Connally, whose head turns from mid-left to far right in less than half a second, beginning at frame 162."

* Around Zapruder frame 160-165 Rosemary Willis, who has been running on the grass alongside the President's limousine, begins to slow down; by frame 190 she has come to a complete halt. "I stopped when I heard the shot," she says. "In that first split second, I thought it was a firecracker. But within maybe one-tenth of a second, I knew it was a gun shot."

* Governor John Connally's head turns sharply to the right around Zapruder frames 161-162, Between Z 162 and 167, the Governor suddenly jerks his head to the right.

* The House Select Committee on Assassination's Photographic Panel said "The first reaction by any of the limousine occupants to a severe external stimulus begins to occur in the vicinity of Zapruder frames 162-167..."

Mostly....

The Warren Commission even took a photo of The Missed Shot. They clearly show a rifle scope around their JFK double in their reenactments.

==============================

The Angles:

--------------

Here is a Photo I didn't personally take, but it shows the angle of basically where "The Target" ie: JFK's Limo was at the point of the first Missed Shot. LOOK at the steep angle! Look how Oswald would have had to aim his rifle "Sharply" DOWN!

Now...

Here is a Photo I personally didn't take, but The Actual Angle of The Missed Shot where The Curb was struck is a completely different angle to where Oswald would be aiming! If he was trying to shoot JFK he would be aiming DOWN.. NOT this angle. Look at the difference!!

Totally different angles! The LIMO is under Oswald at the point of this first Missed Shot at Z-Frame 160.

====================

Motorcycle Officer (Sergeant) Stavis Ellis: Proving The FIRST Shot was the MISSED Shot!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motorcycle Officer (Sergeant) Stavis Ellis: That's when the first shot was fired. I was looking directly at the President, and I saw the concrete burst into a cloud of dust when that bullet hit the curb. . . . Then, while looking back at the President, I heard the second shot. The President became rigid and grabbed his neck."

On August 5, 1978, the committee received information from former Dallas policeman Stavis Ellis that Ellis had also seen a missile hit the ground in the area of the motorcade at the time of the assassination. Ellis said he rode on a motorcycle alongside the first car in the motorcade, approximately 100 to 125 feet in front of the car carrying President Kennedy. Ellis said that just as he started down the hill of Elm Street, he looked back toward President Kennedy's car and saw debris come up from the ground at a nearby curb.

========================

Questions of WHY:

---------------------

* WHY was Lee Oswald aiming his rifle 125 feet IN FRONT of "His Target"??

* WHY was Lee Oswald not aiming DOWN but he had his body turned to his right and the angle is completely different?

* WHY did Lee Oswald watch the Limo go down Houston... turn the corner... have The Limo RIGHT under him with the easiest shot... BUT aim the rifle 125 feet in front of JFK's Limo???

Because nothing was in the way of his wide open shot as the Warren Commission Re-enactment Photo 100% proves!

==========================

- Where's the Tree? At the most, you would hit the very end of a twig.

- Where's the Traffic Light? Its behind the Limo about 12+ feet.

Nothing is around The Limo. It is in the WIDE OPEN! NOW, Look at the angle, you are pointing straight down!

*Now to hit The Curb, you have to lift your arms up, twist your body to the right about 45 degrees to hit The Curb where James Tague was located. THE ANGLES just don't work!

**Bottomline:

CLEARLY The Warren Commission knew this was the first shot - missed shot - a shot... Because in the photo they photographed a Rifle Scope around the JFK Re-enactment Double.

WHY would you aim a Rifle 125 feet infront of the target???? You are watching The Limo come up Houston Street... then TURN onto Elm Street. The LIMO is right under you!!! WHY are you aiming at a totally different angle & 125 feet IN FRONT of where your target is?

=======================

Bottomline:

------------

* The Warren Commission Re-enactment Photo with a Double proves they knew from watching the Zapruder Film that THIS was "A Shot". Which lines up with Z-Frame 160.

* Motorcycle Officer Stavis Ellis statement of it being the First shot and seeing the next 2 shots proves that the missed shot was the first shot!

"Motorcycle Officer (Sergeant) Stavis Ellis: That's when the first shot was fired. I was looking directly at the President, and I saw the concrete burst into a cloud of dust when that bullet hit the curb. . . . Then, while looking back at the President, I heard the second shot. The President became rigid and grabbed his neck."

WHY was Oswald aiming 125 feet in front of the limo at a totally different angle?

??????

Thanks for listening to my theory - if the photos don't pop up, check out my One Page site on The Missed Shot.

www.TheMissedShot.8m.com

Take Care,

Patrick

How would you then explain that just .79 seconds later the reaction from JFK is to raise his right hand, and begin his final wave?

If the rest of the limo occupants are reacting to a gunshot why was he just calmly beginning to wave?

Additionally Why do we have testimony from Willis who says the first shot hit the President, and his photo in relation to that shot at z202?

Consider.

Phil Willis

We know that Phil Willis took his famous photo Willis 5, and that it relates to Zapruder frame 202. In the testimony of Mr. Willis we find some interesting statements.

We find that his photo was snapped in reaction to the sound of the rifle shot. (7H493) We also find that this shot, according to Willis, “was hit” He tells us that this shot struck the President (7H493) “…and I got a picture of the President AS he was hit with the first shot” (7H493)

So lets take a closer look at this photo and work a little timeline into effect.

Phil Willis was 140 feet from the muzzle of the rifle at 202. It would have taken the sound .1238937 seconds to reach Willis, once that sound reached him we would have to add in a reaction time to snap the photo. According to my Shot timer tests, this time would be .235 seconds. By adding .235 and .1238937 seconds we arrive at the shutter being snapped .3588937 seconds after the shot was fired. .3588937 seconds divided by .054644808 gives us 6.56, say 6.6 z frames. This means the trigger was pulled at 195.4.

Zapruder tells us that the President leaned towards his wife after the first shot (corroborating Willis). Since JFK is already reacting coming out from behind the sign, where Zapruder could not see him, then obviously Zapruder observed this before JFK went behind the sign.

Also consider.

Hugh Betzner who says he was "I was running trying to keep the President's car in my view and was winding my film as I ran. I was looking down at my camera to see the number of the film as I ran. I took another picture as the President's car was going down the hill on Elm Street. I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise."

Betzner was moving rapidly to take photos.

Betzner took his Betzner 3 photo at 186, and in his testimony he tells us that He took this photo and started to wind his camera when he heard the first shot. (24H200)

At 202 Betzner was 117 feet from the muzzle of the rifle. If the shot were fired at 195.4 the sound would reach Betzner .103539735 seconds later, or 1.9 Z frames, which puts the sound reaching Betzner at 197.3. If he took his previous photo at 186 then he heard the shot at 197.3 did he have enough time to take the 186 photo and begin to wind his camera?

197.3 subtract 186 leaves us with 11.3 Z frames. 11.3 times .054644808 is .617 seconds.

I tested this out with a simple stop watch. I held it in front of my face like a camera, and hit the start button to simulate taking a photo, then I lowered it and hit the stop button. My times were as follows:

.66, .50, .53, .47, .50, .72, .63, .63, .63, .66, for an average of .593 seconds.

I stand convinced that Betzner could very well have taken the 186 photo and just begun to wind the film when the shot rang out.

Far more evidence is to be had for a shot in the late 190's. I have much more but this should suffice.

I would say that one can not base an entire theory on the turn of a head during a noisy motorcade.

JIM AND JUDYTH RESPOND TO GREENLEE, SHACKELFORD, AND WHITE

NOTE: I suppose that Greenlee, who has been posting nasties to Junkkarinen on

another site, belongs here to add to the fray. How many have now piled on about my

inquiry about some code that was linked to Junkkarinen's site but turned out to be

about her son rather than her? Junkkarinen, Thompson, Farley, Viklund, Greenlee,

and no doubt others. That's a lot of posts for asking about some apparently military

code in the belief that they had come from Barb's page to which his page was linked:

"I'm very sorry for the indefensible crap Fetzer posted about your son", he says. But

the only "indefensible crap" posted is his. The code I posted was some that Barb's son

had included on his own Facebook page. Facebook is public and he had it posted there.

My only mistake was to suppose it came from Barb, when it came from another page

linked to Barb's page. It was nothing more than a simple inquiry in one of my posts:

Stop this BS, Fetzer. NOTHING regarding my son "belongs here." After the pounding you took, one would think you would have gotten the message. What is WRONG with you?

Kevin Greenlee, has not been writing "nasties" to me.

There is not now no never was a link on MY facebook page that goes to the information about my son that you posted.

Someone went to my son's facebook page ... and somehow got to his PRIVATE (friends only) info page.

YOU stupidly decided you had some dirt on me that I should have to explain to the people here, you copied and pasted the text in your post that the moderators then removed. Not taking the hint <wink, wink> you then posted a SHAM apology and included a direct link to what you said was MY facebook page. Had you even bothered to try that link yourself, you would have seen it went directly to my son's facebook page.

Then, to top it off, after you saw that a moderator had edited that link OUT of your post, and the moderator's name automatically showed up at the bottom indicating who had edited it, YOU go in and edit out THEIR name and make it look like you edited the post yourself!

Some lurker writes me a nice note on the mod group over what you had done, so you think it is now relevant here.

Get over yourself, Fetzer.

And leave my son out of your posts. Got it? You are so desperate that you are slithering around my facebook page looking for something to throw, but my son is no part of this discussion, or this arena. Keep your slimy paws off of him and anyone else's child. Creepy.

This was over and done with and we'd all moved on. Let's do that again ... permanently. Go figure Fetzer wanting to showcase what creepy things he does, what poor judgment he has, and that he posted things, that if one chooses to believe him, he never bothered to even check out before dashing to his keyboard ... multiple times.

Fetzer takes another credibility flush.....and rightfully so.

Man for a blind lady she types A LOT and OFTEN and QUICKLY!

She sounds A LOT like Fetzer.

Bill O'Reily called Fetzer a nut, could this be a case of dual personalities?

Sybil Fetzer mayhap?

Sorry guys, I just could not help myself.

You're welcome Barb. I mean by blitz to back you up. Not sit on the sideline. But you're obviously not a victim type and the support is obviously there. OK, well he can consider stopping digging at some point, I suppose.

He might also consider trying to interpret his diggings a bit more accurately in the future as well. However I for one will not hold my breath. Fetzer does not seem long on common sense when it comes to interpreting anything.

Barb darlin you have the patience of a saint and the tenacity of a bull dog you go get em!

My best to you both!

Mike

Hi Mike,

Aren't you a sweet thang! Patience is not always my forte' ... but no one could argue against my having a bit of a stubborn streak, especially when principles are involved.

Bests to you too!

Barb :-)

Our principles define us Barb! Bully for you!

I can not believe I just read Fetzer tell someone they were maintaining an "ignorant" state of mind. Wooooo boy that is rich.

I wonder why he did not use that line on Bill O'Reily. I suspect he would have been made to look more of a fool, if that is at all possible.

Best to you too Barb!

Mike

You're welcome Barb. I mean by blitz to back you up. Not sit on the sideline. But you're obviously not a victim type and the support is obviously there. OK, well he can consider stopping digging at some point, I suppose.

He might also consider trying to interpret his diggings a bit more accurately in the future as well. However I for one will not hold my breath. Fetzer does not seem long on common sense when it comes to interpreting anything.

Barb darlin you have the patience of a saint and the tenacity of a bull dog you go get em!

My best to you both!

Mike

MEDEC-ZOA is no mystery ... and no file or designation regarding

Judyth for any special or secret project.

Barb :-)

Another example of Barb's trying to scarf up a bit of information and present her opinion as 'fact'.

Which of course is just Pamelas opinion as well.

Barb,

I commend you. How you manage to continue to even deal with such lunacy is beyond me. I have read many of your writings and have always thought well of your work, but never so much as now. Some people never learn that the first thing to do when one finds oneself in a hole, is quit digging. I must say I am enjoying this beating you are dishing out very much!

Mike

Barb,

Absolutely magnificent work!

Best to you,

Mike

One more thing about what dentists sometimes did for a person missing a front or easily-seen tooth. They made the patient a "flipper." A flipper was not a good device. It had a roof to it and the fake tooth would replace the missing one. It was a horrible contraption -- you might as well wear dentures. And when they didn't fit -- oh my God.

Kathy C

Kathleen,

Is this like a bridge?

Mike

The longer this thread continuous the more my respect for JVB grows. She is like Kasparow playing chess against Barb, J. Simkin, Jack W., Lifton, Roy, G. Viklund etc. simultaneously...and she wins.

Am I reading a different thread then everybody else?

I keep reading that Judyth is right four times in a row over Jack, and that Judyth keeps proving everyone wrong about every matter and she knows more about LHO then all of us combined 500 times over

This is gone to far

All I see is Judyth backtracking with silly excuses everytime she is called on one of her crazy stories

From where im sitting she has not been right about anything

I cant believe the things I am seeing in this thread!

Judyth has proved nobody wrong in this thread, all of these posts by Judyth are her make-believe stories posted against the research of those who are not lying about what they have found

So how can Judyth be proving anyone wrong with false stories?

Mr. Hagerman,

Sir I surely thank you for that! I thought I was losing my marbles. I agree with you completely.

What amazes me is the gullibility of such allegedly "educated" people.

Again thank you Sir for bringing a sane comment to a ridiculous situation.

Best to you Sir,

Mike

Duncan, this was discussed on pages 246 through 249 of Six Seconds. I compared the Weaver photo with some frames from Hughes and came to pretty much your conclusion. Will you take a look at it and let me know what you think? Thanks.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah,

Believe it or not, I have never read Six Seconds, only exerpts which other researchers have pointed me to, so I was unaware of your study when doing my study.

It's extremely interesting that we both come to the same conclusion independantly, so many years apart, and with me having no knowledge of your study.

I will now try to get the book. In the meantime, do you know of any source online where I can go to view pages 246 through 249 ?

Thomas,

I'm glad that you can see what I see, and have the guts to say that you see the face of Lee Harvey Oswald.

I suspect that many CT's on this forum and elsewhere, although seeing what you and I see, will not publicly say so.

I find it amazing that the Hughes frame shows the face of Oswald, imo. It could of course be the old Rohrschach test playing tricks, but as I discussed with another researcher privately, What would be the odds of Pixelation creating the face of Oswald at that location? Billions to one was the agreed conclusion.

Don,

Of course I think it was Oswald. That however, does not mean that I am not open to the idea conspiracy.

Duncan MacRae

Duncan,

I appreciate the "another researcher privately", however, I wanted it known that I am that researcher. I agree 100% with Duncan on this. I do believe it looks amazingly like LHO, and find that the odds of pixelation creating the face as remarkably high. I am interested to see how this developes further as more people view it and comment as well as any additional work that could be done with this picture.

Best to all and Happy Easter

Mike

But, of course, although Dolva does not mention it, the same argument could be

made for every thread on the forum. If this is the longest in the history of the EF,

then it is not difficult to answer the question: interest in her is quite considerable!

''I notice there does not seem much ineterst in Judyth Baker. I am curious if people here do not believe her? Or just waiting for more evidence?''

Bill Byas

''You're obviously not serious. Notice the high number of both reads [38,000+] and replies [870+] in the existing thread below.''

List the number of posters. It's easy to make up to 5 hits in putting together a post and then set an autorefresh in action. It's not reads but hits.

Subtract irrelevancies and there'd be a, I hypothesise, significantly lower number of actual posts/replies.

I suspect many are viewing it as a Monty Pythonesk form of ridiculous humor. I know I am.

Mike

I too sometimes view Prof. Fetzer as the guy in Life of Brian? who keeps on taunting after having his arms and legs cut off. He doesn't take that as being defeated.

BK

Bill,

There may be many issues where we do not see eye to eye, but brother you hit the NAIL on the head there!

Best to you my new friend!

Mike