Chris Newton

Lee: This is an interesting hypothesis. A sabot (IMHO) would more than likely be fired from a shotgun. This would give some credence to Arnold's statement that the "thing" the cop was waving at him had a barrel "as big around as this". It would also possibly link the the cop bringing up the rear in the tramp photos to badgeman, as some have suggested. Possibly the same cop? maybe. "Double-Odd-Buck" would not have been the ammo of choice if badgeman was really a shooter- something a little more solid would have been required. A shotgun might also account for the smoke - especially a well cleaned and oiled one (nod and wink to Ryan Crowe who is right on the money here). If you doubt me then google SHOTGUN +SABOT. 4,000 returns?

I am Chris Newton of Lake Worth, Florida, USA. I became really interested in the JFK conspiracy while investigating my grandfather's role in the intelligence agencies of the 40's and 50's. His circle of friends and aquaintances continualy brought me back to the assassination in my research. I have ten years military experience in Combat Arms where my primary job was to help develop gunnery standards for the M1 Abrams Tank. I've also been a Infantry Squad Leader and a NBC NCO. My work with Tank simulators sparked an interest in computers and I've been a computer analyst ever since. Most recently, I had a seven year stint with Motorola's Personal Messaging Sector as an Operations Systems Analyst. Like Ryan Crowe, I bring 35 years of marksmanship training, military planning and a healthy dose of common sense to the table. And like Jack White, if I can help inspire another generation to search the truth then I'll feel my mission has been accomplished. The Truth Will Set You Free

Robert Frazier's WC testimony (even though most of his testimony is crap here's a couple of juicy bits) Morning session: Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Frazier, would you have tried to give a lead at all, if you had been in that position? Mr. FRAZIER. At that range, at that distance, 175 to 265 feet, with this rifle and that telescopic sight, I would not have allowed any lead--I would not have made any correction for lead merely to hit a target of that size. Next session: Mr. EISENBERG. Now also you had made certain calculations concerning what we have been calling the lead that had to be given to a target, assuming various factors which were supplied to you. Do you have those calculations now? Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; the lead would amount to shooting over the target at 175 feet, a distance of 6.7 inches, and the decimal on that figure is not an accurate decimal because this figure relates to an average velocity of ammunition of this type, and is concerned with a speed of a vehicle which is also estimated, and a distance which may or may not be exactly accurate. But at a ground speed of 11 miles an hour, it would be necessary to shoot over or lead a target 6.7 inches for the bullet to hit the intended spot on the target At 265 feet the lead would be .51 feet, or 6.1 inches. I might say that the variation, that of less lead at the longer distance, is in great part due to the fact that the target is farther away and that the shot is more nearly in line with the direction in which the target is moving, which would account for much of the drop in the amount of lead. And, in addition, I calculated this on the basis of the fact that there was a slight slope between the 175-foot and the 265-foot location downwards away from the shooter, which would also tend to more nearly cause the target to be moving in the same path as the bullet. Mr. EISENBERG. And did you convert those lead distances into the amount of inches which the shooter would have to sight above the head, above the point of the target? Mr. FRAZIER. Those figures I gave were the elevations or the sighting distances above the target. The 6.7 inches vertical lead or sighting over the target is the equivalent of leading on the ground of 1.4 feet. huh? to lead or not to lead that is the question... Mr. SPECTER. That completes my questions of Mr. Frazier. Mr. DULLES. Could I ask just one more question? Mr. SPECTER. Yes, sir; Mr. Dulles. Mr. DULLES. There has been a certain amount of testimony indicating there was a longer pause between the report of the first shot or what is believed to be the report, explosion of the first shot and the second and third shots, that is not absolutely unanimous but I would say it is something like 5 to 1 or something of that kind, what would you say, 2 to 1, 3 to 1? (Discussion off the record.) Mr. DULLES. Is it possible that the assassin attempted to fire when the car was behind the tree or going into the tree, that that shot went astray, and that that accounts for, if there was a longer delay between one and two, that would account for it, and then the lethal shots were fired or the wound, the one shot that was fired that hit the two and then the lethal shot was fired immediately after. It is speculation. Mr. McCLOY. I think that must be speculation because there certainly is conflicting evidence as to the intervals between the first and the second shot and the second and the third shot. Mr. DULLES. I think if you will read the testimony you will find it at least 2 to 1 except for the people in the car. Mr. McCLOY. Maybe, but what weight do you give these, I don't know. I think that is quite possible that a bullet was deflected by that tree, but there is no evidence whatever of the bullet landing anywhere in the street or among the crowd. And yet there seems to be no doubt at all that three shots were fired. Mr. DULLES. That seems to be the evidence. Mr. McCLOY. At least three shots were fired, and probably three shots were fired because of the three shells that were found. Mr. DULLES. Three shells? Mr. MCCLOY. Yes. Mr. DULLES. We probably won't settle that today. Mr. FRAZIER. I don't know how to answer that question except possibly to go back to the frame numbers of the Zapruder film and you will find they are about equally spaced from frame 161 just before the tree to frame, say, 220, which is just a few frames after the tree, that is 59 or approximately 60 frames, from that point. But from frame 222 to the last shot of frame 313 is 78 and 13, 91 frames, so there is more time between the second and third than the first and second, assuming that the second one actually occurred and that it occurred at about the middle of that interval. Mr. McCLOY. In the middle of that frame, yes. I think that is pretty persuasive. Mr. DULLES. I didn't quite follow that. Mr. McCLOY. There seemed to be more frames between, going backwards, between the third shot, that is between the time that---- Mr. DULLES. The first shot went astray, you don't know whether it was fired. You have no way of getting at that. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. McCLOY. Thank you very much, Mr. Frazier. Mr. Dulles...I'm having a hard time following that too.... what exactly are we not trying to settle today?

Ryan, A few things I can add here - The shots from the alledged sniper's nest were not only difficult because the target was moving away but add the difficulty of the target also moving down an incline (towards the underpass) and following the curvature of the road (left to right I believe). As an example compare the difficulty of shooting skeet to shooting trap. The MC was a terrible choice as a sniper weapon because it is not a "high powered rifle", it's a carbine. Carbine's such as the M1 are great for close quarters fighting because they have shorter barrels and are lighter than rifles. They are lousy sniper weapons. If I had been a shooter from a elevated position and I was serious about my business I'd probably have taken the "tried and true" weapon that had been the choice of snipers through the three previous major conflicts, the Springfield '03. I'm also highly suspicious of the fact that we're supposed to believe that Oswald, despite his military training, would have attempted his "mission" with four rounds in a clip which holds six rounds. I'll try and find the WC testimony - there's a passage with one of the FBI agents describing the problem that they had with the MC scope. It wasn't zeroed. They listed the ranges that they tested it at and the amount of "kentucky windage" needed to hit a bull. Funny thing was that they fudged some of the numbers and if you know where to look it'll jump right out at you. I'll scare it up. Keep up the good work. Chris

T. Folsom wrote: Touche'. Actually there is nothing more humorous to me than am Ivory Tower intellectual that doesn't know jack about the mechanics of actually shooting a moving target and buys the WC theory that Oswald acted alone. hmmm....nice. I don't have a "Masters" in firearms, marksmanship or killing because they don't offer one. But I am an expert. For your assertion to hold true, Oswald would have to be the greatest marksman in United States history. From personal experience I find it impossible that Oswald... 1. Hit his target twice while it was moving down and to the left and then to the right. 2. Hit his target at all through a scope which was not zeroed to his weapon. 3. Shot three times in under 10 seconds. 4. Loaded a five round clip with four bullets. 5. Outperformed Carlos Hathcock and every trained sniper that tried to mimic the feat. 6. Killed his first known victim with startling efficiency and calmness. 7. Owned any gun and did not own a gun cleaning kit and any extra bullets at all. 8. He did all of the above with little or no training. (You read that right. Marines aren't good shots by "default". Please!.) It's much more plausible that several experienced marksman fired several rounds each, some of which missed and some of which hit the intended and unintended targets. This leads us where, "Mr. Folsom"?

Greg, I concur with your description of USIA. A little background: In August 1942 the COI was split into two distinct entities; The Office of War Information (OWI) and the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). In 1947 the United States Information Service (USIS) was formed to take over the duties of the OWI (1). USIS was subsequently renamed the United States Information Agency (USIA). I can't categorize the USIA as an agency that would be complicit with the Communist Chinese concerning advanced knowledge of the assassination of JFK. My grandfather was a USIA station chief in southeast asia and had a $100,000 bounty placed on his life by the communist chinese. If anything this memo might have been disinformation to try to redirect tempers from communist russia to communist china. An internal Red Herring? Nonetheless it would be interesting to see the actual "Weisman" memo. Footnote: 1. The Black Ops group in OWI was transfered to CIA (along with OSS) not to USIS. This group's methods were so underhanded and horrifying that they caused the veteran OSS staffer's to cringe.

Jim Braden stayed in room 301 which might imply at least three stories.

A little off topic but I think the American "standard" for Sniper rifles is/was the M1903 which has recently seen service in Afghanistan. If I were a "real" marine sniper I'd pick a real rifle not a "carbine" such as the Marcano. I happen to own a Springfield and it's an accurate weapon. From a military standpoint the sniper nest in the TSBD was a fiasco. My top 10 reasons: 1) The sight was not zeroed to the weapon (I'm shocked that this detail didn't bring the LHO theory to a crashing halt) 2) There was no evidence that the gun had been cleaned and no cleaning kit was ever found in anyone's posession. C'mon, please - the sniper of the century didn't clean his weapon? 3) A "real" sniper would never poke his (or her - sorry ladies) weapon out the window. That's like saying "Hi! I'm up here!". 4) The sniper only loaded four rounds into a clip which holds five and that was all he needed. 5) The sniper took the time to hide the weapon but didn't bother to pick up the two (or three depending on whose statement you read) rounds laying just within reach and in plain sight. 6) There's plenty of evidence that the original carcano is not the carcano in the archives even though both share the same serial number. Gotcha JEH you cross-dressing silly man! 7) Retired Marine Gunnery Sargeant, Carlos Hathcock, the greatest sniper in US History (after LHO of course), tried to duplicate Oswald's shots with a team of snipers and was unsuccessful. 8) The Carcano is a less than reliable carbine not a high powered rifle. A carbine has a smaller sight radius and is less accurate than a rifle and has a significantly lower velocity. Marines in WW2 complained about the stopping power of carbines. A good choice? 9) There was a large tree in the way of the southwest window on the sixth floor. (not so most of the time from the southeast window). 10) Witnesses identified the man in the southwest sixth floor corner window as a negro.

Lee, Actually the "Sabot" is the projectile. The sleeve or collar is what is discarded once the projectile leaves the barrel. Here's another interesting description which I've highlighted on one very topical point. Remember the mysterious .45 slug? A Sabot round (pronounced sah-bow') from the French for "shoe" is simply a cartridge that utilizes a smaller than bore diameter projectile held in a bore diameter sleeve. The use of this technique allows higher velocities than normal since the projectile is much lighter than the round's standard projectile and it still has a large base area for the propellant gases to push against. It also provides ballistic advantages over simply using a very light weight bore diameter projectile since the smaller diameter projectile will have a better ballistic coefficient and sectional density for a given weight. The most common commercial uses of this concept are in the Remington Accelerator rounds which fire a 50gr - 55 gr .22 caliber bullet from some common .30 caliber rounds and the new saboted 12 gauge slugs which fire a nominal .45 caliber projectile of about an ounce in weight which give better ballistics that a conventional shotgun slug. Anyway... back in '63 they'd have to use a plastic or ceramic sleeve of some kind - it wouldn't be metalic at all. a metallic sleeve would defeat the purpose of the round and suck away it's kinetic energy. If McAdams is stating that experienced people would mistaken exhaust smoke for gunpowder smoke then that just shows how desperately removed from reality he is. Secret Service and other witnesses remember smelling gunpowder near the overpass. Also there are several combat veterans who stated that they heard different weapons firing. I think people without combat experience just don't get what is being said here. All weapons sound different - combat veterans can tell you exactly which weapons their buddies and the enemy are firing by the sounds alone. This hasn't changed in any conflict.

lee, I think there's evidence that LBJ tried to change the seating arrangements that morning but JFK insisted that the arrangement stay the way it turned out. They had a heated discussion that was overheard by several aides concerning this. You are correct in that the photo represents a APFSDS-T (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot - Tracer) round. Here's a link that'll illustrate what a sabot designed for a smaller weapon might resemble: http://www.loadammo.com/Topics/March02.htm Remember we're still taking Hoover's word that there were traces of lead on that curb. Just like we're apparently taking his word that LHO wasn't of interest to the Bureau before November, 1963.

Lee That's not far fetched. A sabot sleeve can do a lot of damage. I was in Abrams Tanks and we were always concerned and avoided firing sabot over infantry in front of us because of the dangers of the diiscarding collar. A 120mm or 105mm sabot's collar can kill. It would give Gordon Arnold's story a lift if this was the case. Gordon stated something to the effect that the barrel of the weapon of the man who took his film was huge. If someone were using a 12ga. and a sabot round that would be consistent. The "con" for this scenario is that a shotgun would be a low velocity weapon. Would a sabot sleeve have enough force behind it to wound Tague across the street? Probably not unless the round had an extra charge to it.

I'd like to add a few comments as well and a couple of questions regarding the Zapruder and Muchmore films. Dear Maggie, At it's most basic, this is essentially an investigation into the murders of John F. Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald. These may be the most investigated and unsolved murders of all time. Some argue that the cases are in fact closed and that the Warren Commision was correct in it's theory that Oswald killed Kennedy on his own without confederates and that Jack Ruby, in turn, killed Oswald in a sudden rage. I know this is a ridiculous proposition. I grew up firing weapons and I have three expert weapons qualifications from my own military service. There is no way Oswald made the shots attributed to him in Dealey Plaza with the weapon the Warren Commision presented as evidence. I've heard several compelling reasons in the threads above to undertake one's own research. Speaking strictly for myself, I have a sense of duty to the generations of my family that proudly fought for three centuries for this republic. I can't imagine that any one of them wouldn't be furious at whomever conspired to assassinate an american president. The fact that the assassins have enjoyed whatever advantage it gave them for forty years doesn't sit well with me. Americans, like me, love to brag about our democracy and our freedom and our pursuit of happiness. All of that rings hollow if our elected officials can so easily be usurped with impunity. I'm sure students will ask why care about this? I hope our comments help. Getting back to Zapruder and Muchmore for a minute - I fail to see why showing something on television in 1963 would prevent any hanky panky. Are we suggesting someone had a VCR to record it? What would prevent people from altering it after it was shown on television? Who would be around to say that it was or wasn't what they saw before? I remember watching the OJ chase but if you edited that and I had no access to another copy I'd be hard pressed to tell you what was live and what was memorex. Is the copy of Muchmore we have today the "edited" version from the TV station? What was the reason LIFE kept Zapruder's film hidden for so long? If it was an invaluable asset then it seems a little strange they would mishandle it enough to suddenly be missing several frames. It also seems to me that if any evidence has been tampered with then that evidence is no longer admissable. Maybe that's why they took the frames out. My gut feeling though is that it's to hide someone that's not supposed to be there. just some thoughts... Chris

Hello everyone, I'd like to point out that Marcel Dehaeseleer has done some interesting analysis of the "Ghost Sequence" in the Zapruder film. Frames 466-476 seem to show three or four individuals and some suspicous activity behind Zappy along the fence. See Marcel's analysis here: http://users.skynet.be/copweb/labo/466-476.htm Could this data add veracity to Ed Hoffman's observations? There's apparently one hatted person and maybe two. I had to look at the sequence a long time before I "saw" the "Ghost", it's like a mini-movie within the movie. just a thought... Chris Newtom

I'm going to assume that Abe Lincoln, U.S. Grant, Dwight Eisenhower and Jimmy Carter are in that club so that narrows the unknowns to five, if I'm correct. Senator Kerry's mother was a Forbes whose ancestor, Rev. John Forbes (died 1783), was a noted Anglican clergyman and magistrate in East Florida. Rev. Forbes' wife was Dorothy Murray, daughter of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's matrilineal immigrant ancestors, James Murray of North Carolina and Massachusetts and Barbara Bennet of North Carolina. (Thus Kerry and FDR are fourth cousins twice removed.) The Forbeses, Murrays and Bennets were all of royal descent. Senator Kerry's mother's mother was Margaret Pyndal Winthrop of the family that founded Massachusetts Bay, a granddaughter of Robert Charles Winthrop, Speaker of the US House of Representatives and a great-grandson himself of Revolutionary statesman James Bowdoin, for whom the college is named. The wife of R.C. Winthrop, Speaker of the House, was the daughter of a Cabot and great- granddaughter of a Higginson and a Pickering of the Boston Brahmin families of those surnames. Note: I'm can also trace my lineage back to the Newtons and Higginsons of Boston and the Morris' of Philadelphia - both my parents "lines" have been in the US over 300 years.

Who killed JFK? The question has been asked by millions in the last forty years despite the conclusions of the Warren Commission set forth in September of 1964. The official story has been that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, fired three shots from the Texas Schoolbook Depository and that one of those bullets struck President Kennedy and killed him. I believe that the evidence available to the Warren Commission at the time indicated beyond any doubt that there was more than one shooter and that many more individuals were involved. Conspiracy theories and suspects are equally plentiful and my own view is that there may have been two separate conspiracies that together helped cover up the treacherous act. An act of assassination is not unlike any other military operation and military operations consist of different phases that take place in a logical order. The first conspiracy, in my assassination theory, was this "Operation Order" (OPORD) which consists of these four basic stages: - Identifying the problem - Assessment of the situation - Development of the course of action - Execution of the the course of action The Problem - President Kennedy had recently revealed that he was pulling troops home from the Vietnam Conflict and he was expected to target an "oil depletion allowance" for reduction that gave oil companies a twenty-five percent pre-tax profit. Neither of these actions were good for what was then called "Big Oil" or for what former President Eisenhower had labeled the "military-industrial complex". The CIA was under increasing pressure from the Kennedy administration because of operational failures, executive action, working relationships with the Mafia and a general consensus that they were simply out of control. Vice President Johnson was facing at least three different investigations, any of which could impeach him, and rumors had it that he would be removed from the next presidential election "ticket". Assessment and Development - I believe that initially "Big Oil" and the "military-industrial complex" were probably the instigators and brought in the CIA who helped assess and develop the course of action. The Dulles brothers, Edward Lansdale and Lucien Conien are at the top of the heap for CIA suspects, all had been recently been removed from posts or otherwise reduced by the Kennedy Administration. Lansdale was a master of the art of dirty tricks, had planned several assassinations and was considered quite unorthodox in his techniques. The fact that we had Oswald and the CIA, anti-Castro Cubans, southern right-wingers, the mafia, russian double agents all as possible and probable conspirators indicates that an expert hand been developing and coordinating the plan. Many researchers have suggested that the assassination planning included possible cities other than Texas. I think that Dallas, which had an openly hostile atmosphere because of civil rights resistance and right wing politics, offered a better opportunity. In Texas, Vice President Johnson controlled the courts and local government through his lawyers and because of his political background. Johnson could enlist the help of local law enforcement officials and buy whatever influence was needed in the aftermath of the assassination. Execution - Like "blood brothers" who share a common bond all the players above brought people to participate at Dealey Plaza. The CIA may have controlled Oswald, brought in anti-Castro cubans and Mafia hit-men (and Jack Ruby) as well as their own operators such as E. H. Hunt and Frank Sturgis. "Big Oil" and Johnson may have had a hand in enlisting Mac Wallace, "The Minutemen" (racist right wingers), elements of the Dallas Police Department such as Roscoe White and JD Tippett. Johnson himself may have been enlisted by Edward Clark who had connections with "Big Oil". Johnson even went so far as to have an argument with President Kennedy the morning of the motorcade concerning seating arrangements, he did not want a friend of his sitting in the Presidents car. There are many other suspects that have been named elsewhere almost all have some tie to the above people and organizations. The second conspiracy started at least seconds after the President's convertible passed under the triple overpass. In the United States one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. In this case, Lee Harvey Oswald was deemed guilty almost before the last echo had faded in the plaza. I cannot conceive of how the most professional investigative team in the history of law enforcement, the FBI, could so callously ignore evidence in the manner it did. Unless of course there was a mandate to satisfy the nation that this "silly little communist", as Jackie Kennedy called him, acted alone. There is ample evidence that witnesses testimony was changed and in some cases wholly re-written. Movies of the motorcade were altered. Photographs were cropped, suppressed and altered as well. Many witnesses died sometimes right before they were to testify. Many more witnesses were harassed or were afraid. Evidence that didn't fit was ignored. Witnesses admitted to being forced to perjure themselves such as the Parkland Hospital Staff. The CIA employed a full time staff to sow disinformation about conspiracy researchers (this may still be going on). The Warren Commission was reluctantly put together by LBJ after being pressured to do so. I invite anyone to read the proceedings to get an idea of how badly witnesses were treated. I must say that I don't think J. Edgar Hoover had a role in the first conspiracy I mentioned. Maybe someone, like a close friend or neighbor, had speculated on whether he would cooperate if say a piano fell from on high and changed the administration. I think this is a more likely a scenario. Mr. Hoover would have had to have had an active role in the second conspiracy for it to be successful. LBJ, his Warren Commission and his old friend and neighbor, J. Edgar Hoover, directed the second conspiracy while most of those involved in the first part were silenced, either willingly or unwillingly. I believe this conspiracy is ongoing. These days the American government releases documents under the Freedom of Information Act when required but there are still some circumstances under which they need not comply. In Appendix C of the ARRB report (released in 1992), section 6, states : Disclosure of assassination records or particular information in assassination records to the public may be postponed subject to the limitations of this Act if there is clear and convincing evidence that— © any other matter currently relating to the military defense, intelligence operations or conduct of foreign relations of the United States, the disclosure of which would demonstrably impair the national security of the United States; Is disclosing evidence of a conspiracy impairing the national security? I think there are people today that are possibly in a position of power as a direct result of this treasonous act. I also believe there are others that know that this is not just a theory but believe that exposure would shake the foundations of our present democracy. I don't think so - I think justice and truthfulness will only strengthen it.

In The Kennedys: An American Drama by Collier & Horowitz, pg. 317, "Had his acts created an environment for assassination? Had his zeal helped create the concatenation of forces that wanted Jack dead? "Did the CIA kill my brother?" he asked John McCone in a choked voice soon after the assassination. McCone's answer was no, but Bobby knew as much and in some cases more than the CIA director about "executive action" plots, the secret war against Castro, and the nightmare marriage between the intelligence services and the mob." This conversation the authors attribute to Walter Sheridan in an oral history at the JFK library. The problem here is that I cannot find an oral history there by Mr. Sheridan. Could it be that it was pulled after the book was published in 1984? I grew up firing all manner of "long arms", rifles, shotguns and target guns. I have an expert weapons qualification from the U.S. Army. I also have the "Schuetzenschnur", the German Army Shooting Badge. LHO had a marksman qualification from the U.S. Marines (the lowest passing qualification). It was simply not possible for him to hit those targets from the "sniper's nest" with accuracy in that time frame. The best snipers in the world have already weighed in and concur. If you take this into consideration then there must be a conspiracy. There really is no other alternative. Chris Newton

Hello, I am Chris Newton. I'm a former Systems Analyst for Motorola and I have almost twenty years experience in Information Technology. At the present, I am involved in researching John F. Kennedy's assassination. John Simkin invited me to participate in your forum. I'll gladly answer whatever questions I can and hopefully point you to the right resources if I can't. I live in South East Florida, U.S.A.