Martin Hinrichs

Attention! Missing image attachement: By the way, the forum engine needs some improvements.

Hello Len, although you are a relatively new member on Duncan's forum, i understand that you are not aware witnessing me admiting mistakes. Ok, i give you one example. I transfer this posting i made months ago on Duncan's forum to make sure you believe it. What i'am gonna do now is to debunk my own claim on page 16, where i stated yesterday the linear shape in one Towner crop might have been an antenna. I mean this picture: Ok, after a closer inspection today verifying and locating the photographers in different photos with the help of the great POTP from Trask i come to following conclusions: Here in this Bothun photo i've assigned the professionell photographers. All were riding in the motorcade and left their car except Altgens as far as i know. Please correct me if i'am wrong. So i did the same with the Jim Towner still afthermath photograph: Attention: See second posting cause this forum is not capable to attach 3 images in one postings. Please pay attention in particular to Craven. Craven was the man behind DCM at the moment Towner camera shutter operated. It appears to me the time gap between Towner and Bothun is just a few seconds. I would guess not more than 2-3 seconds. The Bothun photo is taken a moment later than Towner, showing the same scene from different angles. (Altgens for instance has walked down south 1-2 steps in Bothun and Craven some feet westwards) If my observation is correct than we see DCM within a few seconds from different angles and in the same posture! But he has nothing in his hands!!! So my claim that we might see an antenna in Towner is obsolete. I was wrong. I apologize. To be honest Len, i have my doubts you are really willing to listen to me, judging neutral and unbiased to my observations on the backyard photos. Thats one of the reason why i more or less neglected your demand. I have proven in the past to participate in controversial discussions whether it goes, without to neglect anybody as long as the motivation of the participants are fair and agenda free. Duncan's forum is my home forum since almost 2 years and i have participated and contributed a lot, i would say. Duncan's forum is a pool of many LN'er (more than in any other forum) but nevertheless i had great discussions with many of them in respect from both sides. I even PM and chatted with some of them in a very friendly way. I believe some of these guys read here frequently and i hope i do not exaggerate. You are one forum member of this forum who earned critique numerous times. I say the main product you are selling here is doubt, negativeism, tactics games and even character assassinations. I think you earned this critique for a reason. I don't remember ever seen a posting from you in a constructive positve manner. When you compliment somebody, you use this chance just to belittle or negate this person in the same posting. See Pat Speer or Dean Heagerman lately. Please prove me wrong on this matter, and i'am willing to discuss this subject with you in detail as i have done so many times on Duncan's forum. I'am very careful with my research time. In order to find a vital wire to you, i give you a: All the the best. Martin

Len, when i'am mistaken i have zero trouble to admit it. Did it several times on Duncan's forum. Since i know you have some difficulties to understand the technical aspects of this happening, i will be mild with my judging on you. Martin

You nailed it Craig. Not sure about another 8 months. best Martin

Hi Len. I hope you are well? It seems you have a crush on me, for to me unknown reasons. 8 months now...amazing how fast times past by, isn't it? I wish you further happy counting. When i'am going to search for errors, i found it just on your side. Simple as that. Don't worry, i'll show you that. Martin

I know. The good side of McAdams is, he going to destroy a lot of fairy tales from the CT'er side. But on the other hand he is biased as one can be. I'am certain we can agree with a lot of his research. When it goes to the hard evidence, we will face the dilemma of McAdams. It doesn't hold water. best Martin

No, i don't think so Pat. But we should read and judge what unbiased reseachers might have to tell about this book to the neutral audience. Martin

Oh Bill. Sorry, i've overlooked your response in February. I will open and shut the door from Bakers point of view. Gimmie some time. I have lot of work to do here. Thanks for your interest. best to you Martin

This is a very nice large GIf. To me it looks like she drop her right arm while she walks in the shadow. Indicator for a behaviour to get avoid of the sun. Her left arm is still up when she appeared out of the shadow. We have to keep in mind that this activity happend before the first shot. I see no reason why she shoud call her sister and her arms are too high. best to you Martin

You apparently don't read the replies. Let me repeat from Duncan's forum: Mike, you used the wrong basis line (in red) You should have used the one running along the limo chrome or even better to rotate the whole Croft image before drawing lines. To measure on bodies is very difficult. They are not boxes. Anatomy is never square. Look at Jackie. Altough she sits erect, you'll notice a slope at her back. 10°? Whats with the Governour? 35°? I hope you understand what i mean. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index...6.html#msg37536 Pay more attention Mike!

Mike, didn't i tell you that your drawing is plain wrong? Have you not you read it? You have so much time to post all around but no time to educate yourself when it comes to trajectories. Thats not your homeland but you're not hesitate to spread your wrong guesswork. Mike, Mike...what shall we do with you?

No problem Mike. Feel free to use it. John, thanks for confirming that. best Martin

Ok, i try to help myself. I tweaked the contrast/curves/exposure of the ruler to make the marks visible. To me it looks like a centimeter ruler although i'am not familiar with inches ruler. Given that, the size of shape #1 would be 11x9mm and shape #2 would be ~4x6mm. Mhhh

Mike, just to make sure i got it correct, here's an illustration of your scenario. You said: I believe that bullet passed through JFK and hit that Chrome. (I could calculate the velocity) And shattered and a fragment of that struck JT This fragment would make a turn around the windshield frame in order to hit James Tague: Sorry mate, thats beyond my imagination power. LOL What i miss in your calculations is.....what about the curb with the fresh chip damage south of Main? What's with that? best to you Mike Martin

Hi Mike. No problem to disagree. That happens most of times on forums. Isn't it? You talking about a proctile hit the chrome. I asssume you are familiar with that image: What i see is a serious damage to the the chrome caused by a bullet/bullet fragement in the center of the metal windshield frame. I see a serious intact portion of the windshield metal above of the damage. An inch? Maybe. I cannot imagine how a fragment could travel over this bulge damage. But if that really happend at what degree and what power loss? That projectile would most likely falling down back into the limousine. best to you Martin

Thank you Pat for you thoughts. Much appreciated. Please let me illustrate what i mean. Altgens6, belonging to Z#255 shows the Limousine through Altgens viewfinder. Ike Altgens was standing at street level shooting that picture. I don't know how tall he was but it is fair to assume that his lens height was a little over the top of the limousine's windshield. We can see in Atgens6 that the top of JFK's head is out of sight although Altgens lens was actually higher (should look over the windshield a bit.). That depends most likely on the fact the JFK slumped forward and down after he was hit at Z#210-232. Even more during 255 and 313 his progress to slump forward continues. Means his head height was lower at Z#313 than Z#255. Here you see an illustration where i estimate the top of JFK's head in Altgens6. That would mean a bullet fragment deflecting off the top of Kennedy's head at frame 313 would pass over the windshield at an upward angle to Tague's position. Even if it would be just 1°, at a distance of approx 80 Meter (the distance from Z#313 to Tague) means that a bullet fragment flying straight traversing 1,39m higher than the windshield at that distance. At an angle of 2.5° it would ending 3,49m higher than the windshield. You have to add the height of the windshield(which is approx 57 inches ergo 1,44m) to this numbers. So, in the last example it would means a sum of 4,93m or 194 inches or roughly 16 feet. An angle of 2.5 degrees is a proper but conservative estimate. Here is a composite showing this trajectory at that angle: This calculation is based on the very little chance that this fragement traveled between this two sun visors of the SS-100-X. (Look at Altgens5-6) A traversing over the sun visors would increase the angle to some 5-6 degrees. But a straight trajectory from Tague---between the two sun visors---to JFK's head would place JFK's head to the left side of the limousine....almost where Jackie was sitting. Please let me know when you need an illustration for that scenario. best to you Martin

Hi Pat, is that a centimeter ruler? Thank you forward Martin

double

Mike, Dr. Baden of the HSCA medical panel shared your opinion that the bullet must have shattered upon hitting the windshield strut, as it would be unlikely to shatter in skull. This was due in part to the large fractures at the supposed exit, which would be unlikely should the bullet really have exited in pieces. The problem with this is that this doesn't fit the other evidence. There were two bullet fragments found in the front section of the car, and two impacts--one on the windshield strut, and one on the windshield itself, noted. One of these fragments was the nose of the bullet, the other was the base. Roughly half the bullet was missing...from the middle. This suggests the recovered fragments exited separately. In addition, a cross-section of this missing middle--or slice--is supposedly visible on the x-rays between the tables of the skull on the far back of the head. This, then, would suggest the bullet broke up upon impact with the back of the head. Or do you think, as Baden, it makes sense for a 6.5 mm slice to rub off the back of a bullet upon impact with a human skull? Mr. Speer, I would think that Baden might just be onto something here. I have always held that it is possible for fragments to be left in the head from the rear of the bullet. It would not seem that the wounds are consistent with a projectile fragmenting in the head. This would he highly unlikely with this type of round. I have also further thought that this projectile shattered impacting the chrome. I believe it is very possible that once shattering the crack in the glass was caused by a fragment of that. The inside of the glass had lead, not copper, as I recall. I believe it is very possible that a fragment came off that projectile once it impacted the chrome and cracked the glass. Hop you are having a great day! Mike Mike, you're forgetting about Tague. If the bugger didn't miss then Tague must have been wounded by the missing middle of the bullet impacting on the skull. If the bullet exited in pieces it would seem possible one of the pieces would sail over the windshield and down toward Tague. If the bullet exited intact and only broke up on the windshield strut, this possibility seems more an impossibility. Mr. Speer, Oh I have not forgotten good ole JT. But to answer your question, I fully believe that projectile exited intact and struck the chrome. The certainly could have sent a fragment that scratched Tague. Mike and Pat, no bullet fragment or projectile from the fatal head shot could you have gotten to Tague, except through the windshield (which is doubtful). There is no straight trajectory for that scenario. A bone piece flying a curve over the windshield? Mhhh, over how many yards have this solid piece have to fly against the wind to cause this injure of Tague's cheek? Some 90 yards so far. And what about the damaged curbstone on Main? This tiny damage atop of the curb which is certainly not caused by a car wheel. The only logical explanation to me is: A shot missed the SS-100-X and the first impacted surface was the curb south of Main, deflecting to James Tague. best to you Martin

Meanwhile, back at the evidence... I thought this thread was proving fairly productive in drilling into the question as to whether there was a through-and-through bullet hole in the limousine’s windshield. It was revealing to actually listen to Doug Weldon’s phone interview of Nick Principe. Of even more importance was the discovery made by Martin Hinrichs concerning what has been called the “spiral nebula.” From the very beginning, I’ve been scratching my head as to why anyone would claim that this is a bullet hole through the windshield. Over the last thirty years in the course of various criminal investigations, I’ve actually seen a number of bullet holes through windshields. No matter what the caliber or other factors involved they have a common appearance... a hole in the middle surrounded by a halo of shattered glass. Sometimes there will be cracks leading outward from the hole but not always. The only common feature that I’ve seen is the hole and the surrounding halo of shattered glass. I hoped to find an illustration on the Internet. I typed “hole in windshield” into Google. I came up with several sites that discussed the problems with claiming a hole existed in the windshield of the Presidential limousine. I found one address [http://www.banpei.net/blog/dots-honda-civic-mk4-bullet-holes] that contained photos of bullet holes in the windshield of a Honda Civic. These photos illustrated exactly the common feature of hole plus halo of shattered glass that I had observed in all the windshield bullet holes I had seen. Here are the photos: Holding these photos in mind, now take a look at the socalled “spiral nebula.” Here it is below in a copy made from the original Altgens negative: If you look closely at what has been called the “spiral nubula” you can see that one part of it is cut off by interference of the mirror in the sight line while other parts are cut off by Kennedy’s shoulder and head. This could only happen if the form is really something behind the mirror and behind Kennedy... not the windshield that is in front of both. As you can see by inspection, the socalled “spiral nebula” doesn’t look at all like a bullet hole. Rather it appears to be clothes on a spectator in the background seen through the windshield. Hinrichs’ clever contribution was to compare the Altgens photo with the Croft photo. By doing so, he showed that both the alignment and the color of the socalled “spiral nebula” matched an apron or something held at thigh level by Lady #8. His illustration of this is below: I asked Doug Weldon to comment on this discovery but he declined. Professor Fetzer has been claiming that someone in Texas named “Lewis” has been shooting bullets through windshields. Fetzer claims the resulting damage looks like the spiral nebula. I asked Professor Fetzer to provide a photo of Lewis’s results but he has not complied. It would be useful if we could move this discussion about the socalled “sprial nebula” a bit further on. Anyone care to join in? Josiah Thompson Yes, i'am wrong, just my discover of Lady 8 in Croft is exciting? Isn't it? But apppreciate that you don't insult me now again. Martin

Ah, and thats the reason why you've paid so much attention to Hany Farids 3D work on the backyard photos? LOL Blair, this initials that Craig Lamson used as M.H is actually me. Don't stop posting because of Craigs provocation attempts. Don't let you intimidate. Evan, thats a wise word. Martin

Excellent take Cliff. Rosemary made one of the most important witness report before the HSCA. Martin

I like to share this few frames i extracted from JFK the movie. This few frames showing Rosemary Willis running and following the presidential limousine on Elm street. Amos Euins sitting on a white concrete structure clapping his hands. It needs maybe a minute or two to load this GIF cause it's almost 10 Mb huge. This also an attempt to divert from the latest discussions back to the JFK research. I hope thats OK. Thank you Martin

You have FBI documents that back that up? No all you have is Fritz's report but you choose to ignore the part where he clearly stated he showed LHO the photo after 6PM Fritz indicated they had a photo in the early afternoon but in the next page he said LHO was shown the photo after 6pm. As for Paine’s statement he was show the photo the night of the assassination, records were kept as to who was interrogated when, do any of them indicate he was questioned then? As for Hester the article said "...he believes it was the afternoon of Nov.22,1963..." and quoted him as saying "I just happened to see the thing...where the man came up holding the thing I don't know" he also stated worked 72 hours straight. So we have an old man recalling with uncertainty something that happened over a dozen years earlier during a period he worked 3 days straight.Partsofhis talemake littlesense. How does one just "happen" to see a slidewhich is 24 x 36 mm or 6 x 7 cm at the most? Why would they make color positives of a black and white print? Why would they take color positives to a black and white lab? Why they be flashing around such uber secret images? Ok Len. I try to make it now very simple. I will respond to all your statements later but let us try to put this issue to rest. OK? Two simple questions: 1. Can you confirm the time of the very first mentioning of the backyard photos has happend between 12:35PM and 1:10PM during this noon interrogation from Captain Will Fritz? 2. Can you confirm the time of the very first discover of backyard photos has happend at 3:20PM in the Paine garage by Detective MC Cabe? Can you please answer this two questions? We can discuss all issues surrounding the later interrogations on november 23 and 24, 1963 regarding the backyard photos and it's enlargements in a constructive way if you will, but let us not ignore this discover and the main reason of my first posting in this thread here please. This is a serious attempt to build a bridge to you. Thank you forward Martin

Such a sad news. I'am speechless. Silent praying for him and his family. God bless him.