Robert Prudhomme

So you don't know how the film was viewed by Dan Rather.

Maybe Dan can help you. This is what he said fourteen years after the assassination. . .

"The lawyer laid out the ground rules for us. . . You went in, looked at the film one time, took no notes, came out and gave him your bid. . . I stepped into the room, did not even sit down, looked at the film one time, hooked it out of there and fled back to the station."

Dan "hooked it out of there" so fast that he never even made a bid. He was more concerned at the time with getting his description of the film on TV. "Then, and only then, would we get into the bidding," he said.

That should be clear enough for most reasonable people. The picture he's painting here is a quick, one-time only showing of a 22 second film, first for Dan, after which Dan was supposed to have made a bid. Then it would be the next viewer's turn. And the next. No cruel, sick slow-mo of a grizzly head shot. Regular speed was bad enough. Just show the film. One time for each viewer. Twenty-two seconds. Get the bid. In and out. Dan Rather's version of Saturday morning.

All the other evidence, however, paints a completely different picture. Which happened on Monday.

And yet in his oral account on Youtube he tells and I paraphrase , There it was all laid out FRAME BY FRAME.

And again, all of this is really quite meaningless. If he lied and did not really see it, Fine. If he DID really see it, fine.

The end of the story is regardless of HOW he came to make the statement, he GOT IT CORRECT. JFK's head DOES move violently forward. Which takes us full circle back to my very first post on this matter.

Mr. Lamson

" There it was all laid out FRAME BY FRAME."

If you have paraphrased this sentence, would you be so kind as to print the entire text and cite your source for this quote from Dan Rather?

Mr. Lamson

You stated:

"And of course he DID get it correct regardless of how he viewed the film. JFK's head DID move violently forward."

As I have clearly demonstrated, it would have been impossible for Mr. Rather, in 1963, to have been able to discern the forward movement of JFK's head that occurred in one frame (1/18.3 second) of the Zapruder film.

How, then, did he "get it correct"? Was Mr. Rather psychic? If you insist on making such wild statements, I believe you owe it to this forum to substantiate your claims.

Mr. MacRae

As Mr. Lamson seems to be desperately avoiding the question, perhaps you could tell this forum how Mr. Rather was able to see the violent forward motion of JFK's head, if that entire forward motion took place in one frame (1/18.3 second) of the Zapruder film?

Poor bobby, you are SO technically inept.

Ever heard of slow speed playback? Frame by frame playback?

You seem to (wrongly) assume the film had to be viewed at a single playback speed. (And what playback speed would that be bobby?)

Again I was not there, so I don't know how the film was viewed by Dan Rather. Neither do you.

But one thing is abundantly clear, you simply don't have a clue how REALITY works.

You should have quite MANY posts ago.

Mr. Lamson

I don't suppose you could verify for us that Mr. Rather was awarded the privilege of viewing the Zapruder film at anything other than normal speed?

Even if Mr. Rather watched the Zapruder film in frame by frame stop action, it is inconceivable that he would have been able to discern the small forward action of JFK's head in the single frame, z312. This motion was only discerned years after the assassination, when technology was developed to allow enhancement of the Zapruder film for analytical purposes. And, small and brief as the forward movement was, it is inconceivable that Mr. Rather would have described it as a "violent forward motion".

That being said, we are still left with the question you CANNOT or WILL NOT answer; how was Mr. Rather able to see the forward motion of JFK's head in z312, if that entire forward motion of JFK's head took place in just one frame of the Zapruder film?

Mr. MacRae

As Mr. Lamson seems to be desperately avoiding the question, perhaps you could tell this forum how Mr. Rather was able to see the violent forward motion of JFK's head, if that entire forward motion took place in one frame (1/18.3 second) of the Zapruder film?

Mr. Lamson

Let me refresh your memory for you. Read the quotes from you and Mr. Rheberg below, if you please:

Mr. Rheberg stated, describing Dan Rather's observations:

"So no real, viable excuse for him to report and demonstrate over and over again that Kennedy's head moved forward in a violent motion. The research community should be crawling all over this."

To which you replied:

"Well, other than the fact that JFK'S head DID move violently forward...."

Wouldn't you say, that you are implying Mr. Rather was able to see this one frame, 1/18.3 second forward movement of JFK's head in the Zapruder film? And, that being so, shouldn't the onus be on you to explain to this forum how you felt Mr. Rather was able to see this forward motion?

Mr. Colby

If the elongation of an item is more pronounced the closer it is to the camera, the white object in the grass and Mary Moorman should be elongated laterally an equal amount, as it is obvious they are almost identical distances from the camera lens.

No, I do not think the wind blew the paper wrapper. If you take a blowup of z313 and z315 and measure the distance from the left (Mary's left) bottom skirt of Mary Moorman's raincoat to the white object, you will find the distance to be the same in both photos or actually slightly closer in z313, depending on which end of the elongated white object in z313 you measure to. This presents a problem, as the wind was blowing from right to left on the photo that day and the object would have to be moving AGAINST the wind to support movement by the wind.

I think you are also wrong about the strobe effect eliminating elongation of the fragment in z313. As I stated before, the object was ascending with an estimated velocity of 90 ft/second (60 mph) but was moving horizontally at the same velocity as the limo; namely, 17.6 ft/second (12 mph). Although the "strobelike effect", undoubtedly almost as unbelievable as the Single Bullet Theory, might preclude vertical elongation, a lateral movement by Zapruder, large enough to make such an elongated blur on the white object in the grass, should have been able to produce an elongated effect on the ascending fragments.

Thirty-six years ago, Dan admitted that he was in error. According to Dan, the President's head lurches "slightly forward." It then "explodes backward." He went on to refer to this as a "violent, backward reaction." The "violent" part of his prior description has now been transferred from the forward movement to the backward movement. No more violent forward movement of the head.

Still the very big problem is the fact that JFK's head DOES move violently forwards. Welcome to reality. and welcome to the problem with testimony and statements.....

Mr. Lamson

And are you claiming Dan Rather was able to see this one frame phenomenon?

Learn to read bob.

Let me post what I said again.

Still the very big problem is the fact that JFK's head DOES move violently forwards. Welcome to reality. and welcome to the problem with testimony and statements.....

Now I know reality is a tough one for you, and you always over-reach when you get your hat handed to you, but that's not my problem.

Mr. Lamson

Verbose discharges and profane remarks are no substitute for answers to legitimate questions.

The VERY big problem I see is that Mr. Rather claimed to have seen this forward motion of JFK's head.

Do you think Mr. Rather was capable of seeing this forward motion of JFK's head, if it took place in one frame of the Zapruder film?

(Hint: One frame = 1/18.3 second)

Hi Bob, Feeling fine. Good to hear from you again. Herb Blenner has posted an interesting comment on Duncan's site.

"Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning?

Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides.

Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?

Governor CONNALLY. We took - you are talking about the number of the slides?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.

Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.

Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?

Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.

Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was -

Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range.

Governor Connally set a clever trap when he identified frames of the 130's as showing when he was shot. Specter took the bait and suggested 231 as showing the shot. Apparently shaken by his mistake, Specter mindlessly acknowledged that the numbering system starts when the car comes around the turn before leading Connally to relate the time of his wounding to emergence from behind the sign. This turn of the car is not seen in our copy of the Zapruder film. "

What happened to the hundred frames?

Worth keeping handy:

Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963? (# 230)

Paul,

Yes, it's worth keeping handy alright. And interesting to see how quickly that 17-page Muchmore thread of yours died so soon after the subject of Dan Rather's viewing of the Zapruder film was posted.

Rather viewed the film on Monday November 25 at KRLD for nearly an hour. From his notes, he reported on it four times that day. Once on radio. Three times on TV: 4:18 pm, 4:30 pm, and 8:26 pm EST. All TV reports were completely different video presentations. No replays of previous broadcasts. So no real, viable excuse for him to report and demonstrate over and over again that Kennedy's head moved forward in a violent motion. The research community should be crawling all over this.

One more thing for now. Considering the above, Rather was clearly not the first person to see the Zapruder film, having viewed it on Monday. Hard to understand, then, why Dan Rather critic Jim DiEugenio would pass on Rather's version of this event to us, i.e. that Rather was the first person to see the film (p. 304 of DiEugenio's "The Assassinations"). Maybe there's a retraction out there somewhere from DiEugenio since that book of his was published, and I've just missed it.

Ken

Mr. Rheberg

To quote from the "Lone Nut Quick Response Handbook", Dan Rather was:

a) Confused

Mistaken

c) Lying

d) Mis-remembering (my personal favorite)

e) Seeking fifteen minutes of fame

f) All of the above

you're going to do just fine around here, Robert.

Why, thank you, sir. Your compliment is indeed the high point of my day.

Thirty-six years ago, Dan admitted that he was in error. According to Dan, the President's head lurches "slightly forward." It then "explodes backward." He went on to refer to this as a "violent, backward reaction." The "violent" part of his prior description has now been transferred from the forward movement to the backward movement. No more violent forward movement of the head.

Still the very big problem is the fact that JFK's head DOES move violently forwards. Welcome to reality. and welcome to the problem with testimony and statements.....

Mr. Lamson

And are you claiming Dan Rather was able to see this one frame phenomenon?

So no real, viable excuse for him to report and demonstrate over and over again that Kennedy's head moved forward in a violent motion. The research community should be crawling all over this.

Well, other than the fact that JFK'S head DID move violently forward....

Mr. Lamson

JFK's forward head movement lasts for exactly one frame and cannot even be seen unless individual still frames of the Zapruder film are viewed. I would hardly describe that as moving violently forward, unless I was a desperate Lone Nut.

Hi Bob, Feeling fine. Good to hear from you again. Herb Blenner has posted an interesting comment on Duncan's site.

"Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning?

Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides.

Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?

Governor CONNALLY. We took - you are talking about the number of the slides?

Mr. SPECTER. Yes.

Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.

Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?

Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.

Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was -

Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range.

Governor Connally set a clever trap when he identified frames of the 130's as showing when he was shot. Specter took the bait and suggested 231 as showing the shot. Apparently shaken by his mistake, Specter mindlessly acknowledged that the numbering system starts when the car comes around the turn before leading Connally to relate the time of his wounding to emergence from behind the sign. This turn of the car is not seen in our copy of the Zapruder film. "

What happened to the hundred frames?

Worth keeping handy:

Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963? (# 230)

Paul,

Yes, it's worth keeping handy alright. And interesting to see how quickly that 17-page Muchmore thread of yours died so soon after the subject of Dan Rather's viewing of the Zapruder film was posted.

Rather viewed the film on Monday November 25 at KRLD for nearly an hour. From his notes, he reported on it four times that day. Once on radio. Three times on TV: 4:18 pm, 4:30 pm, and 8:26 pm EST. All TV reports were completely different video presentations. No replays of previous broadcasts. So no real, viable excuse for him to report and demonstrate over and over again that Kennedy's head moved forward in a violent motion. The research community should be crawling all over this.

One more thing for now. Considering the above, Rather was clearly not the first person to see the Zapruder film, having viewed it on Monday. Hard to understand, then, why Dan Rather critic Jim DiEugenio would pass on Rather's version of this event to us, i.e. that Rather was the first person to see the film (p. 304 of DiEugenio's "The Assassinations"). Maybe there's a retraction out there somewhere from DiEugenio since that book of his was published, and I've just missed it.

Ken

Mr. Rheberg

To quote from the "Lone Nut Quick Response Handbook", Dan Rather was:

a) Confused

Mistaken

c) Lying

d) Mis-remembering (my personal favorite)

e) Seeking fifteen minutes of fame

f) All of the above

from the thread here http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243&page=25#entry274525

I've seen over the years a number of people claiming to be "experts". From both sides, the nutters and the non nutters.

Reading their theories and methodology, looking at the way they handle the information and resulting critiques, I have yet to see that many "professionals".

A lot of basement researchers, dogmatic dilletantes, opinionated nutters (ct or ln regardless) goin on about what they know, how they know it and how they are more interested in "winning" and argument than being factual, correct or logical.

I'm curious as to how many PHD's and proffessionals in the fields thay are discussing are actually participating here and in other places... actual doctors, actual forensic folks, actual ballistics types...

A history teacher with a degree in Spanish literature doesn't count and retired spooks don't count either...

I mean people talking about ballistics with a job in that field and related scholarly accolaides accredations and the like...

can anyone get me a list?

just curious...

Maybe you could start the ball rolling, Blair. Who are you and what are your qualifications?

Good morning, Ray. How are you this fine morning, my friend?

from the thread here http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243&page=25#entry274525

I've seen over the years a number of people claiming to be "experts". From both sides, the nutters and the non nutters.

Reading their theories and methodology, looking at the way they handle the information and resulting critiques, I have yet to see that many "professionals".

A lot of basement researchers, dogmatic dilletantes, opinionated nutters (ct or ln regardless) goin on about what they know, how they know it and how they are more interested in "winning" and argument than being factual, correct or logical.

I'm curious as to how many PHD's and proffessionals in the fields thay are discussing are actually participating here and in other places... actual doctors, actual forensic folks, actual ballistics types...

A history teacher with a degree in Spanish literature doesn't count and retired spooks don't count either...

I mean people talking about ballistics with a job in that field and related scholarly accolaides accredations and the like...

can anyone get me a list?

just curious...

"(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum."

I've always assumed the fragment sailing upwards in 313 was the same object, and in recent years have come to assume it was the largest object ejected from the skull, the Harper fragment, which was found about a hundred feet forward of the limo at 313, on the grass across from the steps.

(I know, I know. Harper originally told the FBI the fragment was found behind the limousine's location. But he didn't know the limo's location during the shooting when he said this, and almost certainly assumed all the wreaths thrown on the grass across from the steps signified the limo's location. He subsequently marked maps to show where he found the fragment, and claimed he'd found the fragment across from the steps.)

Mr. Speer

I have heard the theory expressed a couple of different ways. One theory expounds, as you feel, that this was the Harper fragment. As the theory goes, it appears to be several fragments due to its turning. Each time one surface came around, it would reflect light to Zapruder's camera and be captured as an image; giving the illusion in z313 of several fragments following each other in a line. The other theory expounds that there are, indeed, several fragments in a train, one behind the other, all ascending skyward. Each theory is both believable and unbelievable.

If, as you say, the Harper fragment landed one hundred feet ahead of the limousine's position at z313, this tells us a very important fact; one corroborated looking at z314 and z315. The fragment, or fragments, visible ascending skyward forward of JFK's head in z313 had to be moving at a speed of at least 90 feet per second (60 mph), depending whether or not one believes the fragment to still be visible in z314. I have circled what appears to be the same fragment in z314.

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/z314artifact_zps5a35747c.jpg

If this is, indeed, the same fragment in z314 as seen in z313, we can get a rough idea of its velocity. By comparing the distance between the highest fragment in z313 and the fragment in z314 to Mary Moorman (a very short woman just over five feet in stature), we can deduce that this fragment may have travelled five feet between the two frames. At a speed of 18.3 frames per second x 5 feet, we can assume the fragment to be moving 91.5 feet per second (62.38 mph). Would this, combined with the trajectory it was travelling, be sufficient to land the fragment 100 feet ahead of the limo, against a headwind?

Now, should we choose to believe the object in z314 is not the fragment seen in z313, the ceiling on the fragment's velocity is much higher.

Either way, there is something very important here to consider, one which questions the authenticity of z313 itself. If the fragment was travelling at a minimum of 90 ft/second (60 mph), it would make it the fastest thing in the entire film, excluding the assassin's bullets, of course. In fact, nothing in the film comes even close to it for velocity. The next fastest thing is likely the limousine itself, moving at the blinding velocity of 17.6 ft/second (12 mph), and yet we see many blurred objects in the Zapruder film, due to the fact Zapruder's camera was not designed to capture high speed action (or even slow speed action, it appears).

How on earth was Zapruder's camera able to capture, so clearly, a fragment moving in excess of 60 mph?

The more I think about it the more I think you could be right and that the fragment could be spinning and only reflecting at specific angles, this would produce sort of a stobelike effect and could explain why the items don't appear 'blurred' to you. I think you meant elongated but then notice that one of them actually is a bit elongated.

Mr. Colby

Well, as I said earlier, it is one of several theories. Its proponents point out that, in z313, it is seen as several fragments due to the strobelike effect you mentioned, while in z314, it is seen as one fragment, due to wind resistance slowing down the spinning effect and only allowing one reflection back at the camera. Its detractors, on the other hand (mostly alterationists), claim that the chances of the fragment spinning in such a fashion, as to be lined up perfectly to reflect the sun directly back at Zapruder's camera in a strobelike effect, are slim, indeed.

I have reserved opinion on the matter as I do not believe you or I have the analytical talents to fully appreciate what we are looking at here.

That being said, there is something else about this fragment(s) that still perplexes me. As I stated earlier, the limousine was, reportedly, travelling down Elm St. at 12 mph (17.6 ft/second) and Mr. Zapruder was tracking this limo with his camera, as proven by the clarity of the limo and its occupants. Any stationary objects in the film should show a certain amount of blur to them which, in many but definitely not all cases, is quite apparent. Further to this, due to Mr. Zapruder not being a stabilized camera platform, there are a number of exaggerated blurs in this film. Z313 gives us some good examples of this exaggerated blurring, yet presents us with paradoxes at the same time.

As can be seen in z313 below, the white object lying in the grass just above the windshield (believed by many to be a paper wrapper) is quite elongated, to use your reference.

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/z313secondartifact_zps7a4f15cb.jpg

By z315, it is back to its normal size.

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee363/Traveller111/z315secondartifact_zps4780ecc1.jpg

What perplexes me is that, while this object is elongated by at least a factor of three, none of the other stationary objects, including Mary Moorman and Toni Foster, show this kind of distortion, other than the expected amount of blurring from Mr. Zapruder's tracking of the limo. Considering the degree of elongation in the piece of paper and the slow speed of the limo, I would expect to see some degree of elongation in the limo and its occupants, as well.

This brings us to the fragment(s). While I strongly believe the fragment(s) to be travelling almost vertically at 60 mph (90 ft/second), their forward motion, as relative to Mr. Zapruder's tracking, should be negligibly faster than the limo. Therefore, should we not see some degree of lateral elongation in the fragment(s)?

Craig,

CE875, Harper fragment location and Hudson's testimony.

chris

Pretty opened ended. "DIRECTLY" where? Was he looking and sitting LEFT? CENTERED? RIGHT?

Gets you nowhere ... fast.

And it gets even worse. IF you take him literally, it puts the head shot in the 370's

Craig,

CE875, Harper fragment location and Hudson's testimony.

chris

Pretty opened ended. "DIRECTLY" where? Was he looking and sitting LEFT? CENTERED? RIGHT?

Gets you nowhere ... fast.

And it gets even worse. IF you take him literally, it puts the head shot in the 370's

Unless the powers that be were using Hudson's affidavit to place a shot past 313, there are alternatives to testimony/affidavits when locating a shot farther down Elm St.

chris

Mr. Davidson

Fascinating model, was it part of the Warren Commission's presentation of evidence? I've never seen this before. It certainly places the last two shots much further down the street than is officially accepted now, and lends credence to James Altgens testimony about the limousine being directly in front of him at the time of the fatal head shot.

Mr. Lamson

There is no point in trying to back out of what you have said.

"One small problem Chris, according to Altgens testimony, the shot had to happen up near 313 for him to see the damage he says he saw to JFK...."

You are clearly relying totally on Mr. Altgens' testimony to place the head shot at z313. You then proceed to contradict yourself by claiming "I take witness testimony with a big shaker of salt Bob".

Which will it be, Mr. Lamson? You cannot have it both ways, you know.

Inferring that a person is a clown does not help or change your argument. This behavior only ends up making you look foolish.

I can see that big red nose is blocking you eyesight again Bob.

Mr. Lamson

I have finished with you. Good day, sir.

Mr. Lamson

There is no point in trying to back out of what you have said.

"One small problem Chris, according to Altgens testimony, the shot had to happen up near 313 for him to see the damage he says he saw to JFK...."

You are clearly relying totally on Mr. Altgens' testimony to place the head shot at z313. You then proceed to contradict yourself by claiming "I take witness testimony with a big shaker of salt Bob".

Which will it be, Mr. Lamson? You cannot have it both ways, you know.

Inferring that a person is a clown does not help or change your argument. This behavior only ends up making you look foolish.

Mr. Lamson

You seem quick to make assumptions. This is a character flaw I would work on.

You seem to be under the impression that I, pesonally, believe the shot exited the left side of JFK's head, when, in reality, I have never stated that belief. I am merely attempting to clarify that Mr. Altgens clearly believed the shot exited the left side of JFK's head and stated so in his testimony to the Warren Commission.

In light of Mr. Altgens' clear inability to make good observations, perhaps you would care to explain your statement to Mr. Davidson (seen below) and how you can be so sure that Mr. Altgens' observations can prove that the fatal head shot occurred at the location of z313 and not further down Elm St.

"One small problem Chris, according to Altgens testimony, the shot had to happen up near 313 for him to see the damage he says he saw to JFK...."

Bob does the backstroke....

I take witness testimony with a big shaker of salt Bob, and this is a prefect reason why. Chris and others who do the "Altgens" headshot like to quote his saying it was 15 feet from him. And we know for a fact he screwed up his 30 guess on the shot he took prior to the headshot. Earth to Bob. They can't have it both ways.

Please learn to read Bob, and then get back to us when you do. Just don't trip in those big shoes.

Mr. Lamson

You seem to contradict yourself on a regular basis. One might almost say your actions border on being hypocritical. This is another serious character flaw that seems to be prevalent in Lone Nuts.

On the one hand, you rely on Mr. Altgens' eyewitness testimony to admonish Mr. Davidson in this statement from you,

"One small problem Chris, according to Altgens testimony, the shot had to happen up near 313 for him to see the damage he says he saw to JFK...."

And yet, when pressed about the reliability of Mr. Altgens' testimony, you take the position "I take witness testimony with a big shaker of salt Bob".

You then go on to say that "Chris and others" (referring, I assume, to Mr. Davidson and a goodly number of other researchers on this forum) want to have it both ways when it comes to Mr. Altgens' testimony.

Do you not see how you contradict yourself here? Mr. Altgens' testimony is good enough when you wish to refute Mr. Davidson, but, outside of that, you " take witness testimony with a big shaker of salt".

It is clearly you who wants it both ways. The pot is definitely calling the kettle black here.

Mr. Lamson

You seem quick to make assumptions. This is a character flaw I would work on.

You seem to be under the impression that I, pesonally, believe the shot exited the left side of JFK's head, when, in reality, I have never stated that belief. I am merely attempting to clarify that Mr. Altgens clearly believed the shot exited the left side of JFK's head and stated so in his testimony to the Warren Commission.

In light of Mr. Altgens' clear inability to make good observations, perhaps you would care to explain your statement to Mr. Davidson (seen below) and how you can be so sure that Mr. Altgens' observations can prove that the fatal head shot occurred at the location of z313 and not further down Elm St.

"One small problem Chris, according to Altgens testimony, the shot had to happen up near 313 for him to see the damage he says he saw to JFK...."

Mr. Lamson

"There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head."

This is very basic material. Please do not feign an inability to comprehend. This is not the JFK Assassination Forum. People here are not amused by your circus antics.

Mr. Altgens is obviously describing the anatomical left side of JFK's head. It would be impossible for material blowing out the anatomical right side of JFK's head to have flown towards Mr. Altgens, even if JFK was struck at z313.

ROFLMAO! Are you kidding bobby? If what you say is true, which it can't be...you have just created the kookiest CT since Lifton did the body tango!

And WHY would it be impossible for the ejecta from the anatomical right of JFK's head to fly towards Altgens? Heck Altgens was nearly in a direct line from JFK to the 6th floor window, if what Altgens says about the location of the shooter is true.

You just took ct silliness to a entirely new level!

Mr. Lamson

As I said, your circus antics on this forum are likely just barely tolerated.

Read Mr. Altgens words again. ""There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head."

What part of " the shot came out of the left side of his head." are you having trouble with?

The part where you can't understand it was the left side AS SEEN BY ALTGENS....which was JFK's anatomical RIGHT.

I would say something about some really clownish theories about I don't think there is a need....I can't imagine anyone here takes the thought that it was the LEFT anatomical side of JFK's head that Altgens was describing and being shot out seriously. Except you of course.

Mr. Lamson

I have been as patient with you as is to be reasonably expected from a human being.

However, I will attempt one last time to explain Mr. Altgens' words for you.

If Mr. Altgens said, "flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing", would that not clearly indicate Mr. Altgens was indicating the left side of JFK's head? If we look at z312, the right side of JFK's head is presented toward Mr. Zapruder. At best, Mr. Altgens would be able to see JFK's face, but not the right side of his head.

This is further enforced by Mr. Altgens' next words, " so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head." Mr. Altgens is plainly telling us that he believed the shot exited the left side of JFK's head; not the right side, not his face nor the top of his head but, plain as plain can be, "the shot came out of the left side of his head."

Mr. Lamson

"There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head."

This is very basic material. Please do not feign an inability to comprehend. This is not the JFK Assassination Forum. People here are not amused by your circus antics.

Mr. Altgens is obviously describing the anatomical left side of JFK's head. It would be impossible for material blowing out the anatomical right side of JFK's head to have flown towards Mr. Altgens, even if JFK was struck at z313.

ROFLMAO! Are you kidding bobby? If what you say is true, which it can't be...you have just created the kookiest CT since Lifton did the body tango!

And WHY would it be impossible for the ejecta from the anatomical right of JFK's head to fly towards Altgens? Heck Altgens was nearly in a direct line from JFK to the 6th floor window, if what Altgens says about the location of the shooter is true.

You just took ct silliness to a entirely new level!

Mr. Lamson

As I said, your circus antics on this forum are likely just barely tolerated.

Read Mr. Altgens words again. ""There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head."

What part of " the shot came out of the left side of his head." are you having trouble with?

Mr. Lamson

Please post for us the part of Mr. Altgens' testimony to the WC in which he describes JFK's wounds. I believe Mr. Altgens is not particularly clear in his description and it can be interpreted several ways.

Mr. ALTOENS. Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time- well, he was in a position-sort of immobile. He wasn’t upright.’ He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged-it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him- just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. with no blood on his foreheaAlso, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side-all the way down, d or face-suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, mean- ing in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from. [/size]

Pretty specfic....

Mr. Lamson

Yes, quite specific. I am especially interested in " There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. with no blood on his foreheaAlso, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side-all the way down, d or face-suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, mean- ing in the direction of this Depository Building......."

Everything Mr. Altgens is describing are observations he made about the LEFT side of JFK's head. Do you think Mr. Altgens would have difficulty seeing the left side of JFK's head if the limousine were directly in front of him?

Mr. Lamson??

Which left side? Roflmao. Reading and comprehension not your strong suit? Lol!

Mr. Lamson

"There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head."

This is very basic material. Please do not feign an inability to comprehend. This is not the JFK Assassination Forum. People here are not amused by your circus antics.

Mr. Altgens is obviously describing the anatomical left side of JFK's head. It would be impossible for material blowing out the anatomical right side of JFK's head to have flown towards Mr. Altgens, even if JFK was struck at z313.

Mr. Lamson

Please post for us the part of Mr. Altgens' testimony to the WC in which he describes JFK's wounds. I believe Mr. Altgens is not particularly clear in his description and it can be interpreted several ways.

Mr. ALTOENS. Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time- well, he was in a position-sort of immobile. He wasn’t upright.’ He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged-it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him- just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. with no blood on his foreheaAlso, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side-all the way down, d or face-suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, mean- ing in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from.

Pretty specfic....

Mr. Lamson

Yes, quite specific. I am especially interested in " There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. with no blood on his foreheaAlso, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side-all the way down, d or face-suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, mean- ing in the direction of this Depository Building......."

Everything Mr. Altgens is describing are observations he made about the LEFT side of JFK's head. Do you think Mr. Altgens would have difficulty seeing the left side of JFK's head if the limousine were directly in front of him?

Mr. Lamson??

Mr. Lamson

Please post for us the part of Mr. Altgens' testimony to the WC in which he describes JFK's wounds. I believe Mr. Altgens is not particularly clear in his description and it can be interpreted several ways.

Mr. ALTOENS. Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time- well, he was in a position-sort of immobile. He wasn’t upright.’ He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged-it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him- just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. with no blood on his foreheaAlso, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side-all the way down, d or face-suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, mean- ing in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from.

Pretty specfic....

Mr. Lamson

Yes, quite specific. I am especially interested in " There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. with no blood on his foreheaAlso, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side-all the way down, d or face-suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, mean- ing in the direction of this Depository Building......."

Everything Mr. Altgens is describing are observations he made about the LEFT side of JFK's head. Do you think Mr. Altgens would have difficulty seeing the left side of JFK's head if the limousine were directly in front of him?

Mr. Lamson

Please post for us the part of Mr. Altgens' testimony to the WC in which he describes JFK's wounds. I believe Mr. Altgens is not particularly clear in his description and it can be interpreted several ways.