Robert Prudhomme

I mean, seriously, would you buy a used car from this man?

DVP reminds me of going for a test drive in a used Ford with a used car salesman. When you ask him about the clunking in the transmission, he goes into a half hour speech about how Ford is a wonderful car maker, has always made wonderful cars, and he never does address the clunking transmission.

The neck, Dave. How did the bullet get through JFK's neck?

It is a proven anatomical fact that a bullet passing over the right transverse process of vertebra T1, but missing the right transverse process of vertebra C7, just above it (the T1 transverse process is longer) and then going on to pass through the right side of the trachea, has to follow a right to left angle through the neck of a minimum of 28°.

JFK was facing forward at the time the SBT event supposedly occurred. During their investigation, the FBI and SS determined that a sniper in the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD would have been 9° laterally removed from a line running lengthwise through the centre of the limo; a whopping 19° difference.

How did the bullet follow a 28° course through JFK's neck, if Oswald was only 9° removed from the centre line of the limo?

After exiting JFK's throat at a right to left angle of 28°, how did the bullet find its way to Connally's right armpit?

Myers' cartoons show the Magic Bullet passing through the centre of JFK's neck. This would have the bullet smashing through the vertebra.

Myers is a fraud.

Think it remotely possible the flechette dart fired from the umbrella might have left a trail of smoke that would have been quite visible on the Zapruder film?

"The system is based on launching devices of various types, used to launch a self-propelled, rocket-like dart, or flechette. The flechette can carry either a paralyzing or fatal poison."

"It is propelled to its target by a solid-state fuel, ignited electronically at the launcher. It strikes its target, animal or human, dissolves completely in the body leaving no observable trace, and totally paralyzes its victim within two seconds."

Paul, do you think a solid fuel rocket might have a tendency to leave a telltale trail of smoke in its wake that might be spotted on film?

Dumb question, Paul but, just where on an umbrella would you mount a scope? If you read about this umbrella gun, why not post a link to the article?

And Glenn is correct; bullets are quite often referred to as missiles.

Well, Robert, here are two responses to your two points:

(1) Here is a fairly clear explanation about the umbrella gun on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcdMlNFL9Bk

(2) One would still expect consistency, Robert, i.e. if the same document refers to bullets as "bullets" and fragments as "fragments" then when that document also adds "missiles" one may justly expect a third type of object.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Nice video but, no mention of how and where a scope was mounted on the umbrella.

Of course, Williams only saw the top of the cop's helmet, and Roy Truly was a much shorter man.

Thanks Tommy - there was a paper lunch bag next to the coke bottle in the same photo (the photographer's name escapes me at the moment but it gets discussed back on the thread by SM).

Calling it an 'idea' might be dignifying it a bit more than it deserves I think. My wild, unfounded guess that Oswald could have dumped the camera in the storage room is nothing more than that. But I agree it does beg the question, if he was innocent, why dump the camera.

I tend to agree with Bob on the issue of Oswald not having time to get inside before Baker got to him. It's possible, but I think the press reports support the idea that their encounter happened outside the door. (Although I am glad to see Bob has got Baker onto those steps at least).

But it's occurred to me that if the camera flashlight in Weigman is in fact the light reflecting off the bottom of a coke bottle as it's being drunk out of (as some claim) then maybe in Weigman we should be able to identify the fact that the coke is not next to the steps. Because the coke cannot be being drunk by LHO and on the steps at the same time.

Ahem. Barto - got any time to verify that there is only one coke bottle in Weigman? It'd prove your point that Oswald isn't holding a camera.

Vanessa,

I'm kinda gravitating to the idea that Baker ran right past Oswald on the steps without paying any attention to him, and went up to the fifth floor and searched it by himself (Bonnie Ray Williams told the FBI that right after the shots, a policeman (he could see the top of his white motorcycle helmet) came off the elevator and pretty thoroughly searched the fifth floor where Williams and Jarman still were), and then left. Meanwhile, Oswald had put his camera away in the small storage room by the front door (because he'd run out of film), and was encountered there by Campbell and someone else (Reid?, Truly?), and then when the "fix" came in, all of them started changing their stories.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/williams.htm

Case Closed ( LOL )

--Tommy

And the amazing thing is that any one of these speculative scenarios has a chance of being true.

Yes, the limo and windshield were never admitted as evidence, although the SS and FBI did a "thorough" examination of them.

I have always had trouble accepting the blood soluble flechette shot from the umbrella theory, mainly because I cannot see how such a weapon could be accurately aimed at a moving target.

Was it Hoover who insisted the lone gunman story was the truth, or was he merely carrying out orders from much higher up?

Well, Robert, as I read it, the umbrella-gun was invented by the CIA for just such a purpose, and it had a telescopic sight built-in to it.

Also, the FBI report recorded delivery of a "missile" from Parkland -- not a bullet or a fragment -- but a "missile". That also went missing.

IMHO, Hoover established the Lone Gunman story for purposes of National Security, and by 3pm CST the word got around the FBI and eventually to McGeorge Bundy and finally to AF1 and LBJ. LBJ liked the idea very much indeed. In a pact between LBJ and Hoover, the entire Federal Government was finally arm-twisted to agree -- including Allen Dulles, Earl Warren and the whole Warren Commission.

But it was Hoover's original idea, according to Professor David Wrone's own CT.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Dumb question, Paul but, just where on an umbrella would you mount a scope? If you read about this umbrella gun, why not post a link to the article?

And Glenn is correct; bullets are quite often referred to as missiles.

For that matter, how many witnesses describe the cop seen sprinting down the Elm St. extension in the opposite direction from Baker? You're right, though. These guys covered their tracks quite well, and all we can do is speculate.

It's also strange no witness saw Baker entering the TSBD.

...No, I would not purposely shoot through a windshield at a target, but then I am not a professional sniper, either, and have never tried to shoot a moving target through a windshield.

The biggest thing I would worry about with such a shot is something we just discussed; the bevelling on the inside of the windshield glass. If it were indeed bevelled on the inside of the glass, this would be concrete and undeniable evidence of a shot from the front, whether or not the bullet actually hit anyone, and would instantly negate the theory of a lone gunman.

On the other hand, if your real intent was to promote an invasion of Cuba, and you actually wanted it known to the world the assassination was a Communist plot involving several shooters, by all means, shoot at the windshield.

Robert, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the JFK limousine quickly confiscated, scrubbed clean, and never submitted to official analysis?

The umbrella shooter is not a silly theory -- there are some academic leaders (e.g. George Michael Evica) who thought it was plausible. Also, the Umbrella Man was to the side and front of JFK's Limo, by the large street sign, with the limo top down, and he would not have needed to shoot through a windshield.

Finally, the JFK Kill Team didn't support a Lone Shooter theory -- as witness the Warren Commission testimony of Edwin Walker. He was trying to sell a Communist Plot there in Dallas.

The JFK Kill Team wanted everybody to believe that the JFK murder was a Communist Plot. That should be obvious.

It was only J. Edgar Hoover -- worried about riots in the streets during the Cold War -- who insisted that there was no plot at all -- leftwing or rightwing.

Hoover would stomp on any hint of evidence of more than one shooter. This was the very essence of his Coverup.

The JFK Kill Team didn't care at all that multiple bullets from multiple rifles fired by multiple shooters would show up in JFK's brain, or body, or limo. In fact, all that was desirable for them.

IMHO, we will solve the JFK far faster if we stop blurring the Kill-Team plot and the Coverup plot together. They were NEVER together in real life, IMHO, but were politically opposed from the very start (e.g. from 3pm CST on 11/22/1963).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Yes, the limo and windshield were never admitted as evidence, although the SS and FBI did a "thorough" examination of them.

I have always had trouble accepting the blood soluble flechette shot from the umbrella theory, mainly because I cannot see how such a weapon could be accurately aimed at a moving target.

Was it Hoover who insisted the lone gunman story was the truth, or was he merely carrying out orders from much higher up?

you're a hunter. a small tree branch can turn a bullet, right?

my next question would be: understanding the unreliability of deflections - if you were planning such an intricate scheme to shoot someone from various positions, or even one, would you even risk this unreliability of firing through the windshield, past TWO rows of moving people to target a MOVING person in the third seat?

is that something you'd do on purpose in Dealey Plaza with fences and RR underpasses and open windows everywhere?

Yes, tree branches can deflect bullets.

No, I would not purposely shoot through a windshield at a target, but then I am not a professional sniper, either, and have never tried to shoot a moving target through a windshield.

The biggest thing I would worry about with such a shot is something we just discussed; the bevelling on the inside of the windshield glass. If it were indeed bevelled on the inside of the glass, this would be concrete and undeniable evidence of a shot from the front, whether or not the bullet actually hit anyone, and would instantly negate the theory of a lone gunman.

On the other hand, if your real intent was to promote an invasion of Cuba, and you actually wanted it known to the world the assassination was a Communist plot involving several shooters, by all means, shoot at the windshield.

From what I recall, two cameras were found at the Paine residence by DPD; the Russian camera and an American-made camera called a Stereo Realist. The Imperial Reflex camera showed up about three months after the assassination, in the hands of brother Robert Oswald, coincidentally about the time it was shown the Stereo Realist could not be linked to the BYP's. There was also a rare and expensive Minolta "spy" camera, with a serial number only available in Europe at that time, but it magically morphed into a Minolta light meter; much to everyone's relief.

I would question, with the evidence available to me, Sylvia Meagher's claim the BYP's were taken with the Russian camera, as there is evidence the film these photos were exposed on was processed at a "photomat"; one of the outlets popular in those days for cheap and fast photo developing. As Oswald was unable to find film for this camera, and the photomats were likely only able to process popular sizes of film, it is highly unlikely film from the Russian camera was developed at a photomat.

This would hardly seem to be a detail any intelligent conspirator would overlook.

Paul, all

I believe that the "evidence" shows that the windshield showed a "hole that you could put a "pen in"" at Parkland, that's what I refer to as a "through and through". Obviously there are folks who interpret the evidence differently, however I favor that interpretation of early observations. If that (the shot/windshield hole) happened, as I and others believe, then the driver was certainly seriously distracted in the instant. Additionally, if that happened, as I believe, then the Parkland witnesses (Dr's) corroborate an in-shot in the neck and the likelihood (certain hood) of (at least) a second shooter.

I am certainly interested in "the umbrella man" and/or a silent poison shot(though not yet persuaded by specific observations of that sort of action). Do you know of any?. I am, as well, certainly distracted by the "English protestation umbrella reference" interpretation, though not persuaded by evidence that there is deadly intent there. Please don't be distracted by what I refer to as evidence or "lack of evidence". For the most part I'm only referring to what I can find on this site, though I've surely tried to sort this stuff out on other sites.

If I need to defend "Motorcade Stopping" reference, I'll, at a minimum, suggest the issue of a shot through the windshield, an interesting question in itself.

first i've heard a pen could fit in the whole in the windshield. where'd that come from? Kellerman mentioned the bevelled appearance, i think, indicating (suggesting, really) that the direction was inbound from the front. i didn't get the idea that there was an actual hole...

Robert knows bullets and holes. What do you say about a bullet piercing a windshield and NOT spiderwebbing the whole thing, Robert?

As you say, bevelling on the inside of the window is indicative of a force striking the windshield from the outside. This is true of drilling through any brittle substance, such as concrete, for instance. However, such bevelling usually only occurs once the drill is through the concrete.

The safety glass made for windshields in the 1960's was made from two layers of glass bonded together with a layer of a clear rubber like compound between them. It may still be made in this manner today. I know I have, for fun, shot through the windshields of abandoned wrecks I found while out hunting in the bush years ago, but I honestly can't recall what the effect was on the windshields. It ust be remembered that the tempered glass found in the other windows of an automobile is not the same as the glass in the windshield.

I don't believe glass would behave much differently than skull bone of the same thickness, and I can attest to the fact that hollow point and soft tipped bullets make a very neat hole, not much bigger than the bullet itself, when entering a skull. Being even less prone to deformation, a full metal jacket bullet is almost guaranteed to make a very small entrance hole in skull bone.

I have seen photos of windshields, posted by LN's, showing great gaping holes supposedly made by bullets. These very well may be truthful representations of the effect made by a bullet passing through a windshield, but I have always been suspicious of them; mainly because I do not recall bullets doing this. It would have been very easy for someone to shoot several holes in a windshield with a 16 or 20 gauge loaded with buckshot, and attribute the damage to a rifle or pistol bullet.

I guess the only way to find out is by taking the deer rifle out and shooting a couple of holes in a windshield.

"3. I don't think Kennedy wore his clothing up at his ears, and you know it. As stated, the top of his collar approaches the mastoid process. The hole was 14 cm below the top of the collar. The wound was measured at 14 cm below the mastoid. It all adds up, and supports the accuracy of the face sheet, which shows a wound at T-1 equidistant from the mastoid and shoulder tip, exactly as described at autopsy."

Pat, that is one of the more ridiculous things you have ever written, and, from my viewpoint, you have written a lot of ridiculous things.

The mastoid process is nowhere near the top of the collar, and 14 cm. down from the mastoid process is nowhere near 14 cm. down from the top of the collar. Period.

Now go write one of your thousand word posts to baffle with BS all the unenlightened lurkers. Isn't this the LN way?

Is your job to distract threads on this forum, Steve?

If you can consider that Baker paused on the steps for a period of time, can you consider that Baker did not go up the stairs right away but possibly went to the corner first, for like 2-3 minutes? And the reason Frazier and Molina did not see Baker enter the TSBD is because they were already inside the building when Baker went up the steps?

Seriously, Thomas, PM looks quite relaxed standing in the corner at the top of the steps. Baker's total time, from the second he heard the last shot, until he rode his bike to the sidewalk, parked it and was inside the front of the TSBD, was only 20 seconds. From where he is in the still, until he is inside the door, is going to consume no more than 2-3 seconds.

Do you really think there is time for Lewis to open the door and for Oswald to not only scurry inside but duck into the closet under the stairs? After, of course, moving Frazier out of the way.

Well, there is this possibility. Baker did go up the stairs and into the TSBD, but not within 20 seconds of the last shot. He may have gone to the corner first, conferred with officers there, and then gone into the TSBD 2-3 minutes later. By that point, Frazier, Molina AND Oswald may have re-entered the building, along with Truly, Campbell and Mrs. Reid. Remember, Campbell only said that "we" saw Oswald in a 1st floor closet near the main entrance; he never actually said Baker was part of that group.

If this story had been told, far too much time might have elapsed to make a 2nd floor lunchroom encounter believable.

P.S.

This scenario would also make believable Shelley's and Lovelady's stories about remaining on the steps 3-4 minutes, conferring with Calvery, heading to the rail yard and looking back to see Truly and Baker ascending the steps.

Would a swerve to the left at 3-5 mph be noticeable on the Z film?

Hi Thomas

Here is the biggest puzzle, at least from my POV.

In the still you posted, Baker is behind the Stetson man and, at the speed he is travelling, perhaps 3-4 seconds away from being at the front door of the TSBD, with Truly (and Campbell) very close behind him. Prayer Man, who is assumed to be Oswald, will not see Baker, from his position at the top of the steps, until Baker is actually on the steps.

In the space of two or three seconds, how did Oswald get through the door and into the storage closet?

"Also keep in mind early on Truly, Baker, and Campbell probably didn't even think about there being film of Baker sprinting into the bldg w/in 10-15 sec of the last shot! So they figured they could lie through their teeth and get away with it!"

Unfortunately, there is no film showing Baker sprinting into the TSBD front entrance. The Couch film shows him within a few feet of the TSBD front steps, but pans away to the left at the crucial moment. To add further mystery to this matter, no witness on the front steps, including Molina and Frazier, could recall seeing a white helmeted motorcycle cop going past them. This is especially strange when one considers Baker would likely have had to move Frazier out of the way to go through the front door.

As everything involved in pinning the patsy tail on the Oswald donkey on the 2nd floor seems to hinge on split second timing, here is something I would like you to consider: What if Baker did not sprint up the steps, with Truly in hot pursuit, seconds after the last shot was fired?

“Those who had been in the motorcade were racking their brains with if only this, if only that. One of them came to her [Jackie Kennedy]. Bill Greer, his face streaked with tears, took her head between his hands and squeezed until she thought he was going to squeeze her skull flat. He cried, ‘Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, oh my God, oh my God. I didn’t mean to do it. I didn’t hear, I should have swerved the car, I couldn’t help it. Oh, Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it I swerved. If only I’d seen in time! Oh!’ Then he released her head and put his arms around her and wept on her shoulder.”

"Death of a President" by William Manchester

It seems that whenever the discussion here comes around to the issue of the limo stopping/not stopping, no mention is made of the fact that, of the 59 witnesses who claimed to have seen the limo stop/almost stop, a good number of them ALSO saw the limo swerve to the left.

If we assume a certain degree of validity can be derived from the overwhelming number of witnesses who saw the limo stop/almost stop, we are then compelled to further grant that validity to the witnesses who saw the limo swerve to the left.

Plain and simple, the limo seen in the Zapruder film did NOT swerve to the left. Therefore, if the witnesses are to be believed, the only conclusion to be drawn from this is that the swerve was removed from the Zapruder film.

If the swerve was removed, the possibility exists that the complete stop of the limo was also removed.

If the swerve and the stop were removed, we must then consider the head shot at z313 is also a fabrication.

P.S.

I've always wondered what Bill Greer meant when he said "....as soon as I saw it, I swerved. If only I'd seen it in time!" What on earth was "it"?

I am posting this as I tend to agree with it 100% and it saves me paraphrasing:

Interesting discussion between Linda and Tommy on EF. It's regarding the need to stretch out the time for Shelly and Lovelace leaving the steps and then looking back to see Truly and Baker going up the steps. The explanations offered (in the Oswald Leaving TSBD? thread) for this make a great deal of sense.

It works for me to confirm my suspicion that the heroic action of Baker running headlong into potential gunplay in the TSBD came as a complete surprise and almost blew everything wide open. I think Truly and the big guy walking around outside were keeping a close eye on the steps and PM for safe keeping until his scheduled departure for the theater, but that an urgent need arose to respond as Baker stopped, parked his bike, and headed for the front door. They would have much preferred to have had the building, the sniper's nest, and the front steps all left to their own devices in saying who was seen, where, when, and by whom but with Baker in the mix, it became ten times more complicated to place LHO where they needed him plus "coordinate" it all with Baker's movements. The idea of a manufactured time delay and Baker's evolving story may point to such a "coordination" effort proving successful, if with a few false starts. After all, it wasn't easy after Baker showed up.

It also suggests that no shots were fired from the snipers nest if the assumption was that it would not be obvious that they came from there, so that no cops would be expected go running into the building the way Baker did. Dang pigeons. Rats with wings is all they are.

http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13218499-proof-that-prayer-man-is-oswald-is-holding-his-imperial-reflex-620-camera-?page=last

Another interesting viewpoint, and an entirely possible scenario.

Hi Kenneth

Yes, there is a great difference between the two stocks. On the real one, the wood dips down to the pistol grip as it goes forward, while the top of the stock in 133-A is a straight line. To make things worse, the top of the stock in 133-A is so high, it would be impossible to open the bolt on this rifle.

Of course, it may be possible that the editors at Life felt the stock of the rifle did not stand out clearly enough against the background of the black pants, and an artist at Life, with a limited knowledge of rifles, re-drew the stock of the rifle to make it more noticeable. Perhaps someone can enlarge an original of 133-A to see if the mistake appears there as well.