Robert Prudhomme

I'd still like to know how Gloria Calvary made it all the way up Elm St. to the traffic island, from down by the Stemmons Freeway sign, before Baker made it to the steps of the TSBD; especially when you can see Gloria Calvary, post-assassination, still down by the sign in the Darnell film.

Just a quick question (not to divert the topic but slightly related to it) but doesn't anyone else (unless there are visual elements I am unaware of in photography which I admit, may be quite a handful) see the oddity in Lovelady's extremely "slanted" or cut left shoulder in the Altgen's photo? Please tell me I am missing something.

Just a quick reply, Mr. Copeland, and then back to the main topic. The most interesting thing about the Altgens 6 photo is the extreme foreshortening and compression of everything that is achieved by Mr. Altgens' telephoto lens. The "extremely slanted" arm you see does not actually belong to Lovelady but, rather, to one of the onlookers on the sidewalk, quite some distance from Lovelady, actually.

Wiegman was in Camera Car #1, two cars ahead of the camera car Malcolm Couch filmed Baker from. Although not visible in the Couch film, it is assumed Camera Car #1 came to a halt at the same time as the rest of the motorcade, following JFK's limo neither slowing nor coming to a halt.

So where, approximately, was JFK's limo when Weigman "captured" Prayer Man on film?

According to this impressive-looking animation, JFK's limo was pretty darn close to the fatal head shot position when Weigman's car was passing in front of the TSBD.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/animation.htm

--Tommy

You are probably quite close in your estimation. Baker testified that he did not rev his motorcycle up to cover the 180-200 feet to where he parked it until he heard the third shot fired. I believe Couch's car, two cars behind Wiegman, was already halted at the corner when Baker got off his bike and ran for the TSBD, presumably placing Wiegman's car at a halt further down Elm St. Oddly, Camera Car #1 is not seen in the Couch film, although Camera Car #2 can be seen parked ahead of Couch's car. Logic tells us that Camera Car #2 would not have come to a halt if Camera Car #1 had not halted in front of it.

The Wiegman film is not a lot of help here, although the line on the pavement, next to Camera Car #1, does not appear to be moving when Wiegman apparently exits the vehicle, and this appears to be just past the corner.

P.S.

Did you not pick up on the sarcasm, Thomas, when I wrote "following JFK's limo neither slowing nor coming to a halt."? I thought it was rather clever, myself.

P.P.S.

Studying the animation again, something very interesting is revealed. According to the animation the National Press Car (7), the car immediately ahead of Wiegman's Camera Car #1 (8), has barely begun the turn off Houston onto Elm at the time of the fatal head shot. However, in Couch's film, we can see Camera Car # 1 & 2 (I was mistaken about not being able to see Wiegman's Camera Car #1 in the Couch film) sitting stationary on Elm St. ahead of Couch's Camera Car #3, which has also completed the turn off Houston St., and is sitting stationary on Elm St. as well.

The question is, when the limo came to a halt, forcing the rest of the motorcade to come to a halt, did the vehicles bunch up enough to let all four cars (National Press Car and Camera Cars #1,2 & 3) make the corner off of Houston, or did the fatal shot occur further down Elm St. by the steps of the pergola, where J. Edgar Hoover originally said it did in WCD 298?

Wiegman was in Camera Car #1, two cars ahead of the camera car Malcolm Couch filmed Baker from. Although not visible in the Couch film, it is assumed Camera Car #1 came to a halt at the same time as the rest of the motorcade, following JFK's limo neither slowing nor coming to a halt.

I'll be honest with everyone; I actually asked the question about the two SS agents peering intently at the TSBD steps in order to demonstrate something else entirely, and to show how easily the senses are deceived by the appropriate technology.

Let's take another look at this close up view from the Altgens 6 photo:

Looking at this photo, it is easy to assume the two SS agents have seen something unusual on the steps of the TSBD, and are attempting to investigate it. Of course, this is only an assumption, and we have to keep in mind it may be something these two heard, rather than saw, that has attracted their attention.

I have discussed this subject before but I feel it is worth bringing up again. As many of you are likely aware, I believe the first shot hit JFK in the back at the level of and just to the right of the T3 vertebra and, contrary to popular belief, it was not a shallow wound but, rather, penetrated the top section of JFK's right lung. I also believe that, due to the construction of this bullet, it broke apart entirely in JFK's lung instead of exiting the front of his chest, as a full metal jacket bullet would be expected to do, and that this disintegration of the bullet caused a pneumothorax in JFK's right lung, as noted in the testimony of Dr, Marion T. Jenkins.

Back to the Altgens photo. In analyzing this photo, the first thing that comes to mind is the total lack of startle response in the faces of the crowd on the sidewalk.

Outside of the occupants of the limo, the only thing resembling a startle reaction are the reactions of the two SS agents and the motorcycle cop to the right of the limo. This is extremely odd, considering the fact that, at this point in time (according to the WC), two shots have been fired almost directly above these spectators' heads a mere 60 feet, almost 4 seconds before this photo was taken. Startle reactions to loud unexpected noises are, invariably, instantaneous and involuntary. Not only that, the rifle was pointed downwards at the limo, placing every spectator in this photo directly in the loudest portion of the forward cone of the rifle's muzzle blast. The Carcano short rifle also has a very loud muzzle blast, due to the fact that, with a 21 inch barrel, it is shooting the same cartridge originally made to fire in the Carcano M91 long rifle, with a 31 inch barrel.

So, why is the crowd not reacting? Where are the startled faces and involuntary crouching recoils one would expect from two such loud reports?

To answer this, it is necessary to look at a device for rifles (and pistols) called a "silencer" or "suppressor". They are not complicated devices and, in fact, there are several Youtube videos showing how one can be quickly made from an oil filter.

The important thing to know about "silencers" is that they will only make a shot completely silent if the bullet is travelling at subsonic speeds, or lower than the speed of sound, which is roughly 1035 feet per second. At supersonic velocities (greater than the speed of sound), the muzzle blast will be eliminated, but the bullet will make a sharp "crack", similar to a firecracker, as it breaks the sound barrier travelling through the air. This "crack" will be startling to those in the immediate vicinity of its path but will only be an unusual sound to those further away, such as the spectators on the sidewalk. Most rifles have muzzle velocities far in excess of 1035 fps. For example, the 6.5mm Carcano allegedly used by LHO was tested by the FBI, and found to have an average muzzle velocity of 2165 fps, and it is considered to be a medium powered rifle by many, and quite slow in comparison to modern rifles.

So, why even bother fitting a rifle with a silencer, you might ask, if it does not completely silence a rifle?

There are two reasons. First, many snipers are capable of making kills at extreme ranges. If one looks at the ballistics tables for a particular calibre of bullet, it will show that, while a bullet may be travelling at supersonic speeds leaving the barrel, after a few hundred yards it may have slowed to subsonic speeds. It is still quite lethal at this point but no longer breaking the sound barrier and, therefore, completely silent to those in the vicinity of the kill, completely masking the fact a shot has even taken place. However, this was not the case in Dealey Plaza that day, at least as far as I am aware, anyways.

The second reason to equip a high powered rifle with a silencer is to mask the location of the shooter, and to give the shooter greater time to effect his egress from the scene. In the case of Dealey Plaza, it also spreads confusion amongst the eyewitnesses as to the origin of the shot, as each witness, depending where he was standing in relation to the mini-sonic boom being made by this bullet, will have a different opinion on this matter.

I believe the first shot, striking JFK in the back, came from either a lower level of the Dal-Tex Building, or from a location further up Elm St. I believe the two SS agents are looking around in attempt to comprehend what has just happened simply because a silenced rifle shot has taken place behind them, and they have heard the crack of this bullet breaking the sound barrier as it passes just to the right of their heads. As they are the closest to the path of the bullet, they are the only ones startled by its noise. The fact they are looking at the steps of the TSBD for an answer merely proves how effective a silencer is at spreading confusion.

Ditto.

Time to start thinking outside of the box. What could PM do that would attract the attention of two men with video cameras plus two SS agents on the starboard side of the Queen Mary? And yet, not seem to cause much of a fuss in the people standing on the steps.

Surely, the SS agents would have seen camera flashes during motorcades before, and would one flash actually capture their attention? Would PM have even needed a flash, if his camera was taking a photo of something that was out in the sunlight?

Going along to get along....

As Creshaw said...(I para-phrase) if they killed the POTUS what do you think they'd do to me.

Look at the careers of those who cooperated. Then ask Bolden how things went, or Craig.

LBJ mentioned something about the CIA running a "Murder, Inc" in south and latin America.

Anyone with any amount of savvy who touched the assassination quickly saw what was going on.

I truly doubt that Spector and the others wanted to believe that their own government could do such a thing... the ethnocentricity of Americans borders on the insane... and then Dulles has a book pushed which shows how each and every assassination in american history was the work of a Lone Nut... no such thing as political assassination in the good ole US of A...

From Fonzi's The Last Investigation: Remember now, this is from 40 years ago.

At the time, Schweiker was a member of what was officially named the Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, headed by Idaho Senator Frank Church. The Church Committee, as it became known in the press, had been making deadlines (sic - headlines) since early in the year by revealing how the FBI abused its power by harassing dissident political groups and conducting illegal investigations, how the CIA, Army Intelligence and the National Security Agency were involved in domestic snooping and how the intelligence agencies had planned assassination attempts on foreign leaders. For Schweiker, despite his long stints in both houses of Congress, these were eye-opening revelations. "I've learned more about the inner workings of government in the past nine months than in my 15 previous years in Congress," he later told a reporter.

Schweiker had never been moved to take a special interest in the details of the Kennedy assassination. He had assumed, as did most Americans then, that the Warren Commission Report reflected a comprehensive, objective investigation. He had never had the inclination to critically question the Report closely because that inclination would have had to include the assumption that certain government officials and agencies could have been involved in at the very least a cover-up. Schweiker did not want to believe that. However, when the Church Committee discovered that United States Government officials -- specifically, CIA agents -- had made alliances with the Mafia and other members of Organized Crime in planning assassination, Schweiker was traumatically shaken. "That was so repugnant and shocking to me that I did a backflip on any number of things," he later recalled.

God bless America.

Thanks for that explanation of Weigman, Randy.

How about this interpretation then? Weigman hears the first shot and at the same time sees the flash of whatever it is that PM is holding in his hands. That's why he pans back.

I'm not saying Weigman thought the shot came from PM but something has attracted his attention and causes him to pan back. He's not panicked and running at this time - he's still just filming the crowd but goes back for a looksee for just a few split seconds.

Just enough time to view PM again. And I think it's because of that bright object PM is holding. What else stands out in those frames?

Is it just a coincidence that the two SS agents, seen riding on the right side of the follow up car in the Altgens 6 photo, are also looking intently at the steps of the TSBD?

Hmm. Interesting observation.

You bet. Outside of Chaney on the motorcycle, these two SS agents seem to be the only people outside of the limo showing any kind of reaction.

Thanks for that explanation of Weigman, Randy.

How about this interpretation then? Weigman hears the first shot and at the same time sees the flash of whatever it is that PM is holding in his hands. That's why he pans back.

I'm not saying Weigman thought the shot came from PM but something has attracted his attention and causes him to pan back. He's not panicked and running at this time - he's still just filming the crowd but goes back for a looksee for just a few split seconds.

Just enough time to view PM again. And I think it's because of that bright object PM is holding. What else stands out in those frames?

Is it just a coincidence that the two SS agents, seen riding on the right side of the follow up car in the Altgens 6 photo, are also looking intently at the steps of the TSBD?

Yes, we see Baker running up to the steps in the Darnell film, just before the camera pans away. Coincidentally, the same thing happens in the Couch film, though I would not go so far as to say there was alteration to these films to remove whatever it is that Baker does next.

Baker's testimony has always struck me as suspicious, right from the moment he claims he hears the first shot. Not only is he riding a barely muffled Harley-Davidson motorcycle 180-200 feet from the TSBD, he is wearing a helmet with flaps protruding over his ears, and is able to clearly hear a rifle shot that seems to have little audible effect on bystanders seen in this famous photo, almost 4 seconds after this shot was fired and almost directly under the source of the shot:

Baker's main inspiration for entering the TSBD is, as he tells the WC, a flock of pigeons he saw lift up from the roof of the TSBD. So, without stopping to see if anyone is hurt by these shots, or if there are any further developments that may require him to stay in position, Baker gets this split second brain wave to tear up to the top of the TSBD and look for...what? This is almost as good as the magical clairvoyant experience Roy Truly had. He only had to glance at Officer Baker and he just KNEW that Baker wanted to go to the roof of the TSBD.

Sorry, this whole thing stinks to high Heaven, and it is only made worse when the only witnesses who will support Baker's entering the front of the TSBD are Shelley and Lovelady. Both of these men are plainly lying in their WC testimony, if their first day affidavits are to be believed.

Randy, what if Baker ran right by the TSBD front steps, made the corner onto Houston St., investigated something he saw from his position further back on Houston St. and entered the back of the TSBD much later than he claimed, and only then met Truly and made his way up the stairs? It is not a matter of IF Truly and Baker went up the TSBD stairs, it is a matter of WHEN they went up the stairs. All of the first day reports of what he did and said could still hold true, outside of the fabricated 2nd floor lunch room encounter with Oswald.

I know some will say, "Why didn't he park his motorcycle right at the corner then?" Another equally valid question might be, "If he was heading for the front steps, why didn't he park his motorcycle right at the steps, instead of 45 west of the steps on the Elm St. extension?"

Comparing witnesses who do not recall seeing PM with witnesses who do not recall seeing Baker is a bit paradoxical, I should think. On one hand, I can understand witnesses being intimidated into not recalling PM but, on the other hand, wouldn't the conspirators WANT the witnesses to recall seeing Baker entering the front of the TSBD? Surely, they would want all the corroboration they could get of Baker entering the front of the TSBD, wouldn't they?

I fail to see how the topic of this thread is not relevant. Baker's testimony is the only thing implicating Oswald being on an upper floor of the TSBD (or even in the building) at the time of the shooting,

P.S.

My hunting experience would tell me the pigeons flew up off of the roof due to a shot from an adjacent building. If the pigeons were on the roof, and shots were fired from a window two storeys down, they might not even hear the shots.

Bumped - waiting for a reply

I also think the self-limiting qualifier is interesting: "I'm just a patsy."

Is that anything similar to the line from the song, "I'm just a gigolo...."?

It seems to me that this person may have a watch/bracelet on his right wrist (suggesting a left-handed person) while Oswald wore his on the left....

So close yet just far enough not to know...

Was a wrist watch ever listed in Oswald's possessions?

Robert, that 2012 Gary Stover interview of Mary Moorman link you provided is the best interview of a living JFK assassination witness I have ever seen since the event occurred 51 years ago. Mr. Stover did his homework & asked the hard questions other interviewers fail to ask Mary. He even asked her if the Z-film depicts what she saw: Mary's answer, "not really".

If all JFK assassination witnesses were asked the pertinent & controversial issues questions like Mary Moorman was in Mr. Stover's interview, there would be a far greater understanding of how the crime happened & less avenue for debates that lead nowhere IMHO.

BM

Yes, I've watched the entire series twice now, and seemed to get more out of it the second time. Gary Stover is an excellent interviewer. I also like the fact that Ms. Moorman puts a great deal of thought into each answer, and does not try to embellish her answers at all.

Of course, the WC apologists will try to tell us she is aged, and that her memory is clouded by her advanced age. However, she seems to me to be very sharp, and in complete control of all her faculties.

This forum amazes me sometimes. I look on the front page and see how many threads on the most trivial and inconsequential topics seem to perpetuate unending discussion, yet a thread about one of the key elements of the cover up is ignored.

I really wonder sometimes just how many of our members are here solely to direct discussion away from anything key to the assassination, by flooding the forum with "fill".

Robert,

I see the same thing, regrettably, but it seems to be the way people are. They each have their pet theories and push them whatever forum they're on. Many cannot seem to try and understand any part of the assassination without weaving it around their own special subject.

Even subjects I thought had been laid to rest decades ago (DoorMan, the SBT, the Second Floor Encounter, and so on) are still being debated alongside the question about how many shots were fired or which agency was most involved in the cover-up or what influence the Mafia had leveraged.

As someone else has pointed out, most of the discussion seems to center on the cover-up(s) rather than the assassination. Some want to build the conspiracy so large it includes RFJ, MLK, Lincoln and the debacle at the Little Big Horn. Trying to separate out the assassination from the cover-up is extremely difficult, it seems, and so the pet theories - or "fill" as you called it - flood the forums.

Unfortunately, I doubt if it can be stopped as it is the theorizing that seems to be the really interesting part of this community. Rather than worry about the direction others are taking, I concentrate on the threads that are meaningful to me. Yes, I'm just like everything else.

I just ignore the fillers. There is an assassination I would like to see solved.

I want to see the murder solved as well, but I am still fascinated with the intricacies of the cover, and the he said/she said and filtering through all the paper work to see who is lying and who is telling the truth.

One of the biggest hurdles to overcome, in both endeavours, are the WC generated myths that pass for common knowledge, such as Baker entering the front of the TSBD.

I personally think that Rather was lying about either seeing the film or what it showed. It strikes me how odd it was for him to be so emphatic that the car never stopped. I don't recall that it was an issue at the time and they wanted to get the idea out before some witnesses came forward and said it did stop, It reminds me of a friend I had as a kid and he was sneaking a cigarette in his bedroom. When his mom walked in and asked what the smell was, he answered, "I wasn't smoking a cigarette."

Several witnesses made statements over the first few days that suggested the limo stopped. Rather saw the film on the Monday after. It only makes sense then that among the things he would note while watching the film was that it did not show a limo stop.

Rather saw the film after the world had been told Oswald fired the shots from behind. He projected onto his viewing of the film that Kennedy went forward as a response to the fatal shot. I don't believe he consciously lied about what he saw.

He was a pretty sloppy journalist, however. His sloppiness is exposed by both his account of viewing the film when he saw it, and when he described it afterwards. He claimed he saw the film on the 23rd, and then reported on it just afterwards. OOPS! He must have run into a time warp, because he didn't get on air until the 25th.

Yeah, he must have made it all up, Pat, "subconscious projection" or some new fangled interpretation, right?

I never get tired of watching you do damage control. One of the few sources of amusement I have.

On the subject of lack of blood & wound debris on the trunk of JFK's parade car in the z-film:

Josiah Thompson published some black & white Nix film frames in 'Six Seconds In Dallas' & pointed out what he interpreted to be JFK headshot wound debris moving back across the parade car's trunk in the direction of the Queen Mary. In later years, as clear versions of the Nix film became available to the public, Thompson's analysis was demonstrated in JFK forums to be wrong: what he actually was looking at was a reflection of the Bryan pergola's western retaining wall (where BDM was photographed by Phil Willis & Hugh Betzner).

There are several interviews & speaking engagements Clint Hill participated in posted online at YouTube & C-Span. In at least one of them, Mr. Hill indicates that his suit & the hood, fender & windshield of the Queen Mary were all splattered with gore when JFK received his fatal wound. If this thread stays up for awhile, I'll go through them & indicate which one to cite for that info.

Mary Moorman was asked in a fairly recent online interview posted at YouTube if she was splattered with gore when she snapped her famous polaroid photo & Mary replied that she was not.

I've not seen any visuals of either the JFK limo or Queen Mary, while parked at Parkland, having gore splattered on them.

Some film alterationists might argue that the gore was simply painted over in a process known as 'aerial imaging' on an optical printer. Reading an explanation from the person or persons that actually performed the alleged optical deception work has historically been missing in the JFK case. For example, in Doug Horne's Hawkeyeworks z-film alteration analysis, Mr. Horne tells us what was done to the z-film at Hawkeyeworks but as yet cannot provide names of those involved in the alleged optical deception. In the US judicial system, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the accuser.

I hope what I've offered here & previously keeps the thread going. The 'other' z-film is a topic of interest for a lot of people globally.

BM

We are victims of incessant brainwashing, Brad, and many of the things that all of us "know" to be true are often a result of this brainwashing.

Below is a link to Part 2 of an interview Mary Moorman gave in 2012.

Beginning at about the 1:00 mark, she describes taking her famous photo and how she heard a "sound" at the moment she snapped the photo. However, at about the 1:55 mark, she then tells the interviewer she heard two more of these "sounds" after the first one.

Of course, though, it is common knowledge that the fatal bullet hit JFK at the same moment she took her photo, but is this just more propaganda?

I personally think that Rather was lying about either seeing the film or what it showed. It strikes me how odd it was for him to be so emphatic that the car never stopped. I don't recall that it was an issue at the time and they wanted to get the idea out before some witnesses came forward and said it did stop, It reminds me of a friend I had as a kid and he was sneaking a cigarette in his bedroom. When his mom walked in and asked what the smell was, he answered, "I wasn't smoking a cigarette."

Hi Daniel

If you think Dan Rather was lying about what the film showed, but actually saw the film, what parts of the film do you believe rather was lying about, beside the limo never stopping?

Coincidentally, the way Rather describes Connally turning around and reaching out with his right arm is described almost identically by a witness atop of the Triple Underpass.

This forum is not what it used to be.

And tell me just how you know Dan Rather was lying, Kathy. Just how do you know Dan Rather did not actually view the Zapruder film?

"The Secret Service man leaned forward and put his hands on Mrs. Kennedy's shoulders...to push her back into the car."

Immediately following:

"The car never stopped, it never paused."

Excepts from a video of Dan Rather describing his viewing of the Zapruder film on Nov.25/63.

While everyone is merrily discussing whether Clint Hill slapped or merely pushed Jackie, has it ever occurred to you how difficult either of these actions would be for Clint Hill, if the limo was not at a standstill? If he let go of the handrail on a moving limo, he stood a very good chance of falling off backwards, cracking his skull and getting run over by the Queen Mary.

I believe there is a very good reason we don't see Clint Hill pushing (or slapping) Jackie in the Zapruder film.

Yes, we see Baker running up to the steps in the Darnell film, just before the camera pans away. Coincidentally, the same thing happens in the Couch film, though I would not go so far as to say there was alteration to these films to remove whatever it is that Baker does next.

Baker's testimony has always struck me as suspicious, right from the moment he claims he hears the first shot. Not only is he riding a barely muffled Harley-Davidson motorcycle 180-200 feet from the TSBD, he is wearing a helmet with flaps protruding over his ears, and is able to clearly hear a rifle shot that seems to have little audible effect on bystanders seen in this famous photo, almost 4 seconds after this shot was fired and almost directly under the source of the shot:

Baker's main inspiration for entering the TSBD is, as he tells the WC, a flock of pigeons he saw lift up from the roof of the TSBD. So, without stopping to see if anyone is hurt by these shots, or if there are any further developments that may require him to stay in position, Baker gets this split second brain wave to tear up to the top of the TSBD and look for...what? This is almost as good as the magical clairvoyant experience Roy Truly had. He only had to glance at Officer Baker and he just KNEW that Baker wanted to go to the roof of the TSBD.

Sorry, this whole thing stinks to high Heaven, and it is only made worse when the only witnesses who will support Baker's entering the front of the TSBD are Shelley and Lovelady. Both of these men are plainly lying in their WC testimony, if their first day affidavits are to be believed.

Randy, what if Baker ran right by the TSBD front steps, made the corner onto Houston St., investigated something he saw from his position further back on Houston St. and entered the back of the TSBD much later than he claimed, and only then met Truly and made his way up the stairs? It is not a matter of IF Truly and Baker went up the TSBD stairs, it is a matter of WHEN they went up the stairs. All of the first day reports of what he did and said could still hold true, outside of the fabricated 2nd floor lunch room encounter with Oswald.

I know some will say, "Why didn't he park his motorcycle right at the corner then?" Another equally valid question might be, "If he was heading for the front steps, why didn't he park his motorcycle right at the steps, instead of 45 west of the steps on the Elm St. extension?"

Comparing witnesses who do not recall seeing PM with witnesses who do not recall seeing Baker is a bit paradoxical, I should think. On one hand, I can understand witnesses being intimidated into not recalling PM but, on the other hand, wouldn't the conspirators WANT the witnesses to recall seeing Baker entering the front of the TSBD? Surely, they would want all the corroboration they could get of Baker entering the front of the TSBD, wouldn't they?

I fail to see how the topic of this thread is not relevant. Baker's testimony is the only thing implicating Oswald being on an upper floor of the TSBD (or even in the building) at the time of the shooting,

P.S.

My hunting experience would tell me the pigeons flew up off of the roof due to a shot from an adjacent building. If the pigeons were on the roof, and shots were fired from a window two storeys down, they might not even hear the shots.

This forum amazes me sometimes. I look on the front page and see how many threads on the most trivial and inconsequential topics seem to perpetuate unending discussion, yet a thread about one of the key elements of the cover up is ignored.

I really wonder sometimes just how many of our members are here solely to direct discussion away from anything key to the assassination, by flooding the forum with "fill".

As documented in Chapter 5b of my website, Clint Hill repeatedly described blood and gore on the back of the limo. Bobby Hargis, riding to the left and behind of Mrs. Kennedy, similarly described a cloud of blood and brain that came his way after the head shot. The question, however, is not where this blood and brain landed, but where it came from. It's entirely possible a cloud of mist exploded upwards from the right side of Kennedy's head and then rained down upon the back of the limo.

P.S. If you think this is silly, here's a little experiment. Next time you're driving in your car, take a swig from a Big Gulp, stick your head out your window, and then try to spit some beverage straight up in the air. Then see where it lands. LOL

I don't usually drive at 10 to 12 mph, and come to almost a complete stop before taking a swig from a Big Gulp.