Tom Neal

Hey Ollie, That is pretty darned impressive. I was able to position the viewpoint at the corner of the fence where it abuts the overpass. I had thought it would be a good location for the headshot. I posted a screen shot from this spot in Post #412. Tom

Well, one of the things I noticed right away was the weird tilt. Maybe Dallas was just on some strange earth axis anomaly, do you notice the woman in the background and then they have her depicted as a cylinder? What if you righted that to correct the axis? Wouldn't the shadows change and the Limo then appear to be not going uphill? Just an observation. I could be totally wrong about it. All I did was compare the shadow on the model to the Z-JFK. I didn't look at anything else. Have you checked out the 3D Interactive that Ollie posted a link to in post #409? This is my favorite location for a headshot. It's at the far end of the fenceline where it reaches the overpass. I think a guy could get off at least two good shots from this location...and walk away unmolested.

Thanks Chris! That is interesting. How did you happen to find it? The comparison of the illuminated model to the Z-JFK depicts the back of the head shadow in the correct location. No surprise there. However, on the model, the transition from 'almost' black to the brown of the hair is a shallow gradient. To my eye anyway, on Z-JFK, there is absolutely no gradient all, and the shadow is deep black. All they've proven to me is they painted the correct area in the photo black... Tom

James, well said, and ABSOLUTELY true. To your knowledge, has anyone constructed a 3D model of Dealey Plaza using the survey information as a Database? Ideally it would utilize a 'World' coordinate system so a specific point e.g. TSBD "sniper's window" could be designated as a reference point for the origin of a shot. Next, a target reference point would be input. This line of sight would yield range, azimuth and declination relative to the target and the origin.

"A" makes a statement -- "B" "misunderstands." i.e. by definition of the word "misunderstand"; "B" "fail(ed) to interpret or understand the words or action..." When the word "misunderstand" is used by "A" in reference to communication with "B": 1. the statement of "A" is correct, and therefore "A" is BLAMELESS for the "misunderstanding." 2. "B" is solely responsible for the error in communication An apparent or actual miscommunication can be caused by: 1. "A" failed to properly express himself, thus "A" is at fault 2. "B" understood but "A" INCORRECTLY believes that "B" did not understand, thus "A" is at fault 3. "B" understood but his poorly worded reply to "A" indicates to "A" that "B" failed to understand, thus "B" is at fault 4. "B" failed to comprehend the properly composed statement of "A", thus "B" is at fault 5. Either "A" or "B" or "A" and "B" are looking for an argument... To acknowledge an *apparent* misunderstanding, use of the word "We" is highly recommended. The word "You" is not. e.g. "We are experiencing a communication breakdown, and I don't know why." Thus, a communication issue is presented, but NO BLAME is assigned to EITHER "A" or "B". This technique is most often referred to as "I'm OK, you're OK."

Speaking of offensive - after blaming me for the entire situation, your attempt at being humble is "offensive." IF you had left out every word above "I apologize for my snarkiness." this would be a reasonable apology. However, since you have chosen to assign me sole blame for everything but the snarkiness I must say this is the most self-serving "apology" that I've ever encountered. Let's just leave it this way. I believe we should have split the blame between us, and you know that it was all my fault. You can protest 'til Doomsday, but the facts will still be the same: You came up with 3 issues and stated all 3 were my fault alone. You might consider looking up "apology" in the dictionary so you can learn how to write one. From my end this is over, but it's not forgotten.

I see. It was my fault. The problem is that *I* misunderstand you, whereas you of course understood everything I said, and there's NO possibility that your statements were misleading, poorly worded, or ambiguous.. I see. My fault again. I disagree 100% with this statement. That may be what you tried to say, but it is NOT what you did say. I see. Again my fault because you didn't know that you need to be careful using the word "concluded" with me. You don't understand the correct usage of the word. The definition of the word per several dictionaries: the end or finish of an event or process. "the conclusion of World War Two" synonyms: end, ending, finish, close, termination, windup, cessation; When something is concluded, it's over. I'm sure this is my fault, too. Like all 3 of your above statements. I'm not misunderstanding a thing. You made 3 statements above, and I ALONE was at fault for 100% of them. Based upon the above, I am OBVIOUSLY misunderstanding you for a 4th time, because stupid me thinks you are actually accepting some blame here. Luckily for me, I'm already sitting down, or I would have keeled over. YOU LISTED SO MANY THINGS THAT I DID TO CAUSE ALL YOUR PROBLEMS THAT THE SITE REQUIRES ME TO SPLIT THIS INTO TWO SEPARATE POSTS! I AM JUST *SO* BAD!

Neither Bennett nor Hickey are sitting on the seat. They are sitting up much higher than that as they do in a motorcade. Notice the heads of the agents in the rear seat. They are above the windshield. Additionally, if you look at Willis5, Bennett and Hickey are sitting up high, not down on the seat. Bennett is also all the way to right and leaning over rather than sitting upright. JFK is also in the right rear seat up against the wall. IMO Bennett would have line-of-sight with JFK by turning his head to the left, looking between Rybka/Landis and the car, or straightening up, turning left and looking over the windshield.

Oh, absolutely. That's precisely how I understood what he said. He specifically said that they determined there were no large wounds on the back. Which makes me think that is what they were primarily looking for. Well, what do you know -- we CAN agree on something!

Robert, you are absolutely correct. During the 1/18 of a second interval between frames, the film is only recording what happens during the first half of that frame time interval which is 1/40 of a second. It then follows that for the remaining time prior to the next frame, whatever is transpiring is not recorded. They way that I visualize the relationship between what is recorded on the film and what is actually occurring is to imagine looking at a scene through a transparent window. If an object is passing across the scene I see all of the motion that occurs during this 1/40th of a second. After this 1/40th of a second the window I'm looking through becomes opaque for 1/40th of a second, and I am blind to whatever is happening during this 1/40th of a second. Anyway, this analogy works for me.

Thanks for the confirmation Ollie! That appears reasonable to me. I expect you to succeed, but I suspect it will require a lot of time. FWIW, I'm convinced that it has been messed with. e.g. ONLY frame 313 depicts the blood spatter in front of the head. Per comments made by Sherry Fiester and Dino Brugione et al, I don't feel that spatter could vanish in 1/18th of a second. I believe we should see spatter from the back of his head as well, but there is none. Whether a frontal shot or rear shot, spatter would be present at the entry and exit wounds. Frames were either excised, which could explain JFK's rapid motion to the rear, or compositing which would possibly explain the odd appearance of Jackie at certain times.

Yes, and we've ALL heard the controversy and the contradictory claims re the windshield. Now, tell us about ALL those who claim to have seen a bullet hole in the back seat/trunk/ or where ever...Gee, there aren't any... So how does the bullet hole in the window lend creedence to your back entrance theory? If so, who stripped it that was in on the conspiracy or was ordered to lie?

At what time or Z-frame do you propose JFK's back entry occurred? What was JFK's posture at the time? What was the angle of the bullets trajectory as it passed through the throat wound and exited the back wound? Do you agree that the above data is required to evaluate your "back shot entry wound" theory?

I'm inclined to believe the back wound was real. I mean, so what if no bullet for it was found? Same is true of the throat wound, and we know that wound is real. I agree. However, the question is: based upon his statements, do you believe that CARRICO is saying that the 'feel the back' check could have missed a 1/4" hole in JFK's back?

Based upon your above logic, because there's no evidence that Jackie pulled a gun out of her pocket and shot JFK in the back, this "theory" is also likely. If "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" then it isn't evidence of existence either. I'm only aware that Sagan used this analogy when questioned about other life in the universe, which given its infinite nature becomes a statistical certainty. Is a back entry wound a statistical certainty? But obviously you can conclude that it's likely, or if you want to quibble, not unlikely. You also must conclude that the front exit wound is considerably smaller than the back entry wound. Can you provide evidence that this is "likely" to occur? I have NEVER "concluded" frangible bullets were used. As I have stated in multiple posts, IMO, and with the current evidence that is the better of the possible choices. If that means I "concluded" then you and I are not reading the same dictionary. Out of thin air? Do you think an FMJ made the throat wound and the back wound and didn't exit? Do you think that an FMJ disintegrated inside JFK's head leaving cone-shaped dust trails of bullet fragments? Speaking of "out of thin air"... When you decide that a back entry may be more likely than a front entry with as you state 'no evidence' to back it up, who is conjuring "out of thin air"? You are referring to the back shot entry? I'd be curious to know how many here agree that this is "maybe even more likely."

There are additional reasons why a back entry seems unlikely at best, however, I was referring ONLY to the fact that nowhere in this thread or the previous one has anyone accepted the throat wound entry and back wound exit can be connected. I hope you're not serious, but... The bubble top was stored there. Before you ask, Sam Kinney states that he removed it from the trunk and assembled it outside of Parkland as he was ordered to. Kinney would have to be in on it, and none of the many, many, police, etc. didn't wonder why a guy was inside the trunk. ...where it would have been found by someone during the limo inspection or by the company that completely rebuilt the limo. I think they would turn in a bullet found in the trunk. At the very least there would have been rumors. Have you heard of any?

Per Carrico and nurses Bowron and Hinchcliffe, Caricco was in the Trauma Room when JFK arrived. His first action was to check for a heartbeat. He detected heartbeats so they removed his clothing to allow further examination. If you look at the photos of the clothes you can see that the sleeves are slit full length, they state that they cut the tie off to one side of the knot. They may have raised the body slightly, but they essentially just slid the clothing and brace out from under his body. Both nurses were assigned to the Trauma Room so I'm sure it happened quickly. Per Bowron's testimony, after the clothing was removed it was placed on a shelf. When JFK was pronounced dead, the clothing and brace was bagged and handed to Bill Greer who had arrived with JFK and remained in the Trauma Room until the body was placed in the casket. I wonder why *he* was chosen to remain in the room? Considering the fact that Greer, Burkley, and a dozen or more doctors were all in that tiny room, anyone could have examined the clothing. After replying to Specter's questions regarding the back exam, when Carrico states there "certainly" could have been a back wound, following this with "there's no way to tell" I was convinced that this indicated that there may been an undetected back wound. I don't feel it's absolutely conclusive, but it is strong evidence that Carrico believes a back wound was possible. I'm curious what you think Carrico may have meant by this reply?

As I stated, I haven't devoted adequate time to the windshield, Tague, and shots that hit the street yet, so your input is appreciated. a. I agree this seems almost absurd. You'd have to predict which shots you were going to take and when... b. Of course, different shooters might prefer different ammo for the same job, but IMO these guys had specific orders as to how their assignment would be carried out. Including weapons and ammo. I am convinced that the throat wound and back wound bullets did not exit, so it seems they were frangible bullets. I'm ready to be convinced otherwise given the proper evidence. c. DSL made that decision back in "Best Evidence" and I have ENORMOUS respect for his work on that, but I'm not ready to decide whether he's correct or not. Speaking of further research regarding the back wound, have you read my post #358? If you don't mind, I'd like your take on whether Carrico himself thinks a bullet hole in JFK's back "should" have been discovered (as recently stated by DSL) during his "hands on" back inspection. Meanwhile, I am working to compile 'all' of the evidence pro or con that is available as to whether the back wound was seen before or at Parkland or should have been seen there. Tom

I don't have a "unified" theory that covers all shots, but IMO there were at least 4 shots, and at least 2 shooters. I am undecided as to the order and intervals of these shots, but as you say, if the JFK and JBC back wounds occurred simultaneously then it would of course require two shooters from the rear. I think the two corners of the TSBD are likely candidates. I am convinced of the following wounds and directions: From a frontal shooter: 1. JFK throat wound 2. JFK head wound From a rear shooter: 3. JFK back wound 4. JBC back wound The above do NOT account for the Tague curb shot OR the windshield dent, both of which would have to come from the rear, because I haven't given enough thought as to how they fit in with the shots I've listed. I think it's possible that JFK was also hit in the head from behind. Fragments from this shot could have hit the windshield and/or Tague's curb. I don't think a whole bullet hit the curb, or the windshield. IMO unless passing through something else first, a whole bullet would have done more than just dent the windshield. Credible witnesses have also reported a shot hitting the pavement behind the Limo and ahead of the limo. Could a 5th shot account for Tague, the windshield and the street hits? Sorry, but at the moment I can't give you a better answer than this.

Ollie, I used to know all this, but it's been a long time. Am I correct in believing the following: To use round numbers, let's say that the camera's frame rate was 20 frames a second. Elapsed time = 0 secs. The shutter opens and frame #1 is exposed to light for 1/40th of second. The shutter would then be closed for an additional 1/40th of a second. Total elapsed time = 1/20 of a second. The shutter would again open to expose frame #2. Repeat as necessary... If correct, then the film records an image for 1/20th of a second, does not record what happens for the next 1/20th of a second, and this cycle is repeated. An analogy would be a human eye that opens for 1/20th of a second, then closes for 1/20th of a second missing whatever happens during that 1/20th of a second slice in time. TIA, Tom

I am researching the "back wound" and whether or not it "should" have been detected at Parkland: WC Testimony of Dr. C. James Carrico: Dr. CARRICO - After what we have described we completed an initial emergency examination ... we felt his back, determined there were no large wounds which would be an immediate threat to life there. Mr. SPECTER - Specifically what did you do with respect to the back, Dr. Carrico? Dr. CARRICO - This is a routine examination of critically ill patients where you haven't got time to examine him fully. I just placed my hands just above the belt, but in this case just above the brace, and ran my hands up his back. Mr. SPECTER - To what point on his body? Dr. CARRICO - All the way up to his neck very briefly. Mr. SPECTER - What did you feel by that? Dr. CARRICO - I felt nothing other than the blood and debris. There was no large wound there. Mr. SPECTER - What source did you attribute the blood to at that time? Dr. CARRICO - As it could have come from the head wound, and it certainly could have been a back wound, but there was no way to tell whether this blood would have come from a back wound and not from his head. [Emphasis above is mine] IMO, Carrico is stating that the back exam was cursory - quickly feeling for "large" "life-threatening" wounds. Although a 1/4" wound is life-threatening if inflicted by a bullet, is it considered "large"? Carrico mentions blood "and debris" - presumably brain matter. This blood and debris would add a degree of difficulty to the hurried tactile detection of a 1/4" hole. Obviously, Specter is 'fishing' for back wound info in this part of the Q & A, but like so much of the WC testimony, whenever they are about to receive a definitive statement they immediately change the subject, or a commissioner buts in with an irrelevant question, and that is the end of that line of questioning. Carrico's last response above appears to either be edited, or prior to, and/or after, Carrico's response, Specter may have stated something that has been removed. Until this statement Carrico is clear and concise in his responses, but this statement is neither. IMO it is confusing and muddled. This is the time for Spector to ask a clarifying question such as "If there had been a small bullet hole in his back, could it have been missed in this type of an examination?" Instead Spector lets an ambiguous statement stand, and moves on to another topic. Referring to the blood on JFK's back, Carrico states "it certainly could have been a back wound." Did he intend to say "from" a back wound? That would make more sense. Either way, isn't he acknowledging that there "certainly" could have been a back wound even though he did not detect one? If Carrico believed that his "hands on" back inspection proved there was little chance of an existing back wound, why would he state that "it certainly could have been a back wound", and "there was no way to tell whether this blood would have come from a back wound and not from his head." SUMMARY: 1. "determined there were no large wounds which would be an immediate threat to life there". Clearly, Carrico is stating that he was looking for LARGE wounds only. Does a 1/4" bullet hole count as a LARGE wound? Because he is looking for a LARGE wound he is less likely to find a SMALL wound. 2. Replying to Specter's question as to where the blood originated: it certainly could have been a back wound, but there was no way to tell whether this blood would have come from a back wound. If Carrico is convinced that his 'feel the back exam' proved there was no back wound, why does he state that it "certainly could have been a back wound" in regard to the origin of the blood? Based on the above statements, it is my strong opinion that Carrico believes a back wound could easily have gone undetected at Parkland. Opinions, please...

Ramon, You may want to consider pointing out that your "Support Files" are in the C4D format, a three-dimensional model created with Cinema 4D, a professional 3D modelling and animation program. Show of hands, please. How many of you have this program installed on your computer? Perhaps you could post these vital files in a more convenient format? OR at least post a link to a FREE file viewer that will open these files... Tom

Thank you, Robert! That was my initial point. I never stated there couldn't be a back exit, I stated reversing the trajectory direction doesn't solve the problem we've discussed during this entire thread, AND the previous one. I'm still at the same place that I was when this thread started: IMO, and based upon these two threads: There is NO through-and-through bullet trajectory from EITHER the neck wound or the back wound. Tom & Robert, By my count we have 2 shots from the front: JFK's neck wound and right skull above the ear (?),(not counting the windshield perforation). At least 2 from the back: Assuming all JC wounds accountable by one bullet (doubtful) and JFK's back wound, (not including Tague's curb and the windsheild frame). Is 4-8 shots a good estimate? If so, I think 2 shooters could get off 2 accurate shots in the time frame allowed... but if we think it might be 8 shots then we have to assume 3 teams of shooters, at least. I'm still trying to account for the different ballistic profiles. If we had 3 shooters, it's possible that we have different weapons and different rounds, some of which might have properties we haven't considered yet. This could support Cliff's theory of an "exotic" weapon. Chris, I'm confused as to how your statements relate to the quoted text in your post... And I do agree that an "exotic" bullet/weapon was a real possibility, given probable CIA involvement. I have been unable to find any specific data on a bullet that would only penetrate an inch or two and then fragment into dust particles that could violate pleura and lungs yet are undetectable on x-rays. My thought is to investigate the possibility that the pleura and lung WAS violated by a fragmenting bullet, and the only chest x-ray was removed from the Archives to prevent this discovery.

No offense intended, but take it as you will: Was it reupholstered BEFORE it was examined? Yes, I know, you've stated repeatedly that everyone lied about everything, and I agree, but where we disagree, is that particular fact doesn't prove or disprove anything. As I have been repeating here, like virtually EVERY piece of evidence in this case someone could have lied and the evidence is worthless, so that fact can't be used to cherry pick evidence in support of a specific theory only. Is it surprising that the entire bloody interior was replaced? IF ONLY that rear seat was reupholstered, that would be circumstantial evidence of a bullet hole. Even considering the above, has anyone actually reported that a bullet hole was seen in the seat? And yes, IMO it is possible that a bullet hole existed in the seat back, but with no evidence to support it, doesn't it seem unlikely?

Thank you, Robert! That was my initial point. I never stated there couldn't be a back exit, I stated reversing the trajectory direction doesn't solve the problem we've discussed during this entire thread, AND the previous one. I'm still at the same place that I was when this thread started: IMO, and based upon these two threads: There is NO through-and-through bullet trajectory from EITHER the neck wound or the back wound. Sandy, to use your word, I am "hostile" to EITHER theory that connects the throat and back wounds. As I believe you have been until hearing the back wound as exit theory. No bullet that I am aware of, could cause the shallow back wound without perforating the pleura and lungs. The only known X-ray of this area 'has dirt that looks like metal, but is dirt,' and disappeared from the archives sometime during the HSCA investigation. My opinion at the present time is that the back wound was caused by a frangible bullet that entered the back and fragmented. I believe that at least SOME fragments penetrated the pleura and lungs. In support of my opinion: 1. The ONLY x-ray taken of this area was taken with a low-resolution portable x-ray machine only suitable to detect bullets or large fragments (per both x-ray techs and Ebersole) 2. This x-ray *conveniently* disappeared more than 35 years ago. 3. Per multiple testimony, the lungs etc, were removed and cut up in search of a "bullet" when they could easily have been hand-carried to the high-resolution X-ray machines. Was this not done because they did NOT want to see dust and tiny frags that would eliminate a Carcano bullet?