Tom Neal

And yet with all these *obvious* issues, almost half of the population is eager to vote for him.

I'm not certain which type of personality disorder to assign to that half of the country, but they certainly have their own "issues..." And these issues may well be as bad as, or even worse, than Trump-itus!

The frangible bullet hit Kennedy's back and began to defragment immediately after hitting the surface of the skin. That it defragmented so near the surface may have been by design, or may have been a fluke.

You may want to change the word "defragment" to "fragment."

[From your illustration showing that a bullet can break up just beneath the skin:] The bullet used was a so-call "hyper-frangible." Due to its small particle size and low velocity (~500 fps), penetration was very shallow.

These two factors (small particle size, low 500 fps velocity) are required to achieve this break-up just beneath the skin:

1. Is there any evidence that "hyper-frangible" bullets were in use in 1963?

2. What type of weapon are you suggesting was used that fired such a low velocity round? A shooter would have to be quite close to JFK, and behind him, yet unseen by any bystanders. Is there a location that fulfills these requirements?

A bullet that fragments that quickly isn't at all likely to cause the required fatal injury. Why would it have been used by those who were *determined* to murder JFK, not merely injure him?

Assuming this early fragmentation of a non-hyper frangible bullet is even possible; if it occurred due to a "fluke," then you are vastly increasing the odds that this theory is viable.

The angle of the shot was, of course, downward... on the order of 20 degrees. The bulk of the particles hit the bottom portion of a rib and skimmed along its surface toward Kennedy's butt. But the bottom portion of the particle spray passed below the rib and punctured the lung.

The particles that were deflected downward, and those that passed below the rib, created a channel that Humes found with a probe. The angle of the channel was estimated by Humes to be 45 to 60 degrees.

Particles small enough and traveling slowly enough to deflect off a rib without embedding in the rib itself, would pepper the tissue immediately below the rib. The amount of drag created depends upon the size and shape of each fragment. Thus, as depicted in your following illustrations they spread out and terminate quickly in a 'cloud' of particles. Do you have any evidence that they would create a coherent 1/4" diameter channel at least 2" deep (IIRC to his "2nd knuckle") as described by Humes?

Isn't it much more likely that the 1/4" diameter (the size of a Carcano slug) channel was created by a bullet that did *not* fragment until reaching a depth of 2"?

Any fragments small enough and traveling slowly enough to deflect off a rib, assuming that they *could* penetrate to the depth required, would more likely embed themselves in the lung tissue without causing a puncture. How likely are they to cause a puncture large enough to produce the symptoms described by Perry?

Where's the 'cloud' of metal fragments in JFK's lung x-ray that should be prominently displayed (as in your illustrations) just below the rib?

Craig:

I, like Robert, would very much like to see the "recreations/documentaries" that show multiple malfunctions of 6.5mm ammunition manufactured by the WCC, and specifically malfunctions that you appear to be arguing are the results of "design flaws" incorporated into this same ammunition by technicians at Western. Can you provide us with links, documentation, dates on which these "recreations" occurred, under what conditions, where these "recreations" took place, results, etc.?

Gary

Craig,

I, like Robert and Gary, would like to see these "recreations/documentaries" as well.

Tom

More news on this story:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/01/u-n-to-probe-whether-iconic-secretary-general-was-assassinated/

They found the original documents concerning Allen Dulles, Previously they only had copies of the Operation Celeste documents. Desmond Tutu found them in service of the TRC after apartheid was overthrown in South Africa. People questioned whether they were genuine or not.

If the originals are really that, then at the least Dulles knew about a plot to kill Hammarskjold. At the most he cooperated in it.

Too bad Talbot did not include this in his book. Even though he did have a nice chapter on Lumumba.

NICE find, Jim!

Any idea who they suspected forged the documents, and why?

"U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki­-moon will propose reopening an inquiry into allegations that Dag Hammarskjold, one of the most revered secretaries-general in the organizations history, was assassinated by an apartheid-era South African paramilitary organization that was backed by the CIA, British intelligence, and a Belgian mining company, according to several officials familiar with the case."

Pat, your illustration misrepresents the "actual" location of the back wound.

You're incorrigible on this issue.

"T1 is well down the back." -- Pat Speer.

You should stop, at long last.

Cliff is absolutely correct.

Everything above T1 is Cervical, aka "Neck". T1 is where the back BEGINS. If T1 is "well down the back" then the 'back' begins at a point "well down the back."

None taken Tom. I'm quite aware of Bob's very specific "short shot" scenario based primarily on his "best guess"(es), perfunctory charts, silencers, etc..

The *fact* that a low velocity round will fall short of the target is NOT anyone's "best guest" or due to the use of "perfunctory charts." It is simple physics. If the initial velocity of the bullet is 2000 fps as designed and the rifle is properly aimed it will hit the target. Aim the rifle at the target again as you did, but fire a defective round. The lower the initial velocity of the bullet the lower the impact point relative to the aim point. The bullet is traveling at a slower velocity, and thus takes a longer time to reach the target. Therefore it is subjected to the pull of gravity for a longer time. This results in a greater "bullet drop" and the bullet impacts below the aim point. If the velocity drops enough the bullet will miss the target completely.

I on the other hand would like to see actual field test data that would either support or debunk any particular "short shot" scenario. Example: Exactly how low a velocity could the Carcano 6.5 X 52mm projectile achieve before becoming lodged in the barrel of Oswald's weapon? Exactly how would this impact the bullet's energy in ft/lb. Exactly how would it effect accuracy at a distance of 50 yards, (the approximate distance of Oswald's first shot)?

As far as a "particular 'short shot' scenario," in this thread we are referring to the "shallow" back wound. "Exactly" how it would affect the degree of accuracy of a shot at 50 yards is dependent on only a single factor: The initial velocity of the bullet. If you have a specific velocity in mind based upon what you believe the defective ammo would produce, you can easily calculate additional bullet drop relative to the "bulls-eye" that would be achieved with good ammo.

Remember, the rifle was aimed so as to hit the bulls-eye with good ammo. The shooter doesn't now this bullet is defective. Again, if the velocity is lower than normal the bullet will impact lower than the aim point. No field test is required to prove the fact that the lower the velocity, the further below the target the bullet will impact.

To the best of my knowledge there is no "field data" for what you propose. If you are planning to conduct these tests that you deem necessary, I am certain everyone would like to see your data.

If your goal is to find a decreased velocity low enough to cause only a shallow wound and you use the center of JFK's head as an aim point you will discover only a minimal reduction in velocity is required to hit the site of JFK's back wound. The impact velocity will far exceed what is required to create a shallow wound in his back. Neither guess work nor a field test is required to do this. There are numerous highly accurate Ballistic Calculators online that will do this for you.

First, find the data that will state what impact velocity will create a shallow back wound through a suit coat and shirt to whatever depth you find acceptable. Calculate the bullet drop at that velocity from 50 yards. Now calculate the bullet drop at that range using the expected initial velocity of your good bullet. The difference between these two numbers is how far below the aim point the reduced velocity bullet will strike.

Having done this myself, you will discover that the bullet will hit the street far short of the target. Remember also that a bullet at this low velocity will be unstable, and this will also affect accuracy.

You cannot aim the rifle at his head (assuming the shooter did this-he may well have been aiming at his back) expecting a good bullet, but getting a much reduced velocity instead, and hit his back. The bullet will hit the street. No guesswork, no perfunctory charts. Just physics.

In order to hit him in the back with a low enough velocity to cause this shallow wound, you would have to aim a considerable distance above his head. I have calculated this, but I only recall that it was a large number.

After many decades at this Tom I still come here to learn, not to make anyone believe what I believe.

Good. LMK if you accept what I said above. If not, I'd like to know what you object to as I am also here to learn.

Tom

Hi Tom

I did not see your post before I posted my long reply to Craig. Thanks for the support.

Glad to help out. No offense intended toward Craig who in his obvious enthusiasm to relate info regarding the ammo, may have skipped your explanation of a "short shot" and/or missed the connection to the bad ammo.

Considering how many times you've expended the effort to plot this out in excruciating detail, I'm *once again* surprised that this scenario is all but totally ignored by the membership here. I'm no longer shocked by the denial of new evidence in support of a new theory - but surprise still remains... Considering the fact that anyone here on this site obviously disputes the gov't dogma, it is rather ironic that they accept and defend the dogma from CTs that has been refuted by new info and new ideas.

It amazes me that you see this so clearly while the more obtuse amongst us have such difficulty grasping the concept.

I bask in the praise of the first half of the sentence, and take the 5th on the second half...

T

In late 1995, journalist and former HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi traveled to Cuba and interviewed Fabian Escalante, the former head of Cuban Counter Intelligence. The interview was part of a planned article for Esquire magazine. Escalante talked with Fonzi for hours about his role protecting Castro...

Larry, thanks for posting this. I'm going to re-read the entire essay later tonight when I have time, but this paragraph is more than enough to keep Esquire from printing it. Pointing out that Corporate America and The Mob had the same interests, and that our Foreign Policy toward Cuba was based on the interests of Corporations and the personal interests of individuals at CIA.

Although young Fabian Escalante was assigned to the Revolutionary Army's fledgling intelligence unit immediately after Castro took power, he was not, of course, aware of the seeds of assassination plots then being sown. Those seeds didn't originate within the CIA. They sprang from two non-governmental sources: The Organized Crime syndicate, whose ranking members lost a huge amount of income when Castro closed their gambling casinos; and the American corporate bosses who watched hundreds of millions of their investment dollars and property disappear when Castro began his Agrarian Reform and business nationalization programs. The early CIA, led by Eisenhower-appointee Allen Dulles and a brotherhood of uppercrust Ivy League types, was closely aligned by both blood and economic interests to the highest banking and financial powers on Wall Street. Corporate America had a big stake in Batista's Cuba: It owned about 40 percent of Cuba's sugar land, 90 percent of its mines and mineral concessions, almost all its cattle ranches, 80 percent of its utilities and practically all the oil industry. Yet, initially, when Batista's regime began to wobble, the Agency's outlook remained flexible, thinking it could best protect America's corporate interests by hedging its bet and surreptitiously supporting both factions.

As I have pointed out many times, it has long been held as fact that the bullet that hit JFK's back only penetrated the flesh of his back a mere inch; not far enough to enter JFK's right pleural cavity. This shallow penetration, supposedly probed by Commander Humes' finger, is credited to a phenomenon known as a "short shot", in which a rifle cartridge is either loaded with an insufficent gunpowder charge or the entirety of the gunpowder charge in the cartridge does not ignite, drastically reducing the muzzle velocity of the bullet.

In order to reduce the penetrating power of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet, at a 50 yard range, to the point where this bullet will not penetrate more than an inch in soft tissue, its normal muzzle velocity of 2200 feet per second would have to be reduced to less than about 400 feet per second (fps). This presents all kinds of problems in a) accurately hitting within 20 feet of your target and actually getting the bullet to its target.

If you have a rifle that is properly sighted in at a range of, for argument sake, 100 yards, and you chamber a good round into the breech, hitting a target at 50-100 yards is a simple matter of aiming and squeezing the trigger. However, bullets begin to drop as soon as they leave the barrel, and if that bullet leaves the barrel travelling at 1/5th the expected velocity, and the shooter is aiming in a normal fashion and expecting his bullet to be travelling 2200 fps, that bullet will end up impacting the ground (or pavement) far short of the aim point. In the case of JFK, I would not even expect it to hit the back of the limo. This is why it is called a "short shot", as the bullet impacts far "short" of the point of aim.

The next problem you would have with such a slow moving bullet is stability in flight. While the rifling grooves in the rifle's barrel that impart a gyroscopic spin to the bullet in flight account for most of the bullet's stability, the velocity that bullet is travelling at also plays a big part in whether the bullet remains stable in flight, or whether it begins to yaw and tumble on its way to its target. I have seen this problem when handloading rifle cartridges and experimenting with different types of gunpowder, different loads of gunpowder and different weights and styles of bullets. Just by changing the velocity of the bullet slightly, by adding more or less gunpowder, it is possible to over- or under-stabilize a bullet, with the resulting "keyhole" effect on a paper target. A "keyhole" is when a tumbling bullet goes through a paper target side on, leaving the inevitable "keyhole" in the target instead of a round hole. If a bullet still travelling in excess of 2000 fps can be under-stabilized by a reduction in velocity, imagine the lack of stability in the typical 2200 fps bullet reduced in velocity to only 400 fps.

Quite frankly, I don't believe such a slow bullet could have ever made it to JFK's back, making the shallow back wound a myth; at least in my eyes anyways.

My point is this Bob, if Oswald experienced a hang fire, or a combination of perhaps two related malfunctions during his first shot, could this not have caused the shallow back wound? As someone who has a moderate degree of experience with firearms I can tell you that a hang fire would certainly effect the striking point of a projectile on a moving target.

Craig,

It's good to hear such enthusiasm for this subject, but you need to re-read the paragraphs I have copied above from Bob.

This subject has already been covered in depth in an earlier thread on the back wound, and Bob is absolutely correct. To restate it briefly, it's not a simple matter of reducing the velocity of the bullet so that it penetrates the body only an inch or so. Remember this: the shooter doesn't know he's going to get a low energy shot, so he is aiming at the head or the back. The low energy bullet won't even reach the street.

Plot the trajectory and you will see for yourself.

Tom

My post, # 78, explains what I believe to be another distinct possibility for the throat wound.

Bob, my post #90 is a response to your #78. LMK what you think about that...

What did you discover about the throat wound? Not sure about anyone else but I'm always interested in hearing new information.

At the moment, I don't want to get side-tracked from the EOP entrance as a cause of the throat wound, and the new info isn't relevant to the EOP entrance theory anyway.

BTW, germaine to the EOP theory do you believe the throat wound is located at the site of the shirt slits?

Now imagine a bullet travelling at a 23° angle downward (Dal-Tex Building?) striking JFK just to the right of the EOP.

Would the bullet enter the skull. or slide under the skull and impact the cervical (neck) vertebrae?

That would depend upon the velocity of the bullet and the strength of the skull at the impact point. A trajectory that is perpendicular to a line that is tangent to the impact point would certainly penetrate the skull. As the trajectory angle relative to the tangent line decreases from this 90-degree angle, the bullet becomes increasing LESS likely to penetrate the skull. Only experimentation could determine the angle at which the bullet no longer penetrates the skull.

IMO, the inward curve of the skull could not be followed by a bullet or fragment to create a new trajectory that is sufficiently "downward" to exit at the throat wound. i.e. The fragment would impact the cervical vertebra at a point where no damage is known and exit the neck considerably higher that the throat wound.

According to Lipsey, the consensus at the autopsy, at least while he was listening, was that the throat wound was caused by a bullet fragment from the shot that struck at the EOP, and that the bullet passed under the skull, grazing it as it passed.

To cause the throat wound, a bullet that grazed the EOP would at some point have to pass through the spinal column. The only damage on the *extant* x-rays is at the cervical vertebra on the same level as the throat wound. A fragment that grazed the skull and followed a path to the throat wound would only do so if its trajectory (23-degrees for example) was altered significantly downward or it would exit the neck ABOVE the throat wound. However, according to Perry and Baxter the line from the tracheal injury to the wound was horizontal. This would require a second large alteration of the trajectory.

Assuming this degree of deflection at the EOP is even possible (a BIG if) the vast majority of the fragments velocity would be lost. Again assuming that the slight damage depicted on the x-ray COULD deflect the trajectory to horizontal (an even BIGGER if), a further reduction in velocity would occur. Would adequate velocity remain to tear the tough tracheal cartilage, pass through subcutaneous tissue and 7 layers of skin?

IMO, neither of the two trajectory deflections to the degree required is a reasonable assumption: so what are the odds that BOTH deflections actually occurred? IMO, the fragment would have inadequate velocity to tear the trachea and exit the throat.

I'm a bit on the fence with the throat wound, as I find it far more baffling than the back wound. But I agree with you. The apex of the right lung, as the diagrams show, is extremely close to the throat wound. It is not uncommon for the shock wave of a bullet passing through tissue to bruise tissue adjacent to the bullet path. Then again, the bruise at the apex of the right lung reported by Humes may be a total fabrication, or a downplaying and moving of much more extensive lung damage.

"Do you believe that the missile that bruised the lung (as described by Humes) produced ALL of the blood/air as described by Perry and Baxter (as seen through the trach incision)? "

No I do not, for three reasons.

1. Humes reported ONLY a small bruise to an otherwise intact lung.

2. Humes reported no collection of blood in the pleural cavity. In order to reach the mediastinum, the blood would have to pass from the pleural cavity, through the hilum of the lung, and OUTSIDE of the right bronchus.

3. Despite 1 & 2, there simply was not enough blood lost into the bruise at the apex of the right lung.

So we are in agreement. Good.

What is it that you "are on the fence" about regarding the throat wound? I made some interesting discoveries regarding the throat a few months back, but haven't posted them due to a lack of interest here on the forum. Maybe they can help you decide...

Also, IMO, the damage at the apex of the lung is associated ONLY with the throat wound, NOT the back wound. What is your position on this?

Bob, given your belief that the back entry is at T3, and I agree, do you agree with my above statement from a previous post? I think you do, but I want to be certain before I move on...

The main point is that Humes never reported seeing a collection of blood in the pleural cavity between the parietal (outer) pleura and the visceral (inner) pleura that envelops the lung.

Perry and Baxter reported blood and air in the mediastinum which Perry interpreted as indicative of blood in the pleural cavity. Although they didn't see blood between the inner and outer pleura, working only through the trachea incision they could NOT see the entire lung.

As you may recall, I believe the bullet that inflicted the back injury at T3 fragmented, and spread dust-like particles into the right lung. Depending how deeply the bullet penetrated prior to fragmenting, a bullet-sized hole in the lung is certainly a possibility. At some point it obviously fragmented, or it certainly would have exited through his chest. This damage, independent of the injury at the apex of the lung certainly could cause all the symptoms you describe.

Do you believe that the missile that bruised the lung (as described by Humes) produced ALL of the blood/air as described by Perry and Baxter (as seen through the trach incision)? IMO, it would NOT have produced enough blood to create what was seen by Perry and Baxter. If true, then lung damage MUST exist elsewhere. The only candidate for that is the entry wound at T3. I *think* you agree. Can you confirm or deny?

Bob,

There certainly was damage to the upper portion of the right lung, but I'm undecided as to whether or not the pleura was penetrated. I'm not aware of any evidence stating that the cited damage at the apex of the right lung could only occur if the pleura was ruptured.

If the pleura was NOT damaged at the apex of the lung, then what you are saying can only be true IF there was significant lung damage elsewhere. Do you agree?

Also, IMO, the damage at the apex of the lung is associated ONLY with the throat wound, NOT the back wound. What is your position on this? If this is true then we have the entry wound in the back that due to its location MUST have caused SOME damage to the right lung. IMO this damage alone could have caused all of the symptoms as you have described.

It is possible to have a tension pneumothorax without the parietal (outer) pleura having an opening in it. A classic example is a blunt blow to the rib cage severe enough to rupture the lung and visceral (inner) pleura surrounding the lung, but not severe enough to rupture the parietal (outer) pleura. This would prevent the lung from fully inflating, and allow air to escape through the damage in the lung into the pleural cavity outside of the lung.

Yes, that was my point and we are in agreement. Also, In this example I believe that ALL blood and escaping air REMAIN contained within the outer pleura. It seems virtually impossible that inflicting a "bruise" at the apex of the right lung would rupture enough blood vessels to create the situation as described by Perry and Baxter. I believe we are in agreement on this, also. It's been a LONG time since I've read these statements so I may be incorrect as to their blood/air descriptions.

If true, then a considerably more severe wound MUST exist elsewhere. Such as the acknowledged back wound that according to Humes did no lung damage at all.

If the back wound was moved from the level of T3, almost 6 inches below the collar line, to the level of C7, right at the collar line, what was to stop them from moving the damage in the lung upward as well?

Certainly not Gerald Ford, nor Humes veracity...

Bob,

There certainly was damage to the upper portion of the right lung, but I'm undecided as to whether or not the pleura was penetrated. I'm not aware of any evidence stating that the cited damage at the apex of the right lung could only occur if the pleura was ruptured.

If the pleura was NOT damaged at the apex of the lung, then what you are saying can only be true IF there was significant lung damage elsewhere. Do you agree?

Also, IMO, the damage at the apex of the lung is associated ONLY with the throat wound, NOT the back wound. What is your position on this? If this is true then we have the entry wound in the back that due to its location MUST have caused SOME damage to the right lung. IMO this damage alone could have caused all of the symptoms as you have described.

Tom

One other thing I wanted to mention....

In that locked topic where Jim Gordon responded to Tom, he made some some serious misstatements that I'm sure didn't help. He talked to Tom as though HE (Tom) was the person in the Z-film thread who was being disruptive and not contributing. Or a least that is the way it sounded. When I read it, it was like Jim was admonishing the disruptive, off-topic, person. But yet he directed these statement to Tom. Very, very strange.

I can see how Tom would get the impression that his complaints weren't being taken seriously.

It appears that thread is gone now.

THANK YOU, SANDY!!! This time I am shouting, and you have more than earned it.

When I have made a point several times and the person intentionally ignores it but continues to state that I "can't answer him" I do post a sentence in caps. I am shouting for the stated reason. Am I the only one who RAISES his voice in a face-to-face argument when the other person is using UNACCEPTABLE tactics? Where in any rules on any forum including this one, is SHOUTING prohibited. It is done regularly on this forum. I broke no rule, but you'd think *I* was on the GK...

Once again I will say that I was NOT shouting at the Mods. I was shouting at the guy who I believe called me a *L*I*A*R* and the guy who backed him up on it. IMO, this was more than justified.

If I had been shouting at the Mods in PUBLIC, posted a thread telling the members to ignore the current definition of an OT as the Mods tell me I did, then explain to me WHY I didn't yell at Mods who had still failed to respond, as far as I knew, when I PM'd a Mod? Was I afraid to do PRIVATELY what I am accused of doing PUBLICLY?

The mods are also CONVINCED that I unfairly criticized them when I stated that "...the mods were silent." Not a word was said to me, and no warning to stop the OT was posted. Does this not fit the definition of SILENCE from the mods?

I DID NOT WANT to get Mods involved because my Mod sole experience was with MR. JAMES GORDON [shouting] which I found exceptionally distasteful. I was suspended without allowing to comment, and he ignored my emails requesting to state my case. Guess what happened next. Gordon lifted my suspension because "several members" defended me (10 members emailed me stating that they had contacted Gordon) and 'now that he had read the posts' he realized that I shouldn't have been suspended. He then admonished me as though I were a child, and suggested that I stay out of these type or arguments. No admission of error on his part by suspending me without reading the post. No explanation why *I* was singled out. No other participant received a warning or any contact regarding this incident. The guy who started all the problems MAY have gotten a time out.

This is the SECOND time I've been treated like this.

Being treated like Lee Harvey Oswald (another voice in the wilderness) is kind of ironic on the JFK Assassination Forum...

Also, the only x-rays that somehow ended up with "dirt" on them that "look like metal, but are only dirt" are the x-rays of the chest.

How coincidental.

I don't think I ever dug into the other x-rays, but if I did I don't recall any artifacts due to dirt on the non-missing x-rays. Have you verified this? If so, that is Mighty Interesting!

Of course I can't remember who said it, but it was published in Doug Horne's 5 volume set, and the comment by one of the techs who worked there 11-22-1962 was that he 'couldn't imagine' how dirt could get into a film cassette, and it that ever happened someone(s) would have caught pure holy for it, but has no memory of that. Apparently Humes et al thought it happened every day because they never challenged the fact that it was dirt.

Although as a former member I recall seeing MANY "dirty films" in the USN, I can't say one way or another about "dirty film."

I don't think any of the Admin staff knew about it until I got a PM, and shared it with the others. A lot of times, we don't read the threads, and hollering at us in all caps, no less, in a thread we haven't even read, certainly doesn't help, now does it?. We took corrective action, and then we see this thread. So.......

The correct way to handle something like this is to get a hold of an Admin.

Thanks Sandy.

Kathy,

You state that none of the mods were aware of this until "someone" PM'd - that was me was it not? As Sandy has said, this behavior had gone on unnoticed for a considerable length of time, so I brought up the word "moderator." The caps were not yelling at mods, it was an attempt to focus the two posters on the fact that they were breaking a rule - and "severely" according to Mr. Gordon. Although it was not my intent at the time, caps are used to attract attention - so what is wrong with using them to get a mod's attention that something important is going on? When the behavior continued and one of the "severe" OT-ers stated that ANY comments regarding the Z-film were not OT, I PM'd a mod. This is the approved procedure you state above. Since Mr. Gordon has not explained what I did that "irritated" the moderators and by locking the thread and deleting my request to respond to his post I had no idea what I had done wrong.

In my initial post I specifically *asked* if I had done anything wrong in my posts. You responded that you would look into it. I never heard a single word from you or Gordon in response. Apparently, Gordon feels anyone who in his opinion has misbehaved is unworthy of ANY response, but had he simply stated that "appropriate action" had been taken I wouldn't have posted the thread that was deleted - again without comment. In this case I still would not know what I did wrong because despite asking if I had done anything wrong, I received total silence. This repeated unwillingness to communicate is the *root* cause of this issue.

Additionally, had any mod explained that you believed I was yelling at you, I could have explained. But again, no communication resulted in more problems.

I had to ask 'why' on the forum. The response made no sense to me at all, and was unable to ask because the thread was locked, and Gordon does NOT respond to questions via PM. Communication is the path to understanding but when this path is closed misunderstanding is the result.

I then asked if asking to be allowed to respond was considered "further irritating" the mods. This post was deleted without comment. Perhaps Gordon took this as sarcasm - but again there's little room in the title to explain. I certainly couldn't put anything in the body of the post or Gordon would undoubtedly deem it "further irritation."

My post that was deleted - again without comment - was a REQUEST that members abide by a request from the thread starter to take their OT to a new thread. The starter knows what he intended as limits, and no one wants their thread hijacked. Gordon stated that I was redefining OTs. I vehemently disagree.

No one has stated that within this post my comment that "the mods have remained silent" irritated the mods. Because it has been repeatedly demonstrated that no one communicates with me, I can only assume. In response to my PM I received silence. Despite a "severe" OT, not a word was stated on the hijacked thread. This is the silence I referred to. I also wanted any readers to know that no Mod had explained anything to me, and that no ruling had been made CONTRARY to my request.

While we are on that subject, IMO I was clearly called a L*I*A*R by a poster on this thread. I called "moderator"; again to alert him to the fact that if a mod didn't respond I would take it to you, which I did. My intent was to provide an opportunity for him to respond that he was not calling me a L*I*A*R. He did not respond. Judging from the total silence I have received regarding this I don't know if in your opinion he lied or not. How am I and others to know what is outside accepted limits when this passed without comment?

As far as yelling on the forum, everyone has an opinion as Kathy states. Considering how much yelling takes place on this forum I doesn't "put me in a bad mood" anymore than underling, bolding, or adding multiple exclamation points. I'd like to point that no one commented on my caps within that post or in my public flogging by Gordon. How am I supposed to know that capping is so offensive to SOME? Not only does this occur on a daily basis, I have never heard anyone chastised for doing this, and there is no mention of rule discouraging or prohibiting this action.

Tom

PS When this post is deleted, no one has to tell me WHY...

Tom

IIRC, there is a single splice in what is allegedly the ORIGINAL Z-film - is this correct? And if so, then only the copies represent the "assassination movie" in its alleged original form. If this is true, and any ORIGINAL frames are 'missing' at the splice; no alteration of any destroyed frames in the original was required - just alteration or fabrication of the copy...

Tom,

I don't know what the Original film consists of. I can only refer to the splices in the extant film.

The alteration of any destroyed frames (originals that we'll never see) might not have been necessary, but the extant film is not clean enough. imo

In terms of the splices and frame count, look back at my overall scenario.

Cut the frame total in half to 462.78 (1st pass on Optical printer)

462.78 - 353 = 109.78 to get rid of.

109.78/462.78 = .237 closest whole frame ratio would be 1/4 (surprised) or .25

Difference between .2372 and .25 in terms of 925.56 total frames = .0128 x 925.56 = 11.84 frames or 12 whole frames.

Removal of 12 original frames so the math gets back to whole fames.

CE884 WC published version z161 Station# 3+29.2 obtained by eliminating 7 frames = z168 = Station# 3+29.2 from CE884 WC final plat version May 1964.

Splice at z133, approx z157, splice at approx z208.

12 original frames left to vanish over 3 splices from an original 48fps film. Piece of cake.

Thanks for the response and the additional information. BTW, I am having NO PROBLEM following your logic.

Tom

This is an excerpt from Douglas Horn's research: The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events:

"It could have happened this wayconsider this: the extant film (that is, the assassination movie, not the Zapruder family scenes present on the two Secret Service copies) in the National Archives (not counting leader) consists of a strip of film 8 feet, 10 inches long (of which only 6 feet, 3 inches contains the imagery of the assassination film, and 2 feet, 7 inches is black, unexposed film with no image showing); then there is a physical splice; then there is a segment of black film."

Chris,

IIRC, there is a single splice in what is allegedly the ORIGINAL Z-film - is this correct? And if so, then only the copies represent the "assassination movie" in its alleged original form. If this is true, and any ORIGINAL frames are 'missing' at the splice; no alteration of any destroyed frames in the original was required - just alteration or fabrication of the copy...

Tom

A "Topic Title" should not be a dissertation. It should be BRIEF-only a few words that label the topic itself. Only limited space is available to do this.

"Topic Tags" can further define the scope of a Thread. An introductory paragraph should suffice to prevent OT posts.

Frequently OTs occur because we all tend to wander off the topic and this is exacerbated by successive posts. We jump in and comment to the posts appearing on the last page of the thread and innocently join the OT.

However, there are also intentional attempts to derail a thread. e.g. Someone who is dead set against the thread itself, but is unable to counter the specific method utilized to convey the thread starter's message. As examples of motivation for this type of attack: The premise of the thread is perfectly reasonable, and the evidence offered is unassailable. The attacker cannot comprehend the evidence presented within the thread. This could be because due to their unwavering conviction that the thread MUST be wrong, they deem it unnecessary to invest the time required to comprehend the thread. Or an even simpler explanation, due to their own limitations they do not possess the intelligence required for comprehension.

They then resort to an end run around the actual topic. At this point, if the thread starter points out why he personally deems this an OT, and politely requests that a new thread be started, shouldn't we abide by his request? Who knows better what the thread starter intended as limits for HIS thread?

Whoever has OT-ed retains the opportunity to make his point to anyone who is ACTUALLY interested in what he has to say! The thread starter gets to present his idea (which is why he posted in the first place!), which is precisely what attracted the thread readers. If you go to a thread due to its topic, you as a reader have the right to read it without the clutter, distractions, and almost certain labeling (think Donald Trump and his crude method of disparaging an opponent) and name-calling as a substitute for counter-evidence. Those who BLATANTLY refuse to start their own topic reveal that getting their point out there is insufficient. Their actual goal is no less than to HARASS the thread owner and all who are interested in what he has to say, until they stop posting. This to them is a victory.

If we want people to post here, and this site is in desperate need of new threads, why do we create an atmosphere that makes us reluctant to start threads, or to continue them after the never-ceasing attacks commence?

Obviously we must police these OT's without the help of the moderators who remain silent despite past interventions and warnings to those who OT.

If there's ANYONE 'out there' who agrees with this, could they please "Like" this thread?

Tom

This is assuming the particles in the x-ray actually were lead. I don't believe this was actually ever proven.

The ONLY comment I ever found was the one I stated in my previous post. i.e. 'The fragments that look like metal, but are only dirt.' I've found ZERO evidence, comments, or statements explaining how it was determined these were in fact dirt. They clearly state that the fragments 'look like metal'. How can something that small 'look like metal' unless they are referring to the density factor? If the only indication they have indicates they are metallic, then to state that they are actually dirt requires evidence. No evidence is stated, so it appears to only be wishful thinking. Unless there was discussion that was deleted, if it is obviously only dirt, why state that looks like metal? We do know that editing out unwanted evidence was normal procedure in every investigation, so this is suspicious at best.

If the Clark Panel(?) saw these particles, then Humes should have seen them as well. If they were 'actually dirt' why not try another film cassette? OR better yet if you are desperately searching for internal damage, bullets, or fragments, and you have an indication that something is present, why not send the lung that has been removed upstairs to a high-res x-ray? Unless you fear you will find something you don't want to see, what do you have to lose?

Indirect link...read on...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3716997/How-Frank-Sheeran-killed-Jimmy-Hoffa-shockingly-claims-41-years-legendary-union-activist-vanished.html

Could be. Or it could be yet another attempt to put the whole thing on the Mafia...

[...]

If that's what you'll then say, then YOU - not me - have to then prove three things:

1. What was so terrible in this "other" film that the Bad Guys went through all of the trouble of altering it?

2. Where is this other film?

3. How do YOU (and Chris, Dave, Dave, Jim Fetzer and others) know what was in it if the film has NEVER been seen before?

If you can't answer these three questions conclusively, then I'm sorry to say but the whole Z film alteration theory collapses like a deck of cards. Then if you can't answer them but want to keep playing Whack A Mole here, jumping around from topic to topic, then it'd probably be a good idea to just wrap this up.

There's that standard DEMAND again. You have to PROVE nothing, just make a lame remark, and we're all supposed to bow to you. But we have to prove to you, someone who's mind is already made up and doesn't listen. There is nothing that will satisfy you on this subject, because you reject ALL evidence as inadequate that contradicts your belief. Period.

[...]

Typical lone nut-disinfo dance, Tom. We've been calling them on their BS everywhere else except here, for some unfathomable reason... They simply can not defend the 1964 WCR conclusions, so the trolls dance. And not very well at that.

Thanks David. Couldn't agree more.

BTW, what other sites are they 'blessing with their presence'? Isn't it CUTE when they say they don't think they can "CONTINUE TO HELP US" and then follow it up by stating that we are "delusional" and just generally too stupid to understand?

Brought this forward just to refresh your memory, as it pertains to the previous videos.

I did make a mistake, the speed from z171-z185 = 17.07mph, not 17.18mph

z171-z186 = 17.18 mph

z185-z186 = 18.67 mph

Keep in mind, this is from the orange colored CE884 (it resides on the 1964 WC final plat) which was never released to the public.

It is supposed to be based on a 18.3fps movie. We'll see about that in the near future.

The concept is simple.

When you increase the amount of frames between point A and B, you slow down the limo's speed between that span.

For instance:

Changing the frame designation for Station 3+29.2 from Z171 to z166 is going to slow down the limo speed.

Instead of 17.07mph@ z171-185 (14 frame span), moving it back to z166 now creates a 19 frame span @19.2ft traveled.

19frames/18.3fps = 1.038

19.2ft/1.038 = 18.5ft per sec = 12.58mph.

Adding 5 frames just reduced the limo speed from 17.07 to 12.58mph.

The 4.49 mph difference over 1 second = 6.6ft that also needs to be accounted for.

Look at the next span of frames on CE884 z186-z207 = 20.3ft traveled in 21 frames.

Converted using a 18.3fps rate = 21/18.3 = 1.147

20.3ft /1.147 = 17.69ft per sec / 1.47(1mph) = 12.04mph.

The overlay movie along with orange CE884 shows the limo traveling between 17.07 and 18.6 mph at this point.

It's quite obvious why the frame number assigned to the same Station# was changed.

The WC created a uniformed speed to match what you see on film.

Unfortunately for them, the uniformed speed should be between 17.07 and 18.68 mph as is seen with the lexus overlay video.

Added on edit:

A VERY good, and VERY simple explanation, Chris.

Tom