Benjamin Cole

17 hours ago, Anthony Mugan said:

Hi Ben

I can see where you are coming from. I’m not remotely convinced by Thompson’s idea of the final shot hitting JFK in the back of the head either. Many years ago Cyril Wecht argued that the fracture pattern in the skull was evidence for two severe impacts, with the impact at the rear preceding the impact at the front and that seems very credible (I’m using ‘impact’ deliberately as the hit at the back of the head gets more complicated).

That last shot also seems like the most likely candidate for the miss that hit the curb, with a fragment injuring Tague.

You are quite right that the data and the debate around it can seem opaque at first sight, but there are lots of things we need equipment to detect like atoms or distant galaxies, but these can be explained to non-specialists. The HSCA did us all no favours in fudging the correlation to the Zapruder film to fit their preferred shooting sequence, which naturally introduced contradictions with other data (particularly McLain’s location) and made it an easy target….

The best synthesis of all the physical evidence I’ve ever come across is Dr D B Thomas’ 2014 ‘Hear No Evil’, which is actually the only scenario I’ve seen which seems totally consistent with all known data. I keep mentioning it at the risk of sounding like a broken record but it doesn’t seem to have achieved the level of spread within the research community that it should have.  I get the impression we could potentially achieve much more of a consensus on the sequence of events than we actually have and help focus our time on those issues that remain unclear.  As an example your conclusion that the shots are too close together to come from the same Mannlicher-Carcano is very valid….I might have a minor debate with you on exactly what shot(s) did which injuries but this overall points to three shooters, one on the knoll and two behind the president…pinning down the location of that third shooter is to my mind a current question, just to give an example…

Anthony M-

Well, regarding Thomas...unfortunately, he makes an elementary error.  He repeats the canard that Connally was struck by a tumbling bullet. 

"But, there is evidence that the bullet which hit Governor Connally at Z-224 also hit President Kennedy. That evidence is the elongation of the entrance wound in the governor's back. A bullet hitting straight on would normally make a rounded perforation. The governor's wound was 0.5 cm wide and 1.5 cm long. The elongation can be explained by a bullet entering sideways from tumbling caused by an earlier impact." ----Thomas

See:

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/hear_no_evil.htm

Actually, as the attending surgeon made clear on many occasions, in treating Connally, Dr. Robert Shaw enlarged the entrance wound and thought it a "clean" shot. 

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0168a.htm

Thomas posits the Connally bullet should have made a round hole, as if shot from, say, street level. But if the bullet was fired from an elevated point, it would have entered at a downward angle, leaving a clean but elliptical wound. Which is what Shaw found. 

In addition, Thomas' version requires (again, like the WC and the HSCA) that Connally did a 180-degree in his seat after receiving a shot that crossed through his body, obliterated most of a rib, and smashed his wrist. Shaw, who had treated more than 900 bullet and shrapnel wounds in military service, thought Connally doing so was highly unlikely. 

But again, Connally and his wife were firm in their statements that Connally was immediately incapacitated after being shot. Well, seems likely. 

Other parts of the Thomas view seems to lack imagination. There could have been additional shots from a weapon with a silencer, or a pneumatic gun, which might show up in the Z film but not on an audio report.  This is not even addressed. 

And if there were five audible gunshots as caught on the Dictabelt, why do so many witnesses say there were three shots, and some four shots? 

The blur analysis, whoever does it, has always struck me as suspect. Zapruder was an ordinary guy with a home movie camera, panning sideways. He could have been jerking around from gunshots, shock waves, adjusting the pan, somebody's scream, an unsteady hand, a sudden pumping of the heart, what have you. 

The acoustics...well, I do not know to say. Maybe there were five shots that day. Maybe more, through the use of silencers and pneumatic guns. 

All in all, I can't say I find the Thomas argument persuasive. 

Thomas' review of the Walker shooting, in his book, is very weak. The DPD concluded the shot fired at Walker struck a window pane, and was deflected lower, yet still struck well above Walker's head. Walker mentioned nothing about luckily ducking just before the shot in the initial police reports, and indeed initially thought kids had tossed a firecracker into his room. That's how close the shot was---that, not close. In other words, almost certainly an intentional miss. Probably a biography-builder. 

Thomas has some interesting points that the bullets Oswald used were manufactured under CIA contract, and intended to help dislodge De Gaulle or Italian communists.  

58 minutes ago, Anthony Mugan said:

Hi Ben

I can see where you are coming from. I’m not remotely convinced by Thompson’s idea of the final shot hitting JFK in the back of the head either. Many years ago Cyril Wecht argued that the fracture pattern in the skull was evidence for two severe impacts, with the impact at the rear preceding the impact at the front and that seems very credible (I’m using ‘impact’ deliberately as the hit at the back of the head gets more complicated).

That last shot also seems like the most likely candidate for the miss that hit the curb, with a fragment injuring Tague.

You are quite right that the data and the debate around it can seem opaque at first sight, but there are lots of things we need equipment to detect like atoms or distant galaxies, but these can be explained to non-specialists. The HSCA did us all no favours in fudging the correlation to the Zapruder film to fit their preferred shooting sequence, which naturally introduced contradictions with other data (particularly McLain’s location) and made it an easy target….

The best synthesis of all the physical evidence I’ve ever come across is Dr D B Thomas’ 2014 ‘Hear No Evil’, which is actually the only scenario I’ve seen which seems totally consistent with all known data. I keep mentioning it at the risk of sounding like a broken record but it doesn’t seem to have achieved the level of spread within the research community that it should have.  I get the impression we could potentially achieve much more of a consensus on the sequence of events than we actually have and help focus our time on those issues that remain unclear.  As an example your conclusion that the shots are too close together to come from the same Mannlicher-Carcano is very valid….I might have a minor debate with you on exactly what shot(s) did which injuries but this overall points to three shooters, one on the knoll and two behind the president…pinning down the location of that third shooter is to my mind a current question, just to give an example…

Anthony M- 

Oh, "favours." When will you Brits learn to spell like us in the colonies? 

I will try to find "Hear No Evil" and give it a read. I live in the Thai outback now, so getting a particular book can be a challenge. 

The more I review the JFKA, the more it looks like HSCA Chief Counsel Blakey must have "stipulated to the evidence" to get the job.  He was a Mob-hunter too, and a decent public servant, but used badly. 

Later, to his credit, Blakey renounced the CIA, admitted to errors, and posited two Cuban exiles were in Dallas that day, being Eladio Del Valle and Hermininio Diaz. 

Hoping the C19 drearies are not getting you down....

Add on:

"Why, nearly six decades after his murder, do Americans still care so much about and, for the most part, continue to think so highly of John Fitzgerald Kennedy?"--Michael Kazin

Right, we Americans only care about the JFKA as we deluded about his true nature. Ergo, we should not care if all the records are released under the JFK Act, or that the assassination be re-investigated. 

I got news for Kazin:

1. You got the JFK record wrong. 

2. Even if JFK was a bad president, or had policies we disagree with, even ordinary citizens cannot stand idly by while the national security state removes an elected president.

And murder is murder.

Egads, what has happened to the American "left"?

The left has not only become elaborately censorious, they are so aligned with the Deep State, globalists and the national security state they make Tucker Carlson look appealing. 

To me, this Kazin writing has the look of another article, written by another useful idiot, intended to undermine any impetus for a full release of documents under the JFK Records Act, which Biden will rule on later this year. 

It was long-dead Russians that did the JFKA, or the Cubans did the JFKA, a lone nut did the JFKA, and JFKA was not that great anyway, and on and on. 

No, JFK was not perfect. But he deserves a fair shake. 

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

Why would the "other parties" allow LHO to fire an intentionally missed shot if their aim was to assassinate the President? As far as the "other parties" were concerned, JFK could have easily ducked down low at the sound of LHO's gunfire. I seriously doubt that the "other parties" were positive that JFK would sit upright like a sitting duck waiting for the further rounds.

Tony K--

Thanks for reading and commenting. 

Well, my reasoning is that the other parties were acting on cue on LHO's first shot, and then all fired ASAP. That, or "We all open fire when the limo gets near the Stemmons Freeway sign." 

You are correct, you want everybody to fire at once. 

My JFKA scenario is not the stuff of James Bond movie, or the textbook, perfectly executed CIA plan. 

I suspect several Cuban exiles converged on Dallas, and came up with a plan, and did it. The plan may not be perfect, or even good, and not an example of excellent spycraft. 

And indeed, LHO managed to leave the scene without being murdered first. Had LHO the slightest resources, he could have fled town entirely. Connally was shot also, nearly fatally. 

This whole nearly impromptu plan might have been exposed, and looked like a dreadful macabre Keystone Kops tale, except any investigation was shut down immediately. A real, immediate and dreadnought investigation likely would have exposed the plan and participants within weeks or months. 

This complete lack of a real investigation has led to a type of glorification, that a super-organized and skilled operation was put into place in the JFKA. 

And riddle me this: You know the Rose Cheramie story. Now, how high-end and sophisticated could a plan for the JFKA be, if Rose Cheramie knows about it and is spilling the beans? She was en route to Dallas with a couple Cuban exiles, who were involved in the drug trade but evidently ready to participate in the JFKA. 

In my view, where high-end complicity and skill comes in is after the JFKA. The CIA had to halt any investigation into the JFKA, and eliminate LHO. The way the CIA accomplished both ends showed a lot of netherworld competence all around, and in the black arts especially. 

12 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Benjamin,

For me, the strongest argument for two shooters has always been the number of shots that missed, not the number of shots that hit. If more than one shot missed, you have at least four shots, which is too many for one gun in the time allotted.

Mrs. BAKER. Well, after he passed us, then we heard a noise and I thought it was firecrackers, because I saw a shot or something hit the pavement.

Mrs. BAKER. No; I couldn't see the sign because I was angled--we were stepping out in the street then and it was approximately along in here, I presume, the first sign--I don't know which one it is, but I saw the bullet hit on down this way, I guess, right at the sign, angling out.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think the bullet hit the street, only it was farther out in the street?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Even though you couldn't see the sign, you could see this thing hit the street near the sign?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes, sir.

Mrs. BAKER. This was a big sign here and there was a small one here.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you think that it was approximately near the first sign?
Mrs. BAKER. As I can remember, it was.

Mrs. BAKER. It was approximately in the middle of the lane I couldn't be quite sure, but I thought it was in the middle or somewhere along in there could even be wrong about that but I could have sworn it that day.
Mr. LIEBELER. You thought it was sort of toward the middle of the lane?
Mrs. BAKER. Toward the middle of the lane.
Mr. LIEBELER. Of the left-hand lane going toward the underpass; is that correct?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Where was the thing that you saw hit the street in relation to the President's car? I mean, was it in front of the car, behind his car, by the side of his car or was it close to the car?
Mrs. BAKER. I thought it was--well--behind it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had the car already gone by when you saw this thing hit in the street?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.

Richard Carr: They came from the -- from where I was standing at the new courthouse, they came from in this direction here, behind this picket fence, and one knocked a bunch of grass up along in this area here (indicating), this area here is flat, looking at it from here, but the actual way it is, it is on a slope up this way and you could tell from the way it knocked it up that the bullet came from this direction (indicating).

FURTHER RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Just a couple of questions. Mr. Carr, is it your testimony that you saw this bullet furrowing through the grass?
A: I saw the grass come up.
Q: You saw the grass come up?
A: Yes.

Mr. TAGUE And I ducked behind the post when I realized somebody was shooting after the third shot. After the third shot, I ducked behind the bridge abutment... And I says, "Well, you know now, I recall something sting me on the face while I was standing down there." And the patrolman said, "Well, I saw something fly off back on the street." And he said, "Where were you standing?"
And I says, "Right down here." We walked 15 feet away when this deputy sheriff said, "Look here on the curb." There was a mark quite obviously that was a bullet, and it was very fresh.

From David Joseph in The Education Forum 2/4/2019

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25494-trying-to-understand-this-bronson-frame/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-393747

"Royce Skelton (on top of the triple overpass), December 17, 1963: “Mr. Skelton noticed that as an open limousine turned on Elm Street, it had moved approximately one hundred feet at which time he noticed dust spray up from the street in front of the car on the driver’s side. This dust spray came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository building.” [FBI report: CD205]

Austin Miller (on top of the triple overpass), December 18, 1963: “He heard three shots and also noticed a powder dust spray in the street directly to the driver’s side and rear of the car.” [FBI report: CD205]"

From Bill Simpich in the Education Forum 12/31/20

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26874-the-wallet-at-the-tippit-scene-a-simpler-solution/

"Patrolman J. W. Foster told the WC he saw a bullet strike the turf right alongside the concrete by a manhole cover - there is supposed to be an arrow pointing to the mark, according to the transcript.  (Can you see any mark - I can't?)

Also see Mark Oakes' video, start it at 2:00 with Patrolman Foster's statement, and the location as reported in the 11/23/63 Fort Worth Star-Telegram at 4:35 (also see Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 315) - but the Warren Commission refused to believe it.

On 11/22/63, while serving on jury duty, Edna Hartman and her husband Wallace saw two parallel holes while standing near a manhole cover.  She and her husband went back on Sunday the 24th, but the grass was trampled over and they could not find the holes again.  Her report was taken months later, 8/10/64, by two FBI officers - one was Robert Barrett!  The Hartmans had been downtown for jury duty, and responded late in response to a public appeal. 

Edna Hartman told Jim Marrs that a policeman on the scene told her the shots came from the grassy knoll.  She asked the cop if the two parallel marks she was looking at were gopher holes, and the policeman said, "no ma'am, that's where the bullets struck the ground."  (Marrs, Crossfire, pp. 315-316).   

Cameraman Harry Cabluck photographed the scene and saw more than one gouge on the ground.  He was told the gouges were formed by a bullet (or bullets?).  He took his photos hours later and never saw a slug.  (Marrs, at 315; also see Sprague who documents the Cabluck photos)  Cabluck is still alive.  Robert Groden never got access to the early generation Cabluck photos.

But Barrett's report quotes them as saying the shots came from the TSBD, not the grassy knoll, and that a "bystander" - not a policeman - supported that view."

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

 

 

Steve T--

Thanks for reading and commenting. 

Also, and I lost the cite (a hard drive meltdown a few years back), there was a fresh chip mark seen in one of the pylons of the Third Street overpass, not far from James Tague. 

While most witness heard three or four shots, this does not rule out the possibility of simultaneous shots, or separate shots heard as one shot, due to the speed of sound. (That is, if one rifle is fired 1,225 feet from you, and another a half second later from 612 feet feet from you, you will hear one shot.)

Additionally, there could have been the use of silencers, or pneumatic guns. 

As I stated, Governor Connally said slugs were entering the JFK limo as if from automatic gunfire, and Kellerman spoke a flurry of shots, among other witness testimony. 

My own guess is that LHO fired once, a high and intentional miss, and ran down to the second-floor lunch room. Other parties fired in earnest thereafter. 

LHO was part of a false-flag intentionally failed assassination attempt, to be blamed on Cuba, to justify a regime change operation in Cuba. This operation was piggy-backed on by other CIA assets, who learned of the false-flag plan, but shot for real.

The use of frangible bullets is an interesting possibility also. 

No copper, and only lead, was found on the curb strike near Tague.  

As I say, "LHO did it all alone" ---that dog don't hunt. 

5 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

That's my guess too BC.

With a little help from friends in the Dallas PD.

Joe B- Jack Ruby did get in DPD building somehow, on the other hand he was familiar with the premises. 

Ruby refused to say how he got into the DPD, which does suggest collusion, but is not proof. 

13 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Yes, I believe so. Or, there were 2 shots- one in Z313 and one Z331.

Chuck S-

OK, I think I see what you are looking at, Z-331.

One "problem" is that Josiah Thompson says there was another shot after 313, but seven-tenths of a second later, and that would be 12 or 13 frames after Z-313, or ~Z-226. I am still mystified by the Thompson statement. 

On Z-331 there appears to be some short of shaking or motion of JFK's head. It is hard to tell if this is an effect of the film, the camera shaking, a JFK convulsion, or a shot, or what. The whole image is shaky.

Jackie K. did not mention two shots in quick succession to JFK's head, and she was sitting right there (although in her defense, she may have been justifiably hysterical at the whole event). 

The Connallys do not mention another shot in quick succession to JFK, although they may have been "out of it" by Z-331.

So, we have a lot of witnesses who say "three shots, three separate hits" but no one saying there were two shots to JFK's head, and the Z-film does not appear to confirm the second shot to JFK's head. 

My take is that the "three shots, three separate hits" version is the most believable, and does rule out a lone gunman armed with a single-shot bolt action rifle. 

There is conclusive evidence of another shot that struck a curb near James Tague, and very strong evidence a shot was fired from the Grassy Knoll. 

Great post.

Yes, Connally and his wife never wavered in their testimony, and their recounting of the event is verified by the Z film. 

The weak link in the "Mob did it" storyline is the LHO backstory.

LHO was a CIA asset, and the CIA was doing a biography build on the LHO. So how did the Mob get LHO to commit the JFKA, or frame him so expertly, if LHO was a CIA asset?  

Even if the Mob provided the actual triggermen (which I doubt), the framing of LHO had to require CIA involvement, and the immediate release after the JFKA of the "World War III" virus---that is, if LHO was not defined as a leftie-loner-loser, then US hawks would launch an unprovoked nuclear war on Russia. The LHO meeting with KGB wet-work chief Kostikov in Mexico City, and the Katzenbach memo, etc.  The Mob had no inkling of LHO activities in Mexico City. 

The backstory and the cover-up are way beyond the Mob. 

The Connallys are to be credited for their honest and forthright description of what happened in Dallas that day---many others buckled under pressure to hew to an accepted narrative. 

Add on: The Mob angle was pursued by HSCA chief counsel Blakey, a veteran Mob-hunter. He said wiretaps had exonerated Mobsters with the exception of Marcello, but that was because Marcello was not wiretapped.

But there is no evidence that LHO ever worked for Marcello, or had affiliations with mobsters, but there are volumes of evidence of LHO meeting with intelligence assets Bannister, Ferrie, Mohrenschildt, or doing un-Mob things like meeting with Kostikov, and spending time in Russia. Lest anyone forget, LHO was affiliated with the US Marines, and received an honorable discharge. 

Jack Ruby is another story...

My guess is the CIA turned to the Mob to erase LHO.

5 minutes ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Benjamin, thanks for showing the Z film frame by frame.  Frame 331 shows the fatal head shot  ( it appears to have entered the right side of JFK's head- probably shot from behind the picket fence on top of the grassy knoll).  And, then you see Jackie trying to get the brain matter that was blown out of the rear part of JFK's head- the brain matter was on the trunk of the limo, which is where Jackie went.  There may have been another bullet hitting JFK in frame 331- I cannot tell. And, I cannot tell how many shots hit JFK before frame 331. I cannot tell how many times Connolly was hit and I cannot tell how many  missed shots there were.

Chuck Schwartz-

Thanks for commenting. 

Do you mean Z-313? Not 331?

13 hours ago, David Andrews said:

I'd like to see this technology applied (if it's technically possible) to a close crop of only the Kennedys and Connallys in the limo, plus another close crop of the Connallys and Greer-Kellerman.  I think we'd see some useful things.

 

David A--

There is a Z-film online that stabilizes on Connally, and agonizingly I lost the link. Great idea.

12 hours ago, Anthony Mugan said:

I’d encourage anyone who would like to understand the objective historical reality of what actually happened on that day to make a serious effort to understand the scientific evidence that is now available. Within that the acoustic evidence is actually relatively easy to follow if you put your mind to it. The data in it can not be detected by the human ear but has been extensively studied and it is critical to a coherent model of the assassination.

I agree that the time intervals between shots from the rear are too tight to all have come from the Mannlicher-Carcano….beyond that would take a book….and it’s already been done.

Anthony M-

Thanks for reading and commenting. 

"The data in it (acoustic evidence) can not be detected by the human ear but has been extensively studied and it is critical to a coherent model of the assassination."--AM

You may be correct, but right away we have a problem, for general public consumption. 

The public hears this: That experts took the DPD dictabelt, put it into a black box for analysis, and determined it backs up the WC, or it does not. 

Josiah Thompson explains what happened here, and it does look like the Alvarez-Ramsey team was a hatchet job, not true analysis. 

https://whowhatwhy.org/2021/05/28/the-original-inconvenient-truth/

My true story, for public consumption, is that the single-shooter WC crowd posits that Connally was shot through the chest, had a fractured right wrist and other injuries, and then did a 180- degree turn in his chair to check on JFK. 

Anyone can see this is the WC version, and (sadly) even the HSCA version, by a simple review of the Z-film. 

I contend the WC version does not hold water on its own, and moreover conflicts with the explicit testimony of Connally and his wife, and others, who recount separate shots hit JFK, then Connally, then JFK.  Connally also remembers the shot he took as immediately incapacitating. 

Adding to the muddle:

Speaking of Thompson, he now says another bullet struck JFK in the head 7/10ths of a second after Z-313. OK, at 18 frames per second that works out ~326. 

I wonder what Thompson is talking about. 

A frame by frame version of the Z film. 

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/zfilm/zframe327.html

I see nothing. Also, no one in the limo saw or heard the fourth shot either. I am mystified. 

11 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news (there is some good news, so bear with me), but interest is waning and "they" are winning (or perhaps they have even won). Public opinion polls are still "on our side" but nowhere near the large margins they once were from roughly 1988-2003ish (and witness public comment sections on any related articles littered with "Oswald did it-get a life" kind of statements).  Time has not been a friend. Since 2013, the mainstream media has really shut down dissent on the case and it is now very common to see Oswald listed as the assassin, not even the alleged assassin, with no note of any theories or discrepancies and so forth. So many principals have passed on since 1963. Think about it this way: 30 years ago (!), when the JFK movie came out, Jackie, Teddy, JFK Jr, the Connallys and a score of others were still alive. From 1988-1993 (and off and on until 2003), talk shows and even some mainstream programs catered to pro-conspiracy shows...no longer. The Men Who Killed Kennedy was a regular feature on the A & E Network and the history channel from roughly 1991-2003...no longer.

New crap books by Carol Leonnig and Dan Abrams are massive best-sellers that trot out Oswald as the assassin, Ruby as a lone-nutter, the agents ordered off the limo myth, etc.

The only real "good" news: the internet still displays a fair amount of interest and pro-conspiracy sites, forums and views abound. Also, Josiah Thompson's book (and, to a lesser extent, my book) has been selling very well. There is also the new Stone documentary that we hope sees the light of day in America/ on television/DVD. In addition, the 2017-2018 file releases garnered some positive press and revelations. But you know that old saying: "yesterday's headlines wrap tomorrow's fish." The constant meme/ soundbite culture we live in (thanks to social media) is relentless and makes people forget things quickly. Finally, the whole Covid mess has probably been a distraction, as well.

Another aspect that did irreparable damage: the whole false flag/dirtying of the term "conspiracy theory." Alex Jones and James Fetzer trotted out that obscene Sandy-Hook-is-a-hoax fraud and it has carried over into so much else ever since, not to mention all the silly 9/11 theories. Trump and his minions only dowsed fuel onto the flame via the whole Qanon/ Pizzagate/other obscene theories muck (including Ted-Cruz-dad-knew-Oswald).

As I state in my new book, hope springs eternal, but time has not been a friend.

I probably agree but..

The establishment media said that whacko-conspiracy theory that COVID-19 came from a lab in Wuhan had been certifiably debunked.

Alex Jones said it came from a lab.

A sane person does not take cues from Alex Jones, or the Washington Post. In this world, you are on your own. 

A friend of mine says there is nothing more fake than an American reality TV show.

One might add that (too often for comfort) there is nothing more fake than "real" news. 

The treatment of the JFKA is a case in point. 

6 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

As far as Pat Speer showed, the closest thing to credible evidence for a pre-180 shot is Connally's fast head turn. The witness evidence, on the other hand, seem to strongly support the first loud report happening at that time.  I don't know if there have been experiments showing how unlikely it would be for the fast head turn to be coincidental. Otherwise, seems obvious to be that all of the witness evidence shows the first loud report after z180. God I wish we had an audio recording of this event.

Micah M---

Thanks for reading.

In the Z-film, JFK seems fine, but then goes behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, and thereafter looks injured. 

He can be see waving at the crowd at Z-190, seems fine, then possibly something wrong at Z-201, but then JFK goes behind the sign. 

JFK emerges from behind the sign at Z-225, and everyone seems alarmed, and JFK injured. 

Sure looks like JFK was struck at Z-200-225. 

It is possible there was a shot before Z-200 that missed, or that there were shots that were muffled, or that there were simultaneous shots heard as one shot. 

That's my take.

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

The common explanation is echos but that raises some questions. If Oswald fired all three shots from the same location why did almost everyone report the first shot as a single shot? what happened to that echo? If echos were an issue why did the majority of witnesses report only three shots?
 I also believe the testimony of Greer and Kellerman are especially qualified because in addition to muzzle blast and shockwave they heard the rounds come zinging into the limo. I think it was Kellerman who said he heard a round come in and stop when he heard it hit JFK's head. Greer said 'The last rounds were almost simultaneous", Kellerman "A flurry of shells".
Add 23 or so others who used terms like 'in rapid succession' or 'almost at the same time' and some who demonstrated the timing by tapping a table and you have an extremely compelling case for a second shooter.

Chris B.-

Thanks for reading and commenting.

Oh, I agree there had to at least a second shooter, but based on the Z-film. 

Anyone who has worked in and around law, or the court system, knows how dubious witness testimony is. 

Echoes? People might have heard different echoes as they were at different places in Dealey Plaza. Other people just have faulty memories. Some heard four shots. 

Some of the witness testimony is inexplicable. Two TSBD employees side-by-side outside the TSBD watching the motorcade, and one said the shots came from the Grassy Knoll, and other said from the TSBD. Side-by-side!

You are correct, occupants of the Presidential limo described bullets entering the cab as if by "automatic" fire (Connally), or in a "flurry" (Kellerman). 

Based on multiple and credible witness testimony, but backed up by the Z-film, I say we can rule out a single shooter armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle. That dog don't hunt.

I wish I could make heads-or-tails out of the Dallas PD dictabelt, and the experts say it indicates perhaps even five shots. I listened to it a few times and I hear nothing decipherable. 

Of course, if a pneumatic gun was used, that would not even show up on the dictabelt. 

19 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Benjamin, the simplest explanation to me for those unsure of two guns in Dealey Plaza is Boom, Boom-Boom.  That sequence of shots described by multiple witnesses.  The Boom-Boom part being too close together for one gun.  I know lone nutters and others dismiss witnesses statements as being mistaken but they were there, we were not.  jmho

Ron B. 

I agree, but with several caveats. 

Some people might have heard echoes, or might have faulty memories. 

Other confusing factors are the possible use of a gun with a silencer, or a pneumatic gun. Or simultaneous shots. 

Then there is the factor that sound travels at 1,125 fps.  I might honestly hear one gunshot, when in fact two guns were fired, but one gun at 612 feet from me, and another 306 feet from me, but the latter weapon fired a quarter of a second later. 

So people in Dealey Plaza heard three shots, but there could have been more than three shots fired. 

For me, a telling clue is the large number of people, with military and police backgrounds, reporting gunsmoke in Dealey Plaza in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Then the guy with bogus Secret Service credentials near the Grassy Knoll. 

I think even Dr. Watson would get suspicious....

But the important factor, as you point out, is LHO or someone in TSBD was purportedly armed with a single-shot bolt-action rifle, and did all the shooting. That dog don't hunt....

10 hours ago, David Andrews said:

I'm saying that, in Zapruder, Connally is not "facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving," when hit in the torso, as Connally claims in the WR.  His back is exposed to the south side of Dealey, not the east side - from where Oswald putatively fired.  Also, since he appears to be still swiveled in his seat when hit, and facing north in a westbound vehicle, then there's some question of whether his legs and right hand are in line with the torso and thus with the torso wound, permitting one bullet to cause all his wounds.  In that jumpseat, did he have room to swivel his legs along with his torso, keeping them in the line of fire from the south?

Despite rejecting the SBT, his statement about facing more or less straight ahead at the time he was hit supports the shot-from-the-TSBD scenario, and doesn't jibe with his posture in Zapruder.

So, I'm just recommending that you don't commit to any language that implies or supports that one bullet caused all JBC wounds, since we can't tell that for certain from Connally's statements, from the Zapruder film. or from assumptions about where his arms or legs are positioned within the limo body when hit in the torso.  You can make your point about two guns by leaving the wrist and thigh wounds out entirely, unless we can be sure Connally's posture allows one-bullet wounding when shot from the south while his face and body are facing north, and his arms and legs are in indeterminate positions.

Whether JBC's torso, wrist and leg are in position to be wounded with a single shot needs further investigation.  Results might even further prove that there's more than one rifle firing.

David A-

Thanks.

Yes, and Connally's doctor at Parkland also thought two missiles, or more, could have struck Connally. Connally himself said bullets were entering the cab as if by automatic gunfire. 

Your points are well-made and well-taken. 

1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Yes, the rotation of Connally's body to his right is a part of the process of falling down toward his wife after being shot. The frame 276 does not show what Connally had described as trying to view Kennedy by turning to his right. Connally told he has not been able to see Kennedy after turning to his right; he would be able to see him in frame 276 though. At least, this is what I read in Z-film.

 

Andrej S--I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. Interesting discussion. But you have concluded that Connally was struck by a separate bullet? If so, what is your take o the timing between shots? 

4 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

This video is age restricted?  Two clicks to watch the Z film?  This is ridiculous.  Connally turned right at the sound of a shot to look back  at the President but couldn't see him.  He then started to turn to his left to look back but was hit in his right arm pit in mid turn.  The bullet  traversed a rib and came out his nipple.  This is all well documented if one looks for facts.  Dig for yourself.  I'm not making it up.

I agree.

The important point is that Connally was not struck by the same bullet that struck JFK. 

Ergo, a single-shot bolt action rifle was not the only weapon firing at the limo that day. 

7 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

The official story is that Reagan didn't know he was shot until he was inside the car. The first pain he felt was when the Secret Service agent fell on him ("I think you broke my rib!")

 

Ron Ecker:

That Reagan was one tough old bird. 

"The president was shot in the left lung, and the .22 caliber bullet just missed his heart. In an impressive feat for a 70-year-old man with a collapsed lung, he walked into George Washington University Hospital under his own power."

Reagan was struck by a partially spent .22 slug, that had been flattened after striking bullet proof glass first.  No bones were broken, or even struck. Looks like the flat bullet slipped neatly between the ribs. 

Connally took a direct hit from what was likely a large slug, from a high-powered rifle.

One surprising anecdote: The President was given blood and platelet transfusions, but then developed fever. The worry was that the blood products were infected with hepatitis. The bags in which the blood products had been were sent to the CDC and dubbed "suspicious," meaning the blood products might have been infected with hepatitis. 

https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/pdf/10.1148/radiographics.15.2.7761644

2 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

Connally from his Parkland bed;

If anyone in the front seat of a car wishes to view the rear seat area, they always turn towards the centre of the car. Connally did exactly that.

Tony K---

Thanks for reading.

On his hospital bed, and doped up a bit, Connally may have said he turned inward in the cab to his own left. Or maybe he was mis-interpreted by a reporter. 

The Z film clearly shows Connally turned to his own right to view JFK. I don't think this contestable, or a judgement call. 

There are many copies of the Z film on Youtube. This is one: 

20 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Thanks for your kind comments. Yes, of course, the bullet is a plant,

but measuring the fragments in his body and adding that weight

to what was recovered from him at Parkland would help show

that 399 is false evidence and further discredit the SBT.

Good point.  How anyone thought they could get away with the magic bullet plant is baffling. Even lone-nutters wonder why the magic bullet is not deformed. A Straussian reading of some parts of the WC report indicate the magic bullet and the LHO palm print lifted from the Mannlicher Carcano were not even believed by WC'ers. 

6 hours ago, David Andrews said:

However, how many people can believe that after being shot through the chest and having his right wrist shattered by a bullet, Connally would make a 180-degree turn in his chair to check on JFK, unaware that he (Connally) had been shot?  

Benjamin - good stuff.  I, also, do not believe Connally was hit until he started that 180-degree turn.

I would just be cautious about any phrasing that might suggest that one bullet penetrated Connally's back, chest, wrist and thigh (as underlined above).  Because he testified that he didn't know he was wounded in the limbs until he awoke the following day:

that is when I first learned that the bullet had gone through my chest and through my wrist and had broken all the bones in my wrist.

I obviously, I suppose, like anyone else, wound up the next day realizing I was hit in three places, and I was not conscious of having been hit but by one bullet, so I tried to reconstruct how I could have been hit in three places by the same bullet, and I merely, I know it penetrated from the back through the chest first. I assumed that I had turned as I described a moment ago, placing my right hand on my left leg, that it hit my wrist, went out the center of the wrist, the underside, and then into my leg, but it might not have happened that way at all.

Nellie Connally wasn't asked directly, and her statement makes qualifed assumptions about JBC's hand positions, and perhaps repeats the assumed knowledge of doctors and law enforcement:

He was in the process of turning, so it hit him through this shoulder, came out right about here. His hand was either right in front of him or on his knee as he turned to look so that the bullet went through him, crushed his wrist and lodged in his leg. And then he just recoiled and just sort of slumped in his seat.

It's worth watching Zapruder for Connally's hand and leg movements.  For instance, do we see Connally face front again, so his torso and legs are aligned, as he claims here?

I didn't think it was a blowout or explosion of any kind. I didn't see the President out of the corner of my eye, so I was in the process of, at least I was turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat to see if I could see him. I never looked, I never made the full turn. About the time I turned back where I was facing more or less straight ahead, the way the car was moving, I was hit. I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet.

JBC's positioning of himself in this statement seems to quietly validate that he was shot from behind the car, where Oswald was said to be, despite his insistence that he was hit by the "second shot."

David A.--

Thanks for reading.

I am not sure I follow your last paragraph. No one disputes JBC was shot in the back. 

Connally may have been hit by yet another shot, that hit his wrist, according to his surgeon. 

8 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Ben:

my visual analysis of Z-film tells me that John Connally showed signs of distress possibly from being shot around frames 239-241. While I agree that the President was hit earlier than Connally, it may be that the shot that had hit Connally came before frame 284. Frame 284 shows him turned toward the President, however, this was not how he described the shot. He was in the process of turning to his left (i.e., facing the front of car) when he registered being shot.

Of course, I may be wrong as my is just an observation from Z-frames.

Thanks for reading.

I just don't see it your way.

For example, here is frame 276:

You are indicating that Connally, the silver-haired man, has already been shot through the chest, completely demolishing a rib? But after being shot, Connally has turned around in his chair to check on JFK? 

On its own, I would find that difficult to believe. 

But in addition, Connally's testimony, and that of his wife, is that he was shot as he began to unwind himself from checking on JFK, to face forward. That is after frame 276, in this example.

One could posit that Connally was struck as late as frame 303. 

Connally's chest must have been largely facing forward when struck, as he was shot cleanly in the back, from a non-tumbling bullet, by the testimony of his surgeon, who had treated hundreds of wartime wounds. 

Evidently, the impact of the shot to Connally's back, likely from a high-powered rifle, was akin to a "knock-out blow" and he all but lost consciousness thereafter, and was unaware of other injuries. The shot to the back was immediately incapacitating, by Connally's testimony. Well, I can imagine a clean hit from a high-powered rifle to the back would do that.

When I look at frame ~240 I see Connally reacting to a gunshot, but the one that struck Kennedy and possibly entered the cab of the vehicle, or sent off a shock wave of sorts. I suppose it is also possible that someone fired an additional round from a muzzled rifle, and the bullet whizzing by or striking a surface inside the cab has startled Connally. The governor said shots were entering the cab as if from "automatic" gunfire. 

BTW, this is handy frame-by-frame set-up, that give an easy "freeze frame" view. 

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/zfilm/zframe276.html

Well, that's my take. 

31 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:

Could Connally’s back & chest wounds have originated from the rear (Dal Tex etc.), with his wrist and thigh wounds coming from the SW window?

 This could add credence to the SW window & multiple gunshot witnesses

Thanks for reading. 

If the shots that struck Connally were simultaneous or nearly so, that could be the case---gunfire from two different locations. Connally believed he was struck by one shot. However, the surgeon that treated Connally was open to the idea that two missiles struck Connally and told the WC as much. 

For his part, Connally told the WC bullets were entering the limo rapidly, as if from "automatic" gunfire. I think he meant to say "semi-automatic" but so be it. 

The idea that a single-shot Mannlicher-Carcano did all the shooting on Nov. 22 just does not hold water.