Jake Hammond

When I have time I’ll do a few LNer time lines, for the shooting , the gun and maybe a list of evidence that would need to be ignored to make the LN theory work. Not that we should be doing this 55 years later. ...

4- this is what happened sort of . 5 - if you shoot at him down Houston then the car could drive straight on and escape. Also lance, your logic has failed you here . The fact that no one shot on Houston surely suggests that a lone nut in the TSBD was not to blame as his first shot and the superb headshot were quite amazing feats from the snipers nest, especially with the supposed weapon ( which is a joke). He would have xxxx on Houston surely !? Also you are ignoring the fact that the shot through the neck .... no one reacted to . Yet the shot at Z- 285 that missed , everyone jumped, including Zapruda . Two guns. Also you are assuming that a ‘ conspiracy’ would occur and nothing go wrong or no plan B be fallen on , which it most certainly did. You are also ignoring the fact that EVERYONE ran to the grassy knowl, there is smoke caught emanating from the grassy knowl and Many many witnesses stated that at least one shot cane from the grassy knowl. What’s interesting to me is that there’s no weird conspiracy here, no hammering round pegs into square holes . There is an amazing weight of consistent and synergistic evidence which, an intelligent and literate man is either ignoring or has some sort of pre set agenda . I get that there needs to be someone to quell the conspiracy’s and stop people suggesting that Jackie fired the head shot or that an ice bullet was used from the south Knowl that went through the windscreen etc... lance you cannot deny the massive evidence that there was a shooter at the front . The problem really is that CTers for years have used the wrong evidence to prove it . I.e badgeman, a frontal neck shot ( because of Crenshaw et al ) , black dog man, James files etc etc ... keep it simple - Smoke on knowl. All witnesses running to knowl. People on knowl saying the billets came from behind them. Three independent specialists ( the best ) stating unequivocally that a headshot cane from the front when analysing the skull. Witnesses specifically saying that they saw men by the fence , with weapons. There was someone at the front . There is of course masses of other issues as you know but let’s keep it simple. You are entitled to voice your perspective but if we were to run a justice system with the complete ignorance of the vast weight of evidence and not investigate anything because it might get a bit complicated where would we be ? You cannot tell interested parties that they should ignore massive, synergistic evidence and listen to what the DPD say . Or the FBI , or worse , the CIA . One last thing ... the pretense that loads of people have to be involved in a ‘ conspiracy ‘ in a premeditated , ‘ round table ‘ sense is simply not true. Most get sucked in without knowing they are part of it after the fact. Very few are ‘ in on ‘ a conspiracy at the outset . I’d say Dulles, hunt, Angleton, Phillips, the shooters . Westbrook, croy, Ohlson . Maybe 5 others , knew about the hit and how it was organised. Everyone else was compartmentalised and sucked in posthumously . Your bullet point analysis is rather empty Lance , there are a lot of assumptions, ignorances and inferences. I mean the fact that you would shoot from your own place of work, being a TV commie pro Cuba celebrity... and then try to escape ( with no money, sort of , and then deny it all. Make sense ? And you’d use the worst weapon of all time ? And you would t shoot on Houston . C’mon . You often state common sense and ‘ most likely ‘ scenario. .... just because a scenario is complex doesn’t mean it isn’t the most likely.

Problem is.... The Muchmore film doesn't show this, he didn't even flinch until the headshot, even though there was a loud shot at 285 that startled everyone on the Plaza. He was still standing at the end of the Muchmore film. The earliest he is seen lying down is much later, probably soiled himself and was in shock. www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMdreKlLhJY I've not heard this before, whats the best evidence here ? It would make some sense.

NIce work Lance. The time between 12.30 and 2.00p.m is my interest, and this incident has always been anomalous. It is simultaneously impossible to fit into a logical timeline or a likely common sense explanation. There are so many IF's and BUT's thrown up, yet, remove the E.R testimony and you then can start putting together timelines and motives that make sense. In addition, the lack of exclusion from the Warren commission and FBI in her testimony show that they weren't worried about the incident. Not like other witnesses.... Lastly, like so many red herrings in this case , like 'Badgeman', 'Oswald in the doorway' etc.... they have no significance even if they were true and exist independently of the known facts, rendering them void. However, I do not disparage researchers who have believed in these Red herrings ( as I have done many times along the way) because they need to be investigated, understood and reconciled. The problem is that if you really believe in something and really research it, it then becomes incredibly difficult to be unbiased, objective and productive in the long term.Especially if you , or others fond evidence to the contrary.

It comes back to the wider issue of ' what conversations were had'. Thats what we're really trying to find out here. Not even what happened but what was the exact intent and what words were used to action that intent and by whom. Disinformation IMO is deliberate. The WC covering things up is not disinformation, its the publishing of incorrect information. The CIA's top boys sitting around a table smoking cigars and talking about how to throw red herrings in and who to persuade to make up a story.... thats disinfo.

i can't conclude from that image that there are several or even two gunshots. Also, it just doesn't make any sense, why not cover up those marks or crop the image. I mean it would take a second to do and cost nothing. If I was trying to disguise multiple shots and went to the incredibly complex and costly nefarious extremes that some cTers suggest then SURELY the first thing you'd do is crop that back image or airbrush the other ' wounds ' out. Thats CIA cover up 101.

It is useless because really its not significant. It used to be used to show that there was more than one shooter but its so obvious now that there was a shooter at the front that we perhaps don't need to argue. I think its more a 'game' to play. Rather than debate the more serious issues you can gauge a persons cognitive ability through a well known topic with lots of images to help. UNtil I see any proof that all of those wounds, which line up perfectly, were caused by three separate ' blood soluable' bullets ,as one has suggested, were fired at the same exact time and the shooters of said shots then didn't fire again.... I'm sticking with what it looks like on the Z film and what the evidence shows. A single shot from up high. Crenshaw was mistaken, he was not experienced with a full range of gunshot wounds. Most importantly a fast paced FMJ round. There is no big conspiracy with the trach. wound, it is standard procedure and was done quite normally. No one tried to hide that fact at Parkland.

Are we sure these are wounds though ? I'm pretty sure this has been debunked as dried blood and a mole.

Perhaps a little high for the JC exit but to be honest its not important because JFK is in a very different position, when he goes behind the freeway sign he is a bit lower a and sitting further back, not leaning forward so much as in this one. The fact that even in other photos we are so close to matching up the wounds in a nice straight line, which reconciles all the evidence, tells me that the SBT is almost certainly the explanation. Previously I have posted an image of JFK just before going behind the sign on the Z film and his arm is flat on the door top.

But then those the holes would be exit wounds. You then can't have Crenshaw's theory of an entrance wound to the neck. Choose one. ( The theory goes that Crenshaw saw ' what looked like' an entrance wound. Thing is, FMJ rounds going through soft flesh leave exits identical to entrance. Crenshaw only had experience with hand guns and messy exit wounds. Crenshaw is mistaken IMO )

That line is way too low on JC, which is the known data point. I mean, you say its just below his nipple but then the image you post shows it exiting JFK's chest and exiting JC's stomach, raise the line up to where the throat wound is on kennedy, where the jacket hole is, and if a little bunching is added and where the shirt hole is. Bunching does not need to be proved on the shirt as the hole location is the same as the jacket, and we can see the jacket. That was a strange choice of image to use as evidence to disprove the SBT.

Thank you for the link. To clarify, I don't believe that the autopsy photos were faked, I'm open minded to the idea but see no evidence that cannot be reconciled. I just think that in the Z film we should see more of a flap of scalp and possibly some horrible shiny red gore at the rear than we do. Also, in one frame it does appear that the black 'shadow' on JFK's head, at the rear is quite sharp and distinct. Either way, the story of a lot of professional Doctors does not tally with what we see and therefore what we are seeing is a slight illusion. The back of head, scalp being pulled across photo, is just that. The Z film ? There are frames where Kennedys head just seems very strangely shaped and very blurred compared to the rest of the frame, although of course it is moving more.... Looking closely at www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU83R7rpXQY it seems to me that in frame 316-317 we see an expulsion of red mist to the rear of the head ( easier to see played normally but also in the frozen frames). 316 also shows what appears to be a very strange shape in the back of JFK's head, not one easily explained. It could have been cause by one bullet but the analysis of several independent experts after, the expulsion of the matter at 316 and the witnesses describing a large hole at the rear of the head all seem to suggest two shots. I don't think it really matters, we know some one was shooting from the front and we know that there was the large ugly laceration wound at the front right and a missing section of skull at the rear ( later found on the street, at least partly) . I just don't see how a sizeable piece of skull could end up at Charles Brem's feet and a lot of Doctors be very wrong and then lie repeatedly throughout their careers. Also of course, DVP, we have the autopsy images of the head from the back ( kennedy lying) which clearly show a large area missing. They certainly did their best to not show us this hole, for obvious reasons of national , ah-um, security.

Thank you sandy, that’s refreshing. We may have got off on the wrong foot because I was immediately ambushed by Cliff after joining the forum and probably seems like a nutter . I also sided with Lance as he writes well and, on the topic we were on, agreeed with me.

The billets aren’t really that interesting ultimately but it’s a good micro cosm we can all relate to.

Cters as people like yourself and in a lesser way myself have done so . I mean I’d like Sandy for example to suggest a timeline of shots, where they cane from and what the damage was . There is just no positivity from that side of the fence. It’s all scoffing and inferences ...

I have thrown the gauntlet down in several posts for CTers to provide a hypothesis of their own to reconcile the known facts and not a single person has stepped forward. I ended up doing it myself on another topic . My point is ... it’s very easy to point and criticise when people like myself try to reconcile and explain but there needs to be an alternative presented . Come on guys , show me your facts and I’ll show you mine !

From what I remember he reconciled the Z film and autopsy by proving that everyone within 50 feet said it was the top right that blew out. And ... since they didn’t have CGI then , for me , that is a done deal. However ... was there a black blob added at the rear of the head to hide the rear blow out ? Yes I think there was. Mutual exclusivity ! The two things can run in parallel . Just because the grass is always green doesn’t always mean that the sky is blue .

Sandy please read my longer post above properly. I quite clearly say that there was a blow out to the back of the head.

But Ron , there can be a grey area . Yes there was a gaping hole there BUT Pat spear has proven that the witnesses ( and Z film ) of course all saw an explosion to the top right. So we have two known quantities. Lets look for explanations that explain the two . I again point to Robert Harris’ ‘ attack in dealer plaza ‘ on YT. Two headshots, one knocks him forward and one blasts out the BONE from the back of his head and ultimately sends him backwards. The scalp , hair and some bone are still attached, some doctors , in the madness at parkland, will see a blown out right side and maybe the scalp and remaining bone in place. Others will look closer and see that the structural damage was actually a blow out to the rear and focus on that. Posthumously the DPD , FBI and WC focused on the right top blow out for obvious and , on their part , not necessarily nefarious reasons. They wanted to get the commie loser nailed down and resume the status quo, you might not like that but that’s what happened. Let’s use a bit of intelligence and look at things clearly and not say “ right , I’m a _______, therefore I have to think this , therefore I’ll pretend that this is true and this didn’t happen. ....

I tried ! I did a proper experiment with science and stuff ! I’ll be sticking to my area of interest in future and to specific questions

I think we should separate ‘ nutterism’ from people who don’t agree with you.. The polarisation of nutterism and Cliffism are, in my mind , a standard deviation that should not be totally ignored but should not be considered in reasoned debate. Take each issue as it comes, look at the evidence, get creative, brain storm, rationalise and discuss. This is an education forum

Yes

I mean I used to believe in to all the ‘ theories’ .... but then I had a rude awakening and had to face the facts that not every single person in Dallas say around a table the week before and discussed their role in a fiendishly complex plot. It was looking into Lifton and Doug Hornes work when I realised that those same people went from trying to prove that the body was fake and the autopsy photos were fake etc to trying to prove that the Z film is all fake too . Because they at some point realised that for the first to be true, so does the second . Also I took some time off and came back to it with a more objective frame of mind . Sorry , ‘ grew up’ perhaps wasn’t the best term. Oswald didn’t do it no , but that doesn’t mean I believe in ‘ badgeman’ . Or , I used to buy into the ‘ magic bullet’ theory but then when you really look at it there is only one explanation for the first shot . IMHO !

Put him on 'ignore' like the rest of us. It is a subject worth discussing though, in my mind there should be no camps, just a spectrum of truth seeking, open minded individuals using logic and intelligence. What got Cliff really vexed was me doing experiment trying to find a resolution between the shirt holes and the neck wound. He hated an experiment, he detested that i had an open mind. I really don't understand that way of thinking, and hope I never do.

I just don't understand why there is this Ln vs CT thing. I only look at the truth. I used t be CT guy. Then grew up. Come on guys , lets look at the evidence and fin dthe truth rather than polarising ourselves in two weird camps. If the weaponizer is the extrapolated CT king then surely at some point the rational intelligent, dii=lligent human who wants to further this discussion would simply break away and leave the forum ?