Paul Jolliffe
-
Posts
760 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Paul Jolliffe
-
-
As I looked at that Cancellare/Altgens photo montage, I realized how little cover there was on the South Knoll - less than that on the Grassy Knoll. That doesn't rule the South Knoll completely out, but someone ducking behind the last concrete abutment on the south side of the overpass would have been awfully hidden from just about everybody. Even the men standing further to the north on the overpass.
Such a spot might might have made a getaway easy - just get into a car in the parking lot, and drive away to the south while everyone is concerned with what happened to the north.
Except that today, you have to drive on the north side of the Dallas Federal building (207 Houston) to leave the South Knoll parking lot to get to Houston Street. You're in plain view of everyone on Commerce. There is now a concrete wall preventing a driver from going behind - south of - the building.
Does anyone know: in 1963, could anyone have driven out of the South Knoll parking lot by going to the south side of the Dallas Federal building, away from Commerce? Did that little wall exist then?
-
David,
What's the yellow line? It's not the path of the limo, is it? It doesn't match up with the kill spot (the confluence of the red arrows.)
Just to my eyeballs, the best straight-on shot would seem to be from the south side of the overpass, rather than the South Knoll. (But that does not rule it out.)
If firing from the south side of the overpass, could a sniper shoot over (rather than through) the windshield and hit the president? I honestly don't know - is such a shot possible?
-
10 minutes ago, David Josephs said:
Found this in my files...
Ralph Martin’s Seeds of Destruction: Joe Kennedy and His Sons (1995), p. 453 [see also the Spring 1998 issue of “KAC”-article by author]: In regard to the preparations for the 11/22/63 Dallas trip, General Godfrey McHugh is quoted as saying: “They’d asked me, for the first time, to please not ride in the President’s car, because they want to give him full exposure. These are the exact words they used. Ken O’Donnell and the Secret Service said, 'the politicians here feel it's most important for the President to be given full exposure, to be seen coming and going...[McHugh said he normally rode in the car in which JFK was a passenger] “in the front, next to the driver, and [I] would take notes.” (emphasis added)
Hmm.
I realize this was not your point, but I doubt anyone here seriously believes that Ken O'Donnell was a witting participant in a the plot to assassinate JFK.
This is not to dismiss McHugh's recollection, merely to point out that it's likely that the conspirators benefitted from such a seating arrangement, rather than caused it in the first place.
Was there a conspirator close to JFK who learned of the "politicians" decision to keep McHugh out of the front seat, and who then relayed that intelligence on to snipers?
Maybe. (My personal candidates include McGeorge Bundy and, via his brother Walt, Eugene Rostow.)
Godfrey McHugh had no love for LBJ, and certainly did not want to seem him become president. McHugh was one of the first of the Kennedy Administration officials to be let go by LBJ, just days after the funeral.
"They had two hours and 12 minutes together to mourn their fallen leader and create a new government. Inside the 153-foot-long fuselage, with little privacy and limited communication with the outside world, loyalties evolved and careers began—and ended. Before the plane had even left the ground, that sorting-out began: Godfrey McHugh’s distinguished military career would never recover from his grief-stricken “I have only one President” comment made to Malcolm Kilduff. Within days, McHugh would be among the first staff cut from the Johnson White House."
https://www.washingtonian.com/projects/JFK-AF1/layout2.html#.X5g8L4hKg2w
-
39 minutes ago, David Josephs said:
You make a great point Paul, yet asking Why? doesn’t change the evidence of a hole...
Trying to ascertain the thinking behind actions that day... idk.
Why then do you think McHugh was moved from his customary front-middle position, and why the impact just happens to be directly in LOS to JFK from the SW?
Seems to me someone knew something would be coming from the front, and the South...
David,
That is an intriguing picture!
So Tosh Plumlee believed in 1981 that three shots had originated from the South Knoll, but that at least three of them had missed!
He referred to Gary Shaw's book (presumably "Cover Up" from 1976). I've never seen a copy. Is this picture modified from some WC exhibit? Who put the three white blobs in just above the kill zone?
-
13 minutes ago, David Josephs said:
Fascinating article!
Note, however the clear caveat about shooting through glass directly straight on: don't shoot at an angle!
"To minimize this effect, it's best to shoot dead-on, as close to perpendicular to the glass surface as possible."
And:
"My knowledgeable sniper friend Neal Terry believes that in addition to firing perpendicular to the glass surface and aiming for the largest target area on the suspect, it's best to shoot when the suspect is as close to the glass as possible, both to reduce the possibility that deflection could cause a miss and to lessen the danger to hostages from secondary missiles."
Our (presumed South Knoll) sniper, intentionally picked a spot from which the shot would be angled, but JFK would be at least six feet from the glass, compounding the degree of difficulty.
I don't know what to make of the fact that Godfrey McHugh was not seated between Roy Kellerman and William Greer. That may be significant, but more research is needed.
-
David,
We agree that there is evidence of a hole in the windshield, and we agree that the president suffered an entry wound to his throat.
And, it is possible that those two events are related: the president's throat wound may (MAY) have been caused by a round that first penetrated the windshield.
However, even if that's true, I find it incredible that a professional sniper would have deliberately planned the shot that way. That shot would have been very difficult and highly likely to fail - which from the conspirators viewpoint, it did! JFK was still very much alive!
It is possible a sniper somewhere on or near the South Knoll planned a windshield shot to kill JFK, and it is possible that the sniper came close. However, shooting over or around the windshield would seem much easier.
So, while nothing is impossible, a deliberate shot through the windshield from the South Knoll seems mighty unlikely.
-
On 10/24/2020 at 6:14 PM, Eddy Bainbridge said:
Pat Speer's article doesn't get us very far, and doesn't debunk the Dictabelt evidence. He doesn't really even try to debunk it. Lets say from the beginning the mystery of who recorded the shots has not been definitviely determined. If you're looking for film backup then you have two problems ; Firstly the community is not agreeing on potential crops to films and secondly the Dictabelt recording likely has 'skips' in it (See D B Thomas's later work on this, he postulates where they may be.)
So if you want to say 'voila! McClain wasn't in the right place' then I can't counter that argument. What the statistical analysis shows, to a high degree of accuracy is that; the dictabelt recorded multiple shots, in Dealey Plaza, at the time of the assassination, some shots came from the TBSD, and one shot can be demonstrated to have come from the Knoll. Until someone can refute the stats then the Dictabelt evidence stays in play.
David Josephs is suggesting the Dictabelt recording may have been altered and Jim DiEugenio states the recroding in the record is not original. Is the suggestion all the wave form analysis, and simulation were done on tampered evidence? Doesn't seem plausible.
Well, my understanding is that in 1978 the HSCA fired test shots from only the TSBD and the Grassy Knoll. The dictabelt contained "impulses" that acoustically matched (to a high degree of "scientific certainty") with the recordings of the 1978 shots.
Whether the dictabelt contained additional possible impulses, and whether other suspected firing locations were tested acoustically by the HSCA, frankly I don't remember.
I think Pat Speer has proved beyond any doubt that the HSCA's finding (Officer McClain's mic was the source of the impulses on the dictabelt) was completely wrong.
Whatever the source of the impulses, they were NOT from McClain's microphone. Good work, Pat!
Ultimately, I am skeptical that our understanding of the assassination will be furthered by an examination of the dictabelt.
Even if, by some miracle, we could somehow get a modern retest of all sniper's lairs and compare the results with the impulses on the dictabelt, all we'd really get would be some additional evidence (but not proof) of shooting locations.
We already have a pretty good idea of several spots.
-
38 minutes ago, David Josephs said:
The opposite John. McHugh was removed from where he usually sits... which would have been in the way of a southern thru windshield shot...
Imagine on right is his usual spot...
David,
I mentioned this in the other thread on this same topic, but:
Why would a professional sniper deliberately plan a shot through a slanted windshield on a moving vehicle (a vehicle whose precise, exact location could not be pinpointed in advance), knowing the real risk of deflection? After all, the president was several feet behind the windshield, and a deflecting round might have gone anywhere. If a bullet did both 1. go through the windshield, and 2. strike the president, then it was a lucky shot.
Why would a professional sniper have designed such a tricky and unnecessarily difficult shot, one that (from the conspirators point of view) failed? After all, after the throat shot, not only was President Kennedy NOT dead, he was not even unconscious!
To me, this is evidence that the throat shot was not intended to penetrate the windshield first, and may not have passed through the windshield at all.
-
Now, could a fatal head shot have come from the South Knoll?
Sure seems possible to me.
The issue I have with these two videos is that they ignore the evidence from Zapruder 312/313 that the president was struck twice in the head, almost simultaneously, once from behind and then a split second later from the front.
The extant autopsy and X-Ray evidence would seem to leave open the possibility (probability?) that two different bullets left trails in the president's skull, back to front and front to back.
The problem with trying to pin it down precisely is that we just don't have clear medical evidence to be certain of exactly where the wounds were on the president's skull. So the "scientific theory" rests on evidence that remains disputed to this day.
We can't claim 100% certainty about any sniper's location based on the medical evidence.
We can speculate about a number of suspected locations, and undoubtedly some of them are correct, but anyone who claims "scientific certainty" is fooling themselves and their readers.
-
20 hours ago, Craig Carvalho said:
I have considered this possibility in terms of trajectory and the resulting path through the body, but my main objection would be that a sniper would never attempt a shot from that distance, regardless of caliber, that would first have to penetrate a windshield before striking a target seated several feet away.
Craig,
I agree.
That's why I believe the shot through the windshield was unintentional - it may have struck the president, but hitting him in the throat did NOT kill him!
No professional sniper would have deliberately designed a shot to penetrate the windshield to hit such a crucial target unless he was using a .50 cal machine gun on full automatic.
The throat shot was one of entry - that is what all of the available original evidence indicates. (The undated autopsy report now in the National Archives was not written until AFTER "Oswald" was killed. By his own sworn admission, Humes "revised" his original draft after learning of "Oswald's" murder. Even then, Humes - or somebody even later - inserted the word "presumably" as a hedge when implying the throat wound was an entry wound.)
So, to believe a shot from the South Knoll was deliberately planned to penetrate the windshield, strike the president in the head and kill him, means that the sniper planned an unnecessarily difficult shot, one that ultimately (and predictably) failed. JFK was still very much alive and conscious after the throat shot!
The (assumed) South Knoll sniper could NOT have been certain of a second shot if the first shot missed. He got that second chance only because the president remained upright and immobile, something on which no sniper could have counted.
The throat shot was not intended to go through the windshield. If a shot really did penetrate the windshield and then struck the president, it was just dumb luck for the sniper, no matter who he was.
-
On 10/24/2020 at 9:28 AM, John Butler said:
Paul,
Ron may have something here. A .22 round is just a bit smaller than a .223 round used in an M16 or AR 15. They are essentially the same. The projectiles are similar is size but not in capability in different rounds. The AR 15 shoots the .223 round at about 2800 fps. Whereas, a .22 is generally subsonic. The big difference is the .223 is designed as a man-killer for the military.
Fair enough, but that still leaves the question as to why a sniper would use a round that ran a serious risk of being a non-lethal shot.
Also, shooting through the windshield was tricky - any deflection might miss the target, as this one did. Obviously the round hit the president, but NOT IN THE HEAD!
By all accounts, it would have been an amazing shot, but, even so, the small caliber round meant the deflection through the windshield made it a (worthless) shot to the conspirators.
-
On 9/17/2020 at 11:22 PM, Ron Bulman said:
It's been several years now since I bought and read Sherry Fiester's Enemy Of The Truth. It did not convince me there was a shot from the South knoll. But it did open my mind to the possibility. What it also did was cause me to walk all the way across the the triple overpass the last time I was in Dealy Plaza and examine the area and view from it.
Great place for a shot. Crouched down beside the last pillar only the gun barrel, a shooters right shoulder and side of his face could be seen from the area around the limo at the time of the shots. Nor would he be seen by others on the far side of the overpass.
What I still had a problem with regarding a head shot is back and to JFK's left from the impact which blew out the right rear of his head from this angle, the physics don't work for me. They do from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll to JFK's right.
The throat shot has long intrigued me in where did it come from. A smaller caliber than the head shot, it didn't blow out the back of his neck. Not from the same gun. Both of these shots from the grassy knoll, side by side, spaced somewhat apart, two shooters? Nothing points to this. But the 4-5-6 mm wound observed at Parkland by multiple doctors does.
Could it have come from the South knoll? A 22 would fit the bill regarding the wound but what about the range? I guessed the distance at close to 100 yards just eyeballing it. I've never tried any shots with a 22 at over about maybe 40-50 yards at squirrels and rabbits. Googling says sighting in at 75. But, up to 150 from an expert is possible. Well within the range.
Ron,
I guess a shot from the South Knoll is certainly possible, but why in the world would a sniper use a .22 at that range? A caliber that small would be a really tough shot, and even if you're right, and even though they hit the target (they struck President Kennedy in the throat), they still failed to kill him.
So, did the throat shot exit?
I don't know. Obviously if it did, then the exit point was through the back wound. Harold Weisberg told me he thought that was certainly possible. He pointed out that the FBI determined the back wound was one of entry by examining the fibers on JFK's jacket and noting that they were pointed in. Of course, if anyone took their finger and poked the fibers the other way, then the shot direction would reverse. So, which actual direction the jacket fibers around the hole originally faced is anyone's guess.
On the other hand, given the very real possibility that Humes and Boswell surreptitiously examined JFK before the official start of the autopsy, they may have made a quick and dirty incision to remove the throat bullet. And, such a non-exiting round would probably have been small caliber. Sherry Fiester's belief that the windshield would have slowed a higher caliber round enough to stop the bullet in JFK's neck raises another obvious question:
Why in the world would a professional sniper (and this was a professional hit) deliberately shoot through a windshield with a caliber too small to kill the president?
-
On 10/19/2020 at 12:54 AM, Chris Barnard said:
Thanks for sharing that, gives you an idea of his character.
I agree.
A few notable specifics:
At the 6:27 mark, Angleton contrasted the ability of the Soviet system to achieve objectives by allowing their intelligence agencies free rein, with the restraint imposed on western intelligence agencies by "lawmakers who destroy your secrets. The very people who profit from living in a democratic institution are those who denigrated the word 'national security' until it has no meaning."
(Angleton's contempt for elected politicians here could not be more clear. One can only wonder of whom he was thinking at that moment . . .)
Later, the narrator helpfully spelled it out for us: "national security is above the law."
To which Angleton added that Nixon should have argued that the election of a president entails inherent national security (powers) that supersede the laws. Further, Angleton believed that inhibitions on intelligence agencies in democratic societies could (best?) be overcome through "a national crisis, a Pearl Harbor for people to then understand what survival means."
Angleton noted that even a small intelligence service, "with one great penetration, can move the world."
Hmm.
Again, I wonder to which "small service" he was referring.
-
Douglas,
I now see on the McCord thread that you were indeed good friends with not only Howard, but also Dorothy Hunt. (I apologize for not seeing that earlier.)
Obviously however much (or little) the Hunts told you about Dallas was a deadly serious threat to "Military Intelligence or the CIA", sufficient to justify your murder, in their eyes.
So, did the Hunt's ever hint to you that Dorothy might have played some role, no matter how peripheral, in Dallas? Did you ever suspect that she might have actually traveled to Dallas in November of 1963 for any reason?
Richard Helms, for whom she worked (apparently very closely and competently), later wrote in an infamous memo that Dorothy Hunt was "an amoral and dangerous woman."
Her son wrote that she had a fearsome reputation as an extremely effective operative for the agency.
In your eyes, is there a chance that Dorothy Hunt undertook any kind of role in the events of Dallas, 1963?
Thank you in advance for your reply.
-
2 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:
How Lee Harvey Oswald might have been TOLD to return to US
Douglas,
No offense, but this isn't much of an article. John Newman's speculation that LHO was told to return by a U.S. intelligence is plausible, but virtually everyone here is sure that LHO's "defection" to the USSR in 1959 was phony. Was it part of a mole hunt, as Newman believes? Probably. Was it more than that? Maybe.
But we all agree that, whatever the purpose, LHO was directed by a U.S. intelligence service.
This article is so poorly written that it asserts that LHO returned from the USSR in 1961. (Wrong.)
This article also implies that LHO's time in New Orleans was "shortly" after he returned. (Wrong again.)
This article quotes Joan Mellen as saying that LHO went to work for Guy Bannister at 544 Camp "when Oswald first arrive(d) in New Orleans". Either she was misquoted or she doesn't know her chronology very well - there is no evidence that as soon as he arrived in New Orleans in early May of 1963, LHO went to work for Bannister. That was two months later.
Maybe this article will encourage newbies to the case to read John Newman, but it is not going to enlighten many readers at this forum.
On a completely different note, Douglas, did you ever meet Dorothy Hunt?
I recently read her son's biography of her ("Dorothy: An Amoral and Dangerous Woman"), and I suspect she may have played a tangential (but critical) role in Dallas. I have not been able to contact her son, St. John, about some hints dropped in the book. I don't think he knows anything concrete, and she may have had nothing to do with Dallas, but there are some things that scream for clarification.
Do you (or anyone here) have any idea how to get in touch with St. John Hunt?
https://www.amazon.com/Dorothy-Amoral-Dangerous-Woman-Watergates-ebook/dp/B015VN46XW
-
18 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
Jim, I shouldn't have posted before I fully read your article. I just did. I now understand Meagher was should I say misguided regarding Garrison and Shaw. But it is hard to believe Epstein flipped. It seems more likely he was used, coached, directed writing Inquest. But why? The book does question the WC's conclusions, it raises questions.
From the cover, "Is one of the murderers of John F. Kennedy still on the loose?" "Raises monumental doubts,,, The investigation must be re-opened".
What was the purpose of his "coaches". Why stir the pot, if they wanted to "settle the dust"?
Ron,
The purpose of any official "investigation" by the federal government in JFK will be simply to control any extant pieces of evidence that might yet emerge. Remember, there is still a fair amount of material at the National Archives, that, while there is certainly no smoking gun, might yet shed much more light on those responsible for the cover-up and to whom they were connected.
Harold Weisberg had some interesting insights on this very topic:
-
24 minutes ago, John Butler said:
Wow! I'm not the person to argue with Joseph or Davidson. I would have thought Z 175-180 would be further down the street and closer to the Stemmons sign. If David and Chris are right then Z 175 the first shot has already happened.
This makes a fellow want to go back and take another look at Croft, Betzner, and Willis. Particularly Croft.
This is a tranquil scene with no hint of violence. From here at about Z 175 to Z 313 is about 138 frames or 7.5 seconds. The assassination with this range as the range is well within the official story or at least close to it. I'm not sure this is out from under the trees and visible to the 6th floor.
There is a strange reflection on the trunk. It is a very clear reflection of the TSBD and a tree trunk/tree visible there. What I find strange is that the passenger side of the car shows this clear reflection and the driver's side of the car does not show a bright, clear reflection, but is instead murky. The sun is coming more or less from the south and west. There should be a nice bright reflection there showing the SW corner of Elm and Main. From the angle of the sun I don't see, but should see that area clearly.
If you do a blow up of Croft the p. limo gets weirder. The top part of the vehicle shows a bright sun on a bright sunny day. Notice the front door handle. The bottom part shows a gloomy, dark day with the sun hidden. If you blow that up you might see something that looks like the Federal Annex and Main Street on the side of the vehicle. I am not certain that that would be the case from the angle of the sun.
John,
I disagree that this is a "tranquil scene with no hint of violence."
The concern on the somber faces of both Jackie Kennedy and John Connally is obvious. They both are turning to their left. Connally, of course, swore to his dying day that he heard the first shot, recognized it as a shot and then turned back to his right to try to see JFK.
Might this photo catch the moment before Connally began to turn to his right?
I agree with all the analysis that you and David Josephs and others have done that a (missed) shot was fired at the limo shortly after the turn onto Elm. Before this picture was taken, in other words. This picture would seem to be consistent with SA Hickey's reaction in the follow-up car: he looked down at the pavement to his left (See David Josephs's clip.)
-
3 hours ago, Richard Price said:
I agree on that as well. We really don't know how many teams may have been placed in the kill zone.
I agree too - I have long wondered if there were multiple shooters on the grassy knoll. Multiple shooters on various floors of the Dal-Tex sounds plausible.
-
4 hours ago, John Butler said:
Paul,
At least agreement on one shot early on at the intersection is a good start. In prior times no one would accept an early shot at the intersection and in front of the TSBD. Due to the Zapruder film this notion of early shooting was a heresy. Only a few people tried to back up the shooting from where most folks think it happened generally according to Zapruder. But, not as far as the intersection or in front of the TSBD.
I'm not sure I agree Howard Brennan saw what he saw in a 6th floor Dal-Tex window on the Southeast side. To many people describe similar things seen at the 6th floor TSBD.
Is there any other evidence for a 6th floor sniper at that location in the Dal-Tex? I haven't seen any. I haven't paid close attention to what people are saying due to rejecting the idea. This is my attempt to pay closer attention.
John,
I have focused on Howard Brennan alone because that's the thread.
Brennan:
1. In his excited, first-day affidavit to the Dallas Sheriff's Department, Brennan clearly described the Dal-Tex, not the TSBD, as the building in which he saw a sniper. (See my July 27 post.)
2. When taking Brennan's testimony, David Belin went to enormously fantastic lengths to obscure, rather than clarify the import of Brennan's statement:
a. Belin failed to introduce the most basic document - Brennan's own affidavit!
b. Belin suborned perjured testimony from Brennan - Belin knew that Brennan was NOT where he located himself in Warren Commission Exhibits 477 and 478. Brennan's real position was clearly shown in WC Exhibit 479, a frame from the Zapruder film - Brennan was ten feet further to the east on the curved cement wall. By mislocating Brennan's true position, Belin hid the direction in which Brennan was facing, and thus, the building at which Brennan was looking directly - the Dal-Tex, NOT the TSBD!
("Mr. BELIN. Well, your legs in this picture, Exhibit 479, I notice, are not dangling on the front side there, is that correct?")
c. Belin introduced WC Exhibits 477 and 478 as official evidence which was immediately questioned by a confused Gerald Ford:
( Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. At about 12
Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the assassination.
Representative FORD. In both pictures, that is a true--
Mr. BRENNAN. True location.
Representative FORD. True location of where you were sitting November 22d?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.)d. Belin introduced WC Exhibit 361, an upside down map of the area north and east of the TSBD, ostensibly to allow Brennan to retrace his steps before and after the assassination. However, the effect of the map was to confuse the witness and to obscure the significance of Brennan's statement that the first DPD officer with whom he spoke took him along Houston Street, north of Elm!
e. Belin showed Brennan WC Exhibit 477, and Brennan immediately expressed doubt that it was the right window, or even the right building! Rather than clear it up, Belin handed Brennan a marking pencil and asked/directed Brennan to "mark the window"!
Mr. BELIN. I am going to ask you to circle on Exhibit 477 the particular window that you said you saw a man leave and come back a couple of times.
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I am confused here, the way this shows. But I believe this is the sixth floor, the way those windows are built there right at the present. I am confused whether this is the same window.
Mr. BELIN. You mean because some windows are open below it?
Mr. BRENNAN. No, the way the building is built, it seems like this is more or less a long window with a divider in the middle.
Mr. BELIN. Here is a marking pencil. Will you just mark the window that you believe you saw the man.3. The FBIallegedly quoted Brennan as saying that the shooter was about 90 yards from Brennan. While this was clearly wrong for the "sniper's window" in the TSBD, it was not a terrible guess for the easternmost window of the 6th floor of the Dal-Tex. However, Belin did not introduce Brennan's original statement to the FBI. We do have FBI agent Robert Gemberling's report (WCD 205, pages 289 etc.) which tells us that Brennan already talked to the FBI, but not the original statement itself!
4. Brennan, in his 11/22/63 affidavit, said plainly that the shooter he saw lowered the gun and then "stepped DOWN and out of sight . . ."
For anyone kneeling and shooting out of the "sniper's window" of the TSBD, stepping DOWN was an impossibility. However, for a shooter in the Dal-Tex, a standing sniper may well have "stepped down" from the window.
John, I could go on, but this is already long enough.
I am convinced that Belin made a deliberate effort to hide Brennan's original first-day observations about a shooter in the Dal-Tex.
-
57 minutes ago, David Josephs said:
Hey there Paul...
I have this as further support for that early shot... I agree with you that a shot at z157/158 happened and was noticed by Rosemary, Hickey and JFK I believe.. among others
I know the image is terrible yet I believe your point is made... JFK drastically whips his head in what was supposed to be just a rip.. in a single frame
Below is a little analysis of the "rip" FWIW
Also below is Hickey looking at what some say was concrete dust flying up next to the limo as the result of a "ground level sound" as opposed to one originating much higher up...I believe Chris Davidson mathematically illustrates how/why the Towner film was "burnt".... finally, there is an amazingly strange anomaly in that Towner film which I will post about shortly. and by the way:
Brennan had to have seen this, no?
Mr. TRULY. That is right.
And the President's car following close behind came along at an average speed of 10 or 15 miles an hour. It wasn't that much, because they were getting ready to turn. And the driver of the Presidential car swung out too far to the right, and he came almost within an inch of running into this little abutment here, between Elm and the Parkway. And he slowed down perceptibly and pulled back to the left to get over into the middle lane of the parkway. Not being familiar with the street, he came too far out this way when he made his turn.
Mr. BELIN. He came too far to the north before he made his curve, and as he curved--as he made his left turn from Houston onto the street leading to the expressway, he almost hit this north curb?
Mr. TRULY. That is right. Just before he got to it, he had to almost stop, to pull over to the left.
If he had maintained his speed, he would probably have hit this little section here.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Fascinating, David!
I'd never seen the Hickey clip before. I agree he's clearly looking at something on the pavement - a missed shot, probably. And of course, the damage to the Zapruder film in those frames served to hide evidence of a missed shot or two.
If the limo did swing as far right before completing the left turn on to Elm as Truly indicated, then a sniper in the window of the south side of the Dal-Tex might have missed to the left. The Towner film indicates a missed shot from behind to the right, and Hickey's reaction indicates a missed shot to the left. Two misses.
Two missed shots at that moment would explain why so many witnesses heard "firecrackers" - PLURAL!
-
15 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
Richard, I'd like to go back and stand on the x's in the middle of Elm and look back at the window you suggest in Dal - Tex, last/3rd to the East on the sixth floor facing Elm. I guess it's not an inconceivable shot though even further away for JFK's back or Connally. But I have to wonder about all this.
Though Dal - Tex is definitely redder many might construe the TSBD as at least a light reddish, though in some pictures it does seem more of a tan or brown depending on the light. I don't remember paying attention to the color in particular the times I've been there.
In the statement above he mentions JFK being 50 yards down Elm. Given where he was Actually sitting on the curve of the concrete "fence", facing Dal-Tex, he would have to have at least his head turned pretty hard to the left to see this. He then had to turn back what 70 - 80 % to look up at the sixth floor of the TSBD, to see the scopeless gun and 30 year old 165 - 175 pound Oswald. Or, 180% to see him in the Dal -Tex window you suggest.
Good point, Ron.
However, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the particulars of Brennan's belated description of his own head movements during the shooting sequence - after all, his (???) 1987 book has that absurd claim that he witnessed both the firing of the third shot and the impact of the third bullet.
Impossible, no matter where the sniper was.
But Brennan's first day affidavit makes no mention of all of his later claims about turning to see both the shooter and the president. No, it simply states that after he heard the first shot, he turned to look up at the "last window I have previously described . . . It run in my mind that it might be someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building and I looked up at the building . . . I was looking at this man at the time of the last explosion."
![[Howard-Brennan-Affidavit.gif]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jTmnYgFvqzM/Tvw3vTpzhsI/AAAAAAAABuI/QJ__Z34iHho/s1200/Howard-Brennan-Affidavit.gif)
So, your objections are to Brennan's later additions to his original simple statement to the Dallas Sheriff's Department.
Forget about what he said later. What he said on the afternoon of 11/22/63 makes sense if he was talking about the Dal-Tex!
Remember, Brennan's first day affidavit tells us he saw a suspect in the "large red brick building" which strongly implies the Dal-Tex. Because David Belin and Warren Commission deliberately mislocated Brennan during the shooting, we know they knew the importance of hiding at which building Brennan was looking!
While we don't know for certain, it appears that the windows on the south side of the Dal-Tex could be opened higher than the windows in the TSBD.
Can anyone here at this forum pay a visit to the Dal-Tex and do a little recon work on the sixth floor, south side, easternmost window? What was the floor plan of the sixth floor of the Dal-Tex in 1963? What offices or companies were there? Who owned the Dal-Tex? Where exactly was Jim Braden arrested?
-
16 hours ago, Richard Price said:
Ron, I think this exposing of what Brennan actually said starts laying a foundation for many of the people who have been studying this case.
1. Brennan was telling the truth, but was immediately pressured to "follow the CORRECT official evidence". This happened so fast that more than one local "official" had to know the story to be told BEFORE THE FACT.
2. The shooter in the position he was, had to mean it was professionally planned. That position, as I have pointed out, is VIRTUALLY INVISIBLE to everyone.
3. If it can be determined who got onto Brennan's story and QUASHED IT, instead of investigating it much might be learned. Was it local police, was it SS agent Sorrels (to whom Brennan says he talked) or a combination of these groups.
4. In some of his statements (even some where he is being led/directed) he mentions getting the attention of a Dallas policeman, being taken to someone higher up and then having to wait for a few minutes while the higher up person and others conferred before coming back to him.
I am awaiting the book he wrote about his experience that day. I am also going to try to timeline his statements and decipher where he is managing to get statements of truth into the record. He was so scared and so wanting to NOT be a part of this story, it is going to be difficult to parse with any degree of accuracy. He readily went along with anything he was prompted to say IF it would remove further pressure on him and his family. Once again I refer to the YouTube video where he is explaining what he saw. As he starts to say where he say the gunman, his eyes divert upward and to the right. This is a subconscious reaction to the words he is saying. That direction is towards the east end of the Dal-Tex (Elm St. side) and upward (6th floor).
Richard,
While I have not read ALL of Howard Brennan's book "Eyewitness to History" published posthumously in 1987, I did read the lengthy excerpt posted by William Kelly in 2010.
I am certain Brennan's book was ghost-written. The writing style is entirely inconsistent with Brennan's speaking style, so I wouldn't place too much emphasis on anything in it. The book has been relatively "sanitized."
Brennan did place emphasis on a suspicious car, a 1955-57 Oldsmobile, parked facing south on Houston, adjacent to the TSBD with its wheels turned sharply away from the curb. The driver was apparently friendly with the nearby DPD officers. However, I suspect this vehicle was an unmarked DPD car, driven by one of the plain-clothed DPD officers.
Brennan did write that the first shot occurred "when the presidential car moved just a few feet past where I was sitting. . . ", which is consistent with my posts above, but inconsistent with a shot from almost directly overhead.
The hyperbole in the writing though makes it hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
Consider this doozy:
"All of this took only a few seconds. I didn't realize at that moment that I was the only person who was actually watching the man firing the rifle. Simultaneous with the third shot, I swung my eyes back to the Presidential car which had moved on down to my left on Elm, and I saw a sight that made my whole being sink in despair. A spray of red came from around the President's head. I knew the bullet had struck its intended target. Later, I would learn that the whole scene had taken less than ten seconds. In retrospect, it seemed like several minutes."
So, according to Brennan (or his ghost), Brennan not only saw the assassin fire the third shot, but then, swung his eyes (and his head, from where he was sitting) literally faster than a speeding bullet, and witnessed "a spray of red came from around the President's head".
Brennan claimed to have seen both the firing of the rifle and the impact of the bullet!
No way.
Further on, Brennan claimed to have given his description of the suspect to a plain clothes policeman, and that this description became the basis for the first broadcast at 12:45. Yet, Brennan never made any such claim in either his 1963 affidavit nor his 1964 testimony! He instead stated that he demanded to be taken to a Secret Service agent, and that he spoke with Forrest Sorrels!
By the 1980's, the "Sorrels" timing problem was well-known. But back on 11/22/63 or even by the spring of 1964, that problem was not yet so obvious. So again, Brennan's 1987 "solution" was to remove Sorrels from the immediate equation and replace him with an unnamed DPD officer. Again, this is completely contradicted by his first day affidavit.
Finally, in a total revision of his 1964 Warren Commission testimony, Brennan's 1987 book claims that it was he, Howard Brennan, who asked the FBI to cut the news films footage of himself talking with various officials on Houston Street, north of Elm after the shooting!
Anyone who has read Brennan's 1964 testimony knows that he was mystified about why the WC did not have his precise location when he was talking with various authorities after the assassination. He pointed out to them that he'd been filmed by news crews, and this footage had then been cut at the request of "Mr. Lish of the FBI." This belated 1987 explanation is nonsense. It serves no purpose but to cover up the suspicious actions of the FBI.
In sum Richard, I wouldn't trust much of anything in Howard Brennan's 1987 posthumous book. Stick with the first day affidavit!
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/16277-howard-brennan-re-evaluated/
-
37 minutes ago, John Butler said:
Actually, there are about 8 films that are damaged as the p. limo passes the Court Records Building and begins to make the turn onto Elm Street. There are 71 witnesses that say shooting occurred in front of the TSBD.
Tina Towner has been remade. For background material showing the TSBD doorway where we should see the Altgens 6 crowd we have this:
Those white splotches in the doorway are Dallas police white hats. They used film taken after the motorcade left the area to construct the Towner film. And, probably from the Towner film the details of the p. limo. Can you see the X on Jackie? Can you see black paint on JFK. This frame is very similar to the frame showing where Kennedy was shot for the second time. It has a large "hit X" painted on it. Was Toni Glover right and JFK was wearing his black patch in the Towner film? Examine the film frame by frame and see.
John,
We agree that at least one (early) shot was fired at the motorcade around this point, and we agree that films were damaged or spliced to hide this fact. (I am not sold that JFK was hit at this moment. I don't believe he was.)
Still, the reason for the film alteration/damage was simple: any shot at this point in the motorcade was far more consistent with a shot from the east, not from the "sniper's window", which was almost directly overhead at that moment!
-
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:
If Weatherford was on top of the Dallas County Records Building, he (presumably) would never have admitted it if he was, in fact, a sniper.
However, if Weatherford was up there for security purposes, then he would have faced the motorcade from the northwest corner of the rooftop. Such a location meant that the eastern windows of the sixth floor of the Dal-Tex building was behind and to his right.
Anyone care to disprove this throat shot scientific theory from the South Knoll?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Ron,
Did you take a picture from behind that last pillar on the southern part of the overpass? You crouched down beside that pillar - it's that very view back up Elm Street that I'd like to see. If you did take a picture, will you post it?