Close-up of Duncan MacRae's Knoll shooter

[Bill Miller]

You are confused Bill.

Arnold never said he stood behind the wall, ever.

The only reason he was placed there by the producers of "TMWKK" was so that it would line up with the cartoon like figure above the wall in the Moorman5 blow-ups.

Great for a televisual story-line but not so good for truthseekers.

The above fact is well known now & it's a shame that you have to keep repeating these half-truths, you must realise that they mean nothing to people who have taken an interest in this alleged witness's story.

Alan,

I spoke to Gary Mack today to be sure about this and I can tell you that Gordon had told Gary 5 - 6 years before Turner's documentary was filmed that he (Gordon) stood between the wall and the fence. I believe more precisely that Gordon told Gary that he was between the fence and the wall ... the wall being in front of him. It was Gary who then showed Turner 5 to 6 years later where Gordon was standing. By that time Gary had done work on what has been called the 'Badge Man image', so Gary also knew from Moorman's photo where Gordon was standing. So I asked Gary if in 1982/83 when he spoke to Gordon Arnold and Gordon had told him the general spot on the knoll he was standing ... does that information conflict with what is seen in Moorman's photo? Gary Mack replied that he didn't feel that it conflicts at all.

No. That is why he is seen standing "in the shadow of a tree" in the original Golz article because that was the only place Golz figured Arnold could of been if he was telling the truth, in the shadows & undetectable in the photos.

Alan,

What factual basis do you claim to be able to make such a statement as the one above? Golz told me that the photo in the paper was not shot as a reenactment, but to show Arnold on the knoll. Even Jay Godwin, who took the photo for the newspaper has said the same thing as Golz concerning the photo not being taken to replicate anything. So I must ask what is your interest in posting what Golz thought or figured when you have not heard that nonsense come from Golz or Godwin? We've even been through Golz discussing Arnold behind the wall with Yarborough who then relays his story to Turner.

By the way, it was suggested to you years ago to contact Golz about this matter - I take it that you have not bothered to speak to Golz as of this date.

Then we have the witnesses who claimed the limo stopped.

How many actually used the word "stopped"? Ten? Fifteen? More?

Yet you don't believe it.

I think it ws Roy Truly who mentioned that he thought the President's car had stopped. Most other descriptions were in reference to the 'motorcade' stopping.

Bill

Edited June 27, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Duncan, people come from miles around just to hear me talk about making transparency overlays.

So what?..People come from miles around to listen to Posner. Is he correct too?

If there is any variance in my illustration, then the naked eye sure as hell won't see it.

Wrong..you used a false Arnold inserted in to Moorman which i exposed and which you have not denied.

And please stop confusing 'any shrinkage' with the vast amount needed to make your ridiculous cartoon seem even plausible.

It's not me who is confused. When you post an illustration showing the exact same physical features to compare, maybe you'll have a case to argue. As it stands, your comparisons are not valid.

It's bad enough that you invented the term 'washout' so to explain why the Dallas sky is seen between the top of the fence to the bottom of the tree foliage where you position the floating outline,

I din't invent it, it's there

but neither Bowers or Hoffman place a person at that location ... let alone assumably one standing on a car in the RR yard. Your term 'washout' came from you looking at a faded Moorman print.

Correct, I'm assuming my shooter was probably standing on a car bumper as Holland appears to indicate by his remark about the mud on the bumpers.

The fact Gary Mack has seen the original photo and the best prints made of the Moorman photo, and he has told you that the light area between the bottom of the foliage to the top of the fence is Dallas sky, seems to be totally ignored by you on top of the other evidence against your claim.

Lies..Gary Mack has NEVER told me any such thing.

The print you use is badly faded and the clarity for detail suffers terribly.

It's as good as any you have posted in this thread, if not better.

Your interpretation has failed on several levels and I believe that you know this and is why you'll not seek out someone with any expertise in the matter so not to have it recorded that they reached the same conclusion as I did.

As i've said before, you are the challenger behind in the opinion polls, to become a serious candidate with your analysis you need more votes.

Duncan

Duncan,

I was speed reading just now & thought I saw someone cite Ed Hoffman as a source for sniper placement along the picket fence.

That's a fudge. A sneak fudge to boot.

Ed's story re: sniper placement has been exploded as not credible. Even Gary Mack has abandoned Ed's story as not credible.

See this thread for refutation:

Ed Hoffman's Activities and Observations - http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10267

Duncan, keep on trucking or perhaps lorrying, as it were.

Miles

[Bill Miller]

Wrong..you used a false Arnold inserted in to Moorman which i exposed and which you have not denied.

I can correct your remark above by explaining what I did time and time again, but I cannot keep from from citing it incorrectly.

I din't invent it, it's there

Yes, its there - you drew the outline and it has no lower body, nor is it the right size to be a real persons head from that distance to the camera.

Lies..Gary Mack has NEVER told me any such thing.

I am only the messenger. My guess is that he has emailed you on this and you judt don't remember it.

The print you use is badly faded and the clarity for detail suffers terribly.

It's as good as any you have posted in this thread, if not better.

Isn't the issue over what the best copy print(s) show or are we limited by the lesser quality copies. That's like saying that you see a figure in a copy only after it has gotten all wet and smeared ... a figure that wasn't there until all this happened. So what would be your position ... The good copy showing no one there is gone, so we can now say there must be a figure there because its seen in the bad prints after you draw it in? The same could be said about the alleged "washing out" theory. Give me a break!!!

As i've said before, you are the challenger behind in the opinion polls, to become a serious candidate with your analysis you need more votes.[/b]Duncan

Yeh ... I have read your followers remarks ... I'd try and salvage that gene pool!

Edited June 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Well let's provide some evidence for you.

1. ALL doctors involved in the autopsy of President Kennedy agreed that there was NO EVIDENCE of any frontal entry wounds based on the following:

a. Kennedy's clothing revealed INWARD fibers on the back and OUTWARD fibers on the tie and shirt on the front.

b. The back wound revealed an abrasion collar that was consistent with an entrance wound and NOT consistent with any exit wound.

2. The Clark Comission agreed in its medical findings--NO evidence of rear exit wounds and no evidence of frontal entrance wounds.

3. The HSCA agreed. No evidence of any wounds entering the president from any location other than the right rear.

4. The head wound revealed inward beveling on the back and NO inward beveling on the front, which is 100% consistent with REAR entrance wounds and 100% inconsistent with exit wounds.

5. The bullet fragments were found IN FRONT of Kennedy's head on the front floor of the Limousine--again completely 100% INCONSISTENT with a shot from the right front.

6. NO fragments were found on the road to the left rear of Kennedy which is where one would expect to find the bullet fragments if a shooter was firing from the right front location

7. NO bullet fragments or damage was seen in the x-rays of Kennedy's brain which one WOULD expect to see if a shot had entered the right frontal lobe and exited the left rear of the head.

8. The Zapruder film does NOT reveal ANY exit wound to the left rear of the President's head.

9. The Nix film agrees with no evidence of left-side exit wound.

10. The Muchmore film also agrees.

11. The Moorman photograph also agrees.

There. Is that enough evidence.

Those points being made, your imagined gunman behind the stockade fence is now moot. There is NO evidence that anyone was firing from that location, therefore giving serious consideration to your boundless claim is unnecessary.

You didn't mention that despite the HSCA report saying that no one saw the large evulsed wound on the back of the President's head - Tannenbaum said that the actual sign off list of those who saw the wound showed just the opposite. So one must ask why would someone want to avoid that large avulsed wound so badly?? The Zapruder and Nix film shows the avuslion to the back of JFK's head ... Could it be that showing the evulsion existed would be detrimental to the bullet traveling from back to front? What caused the smell of gunpowder to get over by the fence and into the street? What caused the smoke to come through the trees at the precise moment shots were heard from that location? All I am asking for are logical explanations rather than fact-less propaganda.

Bill

Edited June 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Bill,

Thank you for your voluminous - as usual - post.

You seem to be working under some misconception about what I am

saying. My graphics do not refer to the image (Duncan's outline)

( I once again show Duncan's outline against

that of the men on the steps and.....etc. ) below which you posted

of Duncan's shooter. My graphics refer to the original Moorman image

also posted below. This fixation which you have as regards

Duncan's image is between you and Duncan.

Again my graphics refer only to the original Moorman image.

This statement: "We do not have to worry about concealed heads or anyone

breaking cover for Duncan outlined HIS alleged assassin. It is the size of that

outline (as seen on Moorman's 2D image) against peoples heads who

are much closer to the camera that has been the problem." has no relevance to

what I have shown.

Again my graphics refer only to the original Moorman image.

Again these words:

"The vast decrease in size of JFK's head in EBC's field of view is quite obvious.

The problem is and always has been is that Duncan's alleged shooter outline

doesn't show this decreased sizing on Mary's 2D photograph."

have no bearing on my graphics.

Now having pointed out some obvious flaws in the model that Miles and Duncan quickly embraced as "great" and "magnificent" .... your showing how perspective should work in the first example isn't all that bad for the basic principles are there. Your "perspective lines" in the first image are the closest to being accurate. The perspective lines looking back at the fence in the other three examples would make the shooters head as big as a section of fence and I don't think you want to take that position. So let us use the first example that shows a view from the fence.

In the first view it appears that the red 'perspective lines' leading back to the fence would show a head size at the fence of about the width of 5 or 6 wooden slats, while JFK's head on the same 2D image is smaller than one fence slat. This is how perspective works.

The above statement shows how you have totally misunderstood my images.

The so-called "perspective lines" which you refer to not once, not twice but three times

are NOT "perspective lines".

These "perspective lines" as you mistakenly call them are lines

indicating the possible trajectory of a bullet from various positions on the fence.

How anyone with your so-called expertise could even consider or

refer to these as "perspective lines" speaks volumes.

Finally, as regards the accuracy of the graphics.

The graphics do not purport or pretend to be totally accurate.

They are merely an impression and as an impression

they give a pretty good idea as regards how perspective works.

My graphics are not photographs. They simply allow one to view

the same event from different locations and again - as such - my graphics

are accurate.

Again,please note in my graphics below the red lines are not

"perspective lines". These red lines indicate possible

trajectories of bullets fired from those locations on the fence.

Finally - again - you ask: ".......so how do you believe that you helped Duncan's position?"

Before I answer that, let me say I am here to help Duncan's research not his "position".

In answer to your question: ".......so how do you believe that you helped Duncan's position?"

Well, for a start, I would seem to have exposed your stupidity in

thinking that my possible red trajectory lines

were "perspective lines."(!?!!?)

I'll settle for that.

EBC

Edited June 28, 2007 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Bill Miller]

Finally, as regards the accuracy of the graphics.

The graphics do not purport or pretend to be totally accurate.

They are merely an impression and as an impression

they give a pretty good idea as regards how perspective works.

My graphics are not photographs. They simply allow one to view

the same event from different locations and again - as such - my graphics

are accurate.

I know a little bit about 3D graphics from studying the work of Dale Myers and your Moorman view looked like something that Picasso had painted. The data you used in your model is so far off that any images stemming from that are merely fictitious and have nothing to do with reality. As I said before - you have an elevated perspective view on part of the picture and a level ground view in other parts of it, thus making it totally inaccurate. One of the things Myers had to admit was that any measurement even an inch or more off would effect a particular LOS within his model. Your Moorman picture is so far off that you see the base of the fence above the wall ... how can any views be accurate when the information that created that false image was not correct??? For instance - the view from the fence to the lamppole near the curb with the President's car passing below ... there was never a shot fired at JFK once the car had traveled that far west. To replicate the Moorman photo view looking back the other way would take a huge correction in angle and field of depth on your part. To say that your views are accurate is simply not so.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

I'd just like to point out that the outlined image which Bill has scaled beside the section which Bill has highlighted in red is incorrectly scaled and is misleading.

Duncan

Duncan, you have posted that opinion several times now without ever showing how you'd scale it any differently. Is there any chance that you'll actually show us how you'd scale the image or is just saying it over and over again going to be the extent of it? It isn't that hard to do you know. You have posted a large image of that location in one response and in another post you have drawn in the lines of the border of what you see as a head. All one has to do is match the surrounding reference points such as sun spots through the foliage to get the outline YOU drew to fit over the Moorman example without the outline.

Bill

[Bill Miller]

Well, for a start, I would seem to have exposed your stupidity in

thinking that my possible red trajectory lines

were "perspective lines."(!?!!?)

I'll settle for that.

EBC

This was the extent of information you posted with your illustrations ...

"Anyone in the car would see that anyone standing at the

fence would have the same size of head as those in the car

if the car occupants could view themselves from the same

position as that of the person standing at the fence.

(Impossible, of course!)

Anyone standing on the grass verge could see a correspondingly smaller head at the fence

since h/she (on the grass verge) would be further from the seen head (on the fence)."

This is the photo I referenced. Two lines not 4 to 6 fence slats apart going to a particular reference point. About the width of a normal sized head. Now who would have guessed them to be perspective lines and not trajectory lines (sigh~) - especially when there has been no evidence presented of there being two shots fired from that location, nor of two shooters positioned not a foot apart!

And so you know - Normally a 'line of sight' line is done by placing a single line on an image. The view from the fence is a 'single view', thus why would there be two lines of trajectory not more than a foot apart? You don't think that example is misleading as to the purpose of those lines??

Bill

Edited June 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

Well, for a start, I would seem to have exposed your stupidity in

thinking that my possible red trajectory lines

were "perspective lines."(!?!!?)

I'll settle for that.

EBC

I'd just like to point out that the outlined image which Bill has scaled beside the section which Bill has highlighted in red is incorrectly scaled and is misleading.

Duncan

Duncan,

For your exclusive edification, a short note on the fallacy of the Vichy perspective:

This is out of perspective as a possible weapon candidate for Duncan Man.

This is correct perspective for Midget Man:

This is correct perspective for F Man;

Conclusion? Join the Maquis.

[Bill Miller]

Well, for a start, I would seem to have exposed your stupidity in

thinking that my possible red trajectory lines

were "perspective lines."(!?!!?)

I'll settle for that.

EBC

I'd just like to point out that the outlined image which Bill has scaled beside the section which Bill has highlighted in red is incorrectly scaled and is misleading.

Duncan

Duncan,

For your exclusive edification, a short note on the fallacy of the Vichy perspective:

This is out of perspective as a possible weapon candidate for Duncan Man.

Conclusion? Join the Maquis.

Miles,

One cannot help but notice that a few of you sure waste a lot of forum space by posting silly junk images rather than to contribute anything of substance to the topic. Would you care to spend a little time and try and scale Duncan's outline man for the forum?

Bill

Edited June 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

[T. Folsom]

Well let's provide some evidence for you.

1. ALL doctors involved in the autopsy of President Kennedy agreed that there was NO EVIDENCE of any frontal entry wounds based on the following:

a. Kennedy's clothing revealed INWARD fibers on the back and OUTWARD fibers on the tie and shirt on the front.

b. The back wound revealed an abrasion collar that was consistent with an entrance wound and NOT consistent with any exit wound.

2. The Clark Comission agreed in its medical findings--NO evidence of rear exit wounds and no evidence of frontal entrance wounds.

3. The HSCA agreed. No evidence of any wounds entering the president from any location other than the right rear.

4. The head wound revealed inward beveling on the back and NO inward beveling on the front, which is 100% consistent with REAR entrance wounds and 100% inconsistent with exit wounds.

5. The bullet fragments were found IN FRONT of Kennedy's head on the front floor of the Limousine--again completely 100% INCONSISTENT with a shot from the right front.

6. NO fragments were found on the road to the left rear of Kennedy which is where one would expect to find the bullet fragments if a shooter was firing from the right front location

7. NO bullet fragments or damage was seen in the x-rays of Kennedy's brain which one WOULD expect to see if a shot had entered the right frontal lobe and exited the left rear of the head.

8. The Zapruder film does NOT reveal ANY exit wound to the left rear of the President's head.

9. The Nix film agrees with no evidence of left-side exit wound.

10. The Muchmore film also agrees.

11. The Moorman photograph also agrees.

There. Is that enough evidence.

Those points being made, your imagined gunman behind the stockade fence is now moot. There is NO evidence that anyone was firing from that location, therefore giving serious consideration to your boundless claim is unnecessary.

You didn't mention that despite the HSCA report saying that no one saw the large avulsed wound on the back of the President's head - Tannenbaum said that the actual sign off list of those who saw the wound showed just the opposite. So one must ask why would someone want to avoid that large avulsed wound so badly?? The Zapruder and Nix film shows the avuslion to the back of JFK's head ... Could it be that showing the avulsion existed would be detrimental to the bullet traveling from back to front? What caused the smell of gunpowder to get over by the fence and into the street? What caused the smoke to come through the trees at the precise moment shots were heard from that location? All I am asking for are logical explanations rather than factless propaganda.

Bill

1. Give me your source for the "sign off list". I will check it myself. If you don't provide the original source I will assume it is made up (as is commonly done among conspiracy lovers.) Please remember that ALL autopsy doctors were flown to the National Archives for the 1988 NOVA special on the Kennedy assassination and they were shown the original autopsy photos and they ALL agreed that the massive defect to the RIGHT-FRONT of the president's head was EXACTLY what they remembered from that night.

2. The Zapruder and Nix films show NO SUCH avulsion to the left rear of the president's head--that is utter nonsense. The price to admission to serious debate on the Kennedy assassination should be common sense--NOT nonsense.

3. Even assuming your unfounded claims of a frontal shot were true, please explain why no damage was seen to the President's brain on the left rear side. Even Cyril Wecht admits there was NO damage to the left rear of the president's brain and NO fragments are seen there in the x-rays.

4. Please explain how a shot from the front would result in bullet fragments being found on the FRONT floor of the limousine. You conveniently skipped that point in your response.

5. What is your source for the smell of gunpowder? I will read the original myself.

6. Remember that your source for the puff of smoke (S.M. Holland) mentioned NO SUCH smoke in his first couple of statements. And NO OTHER employees from the triple overpass bridge claimed to have seen smoke. But the claims of smoke are moot anyway, because there is no evidence that anyone was shooting from the front. Once we have eliminated any credible evidence of a frontal shot (which I have) then unanswered questions like smoke or gunpowder smells must, by default, have another explanation.

Therefore your claims of hidden gunmen in photographs are all moot. There is NO evidence of any frontal shot. Your claims are pointless and ungrounded in ANY facts.

Edited June 28, 2007 by T. Folsom

[Bill Miller]

1. Give me your source for the "sign off list". I will check it myself. If you don't provide the original source I will assume it is made up (as is commonly done among conspiracy lovers.) Please remember that ALL autopsy doctors were flown to the National Archives for the 1988 NOVA special on the Kennedy assassination and they were shown the original autopsy photos and they ALL agreed that the massive defect to the RIGHT-FRONT of the president's head was EXACTLY what they remembered from that night.

Tannenbaum was the source I gave. He said it in an interview in the MWKK series. Your tone is much like a LNr troller would use by automatically assuming that all CTs most commonly make things up. Kinda in reverse of you saying the evuslion was on the "left" side of JFK's head when in fact it was always reported to be on the "right" rear side of JFK's head.

2. The Zapruder and Nix films show NO SUCH avulsion to the left rear of the president's head--that is utter nonsense. The price to admission to serious debate on the Kennedy assassination should be common sense--NOT nonsense.

The evuslion was on the right rear side of the head - not the left. For one to adequately debate the evidence of the case - they should first learn it correctly.

3. Even assuming your unfounded claims of a frontal shot were true, please explain why no damage was seen to the President's brain on the left rear side. Even Cyril Wecht admits there was NO damage to the left rear of the president's brain and NO fragments are seen there in the x-rays.

Would that be the brain that 1/3 of it was said to be missing at Parkland only to show up at Bethesda as a full intact brain weighing of normal size???

4. Please explain how a shot from the front would result in bullet fragments being found on the FRONT floor of the limousine. You conveniently skipped that point in your response.

I ignored the question because it assumes that no shots fired from behind had missed their target. The large rounded dent in the chrome strip above the windshield could have caused fragments to bounce back and land in the front of the limo. It's all left to speculation.

5. What is your source for the smell of gunpowder? I will read the original myself.

Read through the witnesses statements to find the answer.

6. Remember that your source for the puff of smoke (S.M. Holland) mentioned NO SUCH smoke in his first couple of statements. And NO OTHER employees from the triple overpass bridge claimed to have seen smoke. But the claims of smoke are moot anyway, because there is no evidence that anyone was shooting from the front. Once we have eliminated any credible evidence of a frontal shot (which I have) then unanswered questions like smoke or gunpowder smells must, by default, have another explanation.

I believe that Mark Lane interviewed several employees of the RR who saw the smoke.

Mrs. CABELL. I did not know, because I did not see a hand or a head or a human form behind it. It was in just a fleeting second that I jerked my head up and I saw something in that window, and I turned around to say to Earle, "Earle, it is a shot", and before I got the words out, just as I got the words out, he said, "Oh, no; it must have been a "the second two shots rang out. After that, there is a certain amount of confusion in my mind. I was acutely aware of the odor of gunpowder. I was aware that the motorcade stopped dead still. There was no question about that.

Cheryl McKinnon mentioned seeing the smoke in her article. Gary Mack ran her article in his news letter.

Yet Earle V. Brown was a Dallas cop who was stationed on the railroad overpass that crossed the Stemmons Freeway. By his own estimation he was about 100 yards from the Triple Underpass. The following testimony can be found in WC volume 6, pp. 233-234:

Mr. BALL. Did you hear the shots?

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. How many?

Mr. BROWN. Three.

Mr. BALL. Where did they seem to come from?

Mr. BROWN. Well, they seemed high to me, actually; if you want, would you like me to tell you?

Mr. BALL Sure, tell it in your own words.

Mr. BROWN. Well, down in that river bottom there, there's a whole lot of pigeons this particular day, and they heard the shots before we did because I saw them flying up — must have been 50, 75 of them.

Mr. BALL. Where was the river bottom?

Mr. BROWN. You know, actually off to the — between us and the, this overpass you are talking about there's kind of a levee along there. It's really a grade of the railroad, is what it is; that's where they were and then I heard these shots and then I smelled this gun powder.

Mr. BALL. You did?

Mr. BROWN. It come on it would be maybe a couple minutes later so — at least it smelled like it to me.

Mr. BALL. What direction did the sound seem to come from?

Mr. BROWN. It came it seemed the direction of that building, that Texas . . .

Mr. BALL. School Book Depository?

Mr. BROWN. School Book Depository.

Gary Mack said to me today that about half on the underpass workers had mentioned seeing the smoke come through the trees. I can only recommend that you first learn the witnesses statement record before becoming a critic for one side or the other.

Bill Miller

Edited June 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Wade Rhodes]

Is there a way to convert the moorman pic into a gigapixel image?

Check out this link, it is amazing...

http://triton.tpd.tno.nl/gigazoom/delft2.htm

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Must have made the wrong mistake

Edited June 28, 2007 by J. Raymond Carroll

[J. Raymond Carroll]

ALL doctors involved in the autopsy of President Kennedy agreed that there was NO EVIDENCE of any frontal entry wounds based on the following:

Dr. Malcolm Perry examined the throat wound, up close and personal, and he told the world right away that it appeared to be an entrance wound.

None of the autopsy doctors, the Clark panel, HSCA etc EVER examined the throat wound.

The minimum price of admission to the JFK debate is an acknowledgement that there IS direct evidence, by a qualified professional, who was in a position to observe the throat wound very, very closely, that JFK was shot in the throat from the front. No qualified expert will ever be in a position to contradict Perry’s original statement until such time as the body itself is exhumed.

Kennedy's clothing revealed INWARD fibers on the back and OUTWARD fibers on the tie and shirt on the front.

This is about as weak an argument as I have ever heard. On another thread I asked if anyone had ever done an analysis of the chain of custody of JFK’s clothing from the time the nurses undressed him until the clothing was introduced into evidence. Since Mr (Dr.?) . Folsom wishes us to rely on the clothing as important evidence, perhaps he will be good enough to provide such a detailed accounting of the chain of custody.

The bullet fragments were found IN FRONT of Kennedy's head on the front floor of the Limousine--again completely 100% INCONSISTENT with a shot from the right front.

The bullet fragments were found in Washington DC, more than 1000 miles from the scene of the shooting, and only after the limo was illegally removed from the jurisdiction of the crime.

7. NO bullet fragments or damage was seen in the x-rays of Kennedy's brain which one WOULD expect to see if a shot had entered the right frontal lobe and exited the left rear of the head.

Bullet fragments are seen on the X-Rays. These fragments do NOT have little arrows attached indicating the direction from whence they came.

There is NO evidence that anyone was firing from that location, therefore giving serious consideration to your boundless claim is unnecessary.

Since you live in Southern California, you might want to run that one past your neighbor, Mr. David S. Lifton, author the bestselling book BEST EVIDENCE.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,924652,00.html

You might also ask Mr. Lifton if he agrees that Cyril Wecht is really is the “darling of the conspiracy theorists” or if Wecht is in fact a “sheep in wolf’s clothing”

Please explain how a shot from the front would result in bullet fragments being found on the FRONT floor of the limousine.

Now that is a good question. Back around 1966/7 the New York Review of books published a letter from Josiah Thompson which outlined an argument that the bullet fragments were planted. Warren Commission defenders tried to refute this argument with the opinions of dr. Vincent P. Guinn, but recent research by Randich, Grant, et al provides intriguing support for the theory that the fragments were planted in the limousine and that CE 399 was planted at Parkland hospital.