Close-up of Duncan MacRae's Knoll shooter

[Herb White]

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.

T,

Your first point actually does nothing to refute a possible shot. One only has to read what Craig Roberts, one of the foremost experts in the world on snipers, has to say about the assassination. His book Kill Zone lays out some intereting possibilities regarding the shooting. One of his main points is that he considers it likely that the kill shot was a frangible type ammunition that is designed to explode and basically disintegrate on impact, leaving small particles scattered throughout the target area, which we see on the x-rays of the brain. He aslo believes the shot was tangential as oppossed to a direct frontal shot, which would correlate to a position on the right knoll.

More evidence for this scenario was provided by the DEA informant who appeared in TMWKK telling of the involvement of Lucien Sarti, a Corsican muderer and drug criminal, in the assassination. He related that Sarti was known to use frangible bullets. In the recently released audio tape of E. Howard Hunt's revelations regarding his knowledge of the plot, Hunt confirms Lucien Sarti as one of the shooters.

Of course, if these two men related stories, over twenty years apart, that corraborated a frontal shot with frangible ammunition, then one would have to lend it a certain credence, or believe in a far fetched conspiracy between them. And we know how you feel about conspiracies don't we.

[Herb White]

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.

T,

Your first point actually does nothing to refute a possible frontal shot. One only has to read what Craig Roberts, one of the foremost experts in the world on snipers, has to say about the assassination. His book Kill Zone lays out some intereting possibilities regarding the shooting. One of his main points is that he considers it likely that the kill shot was a frangible type ammunition that is designed to explode and basically disintegrate on impact, leaving small particles scattered throughout the target area, which we see on the x-rays of the brain. He also believes the shot was tangential as oppossed to a direct frontal shot, which would correlate to a position on the right knoll.

More evidence for this scenario was provided by the DEA informant who appeared in TMWKK telling of the involvement of Lucien Sarti, a Corsican muderer and drug criminal, in the assassination. He related that Sarti was known to use frangible bullets. In the recently released audio tape of E. Howard Hunt's revelations regarding his knowledge of the plot, Hunt confirms Lucien Sarti as one of the shooters.

Of course, if these two men related stories, over twenty years apart, that corraborated a frontal shot with frangible ammunition, then one would have to lend it a certain credence, or believe in a far fetched conspiracy between them. And we know how you feel about conspiracies don't we.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Herb White

[T. Folsom]

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

[T. Folsom]

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

Tannenbaum was the source I gave. He said it in an interview in the MWKK series.

1. What was HIS source? Conspiracy nuts constantly use incestuous research which often never has an origin in truth or fact. When you locate the original source so I can read it myself then I will comment.

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

2. What is your source for the avulsion? It does NOT appear in ANY of the films. And besides, are you now implying that Kennedy was shot from the left front of the limousine and the bullet exited the right rear? Why don't ANY of the doctors agree with your theory? Why don't any of the photographs or x-rays agree with your theory? Why don't any of the films or photographs agree with your theory? Why? Because your theory is ridiculous. You are expecting me to know of evidence that doesn't exist in the real world.

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???

3. Please provide your source proving that the brain at Bethesda was "a full intact brain weighing of normal size." After I read your source I will respond.

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

4. Clearly you are cornered here and you apparently don't do well when cornered because your answer is ridiculous. Are you implying that a rifle bullet that could destroy a human head would strike a metal frame of a windshield and only DENT it? This is so laughable I cannot even compose a coherent reply. I don't blame you for avoiding the fragments (which matched Oswald's WC ammunition incidentally) in the front of the limousine--they ARE a sticky wicket for conspiracy critics to explain away.

What is your source for the smell of gunpowder? I will read the original myself.Read through the witnesses statements to find the answer.

5. Clearly you haven't read much history and certainly haven't WRITTEN ANY history to have this bass-ackwards method of proving a point. When a person makes a bizarre claim (you) it is up to THAT person to provide their own proof. Scholars don't write a book and then in the endnote section include the line "If you don't believe what I've said then YOU go out and do the research." This is clearly reflective of an untrained method of research you employ. If YOU make the claim...then YOU provide the proof.

I asked for your sources for seeing smoke from the triple bridge underpass. You dodged the issue with this response, "I believe that Mark Lane interviewed several employees of the RR who saw the smoke."

You are now referring to Mark Lane as your source for interviews? MARK LANE? No educated person in the assassination community would EVER refer to Mark Lane as a source for an interview. He has been exposed numerous times falsifying evidence. Incidentally, you didn't even provide ONE name of ONE person who claimed they saw smoke. Why? NO one did at the time. And S.M. Holland's later statement when he DID mention smoke is riddled with so many inconsistencies that it is clear he didn't know WHAT in the world he just witnessed.

6. You quoted Mrs. Earl Cabell as a strong witness that shots originated from the front, but her testimony supports no such thing. All she said was that she smelled gunsmoke. What would you expect witnesses to smell after three shots had been fired from a high powered rifle? Remember that the winds were swirling around Dealey Plaza that afternoon, so simply smelling smoke lends support to NO location of shots. Nice try though.

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

The first Ms. McKinnon mentioned smoke was in her 1983 San Diego newspaper article. She was never called as a witness before the WC nor the HSCA. She has never given a swonr statement and she managed to keep her mouth shut for twenty years. I don't believe her "story" one bit.

8. What in the world would you include Officer Brown's testimony for? He supports MY position that the shots originated "up high" and from the "Texas School Depository Building." I'm still laughing that you included HIs testimony to lend support for your ridiculous theory of a front gunman.

9. Oh Gary Mack told you huh? Please give me the names he told you about and I will check their testimony on my own. If you think I am so inexperienced in assassination research to take your word for it when Gary Mack "told you" you have me greatly underestimated. When it comes to historical evidence and proof, it appears you are in way over your head in this debate. You haven't proven one single thing.

[Michael Hogan]

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.

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

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.

Forum member Gil Jesus has archived more than one hundred clips on YouTube. Here are two of Lane's interviews that Bill was referring to:

Richard C Dodd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVHyFZuzGH4

James Leon Simmons

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLd3O-Tch6o...ted&search=

There is much more information found on Gil's YouTube videos. And Bill, that was a very effective post.

[David G. Healy]

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

Tannenbaum was the source I gave. He said it in an interview in the MWKK series.

1. What was HIS source? Conspiracy nuts constantly use incestuous research which often never has an origin in truth or fact. When you locate the original source so I can read it myself then I will comment.

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

2. What is your source for the avulsion? It does NOT appear in ANY of the films. And besides, are you now implying that Kennedy was shot from the left front of the limousine and the bullet exited the right rear? Why don't ANY of the doctors agree with your theory? Why don't any of the photographs or x-rays agree with your theory? Why don't any of the films or photographs agree with your theory? Why? Because your theory is ridiculous. You are expecting me to know of evidence that doesn't exist in the real world.

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???

3. Please provide your source proving that the brain at Bethesda was "a full intact brain weighing of normal size." After I read your source I will respond.

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

4. Clearly you are cornered here and you apparently don't do well when cornered because your answer is ridiculous. Are you implying that a rifle bullet that could destroy a human head would strike a metal frame of a windshield and only DENT it? This is so laughable I cannot even compose a coherent reply. I don't blame you for avoiding the fragments (which matched Oswald's WC ammunition incidentally) in the front of the limousine--they ARE a sticky wicket for conspiracy critics to explain away.

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

Read through the witnesses statements to find the answer.

5. Clearly you haven't read much history and certainly haven't WRITTEN ANY history to have this bass-ackwards method of proving a point. When a person makes a bizarre claim (you) it is up to THAT person to provide their own proof. Scholars don't write a book and then in the endnote section include the line "If you don't believe what I've said then YOU go out and do the research." This is clearly reflective of an untrained method of research you employ. If YOU make the claim...then YOU provide the proof.

I asked for your sources for seeing smoke from the triple bridge underpass. You dodged the issue with this response, "I believe that Mark Lane interviewed several employees of the RR who saw the smoke."

You are now referring to Mark Lane as your source for interviews? MARK LANE? No educated person in the assassination community would EVER refer to Mark Lane as a source for an interview. He has been exposed numerous times falsifying evidence. Incidentally, you didn't even provide ONE name of ONE person who claimed they saw smoke. Why? NO one did at the time. And S.M. Holland's later statement when he DID mention smoke is riddled with so many inconsistencies that it is clear he didn't know WHAT in the world he just witnessed.

6. You quoted Mrs. Earl Cabell as a strong witness that shots originated from the front, but her testimony supports no such thing. All she said was that she smelled gunsmoke. What would you expect witnesses to smell after three shots had been fired from a high powered rifle? Remember that the winds were swirling around Dealey Plaza that afternoon, so simply smelling smoke lends support to NO location of shots. Nice try though.

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

The first Ms. McKinnon mentioned smoke was in her 1983 San Diego newspaper article. She was never called as a witness before the WC nor the HSCA. She has never given a swonr statement and she managed to keep her mouth shut for twenty years. I don't believe her "story" one bit.

8. What in the world would you include Officer Brown's testimony for? He supports MY position that the shots originated "up high" and from the "Texas School Depository Building." I'm still laughing that you included HIs testimony to lend support for your ridiculous theory of a front gunman.

9. Oh Gary Mack told you huh? Please give me the names he told you about and I will check their testimony on my own. If you think I am so inexperienced in assassination research to take your word for it when Gary Mack "told you" you have me greatly underestimated. When it comes to historical evidence and proof, it appears you are in way over your head in this debate. You haven't proven one single thing.

who let this Lone Nut broken record back in here..... "incestuous research...", you're a crock Folsom (if that's you name) -- as always LMFAO!

[Bill Miller]

Tannenbaum was the source I gave. He said it in an interview in the MWKK series.

1. What was HIS source? Conspiracy nuts constantly use incestuous research which often never has an origin in truth or fact. When you locate the original source so I can read it myself then I will comment.

... And it seems that trolling critics seldom know the case well enough. Robert Tannenbaum was a HSCA investigator. The HSCA had the document.

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

2. What is your source for the avulsion? It does NOT appear in ANY of the films. And besides, are you now implying that Kennedy was shot from the left front of the limousineand the bullet exited the right rear? Why don't ANY of the doctors agree with your theory? Why don't any of the photographs or x-rays agree with your theory? Why don't any of the films or photographs agree with your theory? Why? Because your theory is ridiculous. You are expecting me to know of evidence that doesn't exist in the real world.

Rather me go over all the evidence ... take a moment to do some forum searches under "avulsion" or "evulsion" and read what has been written.

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???

3. Please provide your source proving that the brain at Bethesda was "a full intact brain weighing of normal size." After I read your source I will respond.

The weight of the brain is mentioned in the autopsy report. I will suggest looking in Lifton's book "Best Evidence" for the information as to what a normal brain should weigh.

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

4. Clearly you are cornered here and you apparently don't do well when cornered because your answer is ridiculous. Are you implying that a rifle bullet that could destroy a human head would strike a metal frame of a windshield and only DENT it? This is so laughable I cannot even compose a coherent reply. I don't blame you for avoiding the fragments (which matched Oswald's WC ammunition incidentally) in the front of the limousine--they ARE a sticky wicket for conspiracy critics to explain away.

Are you aware that under that chrome strip is a solid metal frame? Now don't you feel silly having not even checked the basics before voicing criticism for one side or the other. (sigh~)

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

Read through the witnesses statements to find the answer.

5. Clearly you haven't read much history and certainly haven't WRITTEN ANY history to have this bass-ackwards method of proving a point. When a person makes a bizarre claim (you) it is up to THAT person to provide their own proof. Scholars don't write a book and then in the endnote section include the line "If you don't believe what I've said then YOU go out and do the research." This is clearly reflective of an untrained method of research you employ. If YOU make the claim...then YOU provide the proof.

I have cited several witnesses and there are more. On the other hand you have not cited anything but your own opinion which seems to be lacking in facts.

I asked for your sources for seeing smoke from the triple bridge underpass. You dodged the issue with this response, "I believe that Mark Lane interviewed several employees of the RR who saw the smoke."

You are now referring to Mark Lane as your source for interviews? MARK LANE? No educated person in the assassination community would EVER refer to Mark Lane as a source for an interview. He has been exposed numerous times falsifying evidence. Incidentally, you didn't even provide ONE name of ONE person who claimed they saw smoke. Why? NO one did at the time. And S.M. Holland's later statement when he DID mention smoke is riddled with so many inconsistencies that it is clear he didn't know WHAT in the world he just witnessed.

You are being ridiculous. Lane isn't the source - he filmed the actual witnesses and it is their statements that I referred to. By the way, email Gary Mack and ask him to email you the name of the press bus photographer who also mentioned seeing smoke as the press bus passed the scene of the shooting. Gary, nor I could remember the guys name at the moment, but he does exist and I am sure that Gary will eventually remember the name.

6. You quoted Mrs. Earl Cabell as a strong witness that shots originated from the front, but her testimony supports no such thing. All she said was that she smelled gunsmoke. What would you expect witnesses to smell after three shots had been fired from a high powered rifle? Remember that the winds were swirling around Dealey Plaza that afternoon, so simply smelling smoke lends support to NO location of shots. Nice try though.

Actually, I was referring to her statement in regards to smelling gunpowder. And about this "swirling" crap ... look at the Muchmore film and tell me which direction that Hill and Moorman's coats are blowing. The weather service had the wind coming out of the west/northwest. At the time that the shooting was happening - the Cabell car was already under the window - six floors below - and heading into the wind as proven by Hill and Moorman's coats. In fact, no smoke was ever reported seen coming from the 6th floor window which was six stories above the street.

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

The first Ms. McKinnon mentioned smoke was in her 1983 San Diego newspaper article. She was never called as a witness before the WC nor the HSCA. She has never given a swonr statement and she managed to keep her mouth shut for twenty years. I don't believe her "story" one bit.

Do you know for sure that McKinnon had not told her story to anyone before 1983. I ask because there is a difference in not telling anyone the story and not making the story public.

8. What in the world would you include Officer Brown's testimony for? He supports MY position that the shots originated "up high" and from the "Texas School Depository Building." I'm still laughing that you included HIs testimony to lend support for your ridiculous theory of a front gunman.

Maybe Brown didn't take into consideration the direction the wind was traveling (see Muchmore film) and he may very have heard shots from up the street ... the last two shots reported by Kellerman came over the top of one another, thus could have been heard as one single shot by some. The point is that regardless of what shots Brown heard ... he could not have smelled gunpowder coming from the 6th floor with the wind blowing down Elm Street towards Houston.

9. Oh Gary Mack told you huh? Please give me the names he told you about and I will check their testimony on my own. If you think I am so inexperienced in assassination research to take your word for it when Gary Mack "told you" you have me greatly underestimated. When it comes to historical evidence and proof, it appears you are in way over your head in this debate. You haven't proven one single thing.

I think I have proven one thing so far ... I think I have proven that you haven't done a lot of research on your own long enough to know the case in a way that makes you capable of logically debating it. replies like "Who said that? What is the source? I want to read it myself!' are all signs that this stuff is new to you. Here is Gary's email, so feel free to ask him for the names of the RR workers who mentioned seeing the smoke. I think Lane filmed three or four of them in "Rush to Judgment" ... Holland, Dodd, Carr, and maybe Simmons come to mind.

Bill

Edited June 28, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

I think Lane filmed three or four of them in "Rush to Judgment".

Bill

Yes, he filmed four of them. Here's the link to the Sam Holland inteview where he mentions the smoke and states emphatically that the shooter was 20 to 30 feet from the corner of the fence.

Duncan

Sam Holland Interview

Thanks for the link, Duncan. And as much as I can appreciate peoples guesses when it comes to distance ... would not the footage of Holland taking Lane to the spot be the most accurate than a wild guess at the distance from the corner it was? I would think so.

Bill

[Michael Hogan]

You are now referring to Mark Lane as your source for interviews? MARK LANE? No educated person in the assassination community would EVER refer to Mark Lane as a source for an interview. He has been exposed numerous times falsifying evidence. Incidentally, you didn't even provide ONE name of ONE person who claimed they saw smoke. Why? NO one did at the time. And S.M. Holland's later statement when he DID mention smoke is riddled with so many inconsistencies that it is clear he didn't know WHAT in the world he just witnessed.

Mark Lane's interviews were filmed. That's more than can be said for the rest of the eyewitness accounts and testimony that were given to government agencies. This writer claims that Lane has been exposed numerous times falsifying evidence and didn't provide one citation of same. In the very next sentence he criticizes Bill Miller for not naming names. Bill Miller directed him exactly to the pertinent accounts. People without a grasp of the facts expect others to do their research for them, it always seems.

The paragraph at the top of this post in and of itself is proof that debating with Mr. Folsom is largely going to be a meaningless exercise.

[T. Folsom]

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.

My responses:

"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"

1. You include only a portion of Dr. Perry's statement--the portion that supports your conspiracy theory. Dr. perry ACTUALLY clarified his initial impression of an entry wound by pointing out that it was a small wound that is more commonly associated with wounds of entrance, but he went on to say that it could have been EITHER an entrance wound OR an exit wound. Assuming that YOU are correct in your frontal entrance wound scenerio, where exactly do you think the gunman was located that fired this frontal entry wound? According to the wound on Kennedy's back and the position Kennedy was sitting in at the time that would mean that your frontal gunman would have to be located on Elm street, lying on his stomach in front of the limousine. Is THAT your contention? Clearly your frontal theory is without serious merit. The abrasion collar around the BACK wound was EXACTLY the type associated with an entrance wound. NOT ONE doctor in Dallas testified to seeing any similar abrasion collar around the throat wound. Why? because it was a wound of exit and NOT a wound of entrance. Also, the clothing is an EXCELLENT piece of solid evidence as to the direction of the wounds since the clothing MATCHES exactly the curved-in wound located on the president's back. So on MY SIDE are:

a. The bullet lined up perfectly to strike COnnally exactly where it did after it hit Kennedy, we have THAT bullet.

b. Kennedy's clothing showed forensic evidence of ONE wound entering the back and ONE wound exiting the throat.

c. The skin around the back wound was pushed INWARD--only possible with a back entrance wound.

d. The wound to the back had an abrasion collar that ALL doctors agreed was symptomatic of an entrance wound.

ON your side we have the following pieces of supporting evidence:

a.

Incidentally, where did your front entrance bullet go?

ANd please point out where your "gunman" was located.

Good luck, pal.

"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."

So what exactly are you implying? That someone (who) planted the bullets? How would they know that bullets wouldn't be found in Kennedy's body that would account for all the damage to him? Why plant bullets when simply destroying them would take care of any questions? How did they get the bullets to match those fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano? WHo stole Oswald's weapon, and when did they steal it?

Your answer is so ridiculous it leaves more questions unanswered than it answers. From ALL of your responses you are clearly a conspiracy nut beyond the pale of rational thought. You suspect that the clothes were altered, the bullets were planted, an invisible laid on Elm street and shot Kennedy. Geez...is there ANY rational position you adhere to?

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

Clearly you are in way over your head in talking about medical evidence if THIS is your response to the x-ray issue. Of course ANY doctor can determined the direction of a gunshot based on the scatter of mettalic debris left in its destructive path. ALL respected medical personal that have examined the x-rays are in agreement that there was NO damage to the left rear of the president's brain, the number of metallic fragments found there are consistent with residual fragments that would be found to the side of a point of impact, but the vast majority of the fragments were located to the right front and left FRONT of the presiden't brain.

"Josiah Thompson which outlined an argument that the bullet fragments were planted. "

WOW What a surprise...planted evidence. Who planted it, when, where, and how did they get ammunition fired from Oswald's rifle when there is NOT ONE SPECK of evidence that Oswald ever had his rifle stolen. None.

"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."

I do not consider David LIfton a serious scholar in any way. His theories are so innane and without serious merit that I would not ask him the time of day without checking another source. What do YOU think LIfton would tell me incidentally?

[T. Folsom]

Since you avoided EVERY single time I asked for evidence I have really nothing to respond to on this post. Your avoidance dance may fool some researchers, it doesn't fool me. When you provide some substance I will respond.

But I WILL pose some questions about the assassination in hopes you can provide some answers. It is difficult to pin down exactly what you think happened in the assassination since, like most conspiracy nuts, you don't really have many answers just a lot of questions. But possible these questions will clear a few things up for me:

1. Was Oswald involded in ANY way during the assassination?

2. Where was the shot fired from that struck Kennedy in the upper back?

3. Where was the shot fired from that caused Kennedy's throat wound?

4. Where was the shot fired from that struck Connally in the back?

5. Where was the shot fired from that struck Connally in the wrist?

6. Where was the shot fired from that struck Connally in the left thigh?

7. Where was the shot fired from that struck Kennedy in the head?

8. Where did the shot originate that dented the chrome frame of the limousine?

9. How many shots were fired that day in Dealey Plaza?

10. Why don't the Dallas doctors recollections of the wounds match the Bethesda autopsy findings?

11. Where was Oswald at the time of the assassination?

We'll just start with these eleven and then we will see how the REAL evidence stacks up against your scenerio.

Having said this you will do one of two things:

1. You will ignore most of my questions claiming they are silly and pointless (since you know the evidence won't support your version of the events)

or

2. You will detail an elaborate scenerio of events that I will quickly dismantle with the real evidence in this investigation.

Good luck.

[Michael Hogan]

His theories are so innane (sic) and without serious merit that I would not ask him the time of day without checking another source. What do YOU think LIfton would tell me incidentally?

Probably depends on when you asked him.

[T. Folsom]

I think Lane filmed three or four of them in "Rush to Judgment".

Bill

Yes, he filmed four of them. Here's the link to the Sam Holland inteview where he mentions the smoke and states emphatically that the shooter was 20 to 30 feet from the corner of the fence.

Duncan

Sam Holland Interview

Apparently you attribute the same level of reliability to an interview that you do to sworn testimony. I do NOT. I will use Skinny Holland's testimony before the WC LONG before I will use a private interview with a researcher. If YOU accept them on equal ground than clearly you and I will not agree on much.

[Bill Miller]

"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."

I do not consider David LIfton a serious scholar in any way. His theories are so innane and without serious merit that I would not ask him the time of day without checking another source. What do YOU think LIfton would tell me incidentally?

I cannot see what Lifton's opinions on the assassination have to do with his capability in being able to look up what the average weight of a human brain is. It's like Garrison used to to ask why is it automatically assumed that a street walker can't have good eye sight. If you dispute Lifton's findings on what an average brain weighs, then please post your rebuttal, if you agree with Lifton's weight findings, then my original question still stands.

Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

Apparently you attribute the same level of reliability to an interview that you do to sworn testimony. I do NOT. I will use Skinny Holland's testimony before the WC LONG before I will use a private interview with a researcher. If YOU accept them on equal ground than clearly you and I will not agree on much.

What does one do when a witness was never called to give testimony before the WC ... does that mean they were never there at the assassination? The point is - if certain questions are not asked, then they are not answered. It also appears that Holland had said something to Lane about not all of his remarks making it into the WCR.

Bill

Edited June 28, 2007 by Bill Miller