Who were the shooters?

[Ashton Gray]

NOTE: I spent hours attempting to respond to this post from Cliff Varnell last night, and the quoting function becomes utterly broken after the first four quotes, which then disables all the quotes in the message. I reported this in the appropriate forum, and my answer was "Use the Reply button," which I always do anyway and have never had anything even resembling such trouble before. So I now have to resort to color codes to be able to respond at all. Sorry, but I proved to my own satisfaction by lengthy tests last night that it's being caused by something in the forum software, and have reported it, and that's all I can do. —Ashton

This begins with Cliff Varnell quoting me from an earlier message:

ASHTON GRAY: I find an endless source of entertainment in the way various threads seem to bring themselves together, because I've just now suffered through Cliff Varnell's most recent torturous twisting of Bowers's testimony about "two men" into something utterly unrecognizable in order to support an unsupportable position, consistently ignoring the most crucial facts in Bowers's actual statements.

CLIFF VARNELL: This is odd.

I cited Bowers' testimony, but I didn't make any reference to the two men, tortured or otherwise.

WelL, Cliff, here's how it went on my monitor, and your mileage may vary: just about the entire content of what you posted from Bowers's testimony was [LEWIS BLACK] Blblblblblblblbl about the TWO MEN! So pardon me, pardon me, for attaching too much importance to it. [/LEWIS BLACK]

CLIFF VARNELL: Here are the observations I posted as to the Bowers' testimony.

1. "Here's the guy with the best view of the scene at the back of the fence during the shooting sequence..."

Thank you. We are as one. I made this exact point many messages ago, viz.:

CLIFF VARNELL: 2. "Catch that bit about the dark dressed man not being distinguishable from the trees?"

Yes, I "caught it." I think I might qualify for sixth grade reading comprehension skills and I don't need a quiz. I just think it's a rather thin and flimsy shadow for you to be grasping onto as though you'd grabbed a bare 220-volt line.

At the point of Bowers's testimony where he makes this single comment that you have such an iron-claw grip on, Bowers is being questioned specifically about an incident "at the time of the shooting," when "there seemed to be some commotion." (Now there's a surprise.) It was then—at the point of the "commotion," when the motorcycle cop came "nearly all of the way to the top of the incline"—that Bowers wasn't certain of the location of one of the two men he had alluded to. I don't give a damn that Bowers decided this was attributible to the "darker dressed man" being "too hard to distinguish from the trees." Did you ever stop to ask yourself how he possibly could know that was the reason he didn't see the man temporarily? I wouldn't advise dwelling on that question for too long.

And Bowers definitively said that the two men were there before and after the shooting.

CLIFF VARNELL: 3. "And the two cops watching east/west on the triple underpass?"

Yes. Agreed. Two cops were at the overpass before and after the shooting. What is your point?

CLIFF VARNELL: 4. "The back of the fence offered natural cover."

No, Cliff. No. The "back of the fence" offered NO "cover" whatsoever from the view of Bowers. For the love of Aunt Marcy, Bowers never even suggested, even in his most uncertain moments, that the fence had any bearing on "dark clothing," which seems to be a point you are determined to make. There are no trees at the "back of the fence." It's just a bare, exposed fence. There are crepe myrtles (thank you, Jack White, for more excellent research) along the outside of the fence—which I've now added to the model, thanks to Jack's input.

To show you what kind of guy I am I've now put a cop into the model at about the position I think "Badge Man" and friend are purported to have been, and I've even turned on shadows for 22 November at 12:29 p.m., and I want you to see something that at least approximates some semblance of reality, instead of all this talk-talk-talk about "how long is a string, how dark is dark." Here's the cop in a medium shot:

And here's the same boy from Bowers's vantage point in the tower:

Yes, it's more difficult to see him in shadows than in full sunlight. But the moment he moves he's going to be silhouetted in motion against the negative space in between the fence and the myrtles, and against any spaces in the fence. Not only that, but he's surrounded by full sunlight. When and how did he get there unseen by Bowers? Where is he going to go unseen by Bowers? How is he even going to move without becoming a focus of attention to Bowers—or to anybody who even might be stationed in that tower?

CLIFF VARNELL: Now that, Ashton, is the sum total of comments I made about Lee Bowers.

And the above, Cliff, is the sum total of my answer.

CLIFF VARNELL: I made one statement of fact -- that Bowers had the best view of the back of the fence.

Then let's go have a drink. I'll buy.

CLIFF VARNELL: I then asked you if you caught the key points in the testimony -- two questions, neither of which had to do with the two men.

Then I formed a conclusion -- the back of the fence offered natural cover.

Then I've changed my mind: you buy.

CLIFF VARNELL: Where in all of that do you get some "tortured twisting of Bowers testimony"? Ashton?

Asked and answered, counselor.

CLIFF VARNELL: Ashton Gray continues:

I think that alone gets the most under the most people's skin.

CLIFF VARNELL: You've been hanging out with Pat Speer too much, Ashton.

Ouch. Hittin' below the belt, Cliff. Now you're definitely buying. (And you know Speer never writes that well.) Do go on, though...

CLIFF VARNELL: All I pointed out was the reasonable speculation that two gunmen dressed as cops shot JFK from the knoll.

Okay. I don't consider it at all reasonable.

Where did they come from? How did they get there? Were they carrying rifles? Where did they go? And what are you going to do about "Hard Hat Man"? He wasn't in police uniform—according the popular Legend of Badge Man and Hard Hat Man. How can you posit that three men can get in and out of these exposed spaces in broad daylight, shoot the President of the United States two or three times, and walk away carrying rifles, when the positions are absolutely surrounded by potential witnesses in every direction, as I've demonstrated repeatedly. Yet you blow this off like it's nothing.

Your answer is that they would say they were "returning fire" if they were seen? Then they would have to answer "returning fire where, and at whom." Never mind bullet and gun forensics to deal with.

You seem to be insisting that I accept without question a scenario that I not only find less than reasonable, but that I find to be downright ludicrous. I simply cannot conceive of any professional, accomplished sniper ever even listening to such a plan, much less agreeing to be part of it. That location near the corner of the fence and the retaining wall of the north pergola has got to be among the worst potential "sniper's lairs" in all of Dealey Plaza as far as I'm concerned.

CLIFF VARNELL: I never claimed that the two cops Bowers saw were the same guys, but that fact isn't going to stop you when you're in full strawman mode, is it?

Au contraire: nothing stops me in my tracks faster. I mistook your meaning, and I apologize.

But you still need to answer the question, then, of what two cops (or men dressed as cops) got in and out of there without Bowers seeing them—just as he saw the two cops and the other men in the vicinity of the overpass. And then there's Hard Hat man you have to answer for. And none of it has the least scrap of supporting testimony or evidence. It's thin air and nothing but.

But you seem to expect me to agree with it.

CLIFF VARNELL: I merely pointed out the police presence in the vicinity of the knoll, and that shooters dressed as cops could easily blend in.

Actually, you've pointed to a police presence in the vicinity of the overpass. "The knoll" has become such a generality in the public mind that it's a meaningless expression for location. "The knoll" stretches from Houston Street to the overpass. Part of why I've created this model is to get to specific locations and look.

CLIFF VARNELL: Sorry if you pet theory doesn't match the facts of the case, Ashton--

Straw theories are no more substantial than straw men. You've been hanging out with Pat Speer too long (see my sig). I have not propounded any theory at all about anything except a possible other location for a shooter of the head shot: the County Courts/County Records complex.

I'm not putting forth The Ashton Gray Unifying Theory of Dallas 1963: all I'm doing is trying to provide people with additional data and tools so they, by their own lights, can better test existing theories that have been floated into the research community and have generated quite a lot of discussion and speculation.

Having subjected the Badge Man and Black Dog Man theories to these same tests that I'm sharing in this forum, I personally reject them out of hand. I don't require you to.

CLIFF VARNELL: you still haven't explained how the throat wound got there if it wasn't caused by a strike from the right front.

So far I'm not convinced that there was a throat wound, so I feel no requirement to "explain" it at all. Feel free to convince me. (Do I see another "Diem Cables" thread beginning to form through the fog in the old crystal ball?)

CLIFF VARNELL: Pour a double...

You buyin'?

Ashton

Edited December 3, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Dawn Meredith]

Interesting conversation gents.....and the cop does seem less visible when in the shadows....and I think your simulation is great Ashton, but remember that the eye looking toward the fence had lots of cars and other things to deal with too. Anyone there might not have known there was someone in the tower who might see them, or they might have and taken some simple actions to camoflage their movements...or divert attention.

Great thread guys. Much food for thought here. Wonderful graphics, Ashton. Too bad History Channel sees fit to run Dale Meyer's piece of crap when someone like you, or Richard Bartholomew could do an accurate portrayal of what may have occurred. But then they would have to resort to the truth. They ceased any semblence of that that in '03.

"All I want is some truth; just gimmee some truth"

-John Lennon

Dawn

[Ashton Gray]

Interesting conversation gents.....and the cop does seem less visible when in the shadows....and I think your simulation is great Ashton, but remember that the eye looking toward the fence had lots of cars and other things to deal with too. Anyone there might not have known there was someone in the tower who might see them, or they might have and taken some simple actions to camoflage their movements...or divert attention.

Nag, nag, nag. Alllllllll right! Sheesh! Just for you, Peter.

Since there's no record I know of showing exactly what vehicles were where at the relevant time (and you didn't supply any reference), I've used some arial shots from as close to the time of the assassination as I can determine, and put in just some of the vehicles (all copies of the same one, really) that I feel would be most applicable (if applicable at all) to your point. I also have textured the parking lot area to more closely approximate the dirt/mud lot it was, in place of the darker asphalt I had there before.

So here it is, best that I can do to accommodate you for now. I've left the friendly neighborhood cop standing by the fence about where "Badge Man" supposedly was, and this is a somewhat wider-angle shot than before, I think, but it'll do. The first image is using the "generic" ambient light of the modeler without sunlight/shadows, then with sunlight/shadows set for 22 November at 12:29 p.m.:

Nobody ever even seems to consider that the automobiles in the parking lot would be every bit as much as a deterent to any would-be assassin as they might be some kind of "concealment," because there is absolutely no guarantee at all that someone with a car parked there might not decide to drive their car somewhere during lunch. (Never mind a watch tower overlooking the entire lot that's probably manned 24/7 for track switching.) The whole thing is simply preposterous.

So I know not what course others may take, but as for me, I am done chasing down bottomless rabbit holes after "Badge Man" and "Black Dog Man." Ya'll go on without me. Don't forget to take a lunch.

Ashton

Edited December 2, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Michael G. Smith]

Interesting conversation gents.....and the cop does seem less visible when in the shadows....and I think your simulation is great Ashton, but remember that the eye looking toward the fence had lots of cars and other things to deal with too. Anyone there might not have known there was someone in the tower who might see them, or they might have and taken some simple actions to camoflage their movements...or divert attention.

Nag, nag, nag. Alllllllll right! Sheesh! Just for you, Peter.

Since there's no record I know of showing exactly what vehicles were where at the relevant time (and you didn't supply any reference), I've used some arial shots from as close to the time of the assassination as I can determine, and put in just some of the vehicles (all copies of the same one, really) that I feel would be most applicable (if applicable at all) to your point. I also have textured the parking lot area to more closely approximate the dirt/mud lot it was, in place of the darker asphalt I had there before.

So here it is, best that I can do to accommodate you for now. I've left the friendly neighborhood cop standing by the fence about where "Badge Man" supposedly was, and this is a somewhat wider-angle shot than before, I think, but it'll do. The first image is using the "generic" ambient light of the modeler without sunlight/shadows, then with sunlight/shadows set for 22 November at 12:29 p.m.:

Nobody ever even seems to consider that the automobiles in the parking lot would be every bit as much as a deterent to any would-be assassin as they might be some kind of "concealment," because there is absolutely no guarantee at all that someone with a car parked there might not decide to drive their car somewhere during lunch. (Never mind a watch tower overlooking the entire lot that's probably manned 24/7 for track switching.) The whole thing is simply preposterous.

So I know not what course others may take, but as for me, I am done chasing down bottomless rabbit holes after "Badge Man" and "Black Dog Man." Ya'll go on without me. Don't forget to take a lunch.

Ashton

Great thread.........continues! A couple of things. Discussing about who was behind the fence, and where. I have always thought, but i have never heard it mentioned was, that if someone had "backed" a car up to the fence and opened the trunk, some one could have [note i said "could have"] shot from an opened trunk. They would have had "cover" from Bowers direction, elevated position to shot over the fence, and when they were done, they could pull the trunk lid down, and they were hidden. From what i recall, no one ever checked the trunks of any cars that day. Maybe they did, but i dont recall anyone mentioning it. Its just a thought FWIW. Also, keeping up on this thread, i havent heard anybody mention anything about Ed Hoffmans testimony about what he saw. You can take what he stated FWIW, but he is worth mentioning. You can read about him in detail in "Crossfire" from page 81 to 85. He went into some detail in his testimony that alot of people would not have known about, so it may seem credible. Just thought i would add my 2 cents worth!

thanks-smitty

[Bernice Moore]

Trouble posting, double.....the F seems very slow.??

one with the photos one without.....??

Put them together in your minds eye....

See below.......?

Edited December 4, 2006 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

Interesting conversation gents.....and the cop does seem less visible when in the shadows....and I think your simulation is great Ashton, but remember that the eye looking toward the fence had lots of cars and other things to deal with too. Anyone there might not have known there was someone in the tower who might see them, or they might have and taken some simple actions to camoflage their movements...or divert attention.

**************

Ashton:

Peter has some good points here...and I think you may be forgetting the shade on the Tower side of

the fence at that time of the day.....below you will find one taken from the Tower, a few years later,

and how relative the shadows would have been..

Also in Mark Lane's video, he interviews Sam Holland, and they proceed to the area where he and his fellow RR employees saw the

smoke drift out from , in 1967...at that time of the afternoon, .........and those little trees were not so small..the shade was quite dense, which can be seen as they stand there...

Also a photo of the parking lot take after, you will be able to see the density somewhat....

I haven't a clue after all this if you ever received a photo, of the Courts building....showing the view

right on, nor the size of the trees in that area or such, one below was taken in 1964..

For whomever's interest...

Good thread, carry on as they say......

[Ashton Gray]

Ashton:

Peter has some good points here...and I think you may be forgetting the shade on the Tower side of

the fence at that time of the day.....below you will find one taken from the Tower, a few years later,

and how relative the shadows would have been..

Thanks, as always and invariably, for the great photos, Bernice. You are a godsend.

I don't discount anything you've said about the possible relative shade behind the fence. I've attempted, probably without much success at all, to approximate with my wannabe "crepe myrtles" outside the fence what I see in the Stoughton photo taken right after the murder. (I've attached a crop of it, but don't know where in the message it will appear. I guess at the bottom.)

Unfortunately, given the processing power I have available right now, I simply cannot populate the model with 3D trees and shrubs to arrive at a closer approximation of the actual light/shade conditions that day; 3D foliage is pretty much the most deadly processing drain because of the sheer number of points and faces needed to create the branches and leaves.

As a result I'm relegated to using 2D images faked to stand in for trees and shrubs and always face the "camera". They do not, and never will, throw realistic shadows.

And having done all that caveating, I still have to say that to me, at this point, it would not matter one whit how much more or less shading there was back there because of the ridiculously exposed ingress and egress routes and the completely unpredictable and uncontrollable potential for witnesses.

I still feel—for myself only, having factored in every bit of information I so far have been able to gather—that these "Black Dog Man" and "Badge Man" positions and scenarios are absurd locations for anyone methodically planning to murder the President of the United States just after high noon and get away with it. And whoever did it got away with it.

Someday someone may present something that would change my current evaluation of it. I tend to doubt it.

Meanwhile, let me turn my attention to the photo of the County Records building you posted that you say is from 1964 and express my astonishment at the size of the middle tree in the north peristyle as it is shown in that photo. It simply doesn't reconcile with the other photos I've seen, which I've already included in this thread. I don't know quite what to do with this contradictory information. When I can I'm going to put in a second tree there that approximates what you've shown, and see what it does to views from various windows in the County Courts/County Records complex.

Also in Mark Lane's video, he interviews Sam Holland, and they proceed to the area where he and his fellow RR employees saw the smoke drift out from , in 1967...at that time of the afternoon, .........and those little trees were not so small..the shade was quite dense, which can be seen as they stand there...

I'd really love to get as accurate a location for the smoke as I can. If you or anyone has anything that could guide me, I would be grateful.

Thank you again for all your gracious help.

Ashton

Edited December 3, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Mark Stapleton]

FWIW, I think I'm inclined to stay with the fence location--for the moment.

There's a good chance both this and the County Records Building were shooting locations.

It's true that the fence is a more exposed location for the shooters than a secured section of the CRB but it's more probable that the plotters decided to trade this off for a sure bet on the kill shot, IMO. Craig Roberts' statements posted by Myra are persuasive and the photographic evidence cited (esp. the figures revealed in Betzner #3) and the throat wound and smoke lend it additional credibility, IMO.

The problems raised by a possible sighting by a bystander or switchtower guard would be more manageable than the problems raised by an unsuccessful execution carried out from a more distant location (IMO again). Witnesses can be leaned on and even killed (Bowers?) but a failed hit probably means no more opportunities--not to mention a lot of questions being asked and enquiries being commissioned by a shaken but still breathing President. The conspirators' confusion team were thick on the ground to help lessen the risks involved in placing the shooters as close to the target as possible. In saying this, I'm making the assumption that an eye-level fence shot has more chance of success than a rear shot from a building, of course.

Kudos to Ashton, Cliff, Bernice and all contributors for an enlightening and entertaining discussion. I hope it doesn't end here.

[Ashton Gray]

FWIW, I think I'm inclined to stay with the fence location--for the moment.

I certainly wouldn't want to lure anyone from it, and I respect anyone's independent assessment and analysis of supportable fact.

There's a good chance both this and the County Records Building were shooting locations.

I've yet to explore the County Records building, per se, but I've just completed a rather involved exercise that took some time of setting up views from every window in the County Courts building. Once I can export jpegs of the view from each window, I think I'm going to post it in a separate thread.

It's true that the fence is a more exposed location for the shooters than a secured section of the CRB but it's more probable that the plotters decided to trade this off for a sure bet on the kill shot, IMO.

Could be. But I sure hope that "sure bet on the kill shot" wasn't supposed to come from the "Badge Man" location. Either that, or I hope that my model has some pretty significant elevation problems that I can get corrected. Because here's the "Badge Man" view of the "sure bet on the kill shot" the way it looks to me in the model at the moment:

I'm actually hoping someone can provide some photographic evidence that would demonstrate that that's not the way it is, which would help me find flaws in the model's elevations. That's all I can conceive it to be, because the locations of landmarks are according to the Dealey Plaza schematics in circulation.

Craig Roberts' statements posted by Myra are persuasive

That's very interesting to hear. I thought they read like spy fiction. I much prefer a quote that Mr. Roberts has at the top his own web site, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." I found the passage Myra quoted to be 99 and 99 one hundredths pure theory without a single substantive fact in view, and mused that Mr. Roberts could do worse than to follow the advice on his web site. Then again, I don't have books to sell, so I may be biased.

and the photographic evidence cited (esp. the figures revealed in Betzner #3)

I'm lost. Are those in this thread, or could you post them?

and the throat wound and smoke lend it additional credibility, IMO.

I'm trying to get a location to put in the smoke, and I'll say again that I'm not convinced that there was a gunshot wound to the throat. It seems to me that that, too, is an unproven theory, upon which enough theories have been built to climb and touch the sky. If the "throat shot" theory is false, then as long as such a theory is held into place as indisputable fact, all theories built upon it necessarily will be false.

It also seems to me—theoretically—that it would be in the greatest possible interests of culpable parties to introduce just such a fundamental falsehood into the record and have it become an unmovable datum around which all other data attempts to align. When that is accomplished well, all progress toward the truth stops and revolves infinitely around the anchored falsehood, like a kiddie pony ride.

At the moment, with the information I've seen, the purported "throat wound" is a prime candidate for just such a hub of infinite spin.

Ashton

Edited December 3, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Mark Stapleton]

I'm lost. Are those in this thread, or could you post them?

Ashton,

Betzner #3 and Willis #5 are from Cliff Varnell's post #116. I think they reveal the fence to be a good spot for placing a shooter.

I agree with your point about falsehoods being deliberately placed into the record as indisputable facts. I'm just not sure this is one of them. The fence seems an ideal vantage point to me. Your alternative argument that it could have been utilized as the focal point of an elaborate diversion is also worthy of consideration, IMO, but I'm not convinced that the task of escaping detection from this location was an insurmountable barrier to its selection by the conspirators.

Just my opinion.

p.s. your work on this is greatly appreciated. I'm confident many readers will agree.

[Dawn Meredith]

I'm lost. Are those in this thread, or could you post them?

Ashton,

Betzner #3 and Willis #5 are from Cliff Varnell's post #116. I think they reveal the fence to be a good spot for placing a shooter.

I agree with your point about falsehoods being deliberately placed into the record as indisputable facts. I'm just not sure this is one of them. The fence seems an ideal vantage point to me. Your alternative argument that it could have been utilized as the focal point of an elaborate diversion is also worthy of consideration, IMO, but I'm not convinced that the task of escaping detection from this location was an insurmountable barrier to its selection by the conspirators.

Just my opinion.

p.s. your work on this is greatly appreciated. I'm confident many readers will agree.

This is probably not the best time for me to be posting on this subject, but, that said, I find that I agree with Mark. Most often I find Ashton's opinions very persuasive, but having been to Dealy Plaza and having seen the Zapruder film more times than I care to recall, I find it very hard to imagine that there were not at least two frontal shots. I have never found a really complelling reason to disagree with ALL the Parkland Hospital doctors. Having stood at the picket fence in person, this area is, I believe, ideal for shots.

I am perhaps biased in my opinion here and am open to being shown I am wrong.

Ultimately tho I think we need to get back to something really more fundamental: Proving that the damn government lied to us. The K.I. S.S. method of this case: Force the media to admit that the entire government's case- the SBT - is treasonous fiction.

Dawn

[Bernice Moore]

Hello Ashton:

I posted the wrong County Courts photo last evening...this below show all..dated 11-14-64.

I doubt that anyone has made up their mind completely, in anything let alone where the shots came from, many have

done great research in the areas of where the possibilities could be..we trudge along.

Nothing is written in stone, in the JFK assassination..as we never know what tomorrow may unveil, then

must be researched further to come to a finding of whether true or false..neverendingstory..

I have been looking at your Badge man location, your wall, I am thinking is too high ?, I will show

the possible why below.. one is taken when the old fence still remained..the other is newer, but

perhaps you will see what I mean.......

Also some time, in later years through heavy rains, the knoll suffered damage

and suffered a mud slide of sorts, and all had to be repaired...and rebuilt, in some areas. I think it very

possible that at that time that area could have been enforced, shifted to some degree higher ? and perhaps this could be the reason.

I believe Gerry Dealey could inform you of all, I believe he was the man who informed me, some time ago.

I enjoy your research, as you make us think.......about the many possibilities, and imo

that should never end. As you may recall I also wonder of the possibility of a shot from the

corner of the fence, nearest the underpass..?

I am also posting a scan, from where now ?? of a possible shot scenario, one being from the County Courts

it may help in some way...in perspective.....

I have run out of photo space, will return with the area where Sam Holland believed the smoke came

from.....will delete some...

Please continue...

B

Edited December 4, 2006 by Bernice Moore

[Terry Mauro]

FWIW, I think I'm inclined to stay with the fence location--for the moment.

I certainly wouldn't want to lure anyone from it, and I respect anyone's independent assessment and analysis of supportable fact.

There's a good chance both this and the County Records Building were shooting locations.

I've yet to explore the County Records building, per se, but I've just completed a rather involved exercise that took some time of setting up views from every window in the County Courts building. Once I can export jpegs of the view from each window, I think I'm going to post it in a separate thread.

It's true that the fence is a more exposed location for the shooters than a secured section of the CRB but it's more probable that the plotters decided to trade this off for a sure bet on the kill shot, IMO.

Could be. But I sure hope that "sure bet on the kill shot" wasn't supposed to come from the "Badge Man" location. Either that, or I hope that my model has some pretty significant elevation problems that I can get corrected. Because here's the "Badge Man" view of the "sure bet on the kill shot" the way it looks to me in the model at the moment:

I'm actually hoping someone can provide some photographic evidence that would demonstrate that that's not the way it is, which would help me find flaws in the model's elevations. That's all I can conceive it to be, because the locations of landmarks are according to the Dealey Plaza schematics in circulation.

Craig Roberts' statements posted by Myra are persuasive

That's very interesting to hear. I thought they read like spy fiction. I much prefer a quote that Mr. Roberts has at the top his own web site, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." I found the passage Myra quoted to be 99 and 99 one hundredths pure theory without a single substantive fact in view, and mused that Mr. Roberts could do worse than to follow the advice on his web site. Then again, I don't have books to sell, so I may be biased.

and the photographic evidence cited (esp. the figures revealed in Betzner #3)

I'm lost. Are those in this thread, or could you post them?

and the throat wound and smoke lend it additional credibility, IMO.

I'm trying to get a location to put in the smoke, and I'll say again that I'm not convinced that there was a gunshot wound to the throat. It seems to me that that, too, is an unproven theory, upon which enough theories have been built to climb and touch the sky. If the "throat shot" theory is false, then as long as such a theory is held into place as indisputable fact, all theories built upon it necessarily will be false.

It also seems to me—theoretically—that it would be in the greatest possible interests of culpable parties to introduce just such a fundamental falsehood into the record and have it become an unmovable datum around which all other data attempts to align. When that is accomplished well, all progress toward the truth stops and revolves infinitely around the anchored falsehood, like a kiddie pony ride.

At the moment, with the information I've seen, the purported "throat wound" is a prime candidate for just such a hub of infinite spin.

Ashton

********************************************************

"I thought they read like spy fiction. I much prefer a quote that Mr. Roberts has at the top his own web site, by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." I found the passage Myra quoted to be 99 and 99 one hundredths pure theory without a single substantive fact in view, and mused that Mr. Roberts could do worse than to follow the advice on his web site. Then again, I don't have books to sell, so I may be biased."

A good friend of mine and Dawnie's, passed away last year, his name was John Ritchson. He was with Bravo Company in VietNam, and was a ballistician with his own gunworks, in co-partnership with his father, in the state of Montana. He collaborated on multiple occasions with Craig Roberts and had the highest regard and respect for his work. John Ritchson was also held in high regard for his expertise in the field of ballistics, as well as for his work and contribution to the Prouty, JFKResearch, Lancer, and The Education Forum. If he deferred to Craig Roberts on numerous projects he was working on, then I'm more apt to follow suit when it comes to whom I'm going to consult for accuracy when citing statistical analysis with respect to missile/bullet trajectory, as well as lines of site.

I'm also of the opinion that the Parkland physicians, specifically those specializing in the field of trauma, triage, and forensics inherent in those cases most likely to be presented in Emergency Room/Department scenarios, to be the most accurate in assessing wounds inflicted on the human body immediately following trauma. Anterior means entering frontally, be it the right forehead, above the right eye, or the anterior aspect of the neck, below the cricoid cartilage and above the suprasternal notch.

[Bernice Moore]

Hi Ter:

That I agree with...J.R's great research, he was a friend to many, all you had to do was ask..

As well as the Parkland trauma team's findings..a blow out to the back of the head...they were the first trained medical witnesses, as well as Hill and others who saw such...but

which upon the bodys arrival at Bethesda, though it was also seen, it had become much larger in size..according to witnesses.....Though you would never know it by the autopsy photos, or the Bethesda Doctor's reports..imo ...nothing is in stone in the JFK assn...it should

have been from the beginning but.....and it all changes according to whomever's latest whims at times.

B..

****************

Ashton,

Here's another for you.. This is the area where Sam Holland and the RR men, ran to, saw the footprints and saw the smoke

drift out, from under the trees.....it is now called the Hatman area..a possible spot from where a shot

came from. His head, does appear, move and disappear......in gifs of the film, Nix I believe, there is movement..I cannot post any Gifs...

But this will show you the approximate area....behind the fence, another for you to contemplate.

This is all I can fit in for now.....

B..

THe photo below written where the smoke came from, is part of Bill Miller's reasearch in this area.

Edited December 4, 2006 by Bernice Moore

[Terry Mauro]

Hi Ter:

That I agree with...J.R's great research, he was a friend to many, all you had to do was ask..

As well as the Parkland trauma team's findings..a blow out to the back of the head...they were the first trained medical witnesses, as well as Hill and others who saw such...but

which upon the bodys arrival at Bethesda, though it was also seen, it had become much larger in size..according to witnesses.....Though you would never know it by the autopsy photos, or the Bethesda Doctor's reports..imo ...nothing is in stone in the JFK assn...it should

have been from the beginning but.....and it all changes according to whomever's latest whims at times.

B..

****************

Ashton,

Here's another for you.. This is the area where Sam Holland and the RR men, ran to, saw the footprints and saw the smoke

drift out, from under the trees.....it is now called the Hatman area..a possible spot from where a shot

came from. His head, does appear, move and disappear......in gifs of the film, Nix I believe, there is movement..I cannot post any Gifs...

But this will show you the approximate area....behind the fence, another for you to contemplate.

This is all I can fit in for now.....

B..

THe photo below written where the smoke came from, is part of Bill Miller's reasearch in this area.

*************************************************************

"As well as the Parkland trauma team's findings..a blow out to the back of the head...they were the first trained medical witnesses, as well as Hill and others who saw such...but which upon the bodys arrival at Bethesda, though it was also seen, it had become much larger in size..according to witnessses..... Though you would never know it by the autopsy photos, or the Bethesda Doctor's reports..imo ...nothing is in stone in the JFK assn...it should have been from the beginning but.....and it all changes according to whomever's latest whims at times."

And, so right you are, Bernie! The pictures of the back of the head at Bethesda, belie the hole in the right occiput, as that photo depicts JFK's full head of hair seemingly intact over where the exit wound was supposed to be. Although upon further scrutiny one is able to make out a fold of something that appears to look like the scalp, behind the right ear and which looks as if it's being held in place by one of the surgeon's hands. The exit wound itself looks like it's been filled in with something to give it a rounded definition of the skull still being intact, with the scalp pulled into place over it. Thus, masking the true exit wound.

Thanks for the Bill Miller picture, Bern. You always had a great eye for picking out the needle in the haystack or separating the wheat from the chaff, as they say.