Weapons Used

[Evan Marshall]

Hello Evan

I acknowledge your police experience and I own two of your books.

I do dispute the violent reaction captured in the xtant Zapruder film as typically being assciated with a gunshot (I am not certain however that it was a rifle), and I agree with most ballistics experts with whom I have conferred, this strong a reaction is highly unlikely to have been caused by the strike of any hand held or shoulder fired firearm.

Before attempting to dig out some of my old correspondence, I will quickly refer you and all who might be so interested, in the works of both Dr. Mantik and others which you may most easily find in the books ..."Assassination Science"-- "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"---and "Murder in Dealey Plaza". I unlike Bill Miller and a few others on this forum, find these works, along with the work of Jack White (to name but one) to be quite credible.

I was looking over "The Goat Shotings" in one of your works....I did not find mention of any reaction similar to what is observed on the "Z" film. It was my understanding that the choice of the use of "goats" was because these animals were thought to replicate the reaction of bullets to those of humans.

I have seen "all" forms of larger animals shot with a variety of weapons, and have never observed such a violent natural reaction.

I would like to refer you and whoever might be interested, to something which I have on many occassion been critcized by Bill Miller and associates. I feel that you surely have seen depictions on TV's History Channel...Discovery Channel and PBS of films shot in Nazi concentration camps during WWII. The films that I am specifically referring to are the ones which usually picture prisoners both standing and kneeling before previously dug "grave pits". They are then shot in the posterior skull with either 9mm Lugers or German Mausers at Point Blank range (only inches from weapon to skull) .

In EVERY case these victims fall forward from their standing or kneeling positions into the grave. Not one has displayed anything remotely similar to the reaction of JFK in the extant Zapruder film .

Another film which the world was "overly exposed" to a few years back, which I don't feel that anyone has missed, was the horror of a South Vietnamese Officer shooting point blank thru the temple of a, presumed to be, very young Viet Cong. You will notice that although the bullet passes thru his skull....his head is not propelled in ANY direction.

Even in TV depictions of Melons being struck with rifle bullets, how many have noticed that although the melon explodes.....the base of the melon usually remains on the table top...not propelled.

I have, do, and will continue to maintain that the seeming reactionary propelling of JFK's head and "BODY" could not have been caused by a fired projectile from a weapon smaller than an "artillery piece".

Charlie Black

Charlie-I guess we'll have to agree to disagree-I've seen two hostage takers hit in the head with Federal .308 Match jhp and a number of people shot with M16's and the reaction was immediate and dramatic-people fell into the ditch because of gravity-handguns are very weak animals and the difference between handgun impacts and rifle impacts are world apart.

frankly, I think it was an AR15/M16 that fired the fatal head shot and it was from in front.

Melons are not attached to a spinal cord and do not reflect the reiststace of the human skull. Even ballistic gelatin has its limitations and I shot close to a 1,000lbs a yr of the stuff.

People keep ignoring the fact that Oswald was a Marine when the Corp focused on everybody being a rifleman-he may have been less than a expert shot but he knew what quality, accurate rifles were-I cannot believe that a man focused on murdering the President would balk at stealing a quality rifle.

none of the goats were shot with rifles-I've seen people virtually decapitated by a high powered rifle hit in the head.

Edited February 23, 2007 by Evan Marshall

[Charles Black]

Evan Marshall

I have absolutely no problem with our "agreement to disagree" as I have found you to always be quite gentlemanly on this forum.

I would like to refer to two points however in your most recent post. I stated that some of the Nazi's prisoners were struck point blank by Mauser RIFLES, as well as others who appear to be shot with 9mm Pistols.

My other point being the connection to the spine is moot.....as all the shot humans were connected to their spines.

Charlie Black

[Evan Marshall]

Evan Marshall

I have absolutely no problem with our "agreement to disagree" as I have found you to always be quite gentlemanly on this forum.

I would like to refer to two points however in your most recent post. I stated that some of the Nazi's prisoners were struck point blank by Mauser RIFLES, as well as others who appear to be shot with 9mm Pistols.

My other point being the connection to the spine is moot.....as all the shot humans were connected to their spines.

Charlie Black

I guess we saw different atrocitie films-the one I remembered where pistols and submachine guns

still military is not the same as jhp ammo

so you think JFK was shot with a bazooka or perhaps the film has been fiddled with?

I think the film is suspect simply because we have a lousy chain of custody

[Wade Rhodes]

What about James File's claims and the Remington XP-100 Fireball ?

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/fireball1.htm

[Christopher Hall]

Hello Evan

I acknowledge your police experience and I own two of your books.

I do dispute the violent reaction captured in the xtant Zapruder film as typically being assciated with a gunshot (I am not certain however that it was a rifle), and I agree with most ballistics experts with whom I have conferred, this strong a reaction is highly unlikely to have been caused by the strike of any hand held or shoulder fired firearm.

Before attempting to dig out some of my old correspondence, I will quickly refer you and all who might be so interested, in the works of both Dr. Mantik and others which you may most easily find in the books ..."Assassination Science"-- "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"---and "Murder in Dealey Plaza". I unlike Bill Miller and a few others on this forum, find these works, along with the work of Jack White (to name but one) to be quite credible.

I was looking over "The Goat Shotings" in one of your works....I did not find mention of any reaction similar to what is observed on the "Z" film. It was my understanding that the choice of the use of "goats" was because these animals were thought to replicate the reaction of bullets to those of humans.

I have seen "all" forms of larger animals shot with a variety of weapons, and have never observed such a violent natural reaction.

I would like to refer you and whoever might be interested, to something which I have on many occassion been critcized by Bill Miller and associates. I feel that you surely have seen depictions on TV's History Channel...Discovery Channel and PBS of films shot in Nazi concentration camps during WWII. The films that I am specifically referring to are the ones which usually picture prisoners both standing and kneeling before previously dug "grave pits". They are then shot in the posterior skull with either 9mm Lugers or German Mausers at Point Blank range (only inches from weapon to skull) .

In EVERY case these victims fall forward from their standing or kneeling positions into the grave. Not one has displayed anything remotely similar to the reaction of JFK in the extant Zapruder film .

Another film which the world was "overly exposed" to a few years back, which I don't feel that anyone has missed, was the horror of a South Vietnamese Officer shooting point blank thru the temple of a, presumed to be, very young Viet Cong. You will notice that although the bullet passes thru his skull....his head is not propelled in ANY direction.

Even in TV depictions of Melons being struck with rifle bullets, how many have noticed that although the melon explodes.....the base of the melon usually remains on the table top...not propelled.

I have, do, and will continue to maintain that the seeming reactionary propelling of JFK's head and "BODY" could not have been caused by a fired projectile from a weapon smaller than an "artillery piece".

Charlie Black

Charlie-I guess we'll have to agree to disagree-I've seen two hostage takers hit in the head with Federal .308 Match jhp and a number of people shot with M16's and the reaction was immediate and dramatic-people fell into the ditch because of gravity-handguns are very weak animals and the difference between handgun impacts and rifle impacts are world apart.

frankly, I think it was an AR15/M16 that fired the fatal head shot and it was from in front.

Melons are not attached to a spinal cord and do not reflect the reiststace of the human skull. Even ballistic gelatin has its limitations and I shot close to a 1,000lbs a yr of the stuff.

People keep ignoring the fact that Oswald was a Marine when the Corp focused on everybody being a rifleman-he may have been less than a expert shot but he knew what quality, accurate rifles were-I cannot believe that a man focused on murdering the President would balk at stealing a quality rifle.

none of the goats were shot with rifles-I've seen people virtually decapitated by a high powered rifle hit in the head.

Well said.

I shoot handguns quite a bit, and the extra accuracy that a 1911, with a guarantee of 1.5 inches at 50 yards (usually a $300 - 400 option), provides makes a substantial difference in my free hand shooting at 15 and 25 yards.

I wouldn't want to try to shoot a stationary buck with a Carcano, and certainly not a moving target.

I also think that anyone wanting to hit the President would have used a reasonably accurate rifle, and not mail order surplus weaponry.

[Charles Black]

The very LAST thing that I want to happen to this thread is to turn it into another "free for all" in regard to validity of the Z film.

I will end with one request....If any of you feel that there is legitimacy to anything which I have mentioned in regard to JFK's "filmed reaction" to the "Head Snap"......please do further research and attempt to direct your search to sources "outside" of the forum. If you do not already believe that there is something wrong....please do yourselves a favor and take a Giant Leap toward reality by independently studying the impact of gunshot wounds on animals and humans. After such a study, watch the Zapruder "head shot sequence" only at full speed....... and then make your determination.

Amen

Charlie Black

[Frank Agbat]

Regarding the 'head snap'...

It really comes down to a decision point. We are either:

A) Not seeing what really happened

or

Seeing what really happened.

If A is true, then we are chasing a white rabbit down a hole conjecturing about why the motion is as it is. There are dozen of Z-Alteration threads where this line of inquiry can continue.

On the other hand, if B is true then we've got a separate issue.

To understand motion, one must understand ALL of the forces acting on an object. If motion remains unexplained, it is probably because we don't understand all of the forces involved. Even in the world of classical mechanics, it can be difficult to fully predict and explain various internal forces that exist in collisions. For me, headshot conjecture is incomplete without understanding the forces exerted by the back-brace. It seems that we know all sorts of infinitesimal details in many areas, yet know very little about this rather macroscopic object that surely had to come in to play.

[Guest Mark Valenti]

To understand motion, one must understand ALL of the forces acting on an object. If motion remains unexplained, it is probably because we don't understand all of the forces involved. Even in the world of classical mechanics, it can be difficult to fully predict and explain various internal forces that exist in collisions. For me, headshot conjecture is incomplete without understanding the forces exerted by the back-brace. It seems that we know all sorts of infinitesimal details in many areas, yet know very little about this rather macroscopic object that surely had to come in to play.

I'm also interested in how the brain matter seemed to blast forward and then snap backward.

A skull is one thing, a hard shell with a hollow center, I'm not sure how we should expect it to react to a shot.

But brain matter is wet and gloppy, it reacts "logically" to movement, if I can use that term. If you hurl it forward it catches up to that forward movement and then eventually it snaps back to its original location, right?

That is what I see happening on the Zfilm.

JFK's head moves forward slightly, the head opens up, the brain matter shoots forward, then snaps back.

Edited February 24, 2007 by Mark Valenti

[Frank Agbat]

...

JFK's head moves forward slightly, the head opens up, the brain matter shoots forward, then snaps back.

Hi Mark,

I'm not 100% convinced that his head moves forward slightly. Z313 is actually a motion-blurred frame, so it is possible that the eye is being deceived by the blur. On this point, I'm far from certain. I'm not completely ready to "concede" forward movement -- not yet.

Your point is good, however, and is probably what lead the genesis of the "jet effect". Ejecta appears to go forward, head backwards; Sir Isaac Newton's equal but opposite reaction; head moves backwards. On this, I'm not convinced, either!

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Hi Mark,

I'm not 100% convinced that his head moves forward slightly. Z313 is actually a motion-blurred frame, so it is possible that the eye is being deceived by the blur. On this point, I'm far from certain. I'm not completely ready to "concede" forward movement -- not yet.

Your point is good, however, and is probably what lead the genesis of the "jet effect". Ejecta appears to go forward, head backwards; Sir Isaac Newton's equal but opposite reaction; head moves backwards. On this, I'm not convinced, either!

I see what you mean regarding the motion blur, truly hard to know for certain. But look at the blob, not the wet material that goes flying upward. The blob gloops forward - not unlike gelatin would, and then snaps back. It seems that a shot from the front would have made such material go backward first. But I'm not convinced either.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Hello Evan

I acknowledge your police experience and I own two of your books.

I do dispute the violent reaction captured in the xtant Zapruder film as typically being assciated with a gunshot (I am not certain however that it was a rifle), and I agree with most ballistics experts with whom I have conferred, this strong a reaction is highly unlikely to have been caused by the strike of any hand held or shoulder fired firearm.

Before attempting to dig out some of my old correspondence, I will quickly refer you and all who might be so interested, in the works of both Dr. Mantik and others which you may most easily find in the books ..."Assassination Science"-- "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"---and "Murder in Dealey Plaza". I unlike Bill Miller and a few others on this forum, find these works, along with the work of Jack White (to name but one) to be quite credible.

I was looking over "The Goat Shotings" in one of your works....I did not find mention of any reaction similar to what is observed on the "Z" film. It was my understanding that the choice of the use of "goats" was because these animals were thought to replicate the reaction of bullets to those of humans.

I have seen "all" forms of larger animals shot with a variety of weapons, and have never observed such a violent natural reaction.

I would like to refer you and whoever might be interested, to something which I have on many occassion been critcized by Bill Miller and associates. I feel that you surely have seen depictions on TV's History Channel...Discovery Channel and PBS of films shot in Nazi concentration camps during WWII. The films that I am specifically referring to are the ones which usually picture prisoners both standing and kneeling before previously dug "grave pits". They are then shot in the posterior skull with either 9mm Lugers or German Mausers at Point Blank range (only inches from weapon to skull) .

In EVERY case these victims fall forward from their standing or kneeling positions into the grave. Not one has displayed anything remotely similar to the reaction of JFK in the extant Zapruder film .

Another film which the world was "overly exposed" to a few years back, which I don't feel that anyone has missed, was the horror of a South Vietnamese Officer shooting point blank thru the temple of a, presumed to be, very young Viet Cong. You will notice that although the bullet passes thru his skull....his head is not propelled in ANY direction.

Even in TV depictions of Melons being struck with rifle bullets, how many have noticed that although the melon explodes.....the base of the melon usually remains on the table top...not propelled.

I have, do, and will continue to maintain that the seeming reactionary propelling of JFK's head and "BODY" could not have been caused by a fired projectile from a weapon smaller than an "artillery piece".

Charlie Black

Charlie-I guess we'll have to agree to disagree-I've seen two hostage takers hit in the head with Federal .308 Match jhp and a number of people shot with M16's and the reaction was immediate and dramatic-people fell into the ditch because of gravity-handguns are very weak animals and the difference between handgun impacts and rifle impacts are world apart.

frankly, I think it was an AR15/M16 that fired the fatal head shot and it was from in front.

Melons are not attached to a spinal cord and do not reflect the reiststace of the human skull. Even ballistic gelatin has its limitations and I shot close to a 1,000lbs a yr of the stuff.

People keep ignoring the fact that Oswald was a Marine when the Corp focused on everybody being a rifleman-he may have been less than a expert shot but he knew what quality, accurate rifles were-I cannot believe that a man focused on murdering the President would balk at stealing a quality rifle.

none of the goats were shot with rifles-I've seen people virtually decapitated by a high powered rifle hit in the head.

Well said.

I shoot handguns quite a bit, and the extra accuracy that a 1911, with a guarantee of 1.5 inches at 50 yards (usually a $300 - 400 option), provides makes a substantial difference in my free hand shooting at 15 and 25 yards.

I wouldn't want to try to shoot a stationary buck with a Carcano, and certainly not a moving target.

I also think that anyone wanting to hit the President would have used a reasonably accurate rifle, and not mail order surplus weaponry.

I also think that anyone wanting to hit the President would have used a reasonably accurate rifle, and not mail order surplus weaponry.

Which statement serves to indicate that not only have you never fired a Carcano, but have also not even bothered to read up on the accuracy rating which this rifle carries when the barrel/riflings are in good condition.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm

Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition.

Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it?

Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.

Anyone here who thinks that the M-14 was not an accurate weapon?

Now lets see:

M-14 unloaded weight:----------------------------------- 8 lbs 9 ounces

Carcano unloaded weight:------------------------------- 7 lbs 10 ounces

M1-Garand:----------------------------------------------- 8 lbs 11 ounces

How about that? Same accuracy as the M-14, which carried the same accuracy rating as the M-1 Garand, yet a full pound lighter.

M-1 Garand MV:-----------------------------------------2,805 fps

M-14 MV:------------------------------------------------ 2,800 fps

Carcano:------------------------------------------------ 2,200 fps

One pound less carrying weight, accuracy of the M-14/M1-Garand/ & only 600 fps velocity difference.

Certainly makes for an excellent weapon among most shooters.

Old "wives tales" serve little purpose in an attempt to get to the facts related to the assassination.

http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/general.html

Neither is the Carcano unsafe, nor is it inherently inaccurate:

According to Bloomgarden, on the sporting (competitive) use of the Model 91:

"[The Royal Arms Works in Terni] might still take pride [sc. in the mid-1960s]: in an experiment a Model 91 of her own, with sight modified to make it correspondent with a modern Garand rifle manufactured by Beretta, displayed a greater accuracy than the Garand." (p. 127)

"The president of Interarms, the largest private wholesaler of ammunition and armaments [stated]: 'It's interesting to note that the Italian army NATO rifle team still uses the 6.5-mm M91 rifle in the NATO matches and still comes out in the top positions, it advises us, every year, against all other NATO teams with all the other rifle types. It uses their own original 6.5-mm cartridges which are, now, at least ten years old minimum.'" (p. 133)

But of course, these persons know nothing!

Had they bothered to read any JFK assassination research forum, there are many who could have set the straight in the errors of their assumptions.

[Charles Black]

I truly understand the conjecture.

I understand that a back brace "might" make some "small" difference.

I understand that the validy of the Z film has been "conjectured" to the extreme.

BUT what I absolutely cannot understand is the reluctance of almost all forum members to make a brief study of the immediate reactions of larger animals (170 #) to direct gunshot wounds. This is a form of research that could cost no or very little money....and not much time.

I know of no films that show men being shot who are wearing a backbrace.......however there is a wealth of films which show men shot, who are carrying 40-60 pound military back packs, which I feel would

depict a similar restriction.

Even if one doesn't care to look at the gruesome films of soldiers and other humans being killed, there is another alternative. To those of you who have shot adult deer, has ONE of you ever seen one of these animals projected by a bullet impact. For those of you who have not, I am certain that you have an acquaintance who is a hunter that has seen deer shot. When you finally find no evidence of such a violent reaction "ever" being observed.....

why would you not concede that JFK's head and body should not react any differently to any other equally sized two or four legged animal.

I am not trying to convince anyone that they should take my word for this. But since most here on the forum spend many, many hours investigating all different aspects of this case, I do not understand the reluctance to investigate this one aspect. This one aspect "might" indicate to you that what "seems" to be JFK's reaction to a bullet strike is very likely not that, and is caused by "something else".

I am not asking anyone to denounce their religion. I am saying that if you are "researchers", why "neglect" what might be the most important evidence in this case.

I keep pleading for this because I would like someone after all these years to prove me wrong.

No one has ! The only answer that I get is that the Z film is unalterable beyond human detection. I see human detection that something is wrong.

For a short period of time....open your minds...forget about jet effects and backbraces.... and see if you can find proof of such a reaction in any man sized animal that has been shot with a rifle or a pistol. If this reaction is natural..... there should be literally loads of proof which will discount what I have been sermonizing.

If you find NONE...what should that indicate?

Prove it for yourself....not for me!

Charlie Black

[Evan Marshall]

I truly understand the conjecture.

I understand that a back brace "might" make some "small" difference.

I understand that the validy of the Z film has been "conjectured" to the extreme.

BUT what I absolutely cannot understand is the reluctance of almost all forum members to make a brief study of the immediate reactions of larger animals (170 #) to direct gunshot wounds. This is a form of research that could cost no or very little money....and not much time.

I know of no films that show men being shot who are wearing a backbrace.......however there is a wealth of films which show men shot, who are carrying 40-60 pound military back packs, which I feel would

depict a similar restriction.

Even if one doesn't care to look at the gruesome films of soldiers and other humans being killed, there is another alternative. To those of you who have shot adult deer, has ONE of you ever seen one of these animals projected by a bullet impact. For those of you who have not, I am certain that you have an acquaintance who is a hunter that has seen deer shot. When you finally find no evidence of such a violent reaction "ever" being observed.....

why would you not concede that JFK's head and body should not react any differently to any other equally sized two or four legged animal.

I am not trying to convince anyone that they should take my word for this. But since most here on the forum spend many, many hours investigating all different aspects of this case, I do not understand the reluctance to investigate this one aspect. This one aspect "might" indicate to you that what "seems" to be JFK's reaction to a bullet strike is very likely not that, and is caused by "something else".

I am not asking anyone to denounce their religion. I am saying that if you are "researchers", why "neglect" what might be the most important evidence in this case.

I keep pleading for this because I would like someone after all these years to prove me wrong.

No one has ! The only answer that I get is that the Z film is unalterable beyond human detection. I see human detection that something is wrong.

For a short period of time....open your minds...forget about jet effects and backbraces.... and see if you can find proof of such a reaction in any man sized animal that has been shot with a rifle or a pistol. If this reaction is natural..... there should be literally loads of proof which will discount what I have been sermonizing.

If you find NONE...what should that indicate?

Prove it for yourself....not for me!

Charlie Black

already mentioned that I've seen people hit in the head with high powered rifles AND you can do internet searches on police sniper shootingd-the

Albuquerque Bank Hostage Taker is a classic example.

[Charles Black]

Evan & general membership

I feel that I should give up on this subject. I have "begged" forum members to do research on this matter, however all that I receive are opinions basd on the speculation that a bullet should violently move the object struck. I have even suggested films that are often available on TV. But rather than anyone bothering to state that they have looked into the matter, I get further "conjecture".

Evan Marshall recently stated "...I've seen people hit in the head with high powered rifles"

So have I Evan ! Are you telling me that the persons which you saw struck duplicated the VIOLENT

movements which we see in the Z film. SHOW US !

There must be deer hunters on this forum ! Have you seen a deer projected and propelled in the manner of JFK's body ? Of course you haven't because it does not happen . Some blame it upon a tangental strike....others on "exploding" bullets, but the real explanation is..... that it did not and does not happen!

You can within your own minds make up any possibility that you care to. What you wont however do, is show me an actual unadulterated film in which a 170 pound animal is propelled and projected as is JFK in the Z film.

Anyone can talk in circles ! NO ONE has produced the proof. Killing is common. There are literally thousands of films available on humans and animals being shot. Have any of you seen an animal react as does JFK "in an unaltered film"? I have been speaking of 170 pound animals. But I doubt if you can prove it with "any" reasonably sized animal !

If a few of you do the modest research necessary, you will look at the assassination in a much different light. You will KNOW that what you "seem to see" in JFK's reactions following the "real time" ( not a slow down or frame watching ) playing of Zapruder, after frame Z312,...did not occur.....Unless of course JFK is the only 170 pounder to react in such a way to a hit by a 6.5mm bullet.

In some of my prior posts I have referenced sources which may be referred to.

This little bit of investigation may be the most important that you will ever do in this case.

In any event, I have tired of my own redundancy on this matter. If you don't want to SEE.... continue to "not look"!

Charlie Black

[Evan Marshall]

Evan & general membership

I feel that I should give up on this subject. I have "begged" forum members to do research on this matter, however all that I receive are opinions basd on the speculation that a bullet should violently move the object struck. I have even suggested films that are often available on TV. But rather than anyone bothering to state that they have looked into the matter, I get further "conjecture".

Evan Marshall recently stated "...I've seen people hit in the head with high powered rifles"

So have I Evan ! Are you telling me that the persons which you saw struck duplicated the VIOLENT

movements which we see in the Z film. SHOW US !

There must be deer hunters on this forum ! Have you seen a deer projected and propelled in the manner of JFK's body ? Of course you haven't because it does not happen . Some blame it upon a tangental strike....others on "exploding" bullets, but the real explanation is..... that it did not and does not happen!

You can within your own minds make up any possibility that you care to. What you wont however do, is show me an actual unadulterated film in which a 170 pound animal is propelled and projected as is JFK in the Z film.

Anyone can talk in circles ! NO ONE has produced the proof. Killing is common. There are literally thousands of films available on humans and animals being shot. Have any of you seen an animal react as does JFK "in an unaltered film"? I have been speaking of 170 pound animals. But I doubt if you can prove it with "any" reasonably sized animal !

If a few of you do the modest research necessary, you will look at the assassination in a much different light. You will KNOW that what you "seem to see" in JFK's reactions following the "real time" ( not a slow down or frame watching ) playing of Zapruder, after frame Z312,...did not occur.....Unless of course JFK is the only 170 pounder to react in such a way to a hit by a 6.5mm bullet.

In some of my prior posts I have referenced sources which may be referred to.

This little bit of investigation may be the most important that you will ever do in this case.

In any event, I have tired of my own redundancy on this matter. If you don't want to SEE.... continue to "not look"!

Charlie Black

Charlie-relax-take your socks off&massage your feet-I'm talking about personally being present when people where shot with high powered rifles-in one case I was the backup sniper and had the guy in my scope when he was hit. I don't believe the Z film either, but there's a big difference between those who have accepted their imminent death and those who are bent on murder. As a rookie cop I responded to the shooting of a police sgt-we grabbed him and rushed him to the emergency room-the cops on the scene shot the bad guy 13 times including once between the eyes-he survived.

do a search for police sniper shooting video on the web-if I can find the NM Bank shooting I'll email it-the guys had a toupee and phony mustache on-his head goes one way violently and the toupee goes violently in the opposite direction.

animals are not people and they only know they don't feel good. I had a partner in the Tac Unit who had been hit 3 times with a .50 machine gun n Vietnam and survived. another partner was hit in the head with .45ACP and fortunately the round rode around the outside of his skull and exited.

we just have to focus on what happened-what really happened-and remember you and I are both looking for the people who really killed JFK.

have a great day and keep up the good work.

FYI, go to iflim.com and search under sniper shootings you'll see several violent reactions of real people being shot-watch the "sniper eye view" video and the one where a soldier survives a sniper hit.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Evan Marshall