Jump to content
The Education Forum

Can You Believe the HSCA Acoustics Study


Tim Gratz
 Share

Recommended Posts

I would appreciate if anyone regardless of his or her opinion can suggest a shooting scenario that is consistent with the HSCA acoustics study showing the first two shots from the rear, the third from the knoll, and the fourth from the rear.

If you accept Tague's testimony that he heard a shot after he was hit (i.e. he was NOT hit by the final shot (from the rear per the HSCA) then I submit it is impossible to construct a shooting scenario without accepting the SBT.

Not that I accept the SBT. On the contrary, I suggest that this exercise must disprove the results of the HSCA acoustics study.

Unless I am missing something, I cannot see how three shots from the rear can 1) hit JFK; 2) hit JC; 3) hit Tague AND deliver JFK's head shot (that's FOUR THINGS) unless one bullet does two things. If you try to escape the dilemma by asssuming the third shot from the knoll was the fatal head shot, then I think you must be left with Tague being hit by the fourth and final shot, and that is inconsistent with his testimony that he heard a shot after he was hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim Gratz Posted Yesterday, 07:08 PM

I would appreciate if anyone regardless of his or her opinion can suggest a shooting scenario that is consistent with the HSCA acoustics study showing the first two shots from the rear, the third from the knoll, and the fourth from the rear.

If you accept Tague's testimony that he heard a shot after he was hit (i.e. he was NOT hit by the final shot (from the rear per the HSCA) then I submit it is impossible to construct a shooting scenario without accepting the SBT.

Not that I accept the SBT. On the contrary, I suggest that this exercise must disprove the results of the HSCA acoustics study.

Unless I am missing something, I cannot see how three shots from the rear can 1) hit JFK; 2) hit JC; 3) hit Tague AND deliver JFK's head shot (that's FOUR THINGS) unless one bullet does two things. If you try to escape the dilemma by asssuming the third shot from the knoll was the fatal head shot, then I think you must be left with Tague being hit by the fourth and final shot, and that is inconsistent with his testimony that he heard a shot after he was hit.

Tim,

Good questions. I am not so sure Tague even knew he was hit until Buddy Walthers pointed it out to him. With that in mind, how reliable can his recollection be of exactly when he felt a sting in his cheek, and therefore how reliable is his version of the exact sequence of all the shots, including the accurate time stamp for the sting on his cheek?

Nevertheless, I can offer my humble opinion regarding the shooting. Based on the video footage and the more or less "well" documented damage to the 3 victims, and the presidential limousine, I would say it is more likely than not, that there were infact more than 3 shots involved in this episode. That is an opinion based on evidence, other than the acoustic evidence.

Shot 1. As to the sequence of the shots, I would say that the first shot struck the President apparently in the throat (could have been a ricochet bullet that struck him in the upper back that lodged itself on or near the spine and caused a fragment to separate from the main missile, which exited from the throat). Tom Purvis made a semi-plausible presentation on this. This fragment may have struck the limo above the windshield causing a dent and may have further struck JBC in the thigh. However, this is starting to sound like the SBT, and don't know if this is plausible.

Shot 2. Hit JBC in the armit, pierced through his lung and smashed his wrist. Don't ask me where the fragements and other missile remains are.

Shot 3 or 4. Missed, hit the curb and a fragment ricochet struck James Tague.

Shot 3 or 4. Hit Kennedy in the head.

Additionally there is a lot of (eye witness) evidence pointing to a shot from the grassy knoll: furrows in the grass on the south side of Elm, eye witness testimony of smoke on the knoll, a few witnesses on Elm even smelled gunpowder, an alleged missile was picked up by Buddy Walthers in the grass on south side of Elm.

1 and/or 4 could have been fired from other than TSBD.

Edited by Antti Hynonen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Ron may be correct that the acoustics evidence indicated there may have been more than foiur shots but HSCA decided not to pursue the possible additional shots.

But given the scenario of the acoustic report as adopted by the HSCA, I think the only way it could reconcile Tague being hit by a shot other than the last was to adopt the absurdity of the SBT, largely based on Dr Guinn's NAA (called the "linchpin" of the SBT by Blakey). If the NAA correctly matched bullet fragments removed from Gov Connally to CE399, the SBT HAD to be correct, regardless of its improbabilities. But here I think the HSCA's reasoning was precisely backwards. It should have concluded that given the problems with the SBT, the NAA just had to be wrong. Even logic should have suggested that there were problems with an analysis based on the premise that MC bullets were unlike all other bullets in that you could match fragments to a specific bullet rather than simply to the batch of bullets.

Now by somewhat similar reasoning, I think we can conclude that: (1) the SBT is wrong; and THEREFORE (2) the shot sequence scenario proposed by the HSCA acoustic study has to be wrong. By similar reasoning, the shot sequence proposed by Christian David to Steve Rivele has to be wrong. Interestingly, the HSCA shot sequence and the David shot sequence are identical, although the HSCA says the third, GK shot missed and David said the GK shot hit JFK in the head and the fourth shot from the rear missed. Now David COULD be correct if Tague was in error about hearing a shot after the shot that hit him.

If Tague was wrong, then the actual shot sequence of HSCA could be correct but then the HSCA Pathology Panel was wrong and the fourth shot missed and hit Tague. But again to support this one must argue that Tague was wrong about hearing a shot after he was hit.

I think we also need to consider the actual timing of the shots as proposed by the HSCA acoustics experts as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well!

The HSCA expended so much of it's allocated budget on the completely irrelevant aspects of attempting to determine if the acoustics evidence was in fact even the sound of gunshots, as well as attempting to "recreate" the same type pattern as the dictabelt demonstrated, that the HSCA ran out of money and went home.

Might I state that this is also what would happen here as well as everywhere else if one attempts to resolve the JFK assassination by listening to and evaluation of the dicatbelt.

Personally, I prefer to stick with what are considered to be "Hard Facts", which are also how the great majority off gunshot cases are resolved.

1. Forensic Fact.

2. Ballistic Fact.

3. Pathological Fact.

4. Physical Fact.

One will never prove and/or disprove that there were not 3; 4; 5; 6; or even 7 or 8 shots fired in Dealy Plaza.

One can, with the pathological injuries, establish clearly the impact of three bullets, which also matches the great majority of witness statements (and especially those who were in a "clear" downrange position to hear) that state that there were three shots fired.

Therefore, three empty shell casings; three shots according to the greatest majority of witnesses, as well as virtually all of those who were in position to have not been influenced by various echo's, and lastly, pathological damage as created by three separate bullets.

So, exactly why would anyone desire to chase the completely un-resolvable issues of the HSCA acoustics panel, who basically managed to only confuse the matter while expending a large portion of the budget.

Personally, methinks someone liked the "Garrison" smoke screen so well that they figured our another way to add additional confusion to what is in fact a realtively simple problem.

Unless one goes to some local zoo (which apparantly now has an imported guest), there is little to be gained in searching for snakes in the wilds of Alaska.

There are none!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron

Oxymorons are a proper subset of the expressions called contradictions in terms.

Example: Legitimate Government Investigation into the facts of the JFK Assassination!

Exactly why would anyone, who fully recognizes as well as believes that the WC obstructed justice as well as severely obfuscated the facts of the JFK assassination, actually believe that another Governmental Investigation would thereafter,

not participate in some of the same tactics and techniques?

In event that there is anyone here who has not figured it out as of yet, a "Governmental" Investigation is primarily established to Obscure the Facts and Truths.

If one wants even a semblance of factual revelation, then they had best go to the Courts and stick with the Judicial Process.

The HSCA was another of those "muddy the water" episodes in which unknowing persons were fully manipulated. Just as in the WC.

In fact, if one will scrape the "Name Tag" off the HSCA boat, underneath, they will most probably still find some of the old paint which read "Warren Commission".

The attached drawing, H.A.C. Exhibit# F-144, although a much better drawing than the "cartoon character" drawings of the WC, is another prime example of how to utilized "visual" exhibits to persuade and convince.

In order to further buttress the SBT, the HSCA recognized that in order for JBC to have been hit in the back, just to the right of the shoulder blade, and for the bullet to have penetrated down into his chest along the declination of the right fifth rib and exit the chest as it did, that JBC would have had to have been turned almost completely sideways to the line of fire.

Thus, accounting for the "cross-angle" of fire/penetration through his chest.

So, the HSCA gave us a "good drawing" with more "make-believe" body positioning.

Despite the obvious problems with attempting to prove that JBC was actually in this position at the time of the first shot/aka the Magic Bullet/aka CE399, the HSCA also neglected to explain for exactly what reason JBC would have been turned almost fully in his seat and looking back over where his right shoulder had been.

So, from my personal point of view, if one takes the WC, spits on it and polishes it up a little, they will then find the HSCA with a little more finess.

Still "smoke and mirrors" however.

Edited by Thomas H. Purvis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, it always helps to have the large scale WC Survey Plat, as well as the comparatively scaled size of the Presidential Limo, in order to see exactly why the HSCA decided that it would be best to give us their "opinion" of the cross-angle of fire.

This attachment happens to be the accurate and true cross-angle of fire for the Z210 position.

I may not be that smart, but neither am I that dumb.

P.S. Tim, are you now the official guide to "rabbitland"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only real solution to these questions is to have the victims, JFK and JBC, given proper forensic autopsies, which will answer all outstanding questions presented.

BK

Absolutely correct, with some exceptions.

1. One would assume that all of JFK's skull fragments were buried with him, without which there would remain the question of one or two impacts to the head, as well as a confirmation of the direction fired.

2. Due to the surgery of the neck done at Parkland in regards to the tracheostomy, as well as the incisions made at Bethesda into the entrance wound, it would be near impossible to determine if a bullet actually passed through and through. However, examination of the fractured/fragmented right transverse process of the vertebrae, as well as determination if the images found on X-ray were metallic residue, could answer many of the questions.

3. An autopsy on JBC would serve little purpose. However, surgery to remove the metallic fragment embedded in his leg would serve to indicate that this residue did not come from CE399, and thus would substantiate a THIRD BULLET.

Lastly, I would state that there is in fact a much easier alternative means of resolution to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tague also concludes in his book that it was the third shot that missed and hit the curb. But his conclusion is based on a false argument.

He originally testified that he wasn't sure which shot it was. He says that he concluded that it was the third shot because "at least 12 credible witnesses" saw the third shot hit "the curb."

This leads the reader to conclude that all these witnesses saw the bullet hit the Main Street curb, debris from which caused his wound as he was standing nearby. But there is no witness that I am aware who saw any bullet hit the Main Street curb. They saw a bullet hit the cement on Elm Street.

Tague only identifies two of his 12 witnesses, Stavis Ellis and Royce Skelton, who actually saw a bullet hit cement. Both of these men saw a bullet hit Elm, not Main Street.

If Tague is trying to say that a bullet hit the curb on Elm Street and debris from it wounded him (I don't know if that's possible, but the plaza isn't that large), that is not what he is saying at all as I read it. He could have easily stated clearly what he meant. So IMO Tague's argument, as he presents it, that it was the third shot that wounded him is basically worthless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tague also concludes in his book that it was the third shot that missed and hit the curb. But his conclusion is based on a false argument.

He originally testified that he wasn't sure which shot it was. He says that he concluded that it was the third shot because "at least 12 credible witnesses" saw the third shot hit "the curb."

This leads the reader to conclude that all these witnesses saw the bullet hit the Main Street curb, debris from which caused his wound as he was standing nearby. But there is no witness that I am aware who saw any bullet hit the Main Street curb. They saw a bullet hit the cement on Elm Street.

Tague only identifies two of his 12 witnesses, Stavis Ellis and Royce Skelton, who actually saw a bullet hit cement. Both of these men saw a bullet hit Elm, not Main Street.

If Tague is trying to say that a bullet hit the curb on Elm Street and debris from it wounded him (I don't know if that's possible, but the plaza isn't that large), that is not what he is saying at all as I read it. He could have easily stated clearly what he meant. So IMO Tague's argument, as he presents it, that it was the third shot that wounded him is basically worthless.

Ron;

Perhaps "influenced" would be a better wording.

as in:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any recollection of whether there were one or more shots?

Mrs. KENNEDY. Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling. And it used to confuse me because first I remembered there were three and I used to think my husband didn't make any sound when he was shot. And Governor Connally screamed. And then I read the other day that it was the same shot that hit them both. But I used to think if I only had been looking to the right I would have seen the first shot hit him, then I could have pulled him down, and then the second shot would not have hit him. But I heard Governor Connally yelling and that made me turn around, and as I turned to the right my husband was doing this [indicating with hand at neck]. He was receiving a bullet. And those are the only two I remember.

And I read there was a third shot. But I don't know. Just those two.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tague Testimony:

And I says, "Well, you know now, I recall something sting me on the face while I was standing down there."

And he looked up and he said, "Yes; you have blood there on your cheek."

And I reached up and there was a couple of drops of blood. And he said, "Where were you standing?"

And I says, "Right down here." We walked 15 feet away when this deputy sheriff said, "Look here on the curb." There was a mark quite obviously that was a bullet, and it was very fresh.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now, that is where you were standing when you apparently got hit with this flying, whatever it was?

Mr. TAGUE. Right.

Now you yourself, as I understand it, did not see the President hit?

Mr. TAGUE. I did not; no.

Mr. LIEBELER. How long after did you feel yourself get hit by anything?

Mr. TAGUE. I felt it at the time, but I didn't associate, didn't make any connection, and ignored it. And after this happened, or maybe the second or third shot, I couldn't tell you definitely--I made no connection. I looked around wondering what was going on,

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any idea which bullet might have made that mark?

Mr. TAGUE. I would guess it was either the second or third. I wouldn't say definitely on which one.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear any more shots after you felt yourself get hit in the face?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. You think you did?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe I did.

Mr. LIEBELER. How many?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe that it was the second shot, so I heard the third shot afterwards.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you hear three shots?

Mr. TAGUE. I heard three shots; yes sir. And I did notice the time on the Hertz clock. It was 12:29.

--------------

Mr. TAGUE. There was no echo from where I stood. I was asked this question before, and there was no echo. It was just a loud, oh, not a cannon, but definitely louder and more solid than a rifleshot.

Mr. LIEBELER. So you, being in a place where there was no echo, you were able to recognize how many shots there were quite clearly?

Mr. TAGUE. I believe so.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you say you heard three shots?

Mr. TAGUE. That is right.

Mr. TAGUE. No; I said I thought that all three shots were accounted for. All the newspaper accounts for months said all the shots were accounted for.

Mr. LIEBELER. In terms of hitting in the car?

Mr. TAGUE. Hitting into the car; yes.

--------------------------------------------------------

HMMMMMMM?

Perhaps one should read up on a few old newspapers!

--------------------------------------------------------

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, there was a story in the paper more recently that indicated that one of them might have missed.

Mr. TAGUE. That's right.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see that?

Mr. TAGUE. That's right; yes.

------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0068a.htm

THE SHOT THAT MISSED

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0070a.htm

Now that we actually know where James Altgens was truly standing, one can be quite assured that the Third Shot struck.

Just as did the Second Shot, which Hudson and Holland also saw strike JFK.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0070b.htm

The only remaining question being exactly which of the two shots fragmented sufficiently to send fragments, with sufficient velocity, into the wrist of JBC as well as down where Tague was located, and in which position would exiting fragments and/or entire bullets have been able to escape the confines of the Presidential Limo.

In that regards, I must refer to my old "war buddies" of Son Tay. (Udo, George, Dick, LTC Robbie, COL Bull, etc;)

KIDFOHS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mushrooms":----KIDFOHS--------Kept in Dark, Fed only Horsexxxx:-----The Son Tay Raiders!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_Tay

http://www.sontayraider.com/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheet...eet.asp?id=9004

The "Patch" of which they were most proud!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. Don't neglect this:

The testimony of James Thomas Tague was taken at 8:15 p.m., on July 23, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The testimony of James W. Altgens was taken at 12:45 p.m., on July 22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Testimony of Emmet J. Hudson was taken at 10:40 a.m., on July 22, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Eray Streets, Dalla, Tex, by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The testimony of Harry D. Holmes was taken at 2 p.m., on July 23, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brehm.htm--Charles Brehm not even called to testify.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm--SS Agent Glen Bennett not even called to testify.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

neither of the Chism's called to testify.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And on and on!

From there, one can deduce the "Rest of the Story".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...