JFK: Inside the Target Car

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Would a rifle be more accurate, better aim or whatever, than a pistol?

Yes, the rifle is more accurate -- over longer ranges. To an expert, I doubt if there is ANY difference at the range between Hatman and JFK.

The solution is elementary, my dear Ron. You need to build yourself a bigger barn.

But the sniper did blow the top of the head off, thus invalidating the autopsy x-rays and photographs. I guess we can appreciate that.

I would be interested in further commentary in this area.

Of course, the program failed to note that they'd created one large head wound, and not one small one and one large one. They simply pretended that getting some brains to fly forward proved Kennedy was shot as proposed by the HSCA. What nonsense!

Edited November 18, 2008 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Ron Ecker]

Yes, the rifle is more accurate -- over longer ranges. To an expert, I doubt if there is ANY difference at the range between Hatman and JFK.

It seems to me, then, that a pistol would logically be the grassy knoll weapon. You don't have to dismantle a pistol, and it would in any case be easier to hide than a rifle.

[Duke Lane]

Hi everyone,

I have 2 questions, when they did the test shot from the grassy knoll behind the fence - did they say they would use a hollow point exploding bullet? This would explain the test dummy head to 'explode'. Also, why didn't they test a Remington xp-500 fireball as James Files claimed he used.

I don't think they said they did. They used a high-powered rifle, so of course, the entire head exploded. Nobody knows what kind of gun it was that fired the fatal shot from the GK. The heads were so expensive they *couldn't * have done the test a second time, it would seem. The positions of JFK and Jackie in their reenactment were far from Z312 also. Their claim that Jackie would have been killed is nonsense. She was nearly killed though; and that's why she climbed out the back of the car.

It strikes me that there has been considerable controversy over the spectrographic or NAA analyses of the supposed composition of the bullet(s) and/or fragments that struck JFK, inasmuch as whether those metallic compositions were, in fact, the composition(s) of the lot of bullets from which CE399 and the fragments came from, if indeed they were from the same lot (and if not ...?).

That being the case - and in consideration of the fact that, initially at least, the MC 91/38 (or /24) was described as a "high-powered rifle," which many people dispute - the question is: exactly what "high-powered rifle" should be used in recreations of a Grassy Knoll shot?

It would seem that, in light of the SA/NAA tests, which latter did not apparently fall within the "exact" match of the bullets from the batch CE399, et al., were made from (but theoretically could have come from nearby batches), if we are going to be so specific, and since we want a different rifle to be used, is there anyone here (or anywhere else you can think of) who can suggest exactly what weapon, ammunition, manufacture and batch that we should use to validate the test?

Let's say it was a 30.06 that did the shooting; the bullet(s) fragmented entirely upon hitting the target. How do we know it was a 30.06 since there's nothing left to give us a caliber? If we don't know the caliber, how can we know the gun? If we don't know the gun, how can we know what ammo was available, from which manufacturer(s), or its composition?

If we want to be so particular as to describe the manufacturer's lot of the ammo that was supposedly used, how can we possibly be satisfied with the use of any old "high powered rifle" as long as it wasn't a Carcano? Was it an M-1 that fired the round? If we don't know, can we use an M-1 in a recreation? If we don't know what rifle - assuming even that it was a rifle! - was used, how can we begin to determine its effect upon impact, much less the composition of the bullet which absolutely must fall within the parameters of the SA/NAA tests done "back when."

Should we use every "high powered rifle" available at the time, along with every type and manufacture of ammo available for each, all to arrive at ... what? Since we're not entirely sure of the result of the shots - based on autopsy matierials - how do we know what any caliber from any gun by any manufacturer under any circumstances would have or might have done?

There is actually no "scientific proof" that the fatal shot was "fired from the grassy knoll," and what any of us might think there is, is disputed, hence hardly "proof." There is much less in terms of what kind of "high-powered" weapon may have fired it, and thus no way to duplicate the shot to anyone's satisfaction until that's absolutely and positively conclusively determined.

As for Jackie having been "nearly killed though; and that's why she climbed out the back of the car," I think that there is nothing more than speculation to support such a claim.

... why didn't they test a Remington xp-500 fireball as James Files claimed he used. ...

XP-100.

My guess would be largely on account of the fact that Remington has stated that the claim is, um, hogwash, impossible on its face, didn't happen and couldn't have happened.

Granted that Files is not credible, the program still used a high-powered rifle for the knoll shot, though there is no reason to suppose that the knoll shooter used a rifle, especially since the target was well within pistol-range.

A hollow-point bullet from a Remington rifle causes such-and-such damage, the program tells us, but it tells us nothing about the effects of a bullet fired from a pistol.

Yes, the rifle is more accurate -- over longer ranges. To an expert, I doubt if there is ANY difference at the range between Hatman and JFK.

It seems to me, then, that a pistol would logically be the grassy knoll weapon. You don't have to dismantle a pistol, and it would in any case be easier to hide than a rifle.

As above: what pistol? what ammo? Remember, it has to be a valid test!! On exactly what bases do we make it valid?

C'mon, specifics, y'all!!! Don't gripe if someone else didn't demonstrate something to your satisfaction if you don't know just what it is that will make you satisfied! A bullet from the wrong batch of MC ammo will put us all up in arms about the invalidity of the test, so how do we determine what will satisfy everyone as to the validity of an unknown round from an unknown weapon?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

It would seem that, in light of the SA/NAA tests, which latter did not apparently fall within the "exact" match of the bullets from the batch CE399, et al., were made from (but theoretically could have come from nearby batches), if we are going to be so specific, and since we want a different rifle to be used, is there anyone here (or anywhere else you can think of) who can suggest exactly what weapon, ammunition, manufacture and batch that we should use to validate the test?

The courts have already determined that Guinn's NAA bullet matching theory is junk science. Bullet lead is not like human DNA, so it is not possible to say what caliber of bullet gave rise to the fragments found in JFK's head or Connally's body.

The theory that 399 and the limo fragments were planted is a theory that has come back to life with the debunking of NAA.

C'mon, specifics, y'all!!! Don't gripe if someone else didn't demonstrate something to your satisfaction if you don't know just what it is that will make you satisfied!

The Discovery people are entitled to do any experiments it pleases them to do, but they would have impressed a lot more people if they had used a little bit of logic and included a pistol shot from the knoll instead of a rifle shot. A rifle is much more high-powered than a pistol, so since this is still a free country (until the Socialists take over in January) I feel entitled to point out how naive the Dicovery Channel people are.

[Ron Ecker]

I'm talking in general, about logic, not about any test. If there was a shooter on the grassy knoll, it seems logical he would use a pistol, which is easier to conceal, if it was just as effective as a rifle. By one account, a rifle was used requiring an accomplice to dismantle it on the spot. Why? Just to make things as difficult as possible?

[Don Roberdeau]

** I have also since been told that the limousine used for the the 2008 "Discovery Channel"

DP recreated rifle scope views was the same limousine used in STONE's, "JFK".

I believe that Stone used the PAUL KRUTE REPLICA LIMO. My understanding is that

he sold it and it was later wrecked. Does anyone know about this?

Jack

....Good Day Jack.... Found the following video with respect to the ITTC used replica car....

Jack, have you ever gone for a ride in the PAUL CRUTE replica tour car with your video camera and/or a 35mm camera?

I have spoken with KEVIN McDONALD, and have his aol email address if anyone would like to contact him.

Best Regards in Research,

Don

Don Roberdeau

U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John," Plank Walker

Sooner, or later, The Truth emerges Clearly

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

Edited November 18, 2008 by Don Roberdeau

[Pamela Brown]

"** I have also since been told that the limousine used for the the 2008 "Discovery Channel" DP recreated rifle scope views was the same limousine used in STONE's, "JFK"."

I believe that Stone used the PAUL KRUTE REPLICA LIMO. My understanding is that

he sold it and it was later wrecked. Does anyone know about this?

Jack

The limo used was one that Kevin MacDonald had built, using specs given to him by Willard Hess. It was used in JFK and other movies. It is now owned by someone else. It is exquisite. I spent most of the ten days of the Minnesota State Fair at the exhibit where it was the star of JFK REMEMBERED. It is also the star of this DC show. The footage of it is wonderful.

The limo was shipped to Dallas for a week last summer when the show footage was taped. There was a lot of footage they ended up not using in order to give more time to GM and this test. They used the replica to follow the path of the actual limo that day, from Love Field, to DP, the PH (they filmed at a spot that resembled it in 1963) then also the WHG.

However, the rear seat of the replica is not the same as the original -- the cushions are softer, as it doesn't have the hydraulic lift mechanisms in it. JFK would have sunk down lower in it than in the actual. There are other relatively minor differences, such as the shape of the jumpseats.

[Jack White]

"** I have also since been told that the limousine used for the the 2008 "Discovery Channel" DP recreated rifle scope views was the same limousine used in STONE's, "JFK"."

I believe that Stone used the PAUL KRUTE REPLICA LIMO. My understanding is that

he sold it and it was later wrecked. Does anyone know about this?

Jack

The limo used was one that Kevin MacDonald had built, using specs given to him by Willard Hess. It was used in JFK and other movies. It is now owned by someone else. It is exquisite. I spent most of the ten days of the Minnesota State Fair at the exhibit where it was the star of JFK REMEMBERED. It is also the star of this DC show. The footage of it is wonderful.

The limo was shipped to Dallas for a week last summer when the show footage was taped. There was a lot of footage they ended up not using in order to give more time to GM and this test. They used the replica to follow the path of the actual limo that day, from Love Field, to DP, the PH (they filmed at a spot that resembled it in 1963) then also the WHG.

However, the rear seat of the replica is not the same as the original -- the cushions are softer, as it doesn't have the hydraulic lift mechanisms in it. JFK would have sunk down lower in it than in the actual. There are other relatively minor differences, such as the shape of the jumpseats.

Is this the same limo that was owned for a while by Paul Krute? I have photos of the Krute limo. I thought that it was used by

Stone. Krute used it to give tours. One November 22 I was a passenger in it and we drove down Elm Street at exactly 12:30

during the researcher gathering on the knoll.

Jack

[Pamela Brown]

Review of JFKTTC in VARIETY. Viewers can add comments.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117939030...yid=32&cs=1

[Pamela Brown]

"** I have also since been told that the limousine used for the the 2008 "Discovery Channel" DP recreated rifle scope views was the same limousine used in STONE's, "JFK"."

I believe that Stone used the PAUL KRUTE REPLICA LIMO. My understanding is that

he sold it and it was later wrecked. Does anyone know about this?

Jack

The limo used was one that Kevin MacDonald had built, using specs given to him by Willard Hess. It was used in JFK and other movies. It is now owned by someone else. It is exquisite. I spent most of the ten days of the Minnesota State Fair at the exhibit where it was the star of JFK REMEMBERED. It is also the star of this DC show. The footage of it is wonderful.

The limo was shipped to Dallas for a week last summer when the show footage was taped. There was a lot of footage they ended up not using in order to give more time to GM and this test. They used the replica to follow the path of the actual limo that day, from Love Field, to DP, the PH (they filmed at a spot that resembled it in 1963) then also the WHG.

However, the rear seat of the replica is not the same as the original -- the cushions are softer, as it doesn't have the hydraulic lift mechanisms in it. JFK would have sunk down lower in it than in the actual. There are other relatively minor differences, such as the shape of the jumpseats.

Is this the same limo that was owned for a while by Paul Krute? I have photos of the Krute limo. I thought that it was used by

Stone. Krute used it to give tours. One November 22 I was a passenger in it and we drove down Elm Street at exactly 12:30

during the researcher gathering on the knoll.

Jack

No, Jack, this is not Krute's limo.

I spent an afternoon with Paul Krute and his car one year when we were in Dallas. While it looked good on the street, it was a poor imitation of SS-100-X close up and sitting in it. The center partition was all wrong, for one thing. Paul acknowledged that, and then told me a whole host of other things that were wrong with it. But, in its day, when it came rolling down Elm St. at 12:30 on 11.22, slammed on its brakes in front of the pergola and then gunned the engine, with actors portraying the historical characters, it was breathtaking. I don't know what happened to Paul's limo. I hope it was not destroyed.

This limo was built with specs given only to Kevin MacDonald, who was a protege of Willard Hess. It is exactly the same in many respects. It is 1,000 lbs lighter, because it does not have the rear seat hydraulic mechanisms installed, nor does it have the dual air conditioner and heavy heater of the original. The tires are 16" though; which is also appropriate, as tires on 100X were changed from 15" to 16". They are modern tires, however, perhaps giving rise to differences in flexion and reaction. The rear seat of the replica in the DC program is softer than that of the original. The metal grab handles in front of where the Connallys sat are different. The jump seats have square corners and are not exact. The owner, Nick C., is planning on having the jump seats redone at some time in the future.

[Pamela Brown]

Some more links to articles based on the press release and MSNBC article. You can leave comments:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/feddiscovery-c...l#comment-85109

http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/10/discove...de_the_targ.php

[Pamela Brown]

DC has posted some clips on youtube. Ironically, they have one of the GK test, but not of the SN test in which the sniper blows off the top of the dummy's head. Gee...wonder why not? :-0

You can leave comments.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

If there was a shooter on the grassy knoll, it seems logical he would use a pistol, which is easier to conceal, if it was just as effective as a rifle.

By one account, a rifle was used requiring an accomplice to dismantle it on the spot. Why? Just to make things as difficult as possible?

Relying on memory, I believe the only witness who claimed to have seen a rifle in the knoll area was Ed Hoffman

“Train man,” as Ed calls him the man in work clothes, “broke down” the rifle and secreted it in some sort of carrying case or bag, and then ran north along the tracks into the railroad yard, where he was eventually lost from Ed’s view.

Duke Lane has argued very persuasively that Hoffman is not a reliable witness:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/FreeWayman.htm

[Pamela Brown]

But the sniper did blow the top of the head off, thus invalidating the autopsy x-rays and photographs. I guess we can appreciate that.

I would be interested in further commentary in this area.

This is indeed the most interesting area of the show -- we get to see the damage an M/C does to the head.

Perhaps Gary Mack can get the DC to post a clip of the SN shot at youtube, where they do have some other bits from the show:

In fact, it is surprising it is not out there already, as the GK test is.

The M/C did far more damage to the dummy head than that shown in any existing documentation of JFK's head. The effect was analogous to cutting the top off of a soft-boiled egg.

This then opens the door to the question of whether or not an M/C was even used to fire the Z313 headshot.

[Pamela Brown]

It would seem that, in light of the SA/NAA tests, which latter did not apparently fall within the "exact" match of the bullets from the batch CE399, et al., were made from (but theoretically could have come from nearby batches), if we are going to be so specific, and since we want a different rifle to be used, is there anyone here (or anywhere else you can think of) who can suggest exactly what weapon, ammunition, manufacture and batch that we should use to validate the test?

The courts have already determined that Guinn's NAA bullet matching theory is junk science. Bullet lead is not like human DNA, so it is not possible to say what caliber of bullet gave rise to the fragments found in JFK's head or Connally's body.

The theory that 399 and the limo fragments were planted is a theory that has come back to life with the debunking of NAA.

C'mon, specifics, y'all!!! Don't gripe if someone else didn't demonstrate something to your satisfaction if you don't know just what it is that will make you satisfied!

The Discovery people are entitled to do any experiments it pleases them to do, but they would have impressed a lot more people if they had used a little bit of logic and included a pistol shot from the knoll instead of a rifle shot. A rifle is much more high-powered than a pistol, so since this is still a free country (until the Socialists take over in January) I feel entitled to point out how naive the Dicovery Channel people are.

It is my impression that the tests were staged to give them the results that they wanted. The high-powered rifle from the GK is a dead giveaway to that. Nobody ever said that LHO fired the fatal headshot from the GK. That, in Gary Mack's language, is what that test proved conclusively.

The use of wind in the SN test was another artifice. It was designed to give them as big a spatter range as possible, to try to emulate Z313.

The dummy heads were not cheap, so they didn't have much room for repeats. However, we still have to wonder if there were additional tests done which they are not discussing because they didn't get the results they were looking for.

Ironically, Bill Kelly, who seems more concerned about the number of threads initiated on this show than the implications of the tests they ran, might do well to assess these tests in terms of the action he wants to pursue against the govt. If all of the accompanying documentation were made available regarding these tests, there could be sufficient impetus gained to move that objective forward, based on the damage inflicted on the dummy head by the M/C from both the GK and the SN positions, not to mention the fact that the SN test challenges the existing drawings, diagrams and x-rays used by the WC and HSCA to represent JFK's head.