Help with the back wound please

[Mike Williams]

Mr. Kelly,

I have my issues with LHO being our man quite frankly. The evidence against him is circumstantial at best, and inadmissible at worst.

My very honest opinion is this is NOT a professional shooter. If it had been there would have been a single round fired. Game. Set. match.

Mike, I deeply respect your expertise in this area and I'd be the last

person to challenge you generally on this subject.

However, consider this: the plotters of the assassination could not be

100% sure that the shooters -- who were committing high treason and

murder and had never shot at an American President -- would not be just a

bit nervous. If JFK were merely winged on the first shot he might hit the

floor.

They could not discount this contingency 100%.

I submit they took no chances. They had access to the most

modern technology -- blood soluble paralytics and toxins.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

There is evidence that a shooter on the 2nd floor of the Dal-Tex Building

fired a blood soluble round.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=15516&hl=

There were few misses in the JFK assassination, imo.

The first shot likely struck him in the throat with a blood soluble paralytic -- the

Zapruder film shows him seizing up paralyzed in roughly two seconds circa

Z190 to Z230. This is consistent with the CIA testing of blood soluble paralytics.

Immediately after the autopsy the prosectors huddled together and

arrived at a "general feeling" that JFK was struck with blood souble

rounds.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

The second shot was a blood soluble toxin fired from the Dal-Tex (or so I'd speculate).

It was a kill shot, just to the right of midline about the level of the third thoracic

vertebra.

The head shots came from a triangulation of fire (or so I'd speculate). They didn't miss.

3 hits. The head wound evidence is so conflicted and tainted it doesn't get you anywhere

trying to figure it out.

I would not even presume to surmise what Oswald would do. The boy had issues that is sure enough, but to what I am not qualified to give any better guess than anyone else.

In normal operations we have a spotter, he is our security, and is generally armed with an m4 or some variant. We also have a pistol. Basically the snipers best security is a damn good "hide", his own ability to enter and leave an area undetected, and his insistence that one shot be fired.

Think if you will about a bird in your back yard chirping. If he chirps just once we often cant locate him, however if he continues to chirp he is soon located, and so it is with a sniper. One shot, then relocate.

One of the main things in considering location is escape. This is and should always be preplanned.

Best to you SIR,

Mike

And this is exactly what happened. The first shot came circa Z190 fired from Black Dog

Man.

How do we know?

Because Rosemary Willis and the Willis 5 photograph strongly indicate as much.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

According to the HSCA analysis of the Willis 5 photo (below) Black Dog Man had

"near the region of his hands...'a very distinct straight-line feature.'"

According to Rosemary Willis Black Dog Man was a "conspicuous" person who

happened to "disappear the next instant."

In the Zapruder film we can see at what point "the next instant" occurred:

at Z214-17 Rosemary does a rapid head-snap in the direction of Black Dog Man.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

Black Dog Man took one shot and was out of there in less then a second.

The damage to JFK's neck as shown in the neck x-ray is also consistent

with the conclusion that he was struck with a blood soluble paralytic in

the throat.

The round nicked his trachea, bruised the tip of his lung, left a hairline

fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an airpocket overlaying

C7 and T1. Minor soft tissue damage, no exit, no round recovered.

Same with the back wound: shallow, no exit, no round recovered.

The simplest explanation carries the day -- the autopsists got it right

the night of the autopsy:

Two wounds. No exits. No rounds recovered. Blood solubles.

This is the first post you have made that I agree with almost 100%-- But, it does bring us back to the sniper's nest. Even if we agree that LHO as the sniper was an unlikely scenario, what about that location? This is not a point of probable extraction, by any stretch of the imagination, for anyone under the circumstances. Moreover, if the TSBD sniper (if there was one) was an amateur as you postulate, HOW DID HE GET OUT UN-MOLESTED in the aftermath?

Greg,

There is no postulation. I am a professional shooter. Had this been the work of a professional shooter it would have been one shot. Escape would have been much simpler, as i doubt his location would have been identified any where near as quickly. (A professional would not have the damn rifle sticking out of the window!). I never did agree that LHO was the sniper. I said the facts are , what the facts are. Circumstantial at best. I do not in anyway believe he was incapable of this shooting. These shots were less than 100 yards. This is easy pickins as it were.

I would suspect that he got out unmolested because he fit in. He was not out of place in that area. This does nothing to help the LHO cause.

Best to you!

Mike

"A professional would not have the damn rifle sticking out of the window!"

On the contrary, good sir! If setting up patsies were one's profession and one wanted

to establish shots from the patsy's "sniper's nest" then wouldn't one have someone hold

the rifle out the window and fire 3 rounds into the blank spaces in Dealey Plaza just to

establish the official "shooter" location?

None of the 3 shots fired from the "Oswald sniper nest" hit anything, imo, other

than perhaps Tague.

Cliff,

Having just finished reading much of the autopsy info. The only reason blood solubles were mentioned was because they were unable to locate an exit for the back wound. At the time this was speculated they did not even realize there as a throat wound. The there was "communication" with Parkland and information led to them finding out about the throat wound. It was then that they determined this could be the exit. (however they were never able to probe it, which is a moronic blunder to the SBT).

I do not recall any time them discussing blood soluble rounds in relation to both wounds.

So the question begs to answer.

Why go through all the paralytic shooting, etc etc. Why take a chance on one of "those shooters" missing and messing the whole thing up?

Could they not have just as easily framed the patsy with one well aimed shot? Of course they could. Why not just hire a pro, make a single shot kill, and frame the patsy accordingly? Would Oswald have looked less guilty because he only made a single head shot? Of course not.

Why add so many dimensions, that all run the risk of compromising the whole operation?

The 6th floor of the TSBD can be proven to be the location of the shots. This is a mathematical certainty.

There is a little saying in the military KISS

Keep it simple stupid.

Please do not take this as me calling you stupid. This is not how it is meant at all Sir. I am simply saying that while planning anything the simplest plan is often the one that has the most chance of success.

I would think the lead on the clothing would be a huge indication that the blood soluble rounds theory is lost.

I enjoy talking to you Cliff, and look forward to more of your thoughts!

Best to you Sir!

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Martin,

Absolutely unequivocally YES.

Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.

Mike,

How would you correlate three shots from the sixth floor to the visual evidence of the Zapruder film? i.e. what z frames would you place the shots at?

I should state for the record that I firmly believe there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll and that the acoustics evidence will eventually be recognised as hard evidence of this.

Cheers!

Martin

Martin,

Good morning my friend!

I believe the impacts are at 197, to the back of JFK(penetrating not perforating), the mid 230's for JBC (obviously perforating), and 312 JFK (perforating).

I am not of the opinion that lack of evidence is conclusive. What I mean by this is simply that just because no one has been able to prove beyond doubt the existence of a grassy knoll shooter, that they do not exist. I find this to be narrow and illogical thinking.

However if there was a GK shooter they certainly missed, and this can be proven by physics and trajectory. There is no shooting position on the Knoll that would not include left side head damage. Further if they did miss they had to miss behind the target. Had they missed ahead of the target it would have meant wounding Mrs. Kennedy.

I have been recently doing much work on the first shot, and am convinced it was at 197 (impact with an earlier trigger pull), I have not narrowed the JBC wound yet (simply have not looked that close yet), and 312 needs little analysis to determine a hit.

The article I am writing includes bullet flight times as well as reaction times allowed for the speed of the sounds the witnesses heard. It is a pretty large undertaking, but I keep plugging away. This is the article I have been referring to when I say I am working on something.

Hope you have a good day!

Mike

[Mike Williams]

So given Martins assessment of the wounds. In the photo I posted earlier, the lower wound seems to be more consistent in location and size does it not? Am I missing something here? Why would they be holding the ruler like that to measure the higher wound? That does not make sense to me. I could use some help here guys.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Mike Williams

[Mike Williams]

Martin,

Good morning my friend!

I believe the impacts are at 197, to the back of JFK(penetrating not perforating), the mid 230's for JBC (obviously perforating), and 312 JFK (perforating).

I am not of the opinion that lack of evidence is conclusive. What I mean by this is simply that just because no one has been able to prove beyond doubt the existence of a grassy knoll shooter, that they do not exist. I find this to be narrow and illogical thinking.

However if there was a GK shooter they certainly missed, and this can be proven by physics and trajectory. There is no shooting position on the Knoll that would not include left side head damage. Further if they did miss they had to miss behind the target. Had they missed ahead of the target it would have meant wounding Mrs. Kennedy.

I have been recently doing much work on the first shot, and am convinced it was at 197 (impact with an earlier trigger pull), I have not narrowed the JBC wound yet (simply have not looked that close yet), and 312 needs little analysis to determine a hit.

The article I am writing includes bullet flight times as well as reaction times allowed for the speed of the sounds the witnesses heard. It is a pretty large undertaking, but I keep plugging away. This is the article I have been referring to when I say I am working on something.

Hope you have a good day!

Mike

Good afternoon from wet and windy England!

I don't agree that a second shot to the head - fired from the knoll - can be ruled out. The fact is, the medical evidence as it stands is confusing, contradictory and ultimately inconclusive. The brain is missing and so are the photos the autopsists said were taken showing the back of the head with the scalp reflected. To draw a firm conclusion we need all of the available evidence and we need to believe we can trust the evidence we have. Ask yourself this:

Why is it that the autopsy surgeons were unable to locate the entry wound in the autopsy photos or x-rays when shown them by the HSCA?

Why do the x-rays show no damage to the back of the head when the autopsy report and literally dozens of witnesses including doctors, nurses, FBI agents, Police officers, Secret Service agents and even a professor of neurosurgery(!) said it was there?

Why is it that the three independent forensic experts asked to review the medical evidence for the ARRB were unanimous in concluding that the autopsy x-rays show there to be NO BULLET HOLE in the back of the head at all? (Even the HSCA's location for the entry wound was based on the appearance of a fragment trail and not on a through and through hole)

Autopsy surgeon Dr Boswell actually confirmed to the HSCA and the ARRB that there was bone missing in the back of the head! According to Boswell, they first found a portion of an entry hole on the back of the skull above which was a huge 17cm defect. Only when a bone fragment from the back of the head was brought into the autopsy room were they able to complete the circumference of the entry wound:

“There was a shelf and then a little hole came up on the side and then one of the smaller of the two fragments in that X-ray, when that arrived, we were able to fit that down there and complete the circumference of that bone wound.” (7HSCA260)

You can see Boswell's drawing of the wound here: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...md209_0001a.htm

Dr Boswell's description of the skull is in serious conflict with both the autopsy photos and x-rays. How can that be if the medical record is complete, conclusive and trustworthy? Make no mistake, Mike, there is something seriously wrong with the medical evidence in this case

All of that aside, can we really make a determination on what type of head wound we'd expect from a grassy knoll shot if we don't know what type of ammunition was used?

Cheers!

Martin

Martin,

The one consistency is no left side head damage. Which certainly would have occurred from the GK, with anything of any medium to high velocity. We see no second impact movement, but more telling we see no secondary spatter. All three of these are required by physics to prove a second shot.

I agree the medical evidence is a friggin mess! I have found several inconsistencies just this morning on working on the trajectory for shot 1.

To wit.

They say the wound was 7mmx4mm with a 45 to 60 degree decline through the body. This defies any and all geometric and physical possibility.

I believe what I am working on will give evidence that JFK is hit before 223 224, and significantly so.

I suspect that the position the Secret Service has held for years is accurate.

JFK 1st shot

JBC 2nd

JFK 3rd

Mike

[John Dolva]

Mike, and I've had diputes with Bill Miller over this, but I see what may be a very slight ruffling of the hair on 312. If no one else can see it it's everyone to one and I must abandon that as a notion of the moment of the start of terminal ballistics, the next moment is at most 1/18 (whatever) later.

[John Dolva]

How do you (anyone) explain the funnel like spray of hair top left of the back of head photos and the fascia damage next to it?

[Mike Williams]

Martin,

The one consistency is no left side head damage. Which certainly would have occurred from the GK, with anything of any medium to high velocity. We see no second impact movement, but more telling we see no secondary spatter. All three of these are required by physics to prove a second shot.

I agree the medical evidence is a friggin mess! I have found several inconsistencies just this morning on working on the trajectory for shot 1.

To wit.

They say the wound was 7mmx4mm with a 45 to 60 degree decline through the body. This defies any and all geometric and physical possibility.

I believe what I am working on will give evidence that JFK is hit before 223 224, and significantly so.

I suspect that the position the Secret Service has held for years is accurate.

JFK 1st shot

JBC 2nd

JFK 3rd

Mike

Mike,

Why do you feel there would have to be left-side damage?

Some researchers, like pathologist Cyril Wecht and marine sniper Craig Roberts, have postulated some type of fragmenting or exploding bullet was fired from the knoll and struck the right side of the head. Would you agree that this was a possibility?

I'd say there is a secondary movement after the impact at z312. At z328, it appears to me that Kennedy is driven quite suddenly forward. Dr Michael Kurtz meaured the movement as "over three feet" in "one-sixth of a second." The acoustics evidence places a shot from the north end of Elm St at z328 so the film and dictabelt appear to corroborate each other.

You said above that you believed the first shot was fired around z197. But the view from the TSBD was blocked by the oak tree at that point so how can that be? I find it hard to believe that someone fired through the tree and hit his mark.

Cheers!

Martin

BTW there are apparently fragments in the left side on the x-rays.

Martin,

Because shooting from the knoll puts the shot directly into the right side of JFK's head. I will see If I can find my over head of this from my buddy Dons map.

I would absolutely not agree with that. I would further state that I would seriously wonder about the motives of a Sniper who said these shots were difficult. Its ridiculous. A fragmenting high power rifle round would have all but removed the head. (most sorry for the graphic nature, but we are talking about a shooting). The kinetic energy transfer would be massive, additionally it would perforate and come out in a huge epic mess. All this fragmenting bullet garbage is just that....nonsense. The most violent shot we see is 313, and that by all apperances looks just like an FMJ round. A fragmenting round would be 3-5 times more apparent, and graphic.

Yes I have read this before about the movement at 328, the problem is a transiting shot has no where near that much energy. It goes back to the .1-.3% of impact energy absorbed. Which as I showed before is a small amount. It would take far more than 10 ft lbs to toss 80-90 lbs 3 feet.

Oh yes the magic limb ricochet tree! I feel that I can provide evidence to prove that a shot may have been available much earlier than 210. I also, in looking at the WC photos have no issue believing a shooter could track a target nearly the whole way through the trees. And remember at the time of the shooting, the wind was out of the due west at about 13 mph......what does that do to the limb at the top of a tree?

Martin I hope your day in wet and windy England was top notch!

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Mike, and I've had diputes with Bill Miller over this, but I see what may be a very slight ruffling of the hair on 312. If no one else can see it it's everyone to one and I must abandon that as a notion of the moment of the start of terminal ballistics, the next moment is at most 1/18 (whatever) later.

John,

I think highly of Bill, but would have to tell you in this instance to stick by your guns. I believe you maybe correct. The distance a bullet can travel in 1 z frame at 2165fps is 118 feet. In one frame he is upright the next is the forward movement, and gore. Let me do some figuring and see where we are with this. It is possible that you are seeing the in shoot before the transfer of energy.

Mike

[William Kelly]

Hey Mike,

Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?

Martin

Martin,

Absolutely unequivocally YES.

Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.

Mr. Mike,

A statement and a few more questions.

Since Oswald can't be placed within that 20" circle in the 6th floor window in the TSBD at the time of the assassination 12:30 PMCST, as he has an alibi - being on the second floor at the time, do you think the Sixth Floor Sniper, whoever he was, do you think he was a local Texan hillbilly loser hick who got lucky, or do you think he was a highly paid, well trained and competent clandestine covert operative who killed on assignment before and has done so since? Was the sniper a hillbilly or jackal?

And if you insist on Oswald being the Sixth floor sniper, do you think he suddenly decided to kill the President because he was given the opportunity and was mad at Marina or did he plan it out in advance and get the job at the TSBD and set up the Sniper's Nest and carry out a plan he thought of in advance. If Oswald was the sniper, was he a hillbilly or a jackal?

And as part of official US military sniper's training, are you trained on how to protect yourself in the Sniper's Nest and how to get out of there after the job's done?

Thanks for your knowing and honest response,

Bill Kelly

Mr. Kelly,

I have my issues with LHO being our man quite frankly. The evidence against him is circumstantial at best, and inadmissible at worst.

My very honest opinion is this is NOT a professional shooter. If it had been there would have been a single round fired. Game. Set. match.

I would not even presume to surmise what Oswald would do. The boy had issues that is sure enough, but to what I am not qualified to give any better guess than anyone else.

In normal operations we have a spotter, he is our security, and is generally armed with an m4 or some variant. We also have a pistol. Basically the snipers best security is a damn good "hide", his own ability to enter and leave an area undetected, and his insistence that one shot be fired.

Think if you will about a bird in your back yard chirping. If he chirps just once we often cant locate him, however if he continues to chirp he is soon located, and so it is with a sniper. One shot, then relocate.

One of the main things in considering location is escape. This is and should always be preplanned.

Best to you SIR,

Mike

Thanks Mike,

I too am now convinced that JFK's killer, that is the guy who fired the head shot, only took one shot, and waited for his mark like a hunter on a deer stand, while the other shots were just the icing used to implicate the Patsy.

Why would the Sixth Floor Sniper stick his rifle butt out the window when he could have made the same shot from a foot or so further back in the window and no one would have been the wiser. His intention was to be seen. And even with three armed traffic cops 70 feet below him, and hundred cops within a hundred yards, he still knew he would get away. How did he know that?

BK

[Mike Williams]

Thanks Mike,

I too am now convinced that JFK's killer, that is the guy who fired the head shot, only took one shot, and waited for his mark like a hunter on a deer stand, while the other shots were just the icing used to implicate the Patsy.

Why would the Sixth Floor Sniper stick his rifle butt out the window when he could have made the same shot from a foot or so further back in the window and no one would have been the wiser. His intention was to be seen. And even with three armed traffic cops 70 feet below him, and hundred cops within a hundred yards, he still knew he would get away. How did he know that?

BK

Mr Bill Sir,

I would suggest this is not the case. I believe the shooter fired all three and the fact that he needed three shots, and left the rifle sticking out the window, and left evidence behind, etc, etc, just lends to the point that he is not a professional.

Also if we look at the shell pattern on the floor it indicates one shot, and then two more as teh vehicle went further down the street. I know Fritz was alleged to have picked up the shells, I just do not know if I buy into that.

Mike

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

Having just finished reading much of the autopsy info. The only reason blood solubles

were mentioned was because they were unable to locate an exit for the back wound.

Mike,

Not only was there no exit wound, there was no bullet.

Same with the throat wound. Entrance wound, no exit, no bullet.

The neck x-ray -- as I posted up-thread -- shows nothing but soft tissue damage

and an air-pocket instead of a bullet.

What firearm round strikes no hard tissue and yet does not exit, Mike?

The Zapruder film shows JFK seizing up paralyzed in roughly two seconds,

consistent with known CIA testing of blood soluble paralytics.

The prosectors blood soluble scenario is the ONLY one that accounts for all known

reliable facts.

Properly prepared medical evidence is reliable; improperly

prepared medical evidence is unreliable.

Isn't this a matter of common sense, Mike?

At the time this was speculated they did not even realize there as a throat wound.

Finck didn't realize there was a throat wound -- but Humes probably did.

Dr. Robert B Livingston of Los Angeles insists he called Humes prior to the

autopsy to discuss the throat wound (see Assassination Science, pgs 170-1).

Livinston relates that the FBI men told Humes to hang up.

Consider this: the brain was removed, the lung and heart were removed, the

organs of the neck were not removed. No examination of the neck was

allowed, and Humes probably didn't feel he was allowed to discuss the throat

wound.

The there was "communication" with Parkland and information led to them finding out about the

throat wound. It was then that they determined this could be the exit. (however they were n

ever able to probe it, which is a moronic blunder to the SBT).

Dr. Finck DID probe the wound, Mike.

Floyd Riebe, ARRB deposition, May 7, 1997, (emphasis added):

Q: Do you recall anyone having used any probes in the body during the autopsy?

A: I think Dr. Finck did for that wound in the back. But he didn't go in very far. And they

didn't let it go from there.

Pierre Finck, ARRB deposition, May 24, 1996:

Q: Dr. Finck, do you recall having seen any x-rays at the time of the autopsy?

A: X-ray films of the head, yes. And I recall asking for more x-ray films and I don't

remember when I saw them, probably during the autopsy. There was a radiologist

present, and it was his job to interpret the x-ray films. But I am the one who asked

for more x-ray films in addition to the ones of the head. That I recall.

Q: Why did you ask that additional x-rays be taken?

A: To detect the possibility of presence of projectiles in the body outside of the head.

The head had been x-rayed, and I wanted to have a more complete survey.

Q: Is this because you were attempting to locate the path of the bullet that entered in

the upper thoracic?

A: Yes.

Q: And when you looked for the bullet, where was it that you were looking in the body?

A: Well, there was no bullet in the body, in addition to the fragments in the head, we did

not see a bullet in other parts of the body and that was the reason for asking for more x-ray

films, having an entrance and no exit at the time of the autopsy.

Q: At the time you concluded the autopsy, on the night of November 22nd-23rd, did you

have any conclusion in your own mind about what had happened to the bullet that entered

the upper thoracic cavity?

A: No. And that was the reason for the phone call of Dr. Humes the following morning, and

he found out there was a wound of exit in the front of the neck. But at the time of the autopsy,

we were not aware of that exit wound in the front of the neck.

Q: Can you explain to me why there was no prosector who apparently had believed that the

thoracic wound would have exited from the throat? Why was it that that was not being

considered as an option?

A: I don't know.

Q: Did you insert a probe into the wound in the back?

A: From what I remember, we tried at the time. It was unsuccessful.

Q: Did the angle of the probe show that the bullet, at least of what you were aware of at the

time, went down into the thoracic cavity rather than out the throat?

A: Can you repeat that?

Q: Sure. Did the angle of the probe when you inserted the probe into the wound, begin in a

direction that pointed down into the thoracic cavity rather than out the throat?

A: I don't think I can answer the question, because we said the probing was unsuccessful.

So how can I determine an angle if the probing was unsuccessful?

Q: How far into the wound did the probe go?

A: I don't know. We said it was unsuccessful from what I remember, and not how far it would go.

Secret Service SA Roy Kellerman, Warren Commission testimony:

“There were three gentlemen who were performing this autopsy. A Colonel Finck—during the

examination of the President, from the hole that was in his shoulder, and with a probe, and

we—were standing right alongside of him, he is probing inside the shoulder with his instrument

and I said, ‘Colonel, where did it go?’ He said, ‘There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in

this man’s shoulder.’”

I do not recall any time them discussing blood soluble rounds in relation to both wounds.

So? We are still left with the following hard facts:

1) There was a shallow wound just to the right of the third thoracic vertebra.

No bullet was recovered; the round did not exit.

2) There was an entrance wound in the throat that nicked the trachea, bruised

the tip of the lung, left a hair-line fracture of the right T1 transverse process

and an air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1. No exit. No bullet.

3) The Zapruder film shows JFK frantically grabbing at his throat before

sezing up paralyzed in roughly two seconds.

4) According to Church Committee testimony of weapons developer

Charles Senseney and CIA director William Colby, the CIA tested

blood soluble paralytics on humans -- the subject was paralyzed in

two seconds.

If you're a hard-fact man as you say you are, Mike, it should be pretty

obvious what happened.

So the question begs to answer.

Why go through all the paralytic shooting, etc etc.

First-shot/kill-shot was not a 100% sure thing.

And the treasonous bastards who killed Kennedy were all about making it

A Sure Thing.

Keep It Simple Stupid: first paralyze the target, then hit the target with a toxin

before blowing his brains out.

Isn't there a military principle about using "overwhelming force"?

Why take a chance on one of "those shooters" missing and messing the whole thing up?

How so? All the paralytic needs to do is penetrate the body. If the shot

misses the target completely, so what?

You have a much more daunting scenario with a first-shot/kill-shot, which

leaves no margin of error for a nervous shooter.

Could they not have just as easily framed the patsy with one well aimed shot?

Of course they could. Why not just hire a pro, make a single shot kill, and frame

the patsy accordingly?

Ever fire a round at a head of state, Mike?

Ever commit murder and treason?

Ever bet your life on someone's nerves in that situation, where one

guy's steady hand is the only thing between you and the gallows?

Of course not. All contingencies were accounted for.

Would Oswald have looked less guilty because he only made a single head shot? Of course not.

Why add so many dimensions, that all run the risk of compromising the whole operation?

What risk? The rounds were blood soluble and could not show up on x-ray.

The 6th floor of the TSBD can be proven to be the location of the shots. This is a mathematical certainty.

There is a little saying in the military KISS

Keep it simple stupid.

Please do not take this as me calling you stupid. This is not how it is meant at all Sir. I am simply saying that while planning anything the simplest plan is often the one that has the most chance of success.

And what tactic has a greater chance of success -- first-shot/kill-shot, or a first

shot that can hit the target anywhere on the body?

The latter, obviously.

I would think the lead on the clothing would be a huge indication that the blood soluble rounds theory is lost.

It wasn't lead, it was copper. The FBI man who conducted the clothing examination

was a fellow named Henry Heiberger. Agent Heiberger has four daughters. My sister

went to college with one of the Heiberger daughters. According to what Ms. Heiberger

told my sister, Henry Heiberger lived his life with an elevated concern for the safety of

his family.

Draw what conclusions you will, but I don't find an FBI examination of the clothing

dispositive. It is far more likely that J. Edgar Hoover cooked the examination to

conform with the official cover-up than the possibility of, say, a conventional round

striking no hard tissue in the neck and not exiting.

The simplest explanation is that the prosectors got it right the night of the

autopsy. Two entrance wounds. No exit wounds. No bullets.

Pretty obvious, I think.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Mike Williams]

Morning Cliff,

The issue I have with a paralytic, is simply how does one make one, and use lead? There is lead on the jacket. Certainly lead is not blood soluble. Of course the question also has to be raised, how would they know his physical reaction to a paralytic? When hit with a paralytic JFK could just as well have flopped to the floorboard of the car, having lost muscular control, and become unavailable as a target.

The military principle involves more than overwhelming force, it involves the presentation of overwhelming force. In the instance of a covert operation, the objective is to have highly trained and very skilled persons who are an overwhelming force, but do not appear to be so.

It becomes readily apparent our shooter was not included in the class above. Had they been it would have been a one shot situation. The argument that they had to fire three shots to frame the patsy does not hold logic. They well could have framed the patsy with one shot.

Fire one round hide rifle, leave shell casing. Exact same scenario as many theorize, but with only one casing rather than 3.

The theory of firing paralytics, and additional unneeded shots as part of a base plan is against all theory and tactics. The more facets you have the higher percentage of risk of failure.

The optimum plan for an operation like this would call for an elevated shooter behind the location, and a street level shooter in front of the location (insurance). I would speculate that this insurance would not be needed as these are very simple shots.

I hold now as I always have that this was quite the slipshod operation. It smacks of being poorly planned and impulsive. It smacks of being carried out by someone with moderate ability, be it physica ability (their own), or material ability(their weapon).

Case in point. If setting up a patsy, why hide the rifle, and leave the casings in plain view. I might point out the casings were found first, and further exhaustive search lead to the rifle on the same floor. Why not leave the rifle in plain view as well?

From the lone assassin point of view. Why not take the extra second to police up the brass, and hide it with the rifle? This would certainly kept the search going for much longer. It would have prolonged the conclusion that someone was missing from the TSBD and the identity of that person. This screams ill thought amateur.

Hope your day is great!

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Martin,

Because shooting from the knoll puts the shot directly into the right side of JFK's head. I will see If I can find my over head of this from my buddy Dons map.

I would absolutely not agree with that. I would further state that I would seriously wonder about the motives of a Sniper who said these shots were difficult. Its ridiculous. A fragmenting high power rifle round would have all but removed the head. (most sorry for the graphic nature, but we are talking about a shooting). The kinetic energy transfer would be massive, additionally it would perforate and come out in a huge epic mess. All this fragmenting bullet garbage is just that....nonsense. The most violent shot we see is 313, and that by all apperances looks just like an FMJ round. A fragmenting round would be 3-5 times more apparent, and graphic.

Yes I have read this before about the movement at 328, the problem is a transiting shot has no where near that much energy. It goes back to the .1-.3% of impact energy absorbed. Which as I showed before is a small amount. It would take far more than 10 ft lbs to toss 80-90 lbs 3 feet.

Oh yes the magic limb ricochet tree! I feel that I can provide evidence to prove that a shot may have been available much earlier than 210. I also, in looking at the WC photos have no issue believing a shooter could track a target nearly the whole way through the trees. And remember at the time of the shooting, the wind was out of the due west at about 13 mph......what does that do to the limb at the top of a tree?

Martin I hope your day in wet and windy England was top notch!

Mike

Mike,

Thanks for sharing your insights. I'm still unclear on why a shot from the grassy knoll would have to produce damage to the left side of the head. Surely that's just assuming the bullet follows a straight path which, as you've said yourself, is not always the case.

Do you have any sources or further info you can share on why you a feel a frangible round would all but remove the head?

Martin

Martin,

Here is that overhead I promised you.

Please disregard the dotted blue line coming in from the front, as that was added to represent a shooting position as requested by a fellow researcher, it is not represented in the color coding on the list.

A frangible bullet will react in one of two ways. It will either A) remain in the target, generating a massive impact that we do not see the likes of anywhere on the film, or B ) transit the target and create epic damage which we do not see on the film.

The amount of blood and tissue debris would be immense, and far more than what we see in 313 had it traversed, which it certainly would have. I doubt highly that the head itself would stop a projectile like that. It would defy physics.

The head is filled with liquid. By molecular design the atoms of a liquid are very close together this allows for very little compression. Simply that pressure created has to go somewhere. Can you imagine the cranium being exposed to several thousand foot pounds of pressure?

Mike

Edited April 1, 2010 by Mike Williams

[Mike Williams]

Martin,

Here is that overhead I promised you.

Please disregard the dotted blue line coming in from the front, as that was added to represent a shooting position as requested by a fellow researcher, it is not represented in the color coding on the list.

A frangible bullet will react in one of two ways. It will either A) remain in the target, generating a massive impact that we do not see the likes of anywhere on the film, or B ) transit the target and create epic damage which we do not see on the film.

The amount of blood and tissue debris would be immense, and far more than what we see in 313 had it traversed, which it certainly would have. I doubt highly that the head itself would stop a projectile like that. It would defy physics.

The head is filled with liquid. By molecular design the atoms of a liquid are very close together this allows for very little compression. Simply that pressure created has to go somewhere. Can you imagine the cranium being exposed to several thousand foot pounds of pressure?

Mike

Thank you Mike.

I think you missed my other question. Why would a shot from the knoll have to produce damage to the left side? If bullets don't always follow a straight line after hitting bone (as I understand it bullets are quite easily deflected by substances much less dense than bone) is it not possible that a bullet struck the right side and exited the back of the head where dozens of witnesses placed the exit wound?

Cheers!

Martin

Martin,

I actually saw in instance where a man was shot in the forehead apparently twice with a .22. However there was no exit and there were no rounds in the head. Come to find out the bullet went in, followed the curvature of the inside of the skull and exited the front. There was one round fired and not 2!

My point here is that projectiles can only be examined for wound ballistics based on what other evidence there may have been, simply because of their unpredictability! The answer is yes. It could happen, however with high power rifle rounds, this would be very very unlikely. Its a never say never thing my friend.

I would ask you to consider this in consideration of probability. If the round entered the right side, all that energy would be sent towards the left, even if that projectile turned, this would cause a massive amount of left side damage, even if the projectile did not exit the left side. The sheer pressure alone would be enormous.

To me the xrays clearly show a single round from the rear forward in the coning of lead particles. Some say that this could also represent a front to back shot, I find this unlikely, but mention it in fairness. There has never been anyone to the best of my knowledge who has claimed any type of side to side damage. It is always deemed front to back or back to front.

I just can not fathom a shot from the right side replicating anything we see by way of film, testimony (medical) or xray.

Mike

[Cliff Varnell]

Morning Cliff,

The issue I have with a paralytic, is simply how does one make one, and use lead? There is lead on the jacket. Certainly lead is not blood soluble.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Henry Heiberger of the FBI reported

copper on the jacket.

What is more likely, Mike: 1) that J Edgar Hoover cooked the examination to

conform with the official cover-up, or2) a conventional round hit nothing but

soft tissue in the neck and did not exit?

What conventional round would behave that way, Mike?

Of course the question also has to be raised, how would they know his physical reaction to a paralytic?

They had tested it on humans.

It's all right here:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

When hit with a paralytic JFK could just as well have flopped to the floorboard of the car,

having lost muscular control, and become unavailable as a target.

Why, have you tested this technology yourself? Is that what people do?

How does a paralytic cause one to flop around? Isn't the goal the opposite,

to paralyze the target?

That's what the CIA conceded in 1975 -- targets paralyzed in two seconds,

exactly what we see in the Zapruder.

The military principle involves more than overwhelming force, it involves the presentation of overwhelming force. In the instance of a covert operation, the objective is to have highly trained and very skilled persons who are an overwhelming force, but do not appear to be so.

Excellent argument for my point of view. That is precisely the motivation

to use blood soluble rounds which cannot be detected on x-ray. There was

overwhelming force, but it did not appear to be so.

Same with the head shot -- triangulation of fire, three simultaneous shots,

three hits, but only the sound of one report.

It becomes readily apparent our shooter was not included in the class above. Had they been it would have been a one shot situation. The argument that they had to fire three shots to frame the patsy does not hold logic. They well could have framed the patsy with one shot.

So you say. But since you've never had experience ambushing an

American head of state I dare say your confidence is misplaced.

Fire one round hide rifle, leave shell casing. Exact same scenario as many theorize, but with only one casing rather than 3.

The theory of firing paralytics, and additional unneeded shots as part of a base plan is against all theory and tactics. The more facets you have the higher percentage of risk of failure.

You speak of the first-shot/kill-shot scenario as guaranteed.

Again, you discount the possibility of nervous shooters merely wounding

the President, allowing him to duck out of the line of further fire.

No professional is going to assume first-shot/kill-shot when the target

is President of the United States.

The optimum plan for an operation like this would call for an elevated shooter behind the location, and a street level shooter in front of the location (insurance).

A far better insurance would be to paralyze the target first, to preclude

the first shot merely wounding the target who could then flop down out

of the line of fire.

I would speculate that this insurance would not be needed as these are very simple shots.

And yet you concede the contingency planning requiring insurance.

I hold now as I always have that this was quite the slipshod operation. It smacks of being poorly planned and impulsive. It smacks of being carried out by someone with moderate ability, be it physica ability (their own), or material ability(their weapon).

I hate to say it, Mike, but you don't seem particularily interested in the

hard facts of the case that don't conform to your conclusion.

I'll ask you again: what kind of conventional round strikes the throat , nicks the

trachea, bruises the tip of the lung, causes a hairline fracture of the right T1

transverse process, and leaves an air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1, with no exit?

Your input is appreciated!