Zapruder throat shot BEFORE JFK goes behind the Stemmons sign circa frames Z194 to Z201

[Dean Hagerman]

This is arguably the most likely scenario.

I dont think so Cliff

I will believe a shot around Z190 (or a little after) from the front, but not a blood soluble flechette from the BDM position

Hi Dean,

This scenario matches the neck x-ray perfectly: bruised lung tip, hairline fracture of

the right T1 transverse process, subcutaneous air pocket overlaying C7 and T1. There

was no exit and no round recovered. Same thing with the back wound -- shallow, no exit,

no round was recovered.

This scenario also matches the testimony of Rosemary Willis, who described BDM as a "conspicuous" person who happened to "disappear the next instant." The HSCA photography panel examined Willis #5, taken a split second after the throat shot, and observed a "distinct straight-line feature" which was "near the region of the hands."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_Vol12_0006a.htm

This scenario was first put forth by the prosectors themselves at the end of the autopsy.

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)

Cliff

The scenario that you back up is possible, no doubt in my mind

But for my personal shooting scenario it just does not fit

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff

The scenario that you back up is possible, no doubt in my mind

But for my personal shooting scenario it just does not fit

Dean, I'd like to hear more about how you see it happening...

[Dean Hagerman]

Cliff

The scenario that you back up is possible, no doubt in my mind

But for my personal shooting scenario it just does not fit

Dean, I'd like to hear more about how you see it happening...

Shot #1 DalTex: Hits curb, fragments strike Tague

Shot #2 Picket Fence/Grassy Knoll: Hits JFK in throat

Shot #3 TSBD: Hits Connally in back, wrist, thigh

Shot #4 DalTex: Hits JFK in back

Shot #5 TSBD: Hits JFK in head

Shot# 6 Picket Fence/Grassy Knoll: Hits JFK in head just after shot #5

6 shots, 2 shots from each position

Edited August 5, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[David Andrews]

Looking at Duncan's video, I remember the FBI/Hoover-released demurrer about the throat wound: that it happened as JFK turned to wave at someone behind the limo.

Is it possible that this is adapted from a report from an eyewitness on the street (FBI or other)? The shot seems to affect JFK just after he turns his face back toward the camera after waving back. His face seems still turned perhaps ten degrees to his right when the hit registers.*

Is it possible that the FBI "fabrication" about his looking backward is actually a time-adjusted confirmation of what we see happening here?

*What does the facial position tell us about the source location of the throat shot?

Edited August 5, 2010 by David Andrews

[David Josephs]

I'm sorry but I forget which Exec Session but the commissioners were discussing how in the world he is shot in the throat from "there" - assuming they are speaking of the Sniper's window...

And proceed to talk about his turning around.

At no time does JFK turn 180 degrees to face the TSBD (remember the streeet is constantly turning to the left thereby making the turn farther and farther to JFK's right.

Hoover mentions the turn to LBJ as he understands the shot was to the throat, not to the back and thru the throat... this is before Tague and the SBT...

DJ

Edited August 5, 2010 by David Josephs

[Chris Davidson]

Has anyone considered how much blood should be flowing from JFK's throat if he was hit from either "front or rear" with a rifle?

Same question for a flechette.

I'm not asking this, in relation to what is/isn't seen on the film, yet!!!

thanks,

chris

[David Josephs]

Has anyone considered how much blood should be flowing from JFK's throat if he was hit from either "front or rear" with a rifle?

Same question for a flechette.

I'm not asking this, in relation to what is/isn't seen on the film, yet!!!

thanks,

chris

Interesting thought again Chris.... I've seen this image of the shirt.. is there a color, full frontal version of his shirt?

You'd think with a bullethole just about where the 2nd letter "O" is in Laboratory, there would be blood all around that button. We'd also want to see the tie in color as well

DJ

Edited August 5, 2010 by David Josephs

[Robert Harris]

Look closely at JFK at 193. He has spun to his right and is clearly shielding his face with his right hand, which suggests that he was spattered by debris from a shot that struck the pavement to his right, generating the "sparks" that were seen then.

At least you're original, Robert.

Now these " sparks" What is your source for this, to me, new information.

Duncan you should try reading the Warren Commission testimonies.

WC testimony of Mrs. Donald Baker

Mr. LIEBELER. As you went down Elm Street that you saw this thing hit the street--what did it look like when you saw it?

Mrs. BAKER. Well, as I said, I thought it was a firecracker. It looked just like you could see the sparks from it and I just thought it was a firecracker and I was thinking that there was somebody was fixing to get in a lot of trouble and we thought the kids or whoever threw it were down below or standing near the underpass or back up here by the sign.

Mr. LIEBELER. Would they have been as far down as the underpass or somewhere near the sign to have thrown a firecracker in the street?

Mrs. BAKER. It was near the signs.

Mr. LIEBELER. How close to the curb on Elm Street was this thing you saw hit; do you remember? It would have been on the curb side near the side away from the Texas School Book Depository Building on the opposite side of the street; is that right?

Mrs. BAKER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How close to the opposite curb do you think it was?

Mrs. BAKER. It was approximately in the middle of the lane I couldn't be quite sure, but I thought it was in the middle or somewhere along in there could even be wrong about that but I could have sworn it that day.

[Robert Harris]

Recently on this Forum, I was convinced that David Von Pein, and others were correct in their conclusion that the throat shot occurred at Z224, my reason being, like everyone else who believed this over the years, that I thought that Z224 was the first visible sign of a physical hit reaction by Kennedy.

I argued with Jim DiEugenion that the shot could not have happened earlier.

Further close up study of the Zapruder appears to me to prove that Jim DiEugenio is correct, and that everybody else, including me, was wrong.

I don't think the shot can be pinpointed exactly to a specific frame number due to the blur factor, but somewhere between Z194 and Z201 would be a goood estimate, IMO.

The obvious and clearest visible physical reaction by Kennedy to the hit, can best be seen between frames Z204 and Z207.

For me now, there is no boubt that Kennedy was hit before he vanished behing the Stemmons sign.

I have made this video to illustrate the points that I have made above. I suggest watching over and over again.

Duncan this video explains what happens during that time, with a considerably clearer copy of the film. I hope you will make the effort to study it.

[David Andrews]

Has anyone considered how much blood should be flowing from JFK's throat if he was hit from either "front or rear" with a rifle?

Same question for a flechette.

I'm not asking this, in relation to what is/isn't seen on the film, yet!!!

thanks,

chris

This is among the questions I'd be putting to somebody who saw a different "Zapruder."

[Pat Speer]

Recently on this Forum, I was convinced that David Von Pein, and others were correct in their conclusion that the throat shot occurred at Z224, my reason being, like everyone else who believed this over the years, that I thought that Z224 was the first visible sign of a physical hit reaction by Kennedy.

I argued with Jim DiEugenion that the shot could not have happened earlier.

Further close up study of the Zapruder appears to me to prove that Jim DiEugenio is correct, and that everybody else, including me, was wrong.

I don't think the shot can be pinpointed exactly to a specific frame number due to the blur factor, but somewhere between Z194 and Z201 would be a goood estimate, IMO.

The obvious and clearest visible physical reaction by Kennedy to the hit, can best be seen between frames Z204 and Z207.

For me now, there is no boubt that Kennedy was hit before he vanished behing the Stemmons sign.

I have made this video to illustrate the points that I have made above. I suggest watching over and over again.

Thank you, Duncan. It's refreshing to have someone admit he learned something or noticed something that he'd previously overlooked.

DVP's reluctance to accept the photographic evidence for JFK being shot before he went behind the sign is to me a bit strange. His hero, Bugliosi, after all, successfully pushed this evidence on the jury in the televised mock trial of Oswald. Is he now trying to claim Bugliosi deceived all those jurors?

[David Von Pein]

DVP's reluctance to accept the photographic evidence for JFK being shot before he went behind the sign is to me a bit strange.

Why in the world is it strange to you, Pat?

For one (very big!) thing: A shot from Oswald's window in the Z190s means that Oswald was SHOOTING THROUGH THE OAK TREE! And that, IMO, is just silly (even though LNer Mark Fuhrman promotes such nonsense in his 2006 book, and the HSCA, incredibly, thought Oswald was shooting through the tree too).

Bugliosi, after all, successfully pushed this evidence on the jury in the televised mock trial of Oswald. Is he now trying to claim Bugliosi deceived all those jurors?

That's easily explainable, Pat. And you surely know the answer to this:

At the mock trial in England in 1986, Bugliosi was in kind of a tough spot regarding the photographic expert he put on the stand--Cecil Kirk of the HSCA.

It's possible that Vince, HIMSELF, as of the time of the London trial in July 1986, might very well have accepted as fact Kirk's explanation about an early (circa Z190) SBT shot that Kirk presented to the jury in London.

But as Vince studied the Zapruder Film later on (after the trial), my guess would be that he "wised up" in a sense (at least partially), and grew to believe that the SBT shot had occurred quite a bit later than the Z190s. (Although Vince still gets it wrong in his book, saying that the SBT occurs at around Z210, but he never mentions an exact frame. So, after the 1986 London trial, at least VB got closer to the actual SBT frame of Z224 than he was in '86.)

But even if Bugliosi had truly believed, in July 1986, that the SBT occurred at a time other than the Z190s, Vince was still on a spot as prosecutor of Oswald at the London trial -- because he could not subpoena witnesses, and he could not force anyone to testify at the docu-trial against their will.

So, in effect, VB was pretty much stuck with accepting the witness he was able to get regarding the photographic (Zapruder Film) evidence--Cecil Kirk of the HSCA, who endorsed the early (and silly) SBT timeline of around Z190 (although no specific Zapruder frame numbers were ever mentioned for the SBT shot when Kirk was on the stand; never once does Kirk say that he was talking about Z190 or Z200, or whatever, during his mock trial testimony; but we all know he was talking about a circa Z190 SBT hit).

If Bugliosi had been able to get any witness he wanted for this "SBT timing" aspect of the case at the London trial, I'm guessing he would have selected Robert Frazier, who performed extensive tests with Oswald's rifle from the Sniper's Nest during the Warren Commission's reconstruction of the assassination in Dealey Plaza on May 24, 1964.

Whether or not Bob Frazier was ever asked to participate in the London court proceeding, I have no idea. But he certainly would have been my first choice, instead of Cecil Kirk.

Footnote---

I do think Vince Bugliosi should have explained to his readers in "Reclaiming History" why he was no longer supporting Kirk's earlier timeline regarding the Single-Bullet Theory. I don't think, however, that Vince says a word in his book about this discrepancy. And I think he should have. And if he had done so, I'm pretty confident that the explanation I just laid out above would have been Vincent's explanation as well.

Cecil Kirk's testimony at the 1986 television mock trial ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald") can be seen below:

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/cecil-kirk.html

Edited October 30, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

My explanation about Kirk and Z190 makes much more sense than Jim's.

[David Von Pein]

If evidence says Oswald didn't do something, then ipso facto, it must be wrong. No matter what it is.

Funny.

Jim DiEugenio doesn't think Oswald did ANYTHING wrong in the calendar year of 1963. Per Jim:

Oswald DIDN'T order the C2766 Carcano rifle via mail order.

Oswald DIDN'T order the S&W revolver via mail order.

Oswald DIDN'T pose for the backyard photos.

Oswald DIDN'T take a shot at General Walker.

Oswald DIDN'T go to Mexico City.

Oswald DIDN'T take a big package into the TSBD on Nov. 22.

Oswald DIDN'T shoot John Kennedy.

Oswald DIDN'T shoot J.D. Tippit.

Oswald DIDN'T take a gun into the Texas Theater.

Despite the rock-solid evidence that Jim D. is dead wrong about ALL of the above things, that won't stop Jim from pushing his fantasies about a double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald.

Pathetic.

Edited August 6, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Jim DiEugenio is a howl! A real screamer! His ABO [Anybody But Oswald] tricks never cease.

No matter how much evidence needs to be ignored (or deemed fake), Jim's right there on the job.

There's a word for that, Jim. It starts with a "P".

Edited August 6, 2010 by David Von Pein