David S. Brownlee Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 DH... didn't Hathcock usually shot from 500 to 2000 yards from his target... there was nothing to get away from in many cases. Exactly...what we have to remember is - this is not a case of a military sniper trying to take out targets to help win a war. In that case an expert sniper can take a shot from 500 yards and if he misses (or wounds) due to a wind gust or whatever he can start all over again the next day. The war will still be there. Presidents? Not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David S. Brownlee Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 (edited) ...So the real question is whether or not the back, throat and JC shots were intended or simply poor marksmanship? Sorry I didn't multi-quote. IMO the back/throat shot was an excellent shot from a decent quality marksman who just didn't get a couple things right. When firing downhill most shooters think that the bullet will not drop as far going downhill - they tend to think that the "downhill" takes care of the drop - which isn't true - gravity still works. Most hunters who go to a place like Colorado and have to take uphill and downhill shots tend to miss high uphill, and low downhill. It's because they seem to think that shooting uphill somehow increases gravity and bullet drop, and shooting downhill neutralizes it. Of course this is not the case and experienced mountain hunters shoot very close to what they would a level shot at ranges up to 200 yards...meaning they allow for about the same bullet drop. The other thing is the left turn of the vehicle - that would likely make a decent (but not quite expert) shooter miss a couple inches to the right. So really - if a shooter put the crosshairs right on the spot he wanted to hit in that particular situation - even with a better rifle than a Carcano - it is totally predictable that the shooter would miss a few inches low and a couple inches to the right. Edited August 20, 2011 by David S. Brownlee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Kaiser Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Back and to the left, is a nice piece of a fabricated Hollywood story line, and if said enough times one would beleive that its true after seeing the Zapruder film at regular speed. After Kennedy got shot, the momentum carried Kennedy's head "forward" before he leans back towards Jackie. The motorcade car certainly slows down before the shot and you can clearly see the brake lights on, however, after the shot the car sped off which would explain Kennedy falling "backwards". Although, a few 100 witnesses say they heard a shot from behind the fence and a cloud of smoke, but no ones around? He, she, they just vanished, gone and with their weapon too, no one is seen driving in or out of the train yard except one person who identifies himself as Secret Service, flashes his ID and says he is investigating that area? When all the other SS men went to the hospital? Then this person is later identified as Bernard Barker, what a guy, we all know who's friend he was. There were people in the train yard and people running towards the grassy knoll, no one sees anything. And, why the train yard? The two officers who were casually marching down the street with the three apparent hobo's found on the train who I don't believe were hobo's after all, or if they we're, they we're the cleanest hobo's I've ever seen. Also, how does anyone really know that every train car was searched thoroughly? They say they searched every car, but when its a planned CIA hit. I can assure you that there will always be one or two cars that never gets looked at. LHO knew something was up or he would not have written that note to Howard Hunt "he needed to know more details." Hemming and Sturgis played Oswald like a violin and Oswald got wrapped up into a web of his own selfish pride of wanting to be someone. He did, to bad it cost him his life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Interesting, Scott, I think it's important to take in these factors. Personally, I think further ways of understanding the head movement if all its factors a consideration of 3D movement must be considered in all imagery. re Hobo. Of course we're talking there the language of sandberg and guthrie. Having been a part time hobo I consider it a rather noble endeavour. It's not all squalor. There is pride and making the best and comradeship. ie the point re never having seen such hobos is not part of the equation, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Kaiser Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Interesting, Scott, I think it's important to take in these factors. Personally, I think further ways of understanding the head movement if all its factors a consideration of 3D movement must be considered in all imagery. re Hobo. Of course we're talking there the language of sandberg and guthrie. Having been a part time hobo I consider it a rather noble endeavour. It's not all squalor. There is pride and making the best and comradeship. ie the point re never having seen such hobos is not part of the equation, imo. I conquer with your statement about the hobos that is, judging ones appearance does not necessarily mean one is or is not, I simply believe that one should not judge the book by its cover, no pun intended. Coming from a gypsy hobo background myself, all I'm saying is, if I had the chance to ware boots, nice pants and have a clean shave then no one would have given me or my friends any money after running away from home. I'm just going off of the terminology that society said they were, including Micheal Canfield. And making an analysis statement myself. According to the photo below. For the three to be Hobo's, seem offal clean to me. I do hope, your not offended by my lack of observation. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/20673422/The%20tramps.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Not at all Scott. I wouldn't have offered my observations if I couldn't cope with being wrong. I guess people are hobos for different reasons. I think the oldie looks a bit shabby and no doubt his fairweather friends according to a hobo code make up for his likely short comings. Those guys would hardly win a best dressed award but at least they would experience less stigma. Many hobos are pretty honorable and work for a feed, clothes and board and don't necessarily piss everything up against the wall, and they see the world and get on ok, some do the ole' geographical but still with some semblance of decency. I guess Keourac (sic)could be an example. I, personally, see no incongruity re their attire at all, that's all. Also, I'm not sure it's essential to the basic argument. If clothes maketh the man, what about the P.C. photos of the three guys on the fifth floor. Sunday bests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Kaiser Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Not at all Scott. I wouldn't have offered my observations if I couldn't cope with being wrong. I guess people are hobos for different reasons. I think the oldie looks a bit shabby and no doubt his fairweather friends according to a hobo code make up for his likely short comings. Those guys would hardly win a best dressed award but at least they would experience less stigma. Many hobos are pretty honorable and work for a feed, clothes and board and don't necessarily piss everything up against the wall, and they see the world and get on ok, some do the ole' geographical but still with some semblance of decency. I guess Keourac (sic)could be an example. I, personally, see no incongruity re their attire at all, that's all. Also, I'm not sure it's essential to the basic argument. If clothes maketh the man, what about the P.C. photos of the three guys on the fifth floor. Sunday bests? If clothes maketh the man Yes! the ole cliche.what about the P.C. photos of the three guys on the fifth floor. Sunday bests? Point well made! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 A couple of other thought I had is that there are also so called sharps on the move for whatever reason or nature. And that kinda legitimises what CAN be seen as an appropriate disguise. So it's, imo, one of those things that is very subjective and : (grace savingly) still not really necessary, afa I can see, in establishing id. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Kaiser Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Something, I wanted to share with all of you, my uncle on my mother's side of the family was also a gun dealer and a ballistics expert for over 40 years, so I'm guessing that would make him qualified to review the film, and give his "opinion" he said, that the shot came from the rear and not the front as you can clearly see the movement in Kennedy's head. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofSQSYC_zJE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David S. Brownlee Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 (edited) After Kennedy got shot, the momentum carried Kennedy's head "forward" before he leans back towards Jackie... Oh Please...and Santa Clause comes down from the moon every 25th of December and gives out chocolate eggs. Any fool can tell that it was an instantanious motion...back and to the left...caused by a shot from the right that didn't hit dead center but got enough of the right side of the head to blow out enough brain to be fatal. If the shooter had missed "dead center" to the left (of Kennedy) he would have gone the other way and been hanging over the side of the car. Simple physics and ballistics. If the shot would have been from the other direction (6th floor SBD) - Jackie would have been trying to climb over Mrs. Connally to get back a piece of JFK's head instead of going back and to the left. Please stop boring me with made up junk....shoot a few guns an you (should) be able to understand...unless your mind is made up so tight that facts do not matter to you. Edited August 20, 2011 by David S. Brownlee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Ok, I've studied those frames in all sorts of ways allowing for fore shortening, changes in distance, movements so fast they leave a smear during the time of exposure, the springiness of the seat, car movements . all sorts of changes for quite some time and taking into account the speed and direction of major ejecta, I don't think a conclusion to this can be had unless a truly comprehensive study is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Kaiser Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 After Kennedy got shot, the momentum carried Kennedy's head "forward" before he leans back towards Jackie... Oh Please...and Santa Clause comes down from the moon every 25th of December and gives out chocolate eggs. Any fool can tell that it was an instantanious motion...back and to the left...caused by a shot from the right that didn't hit dead center but got enough of the right side of the head to blow out enough brain to be fatal. If the shooter had missed "dead center" to the left (of Kennedy) he would have gone the other way and been hanging over the side of the car. Simple physics and ballistics. If the shot would have been from the other direction (6th floor SBD) - Jackie would have been trying to climb over Mrs. Connally to get back a piece of JFK's head instead of going back and to the left. Please stop boring me with made up junk....shoot a few guns an you (should) be able to understand...unless your mind is made up so tight that facts do not matter to you. Well, if the man in the moon gives Santa Clause chocolate eggs to hand out, then the Easter bunny may find himself standing in line at the unemployment office. Reading frame 4:00 says it all. "Forward motion" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David S. Brownlee Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 (edited) Ok, I've studied those frames in all sorts of ways allowing for fore shortening, changes in distance, movements so fast they leave a smear during the time of exposure, the springiness of the seat, car movements . all sorts of changes for quite some time and taking into account the speed and direction of major ejecta, I don't think a conclusion to this can be had unless a truly comprehensive study is done. Jackie chased a piece of JFK's head over the back/left part of the car. Shots from the rear do not propel large fragments in the opposite direction...the man's head was not moving at impact...any fragments would be gone - past the influence of any "head jerks" or spinal column reactions. The vast majority of debris from an impact like that goes the same direction that the bullet was going. You can add to that - that the car was actually going forward (or maybe almost stopped but definitely slowing) at the point of impact. Any forward (and slowing) momentum would actually (slightly) push the debris from impact forward - yet it did as expected and went back and to the left - from a close shot with a high powered rifle from the Grassy Knoll. I can't believe we are even discussing this. Edited August 20, 2011 by David S. Brownlee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Ok, I've studied those frames in all sorts of ways allowing for fore shortening, changes in distance, movements so fast they leave a smear during the time of exposure, the springiness of the seat, car movements . all sorts of changes for quite some time and taking into account the speed and direction of major ejecta, I don't think a conclusion to this can be had unless a truly comprehensive study is done. Jackie chased a piece of JFK's head over the back/left part of the car. Shots from the rear do not propel large fragments in the opposite direction...the man's head was not moving at impact...any fragments would be gone - past the influence of any "head jerks" or spinal column reactions. The vast majority of debris from an impact like that goes the same direction that the bullet was going. I can't believe we are even discussing this. And strangely enough that which can be seen in nix and zapruder but not in muchmore, to me, seems to indicate the fragments going up at speed go almost perpendicular to a back front shot. Anyway there seems to be strong disagreements that simply tells me that much so far is subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David S. Brownlee Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 (edited) ...And strangely enough that which can be seen in nix and zapruder but not in muchmore, to me, seems to indicate the fragments going up at speed go almost perpendicular to a back front shot. Anyway there seems to be strong disagreements that simply tells me that much so far is subjective. Films can be altered (somewhat)....what cannot be altered is the fact that Jackie chased a large(ish) portion of JFK's head - back and to the left. People in dire straights do not do the opposite of what is rational. In my experience, one sees very clearly (like in slow motion) in those situations and they react appropriately. Edited August 20, 2011 by David S. Brownlee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now