Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim F - if the bullet exploded after hitting the temple


Recommended Posts

P.S. In event that anyone has the mailing address for Tom Hanks, I would be glad to send him copies in order to assist him in avoidance of "foot-in-mouth" insertion syndrone.

It so happens that my daughter Marlo recently met Tom Hanks, and will be working closely with him and Sandra Bullock on their new movie, which will be filmed in old New York, beginning next week.

I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go.

Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Great post Mike... thanks

and I would love to write for your site... just wish I was a better writer, period.

I'm finally getting out of work and will look at this post again at home and reply... You've said some interesting things.

I will leave you with this... Kellerman himself basically tells the WC that there were more than 3 shots

and Homer McMahon claims to have seen the Z film and it showed 6-8 shots from 3 different directions - but no one would hear of it.

One has to ask oneself why he would say such a thing.

DJ

ps PLEASE get "JFK and the Unspeakable" and read it. Amazing wealth of info and all in one place. Of course it's CT slanted... but once you read some of the things in there you may see the CTer in a different light. Then again, maybe not... :ph34r: LOL

David,

Sure Ill grab up that book and give it a read.

The Kellerman and McMahon statements are of course witness statements. Reliability questions abound in any witness statement. Problem is, none of the physical evidence supports this at all. We have no physical evidence beyond 3 shots.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Likewise, even though a hollow-point will slightly flatten and distort upon impact with soft flesh of the rabbit/squirrell, it still will not destruct to the extent as did the head-shot bullet of the Z313 impact to the head of JFK... (emphasis added)

Hmmm...

33-3319t.gif

Greg...

unless you're just funning with us...

I tried to stay away from ce399 cause we'd all agree, well most of us, that that bullet passed thru no one - so to use it to compare to what happened to the bullet hitting JFK in the head - apples and oranges

Would have loved to hear an answer to the question, "So CE399 passed thru JFK, smashed JC's rib and wrist without so much as a scratch and the same type of bullet hit JFK on a boney substance and basically disintegrated..... what up? " and the beat goes on....

Arlen? where's Arlen to answer this one? :tomatoes

"Would have loved to hear an answer to the question, "So CE399 passed thru JFK, smashed JC's rib and wrist without so much as a scratch and the same type of bullet hit JFK on a boney substance and basically disintegrated..... what up? " and the beat goes on...."

Well! Since it does not even require a "smart person" to recognize that CE399 did not do what Specter & Company claimed, exactly what is new about this revelation?

However, it does at least require a little additional work to establish exactly how CE399 came into existence and the wounds that it is truly responsible for.

(Which by the way does not include any wounds to JBC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. In event that anyone has the mailing address for Tom Hanks, I would be glad to send him copies in order to assist him in avoidance of "foot-in-mouth" insertion syndrone.

It so happens that my daughter Marlo recently met Tom Hanks, and will be working closely with him and Sandra Bullock on their new movie, which will be filmed in old New York, beginning next week.

I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go.

Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE.

"I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go.

Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE."

1. Since I was not present on the sixth floor of the TSDB, I honestly have no way of proving and/or disproving (beyond all doubt) that LHO was or was not the shooter.

Just that I can prove to anyone who maintains an open mind that the rifle (Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle) was:

A. An extremely accurate rifle, with an equivelant accuracy to the US issue M-14, which is still the basis of many of our current sniper rifles.

B. There was more than sufficient time for even a relatively inexperienced operator of the weapon, to accomplish the simple shooting feat which transpired.

2. As well as the fact tha LHO was FACTUALLY a superior marksman when shooting at targets to ranges of 300 meters, when firing from a fixed stable firing position.

3. And lastly, in regards to: "I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions,"

As long ago stated, I was perfectly content being out here on this "limb of facts" all by myself.

However, now that those who possess true qualifications, such as Mr. Williams, are willing to also venture out here in the "foot-in-mouth/danger zone out on the limb", it is a distinct pleasure to make room for other knowledgeable and qualified individuals with whom to converse intelligently on the subject matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. In event that anyone has the mailing address for Tom Hanks, I would be glad to send him copies in order to assist him in avoidance of "foot-in-mouth" insertion syndrone.

It so happens that my daughter Marlo recently met Tom Hanks, and will be working closely with him and Sandra Bullock on their new movie, which will be filmed in old New York, beginning next week.

I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go.

Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE.

"I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go.

Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE."

1. Since I was not present on the sixth floor of the TSDB, I honestly have no way of proving and/or disproving (beyond all doubt) that LHO was or was not the shooter.

Just that I can prove to anyone who maintains an open mind that the rifle (Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle) was:

A. An extremely accurate rifle, with an equivelant accuracy to the US issue M-14, which is still the basis of many of our current sniper rifles.

B. There was more than sufficient time for even a relatively inexperienced operator of the weapon, to accomplish the simple shooting feat which transpired.

2. As well as the fact tha LHO was FACTUALLY a superior marksman when shooting at targets to ranges of 300 meters, when firing from a fixed stable firing position.

3. And lastly, in regards to: "I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions,"

As long ago stated, I was perfectly content being out here on this "limb of facts" all by myself.

However, now that those who possess true qualifications, such as Mr. Williams, are willing to also venture out here in the "foot-in-mouth/danger zone out on the limb", it is a distinct pleasure to make room for other knowledgeable and qualified individuals with whom to converse intelligently on the subject matter.

Hell Tom Ill do some limb sitting with ya anytime.

Some dont get it, some never will get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have no physical evidence beyond 3 shots.

Mike

Sounds like a WC defender ALL THE WAY.

But what if the physical evidence was PLANTED, as there is EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE.

"But what if the physical evidence was PLANTED, as there is EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE."

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

About like "there is EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE" this one too.

Not that I disbelieve that it could not happen, merely that it is about as remote a possibility as the "planting" of all of the physical evidence; snatching and alteration to JFK's body, and other such nonsensical believes without any evidence other than the fact that someone does not understand the evidence.

"Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence. As a general rule, it merely means that one does not understand the evidence."

Tom Purvis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. In event that anyone has the mailing address for Tom Hanks, I would be glad to send him copies in order to assist him in avoidance of "foot-in-mouth" insertion syndrone.

It so happens that my daughter Marlo recently met Tom Hanks, and will be working closely with him and Sandra Bullock on their new movie, which will be filmed in old New York, beginning next week.

I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go.

Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE.

"I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go.

Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE."

1. Since I was not present on the sixth floor of the TSDB, I honestly have no way of proving and/or disproving (beyond all doubt) that LHO was or was not the shooter.

Just that I can prove to anyone who maintains an open mind that the rifle (Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle) was:

A. An extremely accurate rifle, with an equivelant accuracy to the US issue M-14, which is still the basis of many of our current sniper rifles.

B. There was more than sufficient time for even a relatively inexperienced operator of the weapon, to accomplish the simple shooting feat which transpired.

2. As well as the fact tha LHO was FACTUALLY a superior marksman when shooting at targets to ranges of 300 meters, when firing from a fixed stable firing position.

3. And lastly, in regards to: "I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions,"

As long ago stated, I was perfectly content being out here on this "limb of facts" all by myself.

However, now that those who possess true qualifications, such as Mr. Williams, are willing to also venture out here in the "foot-in-mouth/danger zone out on the limb", it is a distinct pleasure to make room for other knowledgeable and qualified individuals with whom to converse intelligently on the subject matter.

Hell Tom Ill do some limb sitting with ya anytime.

Some dont get it, some never will get it.

Mike - Still working on the response... hopefully worth the wait.

Tom -

please reference the fact that the sight was off, significantly, and wasn't Oswald's supposed marksmanship done without the benefit of a scope that would have required some time to re-acquire the target after working the bolt... twice?

Also please reference the actual tests done with that rifle and rifles similiar... the frequency of jamming, misfiring was extraordinarily high. The MC may have been a great rifle in its day... and if well maintained, properly sighted and with a full, working clip might indeed have been capable in capable hands.

This simply wasn't the case for THAT Carcano.

In reference to his shooting ability... the records shows he was marginal at best, his peers called him "Maggie's drawers" is that the expression when you miss, repeatedly?

Now, if you could actually put the recovered rifle into his possession you might have a leg to stand on... but you can't as been shown time and time again, most recently in a great thread by Gil Jesus.

So please... before you tear me a new one because "I don't get it" you will have to show point by point against what has already been proven with regards to Frazier's story, the bag, the rifle's history, testimony that he had nothing in his hands when he arrived at work and how the rifle gets from wherever it was, to the TSBD in Oswald's possession... and since it needs re-assembly - when that occurs, when Oswald gets to the window, unseen and how not a single person identifies Oswald in that window... 2 black men, others with rifles at 12:15 and after - but not Oswald.

btw - AS you know... Brennan DOES NOT ID OSWALD. Not a single soul puts Oswald on the 6th floor let alone in that window.

Mike.... I will leave you with this, for now... Sheriff Decker and Chief Curry where in the lead car and closest to the overpass and RR yard... you asked about a location for the frontal shooter...

Dispatcher 12:30 p.m. KKB 364.

1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by.

1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there.

1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by.

Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) I am sure it's going to take some time to get your man in there. Pull every one of my men in there.

Dispatcher Dallas 1, repeat, I didn't get all of it. I didn't quite understand all of it.

Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there.

When witnesses ran behind the fence they found a car with muddy footprints on the back bumper and many, many cigartette butts... a number of witnesses put 2 men behind that fence in that exact spot... and the mooreman photo also shows something highly irregular at this spot. This is where I believe the frontal shots originated... not sure about the throat shot but the frontal head shot, if there was one as many, many witnesses agree upon, would have been from there.

Finally, Ray....

do you have anything to add with regards to the ballistics involved? Particle trails, ammo post impact characteristics, blood splatter analysis, xray analysis, photo anaylsis... anything?

If you would like to pursue the Tom Hanks is an Oswald Accuser line of thought... I blieve there are numerous threads about that or you can start a new one.

We're trying to understand the difference between what a trained ballastics expert sees and the rest of us.... at least to understand how Ayoob's ascertions are not applicable and what assertions are. thanks.

DJ

Last thought... look at the Moorman photo... Jean Hill was standing right next to her. Are you saying that standing in that position, not 20 feet from JFK and 30 yards from the fence - these two people could not tell if a shot was fired virtually right in front of them - with Decker and Curry corroborating?

To me, that's one of the biggest stretches a LNer must make to confine the assassination to 3 shots from the rear.

Peace

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

I had a piece of metal lodged in my back, and a herniated disc shoved it into my sciatic nerve, it was cutting into it and well...most unpleasant.

Metal?!? Yow. … sciatic is horrible, know that pain … dragging my left leg behind me for months.

The statement about the halo coming out of the back of the head is our biggest indication that this is back spatter, and in the direction of the shooter. We do not see this on the z film. I contend the reason we do not see it is because it is far less visible, and well, the z film is sure not in high definition.

Bobby Hargis did encounter debris, I have no doubt about that. The question here is, did something slam into Hargis, or did Hargis slam into something? I dare say it would be difficult to tell from the riders perspective. A .5 ounce of matter, which would be a pretty small piece, impacts at 2.5 ounces at just 5 miles an hour. (weight x speed)impact energy. So I have no doubt that Hargis would have felt matter hit him.

Yup… weight and speed for sure… How he adds the thing about the TSBD given he was splattered and left rear of Jackie… company line?

Mr. STERN - Just a minute. Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the source of the shots?

Mr. HARGIS - Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood--I was Just a little back and left of--Just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know. I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was the primary place that could have been shot from.

And a little later was a VERY short interview

Mr. STERN - So, at that point you were still uncertain as to the direction of the shots?

Mr. HARGIS - Yes, uh-huh.

Mr. STERN - Then, what did you do?

Mr. HARGIS - Well, then, I thought since I looked over at the Texas Book Depository and some people looking out of the windows up there, didn't seem like they knew what was going on, but none of them were looking towards, or near anywhere the shots had been fired from. At the time I didn't know, but about the only activity I could see was on the bridge, on the railroad bridge so----

DJ: Does this suggest he is talking about the RR overpass as being anywhere the shots had been fired from?

Multiple shots is something I look at heavily some years ago. The thoughts I have on this, is that it is very unlikely. My reasoning is pretty simple here. We just do not see multiple impacts. The backward motion we see, in my opinion, can not be contributed to a bullet. Bullets just do not transfer that much energy to the target. Further we really only see one spatter pattern from the front of the head. With multiple shots we would have seen this pattern repeated for each shot.

I will have to look for all the sources yet these are the shots Ive heard described by witnesses

1. A bullet strikes the road behind the limo witnesses see sparks. One is even asked whether they saw something hitting the street bi and official

2. A bullet leaves a scar by the manhole cover across from Zapruder... the scar leads back to the courthouse and Murray photos an unidentified man picking up the bullet, pocketing it and off he goes. see photo and testimony of the policeman who saw this occur... (name please edit: Foster - see below)

3. A 45-60 degree downward entrance wound in JFKs back as described initially by Dr. Humes to FBI (6th floor was not more than 22 degrees at the time of the back shot

4. A throat wound of entrance was described by multiple doctors at Parkland.. an FBI agent (Elmer Todd ?) dedicates his job to getting Dr. Perry to recant

5. A bullet hole is witnessed in the windshield of the limo again by many while sitting at Parkland. An interesting story exists about the man at the Ford plant who replaces the windshield and swears to a thru and thru hole

6. A bullet hits a curb then hits Tague

7. John Connally has quite a few injuries suggesting one and even possibly 2 different shots although we will take his word that he was only hit once and not with the same shot that first hits JFK

8. The headshot

9. There are those that argue about a shot after or before the headshot... the MATH and Toms threads are showing serious flaws in the location of the shots

Theres the extra bullet found at Parkland the pointed one witnesses describe later when they cannot ID ce399

Theres an extra 7.65 bullet floating around... trying to find the article and image of the empty envelope... not luck yet.

The Official story has only 3 shots... in reality there is sufficient evidence for many more... and no surprise these other shots are surrounded with controversy.

To address the medical evidence I must confess is a bit intimidating for a simple minded sob like myself. So very much of it relies on witness testimony. One thing I do acknowledge, is that all of the doctors seem to agree that what they see in the xrays, is representative of what they saw at Parkland. This is not true Mike... the evidence suggests that the Drs at Bethesda saw the same right rear blowout as the personnel at Parkland. But if memery serves, Blakey suppressed that info.This is very disconcerting because we have different description of what was actually seen. So I ask myself, how can they agree on the xrays being accurate, and then disagree about what they saw? So it seems this whole mess goes right back to witness reliability.

I can say that what we see in the xrays, is perfectly represented by the Warren Commissions findings that one bullet entered the rear. Honestly to me the medical evidence is the most difficult.

The Xrays support the Warren Commission findings... quel surpris!! Problem is the xrays are not consistent with each other or the photos or the memories of those who took and developed them.

Call me crazy but I prefer to stick with evidence which exists as close to 12:30, 11/22/63 as possible. And that evidence is in direct conflict with what appears in the WCR.

Other issues I have with a front shot add to my belief that this never happened. Some of those other issues include:

1) The lack of a viable shooting position from the front left. This position has to accomplish a couple things. It has to leave a wound that does no left side damage to the Presidents head, which almost all the medical evidence agrees on, and it also has to leave Jackie unwounded. I have worked the map to death, and can still not find one location in the front of that limo that satisfies this.

I suggested a spot in my previous post... the storm drain, Badgeman or even the South Knoll are also possible yet evidence is pretty sketchy... so Ill go with the one that corresponds to the testimony of Bowers and the RR men. And they were pretty specific about what they saw....

2) The Xrays themselves show a back to front dispersal of particles. Meaning the bullet was intact upon entry and shattered moving forward. Further, we see no rear directing particle dispersal.

Well there Mike, not entirely buying that first sentence. Ive inverted the 2 main xrays we have access to, to highlight the fragments... I just cant see how you determine these to be back to front... please enlighten me. Additionally, please reconcile the graphics of the Parkland people (and ultimately the autopsy sheet of Boswell) to these xrays.... and finally, check this overlay out. The photo of JFK completely negates the Xray as genuine.

3) We simply have not one shred of evidence of any other shots being fired that day. Im looking for hard physical evidence, not unreliable witness testimony.

These are just a few of my issues with a front to back shot.

Mr. BALL - Tell me where you were standing on the triple overpass about the time that the President's motorcade came into sight?

Mr. FOSTER - I was standing approximately along the - I believe the south curb of Elm Street.

Mr. BALL - Were you on the overpass?

Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir; at the east - be the east side of the overpass.

Mr. BALL - On the east side of the overpass?

Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir.

Mr. FOSTER - I moved to -down the roadway there, down to see if I could find where any of he shots hit.

Mr. BALL - Find anything?

Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Found where one shot had hit the turf there at the location.

Mr. BALL - Hit the turf?

Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Did you see any marks on the street in anyplace?

Mr. FOSTER - No, a manhole cover. It was hit. they caught the manhole cover right on the corner and -

Mr. BALL - You saw a mark on the manhole cover did you?

Mr. FOSTER - Yes sir.

Mr. BALL - I show you a picture here of a concrete slab. or manhole cover. Do you recognize that picture?

Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Does the picture show - tell me what it shows there.

Mr. FOSTER - This looks like the corner here where it penetrated the turf right here [indicating].

Mr. BALL - See any mark on the manhole cover?

Mr. FOSTER - No, sir; I don't. not on the - well, it is on the turf, on the concrete, right in the corner.

Mr. BALL - Can you put an arrow showing the approximate place you saw that?

Mr. FOSTER - Should have been approximately along here[indicating].

Mr. BALL - Make it deep enough to mark. The arrow marks the position that you believe you saw the mark on the pavement?

Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - It was not on the manhole cover?

Mr. FOSTER - No, sir.

Mr. BALL - Went into the turf?

Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Did you recover any bullet?

Mr. FOSTER - No, sir. It ricocheted on out.

Mr. BALL - Did you have the crime lab make a picture of that spot?

Mr. FOSTER - I called them to the location.

Mr. BALL - And told them to make a picture?

Mr. FOSTER - On, I didn't tell them. Called them to the spot and let them take it. Can I see the picture?

Mr. BALL - Yes, sir. Is this the picture?

Mr. FOSTER - That resembles the picture.

Mr. BALL - I offer this as "B" then. Mark it as "B" so that we have "A" and "B" now. Officer, this will be written up and submitted to you for your signature and you can read it over and change it any way you wish, or you may waive your signature at this time, which do you prefer?

Mr. FOSTER - Well, it doesn't matter.

Mr. BALL - Suit yourself. You make the choice.

Mr. FOSTER - I would just as soon go ahead and sign it.

Mr. BALL - All right. We will notify you and you can get in here and sign it.

Mr. FOSTER - All right.

Mr. BALL - Than you. One moment please. Who gave you your assignment, Mr. Foster?

Mr. FOSTER - Sergeant Harkness.

Mr. BALL - You did permit some railroad employees to remain on the overpass?

Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - How did you determine they were railroad employees?

Mr. FOSTER - By identification they had with them. Identification they had and the other men that was with them verifying that they were employees.

Mr. BALL - Okay.

Wonder what mystery man is putting in his pocket?

The rest of his testimony about the RR workers on the overpass is also very interesting.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/foster.htm

I'm sure you know me well enough to know that I do not believe in any evidence alteration. One of the main reasons I do not believe in this, is what we do have in evidence is to consistent with itself. Meaning the story we have been given, does fit the physical evidence. Perhaps I am naive, but I really believe if a mass alteration cover up occurred we could find it pretty readily with the technology we have in this day and age. To date, I have not read one credible account, nor witnessed one bonafide expert come forward to claim things have been altered.

Thats a pretty stout statement Mike. Not one credible account...? Please describe for me what a credible account would look like to you... and then please read this:

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong.htm

or Mantiks 20 conclusions after nine visits

or The Snipers Nest by Allen Eaglesham

or the documented 3 casket entries

or the 2 Brain exams

or Moyers and/or Gil Jesus account of the rifle

If youve read thru all of these and still feel there is no credible evidence for alteration of the physical, written, medical, and/or photographic records Id surely like to understand how...

The WCR states that no one sees Oswald from 11:50 until the Baker/Truly incident FBI reports were altered to give us that impression... ignored witnesses ALTERS the outcome, and as Ive shown above either the photos or the xrays can be correct not both they contradict each other... and then theres Chris work right here that is supporting the alteration of the Z film...

Now on a side note. You know I am pretty firmly in the LN camp. You probably also know I have my own JFK website. If you should ever decide that you would like to write an article for that site, please let me know. Id love to post it for you. I do believe that there are questions left unanswered, and I think these questions hamper not only research, but history in general. In my opinion, for whatever that's worth, these unanswered questions by the CT community promote research for the whole community.

I have articles from both sides of the coin, and post them.

Im glad to hear you are well buddy.

thanks, you as well... so enjoyable to post, debate, discuss at this level... :ice

Mike

I can appreciate you being firmly in your camp Unspeakable may help you see the assassination in a much broader view than the Lone Nut (who was neither) doing it on his own. Mexico City alone establishes someone other than Oswald using Oswalds name and exact circumstances...

And then you might read Gaeton Fonzis The Last Investigation.

Or the history of the Paines or his buddy George DeM.

You mention being naïve and that technology would find it pretty readily the fact is it has.

Ask yourself this.... does an innocent government behave as it did? Does a government intent on finding the killer of its president proceed as it did, perform as it did, and ask questions like how did he get shot in the throat from there? answer it by saying he must have turned all the way around as he waved then see the film and realize that didnt happen.... and ignore it anyway?

Not my question yet cant place whos it was, originally. It makes for a wonderful perspective by which to judge events... imo.

DJ

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobby Hargis did encounter debris, I have no doubt about that. The question here is, did something slam into Hargis, or did Hargis slam into something?

I would think that with a high-velocity shot, Hargis would have been splattered more than misted by riding through a cloud of disjecta, though (judging by complaints that the spray from the right front of the head should have stayed on Zapruder's film for more frames), there was probably hanging spray and some ride-through involved.

Just a question to all, apropos of the motorcycle escort:

If the limo slowed to 11 MPH, or lower, or stopped - what effect would this have had on the motorcycle riders?

I've never ridden a motorcycle. What happens to balance, to the reaction of the riders? Do their boots come off the pegs, preparing to touch the pavement, if slowing drastically? Do motorcycles waver if they slow unexpectedly in parade formation?

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bobby Hargis did encounter debris, I have no doubt about that. The question here is, did something slam into Hargis, or did Hargis slam into something?

Since the discussion has turned to Hargis, I thought I'd inject his actual comments.

From patspeer.com, chapter 5b:

Bobby W. Hargis rode to the right of Martin and to the left of Mrs. Kennedy. (11-22-63 article in Dallas Times-Herald) “About halfway down between Houston and the underpass I heard the first shot. It sounded like a real loud firecracker. When I heard the sound, the first thing I thought about was a gunshot. I looked around and about then Governor Connally turned around and looked at the President with a real surprised look on his face…The President bent over to hear what the Governor had to say. When he raised back up was when the President got shot…I felt blood hit me in the face…I racked (parked) my motorcycle and jumped off. I ran to the North side of Elm to see if I could find where the bullets were coming from. I don’t think the President was hit with the first shot….I felt that the Governor was shot first.

(11-23-63 UPI article found in the Fresno Bee) “I saw flesh flying after the shot, and the president’s hair flew up,” Hargis said, “I knew he was dead.”

(11-24-63 article in the New York Sunday News) "We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about a half block from where it happened. I was right alongside the rear fender on the left side of the President's car, near Mrs. Kennedy. When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had been hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look. The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor, talking to him. As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit. Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun. Then this Secret Service agent (in the President's car) got his wits about him and they took off. The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the chief that the President had been shot."

(4-3-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H293-296): “I was next to Mrs. Kennedy when I heard the first shot, and at that time the President bent over, and Governor Connally turned around. He was sitting directly in front of him, and (had) a real shocked and surprised expression on his face…I thought Governor Connally had been shot first, but it looked like the President was bending over to hear what he had to say, and I thought to myself then that Governor Connally, the Governor had been hit, and then as the President raised back up like that the shot that killed him hit him.” (When asked about the blood) "when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of bloody water, It wasn't really blood. And at that time the Presidential car slowed down..." (When asked about the source of the shots) "Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood--I was Just a little back and left of--just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know. I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was the primary place that could have been shot from."

(8-7-68 interview with Tom Bethel and Al Oser, NARA #180-10096-10005) (When discussing how he could have been sprayed with blood, if the shot came from behind) "Well, that right there is what I've wondered about all along, but see there's ah -- you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it." (When discussing his interpretation of the direction of the shots) "Well, like I say, being that we know that the shot came from the School Book Depository, right then it was kind of hard to say what run through your mind. You know you pick up these little things. You don't know why you do it. You don't know why you do 'em, you just do 'em. It's just kind of instinct. But I had in my mind the shots you couldn't tell where they was coming, but it seemed like the motion of the President's head or his body and the splatter had hit me, it seemed like both the locations needed investigating, and that's why I investigated them. But you couldn't tell, there was -- it looked like a million windows on the Book Depository.You couldn't tell exactly if there was anyone in there with a gun." (When asked if the shots could have come from anywhere) "Uh huh. That's correct." (When asked if he saw the President's head jerk as a response to a bullet's impact) "Yes. Uh huh...To the left forward. Kind of that way...I couldn't see what part of it got hit...If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side."

(Interview with NBC broadcast on the 1988 program That Day In November) "It sounded like a firecracker to me and I thought 'Oh Lord, let it be a firecracker. And it looked like the President was bending over, forward. And then when he raised back up is when that second shot hit him in the head."

(1995 interview with Clint Bradford, reported online) " When [JFK] was shot in the head, it splashed up, and I ran into all that brain matter and all that. It came up and down, all over my uniform." (6-26-95 interview, posted on Youtube by Gil Jesus) "There was not three shots; there was only two. I only heard two...The facts was there was two shots--one that hit him in the back and one that hit him in the head. And the one that hit him in the head just busted his head wide open."

(November 1998 interview with Texas Monthly) “About ten seconds after we made that left-hand turn, that first shot rang out…I remember Kennedy leaned forward to listen to what he had to say. And then when he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. But we figured out that he had got shot—that first bullet had gone through the upper part of his back, well through the seat, and hit Connally’s wrist and glanced off and went into his thigh.”

(Interview from an 11-22-03 WBAP radio program found on Youtube) "Yeah I looked toward the President and I thought maybe John Connally was hit because he turned around to look at the President. He had a real surprised look on his face. Kennedy was bending over like he was listening to what Connally had to say. When he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. That's what killed him, There was only two shots fired."

(11-22-03 article in the Dallas Morning News) “Hargis differs with the Warren Commission and most eyewitnesses, insisting that only two shots were fired. With the first, “a thousand million things went through my mind,” he says. After the last, “there was a plume of blood and brains and plasma. It was just like a fog, and I ran right through it.”

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. In event that anyone has the mailing address for Tom Hanks, I would be glad to send him copies in order to assist him in avoidance of "foot-in-mouth" insertion syndrone.

It so happens that my daughter Marlo recently met Tom Hanks, and will be working closely with him and Sandra Bullock on their new movie, which will be filmed in old New York, beginning next week.

I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go.

Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE.

"I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go.

Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE."

1. Since I was not present on the sixth floor of the TSDB, I honestly have no way of proving and/or disproving (beyond all doubt) that LHO was or was not the shooter.

Just that I can prove to anyone who maintains an open mind that the rifle (Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle) was:

A. An extremely accurate rifle, with an equivelant accuracy to the US issue M-14, which is still the basis of many of our current sniper rifles.

B. There was more than sufficient time for even a relatively inexperienced operator of the weapon, to accomplish the simple shooting feat which transpired.

2. As well as the fact tha LHO was FACTUALLY a superior marksman when shooting at targets to ranges of 300 meters, when firing from a fixed stable firing position.

3. And lastly, in regards to: "I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions,"

As long ago stated, I was perfectly content being out here on this "limb of facts" all by myself.

However, now that those who possess true qualifications, such as Mr. Williams, are willing to also venture out here in the "foot-in-mouth/danger zone out on the limb", it is a distinct pleasure to make room for other knowledgeable and qualified individuals with whom to converse intelligently on the subject matter.

Hell Tom Ill do some limb sitting with ya anytime.

Some dont get it, some never will get it.

Mike - Still working on the response... hopefully worth the wait.

Tom -

please reference the fact that the sight was off, significantly, and wasn't Oswald's supposed marksmanship done without the benefit of a scope that would have required some time to re-acquire the target after working the bolt... twice?

Also please reference the actual tests done with that rifle and rifles similiar... the frequency of jamming, misfiring was extraordinarily high. The MC may have been a great rifle in its day... and if well maintained, properly sighted and with a full, working clip might indeed have been capable in capable hands.

This simply wasn't the case for THAT Carcano.

In reference to his shooting ability... the records shows he was marginal at best, his peers called him "Maggie's drawers" is that the expression when you miss, repeatedly?

Now, if you could actually put the recovered rifle into his possession you might have a leg to stand on... but you can't as been shown time and time again, most recently in a great thread by Gil Jesus.

So please... before you tear me a new one because "I don't get it" you will have to show point by point against what has already been proven with regards to Frazier's story, the bag, the rifle's history, testimony that he had nothing in his hands when he arrived at work and how the rifle gets from wherever it was, to the TSBD in Oswald's possession... and since it needs re-assembly - when that occurs, when Oswald gets to the window, unseen and how not a single person identifies Oswald in that window... 2 black men, others with rifles at 12:15 and after - but not Oswald.

btw - AS you know... Brennan DOES NOT ID OSWALD. Not a single soul puts Oswald on the 6th floor let alone in that window.

Mike.... I will leave you with this, for now... Sheriff Decker and Chief Curry where in the lead car and closest to the overpass and RR yard... you asked about a location for the frontal shooter...

Dispatcher 12:30 p.m. KKB 364.

1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by.

1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there.

1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by.

Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) I am sure it's going to take some time to get your man in there. Pull every one of my men in there.

Dispatcher Dallas 1, repeat, I didn't get all of it. I didn't quite understand all of it.

Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there.

When witnesses ran behind the fence they found a car with muddy footprints on the back bumper and many, many cigartette butts... a number of witnesses put 2 men behind that fence in that exact spot... and the mooreman photo also shows something highly irregular at this spot. This is where I believe the frontal shots originated... not sure about the throat shot but the frontal head shot, if there was one as many, many witnesses agree upon, would have been from there.

Finally, Ray....

do you have anything to add with regards to the ballistics involved? Particle trails, ammo post impact characteristics, blood splatter analysis, xray analysis, photo anaylsis... anything?

If you would like to pursue the Tom Hanks is an Oswald Accuser line of thought... I blieve there are numerous threads about that or you can start a new one.

We're trying to understand the difference between what a trained ballastics expert sees and the rest of us.... at least to understand how Ayoob's ascertions are not applicable and what assertions are. thanks.

DJ

Last thought... look at the Moorman photo... Jean Hill was standing right next to her. Are you saying that standing in that position, not 20 feet from JFK and 30 yards from the fence - these two people could not tell if a shot was fired virtually right in front of them - with Decker and Curry corroborating?

To me, that's one of the biggest stretches a LNer must make to confine the assassination to 3 shots from the rear.

Peace

DJ

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Tom -

please reference the fact that the sight was off, significantly, and wasn't Oswald's supposed marksmanship done without the benefit of a scope that would have required some time to re-acquire the target after working the bolt... twice?"

"In reference to his shooting ability... the records shows he was marginal at best, his peers called him "Maggie's drawers" is that the expression when you miss, repeatedly?"

=====================================================================================================================

Without (again) wasting too much time, let me quickly respond to your continued ill-researched conclusions.

1. The "scope" may have in fact been mis-aligned for you; me; Mike; and 99.9% of any others who fully knew proper shooting techniques.

And, it just may have been aligned perfectly for LHO's position of holding the weapon and sight-picture-target alignment.

In even that your "crystal ball" can tell you everything about LHO's actual firing position/sight picture alignment/cheek spot weld/arm length V weapon stock length; etc; etc; etc;, then you merely demonstrate that you know as little as Anthony Marsh and other (know nothings) about shooting techniques.

How about this up the flagpole?

The Carcano comes with absolutely fixed sights. Were one to assume a perfect firing position of holding the weapon, then they would hit the target every time that they fired.

For those of us who are imperfect, we invented the adjustable rear sight to compensate for our errors in weapon/sight alignment.

2. Had you taken the time and effort to review the Rangefire Records of LHO (which are a part of the WC documents), and you actually knew anything about Rangefire Qualification, then you would know that LHO was a superior marksman when shooting at targets of 300 meters, and when firing from a fixed firing position.

And, your lack of knowledge regarding rifle marksmanship stands out since you have made no mention of the adjustments (windage) which LHO had to make on his M1-Garand, merely due to his particular/specific stance of weapon firing and target alignment.

"Battlesight Zero" on the M1 is exactly the same as the sighting of the Model 91/38 Carcano.

Being that point at which perfect sight/target alignment would always result in accurate shooting.

The "adjustable" sights on U.S. issue military weapons is to compensate for the "human element/error" of sighting, far more than it is to compensate for high speed winds and long range shooting.

It is "know nothings" such as yourself who run around yelling "the sky is falling" & LHO's weapon had a mis-aligned scope, which continue to feed methane gas (from the BS) to others who know nothing as well and are too lazy and/or inept to research the facts for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S. In event that anyone has the mailing address for Tom Hanks, I would be glad to send him copies in order to assist him in avoidance of "foot-in-mouth" insertion syndrone.

It so happens that my daughter Marlo recently met Tom Hanks, and will be working closely with him and Sandra Bullock on their new movie, which will be filmed in old New York, beginning next week.

I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go.

Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE.

"I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions, though I MAY forward him the opinions of Ayoob, depending on how things go.

Since Tom Hanks is an OSWALD ACCUSER like yourself, I suspect he is BEYOND THE REACH OF EVIDENCE."

1. Since I was not present on the sixth floor of the TSDB, I honestly have no way of proving and/or disproving (beyond all doubt) that LHO was or was not the shooter.

Just that I can prove to anyone who maintains an open mind that the rifle (Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle) was:

A. An extremely accurate rifle, with an equivelant accuracy to the US issue M-14, which is still the basis of many of our current sniper rifles.

B. There was more than sufficient time for even a relatively inexperienced operator of the weapon, to accomplish the simple shooting feat which transpired.

2. As well as the fact tha LHO was FACTUALLY a superior marksman when shooting at targets to ranges of 300 meters, when firing from a fixed stable firing position.

3. And lastly, in regards to: "I will not be sending Tom your foot-in- mouth opinions,"

As long ago stated, I was perfectly content being out here on this "limb of facts" all by myself.

However, now that those who possess true qualifications, such as Mr. Williams, are willing to also venture out here in the "foot-in-mouth/danger zone out on the limb", it is a distinct pleasure to make room for other knowledgeable and qualified individuals with whom to converse intelligently on the subject matter.

Hell Tom Ill do some limb sitting with ya anytime.

Some dont get it, some never will get it.

Mike - Still working on the response... hopefully worth the wait.

Tom -

please reference the fact that the sight was off, significantly, and wasn't Oswald's supposed marksmanship done without the benefit of a scope that would have required some time to re-acquire the target after working the bolt... twice?

Also please reference the actual tests done with that rifle and rifles similiar... the frequency of jamming, misfiring was extraordinarily high. The MC may have been a great rifle in its day... and if well maintained, properly sighted and with a full, working clip might indeed have been capable in capable hands.

This simply wasn't the case for THAT Carcano.

In reference to his shooting ability... the records shows he was marginal at best, his peers called him "Maggie's drawers" is that the expression when you miss, repeatedly?

Now, if you could actually put the recovered rifle into his possession you might have a leg to stand on... but you can't as been shown time and time again, most recently in a great thread by Gil Jesus.

So please... before you tear me a new one because "I don't get it" you will have to show point by point against what has already been proven with regards to Frazier's story, the bag, the rifle's history, testimony that he had nothing in his hands when he arrived at work and how the rifle gets from wherever it was, to the TSBD in Oswald's possession... and since it needs re-assembly - when that occurs, when Oswald gets to the window, unseen and how not a single person identifies Oswald in that window... 2 black men, others with rifles at 12:15 and after - but not Oswald.

btw - AS you know... Brennan DOES NOT ID OSWALD. Not a single soul puts Oswald on the 6th floor let alone in that window.

Mike.... I will leave you with this, for now... Sheriff Decker and Chief Curry where in the lead car and closest to the overpass and RR yard... you asked about a location for the frontal shooter...

Dispatcher 12:30 p.m. KKB 364.

1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by.

1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there.

1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by.

Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) I am sure it's going to take some time to get your man in there. Pull every one of my men in there.

Dispatcher Dallas 1, repeat, I didn't get all of it. I didn't quite understand all of it.

Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there.

When witnesses ran behind the fence they found a car with muddy footprints on the back bumper and many, many cigartette butts... a number of witnesses put 2 men behind that fence in that exact spot... and the mooreman photo also shows something highly irregular at this spot. This is where I believe the frontal shots originated... not sure about the throat shot but the frontal head shot, if there was one as many, many witnesses agree upon, would have been from there.

Finally, Ray....

do you have anything to add with regards to the ballistics involved? Particle trails, ammo post impact characteristics, blood splatter analysis, xray analysis, photo anaylsis... anything?

If you would like to pursue the Tom Hanks is an Oswald Accuser line of thought... I blieve there are numerous threads about that or you can start a new one.

We're trying to understand the difference between what a trained ballastics expert sees and the rest of us.... at least to understand how Ayoob's ascertions are not applicable and what assertions are. thanks.

DJ

Last thought... look at the Moorman photo... Jean Hill was standing right next to her. Are you saying that standing in that position, not 20 feet from JFK and 30 yards from the fence - these two people could not tell if a shot was fired virtually right in front of them - with Decker and Curry corroborating?

To me, that's one of the biggest stretches a LNer must make to confine the assassination to 3 shots from the rear.

Peace

DJ

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Tom -

please reference the fact that the sight was off, significantly, and wasn't Oswald's supposed marksmanship done without the benefit of a scope that would have required some time to re-acquire the target after working the bolt... twice?"

"In reference to his shooting ability... the records shows he was marginal at best, his peers called him "Maggie's drawers" is that the expression when you miss, repeatedly?"

=====================================================================================================================

Without (again) wasting too much time, let me quickly respond to your continued ill-researched conclusions.

1. The "scope" may have in fact been mis-aligned for you; me; Mike; and 99.9% of any others who fully knew proper shooting techniques.

And, it just may have been aligned perfectly for LHO's position of holding the weapon and sight-picture-target alignment.

In even that your "crystal ball" can tell you everything about LHO's actual firing position/sight picture alignment/cheek spot weld/arm length V weapon stock length; etc; etc; etc;, then you merely demonstrate that you know as little as Anthony Marsh and other (know nothings) about shooting techniques.

How about this up the flagpole?

The Carcano comes with absolutely fixed sights. Were one to assume a perfect firing position of holding the weapon, then they would hit the target every time that they fired.

For those of us who are imperfect, we invented the adjustable rear sight to compensate for our errors in weapon/sight alignment.

2. Had you taken the time and effort to review the Rangefire Records of LHO (which are a part of the WC documents), and you actually knew anything about Rangefire Qualification, then you would know that LHO was a superior marksman when shooting at targets of 300 meters, and when firing from a fixed firing position.

And, your lack of knowledge regarding rifle marksmanship stands out since you have made no mention of the adjustments (windage) which LHO had to make on his M1-Garand, merely due to his particular/specific stance of weapon firing and target alignment.

"Battlesight Zero" on the M1 is exactly the same as the sighting of the Model 91/38 Carcano.

Being that point at which perfect sight/target alignment would always result in accurate shooting.

The "adjustable" sights on U.S. issue military weapons is to compensate for the "human element/error" of sighting, far more than it is to compensate for high speed winds and long range shooting.

It is "know nothings" such as yourself who run around yelling "the sky is falling" & LHO's weapon had a mis-aligned scope, which continue to feed methane gas (from the BS) to others who know nothing as well and are too lazy and/or inept to research the facts for themselves.

What nonsense, Tom. The Carcano found in the building had a severely misaligned scope, rendering it near useless to anyone who hadn't had extensive practice with it. If you're gonna claim Oswald used the iron sites, fine. But don't pretend he just had to look down the sites and fire.

For one, the rifle was sited in at 200 yards. This means the bullet would be what? 6 inches high at 90 yards. For two, he was firing downward, which would offset the effect of gravity, and put the bullet a few inches even higher. For three, he'd have to lead the target both vertically and horizontally.

Let's not forget that the Army's top test shooters, while firing on fixed targets, were unable to match Oswald's purported shooting on moving targets.

intheint3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom -

I am not a "know nothing" nor am I claiming the "sky is falling" so adding childish insults to your airy posts, and then filling them with more air accomplishes nothing.

I ask you these questions in all honesty in the assumption you ARE an expert in what you understand about ballistics, Oswald's history, etc...

I've acknowledged my lack of understanding about rifles, ballistics, blood splatter and look to experts on both sides of the coin to learn...

Is it not true that a marksman would fire a couple of shots when aligning a scope, each time the rifle is used, dissassembled, reassembled and used again??? Are you suggesting that in the few minutes he might have had to assemble the rifle the sight was exactly how he wanted? How would he know without firing a shot?

You also ignored my question about his shooting ability - did he use a scope in firing his weapon in the Marines or not? Simple right? since you seem to know everything about Oswald and his abilities.

Unless he assumed he'd only need one shot, does a marksman usually use a scope when needing to fire rapidly at a target less than 100 yards away? Especially if he trained without one??

And you of course ignore how the rifle even gets to Oswlad, to Frazier's car, to the TSBD, to the 6th floor, reassembled, aligned, and in Oswald's hand. - inconvenient isn't it Tom - when YOU present yourself as an expert in one area info while the rest of us actually look at the entire picture. Who pray tell was seen with a rifle on the 6th floor West window at 12:15 while Oswald was in the lunchroom downstairs, in addition to others seen on the 5th, 6th and 7th floors with rifles. Or are you even aware of these sightings - do you bother with info outside your self proclaimed expert area to put your understanding of the assasination into perspective?

I have no beef with you Tom... why must you instigate an argument with your demeanor in your replies? Just answer the question... if we here are too far beneath you to understand your answers so be it... but you don't even TRY to support your conclusions.

Chief of Police Curry, "we could not put Oswald in that window with that rifle". That's pretty definitive Tom... was he lying as well?

Amos puts a black man in that window at the time of the shots

Prisoners in the jail across from the TSBD saw multiple men and rifles

Do you even bother familiarizing yourself with the testimony, evidence, research... or just shrug it off.

Address the questions Tom... I never asked about adjustable sights - I asked about the alignment of the scope after reassembly. Stay on point for once - k?

and since your crystal ball is no better than mine - where do you come off with knowledge about "LHO's actual firing position/sight picture alignment/cheek spot weld/arm length V weapon stock length; etc; etc; etc;," Since you can't and don't have this knowledge you ASSUMPTIONS are just that... unsubstantiated assumptions.

Assuming a conclusion "Oswald fired the MC from the 6th Floor" requires proof, extraordinary proof... and you provide none becasue there is none.... he was never there.

Until you actually address any of these questions you remain like others unnamed here pontificating your position without a shred of support - even discredited support would be an attempt and better than the air you peddle as your opinion.

Tom writes:

Just that I can prove to anyone who maintains an open mind that the rifle (Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle) was:

A. An extremely accurate rifle, with an equivelant accuracy to the US issue M-14, which is still the basis of many of our current sniper rifles.

B. There was more than sufficient time for even a relatively inexperienced operator of the weapon, to accomplish the simple shooting feat which transpired.

2. As well as the fact tha LHO was FACTUALLY a superior marksman when shooting at targets to ranges of 300 meters, when firing from a fixed stable firing position.

Please Tom, my mind is open to your analysis as long as you focus it to what you consider the Oswald Carcano, it's physical characteristics, it's ability as an accurate weapon within minutes or hours of it being reassembled and no practice shots being fired, the physical condition of the firing pin, hulls that were left, shooting position given the EXACT dimensions of the corner he supposed had this wonderful stationary position, who moved and why the boxes move between 2 photos wihtin seonds of each other when he has to haul ass to be ficticiously encountered by Baker/Truly...

and then explain how his marine rifle and its condition at the time is in any way similiar to the Carcano in question... you consider cardboard boxes stradling a windowsill while hunched and squished against a pipe thru a half open window a "fixed stable firing position"?

I suppose you do not have Groden's Killing of a President but if you do there is an amazing photo of the view down elm from the county records building... there's a bullet mark on the ground by the manhole cover that was seen by Ofc Foster and Dect Walthers and photographic evidence of something being picked up from the spot by an unidentified man.

As expert marksmen and snipers... Mike/Tom... is this not the PERFECT location for a sniper? After spending some time with Groden's book last night - AND assuming what we see in parts of Zap are factual... a headshot from the rear in addition to the one from the front is extremely likely - once you stop clouding YOUR MIND with the idea that it was Oswald, alone, which caused all the injuries and bullet marks left that day.

Peace dude...

DJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...