Jump to content
The Education Forum

Inside Inside the Target Car:


Peter McGuire
 Share

Recommended Posts

Inside Inside the Target Car:

My Experiences as Limo Researcher for the Show

By Pamela McElwain-Brown

See Additional Reviews

of Inside the Target Car

The JFK Assassination Aftermath and TV Shows

One would think that once the Warren Report (WR) hit the stands in 1964 the government would have said, "there you have it", and moved on to something else. However, there were so many flaws within that it invited a fair amount of criticism. Although the critics were quickly pointed out to be un-American, they continued to grow in number and volume. Their voice threatened to drown out that of the Warren Commission. Something had to be done.

Some on the Commission, like Allen Dulles, actually believed the American public would not bother to read the WR. Apparently, they believed that their appeal to authority, dictated by those supposedly the most revered in our government, would be sufficient. They thought that the American public was merely 'sheeple', and would do as they were told. They were wrong.

In order to quickly cover their tracks, a special posse was formed behind the scenes devoted to stomping out the growing Critical Community (sometimes called Conspiracy Theorists, or CT's). New books were quickly written to re-emphasize the 'conclusions' of the WR, while some new CT books were written in order to confuse the CT community. And someone in the posse (which we will refer to as the Ongoing Cover-up, or OC) had an 'aha' moment when it came to pushing the WR agendas on that new media called TV.

So into the fray jumped the networks, anxious to please; most of them probably co-opted by the OC even prior to the JFK assassination. The sheeple believe our newscasters. So, of course, they would believe what these people had to say about the assassination. This spewing of TV jargon would be more persuasive to the sheeple than any doubts they might have had. Quickly, a TV show on the WR was developed. Others followed. The Jim Garrison investigation was decimated by the NBC White Paper propaganda show against him. The OC had hit the big-time, and television had become the new means of controlling the public.

Which brings us to the present. Fairly recently, the Discovery Channel decided to fund shows on the JFK assassination. Their ultimate conclusion, after allegedly looking 'objectively' at all the facts, was—you guessed it—a recrowning of the Warren Commission. On the other hand, in 2004 the SPEED Channel did a one-hour documentary on the Presidential Limousine,. This was called Behind the Headlights: JFK Presidential Limousine (currently

.) This program, for which I helped develop the script and was interviewed for, was conspiracy-based and contained new information about what happened to the limo after the assassination. It clearly demonstrated that the limo was the primary crime scene and that there had been a cover-up. How could this be allowed to stand? So somebody at Discovery Channel had a bright idea to do a program focusing on the limo as the crime scene. And that brings us to "JFK: Inside the Target Car", and my participation in it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"And that brings us to "JFK: Inside the Target Car", and my participation in it."

JFK: Inside the Target Car, Part One

Or, How to Rig an Experiment

By James DiEugenio

See Additional Reviews

of Inside the Target Car

Whenever I hear of a new scientific approach to the John F. Kennedy case, my first reaction is to shudder and then run for cover. I don't think it is hard to understand why I feel that way. Actually, it's quite simple. Its because whenever someone says they are going to treat this case with scientific rigor, sooner or later, the rigor dissipates and the so-called natural laws of the universe somehow fail. So suddenly, as with President Kennedy's violent rearward reaction, Newton's laws of motion don't apply anymore. Or as with the trajectory of the Single Bullet Theory through Kennedy's body, gun shot projectiles don't move through soft tissue in straight lines anymore.

Further, alleged "authorities" suddenly get thoroughly confused and confounded by the evidence. As Pat Speer has shown, Dr. Michael Baden didn't even know how to orient one of the most important autopsy photos. NASA scientist Tom Canning moved Kennedy's back wound up to make the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) work, and then shrunk Kennedy's head to make the head wound trajectory work. Dr. Vincent Guinn "proved" the SBT theory with his Bullet Lead analysis—which we now know, through the work of Pat Grant and Rick Randich, is nothing but "junk science". Its so junky that the FBI will not use it in court anymore.

At other times, we even get the spectacle of people who should not be approaching the case at all acting as if they were qualified in a certain field of scientific endeavor. Vincent Bugliosi used a chiropractor whose office offered massage therapy—Chad Zimmerman—as an authority in radiology. Robert Blakey hired statistician Larry Sturdivan to show films of goats being shot to illustrate the so-called neuromuscular reaction. (And then they both failed to tell us that Kennedy's reaction does not match what happens in the goat films.) Urologist John Lattimer was the first "independent" doctor admitted to the National Archives to report on the extant autopsy materials there. He somehow missed the fact that the president's brain was missing. Lattimer then gave us the Great Thorburn Hoax, which was thoroughly exposed by Milicent Cranor. And, of course, who can forget Dale Myers' computer 3D simulation, which turned the SBT from theory to "fact". A "fact" that was ripped to smithereens by Milicent Cranor, David Mantik, and Pat Speer.

The point of this partial list is simply to show that when the scientific method encounters the Kennedy case, it somehow loses all semblances to what most of us expect about that rubric. So for people like me who have become jaded by the above hijinks, I was not excited about another heralded and pretentiously headlined story. Especially after what ABC said in advance about the "indisputability" of the Myers debacle back in 2003. (See our critique of this fiasco.)

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inside Inside the Target Car:

My Experiences as Limo Researcher for the Show

By Pamela McElwain-Brown

See Additional Reviews

of Inside the Target Car

The JFK Assassination Aftermath and TV Shows

One would think that once the Warren Report (WR) hit the stands in 1964 the government would have said, "there you have it", and moved on to something else. However, there were so many flaws within that it invited a fair amount of criticism. Although the critics were quickly pointed out to be un-American, they continued to grow in number and volume. Their voice threatened to drown out that of the Warren Commission. Something had to be done.

Some on the Commission, like Allen Dulles, actually believed the American public would not bother to read the WR. Apparently, they believed that their appeal to authority, dictated by those supposedly the most revered in our government, would be sufficient. They thought that the American public was merely 'sheeple', and would do as they were told. They were wrong.

In order to quickly cover their tracks, a special posse was formed behind the scenes devoted to stomping out the growing Critical Community (sometimes called Conspiracy Theorists, or CT's). New books were quickly written to re-emphasize the 'conclusions' of the WR, while some new CT books were written in order to confuse the CT community. And someone in the posse (which we will refer to as the Ongoing Cover-up, or OC) had an 'aha' moment when it came to pushing the WR agendas on that new media called TV.

So into the fray jumped the networks, anxious to please; most of them probably co-opted by the OC even prior to the JFK assassination. The sheeple believe our newscasters. So, of course, they would believe what these people had to say about the assassination. This spewing of TV jargon would be more persuasive to the sheeple than any doubts they might have had. Quickly, a TV show on the WR was developed. Others followed. The Jim Garrison investigation was decimated by the NBC White Paper propaganda show against him. The OC had hit the big-time, and television had become the new means of controlling the public.

Which brings us to the present. Fairly recently, the Discovery Channel decided to fund shows on the JFK assassination. Their ultimate conclusion, after allegedly looking 'objectively' at all the facts, was—you guessed it—a recrowning of the Warren Commission. On the other hand, in 2004 the SPEED Channel did a one-hour documentary on the Presidential Limousine,. This was called Behind the Headlights: JFK Presidential Limousine (currently

.) This program, for which I helped develop the script and was interviewed for, was conspiracy-based and contained new information about what happened to the limo after the assassination. It clearly demonstrated that the limo was the primary crime scene and that there had been a cover-up. How could this be allowed to stand? So somebody at Discovery Channel had a bright idea to do a program focusing on the limo as the crime scene. And that brings us to "JFK: Inside the Target Car", and my participation in it.

Nice of you to repost this, Peter.

I am becoming more convinced than ever now that some time has passed, that ITTC was an establishment response to the 2004 SPEED Channel program on the limo, (http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=jfk+assassination+limo+youtube+pamina58&mid=0870E1F98C0A190D44130870E1F98C0A190D4413&view=detail&FORM=VIRE) because that clearly focused on the limo as the primary crime scene, instead of DP or the SN at the TSBD. This seems to be a problematic concept, and one that we are supposed to be distracted from.

Recently, in another thread, a researcher asked me about the position for the limo on Elm Street at Z-313. This is critical to any understanding of where that shot came from. It is also research 101.

As I was not involved in the Dallas segment of the program (gee, I wonder why :-0) I did not have an opportunity to question the spot that Gary Mack chose to use for his test and the reenactment, which is the "X" on Elm Street. My apparent questioning of the validity of the spot (actually, I am looking for the logic and measurements for using that spot) resulted in a msg from Gary Mack who 'advised' me that the "X" is the 'right' spot because Robert Groden chose it. Guess that should be good enough -- at least for anyone who chooses not to think for themself.

Any conclusions based on the "X" on Elm Street are of course contingent upon the validity of that spot. (There are other factors as well, but this one is an axiom). Therefore, an entire hour of a program 'proving' a point may rest on an unproven, or undemonstrated, axiom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recently, in another thread, a researcher asked me about the position for the limo on Elm Street at Z-313. This is critical to any understanding of where that shot came from. It is also research 101.

I think I am the person you are referring to. I was asking about the orientation of the limo in the street at the time of the last shot.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pamela:

Wouldn't this positioning have to be done mainly by photographs and films?

Yes, to some extent at least. However, that means interpreting 2-D photos to a 3-D enbironment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pamela:

Wouldn't this positioning have to be done mainly by photographs and films?

Yes, to some extent at least. However, that means interpreting 2-D photos to a 3-D enbironment.

Because several films caught the exact moment of the head shot and the approximate location of the cameramen (and ladies too) is known, that would allow the approximate location to be established. Dale Myers with his computer animation could easily do that (but who would know if he'd tell the truth after he did it and since Myers screwed up so many other things, who'd believe he'd get this right).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recently, in another thread, a researcher asked me about the position for the limo on Elm Street at Z-313. This is critical to any understanding of where that shot came from. It is also research 101.

I think I am the person you are referring to. I was asking about the orientation of the limo in the street at the time of the last shot.

You are. Thanks, Mike.

I have received another 'advisory' email from Gary Mack. Apparently, the positioning of the limo on Elm Street in ITTC was more or less 'symbolic' and the actual 'official' dimensions were only used in the LA tests.

Needless to say, that opens another can of worms, in that I found the tests unpersuasive due to the fact that the damage done to the skull was far different from what the X-rays of JFK's head show (stipulating that they are not forged), and the bullet(s) used did not fragment. Gary seems to consider those tests a redux of the WCR position, that LHO fired that shot from the SN of the TSBD, whereas I do not. I'll be re-viewing ITTC before commenting further on the LA tests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pamela:

Wouldn't this positioning have to be done mainly by photographs and films?

Yes, to some extent at least. However, that means interpreting 2-D photos to a 3-D enbironment.

Because several films caught the exact moment of the head shot and the approximate location of the cameramen (and ladies too) is known, that would allow the approximate location to be established. Dale Myers with his computer animation could easily do that (but who would know if he'd tell the truth after he did it and since Myers screwed up so many other things, who'd believe he'd get this right).

Theoretically, that is so. Of course, things seemed to change around Dealey Plaza after the assassination, so grounding the photos concretely in DP is not easy.

I have not been persuaded by anything Dale Myers has come up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently, 'symbolic' is not what Gary Mack would like his use of the "X" on Elm Street to represent. It is difficult in that he chooses not to post on his own, but sends emails that run the risk of being interpreted differently by the recipient than he would prefer.

I have re-watched my copy of ITTC. I find there no real documentation as to exactly how the position on Elm Street used in the re-enactment or the LA shooting were determined. There is also no documentation or even reference as to whether or not the "X" on Elm Street was found to be identical to the spot they used in the LA tests.

In regards to JFK's position in the car, there is a reference to the WCR, with a photo of the diagram of the limo which, as we all know, shows only the horizontal and none of the vertical measurements.

ITTC also references using the replica limo for measurements. While this car is in many ways visually identical to SS-100-X, there are vertical measurements that are not precisely the same, due to the fact that, for example, the elevating rear seat was not reconstructed in the replica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice of you to repost this, Peter.

That sounds pretty passive-aggressive to me Pamela, since I do not agree with what you say, and you have got to be aware of it.

Then let me say that I appreciate your drawing attention to this essay.

Agreeing or not agreeing is not really relevant. How you back up your arguments would be of interest, however.

What about ITTC do you find most persuasive?

And what about my article do you disagree with?

Edited by Pamela Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Gary says the positioning in Dealey Plaza was symbolic?

What the heck does that mean?

Symbolic of what?

I apologize, Jim. "Symbolic" was my take on something Gary Mack said in an email he sent me. I misinterpreted.

According to Gary (hope I get it right this time) the "X" on Elm Street was the position selected by Bob Groden for the movie JFK, it seems. So, this being the case, it should, one would think, have some validity as a viable spot.

I have not heard back from Robert yet, and do not as yet know how that was determined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a link to Don Robideaux's map of Dealey Plaza:

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2192/dpupdated110110.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Apologies. Per GM, there were a couple of airings of ITTC on the Military Channel this month. If you have not seen this program, I do encourage that you do, if for no other reasons than to see the great footage of the replica JFK limo and to see actual shooting tests of Z313. I also encourage you to be objective, and ask whether what the script tries to tell us has been demonstrated, has been. To my way of thinking, a good case can be made that the ammo used on Z313 did not come from the M/C, in that it did not fragment in the test, whereas it did, in fact, on 11.22.63.

Gary Mack has graciously provided me with documentation as to how the Z313 LA tests were done. Rather than comment on this at this point, let me just share it. It does seem apparent that ITTC did attempt to present the WC reenactment scenario in a fairly consistent manner:

QUOTE ON

We tested the official WC investigation conclusions and their numbers were published in volume 18: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=139909

As I trust you know from the testimony and reports, investigators used the Queen Mary for their onsite tests and adjusted the minor seating differences mathematically to get accurate data. That is what we tested.

The distance from rifle to head and downward angle were crosschecked with Don Roberdeau’s Dealey Plaza plat with elevations. Clear blowups of Z313 were used to place the test skull at the proper orientation.

It was all simple geometry. No car was used at the range, just a wood mockup. The important factors were getting the height, distance and orientation the same as investigators used in 1964. We then watched to see the effects of the bullet upon striking the head and found the explosion matched the Z film almost identically. That is what confirms that the head shot was fired from the TSBD window, for another shooter location would have resulted in a different explosion/spray pattern.

The knoll test shots were done the same way using the known elevation at the angle corresponding to the acoustics/shape behind the 5’ fence location.

QUOTE OFF

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...