Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Second "Patsy"....The Grassy Knoll "Patsy"


Mike Rago
 Share

Recommended Posts

The initial acoustic analysis by BBN determined there was a 50% likelihood that a shot originated from the Grassy Knoll. The HSCA changed the acoustic analysis provider to determine where exactly that shooter was located on the Knoll.

The result of the analysis to locate the assassin on the Knoll was to place a gun in the hand of the person behind the fence at the location of the red arrow. I believe this man is nothing more than a second Patsy. He is the acoustic "Patsy" or the Grassy Knoll "Patsy".

According to the acoustic analysis this man fired his shot about 500 ms after the shot which struck the president at Zapruder frame 313 and his shot missed the president. This is about 400 ms after the Moorman photo was snapped.

Why did the acoustic analysis conclude the shot missed? They had no other choice but to conclude the shot missed because the Zapruder film does not show any evidence that a shot struck the president about 500ms after the shot at frame 313.

The acoustic analysis concluded there were 4 shots. Three shots from Oswald in the TSBD and a fourth shot from this character on the Knoll but his shot missed the president. It also implies that the Single Bullet Theory is correct because the acoustic analysis only admits to 4 shots.

If the SBT is false then the acoustic analysis , and particularly , the location of the shooter on the Knoll as determined by that analysis, is also false.

In addition, a shot from that location(the red arrow) would not have been missed by the men in the Queen Mary and Halfback.

Where exactly on the Knoll was this man located. That is the key question.

moormandrumscanzoomedla.png

Here is a closeup of that area...

hatmansixsecondsscan.jpg

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why would the Grassy Knoll shooter be a patsy if the designated patsy (that is, a lone shooter) was in the TSBD?

We know there was a Grassy Knoll shooter not only because of ear witnesses but because people saw the smoke. Of course, the conspirators could have used a CIA smoke-making machine, which they then quickly stashed in a car trunk, or which was designed to disintegrate after use. (I don't buy the explanation that someone was smoking a cigar.) If this person was a patsy, why was he allowed to get away? (Of course, Oswald was allowed to get away too, so who knows what those people were doing.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would the Grassy Knoll shooter be a patsy if the designated patsy (that is, a lone shooter) was in the TSBD?

That is a very good question.

If you believe the SBT is false then you cannot also believe that the acoustically determined position, to such a high degree of accuracy(+/- 5 feet), is true.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The acoustically determined position can be true because the smoke was seen as coming from under those trees. Whether the determined timing is true I don't know. The Grassy Knoll shooter could have shot more than once, with the first shot not being considered a shot among the sounds on the dictabelt. The acoustical evidence is screwed up like everything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not disputing if there was a shot from the Knoll. BBN got that part right.

What I am disputing is the location of the assassin on the Knoll.

The shot came from somewhere in that area but the question is , was if from that guy?

Who saw the smoke?

Weigman saw the smoke.

This is a Bill Miller gif which shows the smoke. But we cannot say for sure where it came from, except to say from the top of the Knoll. This is about 9 seconds after the Zapruder frame 313. You can see the limo going under the underpass.(circled)

Who else saw the smoke?

weigman.gif

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say it is smoke. I do not think it is the tree limb.

The angles are too different between those two comparisons in my opinion.

This image shows two leaf covered branches (orange)

we0000.png

Assuming they are branches in Wiegman..

This only shows one of those what happened to the other orange colored branch?

we0005.png

The other orange colored branch does not show up as you would expect if your assumption that they are branches in Wiegman is correct.

Also it appears to me the Towner Image you are using has been altered. I do not think that orange color is original. Someone has colored in orange where green should be and changed the shape. The following is what the color and shape should be. (light green)

townertree.png

This is a blowup of your image. It looks like someone colored it orange and decided what shape to give it...

notrealw.png

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike...have you ever fired a modern firearm?

Modern firearms use "smokeless" powder...that is, the amount of smoke released upon the firing of a modern firearm is VERY small.

Now, a "black powder" firearm--considered an antique by about 1910--would, indeed, create the amount of smoke you see "generated" in your photos.

So, answer one question for me: Did ANY witness--even just ONE witness--insist that they say ANYONE with an antique firearm in their possession in the vicinity of the so-called "Grassy Knoll" around 12:30 pm on November 22, 1963?

If so, please name that witness, and direct me to their testimony.

Otherwise, your "theory" goes up in smoke, too...because modern cartridge-type firearms use "smokeless" powder, and do NOT create such smoke clouds as you are insisting occurred on the "Grassy Knoll."

Does NO ONE investigating the JFK assassination have any firearms experience anymore?

edit: Now, I'm NOT disputing a shot from the "Grassy Knoll," as I don't have the expertise to contest the audio evidence. But as a lifelong hunter, who uses BOTH modern firearms and black powder rifles, I have a few years of experience in THAT area.

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, several witnesses, Sam Holland, Lee Bowers, and several men standing with Sam Holland reported they saw smoke.

Having said that , here is a video of the Whitman fellow who back in the sixties climbed to the top of the Tower at the University of Texas and began firing at people. You can see the smoke from his rifle. Was he using an antique firearm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the same quantity indicated by the Dealy Plaza photos? What i've seen that is alleged to be smoke in Dealy Plaza looks more like the firing of a black powder rifle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egFKWJ5IC1I

STOP at the :17-:18 mark; THIS is what the alleged "smoke" from Dealy Plaza seems to look like.

It does NOT look like the "momentary" puff of smoke shown in your most recent video...the Dealy Plaza "cloud" is thicker and heavier than the "wisp" that the 7.62 in YOUR video creates on a single shot.

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not disputing that there was a sound like a shot from the Grassy Knoll. I'm not disputing that witnesses said they say smoke from the Grassy Knoll. I'm just disputing that the photos that are reputed to show smoke are actually showing smoke from the firing of a modern firearm.

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...