Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Where people could claim - as I have on occasion - that John Connally was not wounded until after the head shot your suggestion that the first shot could not have occurred before 313 is complete nonsense and ignores the masses of evidence we already have. Just to name one there is the evidence of Phil Willis as to why image 5 was taken. And that is to ignore what we see in Altgens. And just so many other testimonies.

Your placing of the cars is full of inaccuracies. I refer you to Zapruder full frame with sprockets 148. We have no idea where the Cabell car was at 148. Your placing of the Secret Service car is just beyond belief. Again look at Zapruder full frame + sprockets to see that at most it was around 2 - 3 feet behind. By 312 there is evidence that it was less than 2 feet behind. At 223 you have the Johnson car just turned the corner and with a massive gap between it and the Queen Mary. That was not the case. Again I refer you to the Full frame Zapruder.

I have just looked at your recent posts. Your placing of the Queen Mary at 187 is nonsense. It was much closer. It looks like the Johnson was further round than that. 235 is again nonsense with regard to the Queen Mary and Cabell is sheer speculation. Johnson's car would also have been closer by 235.

As regards the Cabell's suggesting that no shots had taken place until they had turned into Elm Street conflicts with all the evidence we have. You are taking the evidence of one witness and ignoring all the other evidence. The SBT is based on the idea that both JFK and Connally are wounded at 223/4. Now whether you agree with the theory is irrelevant, what is clear is that by 225 JFK is showing clear signals that he has been wounded. Yet you are suggesting that no shots had been fired by that point and it would be 88 frames until the first shot was fired.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 520
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Quote:

As regards the Cabell's suggesting that no shots had taken place until they had turned into Elm Street conflicts with all the evidence we have. You are taking the evidence of one witness and ignoring all the other evidence. The SBT is based on the idea that both JFK and Connally are wounded at 223/4. Now whether you agree with the theory is irrelevant, what is clear is that by 225 JFK is showing clear signals that he has been wounded. Yet you are suggesting that no shots had been fired by that point and it would be 88 frames until the first shot was fired.

End quote.

Is Robert actually suggesting that no audible shots had been fired at that point and that the first audible shot was at Z313?

Link to post
Share on other sites

James, Mr. CABELL, Mrs.CABELL and WRIGHT provided testimony providing the approximate location of their vehicle at the time they heard the first shot.

WRIGHT, the driver was actually very specific " The car I was driving had just turned onto Elm Street and approximately 30 feet from the intersection when I heard the first shot. "

Capture_9acabell_zpsec45982d.jpg

There is no conflicts between the three testimonies which all place the vehicle at the location presented in the graphic above.

This is the approximate location they claimed the vehicle was at when they heard the first rifle sound, this is the only location that can work as also illustrated in graphic posted below.

Capture235cabell_zps0658a8b3.jpg

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to post
Share on other sites

James, at this point in the presentation of the evidence the location for the Queen Mary is inconsequential.

It is only important to understand where the presidential limo had to be at the moment of the first rifle shot heard relative to Cabells vehicle and where the occupants of the Cabell's vehicle place their location.

The only place the presidential vehicle could have been at the moment the first rifle shot was heard was at location depicted at about frame Z-313.

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Ian, it is important all of us understand and agree upon the word "audible".

I study the faces of the onlookers in the Altgens 6 photo, reputedly taken at the same time as frame z255 in the Zapruder film, and cannot believe a 6.5mm short rifle has been fired six storeys above and slightly behind these people 2-3 seconds before this picture was taken.

It should be remembered that the 6.5mm M91/38 short rifle, with its 21 inch barrel, is a shortened version of the M91 long rifle that possesses a 31 inch barrel. However, the same cartridge is used in both rifles, and the muzzle blast is louder in the short rifle, due to gunpowder burning outside of the barrel. The same problem was encountered with the .303 Lee Enfield. A "jungle carbine" version was made of this rifle, by shortening the barrel, and it was found necessary to fit this shortened barrel with a flash eliminator, as the muzzle flash was quite extreme.

When exposed to 150+ decibel level noises, people experience involuntary startle reactions. EVERY SINGLE PERSON seen in Altgens 6 should be displaying signs of being startled, as these startle reactions are not only involuntary but instantaneous, as well. The only people showing any reaction at all, outside of JFK and Connally, are the two Secret Service agents on the starboard side of the Queen Mary, and for good reason.

If JFK has already been shot by a rifle at z255, it was likely a rifle behind him that was equipped with a suppressor (silencer). I place silencer in brackets, as it is misleading to call these things silencers. While they will completely silence the muzzle blast of a rifle, thus masking the origin of a shot, they cannot mask the sound of a supersonic bullet breaking the sound barrier. This means that any rifle with a muzzle velocity higher than 1025 fps, and this includes most rifles of any appreciable calibre, cannot be completely silenced.

The reason we only see Connally, JFK and the two SS agents reacting is that they are the only ones near the path of the bullet. As the bullet was far smaller than a jet plane breaking the sound barrier, its sonic boom would only be a few orders of magnitude higher than the crack of a bull whip, and its zone of influence might or might not extend to the onlookers on the sidewalks, depending on how much the sound was mingled with and masked by the sound of the crowd and the motorcycles. If some of these bystanders did hear this suppressed shot, it obviously did not produce sound at an extreme decibel level, high enough to invoke the expected and instantaneous startle reaction.

For all of the above reasons, I believe the origin of the first shot was the large laundry delivery van parked at the corner of Elm and Houston St, with its nose facing down Elm St. There is a perimeter railing around the top of this van, and the roof is piled high with laundry bags. What better place to locate a sniper with a suppressed rifle that would not give away his position? Granted, it would have been a very tight shot, with the Queen Mary in the way, and the only window might have been immediately after the limo had turned the corner. A better location would have been the second storey window of the Dal-Tex Building, as it would have placed the shooter further to the right rear of the limo and made for a bigger window. The point I'm trying to make here is that if the shot was made from any higher up, and it was suppressed, we likely wouldn't be seeing the same reaction from the two SS agents.

Once again, how do you define "audible"?

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,

The point Robert Prudhomme makes is valid. In Ike Altgens image a large number of witnesses not only do not hear the first shots some can be seen cheering and clapping the President.

Your position is just because one witness hears shots at a particular point - only he is right and everyone else is wrong. One came as something of a surprise to me was the variety of sounds that the witnesses heard. Josiah Thompson listed all the witnesses, where they were positioned and what shots they heard.

Howtheshotsbreakdown_zps68312606.png

The group by Houston street - referred to as East Plaza - heard a single shot followed by a double shot.

Those down by the Pergola - referred to was West Plaza - heard a double shot followed by a single shot.

There were two groups that were equally dispersed throughout the plaza.

The first group heard three single shots.

The second group heard a double shot followed by another double shot.

Basically, what Josiah pointed out where you were positioned determined what you heard. Aside from the fact that the Cabell's were in a closed car somewhere around the middle of Houston street, how do we know they actually heard the first shot. How can we not say that the shot they heard was not the first shot, but actually the first shot they heard.

The preponderance of the evidence suggests that the when the Cabell's talk about the first shot, they are referring to the first shot they heard and not the first shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. CABELL - No; we couldn't tell. We could tell, of course, there was confusion in the presidential car--activity. The Secret Service men ran to that car. From out of nowhere appeared one Secret Service man with a submachine gun. His attention seemed to be focused up toward the building. One of the motorcycle officers and the escort pulled his motorcycle over to the side and jumped off with his drawn handgun and ran up the slope toward the building, toward the School Book Depository. I do not recall any other shots being fired than the three which I mentioned.

Mrs. CABELL. I did not know, because I did not see a hand or a head or a human form behind it. It was in just a fleeting second that I jerked my head up and I saw something in that window, and I turned around to say to Earle, "Earle, it is a shot", and before I got the words out, just as I got the words out, he said, "Oh, no; it must have been a "the second two shots rang out. After that, there is a certain amount of confusion in my mind. I was acutely aware of the odor of gunpowder. I was aware that the motorcade stopped dead still. There was no question about that.
Mr. HUBERT. Let me ask you, after the first shot and your observation of this object in that window as you have described it, you turned your attention from that window?
Mrs. CABELL. That is right.
Mr. HUBERT. So that you were not looking in the direction of that window when the second and third shots were fired?

Wright Statement:"When the second shot was fired I noticed a number of people running away from the Motorcade... "

The CABELLS both heard three shots, the first of which was at Z-313, WRIGHT mentions two shots we don't know if he heard 2 or 3, but the first shot he heard was at Z-313.

Wright was busy driving, he may not have differentiate rifle shots two and three fired in rapid succession if he was concentrating on getting out of potential trouble.

The other point being the first shot heard was at Z-313, when was the second and the third? AFTER Z-313 of course!

Note further evidence from WRIGHT, in that no witness can be seen to react to rifle shots until after Z-313, WRIGHT also describes this accurately and his claims are corroborated by film and photographs.

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to post
Share on other sites

James: "Your position is just because one witness hears shots at a particular point - only he is right and everyone else is wrong. One came as something of a surprise to me was the variety of sounds that the witnesses heard. Josiah Thompson listed all the witnesses, where they were positioned and what shots they heard."

James, technically it was three witnesses.

Also Josiah Thompson list of what witnesses heard is useless, it is either a misunderstanding of testimony or worse amounts to disinformation. It is a thoughtless unprocessed accumulation of information.

I have no idea what information was used to create the table you posted, I doubt that it is a true reflection of witnesses experiences.

Edited by Robert Mady
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Thomas, you might be correct on that, good observation, he appears to be smoking.

We do not know when LOVELADY was captured on film, you may assume it is the same day but there is no way to determine this with certainty.

Compelling doubt should arise when one considers the two films captured a single instant in time without an apparent reason to have exposed any film other than to prominently display LOVELADY in his attire, One might also note that almost everyone in these films have their back to the cameras, this is also true of the police station LOVELADY, the film was completely out of character for any film taken within the police station, it was not in a hallway, but in a quiet office space, with every ones back to the camera except LOVELADY. These coincidences and anomalies could arise suspicion.

LOVELADY before and LOVELADY after in the same shirt, supposedly on the same day.

2v023dg_zps16d23308.jpg

LOVELY02_zps9f63842a.jpg

Robert,

I'm not going to argue with you, so after this post I'm no longer going to participate on this thread.

The John Martin film and the Robert Hughes film were shot in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.

A small section of both films was shot at the same time, at (almost exactly) the same place, and had the same subject matter -- the police activity and general commotion that was occurring on the front steps of the TSBD a few minutes after the assassination. (Eight to fifteen minutes after the assassination, according to Robert Groden.)

Both film sections or "clips" show Billy Lovelady in front of the TSBD. (Interestingly, the Martin clip also shows two other male TSBD employees -- Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce -- at the same place and time as Lovelady. The Hughes clip shows Bonnie Ray Williams, too, but doesn't show Danny Arce because a man standing in front of the cameraman obscures our view of him.)

The clip from the Martin film clearly shows Lovelady smoking a cigarette. It is viewable in post #1470 of the "Oswald Leaving the TSBD?" thread. (John Martin worked in the Terminal Annex Building across the Plaza from the TSBD. You can research him and his 11/22/63 film if you want to.)

Now, it's perfectly understandable to me that two amateur photographers, John Martin and Robert Hughes, would be attracted to the police activity and general commotion that was going on at the front entrance of the TSBD eight to fifteen minutes after the assassination, and that both of them would happen to film the same "scene". The fact that Billy Lovelady was there at that time (as were fellow TSBD employees Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce) and ended up in both the Martin film and the Hughes film does not seem strange to me all. After all, Lovelady and Williams and Arce worked in the TSBD. What's more, it's obvious that neither Lovelady nor Williams nor Arce was the center of the photographers' "attention" in either film.

I'm outta here...

--Tommy :sun

bumped for Mady

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...