Proof of Motorcade Stopping?

[Robert Prudhomme]

you're a hunter. a small tree branch can turn a bullet, right?

my next question would be: understanding the unreliability of deflections - if you were planning such an intricate scheme to shoot someone from various positions, or even one, would you even risk this unreliability of firing through the windshield, past TWO rows of moving people to target a MOVING person in the third seat?

is that something you'd do on purpose in Dealey Plaza with fences and RR underpasses and open windows everywhere?

Yes, tree branches can deflect bullets.

No, I would not purposely shoot through a windshield at a target, but then I am not a professional sniper, either, and have never tried to shoot a moving target through a windshield.

The biggest thing I would worry about with such a shot is something we just discussed; the bevelling on the inside of the windshield glass. If it were indeed bevelled on the inside of the glass, this would be concrete and undeniable evidence of a shot from the front, whether or not the bullet actually hit anyone, and would instantly negate the theory of a lone gunman.

On the other hand, if your real intent was to promote an invasion of Cuba, and you actually wanted it known to the world the assassination was a Communist plot involving several shooters, by all means, shoot at the windshield.

[Paul Trejo]

...No, I would not purposely shoot through a windshield at a target, but then I am not a professional sniper, either, and have never tried to shoot a moving target through a windshield.

The biggest thing I would worry about with such a shot is something we just discussed; the bevelling on the inside of the windshield glass. If it were indeed bevelled on the inside of the glass, this would be concrete and undeniable evidence of a shot from the front, whether or not the bullet actually hit anyone, and would instantly negate the theory of a lone gunman.

On the other hand, if your real intent was to promote an invasion of Cuba, and you actually wanted it known to the world the assassination was a Communist plot involving several shooters, by all means, shoot at the windshield.

Robert, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the JFK limousine quickly confiscated, scrubbed clean, and never submitted to official analysis?

The umbrella shooter is not a silly theory -- there are some academic leaders (e.g. George Michael Evica) who thought it was plausible. Also, the Umbrella Man was to the side and front of JFK's Limo, by the large street sign, with the limo top down, and he would not have needed to shoot through a windshield.

Finally, the JFK Kill Team didn't support a Lone Shooter theory -- as witness the Warren Commission testimony of Edwin Walker. He was trying to sell a Communist Plot there in Dallas.

The JFK Kill Team wanted everybody to believe that the JFK murder was a Communist Plot. That should be obvious.

It was only J. Edgar Hoover -- worried about riots in the streets during the Cold War -- who insisted that there was no plot at all -- leftwing or rightwing.

Hoover would stomp on any hint of evidence of more than one shooter. This was the very essence of his Coverup.

The JFK Kill Team didn't care at all that multiple bullets from multiple rifles fired by multiple shooters would show up in JFK's brain, or body, or limo. In fact, all that was desirable for them.

IMHO, we will solve the JFK far faster if we stop blurring the Kill-Team plot and the Coverup plot together. They were NEVER together in real life, IMHO, but were politically opposed from the very start (e.g. from 3pm CST on 11/22/1963).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 4, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

whether or not the bullet actually hit anyone, and would instantly negate the theory of a lone gunman.

On the other hand, if your real intent was to promote an invasion of Cuba, and you actually wanted it known to the world the assassination was a Communist plot involving several shooters, by all means, shoot at the windshield.

/***

both really good points.

i am relieved. you and Mark have realigned my faith in the human power of reason.

it was touch and go there for a minute. whew.

[Glenn Nall]

Paul what is IMHO? In My Humble Opinion? In My Honest Opinion?

In My Hilarious Opinion?

just wondering. I'm pretty sure i already know.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul what is IMHO? In My Humble Opinion? In My Honest Opinion?

In My Hilarious Opinion?

just wondering. I'm pretty sure i already know.

Take your pick, Glenn -- just as long as you stick to the issues.

The limo windshield is also evidence -- and the ad hoc photographs we have of it are valuable.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 4, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Robert Prudhomme]

...No, I would not purposely shoot through a windshield at a target, but then I am not a professional sniper, either, and have never tried to shoot a moving target through a windshield.

The biggest thing I would worry about with such a shot is something we just discussed; the bevelling on the inside of the windshield glass. If it were indeed bevelled on the inside of the glass, this would be concrete and undeniable evidence of a shot from the front, whether or not the bullet actually hit anyone, and would instantly negate the theory of a lone gunman.

On the other hand, if your real intent was to promote an invasion of Cuba, and you actually wanted it known to the world the assassination was a Communist plot involving several shooters, by all means, shoot at the windshield.

Robert, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the JFK limousine quickly confiscated, scrubbed clean, and never submitted to official analysis?

The umbrella shooter is not a silly theory -- there are some academic leaders (e.g. George Michael Evica) who thought it was plausible. Also, the Umbrella Man was to the side and front of JFK's Limo, by the large street sign, with the limo top down, and he would not have needed to shoot through a windshield.

Finally, the JFK Kill Team didn't support a Lone Shooter theory -- as witness the Warren Commission testimony of Edwin Walker. He was trying to sell a Communist Plot there in Dallas.

The JFK Kill Team wanted everybody to believe that the JFK murder was a Communist Plot. That should be obvious.

It was only J. Edgar Hoover -- worried about riots in the streets during the Cold War -- who insisted that there was no plot at all -- leftwing or rightwing.

Hoover would stomp on any hint of evidence of more than one shooter. This was the very essence of his Coverup.

The JFK Kill Team didn't care at all that multiple bullets from multiple rifles fired by multiple shooters would show up in JFK's brain, or body, or limo. In fact, all that was desirable for them.

IMHO, we will solve the JFK far faster if we stop blurring the Kill-Team plot and the Coverup plot together. They were NEVER together in real life, IMHO, but were politically opposed from the very start (e.g. from 3pm CST on 11/22/1963).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Yes, the limo and windshield were never admitted as evidence, although the SS and FBI did a "thorough" examination of them.

I have always had trouble accepting the blood soluble flechette shot from the umbrella theory, mainly because I cannot see how such a weapon could be accurately aimed at a moving target.

Was it Hoover who insisted the lone gunman story was the truth, or was he merely carrying out orders from much higher up?

Edited August 4, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Paul Trejo]

Yes, the limo and windshield were never admitted as evidence, although the SS and FBI did a "thorough" examination of them.

I have always had trouble accepting the blood soluble flechette shot from the umbrella theory, mainly because I cannot see how such a weapon could be accurately aimed at a moving target.

Was it Hoover who insisted the lone gunman story was the truth, or was he merely carrying out orders from much higher up?

Well, Robert, as I read it, the umbrella-gun was invented by the CIA for just such a purpose, and it had a telescopic sight built-in to it.

Also, the FBI report recorded delivery of a "missile" from Parkland -- not a bullet or a fragment -- but a "missile". That also went missing.

IMHO, Hoover established the Lone Gunman story for purposes of National Security, and by 3pm CST the word got around the FBI and eventually to McGeorge Bundy and finally to AF1 and LBJ. LBJ liked the idea very much indeed. In a pact between LBJ and Hoover, the entire Federal Government was finally arm-twisted to agree -- including Allen Dulles, Earl Warren and the whole Warren Commission.

But it was Hoover's original idea, according to Professor David Wrone of Wisconsin U..

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 4, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

i don't even understand the need to complicate the scheme with a "dart". and right, how the hell do you aim the rib of an umbrella? whatever.

Hoover had plenty of motive all on his own. couple him with Johnson's Motive and i see a dynamic duo. if he was directed by higher ups, it sure didn't take much prodding.

[Glenn Nall]

bullets are often referred to as missiles, and projectiles, etc. Just cause some FBI guy who needed to show off his vocabulary called it a missile, to ME, doesn't in any way imply something 'secretive.'

to be more ballistically correct, missiles hang from aircraft wings, not umbrellas. i think a missile is anything that flies through the air with a direction. like a bullet.

fwiw.

[Mark Knight]

The SS-100X limo was NOT "confiscated."

At Parkland, it was parked away from the gathering crowds, and the bubble top was removed from the trunk and installed. The seats WERE washed, but it was MUCH later that the seat covers were removed by the folks who did a full refurbishing of the limo.

Now, if things were done as the modern CSI shows do it today, the seats would NOT have been washed. The SS would have had a forensic photographer taking photos of the entire limo, and noting anything that might seem out of the ordinary. BUT the SS had NO forensic photographers, and sending for one from the DPD, the local FBI office, or even the Dallas County Sheriff's office simply didn't occur to anyone. The folks to do this would've likely been detectives, anyway; forensic photography wasn't a separate investigative area then, as the CSI shows make it out to be today. The idea that the limo was actually a part of the crime scene simply wasn't a priority at the time.

When the limo left Parkland, it went back to Love field, and was loaded back aboard the C-130 that brought it to Dallas, for its flight back to DC. The SS being the SS, they sequestered the limo in the White House Garage that night.

But since the SS was the "rightful" custodians of the limo--remember the license plate, SS-100X? That SS stands for...well...you know--the limo was NEVER "confiscated." After midnight, the FBI inspected the limo in the White House garage. So it WAS available for investigation. As I understand it, cops--including the FBI--weren't as photo-happy as we are today. So there were NO "twenty-seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs, with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one, explainin' what each one was, to be used as evidence against..."...LHO.

But the limo wasn't "confiscated" from the SS, not until after the weekend...if I understand the history correctly.

[Kenneth Drew]

Pat, please present evidence that KENNEDY had an affair with Judy Campbell Exner.

Phone calls to the White House are hardly evidence of an affair.

I don't care to waste my time to do digging for dirt, but I do expect those that present mythological Kennedy affairs to be fact to be capable of presenting compelling evidence to support their claims.

I don't buy your premise--that only sex addicts have affairs. Where do you get this from?

my point is that I don't believe KENNEDY would have risked his integrity, his marriage and his political career for sex knowing that HOOVER and the mob were known for set-ups and black mail.

Pat, please present evidence that KENNEDY had an affair with Judy Campbell Exner. Now that's funny.

but I do expect those that present mythological Kennedy affairs to be fact to be capable of presenting compelling evidence to support their claims.

What are you looking for? some Polaroids? Even Jackie accepted the truth of the stories of his affairs, having some of her own as revenge. William Holden, Marlon Brando, others.

I don't think you're going to find 'proof' as in flagrante delicto. But few that kept up with the Kennedys would claim they 'didn't happen'.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Yes, the limo and windshield were never admitted as evidence, although the SS and FBI did a "thorough" examination of them.

I have always had trouble accepting the blood soluble flechette shot from the umbrella theory, mainly because I cannot see how such a weapon could be accurately aimed at a moving target.

Was it Hoover who insisted the lone gunman story was the truth, or was he merely carrying out orders from much higher up?

Well, Robert, as I read it, the umbrella-gun was invented by the CIA for just such a purpose, and it had a telescopic sight built-in to it.

Also, the FBI report recorded delivery of a "missile" from Parkland -- not a bullet or a fragment -- but a "missile". That also went missing.

IMHO, Hoover established the Lone Gunman story for purposes of National Security, and by 3pm CST the word got around the FBI and eventually to McGeorge Bundy and finally to AF1 and LBJ. LBJ liked the idea very much indeed. In a pact between LBJ and Hoover, the entire Federal Government was finally arm-twisted to agree -- including Allen Dulles, Earl Warren and the whole Warren Commission.

But it was Hoover's original idea, according to Professor David Wrone's own CT.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Dumb question, Paul but, just where on an umbrella would you mount a scope? If you read about this umbrella gun, why not post a link to the article?

And Glenn is correct; bullets are quite often referred to as missiles.

[Paul Trejo]

Dumb question, Paul but, just where on an umbrella would you mount a scope? If you read about this umbrella gun, why not post a link to the article?

And Glenn is correct; bullets are quite often referred to as missiles.

Well, Robert, here are two responses to your two points:

(1) Here is a fairly clear explanation about the umbrella gun on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcdMlNFL9Bk

(2) One would still expect consistency, Robert, i.e. if the same document refers to bullets as "bullets" and fragments as "fragments" then when that document also adds "missiles" one may justly expect a third type of object.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 4, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/06/douglas-p-horne/photographic-evidence-of-bullet-hole-in-jfk-limousine-windshield-hiding-in-plain-sight/

I hope that works for most folks, I think other references are available, but I'll need to deal with other stuff later.

Yes, Bruce, that site works great, and fully explains what you meant by a "through and through" bullet hole in the JFK limo windshield.

I myself have always believed in a minimum of seven shots from multiple directions -- so I have no problem accepting this account of the "through and through" windshield bullet hole.

My only point was that a completely different "missile" entered Kennedy's throat -- and that is why no bullet was found in his throat, and none emerged from the back of his neck.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Robert Prudhomme]

Dumb question, Paul but, just where on an umbrella would you mount a scope? If you read about this umbrella gun, why not post a link to the article?

And Glenn is correct; bullets are quite often referred to as missiles.

Well, Robert, here are two responses to your two points:

(1) Here is a fairly clear explanation about the umbrella gun on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcdMlNFL9Bk

(2) One would still expect consistency, Robert, i.e. if the same document refers to bullets as "bullets" and fragments as "fragments" then when that document also adds "missiles" one may justly expect a third type of object.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Nice video but, no mention of how and where a scope was mounted on the umbrella.