Proof of Motorcade Stopping?

[Paul Trejo]

...I do think LHO was likely set up as a patsy, but not a lone nut.

This, Kenneth, is the line of thinking that will eventually solve the JFK murder, IMHO.

The most confusing part of the JFK literature, IMHO, is trying to solve two separate problems as though they were one problem; i.e. trying to solve the JFK murder and the JFK Cover-up as though they were both pre-planned at the same time by the same people.

Jim Garrison was not alone in his belief that those who planned the JFK murder were the same as those who planned the JFK Coverup.

If (and only if) that is an error, and if the JFK murder was actually separate from the JFK Cover-up, then attempting to solve both problems at one and the same time could result in wasting fifty years of quality research.

That is, if LHO was set up as a Communist Patsy, then the gargantuan effort to make LHO appear to be a Lone Nut (even altering autopsy evidence and X-rays, as well as ballistics evidence, photographs, and tampering with witnesses and more) was entirely separate -- and actually a counter-movement to the Communist Patsy CT.

With regard to the theme of this thread -- the Proof of the Motorcade Stopping must be regarded as a problem in the JFK murder, IMHO, with utterly nothing to do with the JFK Cover-up, SBT or Lone Nut theory. That's the way to approach the Motorcade Stopping question -- to ensure a logical resolution.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 6, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Robert Prudhomme]

Getting back to the solid-fuel, rocket propelled flechette dart, here is something else to think about. While I have yet to see a photo or drawing of this rocket dart, there are certain assumptions that can be made about it, given the basic knowledge applied to rocket science.

Rockets, be they air-to-air missiles fired from F-16's or Atlas rockets coupled to thermonuclear warheads, all have one thing in common; stabilizing fins at the base of the rocket.

From Richard Nakka's Experimental Rocketry Web Site

http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/fins.html

Purpose of fins on a rocket

The purpose of putting fins on a rocket is to provide stability during flight, that is, to allow the rocket to maintain its orientation and intended flight path. If a typical amateur rocket was launched without fins, it would soon begin to tumble after leaving the launcher, due to the way that aerodynamic and other forces (such as wind) act upon the rocket, in relation to the forces that are exerted upon the rocket by the motor and by gravity. The problem here is that the rocket's centre of pressure (CP) would be forward of its centre of gravity (CG). Fitting fins on a rocket serves to locate the centre of pressure aft of the CG. This begs the question -- what exactly are the centre of gravity and the centre of pressure and why the importance of these?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Robert Prudhomme]

The reason I mention stabilizing fins is because, for the reasons laid out by Richard Nakka on his most fascinating website, I would assume our umbrella rocket would have to be fitted out with some form of simple stabilizing fins in order to keep it on a straight and true course to JFK's throat.

As the doctors at Parkland estimated the diameter of the throat wound to be 3-8 mm, I would assume this to be the outside diameter of the main body of the rocket, in order to allow for the internal storage of the rocket's solid fuel.

In order to be effective, the stabilizing fins need to project beyond the main body of the rocket. How much would this increase the diameter of the rocket? Could the fin diameter ultimately be, say, 13 mm?

If the rocket body was 3-8 mm, and the fin diameter up to 13 mm, the only conclusion to be drawn, given the nature of the throat wound, is that the missile halted just as the fins contacted the skin of his throat.

However, this presents a problem. If the rocket was blood soluble, it would seem the rocket would have to be in contact with blood to dissolve. If the fin-equipped base of the rocket did not enter the wound, how did it dissolve?

I guess it is possible this rocket was equipped with sophisticated stabilizing fins that folded back into the body of the rocket as it entered a wound but, this theory presents still another problem.

Did the rocket run out of fuel before it reached JFK? If it didn't, and the base of the rocket went into the wound with solid fuel still burning, shouldn't JFK have had burns on his trachea and surrounding tissue? Even if the rocket did run out of fuel before it reached JFK, rocket fuel, loaded with oxidizers such as sodium chlorate (NaClO3) and sodium perchlorate (NaClO4), burns at very hot temperatures that are elevated by forcing the combustion products through the small nozzle of the rocket motor. Wouldn't the rocket, even after it ran out of fuel, still be hot enough to burn the flesh in JFK's throat?

Edited August 8, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Greg Burnham]

Colonel Prouty sent me this photograph of the flechette dart. It is placed next to a dime for size comparison purposes.

[Glenn Nall]

...I do think LHO was likely set up as a patsy, but not a lone nut.

This, Kenneth, is the line of thinking that will eventually solve the JFK murder, IMHO.

The most confusing part of the JFK literature, IMHO, is trying to solve two separate problems as though they were one problem; i.e. trying to solve the JFK murder and the JFK Cover-up as though they were both pre-planned at the same time by the same people.

Jim Garrison was not alone in his belief that those who planned the JFK murder were the same as those who planned the JFK Coverup.

If (and only if) that is an error, and if the JFK murder was actually separate from the JFK Cover-up, then attempting to solve both problems at one and the same time could result in wasting fifty years of quality research.

That is, if LHO was set up as a Communist Patsy, then the gargantuan effort to make LHO appear to be a Lone Nut (even altering autopsy evidence and X-rays, as well as ballistics evidence, photographs, and tampering with witnesses and more) was entirely separate -- and actually a counter-movement to the Communist Patsy CT.

With regard to the theme of this thread -- the Proof of the Motorcade Stopping must be regarded as a problem in the JFK murder, IMHO, with utterly nothing to do with the JFK Cover-up, SBT or Lone Nut theory. That's the way to approach the Motorcade Stopping question -- to ensure a logical resolution.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

IS that, in fact, IN your HO?

[Glenn Nall]

Colonel Prouty sent me this photograph of the flechette dart. It is placed next to a dime for size comparison purposes.

seeing a picture of the little bugger does change my perspective just a bit, i have to admit. certainly looks effective.

my concerns are still around its delivery, though. i just think there would be better ways to have done it than an umbrella on a sunny day. doesn't sound to me like something i'd plan in advance when i KNOW there are other delivery methods. The designers of these things didn't rely on rain for implementation; they simply worked with it ("ok, let's put one of these 'guns' in an umbrella, for use when it's raining"... and "let's put one in a cane, and one in a rolled up newspaper, and one in a woman's tampon...' - hey, you never know when it's the right time to kill, right?).

anyway, you get my point. there HAD to be a better way to fire a flechette that day. IF one were even used...

[Robert Prudhomme]

Colonel Prouty sent me this photograph of the flechette dart. It is placed next to a dime for size comparison purposes.

I wonder how long it took the blood of the victim to dissolve this dart. As I recall, it was a pretty quick ride from Dealey Plaza to Parkland Memorial Hospital.

[Greg Burnham]

anyway, you get my point. there HAD to be a better way to fire a flechette that day. IF one were even used...

Perhaps a modified Colt 45 Model 1911-A suits your purposes better?

Edited August 8, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Greg Burnham]

See this article on my website:

Was Umbrella Man a Shooter?

[Glenn Nall]

anyway, you get my point. there HAD to be a better way to fire a flechette that day. IF one were even used...

Perhaps a modified Colt 45 Model 1911-A suits your purposes better?

right. i should have finished with "and remain conspicuous."

[Glenn Nall]

i came across this article a while back and too was quite excited about what at first looks to be a missing hwy 77 sign, etc. I pieced it all together enlarged, and even posted some questions in this forum, at the same time coming to my own conclusion that the signs are in fact still there yet really blurred, that the umbrella patch is in front of the signs where it belongs.

i have to admit, it REALLY looks like alteration to me, that the signs are not there, but i think that blurring also plays a part in it.

i'm more at issue with the people underneath, and am NOT convinced that they haven't "moved around" underneath that sign some.

i wrote something the other day that referred to the UM and the DCM, and as i wrote it i got that shiver - that feeling - that i haven't experienced in quite a while. Of all the little puzzle pieces in Dealey in those photographs, these two guys I think more likely to be playing a direct role, right in front of God and Everybody, than anything else.

I AM convinced that DC man is giving a signal to someone. and that gives me the willies. wow.

[Paul Trejo]

The reason I mention stabilizing fins is because, for the reasons laid out by Richard Nakka on his most fascinating website, I would assume our umbrella rocket would have to be fitted out with some form of simple stabilizing fins in order to keep it on a straight and true course to JFK's throat.

As the doctors at Parkland estimated the diameter of the throat wound to be 3-8 mm, I would assume this to be the outside diameter of the main body of the rocket, in order to allow for the internal storage of the rocket's solid fuel.

In order to be effective, the stabilizing fins need to project beyond the main body of the rocket. How much would this increase the diameter of the rocket? Could the fin diameter ultimately be, say, 13 mm?

If the rocket body was 3-8 mm, and the fin diameter up to 13 mm, the only conclusion to be drawn, given the nature of the throat wound, is that the missile halted just as the fins contacted the skin of his throat.

However, this presents a problem. If the rocket was blood soluble, it would seem the rocket would have to be in contact with blood to dissolve. If the fin-equipped base of the rocket did not enter the wound, how did it dissolve?

I guess it is possible this rocket was equipped with sophisticated stabilizing fins that folded back into the body of the rocket as it entered a wound but, this theory presents still another problem.

Did the rocket run out of fuel before it reached JFK? If it didn't, and the base of the rocket went into the wound with solid fuel still burning, shouldn't JFK have had burns on his trachea and surrounding tissue? Even if the rocket did run out of fuel before it reached JFK, rocket fuel, loaded with oxidizers such as sodium chlorate (NaClO3) and sodium perchlorate (NaClO4), burns at very hot temperatures that are elevated by forcing the combustion products through the small nozzle of the rocket motor. Wouldn't the rocket, even after it ran out of fuel, still be hot enough to burn the flesh in JFK's throat?

By the next morning after the murder of JFK, the FBI was running around madly trying to stomp on every bit of evidence of more than a Lone Shooter.

Naturally, then, any shot from the front would have to be stomped on -- hard.

Yet the "missile" that the FBI handed over to the Secret Service from Parkland, apart from the two "fragments" of bullets, though officially recorded, was never fully explained.

Also, assuming a dart-gun was hidden inside UM's umbrella, was he aiming to kill? To administer anesthesia? Was he aiming for the throat?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Kenneth Drew]

As we know, there was no overall examination of the wounds to see where they might have exited. Example: no probe was run through the back wound to see where it came out. There were also no body xrays made looking for bullets left inside. There may have been several, no check was made.

That's not what Dr. Pierre Finck told the HSCA:

Dr. FINCK. Well, you cannot go into a track when -- you know, this is difficult to explain. You can make an artificial track if you push hard enough with an instrument so you go gently to see that there is a track, and the fact that you don't find a track with a probe may be because of contraction of muscles after death.

Dr. WECHT. Was the probe done with a metal probe?

Dr. FINCK. That is why I said probing was unsuccessful.

Mr. PURDY. How far into the body did the probe go before you were afraid it might create an artificial track?

Dr. FINCK. I don't know.

Mr. PURDY. What was your confusion that you had said -- I am not sure that you used the word "confusion." I think you used a word to describe the state of mind when you could not find the track and you could not find an exit wound and you could not find evidence of a bullet. How did you resolve that confusion that night during the autopsy?

Dr. FINCK. By asking for the X ray films.

While Finck's answers weren't very enlightening, he indicates that, to a minor extent, a metal probe WAS used. AND x-rays were referred to. What was NOT done was that the wound was not dissected to determine for certain the track of the bullet.

Yeah, Finck's testimony is very evasive...but he reveals a couple of things.

Here's the link I used: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckhsca.htm

Not only were they 'evasive', they summarized as I had said. They didn't probe 'fully' the track nor did they use xrays to see if the bullet was still inside. IN short, they found out exactly what they wanted to: nothing. so that 'nothing' could not be used as 'evidence'

[Kenneth Drew]

...Lee Bowers and the railroad men all agreed they saw "a puff of smoke" between the trees by the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll when JFK was murdered. You have seen the badgeman photo with the smoke from the rifle. right?

I'm interested in the Badgeman, too, Kenneth. Yet it seems to me that the explosion of Badgeman's rifle triggering its bullet was a brief flash of gunpowder, and not actually a puff of smoke.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, are you saying that a 'brief flash of gunpowder' is not as proof of a rifle shot as 'gunsmoke' would be? I'd never thought of that.

[Kenneth Drew]

Getting back to the solid-fuel, rocket propelled flechette dart, here is something else to think about. While I have yet to see a photo or drawing of this rocket dart, there are certain assumptions that can be made about it, given the basic knowledge applied to rocket science.

Rockets, be they air-to-air missiles fired from F-16's or Atlas rockets coupled to thermonuclear warheads, all have one thing in common; stabilizing fins at the base of the rocket.

From Richard Nakka's Experimental Rocketry Web Site

http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/fins.html

Purpose of fins on a rocket

The purpose of putting fins on a rocket is to provide stability during flight, that is, to allow the rocket to maintain its orientation and intended flight path. If a typical amateur rocket was launched without fins, it would soon begin to tumble after leaving the launcher, due to the way that aerodynamic and other forces (such as wind) act upon the rocket, in relation to the forces that are exerted upon the rocket by the motor and by gravity. The problem here is that the rocket's centre of pressure (CP) would be forward of its centre of gravity (CG). Fitting fins on a rocket serves to locate the centre of pressure aft of the CG. This begs the question -- what exactly are the centre of gravity and the centre of pressure and why the importance of these?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert, has it been established which films or photos show the trail of smoke by the rocket engine in the 'small rocket engine powered shot'? surely it is visible in the Zapruder film. anyone have a link?