Jump to content
The Education Forum

www.defiorejfk.com ~ new website


Recommended Posts

What if it had hit JFK in the face? There could have been clear proof of a shot from the front, contrary to the set-up of Oswald as the lone assassin.

If the original intent was to blame a hit team sent by Castro, evidence of a shot or shots from the front was obviously no problem. It was an ambush. Shots from the front only became a problem when the scenario changed with Oswald's arrest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jon, When I stood on the winged portion of the overpass at the corner ~ South Knoll ~ and took photos, I can only tell you that with a lense on a high powered rifle (for me it was a zoom camera) one can see directly into the back seat of any car travelling between Z180 and Z225 on Elm Street. I was flabbergasted at how the autos seemed to just hang in "mid air" for about 2 seconds (my unofficial timing). The shot is very possible for an accomplished sniper.

As for why take the shot thru the windshield, 1) from the multiple shooting positions the goal was to blow JFK's head off his shoulders without killing Jackie. No small feat. The shooters were positioned as to no be able to hit each other with a "pulled up" missed shot, and 2) a bullet hole in the windshield would have been vital to proving the LHO shot when JFK's head would have been obliterated. The WC would have called it all a fragment in the windshield.

I also don't discount Gordon Arnold and George Whitaker's testimony.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to follow how the intent of the plotters was to blow JKF's head off and to claim that Oswald did it all by himself.

The average Marine is an excellent marksman?

--Tommy :sun

The implication seems to be that the plotters intended to inflict more destruction (as with, for example, triangulation of gunfire) than one shooter could do. But I'm no expert on shooting people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron, I would love to see that reasoning on the man being obscured on the concrete step. I really can't see enough legs there to say two men were standing there in Willis #5. Thanks always.

It appears that the thread I recall was on the Lancer Forum, and the study was done by Bill Miller, who used to post here. The following EF thread revisits the subject. Note particularly Miller's posts 6 and 13.

Also of interest is post 20 by Cliff Varnell, which suggests that BDM was someone dressed as a cop. That would at least make it more understandable that he would be in such an open position if he was a shooter.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16688&hl

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron, I would love to see that reasoning on the man being obscured on the concrete step. I really can't see enough legs there to say two men were standing there in Willis #5. Thanks always.

It appears that the thread I recall was on the Lancer Forum, and the study was done by Bill Miller, who used to post here. The following EF thread revisits the subject. Note particularly Miller's posts 6 and 13.

Also of interest is post 20 by Cliff Varnell, which suggests that BDM was someone dressed as a cop. That would at least make it more understandable that he would be in such an open position if he was a shooter.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16688&hl

What about the possibility that Mrs. Chism was holding her baby there and that they were photo-misinterpreted as "Black Dog Man Sniper Dude"? In the same photo there was a soda pop bottle on top of and near the end of the "retaining wall", too, right? Or at least close by?

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the possibility that Mrs. Chism was holding her baby there and that they were photo-misinterpreted as "Black Dog Man Sniper Dude"?

--Tommy :sun

I'm ready to believe that Black Dog Man was in fact a black dog. It ran away when the shooting started.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the possibility that Mrs. Chism was holding her baby there and that they were photo-misinterpreted as "Black Dog Man Sniper Dude"?

--Tommy :sun

I'm ready to believe that Black Dog Man was in fact a black dog. It ran away when the shooting started.

You're so "dog gone" funny, Ronnie! In fact, you're makin' me howl right now. (Get it? Howl? - Black Dog Man Sniper Dude? - Howl???...)

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the possibility that Mrs. Chism was holding her baby there and that they were photo-misinterpreted as "Black Dog Man Sniper Dude"?

--Tommy :sun

I'm ready to believe that Black Dog Man was in fact a black dog. It ran away when the shooting started.

You're so "dog gone" funny, Ronnie! In fact, you're makin' me howl right now. (Get it? Howl? - Black Dog Man Sniper Dude? - Howl???...)

--Tommy :sun

edited and bumped

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron,

No head. Obliterated. Impossible to piece back together. All you have is Patsy on the sixth floor and a guaranteed hole in the windshield (which can be debated as a fragment or a hole or whatever like the SBT apologists do today). The belief was that no one would miss by as much as they did from the rear: County Building and Dal Tex. But you could still cover up their shots and misses if the entire head is obliterated.

I think this is very plausible as to why the front shot from the left of JFK (South Knoll) was a preconceived shooting position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is very plausible as to why the front shot from the left of JFK (South Knoll) was a preconceived shooting position.

I have long leaned toward the view that the south knoll was the source of the fatal head shot. A former poster here (his name escapes me at the moment) with knowledge of ballistics made a very good case for it, arguing how the bullet would have just cleared the windshield. It would seem likely that a throat shot through the windshield from the south knoll would have been fired by the same person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is very plausible as to why the front shot from the left of JFK (South Knoll) was a preconceived shooting position.

I have long leaned toward the view that the south knoll was the source of the fatal head shot. A former poster here (his name escapes me at the moment) with knowledge of ballistics made a very good case for it, arguing how the bullet would have just cleared the windshield. It would seem likely that a throat shot through the windshield from the south knoll would have been fired by the same person.

And yet the results of those strikes were radically different.

Nicked trachea, broken blood vessels, hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, an air pocket. No exit. No bullet fragments on x-ray.

Doesn't sound like the strike of a high powered rifle, does it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is very plausible as to why the front shot from the left of JFK (South Knoll) was a preconceived shooting position.

I have long leaned toward the view that the south knoll was the source of the fatal head shot. A former poster here (his name escapes me at the moment) with knowledge of ballistics made a very good case for it, arguing how the bullet would have just cleared the windshield. It would seem likely that a throat shot through the windshield from the south knoll would have been fired by the same person.

And yet the results of those strikes were radically different.

Nicked trachea, broken blood vessels, hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, an air pocket. No exit. No bullet fragments on x-ray.

Doesn't sound like the strike of a high powered rifle, does it?

You're right. My vast and immediate knowledge of ballistics is showing. Wouldn't have been the same shooter.

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...