Joe Bauer Posted September 25, 2022 Share Posted September 25, 2022 10 hours ago, Bill Brown said: Oh boy. Anyway... The bullet (CE-399) leaves the muzzle of the Carcano traveling around 2100 feet per second. The bullet, traveling roughly 1700 feet per second, strikes Kennedy in the upper back and exits the neck. The bullet, now slowed having passed through Kennedy's neck, hits Connally in the back, causing an 8mm x 15mm elliptical wound. This wound measurement proves that the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connally's back, proof that the bullet had passed through something else BEFORE hitting Connally in the back. The bullet, now traveling at around 1300 to 1400 feet per second, strikes Connally's fifth rib, completely shattering it. Damage to the bullet was minimal due to the fact that it was not traveling anywhere near full speed when it struck the rib. The bullet exits Connally's chest and while traveling less than half(?) of it's original rate of speed, enters the right wrist, striking the radius bone. Again, damage to the bullet is minimal because of it's slow rate of speed when it struck the radius. Basically, the bullet was traveling fast enough to cause damage to bones, but not fast enough to be damaged by impact with the bones. Every traveling bullet has a threshold where it is moving fast enough to destroy but not fast enough to be destroyed. Because it first passed through Kennedy, this bullet was within that threshold when it struck Connally's rib. The bullet exits the palm side of the wrist and while traveling at less than one-fifth of it's original speed, enters the left thigh and embedding itself in the thigh muscles. The bullet didn't go any further because it was not traveling fast enough upon striking the thigh. The bottom line is that damage to the bullet was minimal because, when it struck rib bone and radius bone, it simply had been slowed considerably, moving too slowly to be damaged. The bullet would have been greatly fragmented (basically destroyed), if when it struck the radius bone in Connally's right wrist, it was traveling at the same rate of speed as it was when it struck Kennedy in the upper back. Would love to read another take on these pristine bullet velocity dynamics stated by Mr. BB and whether they are credibly sound scientifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ege Posted September 25, 2022 Share Posted September 25, 2022 13 hours ago, Joe Bauer said: Would love to read another take on these pristine bullet velocity dynamics stated by Mr. BB and whether they are credibly sound scientifically. Joe, I as well - but then, just ma-a-ybe we really not concern ourselves with further elucidation - since the assassination is all wrapped up here: LOL. See This Sniper Rifle? It Was Used To Assassinate President John F. Kennedy | The National Interest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted September 27, 2022 Share Posted September 27, 2022 (edited) On 9/24/2022 at 12:23 PM, Bill Brown said: This appears staged. Jackie could not have sat in those alleged remains and have very little stains on the back of her skirt. Who says Jackie sat in the remains? Where do you think President Kennedy's head went as soon as Jackie got out onto the trunk? Yes, that color photo was taken by the SS in the White House Garage Saturday afternoon. This was done just before the car was completely cleaned out because it smelled so bad... Edited September 27, 2022 by Pamela Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Mellor Posted September 27, 2022 Share Posted September 27, 2022 I've always been interested in the alleged windshield hole, primarily because of the first day statement of Dr. Perry at Parkland viewing the throat wound as an entry wound. I therefore look forward to hearing David Knight's presentation this Saturday 1st Oct., at D.P.U.K.'s conference. The Throat Shot (revisiting the case with new technology) – David Knight (remote) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted September 27, 2022 Share Posted September 27, 2022 (edited) On 9/22/2022 at 4:12 AM, Pamela Brown said: The windshield at NARA is the windshield in the limo at the time of the assassination. The long striations are a result of the Arlington Glass men kicking it out with their feet. There was no t+t hole. There was a defect which you can see in the Altgens 1-7. It increased a bit in size as a result of the flight back to DC and drive from AAFB to the WHG, which you see in CE350... "The windshield at NARA is the windshield {that was} in the JFK limo at the time of the assassination" -- so says Pamela Brown. Her statement, however, is completely incorrect. The "first day evidence" makes crystal clear that there was indeed a hole (not some superficial damage) in the windshield. A through- and- through hole. Reporter Richard Dudman's statement(s) --plus SS Agent Charles Taylor's official report, dated the evening of 11/22/63 -- makes this clear. To believe otherwise, one has to ignore what any lawyer or historian would call "the best evidence" --which in this case is quite evident -- and instead subscribe to a false and weak conspiracy hypothesis. The limo windshield is critical evidence. That's why I had it uncrated (back around 1971/72) and spent an hour (at least) examining it. There is no way that the windshield that I had uncrated --and carefully examined -- is the same windshield that was on the JFK limo in Dallas. As I have noted in the past: the assassination happened only one way, once. That is a simple statement of fact. Either my analysis is correct -- and the windshield was switched (i.e., critical evidence was falsified) -- or my analysis is incorrect, in which case a whole array of critical evidence to the contrary must be ignored. If we were in court, I have no doubt that a jury would find in favor of my analysis. There is no way that the windshield that was on the JFK limo on Nov. 22, 1963 is the same one that is at the National Archives today. As SS Agent Roy Kellerman (who had a wry sense of humor) testified before the Warren Commission (when presented with the "archives windshield"): "It (the windshield he was presented with) feels "rather smooth" today. (He actually said that!) Readers have a simple choice: either follow the evidence, or subscribe to a weak and insubstantial conspiracy hypothesis. As someone who had the "archives windshield" uncrated for my personal inspection (1971-ish), and who also interviewed SS Agent Charles Taylor on this subject, there is only one logical and credible answer to this puzzle: the windshield was switched. (9/27/22_ 12:45 PM PDT) Edited October 10, 2022 by David Lifton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marjan Rynkiewicz Posted September 27, 2022 Share Posted September 27, 2022 2 hours ago, David Lifton said: "The windshield at NARA is the windshield {that was} in the JFK limo at the time of the assassination" -- so says Pamela Brown. Her statement, however, is completely incorrect. The "first day evidence" makes crystal clear that there was indeed a hole (not some superficial damage) in the windshield. A through- and- through hole. Reporter Richard Dudman's statement(s) --plus SS Agent Charles Taylor's official report, dated the evening of 11/22/63 -- makes this clear. To believe otherwise, one has to ignore what any lawyer or historian would call "the best evidence" --which in this case is quite evident -- and instead subscribe to a false and weak conspiracy hypothesis. The limo windshield is critical evidence. That's why I had it uncrated (back around 1971/72) and spent an hour (at least) examining it. There is no way that the windshield that I had uncrated --and carefully examined -- is the same windshield that was on the JFK limo in Dallas. As I have noted in the past: the assassination happened only one way, once. That is a simple statement of fact. Either my analysis is correct -- and the windshield was switched (i.e., critical evidence was falsified) -- or my analysis is incorrect, in which case a whole array of critical evidence to the contrary must be ignored. If we were in court, I have no doubt that a jury would find in favor of my analysis. There is no way that the windshield that was on the JFK limo on Nov. 22, 1963 is the same one that is at the National Archives today. As SS Agent Roy Kellerman (who had a wry sense of humor) testified before the Warren Commission: "It (the windshield he was presented with) feels "rather smooth" today. (He actually said that!) Readers have a simple choice: either follow the evidence, or subscribe to a weak and insubstantial conspiracy hypothesis. As someone who had the "archives windshield" uncrated for my personal inspection, and who also interviewed SS Agent Charles Taylor on this subject, there is only one logical and credible answer to this puzzle: the windshield was switched. (9/27/22_ 12:45 PM PDT) Can u find a photo or footage of bullethole in a windshield where the hole is throo & throo but is difficult to see? I reckon that all bullets at all ranges make an unambiguous hole every time. If the angle of attack is not too acute -- ie if not less than say 45 deg. There are 3 photos that show that the windshield did not have a hole -- a photo taken seconds after -- a photo taken minutes after -- & a photo take hours after. Your BS meter has let u down. The small crater & cracks were from the remnant AR15 slug from jfk's head wound (fired by Hickey). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted September 29, 2022 Share Posted September 29, 2022 The reason the Ferguson Memo was withheld was to keep researchers from having any definition to what really happened to SS100X after the assassination. By leaving a gap in knowledge, researchers then fell prey to jumping to conclusions of their own making. Once that happened, they were eliminated as a threat to the ongoing cover-up, because they could not back down as they risked losing credibility with those who believed them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ege Posted September 29, 2022 Share Posted September 29, 2022 On 9/27/2022 at 3:43 PM, David Lifton said: "The windshield at NARA is the windshield {that was} in the JFK limo at the time of the assassination" -- so says Pamela Brown. Her statement, however, is completely incorrect. The "first day evidence" makes crystal clear that there was indeed a hole (not some superficial damage) in the windshield. A through- and- through hole. Reporter Richard Dudman's statement(s) --plus SS Agent Charles Taylor's official report, dated the evening of 11/22/63 -- makes this clear. To believe otherwise, one has to ignore what any lawyer or historian would call "the best evidence" --which in this case is quite evident -- and instead subscribe to a false and weak conspiracy hypothesis. The limo windshield is critical evidence. That's why I had it uncrated (back around 1971/72) and spent an hour (at least) examining it. There is no way that the windshield that I had uncrated --and carefully examined -- is the same windshield that was on the JFK limo in Dallas. As I have noted in the past: the assassination happened only one way, once. That is a simple statement of fact. Either my analysis is correct -- and the windshield was switched (i.e., critical evidence was falsified) -- or my analysis is incorrect, in which case a whole array of critical evidence to the contrary must be ignored. If we were in court, I have no doubt that a jury would find in favor of my analysis. There is no way that the windshield that was on the JFK limo on Nov. 22, 1963 is the same one that is at the National Archives today. As SS Agent Roy Kellerman (who had a wry sense of humor) testified before the Warren Commission: "It (the windshield he was presented with) feels "rather smooth" today. (He actually said that!) Readers have a simple choice: either follow the evidence, or subscribe to a weak and insubstantial conspiracy hypothesis. As someone who had the "archives windshield" uncrated for my personal inspection, and who also interviewed SS Agent Charles Taylor on this subject, there is only one logical and credible answer to this puzzle: the windshield was switched. (9/27/22_ 12:45 PM PDT) David, thank you. Given everything we come to discover over the past almost six decades, much attributable to your prodigious efforts, I am not understanding the hesitance of some to accept that the windshield was switched. Indeed, as you point out, "best evidence" must be ignored/disregarded to stay with the government's alternative. If the official story were to be factual, would not those in charge have taken extreme close-up, multiple, multiple photographs of the original windshield still installed on the vehicle, from every conceivable angle, from inside and outside, along with reams and reams of scientific analysis that LHO's MC, almost to the exclusion of all other rifles/ammunition caused the damage, thereby proving, incontrovertibly, to the public that ALL the shots could only have been fired by Oswald, from behind the limo? Certainly, many here are acutely aware of many much more complicated "shenanigans" that were conducted by various entities, as part of the coverup. "Windshield switching" would seem quite low on the "difficulty scale". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marjan Rynkiewicz Posted September 29, 2022 Share Posted September 29, 2022 5 hours ago, Ron Ege said: David, thank you. Given everything we come to discover over the past almost six decades, much attributable to your prodigious efforts, I am not understanding the hesitance of some to accept that the windshield was switched. Indeed, as you point out, "best evidence" must be ignored/disregarded to stay with the government's alternative. If the official story were to be factual, would not those in charge have taken extreme close-up, multiple, multiple photographs of the original windshield still installed on the vehicle, from every conceivable angle, from inside and outside, along with reams and reams of scientific analysis that LHO's MC, almost to the exclusion of all other rifles/ammunition caused the damage, thereby proving, incontrovertibly, to the public that ALL the shots could only have been fired by Oswald, from behind the limo? Certainly, many here are acutely aware of many much more complicated "shenanigans" that were conducted by various entities, as part of the coverup. "Windshield switching" would seem quite low on the "difficulty scale". The windshield might be non-true -- but it aint -- but it might be. But -- re a throo & throo hole -- find & show me one example of a throo & throo hole that is ambiguous -- just one -- dont hurry -- no need to rush -- i am patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted October 2, 2022 Share Posted October 2, 2022 (edited) NARA photo of windshield: https://preview.catalog.archives.gov/id/305143 Edited October 2, 2022 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted October 2, 2022 Share Posted October 2, 2022 (edited) When David Lifton and other early researchers went to NARA and were allowed to see the windshield, I think those pushing the coverup realized that there was so much suppressed information that they would be left clutching at straws. https://preview.catalog.archives.gov/id/305143 However, by the time the Discovery Channel asked for permission for me to view the windshield at NARA in 2008, as part of my research for ITTC, it was an entirely different situation. NARA had already released the Ferguson Memo to me by mistake, and I had definition of the timeline of the windshield. I had also spoken to SA Robert Frazier and Agent Hosty about the windshield, and I knew what to look for. This time, they scrambled and scrambled, and came up with a silly excuse to keep me from viewing the windshield. (The producer had created a sub-request in order not to tell NARA what I was looking for. That backfired, as they quickly checked for what the producer asked them about, and, not finding it, refused me the right to see it at all...) In addition to the request from the DC, I had also enlisted the aid of our congressman at that time, Jim Ramsted, but to no avail... So, I guess I may have presented some sort of threat... More about my experience with ITTC here... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0826FQ6JC Edited October 2, 2022 by Pamela Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 (edited) On 9/22/2022 at 6:31 AM, Marjan Rynkiewicz said: I have seen a photo showing a hole in the floor. Robin Unger has seen it too, but has not included it on his website. I have seen an FBI internal letter re the hole in the floor. There is a newspaper report re the hole in the floor, but i have not been able to find that snippet. I suppose that Ferguson kept the piece of carpet with the hole, & kept it a secret. The floor of the limo will still have the hole, but u would need to get under to see the hole, steel plate (i dont think that it was titanium) was installed on top of the floor hence u wont see the hole from above. The hole was made by the remnant slug from Oswald's shot-1 at say Z113 that ricocheted offa the western side of the western guy rod of the overhead signals below his window. Holland says it was at Z103 i think. I am happy to split the difference -- Z108. The 2 broken half jackets (brass or copper) found in the limo are from shot-1. Some of the lead splatter from shot-1 hit jfk in the back of the head -- vizible in Xrays. That (Z103 108 113) is when jfk said my god i have been hit -- as per what Kellerman said. But jfk apparently got over the shock in a few seconds & somehow for some reason carried on as if nothing had happened. Bad move. Oswald fired shot-2 at about Z218 -- the magic bullet that went throo jfk & Connally. Oswald did not use the telescopic sight. And he made 3 holes, 1 in jfk, 1 in Connally, & one in the limo. Re your quote: "I have seen an FBI internal letter re the hole in the floor." I have never before heard of such an item; i.e., "an FBI internal letter" re the existence of "a hole in the floor" (of the JFK limo). Please produce (and post here, on this forum) the image of that letter. Also, how is that document identified in the JFK Collection at NARA? (DSL, 10/09/22 - 6:45 PM PDT) P.S. Is that "FBI internal letter" available via FOIA? Edited October 10, 2022 by David Lifton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marjan Rynkiewicz Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, David Lifton said: Re your quote: "I have seen an FBI internal letter re the hole in the floor." I have never before heard of such an item; i.e., "an FBI internal letter" re the existence of "a hole in the floor" (of the JFK limo). Please produce (and post here, on this forum) the image of that letter. Also, how is that document identified in the JFK Collection at NARA? (DSL, 10/09/22 - 6:45 PM PDT) P.S. Is that "FBI internal letter" available via FOIA? I have a copy of the 2 page memo -- but it is too big to post -- i will find a link. https://www.flickr.com/photos/192566201@N05/52417286663/in/dateposted-public/ Edited October 10, 2022 by Marjan Rynkiewicz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 (edited) 16 hours ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said: I have a copy of the 2 page memo -- but it is too big to post -- i will find a link. https://www.flickr.com/photos/192566201@N05/52417286663/in/dateposted-public/ Responding to my request, thanks for posting this document —Memo, dated Jan. 6 1964, Rosen to Belmont. Please note: 1. The source is a news story; specifically, memo is based upon, and quotes from, a news story that was published in the 12/30/63 U..S. News and World Report. 2. The memo does not state there was a hole in the floor of the limo. 3. To the contrary, the FBI memo states the opposite. (See next point). 4. “Our investigation to date fails to indicate that we have been advised of the presence of any such hole by Secret Service who have responsibility for the vehicle.” (emphasis) 5. Finally: “There appears to be little (“significance”? word unclear) to the alleged location of this hole in the Presidential limousine at this time.” 6. Also please note: Item 4 refers to the issue as involving "the presence" of a hole; whereas: item 5 refers to the issue as being "the alleged location." So. . .which is it? Quite a difference! This could be the result of poor writing; or (alternatively), perhaps an attempt to deliberately conceal the truth (and/or obfuscate the issue). DSL 10/10/22 - 7:25 AM PDT; 1:40 PM PDT Edited October 10, 2022 by David Lifton Improve clarity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marjan Rynkiewicz Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 (edited) 7 hours ago, David Lifton said: Responding to my request, thanks for posting this document —Memo, dated Jan. 6 1964, Rosen to Belmont. Please note: 1. The source is a news story; specifically, memo is based upon, and quotes from, a news story that was published in the 12/30/63 U..S. News and World Report.” 2. The memo does not state there was a hole in the floor of the limo. 3. To the contrary, the FBI memo states the opposite. (See next point). 4. “Our investigation to date fails to indicate that we have been advised of the presence of any such hole by Secret Service who have responsibility for the vehicle.” (emphasis) 5. Finally: “There appears to be little (“significance”? word unclear) to the alleged location of this hole in the Presidential limousine at this time.” 6. Also please note: Item 4 refers to the issue as involving "the presence" of a hole; item 5 refers to the issue as being "the alleged location." This could be poor writing; or perhaps an attempt to deliberately obfuscate the issue. DSL 10/10/22 - 7:25 AM PDT Yes – so what we have is…….. 1. An insider saw & photographed & reported the hole. 3 & 4. The SS did not make available any details of their report of their investigation. 5. The FBI reckon that even if true the location of the hole appears to be insignificant. Here i reckon that they mean that….. (a) the presence of a hole is insignificant, & (b) the location is insignificant. I say that the hole proves that Oswald's shot-1 was a ricochet. A ricochet had to make a hole. And, that hole would not be circular (the photo shows a keyhole shaped hole). And i say that re-enactment photos from the SN show that the location of the hole supports the idea that lead splatter from the ricochet hit JFK in the back of the head (Xrays)(he said my god i have been hit just after he passed the signals), & that the usual 2 halves of the FMJ ended up in the limo. https://www.flickr.com/photos/192566201@N05/51072167822/in/dateposted-public/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/192566201@N05/51071377798/in/dateposted-public/ Edited October 10, 2022 by Marjan Rynkiewicz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now