Jump to content
The Education Forum

Anyone care to disprove this throat shot scientific theory from the South Knoll?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Mark Stevens said:

Thanks Micah,

So if I'm understanding, based on the wounds he did actually see he thinks the other wounds are probable and could have a correlation to the wounds he did see?

For instance, due to the large wound on the back of the head (rear right) that he did see, he believes it's probable there was a entry wound in the front right hairline area?

McClelland said several times that there could've been a small wound in one of the temples that was covered by hair and blood.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 9/17/2020 at 8:22 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Great place for a shot.  Crouched down beside the last pillar only the gun barrel, a shooters right shoulder and side of his face could be seen from the area around the limo at the time of the shots.  Nor would he be seen by others on the far side of the overpass.

Then there’s Tosh’s account and drawing...   I cobbled together a panorama of the west end of DP below

22 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

So if I'm understanding, based on the wounds he did actually see he thinks the other wounds are probable and could have a correlation to the wounds he did see?

Mark... the Parkland group did discuss this with each other...   plus we have photos of that wound...

I mean if we believe the Boswell Drawing compared to McC... all the skull was gone.... Between Parkland And Bethesda, any evidence of “original” wounds were gone, IMO...

1850911399_F6-BOHlargefocusedonblackholedrawnin-web.thumb.jpg.a9502686957add0be1eabba02694bc2e.jpg

 


5a872344d2c7f_southknollshooterlocationperTOSHandCancellare.thumb.jpg.2a5026886b4927bd8c54fe67b910eb26.jpg1179673768_overpassandsouthknollcomposite.thumb.jpg.80cbd955a2c1ee64f80cf510326fc8d4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 9/17/2020 at 11:22 PM, Ron Bulman said:

It's been several years now since I bought and read Sherry Fiester's Enemy Of The Truth.  It did not convince me there was a shot from the South knoll.  But it did open my mind to the possibility.  What it also did was cause me to walk all the way across the the triple overpass the last time I was in Dealy Plaza and examine the area and view from it.

Great place for a shot.  Crouched down beside the last pillar only the gun barrel, a shooters right shoulder and side of his face could be seen from the area around the limo at the time of the shots.  Nor would he be seen by others on the far side of the overpass.  

What I still had a problem with regarding a head shot is back and to JFK's left from the impact which blew out the right rear of his head from this angle, the physics don't work for me. They do from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll to JFK's right.

The throat shot has long intrigued me in where did it come from.  A smaller caliber than the head shot, it didn't blow out the back of his neck.  Not from the same gun. Both of these shots from the grassy knoll, side by side, spaced somewhat apart, two shooters?  Nothing points to this.  But the 4-5-6 mm wound observed at Parkland by multiple doctors does.

Could it have come from the South knoll?  A 22 would fit the bill regarding the wound but what about the range?  I guessed the distance at close to 100 yards just eyeballing it.  I've never tried any shots with a 22 at over about maybe 40-50 yards at squirrels and rabbits.  Googling says sighting in at 75.  But, up to 150 from an expert is possible.  Well within the range.

Ron,

I guess a shot from the South Knoll is certainly possible, but why in the world would a sniper use a .22 at that range? A caliber that small would be a really tough shot, and even if you're right, and even though they hit the target (they struck President Kennedy in the throat), they still failed to kill him. 

So, did the throat shot exit?

I don't know. Obviously if it did, then the exit point was through the back wound. Harold Weisberg told me he thought that was certainly possible. He pointed out that the FBI determined the back wound was one of entry by examining the fibers on JFK's jacket and noting that they were pointed in. Of course, if anyone took their finger and poked the fibers the other way, then the shot direction would reverse. So, which actual direction the jacket fibers around the hole originally faced is anyone's guess.

On the other hand, given the very real possibility that Humes and Boswell surreptitiously examined JFK before the official start of the autopsy, they may have made a quick and dirty incision to remove the throat bullet. And, such a non-exiting round would probably have been small caliber. Sherry Fiester's belief that the windshield would have slowed a higher caliber round enough to stop the bullet in JFK's neck raises another obvious question:

Why in the world would a professional sniper (and this was a professional hit) deliberately shoot through a windshield with a caliber too small to kill the president? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Why in the world would a professional sniper (and this was a professional hit) deliberately shoot through a windshield with a caliber too small to kill the president? 

Paul,

Ron may have something here.  A .22 round is just a bit smaller than a .223 round used in an M16 or AR 15.  They are essentially the same. The projectiles are similar is size but not in capability in different rounds.  The AR 15 shoots the .223 round at about 2800 fps.  Whereas, a .22 is generally subsonic.  The big difference is the .223 is designed as a man-killer for the military.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2020 at 9:28 AM, John Butler said:

Paul,

Ron may have something here.  A .22 round is just a bit smaller than a .223 round used in an M16 or AR 15.  They are essentially the same. The projectiles are similar is size but not in capability in different rounds.  The AR 15 shoots the .223 round at about 2800 fps.  Whereas, a .22 is generally subsonic.  The big difference is the .223 is designed as a man-killer for the military.

Fair enough, but that still leaves the question as to why a sniper would use a round that ran a serious risk of being a non-lethal shot. 

Also, shooting through the windshield was tricky - any deflection might miss the target, as this one did. Obviously the round hit the president, but NOT IN THE HEAD! 

By all accounts, it would have been an amazing shot, but, even so, the small caliber round meant the deflection through the windshield made it a (worthless) shot to the conspirators.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have considered this possibility in terms of trajectory and the resulting path through the body, but my main objection would be that a sniper would never attempt a shot from that distance, regardless of caliber, that would first have to penetrate a windshield before striking a target seated several feet away.

Edited by Craig Carvalho
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Craig Carvalho said:

I have considered this possibility in terms of trajectory and the resulting path through the body, but my main objection would be that a sniper would never attempt a shot from that distance, regardless of caliber, that would first have to penetrate a windshield before striking a target seated several feet away.

Craig,

I agree.

That's why I believe the shot through the windshield was unintentional - it may have struck the president, but hitting him in the throat did NOT kill him! 

No professional sniper would have deliberately designed a shot to penetrate the windshield to hit such a crucial target unless he was using a .50 cal machine gun on full automatic.

The throat shot was one of entry - that is what all of the available original evidence indicates. (The undated autopsy report now in the National Archives was not written until AFTER "Oswald" was killed. By his own sworn admission, Humes "revised" his original draft after learning of "Oswald's" murder. Even then, Humes - or somebody even later -  inserted the word "presumably" as a hedge when implying the throat wound was an entry wound.)

So, to believe a shot from the South Knoll was deliberately planned to penetrate the windshield, strike the president in the head and kill him, means that the sniper planned an unnecessarily difficult shot, one that ultimately (and predictably) failed. JFK was still very much alive and conscious after the throat shot!

The (assumed) South Knoll sniper could NOT have been certain of a second shot if the first shot missed.  He got that second chance only because the president remained upright and immobile, something on which no sniper could have counted. 

The throat shot was not intended to go through the windshield. If a shot really did penetrate the windshield and then struck the president, it was just dumb luck for the sniper, no matter who he was. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, could a fatal head shot have come from the South Knoll?

Sure seems possible to me. 

The issue I have with these two videos is that they ignore the evidence from Zapruder 312/313 that the president was struck twice in the head, almost simultaneously, once from behind and then a split second later from the front. 

The extant autopsy and X-Ray evidence would seem to leave open the possibility (probability?) that two different bullets left trails in the president's skull, back to front and front to back. 

The problem with trying to pin it down precisely is that we just don't have clear medical evidence to be certain of exactly where the wounds were on the president's skull. So the "scientific theory" rests on evidence that remains disputed to this day.

We can't claim 100% certainty about any sniper's location based on the medical evidence. 

We can speculate about a number of suspected locations, and undoubtedly some of them are correct, but anyone who claims "scientific certainty" is fooling themselves and their readers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2020 at 11:22 PM, Ron Bulman said:

It's been several years now since I bought and read Sherry Fiester's Enemy Of The Truth.  It did not convince me there was a shot from the South knoll.  But it did open my mind to the possibility.  What it also did was cause me to walk all the way across the the triple overpass the last time I was in Dealy Plaza and examine the area and view from it.

Great place for a shot.  Crouched down beside the last pillar only the gun barrel, a shooters right shoulder and side of his face could be seen from the area around the limo at the time of the shots.  Nor would he be seen by others on the far side of the overpass.  

What I still had a problem with regarding a head shot is back and to JFK's left from the impact which blew out the right rear of his head from this angle, the physics don't work for me. They do from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll to JFK's right.

The throat shot has long intrigued me in where did it come from.  A smaller caliber than the head shot, it didn't blow out the back of his neck.  Not from the same gun. Both of these shots from the grassy knoll, side by side, spaced somewhat apart, two shooters?  Nothing points to this.  But the 4-5-6 mm wound observed at Parkland by multiple doctors does.

Could it have come from the South knoll?  A 22 would fit the bill regarding the wound but what about the range?  I guessed the distance at close to 100 yards just eyeballing it.  I've never tried any shots with a 22 at over about maybe 40-50 yards at squirrels and rabbits.  Googling says sighting in at 75.  But, up to 150 from an expert is possible.  Well within the range.

Ron,

Did you take a picture from behind that last pillar on the southern part of the overpass? You crouched down beside that pillar - it's that very view back up Elm Street that I'd like to see. If you did take a picture, will you post it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Ron,

Did you take a picture from behind that last pillar on the southern part of the overpass? You crouched down beside that pillar - it's that very view back up Elm Street that I'd like to see. If you did take a picture, will you post it?

Yes I took pictures from there, if I remember right both zoomed all the way in and out.  Also from lined up behind the first X toward pillar/South end of the overpass.  But, to put my technological ineptness on display, I don't know how to get it from the sd card looking at it on my lap top to here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

Overpass-Corner.png

So I'm guessing that this photo was taken from the south side of the overpass, not the South Knoll, correct?

There is no doubt that this would be (virtually) a straight on shot at the president. And it appears any shot would have to pass through the windshield. 

Of course, as I argued months ago, almost the same angle works back the other way too: the Dal-Tex building, especially the south side windows. (No back window to deflect either!) Which I suspect was indeed a firing point, behind not only the president, but also behind the crowds lining Houston Street. Everyone would be looking ahead at the president, and no one looking back at a building behind the motorcade. 

(Except Howard Brennan did exactly that, and plainly said so to the Dallas Sheriff's office in his first day affidavit. But that's a different thread.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Craig,

I agree.

That's why I believe the shot through the windshield was unintentional - it may have struck the president, but hitting him in the throat did NOT kill him! 

No professional sniper would have deliberately designed a shot to penetrate the windshield to hit such a crucial target unless he was using a .50 cal machine gun on full automatic.

The throat shot was one of entry - that is what all of the available original evidence indicates. (The undated autopsy report now in the National Archives was not written until AFTER "Oswald" was killed. By his own sworn admission, Humes "revised" his original draft after learning of "Oswald's" murder. Even then, Humes - or somebody even later -  inserted the word "presumably" as a hedge when implying the throat wound was an entry wound.)

So, to believe a shot from the South Knoll was deliberately planned to penetrate the windshield, strike the president in the head and kill him, means that the sniper planned an unnecessarily difficult shot, one that ultimately (and predictably) failed. JFK was still very much alive and conscious after the throat shot!

The (assumed) South Knoll sniper could NOT have been certain of a second shot if the first shot missed.  He got that second chance only because the president remained upright and immobile, something on which no sniper could have counted. 

The throat shot was not intended to go through the windshield. If a shot really did penetrate the windshield and then struck the president, it was just dumb luck for the sniper, no matter who he was. 

Paul,

While I agree that there was damage to the limousine's windshield, I am not convinced that a bullet or bullet fragment(s) actually penetrated it completely. 

My theory, based on the available evidence, is that the third shot fired from the TSBD missed. I believe this bullet struck the chrome trim above the windshield just to the right of center. Looking closely at the photo below you can see that there is a smooth, circular hole in the center of the dent created upon impact.

 

Parkland-Slider.thumb.jpg.714d3294bd70de3950781388d736555c.jpg

 

It is my assertion that this third shot missed high as a direct result of the driver, (Greer), applying the brake immediately prior to the third shot being fired. Watching the Zapruder film we can observe Greer as he glances twice over his right shoulder to look into the rear passenger compartment. His first glance is quick lasting just a fraction of a second. But his second turn towards the rear and his gaze backwards continues until after the head shot. The action of applying the brakes as he looks away from the road ahead is instinctive... a reflex action. The timing of the deceleration and the shot together caused the shooter's shot to impact high... above the intended target.

There is another interesting piece of evidence that can be observed when we view the limousine's windshield from the front as it was seen and photographed by the Secret Service prior to it's removal. It reveals evidence that the limo's rear view mirror also exhibited signs of damage. A dent in the mirror's forward facing metal surface directly beneath the support arm can be seen. This would indicate that a bullet / bullet fragment(s) struck the trim, windshield, and deflected backwards striking the rear view mirror before coming to rest inside the passenger compartment. 

 

gettyimages-576877618-2048x2048.thumb.jpg.7ef9bac31c7dfd6752d2d480581c3766.jpg

 

* Notes:

1.) The two bullet fragments recovered from the front passenger compartment, (1 nose portion - largely copper jacketing, 1 base portion - largely copper jacketing), had a combined weight of approximately 70 grains. The 6.5 mm bullets used each weighed 162 grains.

2.) The FBI removed a portion of curb stone from the location where James Tague stood on the day of the assassination. There was clear evidence of a bullet strike to this piece of concrete. Their laboratory results indicated the presence of lead in this defect, but no copper, thereby rendering the results "inconclusive".      

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Craig Carvalho said:

Paul,

While I agree that there was damage to the limousine's windshield, I am not convinced that a bullet or bullet fragment(s) actually penetrated it completely. 

My theory, based on the available evidence, is that the third shot fired from the TSBD missed. I believe this bullet struck the chrome trim above the windshield just to the right of center. Looking closely at the photo below you can see that there is a smooth, circular hole in the center of the dent created upon impact.

 

Parkland-Slider.thumb.jpg.714d3294bd70de3950781388d736555c.jpg

 

It is my assertion that this third shot missed high as a direct result of the driver, (Greer), applying the brake immediately prior to the third shot being fired. Watching the Zapruder film we can observe Greer as he glances twice over his right shoulder to look into the rear passenger compartment. His first glance is quick lasting just a fraction of a second. But his second turn towards the rear and his gaze backwards continues until after the head shot. The action of applying the brakes as he looks away from the road ahead is instinctive... a reflex action. The timing of the deceleration and the shot together caused the shooter's shot to impact high... above the intended target.

There is another interesting piece of evidence that can be observed when we view the limousine's windshield from the front as it was seen and photographed by the Secret Service prior to it's removal. It reveals evidence that the limo's rear view mirror also exhibited signs of damage. A dent in the mirror's forward facing metal surface directly beneath the support arm can be seen. This would indicate that a bullet / bullet fragment(s) struck the trim, windshield, and deflected backwards striking the rear view mirror before coming to rest inside the passenger compartment. 

 

gettyimages-576877618-2048x2048.thumb.jpg.7ef9bac31c7dfd6752d2d480581c3766.jpg

 

* Notes:

1.) The two bullet fragments recovered from the front passenger compartment, (1 nose portion - largely copper jacketing, 1 base portion - largely copper jacketing), had a combined weight of approximately 70 grains. The 6.5 mm bullets used each weighed 162 grains.

2.) The FBI removed a portion of curb stone from the location where James Tague stood on the day of the assassination. There was clear evidence of a bullet strike to this piece of concrete. Their laboratory results indicated the presence of lead in this defect, but no copper, thereby rendering the results "inconclusive".      

"2.) The FBI removed a portion of curb stone from the location where James Tague stood on the day of the assassination. There was clear evidence of a bullet strike to this piece of concrete. Their laboratory results indicated the presence of lead in this defect, but no copper, thereby rendering the results "inconclusive".    

 

The whole FBI/James Tague curbstone removal thing is fascinating - the FBI did NOT want to have anything to do with a missed shot, and they certainly did not want to deal with Tague. The Warren Commission duly ignored the Tague shot until U.S. Attorney (for Dallas) Barefoot Saunders saw a short local article about Tague and had the integrity to insist to the Warren Commission that they investigate this shot.

So, in the summer of 1964, the FBI dug up the concrete curb approximately where Tague stood. They could not find any area where the bullet had chunked the concrete, but they did find the mysterious dark stain, which they theorized was residue from a glancing piece of a bullet. They had first-day photos in their possession from local news photographers which showed EXACTLY where Tague stood, and which showed EXACTLY a small hole in the concrete curb on 11/22/63!

Even more incredibly, in a desperate effort to explain how a once present hole was now a "smear", the FBI resorted to speculating the somehow street sweepers during the ensuing seven months had somehow filled in the gap!

No FBI explanation could be more absurd, and no acceptance of any such bull@#$ could be more risible!

Yet the Warren Commission accepted that whopper without a question!

When Tague testified to the Warren Commission, he revealed that some unknown parties had apparently tailed him when he himself had gone in the spring to look at the spot. The WC expressed no curiosity. 

In the 1980's Harold Weisberg paid an outside analyst to look at the curbstone slab now in the National Archives. They reported the obvious: the lead "smear" was a patch over the hole. This patch had no evidentiary value, but whatever was beneath it would contain traces of residue which, when chemically analyzed, could disprove the entire government "solution" to the assassination. The patch destroyed evidence in a presidential assassination. Whoever did it committed a federal crime.

But of course, the U.S. government to this day has NO interest in learning who patched that hole.

 

There was a decent thread two years ago about this topic, and several posters were pretty knowledgeable. (I myself had a couple of lengthy conversations with the late Harold Weisberg about this 25 years ago.)

 

 

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...