Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Simple Explanation of Why There Were at Least Two Guns in Dealey Plaza


Recommended Posts

Benjamin, thanks for showing the Z film frame by frame.  Frame 331 shows the fatal head shot  ( it appears to have entered the right side of JFK's head- probably shot from behind the picket fence on top of the grassy knoll).  And, then you see Jackie trying to get the brain matter that was blown out of the rear part of JFK's head- the brain matter was on the trunk of the limo, which is where Jackie went.  There may have been another bullet hitting JFK in frame 331- I cannot tell. And, I cannot tell how many shots hit JFK before frame 331. I cannot tell how many times Connolly was hit and I cannot tell how many  missed shots there were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 minutes ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Benjamin, thanks for showing the Z film frame by frame.  Frame 331 shows the fatal head shot  ( it appears to have entered the right side of JFK's head- probably shot from behind the picket fence on top of the grassy knoll).  And, then you see Jackie trying to get the brain matter that was blown out of the rear part of JFK's head- the brain matter was on the trunk of the limo, which is where Jackie went.  There may have been another bullet hitting JFK in frame 331- I cannot tell. And, I cannot tell how many shots hit JFK before frame 331. I cannot tell how many times Connolly was hit and I cannot tell how many  missed shots there were.

Chuck Schwartz-

Thanks for commenting. 

Do you mean Z-313? Not 331?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Micah,  Where did the recording made by Dallas radio newsman Sam Pate that was given to the WC  go to?  The FBI had this recording but found nothing.  However, the Commission sent it to Bell Telephone who indicated there were 'six nonvoiced noises'.

Never heard of this. I think it was Gerald Posner who found somebody willing to claim they once heard an audio recording of the shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Sean, I think you mean in the White House garage.

D’oh!

respect for letting me have the ice bullets 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Sean Coleman said:

D’oh!

respect for letting me have the ice bullets 

Cool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Never heard of this. I think it was Gerald Posner who found somebody willing to claim they once heard an audio recording of the shooting.

The Sam Pate recording info is from Livingstone's 'High Treason'.  No doubt it's another piece of evidence that has disappeared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pete Mellor said:

The Sam Pate recording info is from Livingstone's 'High Treason'.  No doubt it's another piece of evidence that has disappeared.

Pete, I don't think Pate recorded anything in Dealy Plaza.  The only thing I found in High Treason on pages 240-241 is a brief mention of an alleged on the scene account by Pate which (naturally?) the FBI failed to detect any gunshots on.

However, this was discussed a few months back in another thread a few months back.  In his 1964 FBI statement he said he was at the trade mart exit and heard of shots over his police radio.  In a 1970 interview he claims he was at Elm and Houston when the parade turned off Main onto Houston and he took off in front of them.  That he saw smoke coming from a gutter drain on Elm as he passed under the triple underpass.

So he took off in front of the lead car, between it and the pilot car?  He would have been a good bit in front of the limo when shots were fired.  If under or past the underpass the shots would have been muffled somewhat.  The way I understand it the only way he would have been recorded is if he had his mike on to broadcast, speaking over whatever else might be heard.  Further, at some point in this thread if I remember right he mentions keeping his windows up to reduce outside noise when he was reporting live on the radio.  His 1970 story is questionable in spots.

 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Yes, I believe so. Or, there were 2 shots- one in Z313 and one Z331.

Chuck S-

OK, I think I see what you are looking at, Z-331.

One "problem" is that Josiah Thompson says there was another shot after 313, but seven-tenths of a second later, and that would be 12 or 13 frames after Z-313, or ~Z-226. I am still mystified by the Thompson statement. 

On Z-331 there appears to be some short of shaking or motion of JFK's head. It is hard to tell if this is an effect of the film, the camera shaking, a JFK convulsion, or a shot, or what. The whole image is shaky.

Jackie K. did not mention two shots in quick succession to JFK's head, and she was sitting right there (although in her defense, she may have been justifiably hysterical at the whole event). 

The Connallys do not mention another shot in quick succession to JFK, although they may have been "out of it" by Z-331.

So, we have a lot of witnesses who say "three shots, three separate hits" but no one saying there were two shots to JFK's head, and the Z-film does not appear to confirm the second shot to JFK's head. 

My take is that the "three shots, three separate hits" version is the most believable, and does rule out a lone gunman armed with a single-shot bolt action rifle. 

There is conclusive evidence of another shot that struck a curb near James Tague, and very strong evidence a shot was fired from the Grassy Knoll. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

There is conclusive evidence of another shot that struck a curb near James Tague, and very strong evidence a shot was fired from the Grassy Knoll.

Benjamin,

For me, the strongest argument for two shooters has always been the number of shots that missed, not the number of shots that hit. If more than one shot missed, you have at least four shots, which is too many for one gun in the time allotted.

Mrs. BAKER. Well, after he passed us, then we heard a noise and I thought it was firecrackers, because I saw a shot or something hit the pavement.

Mrs. BAKER. No; I couldn't see the sign because I was angled--we were stepping out in the street then and it was approximately along in here, I presume, the first sign--I don't know which one it is, but I saw the bullet hit on down this way, I guess, right at the sign, angling out.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think the bullet hit the street, only it was farther out in the street?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Even though you couldn't see the sign, you could see this thing hit the street near the sign?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes, sir.

Mrs. BAKER. This was a big sign here and there was a small one here.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you think that it was approximately near the first sign?
Mrs. BAKER. As I can remember, it was.

Mrs. BAKER. It was approximately in the middle of the lane I couldn't be quite sure, but I thought it was in the middle or somewhere along in there could even be wrong about that but I could have sworn it that day.
Mr. LIEBELER. You thought it was sort of toward the middle of the lane?
Mrs. BAKER. Toward the middle of the lane.
Mr. LIEBELER. Of the left-hand lane going toward the underpass; is that correct?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Where was the thing that you saw hit the street in relation to the President's car? I mean, was it in front of the car, behind his car, by the side of his car or was it close to the car?
Mrs. BAKER. I thought it was--well--behind it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had the car already gone by when you saw this thing hit in the street?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.

Richard Carr: They came from the -- from where I was standing at the new courthouse, they came from in this direction here, behind this picket fence, and one knocked a bunch of grass up along in this area here (indicating), this area here is flat, looking at it from here, but the actual way it is, it is on a slope up this way and you could tell from the way it knocked it up that the bullet came from this direction (indicating).

FURTHER RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Just a couple of questions. Mr. Carr, is it your testimony that you saw this bullet furrowing through the grass?
A: I saw the grass come up.
Q: You saw the grass come up?
A: Yes.

Mr. TAGUE And I ducked behind the post when I realized somebody was shooting after the third shot. After the third shot, I ducked behind the bridge abutment... And I says, "Well, you know now, I recall something sting me on the face while I was standing down there." And the patrolman said, "Well, I saw something fly off back on the street." And he said, "Where were you standing?"
And I says, "Right down here." We walked 15 feet away when this deputy sheriff said, "Look here on the curb." There was a mark quite obviously that was a bullet, and it was very fresh.

From David Joseph in The Education Forum 2/4/2019

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25494-trying-to-understand-this-bronson-frame/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-393747

"Royce Skelton (on top of the triple overpass), December 17, 1963: “Mr. Skelton noticed that as an open limousine turned on Elm Street, it had moved approximately one hundred feet at which time he noticed dust spray up from the street in front of the car on the driver’s side. This dust spray came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository building.” [FBI report: CD205]

Austin Miller (on top of the triple overpass), December 18, 1963: “He heard three shots and also noticed a powder dust spray in the street directly to the driver’s side and rear of the car.” [FBI report: CD205]"

From Bill Simpich in the Education Forum 12/31/20

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26874-the-wallet-at-the-tippit-scene-a-simpler-solution/

"Patrolman J. W. Foster told the WC he saw a bullet strike the turf right alongside the concrete by a manhole cover - there is supposed to be an arrow pointing to the mark, according to the transcript.  (Can you see any mark - I can't?)

Also see Mark Oakes' video, start it at 2:00 with Patrolman Foster's statement, and the location as reported in the 11/23/63 Fort Worth Star-Telegram at 4:35 (also see Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 315) - but the Warren Commission refused to believe it.

On 11/22/63, while serving on jury duty, Edna Hartman and her husband Wallace saw two parallel holes while standing near a manhole cover.  She and her husband went back on Sunday the 24th, but the grass was trampled over and they could not find the holes again.  Her report was taken months later, 8/10/64, by two FBI officers - one was Robert Barrett!  The Hartmans had been downtown for jury duty, and responded late in response to a public appeal. 

Edna Hartman told Jim Marrs that a policeman on the scene told her the shots came from the grassy knoll.  She asked the cop if the two parallel marks she was looking at were gopher holes, and the policeman said, "no ma'am, that's where the bullets struck the ground."  (Marrs, Crossfire, pp. 315-316).   

Cameraman Harry Cabluck photographed the scene and saw more than one gouge on the ground.  He was told the gouges were formed by a bullet (or bullets?).  He took his photos hours later and never saw a slug.  (Marrs, at 315; also see Sprague who documents the Cabluck photos)  Cabluck is still alive.  Robert Groden never got access to the early generation Cabluck photos.

But Barrett's report quotes them as saying the shots came from the TSBD, not the grassy knoll, and that a "bystander" - not a policeman - supported that view."

 

Steve Thomas


 


 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Benjamin,

For me, the strongest argument for two shooters has always been the number of shots that missed, not the number of shots that hit. If more than one shot missed, you have at least four shots, which is too many for one gun in the time allotted.

Mrs. BAKER. Well, after he passed us, then we heard a noise and I thought it was firecrackers, because I saw a shot or something hit the pavement.

Mrs. BAKER. No; I couldn't see the sign because I was angled--we were stepping out in the street then and it was approximately along in here, I presume, the first sign--I don't know which one it is, but I saw the bullet hit on down this way, I guess, right at the sign, angling out.
Mr. LIEBELER. You think the bullet hit the street, only it was farther out in the street?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Even though you couldn't see the sign, you could see this thing hit the street near the sign?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes, sir.

Mrs. BAKER. This was a big sign here and there was a small one here.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you think that it was approximately near the first sign?
Mrs. BAKER. As I can remember, it was.

Mrs. BAKER. It was approximately in the middle of the lane I couldn't be quite sure, but I thought it was in the middle or somewhere along in there could even be wrong about that but I could have sworn it that day.
Mr. LIEBELER. You thought it was sort of toward the middle of the lane?
Mrs. BAKER. Toward the middle of the lane.
Mr. LIEBELER. Of the left-hand lane going toward the underpass; is that correct?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Where was the thing that you saw hit the street in relation to the President's car? I mean, was it in front of the car, behind his car, by the side of his car or was it close to the car?
Mrs. BAKER. I thought it was--well--behind it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had the car already gone by when you saw this thing hit in the street?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.

Richard Carr: They came from the -- from where I was standing at the new courthouse, they came from in this direction here, behind this picket fence, and one knocked a bunch of grass up along in this area here (indicating), this area here is flat, looking at it from here, but the actual way it is, it is on a slope up this way and you could tell from the way it knocked it up that the bullet came from this direction (indicating).

FURTHER RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. DYMOND:
Q: Just a couple of questions. Mr. Carr, is it your testimony that you saw this bullet furrowing through the grass?
A: I saw the grass come up.
Q: You saw the grass come up?
A: Yes.

Mr. TAGUE And I ducked behind the post when I realized somebody was shooting after the third shot. After the third shot, I ducked behind the bridge abutment... And I says, "Well, you know now, I recall something sting me on the face while I was standing down there." And the patrolman said, "Well, I saw something fly off back on the street." And he said, "Where were you standing?"
And I says, "Right down here." We walked 15 feet away when this deputy sheriff said, "Look here on the curb." There was a mark quite obviously that was a bullet, and it was very fresh.

From David Joseph in The Education Forum 2/4/2019

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25494-trying-to-understand-this-bronson-frame/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-393747

"Royce Skelton (on top of the triple overpass), December 17, 1963: “Mr. Skelton noticed that as an open limousine turned on Elm Street, it had moved approximately one hundred feet at which time he noticed dust spray up from the street in front of the car on the driver’s side. This dust spray came from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository building.” [FBI report: CD205]

Austin Miller (on top of the triple overpass), December 18, 1963: “He heard three shots and also noticed a powder dust spray in the street directly to the driver’s side and rear of the car.” [FBI report: CD205]"

From Bill Simpich in the Education Forum 12/31/20

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26874-the-wallet-at-the-tippit-scene-a-simpler-solution/

"Patrolman J. W. Foster told the WC he saw a bullet strike the turf right alongside the concrete by a manhole cover - there is supposed to be an arrow pointing to the mark, according to the transcript.  (Can you see any mark - I can't?)

Also see Mark Oakes' video, start it at 2:00 with Patrolman Foster's statement, and the location as reported in the 11/23/63 Fort Worth Star-Telegram at 4:35 (also see Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 315) - but the Warren Commission refused to believe it.

On 11/22/63, while serving on jury duty, Edna Hartman and her husband Wallace saw two parallel holes while standing near a manhole cover.  She and her husband went back on Sunday the 24th, but the grass was trampled over and they could not find the holes again.  Her report was taken months later, 8/10/64, by two FBI officers - one was Robert Barrett!  The Hartmans had been downtown for jury duty, and responded late in response to a public appeal. 

Edna Hartman told Jim Marrs that a policeman on the scene told her the shots came from the grassy knoll.  She asked the cop if the two parallel marks she was looking at were gopher holes, and the policeman said, "no ma'am, that's where the bullets struck the ground."  (Marrs, Crossfire, pp. 315-316).   

Cameraman Harry Cabluck photographed the scene and saw more than one gouge on the ground.  He was told the gouges were formed by a bullet (or bullets?).  He took his photos hours later and never saw a slug.  (Marrs, at 315; also see Sprague who documents the Cabluck photos)  Cabluck is still alive.  Robert Groden never got access to the early generation Cabluck photos.

But Barrett's report quotes them as saying the shots came from the TSBD, not the grassy knoll, and that a "bystander" - not a policeman - supported that view."

 

Steve Thomas


 


 

 

 

Steve T--

Thanks for reading and commenting. 

Also, and I lost the cite (a hard drive meltdown a few years back), there was a fresh chip mark seen in one of the pylons of the Third Street overpass, not far from James Tague. 

While most witness heard three or four shots, this does not rule out the possibility of simultaneous shots, or separate shots heard as one shot, due to the speed of sound. (That is, if one rifle is fired 1,225 feet from you, and another a half second later from 612 feet feet from you, you will hear one shot.)

Additionally, there could have been the use of silencers, or pneumatic guns. 

As I stated, Governor Connally said slugs were entering the JFK limo as if from automatic gunfire, and Kellerman spoke a flurry of shots, among other witness testimony. 

My own guess is that LHO fired once, a high and intentional miss, and ran down to the second-floor lunch room. Other parties fired in earnest thereafter. 

LHO was part of a false-flag intentionally failed assassination attempt, to be blamed on Cuba, to justify a regime change operation in Cuba. This operation was piggy-backed on by other CIA assets, who learned of the false-flag plan, but shot for real.

The use of frangible bullets is an interesting possibility also. 

No copper, and only lead, was found on the curb strike near Tague.  

As I say, "LHO did it all alone" ---that dog don't hunt. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

My own guess is that LHO fired once, a high and intentional miss, and ran down to the second-floor lunch room. Other parties fired in earnest thereafter. 

Why would the "other parties" allow LHO to fire an intentionally missed shot if their aim was to assassinate the President? As far as the "other parties" were concerned, JFK could have easily ducked down low at the sound of LHO's gunfire. I seriously doubt that the "other parties" were positive that JFK would sit upright like a sitting duck waiting for the further rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

Why would the "other parties" allow LHO to fire an intentionally missed shot if their aim was to assassinate the President? As far as the "other parties" were concerned, JFK could have easily ducked down low at the sound of LHO's gunfire. I seriously doubt that the "other parties" were positive that JFK would sit upright like a sitting duck waiting for the further rounds.

Tony K--

Thanks for reading and commenting. 

Well, my reasoning is that the other parties were acting on cue on LHO's first shot, and then all fired ASAP. That, or "We all open fire when the limo gets near the Stemmons Freeway sign." 

You are correct, you want everybody to fire at once. 

My JFKA scenario is not the stuff of James Bond movie, or the textbook, perfectly executed CIA plan. 

I suspect several Cuban exiles converged on Dallas, and came up with a plan, and did it. The plan may not be perfect, or even good, and not an example of excellent spycraft. 

And indeed, LHO managed to leave the scene without being murdered first. Had LHO the slightest resources, he could have fled town entirely. Connally was shot also, nearly fatally. 

This whole nearly impromptu plan might have been exposed, and looked like a dreadful macabre Keystone Kops tale, except any investigation was shut down immediately. A real, immediate and dreadnought investigation likely would have exposed the plan and participants within weeks or months. 

This complete lack of a real investigation has led to a type of glorification, that a super-organized and skilled operation was put into place in the JFKA. 

And riddle me this: You know the Rose Cheramie story. Now, how high-end and sophisticated could a plan for the JFKA be, if Rose Cheramie knows about it and is spilling the beans? She was en route to Dallas with a couple Cuban exiles, who were involved in the drug trade but evidently ready to participate in the JFKA. 

In my view, where high-end complicity and skill comes in is after the JFKA. The CIA had to halt any investigation into the JFKA, and eliminate LHO. The way the CIA accomplished both ends showed a lot of netherworld competence all around, and in the black arts especially. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Benjamin Cole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2021 at 4:02 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

Anthony M-

Thanks for reading and commenting. 

"The data in it (acoustic evidence) can not be detected by the human ear but has been extensively studied and it is critical to a coherent model of the assassination."--AM

You may be correct, but right away we have a problem, for general public consumption. 

The public hears this: That experts took the DPD dictabelt, put it into a black box for analysis, and determined it backs up the WC, or it does not. 

Josiah Thompson explains what happened here, and it does look like the Alvarez-Ramsey team was a hatchet job, not true analysis. 

https://whowhatwhy.org/2021/05/28/the-original-inconvenient-truth/

My true story, for public consumption, is that the single-shooter WC crowd posits that Connally was shot through the chest, had a fractured right wrist and other injuries, and then did a 180- degree turn in his chair to check on JFK. 

Anyone can see this is the WC version, and (sadly) even the HSCA version, by a simple review of the Z-film. 

I contend the WC version does not hold water on its own, and moreover conflicts with the explicit testimony of Connally and his wife, and others, who recount separate shots hit JFK, then Connally, then JFK.  Connally also remembers the shot he took as immediately incapacitating. 

Adding to the muddle:

Speaking of Thompson, he now says another bullet struck JFK in the head 7/10ths of a second after Z-313. OK, at 18 frames per second that works out ~326. 

I wonder what Thompson is talking about. 

A frame by frame version of the Z film. 

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/zfilm/zframe327.html

I see nothing. Also, no one in the limo saw or heard the fourth shot either. I am mystified. 

 

 

Hi Ben

I can see where you are coming from. I’m not remotely convinced by Thompson’s idea of the final shot hitting JFK in the back of the head either. Many years ago Cyril Wecht argued that the fracture pattern in the skull was evidence for two severe impacts, with the impact at the rear preceding the impact at the front and that seems very credible (I’m using ‘impact’ deliberately as the hit at the back of the head gets more complicated).

That last shot also seems like the most likely candidate for the miss that hit the curb, with a fragment injuring Tague.

You are quite right that the data and the debate around it can seem opaque at first sight, but there are lots of things we need equipment to detect like atoms or distant galaxies, but these can be explained to non-specialists. The HSCA did us all no favours in fudging the correlation to the Zapruder film to fit their preferred shooting sequence, which naturally introduced contradictions with other data (particularly McLain’s location) and made it an easy target….

The best synthesis of all the physical evidence I’ve ever come across is Dr D B Thomas’ 2014 ‘Hear No Evil’, which is actually the only scenario I’ve seen which seems totally consistent with all known data. I keep mentioning it at the risk of sounding like a broken record but it doesn’t seem to have achieved the level of spread within the research community that it should have.  I get the impression we could potentially achieve much more of a consensus on the sequence of events than we actually have and help focus our time on those issues that remain unclear.  As an example your conclusion that the shots are too close together to come from the same Mannlicher-Carcano is very valid….I might have a minor debate with you on exactly what shot(s) did which injuries but this overall points to three shooters, one on the knoll and two behind the president…pinning down the location of that third shooter is to my mind a current question, just to give an example…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Anthony Mugan said:

Hi Ben

I can see where you are coming from. I’m not remotely convinced by Thompson’s idea of the final shot hitting JFK in the back of the head either. Many years ago Cyril Wecht argued that the fracture pattern in the skull was evidence for two severe impacts, with the impact at the rear preceding the impact at the front and that seems very credible (I’m using ‘impact’ deliberately as the hit at the back of the head gets more complicated).

That last shot also seems like the most likely candidate for the miss that hit the curb, with a fragment injuring Tague.

You are quite right that the data and the debate around it can seem opaque at first sight, but there are lots of things we need equipment to detect like atoms or distant galaxies, but these can be explained to non-specialists. The HSCA did us all no favours in fudging the correlation to the Zapruder film to fit their preferred shooting sequence, which naturally introduced contradictions with other data (particularly McLain’s location) and made it an easy target….

The best synthesis of all the physical evidence I’ve ever come across is Dr D B Thomas’ 2014 ‘Hear No Evil’, which is actually the only scenario I’ve seen which seems totally consistent with all known data. I keep mentioning it at the risk of sounding like a broken record but it doesn’t seem to have achieved the level of spread within the research community that it should have.  I get the impression we could potentially achieve much more of a consensus on the sequence of events than we actually have and help focus our time on those issues that remain unclear.  As an example your conclusion that the shots are too close together to come from the same Mannlicher-Carcano is very valid….I might have a minor debate with you on exactly what shot(s) did which injuries but this overall points to three shooters, one on the knoll and two behind the president…pinning down the location of that third shooter is to my mind a current question, just to give an example…

Anthony M- 

Oh, "favours." When will you Brits learn to spell like us in the colonies? 

I will try to find "Hear No Evil" and give it a read. I live in the Thai outback now, so getting a particular book can be a challenge. 

The more I review the JFKA, the more it looks like HSCA Chief Counsel Blakey must have "stipulated to the evidence" to get the job.  He was a Mob-hunter too, and a decent public servant, but used badly. 

Later, to his credit, Blakey renounced the CIA, admitted to errors, and posited two Cuban exiles were in Dallas that day, being Eladio Del Valle and Hermininio Diaz. 

Hoping the C19 drearies are not getting you down....

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...