Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

17 hours 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-

Well, regarding Thomas...unfortunately, he makes an elementary error.  He repeats the canard that Connally was struck by a tumbling bullet. 

"But, there is evidence that the bullet which hit Governor Connally at Z-224 also hit President Kennedy. That evidence is the elongation of the entrance wound in the governor's back. A bullet hitting straight on would normally make a rounded perforation. The governor's wound was 0.5 cm wide and 1.5 cm long. The elongation can be explained by a bullet entering sideways from tumbling caused by an earlier impact." ----Thomas

See:

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/hear_no_evil.htm

Actually, as the attending surgeon made clear on many occasions, in treating Connally, Dr. Robert Shaw enlarged the entrance wound and thought it a "clean" shot. 

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0168a.htm

561932638_ScreenShot2564-06-17at10_39_47.png.3b77d147f765541d4f6a23f11ec05615.png

Thomas posits the Connally bullet should have made a round hole, as if shot from, say, street level. But if the bullet was fired from an elevated point, it would have entered at a downward angle, leaving a clean but elliptical wound. Which is what Shaw found. 

In addition, Thomas' version requires (again, like the WC and the HSCA) that Connally did a 180-degree in his seat after receiving a shot that crossed through his body, obliterated most of a rib, and smashed his wrist. Shaw, who had treated more than 900 bullet and shrapnel wounds in military service, thought Connally doing so was highly unlikely. 

But again, Connally and his wife were firm in their statements that Connally was immediately incapacitated after being shot. Well, seems likely. 

Other parts of the Thomas view seems to lack imagination. There could have been additional shots from a weapon with a silencer, or a pneumatic gun, which might show up in the Z film but not on an audio report.  This is not even addressed. 

And if there were five audible gunshots as caught on the Dictabelt, why do so many witnesses say there were three shots, and some four shots? 

The blur analysis, whoever does it, has always struck me as suspect. Zapruder was an ordinary guy with a home movie camera, panning sideways. He could have been jerking around from gunshots, shock waves, adjusting the pan, somebody's scream, an unsteady hand, a sudden pumping of the heart, what have you. 

The acoustics...well, I do not know to say. Maybe there were five shots that day. Maybe more, through the use of silencers and pneumatic guns. 

All in all, I can't say I find the Thomas argument persuasive. 

Thomas' review of the Walker shooting, in his book, is very weak. The DPD concluded the shot fired at Walker struck a window pane, and was deflected lower, yet still struck well above Walker's head. Walker mentioned nothing about luckily ducking just before the shot in the initial police reports, and indeed initially thought kids had tossed a firecracker into his room. That's how close the shot was---that, not close. In other words, almost certainly an intentional miss. Probably a biography-builder. 

Thomas has some interesting points that the bullets Oswald used were manufactured under CIA contract, and intended to help dislodge De Gaulle or Italian communists.  

 

Screen Shot 2564-06-17 at 10.40.48.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 6/16/2021 at 12:06 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

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." 

Do you realise how many witnesses you need to discard with this theory that Oswald fired first and intentionally missed?

There are dozens of witnesses that associated the first explosive sound heard with JFK raising his arms to his chest/neck and/or slumping.

How many explosive sounds did Connally hear before he turned? The answer is one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

Do you realise how many witnesses you need to discard with this theory that Oswald fired first and intentionally missed?

There are dozens of witnesses that associated the first explosive sound heard with JFK raising his arms to his chest/neck and/or slumping.

How many explosive sounds did Connally hear before he turned? The answer is one.

Maybe you are right. Perhaps Oswald did not fire and miss, as the first audible shot. 

On the other hand, some  have posited a missed shot was the first shot, such as the HSCA...

 "the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), which was much more certain about which shot of Oswald’s was the errant one, estimated that the first shot might have been fired as early as Z 158, making the entire shooting sequence assassination approximately 8.5 seconds long."

You are correct, Connally and his wife, testified they heard one shot that appeared to strike JFK, then Connally was struck, and then the third shot. Three shots, three hits. 

On the other hand, we have the indisputable curb shot near Tague, and not by a copper-jacketed bullet. It had to be a miss by somebody---a gun with a silencer? Pneumatic weapon? 

In conclusion, I am close to saying this whole topic reminds me of my late, great Uncle Jerry and his statement, "If you are not confused, then maybe you do not understand the situation." 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

On the other hand, we have the indisputable curb shot near Tague, and not by a copper-jacketed bullet.

Putting up theories is a good idea. It opens the theory up for scrutiny which helps you forge on, modify, or discard.

Regarding Tague;

Mr. TAGUE. Well, I was standing there watching, and really I was watching to try to distinguish the President and his car. About this time I heard what sounded like a firecracker. Well, a very loud firecracker. It certainly didn't sound like a rifleshot. It was more of a loud cannon-type sound. I looked around to see who was throwing firecrackers or what was going on and I turned my head away from the motorcade and, of course, two more shots.

Tague would have had the motorcade coming towards him on Elm. In order to turn his head away from the motorcade, to source the loud firecracker sound, he would have scanned the area that comprised the wooden fence, trees, and grassy slope. This is the area that multiple witnesses on the overpass saw smoke. The firecracker sound and smoke, I have no doubt, came from that general area. On the other side that area was Bowers who saw a flash of light and smoke. He saw no weapon, no-one saw any weapon. That area is the source of the firecracker/cannon type noise. That area is where Decker sent his deputies, the area where everyone ran to, the area where the smell of gun smoke wafted over the motorcade as it passed by. The smoke and loud noise in that area was a magnet for everyone, it was a cover noise, it was planned that way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

Putting up theories is a good idea. It opens the theory up for scrutiny which helps you forge on, modify, or discard.

Regarding Tague;

Mr. TAGUE. Well, I was standing there watching, and really I was watching to try to distinguish the President and his car. About this time I heard what sounded like a firecracker. Well, a very loud firecracker. It certainly didn't sound like a rifleshot. It was more of a loud cannon-type sound. I looked around to see who was throwing firecrackers or what was going on and I turned my head away from the motorcade and, of course, two more shots.

Tague would have had the motorcade coming towards him on Elm. In order to turn his head away from the motorcade, to source the loud firecracker sound, he would have scanned the area that comprised the wooden fence, trees, and grassy slope. This is the area that multiple witnesses on the overpass saw smoke. The firecracker sound and smoke, I have no doubt, came from that general area. On the other side that area was Bowers who saw a flash of light and smoke. He saw no weapon, no-one saw any weapon. That area is the source of the firecracker/cannon type noise. That area is where Decker sent his deputies, the area where everyone ran to, the area where the smell of gun smoke wafted over the motorcade as it passed by. The smoke and loud noise in that area was a magnet for everyone, it was a cover noise, it was planned that way.

 

Tony K--

I also think it possible the Grassy Knoll shot was a diversion, with purposely smoky ammo. 

That still leaves a shot that struck the curb by Tague. The strike on the curb indicated no copper, and only lead. So who shot that? 

I would like to say this will be revealed in the fullness of time, but I am running our decades....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

That still leaves a shot that struck the curb by Tague. The strike on the curb indicated no copper, and only lead. So who shot that? 

The effect of the shot that struck close by Tague, and resulted in injury, caused him to retreat behind the abutment. He may not have been consciously aware of that shot, but it contributed to his retreat. Tague's exit from his car, in that area was unexpected. So was it a deflected shot, or a directed shot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

The effect of the shot that struck close by Tague, and resulted in injury, caused him to retreat behind the abutment. He may not have been consciously aware of that shot, but it contributed to his retreat. Tague's exit from his car, in that area was unexpected. So was it a deflected shot, or a directed shot?

Oh, my guess is no one was shooting at Tague. By some estimates, the shot that ricocheted and hit Tague, first went 20 feet high over the limo. In my scenario, this was LHO fulfilling his mission of a false-flag failed JFKA. A sure miss, and high, just like with Walker. 

However, I can't explain why the bullet left only lead, and no copper, when it struck the curb.

There is an outside possibility that LHO was actually using lead slugs, and not copper-jacketed slugs. Hunters were known to repack Western ammo with something better for hunting. In fact there was one shop in Dallas doing this. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2021 at 5:06 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

Anthony M-

Well, regarding Thomas...unfortunately, he makes an elementary error.  He repeats the canard that Connally was struck by a tumbling bullet. 

"But, there is evidence that the bullet which hit Governor Connally at Z-224 also hit President Kennedy. That evidence is the elongation of the entrance wound in the governor's back. A bullet hitting straight on would normally make a rounded perforation. The governor's wound was 0.5 cm wide and 1.5 cm long. The elongation can be explained by a bullet entering sideways from tumbling caused by an earlier impact." ----Thomas

See:

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/hear_no_evil.htm

Actually, as the attending surgeon made clear on many occasions, in treating Connally, Dr. Robert Shaw enlarged the entrance wound and thought it a "clean" shot. 

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0168a.htm

561932638_ScreenShot2564-06-17at10_39_47.png.3b77d147f765541d4f6a23f11ec05615.png

Thomas posits the Connally bullet should have made a round hole, as if shot from, say, street level. But if the bullet was fired from an elevated point, it would have entered at a downward angle, leaving a clean but elliptical wound. Which is what Shaw found. 

In addition, Thomas' version requires (again, like the WC and the HSCA) that Connally did a 180-degree in his seat after receiving a shot that crossed through his body, obliterated most of a rib, and smashed his wrist. Shaw, who had treated more than 900 bullet and shrapnel wounds in military service, thought Connally doing so was highly unlikely. 

But again, Connally and his wife were firm in their statements that Connally was immediately incapacitated after being shot. Well, seems likely. 

Other parts of the Thomas view seems to lack imagination. There could have been additional shots from a weapon with a silencer, or a pneumatic gun, which might show up in the Z film but not on an audio report.  This is not even addressed. 

And if there were five audible gunshots as caught on the Dictabelt, why do so many witnesses say there were three shots, and some four shots? 

The blur analysis, whoever does it, has always struck me as suspect. Zapruder was an ordinary guy with a home movie camera, panning sideways. He could have been jerking around from gunshots, shock waves, adjusting the pan, somebody's scream, an unsteady hand, a sudden pumping of the heart, what have you. 

The acoustics...well, I do not know to say. Maybe there were five shots that day. Maybe more, through the use of silencers and pneumatic guns. 

All in all, I can't say I find the Thomas argument persuasive. 

Thomas' review of the Walker shooting, in his book, is very weak. The DPD concluded the shot fired at Walker struck a window pane, and was deflected lower, yet still struck well above Walker's head. Walker mentioned nothing about luckily ducking just before the shot in the initial police reports, and indeed initially thought kids had tossed a firecracker into his room. That's how close the shot was---that, not close. In other words, almost certainly an intentional miss. Probably a biography-builder. 

Thomas has some interesting points that the bullets Oswald used were manufactured under CIA contract, and intended to help dislodge De Gaulle or Italian communists.  

 

Screen Shot 2564-06-17 at 10.40.48.png

Thanks for your thought’s Ben. It’s very interesting to me as I have been very puzzled as to why there is still such a lack of consensus on the physical events of the day and your reply helps inform my thinking as to why that is the case.

We could engage in a conversation on some of the specifics, but I’ll leave that for now. My background has probably influenced me  to approach the problem in a particular way, methodologically and philosophically (Putting a lot of weight on the hard data and favouring a critical rationalist philosophical approach). That is probably why I like Thomas’ whole approach to the problem but I accept that probably reflects similarities in our training and is definitely not the majority approach…

Thanks and bye for now.

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...