New Photographic Proof: Todd's Initials on 399!

[Greg Doudna]

19 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

No, absolutely not. I suspect the bullet was undercharged and caused Kennedy's back wound, and that it was then found in the limo during the clean-up outside Parkland. I suspect further that SS agent Sam Kinney discovered it and then placed it on a stretcher he thought was associated with the assassination, but was in fact the stretcher used in the treatment of Ronnie Fuller. (IOW. I think Tink nailed this last part.) 

Pat in this analysis could you explain one point: how could an undercharged bullet sufficiently slow as to not penetrate in JFK's back farther than two inches hit JFK at all? If the rifle that shot it was aimed at JFK the bullet would have fallen far short. The only way to hit JFK with a slow-moving bullet would be to aim way up in the air and hope the arc lands at the right place on the moving target, like lobbing a long football pass. Who does an assassination that way, intentionally fire a non-fatal shot that is very difficult to hit the target in the first place? But if the shot had been fired undercharged by mistake, it would never have made it to JFK's back to begin with. How do you see this working in your thinking? 

 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Pat in this analysis could you explain one point: how could an undercharged bullet sufficiently slow as to not penetrate in JFK's back farther than two inches hit JFK at all? If the rifle that shot it was aimed at JFK the bullet would have fallen far short. The only way to hit JFK with a slow-moving bullet would be to aim way up in the air and hope the arc lands at the right place on the moving target, like lobbing a long football pass. Who does an assassination that way, intentionally fire a non-fatal shot that is very difficult to hit the target in the first place? But if the shot had been fired undercharged by mistake, it would never have made it to JFK's back to begin with. How do you see this working in your thinking? 

 

Greg, could it have bounced off part of the car, reducing the velocity dramatically? 

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The photos are taken from slightly different angles. The photo in the Roe article was taken with the bullet tilted slightly away from the camera, so as to accentuate the gouge at the top of the bullet. The  photo in Hunt's article, on the other hand was taken with the bullet flat to the camera. Even so, one can see that the ET in the Roe photo starts beneath the gouge at the top of the bullet and runs towards a nick on its right side. When one looks at this location in the Hunt photo, moreover, one can make out a blurry ET in this exact same location. As shown below...

(And no, it's not remotely surprising to me that no one noticed this before. Keep in mind that I got sucked into this rabbit hole because nobody had acknowledged an obvious bullet hole in the so-called mystery photo, and that I was also able to locate the EOP entry hole in the back of the head photos. People don't see what they don't want to see--and it's usually because they look in the wrong location.)

 

 

Thanks for making this image so that it's easy to compare the two photos.

I actually do see a T in the right photo. But alas, it is not the same shape or at the same angle as the easy-to-see T in the left photo.

I think we are both seeing shapes in a cloud.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I think we are both seeing shapes in a cloud.

 

I think we are both all seeing shapes in a cloud.

(After reading that other people also could make out the T.)

The T may be there, but I don't believe any of us are seeing it. JMO

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Pat in this analysis could you explain one point: how could an undercharged bullet sufficiently slow as to not penetrate in JFK's back farther than two inches hit JFK at all? If the rifle that shot it was aimed at JFK the bullet would have fallen far short. The only way to hit JFK with a slow-moving bullet would be to aim way up in the air and hope the arc lands at the right place on the moving target, like lobbing a long football pass. Who does an assassination that way, intentionally fire a non-fatal shot that is very difficult to hit the target in the first place? But if the shot had been fired undercharged by mistake, it would never have made it to JFK's back to begin with. How do you see this working in your thinking? 

 

I discuss this on my website. From chapter 20:

 

The Low Down on the Short Shot

A problem has been raised with this scenario that deserves some discussion. It has been pointed out that an undercharged bullet would take longer to reach its target than a normal round, and that a bullet so undercharged it would barely penetrate Kennedy's back would have to have been aimed well above and beyond Kennedy to hit him in that location.

Now, this is indeed difficult to work out. But not impossible, IMO.

If the assassin used the scope on the first shot, the misalignment of the scope would lead him to fire 14 inches high or more at only 53 yards, the distance of the limo from the sniper's nest around frame 190 of the Zapruder film. As the bullet struck Kennedy on his back, and not his head, moreover, it follows that the bullet struck Kennedy a good 10 inches below where it was originally aimed (assuming, of course, that the bullet was aimed at his head.) This suggests, then, that the bullet struck Kennedy about 24 inches below where it was originally headed.

So now let's consider that the presumed target, Kennedy, was moving at the time. Robert Frazier's testimony before the Warren Commission reflects that someone firing the rifle found in the building would need to lead Kennedy by 6 inches or so to strike him at 90 yards. We can extrapolate from this, then, that one might need to lead Kennedy by 4 inches or so at 53 yards. Well, if the bullet was traveling but one sixth its normal velocity, as is suggested by the shallow wound on Kennedy's back, the sniper firing this bullet would have to have led Kennedy by 24 inches or so.

Let's check the math.

1. The rifle, when using the scope and standard ammo, fires 14 inches high.

2. The target moves 24 inches higher in the time it takes the bullet to reach the target.

3. The bullet lands about 10 inches below the center of the target.

Well, this suggests the bullet landed pretty much where we would expect it to land. So what's the problem?

Bullet drop. Ballistics calculators suggest that a bullet traveling but 350 fps (the fastest one can presume it was traveling and still have the bullet barely make a hole on Kennedy's back) would drop about 36 inches over the distance to Kennedy. Well, this suggests that the shot landed about 36 inches higher than it should have, and that the sniper was therefore aiming about 36 inches above Kennedy at the time of the first shot. Hmmm...

While I'm not so sure we can trust these numbers, there is reason to believe that, even if accurate, this three feet of bullet drop is not lethal to the proposition Kennedy was hit with a short shot.

So, how's that?

Since the short shot occurred, we can only presume, due to the sniper's improperly hand-loading the bullet, and since we have separately come to conclude subsonic ammunition was used in the assassination, we can assume the sniper knew full well that this bullet was not gonna travel at its usual velocity, and to have compensated for this by firing 11 inches or so higher than normal. This puts the original target about 25 inches higher than one would expect.

Or less. A Marine Corps sniper book in my possession recommends that right-handed shooters tracking a target from left to right double their lead, as there is a "natural hesitation in follow through when swinging against the shooting shoulder." So, yikes, this suggests the original target may have been as little as 14 inches higher than one would expect

And that's not the only bit of subtraction in order. The bullet, if fired from the sniper's nest, was fired from about 21 degrees above Kennedy at frame 190 of the Zapruder film. Well, this cuts the presumed bullet drop down from 3 feet to as little as 27 inches or so. And this puts the original target around 5 inches higher than one would otherwise expect.

Now, this is all guesswork, of course, but I think we can agree that there are just too many variables to dismiss that an undercharged bullet hit Kennedy--and to say this proves the bullet striking Kennedy in the back actually went into his chest, etc.

[Vince Palamara]

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I discuss this on my website. From chapter 20:

 

The Low Down on the Short Shot

A problem has been raised with this scenario that deserves some discussion. It has been pointed out that an undercharged bullet would take longer to reach its target than a normal round, and that a bullet so undercharged it would barely penetrate Kennedy's back would have to have been aimed well above and beyond Kennedy to hit him in that location.

Now, this is indeed difficult to work out. But not impossible, IMO.

If the assassin used the scope on the first shot, the misalignment of the scope would lead him to fire 14 inches high or more at only 53 yards, the distance of the limo from the sniper's nest around frame 190 of the Zapruder film. As the bullet struck Kennedy on his back, and not his head, moreover, it follows that the bullet struck Kennedy a good 10 inches below where it was originally aimed (assuming, of course, that the bullet was aimed at his head.) This suggests, then, that the bullet struck Kennedy about 24 inches below where it was originally headed.

So now let's consider that the presumed target, Kennedy, was moving at the time. Robert Frazier's testimony before the Warren Commission reflects that someone firing the rifle found in the building would need to lead Kennedy by 6 inches or so to strike him at 90 yards. We can extrapolate from this, then, that one might need to lead Kennedy by 4 inches or so at 53 yards. Well, if the bullet was traveling but one sixth its normal velocity, as is suggested by the shallow wound on Kennedy's back, the sniper firing this bullet would have to have led Kennedy by 24 inches or so.

Let's check the math.

1. The rifle, when using the scope and standard ammo, fires 14 inches high.

2. The target moves 24 inches higher in the time it takes the bullet to reach the target.

3. The bullet lands about 10 inches below the center of the target.

Well, this suggests the bullet landed pretty much where we would expect it to land. So what's the problem?

Bullet drop. Ballistics calculators suggest that a bullet traveling but 350 fps (the fastest one can presume it was traveling and still have the bullet barely make a hole on Kennedy's back) would drop about 36 inches over the distance to Kennedy. Well, this suggests that the shot landed about 36 inches higher than it should have, and that the sniper was therefore aiming about 36 inches above Kennedy at the time of the first shot. Hmmm...

While I'm not so sure we can trust these numbers, there is reason to believe that, even if accurate, this three feet of bullet drop is not lethal to the proposition Kennedy was hit with a short shot.

So, how's that?

Since the short shot occurred, we can only presume, due to the sniper's improperly hand-loading the bullet, and since we have separately come to conclude subsonic ammunition was used in the assassination, we can assume the sniper knew full well that this bullet was not gonna travel at its usual velocity, and to have compensated for this by firing 11 inches or so higher than normal. This puts the original target about 25 inches higher than one would expect.

Or less. A Marine Corps sniper book in my possession recommends that right-handed shooters tracking a target from left to right double their lead, as there is a "natural hesitation in follow through when swinging against the shooting shoulder." So, yikes, this suggests the original target may have been as little as 14 inches higher than one would expect

And that's not the only bit of subtraction in order. The bullet, if fired from the sniper's nest, was fired from about 21 degrees above Kennedy at frame 190 of the Zapruder film. Well, this cuts the presumed bullet drop down from 3 feet to as little as 27 inches or so. And this puts the original target around 5 inches higher than one would otherwise expect.

Now, this is all guesswork, of course, but I think we can agree that there are just too many variables to dismiss that an undercharged bullet hit Kennedy--and to say this proves the bullet striking Kennedy in the back actually went into his chest, etc.

Pat---ok, the silence is deafening LOL: WHAT DOES JIM DIEUGENIO HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ALL OF THIS? One is reminded of the JFK movie----right around the time of its release, those police records came out showing that the three tramps...were merely three tramps. That said, despite the flaws, the JFK movie, warts and all, is great and achieved a lot (including the JFK Records Act and ARRB).

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

Pat---ok, the silence is deafening LOL: WHAT DOES JIM DIEUGENIO HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ALL OF THIS? One is reminded of the JFK movie----right around the time of its release, those police records came out showing that the three tramps...were merely three tramps. That said, despite the flaws, the JFK movie, warts and all, is great and achieved a lot (including the JFK Records Act and ARRB).

My understanding is that the archives photo used by Roe has been available for awhile. When one looks at the location of the ET, moreover, and compares it to earlier archives photos along with the one published by Hunt in 2006, it's clear this ET is not a recent addition. 

So, no, there's nothing suspicious about the discovery of this ET. Nor was there anything suspicious about the discovery of the identities of the tramps. When the Kennedy case attracts attention it leads some people (AKA "researchers") to look a little deeper. And, voila, they find things. 

The assumption that the likes of Weisberg, Lane, Thompson, Lifton, Groden, Mantik, and yes even my friend Hunt, were thoroughly reliable and not prone to error is laughable, IMO. They all made errors. We all make errors. 

And it is only through the acknowledgement of errors that the case can crawl forward...

[Vince Palamara]

8 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

My understanding is that the archives photo used by Roe has been available for awhile. When one looks at the location of the ET, moreover, and compares it to earlier archives photos along with the one published by Hunt in 2006, it's clear this ET is not a recent addition. 

So, no, there's nothing suspicious about the discovery of this ET. Nor was there anything suspicious about the discovery of the identities of the tramps. When the Kennedy case attracts attention it leads some people (AKA "researchers") to look a little deeper. And, voila, they find things. 

The assumption that the likes of Weisberg, Lane, Thompson, Lifton, Groden, Mantik, and yes even my friend Hunt, were thoroughly reliable and not prone to error is laughable, IMO. They all made errors. We all make errors. 

And it is only through the acknowledgement of errors that the case can crawl forward...

Thanks, Pat. So, just to be clear- in your opinion, this discovery, while important, neither confirms the chain of custody of CE399 or the validity of the single bullet theory? It just knocks down one peg out of the list, correct?

[Gary Murr]

On 6/17/2022 at 2:03 AM, Pat Speer said:

When one looks at the location of the ET, moreover, and compares it to earlier archives photos along with the one published by Hunt in 2006, it's clear this ET is not a recent addition. 

 

On 6/17/2022 at 2:03 AM, Pat Speer said:

The assumption that the likes of Weisberg, Lane, Thompson, Lifton, Groden, Mantik, and yes even my friend Hunt, were thoroughly reliable and not prone to error is laughable, IMO. They all made errors. We all make errors. 

Hello Pat:

Understandably I have been following this thread with some interest and appreciate not only your even-handed responses but also all comments generated by those who have an opinion on this subject matter. Yes, we all make mistakes/errors and it is only through an understanding and where applicable revelation and correction of errors that the case will ever move forward. Given that you believe the Todd "ET is not a recent addition" I would like your opinion on the comparative black and white photographs I present on the document attached herein. This image is from a previously unprinted FBI lab generated 4 X 5 view camera negative discovered by John Hunt at NARA.

 

Edited February 6 by Gary Murr

[Pat Speer]

3 minutes ago, Gary Murr said:

 

Hello Pat:

Understandably I have been following this thread with some interest and appreciate not only your even-handed responses but also all comments generated by those who have an opinion on this subject matter. Yes, we all make mistakes/errors and it is only through an understanding and where applicable revelation and correction of errors that the case will ever move forward. Given that you believe the Todd "ET is not a recent addition" I would like your opinion on the comparative black and white photographs I present on the document attached herein. This image is from a previously unprinted FBI lab generated 4 X 5 view camera negative discovered by John Hunt at NARA.

NIST initials comparison.docx 2.02 MB · 0 downloads

Thanks, Gary. That nails it. While the glare from the light partially obscures the E, the ET is right there in the same position as in the other photos. 

[James DiEugenio]

On 6/12/2022 at 6:36 PM, Stu Wexler said:

The HSCA firearms panel  did a microscopic analysis and reported every nook and cranny they saw on lab reports. They were not specifically looking for initials but they reported everyone but Todd's. David Mantik and Gary Murr looked in person. John Hunt had high resolution photos that are online. And Gregg D. went looking with the same NIST stuff a few months ago only to say he was wrong and did not see them. I am actually hoping he (and Gary M) both comment on this. Did Gregg do a thorough search or only the area he suspected had the initials?

I would normally concede this but all of the above has me a bit suspicious as it came after Stone's film advertised it widely. If Greg and Gary (and Mantik) concede they could have missed it. I am inclined to say it has been missed.

Stu

The reason I have not replied to this yet is because I just got back from Quebec last night.

Stu's reply here is the most cogent one I have seen on this issue.

I think he would agree with me when I say that at least three people had the bullet in their hands and did not see Todd's initials.  The HSCA did a thorough examination and they did not mention Todd.  

If you do not report this with these qualifications then you are not being honest.  

In the future, when mentioning this, that is what I will do. And let the listener decide.

 

[James DiEugenio]

On the broader question of the provenance of CE 399, the film uses differing modes of evidence to assault the Warren Report and CE 399..  It is not just any one thing.  And any unbiased viewer can see that.

mass and weight: Dolce and Wecht

The Guinn deception: Aguilar

the problem in FBI reporting: Aguilar

the timing of when it arrived: Mantik

Wright's differing description: Thompson though Mantik

And by the way, not even that is the complete story of CE 399.  We could have used the problem of which stretcher it was found on. (Don Thomas, Hear No Evil, pp. 392-99) We did not because I thought it would take too long to explicate.

This is why Roe is up a tree when he says things like one photo disproves Stone's conspiracy claims, and the attack on the chain of custody on CE 399 is unfounded.  That is just loony tunes. 

And BTW, in the article by Marcus that Pat uses, Tomlinson says it was Shanklin who he talked to about it, not Odum.  You cannot have it both ways. If you are going to use Tomlinson you have to place in the qualifiers. Tomlinson was not nearly as experienced and familiar with firearms and bullets as Wright was. In the WC volumes, this is why Specter did not use Wright and in Tomlinson's testimony he mainly focused on the stretcher issue.

PS That does not even deal with CE 543, which is the CE 399 of the cartridge cases. (Thompson,pp. 143-46)

 

 

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

On the broader question of the provenance of CE 399, the film uses differing modes of evidence to assault the Warren Report and CE 399..  It is not just any one thing.  And any unbiased viewer can see that.

mass and weight: Dolce and Wecht

The Guinn deception: Aguilar

the problem in FBI reporting: Aguilar

the timing of when it arrived: Mantik

Wright's differing description: Thompson though Mantik

And by the way, not even that is the complete story of CE 399.  We could have used the problem of which stretcher it was found on. (Don Thomas, Hear No Evil, pp. 392-99) We did not because I thought it would take too long to explicate.

This is why Roe is up a tree when he says things like one photo disproves Stone's conspiracy claims, and the attack on the chain of custody on CE 399 is unfounded.  That is just loony tunes. 

And BTW, in the article by Marcus that Pat uses, Tomlinson says it was Shanklin who he talked to about it, not Odum.  You cannot have it both ways. If you are going to use Tomlinson you have to place in the qualifiers. Tomlinson was not nearly as experienced and familiar with firearms and bullets as Wright was. In the WC volumes, this is why Specter did not use Wright and in Tomlinson's testimony he mainly focused on the stretcher issue.

PS That does not even deal with CE 543, which is the CE 399 of the cartridge cases. (Thompson,pp. 143-46)

 

 

 

Tomlinson actually said "I believe Mr. Shanklin" which might very well mean Shanklin was the only FBI agent name he remembered. Or, as previously discussed, it could indicate Shanklin actually was the one who brought the bullet out to Parkland. It doesn't change the fact that an FBI agent brought a bullet out to Parkland which Tomlinson said resembled the bullet he saw on 11-22-63. And it doesn't change the fact that some of my favorite people have grossly misled people into thinking this all means Tomlinson's refusal to ID the bullet means it was not the bullet he saw on 11-22-63, and that some mass conspiracy ensued to cover this up. 

Jim, I know you know a lot about screen-writing. What's the #1 rule about screenwriting? "Kill your darlings" right? Well, this is a darling. Let it die. You can still have the bullet being planted on the stretcher, etc. But Todd lying about initialing the bullet, and Tomlinson claiming the bullet he discovered was not CE 399? That's just weak sauce that drags down the over-all narrative. 

[James DiEugenio]

Pat:

I said what I said about this.

Three people, probably four, said they were not there. Plus we had photographic evidence.

That is what we went with.

Now, NIST says it was there.

And that is where that matter is right now..

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Pat:

I said what I said about this.

Three people, probably four, said they were not there. Plus we had photographic evidence.

That is what we went with.

Now, NIST says it was there.

And that is where that matter is right now..

 

 

Boy, this is a puzzler, but I have hard time believing the HSCA examined CE 399 and did not find ET's initials, but that the initials were actually there. 

I mean, this is a variation of the joke, "You had one job...."

Would not any reasonable person examine CE 399 under a magnifying glass, and turn it this and that way to the light, etc?

This reminds me of the Dallas Police Department officer who recovered four shells near the Tippit scene and said the shells said "auto" on the bottom. But LHO was shooting "Specials," or so the story goes. 

Meaning that a DPD officer, investigating the murder of fellow officer (the most serious crime to any PD) could not get right was was printed on the bottom of the shells he held in his hand.

You had one job....