The Shot Sequence: Evidence of a Second Gunman

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Frazier specifically told the WC - multiple times - that he "didn't pay much attention" to the bag and "gave it no thought whatsoever" after Oswald said it was curtain rods. He estimated it was two feet, "give or take a few inches." Half the size of the bag would be a mere 19". Two feet - or even 28" - in my extended hand wouldn't come anywhere "near the ground" as Randle stated. It would also be rather odd to carry a sandwich and apple straight up and down, parallel to the body, with one end of the bag under the armpit and the other cupped in the hand, as Frazier told the WC. (FWIW, here's DVP's summary of the bag controversy: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html.)

We can agree to disagree, but I believe the CT explanation on this point just won't withstand scrutiny and opens the door to an entire field of raw speculation as to what Oswald was doing on Thursday and how the rifle did get into the TSBD.

Frazier and his sister both settled on 27" after comparing the replica bag to the seat and the way Oswald was holding it. He also said, multiple times, that it was about 6 inches wide. That's 162 sq in. The bag in the archives is roughly 38 by 8 1/2. That's 323 sq in, basically twice as large. This basic fact was concealed by the WC--that failed to publish the size of the bag--and ignored by those pushing the ridiculous bag story for roughly 40 years. Instead, they use the length of the estimates to make it seem like Frazier's recollection is close enough. It isn't.

Could he be wrong? Of course. But a murder conviction based on someone's carrying a bazooka--when the only eyewitness said he was carrying a cane--is problematic, and deserves closer examination, to say the least. 

Edited January 2, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Benjamin Cole]

OK back to the shot sequence. 

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

This is how JBC described the shot to his back, to the HSCA. 

JBC recounts hearing a rifle shot, then he (JBC) turns around to try to get a look at JFK, then JBC returning his original orientation, but right then JBC getting shot himself, through the back. JBC is thrust forward, becomes inert, his head in his wife's lap. His wife's testimony corroborates. 

JBC tumbles or is pushed forward ~Z295. JFK is shot at Z313. Do the math. The Z film runs at 18 frames per second.

Inexplicably, JBC, in a private conference on April 22, 1964 with the WC, is reported (by a WC lawyer) to have said thought he (JBC) was shot at Z241. 

Moreover, the WC recounts what JBC said in the private WC April 22 meeting this way:

The Governor stated that after being hit, he looked to his right, looked to his left, and then turned to his right.

This is entirely inconsistent with everything JBC said in public, in public testimonies to both the WC, the HSCA, and in various filmed statements.

JBC consistently said he become inactive after being shot (an entirely believable statement), and he was shot after he tried to get a glimpse of JFK. 

Curiously, JBC made this supposed statement to the WC after reviewing still shots provided by LIFE magazine, in the WC conference. 

This is the same LIFE magazine that printed this in their December 6, 1963 issue. LIFE reported, 

"The 8mm [Zapruder] film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed to the sniper's nest [in the TSBD] just before he clutches it." 

LIFE printed that as it had one of the very few copies on the Z film, and the semi-official story then was that JFK had been shot in the throat. 

If LIFE would knowingly print such a flagrant fabrication...would LIFE provide some still shots to the WC and JBC with mis-numbered frames? Oh, you think, possibly? 

Remember, the WC printed Z frames out of sequence in the multi-volume set. 

I conclude JBC was shot at ~Z295 and JFK at Z313. This seems solid to me. 

The WC was monkeying with facts and testimony on April 22.

Oh, big surprise. 

 

[Ron Bulman]

Bags in a shot sequence thread?  Distraction.  It's pretty simple.  Bang-Bang does not work for cocking and firing a bolt action rifle in the time allotted.

[Matthew Koch]

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

OK back to the shot sequence. 

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

This is how JBC described the shot to his back, to the HSCA. 

JBC recounts hearing a rifle shot, then he (JBC) turns around to try to get a look at JFK, then JBC returning his original orientation, but right then JBC getting shot himself, through the back. JBC is thrust forward, becomes inert, his head in his wife's lap. His wife's testimony corroborates. 

JBC tumbles or is pushed forward ~Z295. JFK is shot at Z313. Do the math. The Z film runs at 18 frames per second.

Inexplicably, JBC, in a private conference on April 22, 1964 with the WC, is reported (by a WC lawyer) to have said thought he (JBC) was shot at Z241. 

Moreover, the WC recounts what JBC said in the private WC April 22 meeting this way:

The Governor stated that after being hit, he looked to his right, looked to his left, and then turned to his right.

This is entirely inconsistent with everything JBC said in public, in public testimonies to both the WC, the HSCA, and in various filmed statements.

JBC consistently said he become inactive after being shot (an entirely believable statement), and he was shot after he tried to get a glimpse of JFK. 

Curiously, JBC made this supposed statement to the WC after reviewing still shots provided by LIFE magazine, in the WC conference. 

This is the same LIFE magazine that printed this in their December 6, 1963 issue. LIFE reported, 

"The 8mm [Zapruder] film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed to the sniper's nest [in the TSBD] just before he clutches it." 

LIFE printed that as it had one of the very few copies on the Z film, and the semi-official story then was that JFK had been shot in the throat. 

If LIFE would knowingly print such a flagrant fabrication...would LIFE provide some still shots to the WC and JBC with mis-numbered frames? Oh, you think, possibly? 

Remember, the WC printed Z frames out of sequence in the multi-volume set. 

I conclude JBC was shot at ~Z295 and JFK at Z313. This seems solid to me. 

The WC was monkeying with facts and testimony on April 22.

Oh, big surprise. 

 

I keep trying to tell you but you don't want to listen.. 

[Tommy Tomlinson]

10 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Frazier specifically told the WC - multiple times - that he "didn't pay much attention" to the bag and "gave it no thought whatsoever" after Oswald said it was curtain rods. He estimated it was two feet, "give or take a few inches." Half the size of the bag would be a mere 19". Two feet - or even 28" - in my extended hand wouldn't come anywhere "near the ground" as Randle stated. It would also be rather odd to carry a sandwich and apple straight up and down, parallel to the body, with one end of the bag under the armpit and the other cupped in the hand, as Frazier told the WC. (FWIW, here's DVP's summary of the bag controversy: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html.)

We can agree to disagree, but I believe the CT explanation on this point just won't withstand scrutiny and opens the door to an entire field of raw speculation as to what Oswald was doing on Thursday and how the rifle did get into the TSBD.

And there it is "Didn't pay much attention"

"...therefore it was whatever size I need it to be!"

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Matthew Koch said:

I keep trying to tell you but you don't want to listen.. 

Yeah, I get that (printed, dubiously, in LIFE magazine), and also what we are told he said in the private April 22 meeting inside the WC.

The problem is, the LIFE magazine story is entirely inconsistent with what JBC said publicly on the record in the WC and HSCA testimonies, and also in recorded and filmed interviews. 

Remember what LIFE magazine printed.

This is the same LIFE magazine that printed this in their December 6, 1963 issue:

"The 8mm [Zapruder] film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed to the sniper's nest [in the TSBD] just before he clutches it." 

OK, I think we can dispose of anything LIFE magazine printed. How can we consider LIFE magazine anything but accessories after the fact? 

PS. After frame 236, shown above, JBC looks over his right shoulder, making a near 180-degree turn in his seat. Then, he begin to turn forward and is thrust forward ~Z295. 

JBC in Z236 does show a reaction. If you hear a gunshot and sense someone behind you is shot, you show a reaction. JBC shows surprise. Likely, a bullets or bullets have fragmented inside the limo at this point. Occupants described a "flurry" of bullets striking the limo. 

The problem is (for you) is JBC is very active after Z236. JBC was not a man rendered inert after having been shot through the chest. 

 

[Tommy Tomlinson]

And apologies for the bag segue. I think it is shows how the official theory simply chooses the evidence it deems relevant without rational reasons for its selectivity. 

Most of the witnesses said that the last two shots cam right on top of each other. The Zapruder film shows Connally's wound and the coup de grace conform to that time frame... 

[Matthew Koch]

21 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Yeah, I get that (printed, dubiously, in LIFE magazine), and also what we are told he said in the private April 22 meeting inside the WC.

The problem is, the LIFE magazine story is entirely inconsistent with what JBC said publicly on the record in the WC and HSCA testimonies, and also in recorded and filmed interviews. 

Remember what LIFE magazine printed.

This is the same LIFE magazine that printed this in their December 6, 1963 issue:

"The 8mm [Zapruder] film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed to the sniper's nest [in the TSBD] just before he clutches it." 

 

 

Well you are incorrect about your assumption. It's from the 1967 reopening of the case that led to Josiah Thompson's book. Maybe you should read the life magazine issue and Thompsons book..

Edited January 2, 2023 by Matthew Koch

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

I keep trying to tell you but you don't want to listen.. 

Is that the arm of the Morgan Freeman look-alike man waving at JFK and Connolly at the exact second they are being shot and just 6 ft. away?

[Guest]

On 1/2/2023 at 12:18 AM, Tommy Tomlinson said:

And there it is "Didn't pay much attention"

"...therefore it was whatever size I need it to be!"

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

On 1/1/2023 at 9:43 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Bags in a shot sequence thread?  Distraction.  It's pretty simple.  Bang-Bang does not work for cocking and firing a bolt action rifle in the time allotted.

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Gil Jesus]

7 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Bang-Bang does not work for cocking and firing a bolt action rifle in the time allotted.

Which is exactly the point of this thread. Thank You.

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

Well you are incorrect about your assumption. It's from the 1967 reopening of the case that led to Josiah Thompson's book. Maybe you should read the life magazine issue and Thompsons book..

Well, we have to agree to disagree on this one. 

 

[Tommy Tomlinson]

51 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

No. The fact that he kept saying "I didn't pay much attention" and finally "gave no thought whatsoever" simply cuts in the direction of his observations being less than precise. If he had said multiple times "I examined it closely, paying strict attention to its length, both on the back seat and when he was carrying it," that would cut in the other direction. Pretty elementary, I would think. I don't think we're talking so much about the "bag issue" as "rational analysis," which is worthwhile in pretty much every thread.

You don't need to pay strict attention to something to be aware of how big it is. Especially when placed against a very common and well known frame of reference like the human body and the back seat of your own car.

When BWF first described the package to the WC as it was in situ on the back seat of his car, he does not say anything about not paying much attention. It was about two or three feet from his nose at that point... He is clear and precise as to how big it was in the very familiar frame of reference he saw it against. 

Throughout the discussion he is clear and precise as to how it fit between hand and armpit, with no variance or suggestion that any lack of attention on his part may give him cause for doubt. 

He only veers into the "not paying much attention" territory when Ball starts asking him to speculate on gauging the weight of the package by the way Oswald is carrying it. Frazier remains clear and precise as to how it fit between hand and armpit,  his exact words being, "I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm..."

"OTHER THAN" is a pretty important qualifier in this discussion, considering how the "Rifle in a bag" theorists choose to ignore that part when invoking the "He was clearly not paying attention, look he says so himself!" argument. All in order to dismiss his entire testimony as guesswork so they can put a rifle that no one saw in Oswald's hand

When asked to speculate about how heavy it was, or how much of the package might be sticking out of the front of Oswald's hand he isn't prepared to speculate. But he was clear and precise as to the size and shape even qualifying that fact when saying that he wasn't paying much attention to the rest. 

I'm sorry, but going from what Frazier said at the time and has done since to "Must have been a rifle" is just wrong!

 

ETA: again, sorry for the Off Topic reply, this is my last time. I promise!

Edited January 2, 2023 by Tommy Tomlinson
Edit to add apology...

[Denny Zartman]

You're doing great @Tommy Tomlinson. LN's are very hard to pin down on anything imho.

The distance between Oswald's hand and his armpit does not allow for a fully broken down version of the rifle he was accused of using. There's just no way around that fact.