Tink T. Explains GK Gunman, Mentions Bowers

[Chris Bristow]

What would a diversionary device look like? If it was set off by a radio signal wouldn't there be a small reciever left behind, or at least fragments of it?

 

[James DiEugenio]

This is the best part of Thompson's Last Second in Dallas.

It is a very convincing case for a sniper from the right front of JFK.

The blood spatter evidence, as he illustrates it, is the kind of thing a lawyer could present in a court of law.

The testimony of Bowers and Holland is compelling.

I gave a mixed review to his book, but I wrote this was the best part.

[James DiEugenio]

From my review:

From here, the book describes the witnesses in Dealey Plaza. First off are Bill and Gayle Newman who were to the limousine’s right, at the base of the grassy knoll. They were never called by the Commission, but filed affidavits and were interviewed by the FBI. (Thompson, p. 30) They may have been the closest witnesses to Kennedy’s shooting. The couple said the shots came from behind them and Kennedy was hit in the right temple, which would be clear evidence that a rifleman was behind the picket fence. But in addition to the Newmans, Thompson adds Abraham Zapruder and Emmett Hudson, who were in the same area, to this list. He later notes that it appears the FBI altered Hudson’s original statement to the Secret Service. (Thompson, p. 43) Hudson was the first witness Thompson located who indicated that there was another shot after the fatal head shot.

 

The author transitions over to witnesses who were further away from the limousine or not in as good a position to see or hear what had happened to JFK, but whose testimony is still important. In the cases of the motorcycle escorts, he notes that it was Bobby Hargis and B. J. Martin who were struck with blood and tissue from the fusillade. The significance of this is that they were riding to the left of Kennedy. Hargis told a reporter he was splattered with blood and the impact was so hard he thought he himself might have been hit. Later, while walking to the Sheriff’s Department, a colleague told him he had something on his lip: it was a piece of Kennedy’s brain and skull bone. (Thompson, pp. 55, 56) Martin’s cycle was also splattered with blood and flesh and he said that the left side of his helmet was also hit. In this profusely illustrated book, one can see that Martin was looking toward the president right before the firing sequence began. (Thompson, pp. 50, 58) Some have said this kind of evidence is eyewitness testimony. I disagree. It qualifies as physical evidence which indicates directionality.

[Chris Bristow]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

From my review:

From here, the book describes the witnesses in Dealey Plaza. First off are Bill and Gayle Newman who were to the limousine’s right, at the base of the grassy knoll. They were never called by the Commission, but filed affidavits and were interviewed by the FBI. (Thompson, p. 30) They may have been the closest witnesses to Kennedy’s shooting. The couple said the shots came from behind them and Kennedy was hit in the right temple, which would be clear evidence that a rifleman was behind the picket fence. But in addition to the Newmans, Thompson adds Abraham Zapruder and Emmett Hudson, who were in the same area, to this list. He later notes that it appears the FBI altered Hudson’s original statement to the Secret Service. (Thompson, p. 43) Hudson was the first witness Thompson located who indicated that there was another shot after the fatal head shot.

 

The author transitions over to witnesses who were further away from the limousine or not in as good a position to see or hear what had happened to JFK, but whose testimony is still important. In the cases of the motorcycle escorts, he notes that it was Bobby Hargis and B. J. Martin who were struck with blood and tissue from the fusillade. The significance of this is that they were riding to the left of Kennedy. Hargis told a reporter he was splattered with blood and the impact was so hard he thought he himself might have been hit. Later, while walking to the Sheriff’s Department, a colleague told him he had something on his lip: it was a piece of Kennedy’s brain and skull bone. (Thompson, pp. 55, 56) Martin’s cycle was also splattered with blood and flesh and he said that the left side of his helmet was also hit. In this profusely illustrated book, one can see that Martin was looking toward the president right before the firing sequence began. (Thompson, pp. 50, 58) Some have said this kind of evidence is eyewitness testimony. I disagree. It qualifies as physical evidence which indicates directionality.

In Hudson's  Sheriff's dept statement from 11/22 he says he and the guy next to him both dropped to the ground. He isn't specific about which shot made them drop. In his WC testimony of 7/64 he again said they both dropped to the ground. and said that is when he heard "The 3rd shot". But we know from the Muchmore film that neither he nor the guy next to him ever dropped down. The Nix film shows Hudson still standing 3 seconds after the headshot and Z 413 show's his hat at least 4 to 5 ft off the ground 5 seconds after the headshot.( I think he was in a semi crouch by then.)
 How Hudson's memory of the event would be so flawed, even to the Sheriff on the day of the assassination, is very strange. 4 days later he gave his, possibly altered, statement to the FBI and there was no mention of laying down. Maybe because it states Hudson called their attention to the Moorman photo from a newspaper and identified himself in the photo. A photo that shows both Hudson and the other guy standing.   But then he testifies to the WC 8 months later and again says he and the other guy both hit the ground. Even though the FBI statement indicates Hudson had seen himself standing in the Moorman photo.
  Hudson's testimony is a mess.
 

[Benjamin Cole]

19 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

In Hudson's  Sheriff's dept statement from 11/22 he says he and the guy next to him both dropped to the ground. He isn't specific about which shot made them drop. In his WC testimony of 7/64 he again said they both dropped to the ground. and said that is when he heard "The 3rd shot". But we know from the Muchmore film that neither he nor the guy next to him ever dropped down. The Nix film shows Hudson still standing 3 seconds after the headshot and Z 413 show's his hat at least 4 to 5 ft off the ground 5 seconds after the headshot.( I think he was in a semi crouch by then.)
 How Hudson's memory of the event would be so flawed, even to the Sheriff on the day of the assassination, is very strange. 4 days later he gave his, possibly altered, statement to the FBI and there was no mention of laying down. Maybe because it states Hudson called their attention to the Moorman photo from a newspaper and identified himself in the photo. A photo that shows both Hudson and the other guy standing.   But then he testifies to the WC 8 months later and again says he and the other guy both hit the ground. Even though the FBI statement indicates Hudson had seen himself standing in the Moorman photo.
  Hudson's testimony is a mess.
 

CB-

This is the agony of eyewitness accounts, as anyone who worked in the court system, or covered it, knows. 

I have talked to District Attorneys and US Asst. Attorneys who both said eyewitness accounts are "50/50," almost verbatim copies of each other, and have seen/heard dubious eyewitness accounts in the courtroom myself. 

I think Pat Speer did some good work in this area by tabulating earwitness accounts in the DP, and showing the results. 

@Pat Speer

And do we believe Lee Bowers 11/22 affidavit, which mentions no men with guns in the railroad yards, or statements he made later, evidently to friends and church-members (although we are getting hearsay about what Bower said)?

Both the LN and CT communities have taken the luxury of curating eyewitness accounts to meet narratives. 

I am a CT'er. In fact, I think elements of the intel state have deposed four presidents in the postwar era. I see conspiracies against me when my line moves slowly at 7/11.

But eyewitness accounts....

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/14/2024 at 6:42 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

 

On 9/14/2024 at 6:42 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

Thompson is very believable, but then adds there was a fourth shot from behind that also struck JFK's head, shortly after the shot from the GK. 

 

If there was a fourth shot, where did the bullet go?

 

On 9/14/2024 at 6:42 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

If there were a shot from the right-front to JFK's head...where did it exit?

 

 

 

From all the evidence I've seen... The bullet entered Kennedy's head above the right ear and exited from the back of the head, possibly the center of it or a little to the left.

Much of the back of the  skull was blown out, but witnesses couldn't see how big the hole was because some of it had (loose) scalp covering it.

 

On 9/14/2024 at 6:42 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

(The most-clear copies of the Z Film appear to show a volcanic-type eruption from the right side of JFK's head. For me, that suggests a shot from the rear that exited right-front.

 

The coverup artists painted that onto the Z film when they altered it, and blacked out the real wound on the back of the head, to make it look like the shot was from the rear. We know that because none of the witnesses saw it, including numerous doctors.

 

On 9/14/2024 at 6:42 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

But in his 11/22 affidavit, Bowers makes no reference to strangers in the area, only to possibly suspicious slowly cruising automobiles, the last of which left the lot about 10 minutes before gunfire. 

 

I suspect that Bowers saw both the suspicious cars AND the strangers, and said so in his affidavit. But later the coverup artists removed the part about the strangers.

 

On 9/14/2024 at 6:42 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

As usual, the more you know, the less you know. 

 

Not if you can fit the pieces of the puzzle together.

 

Edited Monday at 10:38 PM by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/18/2024 at 3:12 PM, Roger Odisio said:

I have seen the tape of the Thompson presentation at the 6th floor museum you posted.  I have his book, Last Second in Dallas.  And I saw remotely Thompson's presentation with Gary Aguilar and Bill Simpich last fall at Duquesne U., which expanded on his museum talk.

 

Your main questions have clear answers it seems to me. The shot from the right front that splattered Hargis and Martin exited the back of Kennedy's head before striking Hargis with such force he thought at first he was hit be a bullet.  The exit wound is blacked out in the Zfilm.

 

The Thompson group thinks there was two, not one, head shots within less than one second of each other.  Thompson thinks the second shot hit Kennedy about 5/6 of a second after the first.  The first came from the GK, the second from the BDB. He bases that conclusion on both Z film and acoustical information.

 

The idea that none of the people in the limo said anything about more than 1 shot hitting Kennedy is virtually meaningless. Shots so close together wouldn't have registered separately. Connelly did insist he was hit by a different bullet than that which struck Kennedy.  He was ignored, of course, because that would have contradicted the magic bullet.   

 

For me, an important anomaly has been the bulbous wound that appears on Kennedy's forehead around Zfilm 313.  No doctor mentioned this; it doesn't appear in any of the hospital photos.  I have always assumed it was added to the film to try show a shot from the back.  It's evidence of film alteration, nothing else.

 

Two shots so close together is a possible explanation for Brugioni's statements of seeing debris shooting several feet in the air and lasting multiple frames.  Unlike what the extant Z film shows. 

 

There is no way of knowing the effect of two shots from different directions, particularly without a real autopsy, and a thorough examination of the limo crime scene.  Neither of which we had.

 

I think the idea of 2 head shots is worth pursuing.

 

 

As usual, Roger is right about everything IMO.

After watching Tink's presentation, I am now convinced that the head shot came from the grassy knoll.

 

[Chris Bristow]

21 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CB-

This is the agony of eyewitness accounts, as anyone who worked in the court system, or covered it, knows. 

I have talked to District Attorneys and US Asst. Attorneys who both said eyewitness accounts are "50/50," almost verbatim copies of each other, and have seen/heard dubious eyewitness accounts in the courtroom myself. 

I think Pat Speer did some good work in this area by tabulating earwitness accounts in the DP, and showing the results. 

@Pat Speer

And do we believe Lee Bowers 11/22 affidavit, which mentions no men with guns in the railroad yards, or statements he made later, evidently to friends and church-members (although we are getting hearsay about what Bower said)?

Both the LN and CT communities have taken the luxury of curating eyewitness accounts to meet narratives. 

I am a CT'er. In fact, I think elements of the intel state have deposed four presidents in the postwar era. I see conspiracies against me when my line moves slowly at 7/11.

But eyewitness accounts....

 

 

 

Yes a lot of interesting accounts that we can't take to the bank. But if there is a consistency in the reports of many witnesses  it gets more credible.

The 1st shot sounded like a firecracker to so many people that it is probable they did hear a distinct difference. Maybe a short shot or maybe a 2nd rifle. 

 I thinks some thought it was just a firecracker and might be why they reported just 2 shots. 

 The locations of TSBD ear witnesses vs knoll witnesses is really strange. They are all mixed together throughout the plaza. Does that mean the knoll witnesses were just confused? Or did  the last 2 shots coming  in rapid succession from 2 locations split their opinions? I think if up to 1/3rd of the knoll witnesses were just mistaken they would not have been so consistent. I think the majority reporting just  2 specific locations points to there being shots from both the knoll and the TSBD. 

 The huge percentage of Parkland staff that used the term occipital or back of the head is, imo, the strongest case for an autopsy coverup. 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 10/5/2024 at 8:48 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Bingo Steve.  22, throat shot.

 

Why would the gunman use a measly 22? Sure, the gun (handgun) can be easily hidden from view, but it's hardly deadly.

I think that @Cliff Varnell has it right, that one of the CIA's poison dart guns was used... one with dissolving darts. The one such gun we know about is a handgun.

 

Edited Monday at 11:27 PM by Sandy Larsen

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

Yes a lot of interesting accounts that we can't take to the bank. But if there is a consistency in the reports of many witnesses  it gets more credible.

The 1st shot sounded like a firecracker to so many people that it is probable they did hear a distinct difference. Maybe a short shot or maybe a 2nd rifle. 

 I thinks some thought it was just a firecracker and might be why they reported just 2 shots. 

 The locations of TSBD ear witnesses vs knoll witnesses is really strange. They are all mixed together throughout the plaza. Does that mean the knoll witnesses were just confused? Or did  the last 2 shots coming  in rapid succession from 2 locations split their opinions? I think if up to 1/3rd of the knoll witnesses were just mistaken they would not have been so consistent. I think the majority reporting just  2 specific locations points to there being shots from both the knoll and the TSBD. 

 The huge percentage of Parkland staff that used the term occipital or back of the head is, imo, the strongest case for an autopsy coverup. 

 

 

CB and SL:

This is a reservation I have: 

1. OK, let's say a bullet travels from the GK area, likely the fence junction, and strikes JFK in his right temple. Indeed, the Z film appears to show as much, in many regards.  

2. Then, at Parkland, any number of medical personnel say JFK has a large wound in right rear lower occipital area. Drawings made clearly show the large wound on the right rear lower portion of JFK's head.  

3. OK, by deduction, the GK shot striking JFK exited through the rear lower head wound. 

4. Bullets do not always travels in straight lines though bodies. But this implies the bullet made a 90-degree turn inside JFK's head. 

5. Further, if the rear right lower head wound is an exit wound, why was gore thrown at the two motorcycles officers to JFK's left? You would expect the gore to be thrown nearly straight backwards from JFK's head. 

6. There appear to be no wounds at all on the left side of JFK's head. 

My reluctant conclusion is that surviving evidence and the autopsy are not on the level. 

This murk allows JFKA researchers to curate evidence, and witnesses, and then divine the right answer. 

 

[Chris Bristow]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CB and SL:

This is a reservation I have: 

1. OK, let's say a bullet travels from the GK area, likely the fence junction, and strikes JFK in his right temple. Indeed, the Z film appears to show as much, in many regards.  

2. Then, at Parkland, any number of medical personnel say JFK has a large wound in right rear lower occipital area. Drawings made clearly show the large wound on the right rear lower portion of JFK's head.  

3. OK, by deduction, the GK shot striking JFK exited through the rear lower head wound. 

4. Bullets do not always travels in straight lines though bodies. But this implies the bullet made a 90-degree turn inside JFK's head. 

5. Further, if the rear right lower head wound is an exit wound, why was gore thrown at the two motorcycles officers to JFK's left? You would expect the gore to be thrown nearly straight backwards from JFK's head. 

6. There appear to be no wounds at all on the left side of JFK's head. 

My reluctant conclusion is that surviving evidence and the autopsy are not on the level. 

This murk allows JFKA researchers to curate evidence, and witnesses, and then divine the right answer. 

 

I read somewhere bullets deflect by up to 40 degrees. A knoll shot entering at the temple and exiting in the right occipital does not work, imo. 

A tangential shot entering just behind the ear and chipping out a chunk of the occipital makes more  sense.  That would fit the knoll angle and the debris  hitting Hargis.

Dr Clark was a neurosurgeon and obviously knew where the occipital was. According to Dr Grossman he stood next to  Clark as Clark held JFK's head in his hands and concluded the wound was mortal.  So Clark must have Clearly seen the wound that he said was "occipital Parietal" and more to the point, Clark said it may have been a tangential wound. At least one other doctor said it could have been tangential but I don't remember who. 

If not for the possibility of a strike hitting behind the ear and exiting near the occiput(And maybe deflecting some) I would have to reject the knoll fence shooter. But the tangential strike allows for that trajectory. I have never found any solid way to rule out a possible knoll shot.

[Benjamin Cole]

2 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

I read somewhere bullets deflect by up to 40 degrees. A knoll shot entering at the temple and exiting in the right occipital does not work, imo. 

A tangential shot entering just behind the ear and chipping out a chunk of the occipital makes more  sense.  That would fit the knoll angle and the debris  hitting Hargis.

Dr Clark was a neurosurgeon and obviously knew where the occipital was. According to Dr Grossman he stood next to  Clark as Clark held JFK's head in his hands and concluded the wound was mortal.  So Clark must have Clearly seen the wound that he said was "occipital Parietal" and more to the point, Clark said it may have been a tangential wound. At least one other doctor said it could have been tangential but I don't remember who. 

If not for the possibility of a strike hitting behind the ear and exiting near the occiput(And maybe deflecting some) I would have to reject the knoll fence shooter. But the tangential strike allows for that trajectory. I have never found any solid way to rule out a possible knoll shot.

CB-

Your guess is better than mine.

For me, JFK wounds are a mystery, wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma. 

I am leaning towards JFK's back wound being shallow, with the slug popping out, as found by the Secret Service agent (and as memorialized in an 11/22 FBI memo). 

In addition, I contend JBC was struck by a separate bullet, directly, and in the back. 

But the rest of the wounds....

A throat shot from the front? From where, and through the windshield? And where did the throat shot exit? 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

19 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

This murk allows JFKA researchers to curate evidence, and witnesses, and then divine the right answer. 

 

Speculating is perfectly acceptable as long as it fits in with the other evidence. Scientists routinely do it and then try to prove it WRONG. They accept the speculation till it is shown to be wrong.