Jump to content
The Education Forum

McIntire


Recommended Posts

Jumping in here, the image was snapped no longer than 30 seconds after the shooting. Here is the uncropped version of that photograph.

James

The overpass looks airbrushed. The people there are FUZZED OUT.

Edited by Shanet Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin, do you know when this picture was taken?

Do you have an opinion of the trajectory of the bullet?

Answers open to everyone, of course!

Thanks!

Tim.

I agree with james.

a matter of "seconds" after the head shot, when Greer gunned the limo and went under the overpass.

As for the damage to the windscreen, i beleive that was done when a bullet slammed into the chrome trim above the mirror and splintered into bullet fragements.

Some falling down on the floor of the front seat.

The trajectory is anyones guess, because the chrome trim looks to have been hit from a low trajectory pushing it upward.

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin, To put this photo in context, would you post a brief essay on the SIGNIFICANCE of this windshield damage, or perhaps refer us to some source where the issue is discussed?

Thanks

Ray

Best Witness: JFK's Limousine

Anthony Marsh

October 22, 1995

QUOTE:

The most well-known point of damage to the limousine was the crack of the windshield. We can see in the Altgens 1-6 photo, which equals approximately Zapruder frame 255, that the windshield is undamaged, yet in his next photo we can see that the windshield is cracked. Frazier's CE 350 shows the condition of the windshield taken about 14 hours after the assassination (Figure 9). Contrary to the opinion of a couple of people, there was no hole in the windshield, only a crack. As we can see in this blow-up of CE 350, it is a crack (Figure 10). I believe CE 350 depicts the same windshield which was on the limousine during the assassination. The location and pattern of the crack, and presence of blood spatters looks consistent from Dealey Plaza to CE 350.

Some people point to conflicting testimony about the roughness of the area of the crack as an indication that there was a windshield switch or that the windshield was struck on the outside. Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman testified (2H89) that when he first felt the windshield a few days after the assassination, the inside felt rough and that when he examined it on the day of his testimony that it felt smooth. I believe that the reason for the difference in roughness is that when the windshield was first examined on November 23, 1963 the roughness on the inside was due to the presence of minute bullet fragments (CE 841) which were completely removed for testing, so that any later examination would feel only the smooth glass.

Some might also argue that the theory of how glass fractures on the opposite side of the point of impact would seem to indicate that the shot came from the front and caused a fracture on the inside. Then, supposedly, the conspirators realized this mistake and switched windshields so that the corrected windshield would exhibit fractures on the outside to indicate that it was hit from the inside. But there are a couple of problems with the theory. That is a fine theory in other cases, with ordinary plate glass, but the windshield was composed of laminated automobile glass, which consists of two layers of glass with a layer of plastic between them. Thus it is quiote common that there may be damage to the inside layer of the glass which does not extend to the outside layer of the glass and vice versa. That is its design purpose. I also doubt that anyone had the opportunity and capability to switch windshields before it was examined and photographed by Frazier, and certainly trying to resolve conflicting testimony by switching windshields would require several switches.

However, there does seem to be one apparent discrepancy which is disturbing. When the windshield was photographed for the HSCA, it appears that there is a massive stain on the driver's side which does not appear in CE 350 (Figure 11). However, it is possible that this area was just out of frame on the photo of CE 350. Moreover, it is not clear that the stain seen in the HSCA photo has to be blood. I suppose that it could have been some other liquid which dripped onto the windshield while it was in storage at the National Archives. Maybe someone spilled coffee on it. You would think that in this age of sophisticated blood analysis that someone could determine if it is blood, and perhaps whose. We might also need Dr. Henry Lee to do a blood spatter analysis. Many of the blood spots are consistent with either JFK's or Connally's wounds, but sometimes it looks to me as though the massive stain was caused by someone pouring liquid >from a cup. It might also tell us something important, such as from which angles the splatter could have come, or which angles could be ruled out by the possibility that Greer's head would block such a path from a particular wound.

Is there any other damage which would tell us from which direction the windshield was struck? I believe I am the first person to point out something which no one else has noticed before. If you look carefully at CE 350, you can see that the back of the rearview mirror was dented (Figure 12). This could only have been caused by a bullet ricocheting off the inside of the windshield, thus proving that that the glass was struck on the inside by a shot from behind the limousine, and that there was not a hole in the glass. If a bullet had gone through the windshield, there would be nothing to ricochet back and strike the back of the rearview mirror. What could a shot from behind have first struck to produce a bullet fragment which would hit the inside of the windshield and then ricochet to the right to hit the back of the rearview mirror?

I think the bullet which caused the damage to the windshield, and most likely also the chrome topping, was the last shot from the TSBD. It's highly unlikely that this shot struck JFK after Z-313. He had already been struck by a shot in the back from the TSBD at about Z-210. Connally had already been struck in the back by a shot at about Z-230. That is when Connally thought he was hit. But he did not remember being struck in the wrist. Not only was the alinement of the two men incorrect for a Single-Bullet Theory trajectory at either Z-190 or Z-210, Connally's wrist was too high to have been struck by a bullet exiting his chest just below his right nipple. I think the most likely scenario is that the last shot from the TSBD hit Connally's wrist after Z-313, either directly or indirectly, then broke up into many fragments which caused all the damage to the limousine, Tague's cut, and the fragments in Connally's thigh. I would suggest that a much more detailed examination of the photographic record might pinpoint the time at which the windshield, chrome topping and rearview mirror were struck.

We can determine a possible time for that last shot from the TSBD from the acoustical evidence. The HSCA acoustical studies give us the approximate spacing between shots. We then need to match up the timing with the Zapruder frames. Contrary to the theories of some researchers whose last names begin with the letter "L," the Zapruder film was not altered. There are no missing frames, except for the well-known splice of one LIFE copy at frames 208 to 211. It seems that whenever some piece of physical evidence disproves a bizarre theory, the first thing the bizarre theorist does is claim that the evidence must be fake. It is time that all serious researchers accept the fact that the physical evidence is genuine and authentic. The last two shots were separated by about .744 of a second, or about 13.6 Zapruder frames. So, if the last shot from the TSBD was after Z-313, we would expect to see no damage before Z-327 and see damage within a few frames after that. I would suggest that those who claim to have excellent copies of the photographic evidence concentrate their focus on frames Z-326 to Z-330 in looking for changes in the condition of the limousine.

I visited the National Archives and in particular reviewed the newly released photos of the limousine. In the same folder were what appeared to be photocopies of the original worksheets by the agents who examined the limousine on November 23, 1963. I'm not sure who wrote the sheets and exactly when they were written (the three agent names appear to be Frazier, Killiam, and Cunningham), but the sheets record the observations of the examination team that night.[*] They mark the exact locations of the fragments recovered. Incidentally, these worksheets clear up one of the major controversies about the limousine. Some people have speculated that the white object seen in the photos was a white cloth hand puppet (which they have affectionately dubbed Lambchop), which was given to Jackie at Love Field. The worksheets note that the white object was actually a bunch of chrysanthemums. Both major bullet fragments were found on the right side of the limousine in the front compartment. It appears logical to me that a ricocheting fragment landing on the right side of the front seat must have come from the left side of the limousine. JFK was never to the left of the midline, nor was Connally's trunk when he was hit in the back. But Connally had slumped into his wife's lap after he was shot and his wrist was to the left of the midline after Z-313. Thus, I believe that the damage to the limousine suggests that Connally's wrist was struck by a different bullet than the one which went through his chest.

The topic of the windscreen damage was discussed by the Warren Commission.

Full Story Here:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...eport_0051a.htm

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...