Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Head Shot


Guest JFKAssassinationNut
 Share

Recommended Posts

"Larry Peters": "With Mrs. Hartman seeing a furrow leading back to the large tree above the knoll and it being logical that Badge Man's shot missed the President..."

Good Day.... The above quote by "Larry Peters" has been shown to be incorrect if Mrs. Hartman's demonstrated location of where her and her husband saw/touched the furrows is correct.

In 1992 EDNA HARTMAN, on film, indicated to researcher MARK OAKES the exact location where she recalled the 2 bullet furrows (not 1 bullet furrow) location that her and her husband observed. (in OAKES' video she bends over some, and points at the ground location of "her" furrows)

Lines-of sight extended from the steps stones at the base of the west steps of the north pergola intersect the Elm Street white lane stripe closest to the base of the west steps and easily provide the boundary lines-of-site in the grass just south of the Elm Street south curb where HARTMAN showed OAKES the 2 furrows were within. This is easily calculated and readily seen in the following diagram:

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/HART...toOAKES1992.gif

Please note that when calculating a bullet trajectory from the, supposed, "badge man" shooter (BMS) position that it indicates a furrow caused miss circa Zf-355, not Zf-313. When calculating the trajectory from the "grassy knoll" shooter (GKS) position that it indicates a furrow caused miss circa Zf-358, not Zf-313.

I am not saying that a BMS shot at Zf-355 shot, or, a GKS Zf-358 shot did not occur.... I am just saying that IF Mrs. HARTMAN's furrows location is correct, that those shots that caused the furrows, if fired by either the BMS or GKS, occurred AFTER Zf-313. Please note that there WERE several witnesses --including several CLOSE witnesses-- who DID say they heard a distinctly seperate audible muzzle blast or mechanically-suppress-fired bullet bow shockwave AFTER President KENNEDY's head had already exploded.

One interesting consideration is that by Zf-349, when president KENNEDY is aligned exactly between ZAPRUDER and attack witness MALCOLM SUMMERS, we can see that SUMMERS is already reacting agressively to some stimulus by jumping to his side and rear, landing backwards. Note that the location of the HARTMAN's furrows is VERY close to where SUMMERS was standing during the attack. HARTMAN's furrows location and SUMMERS postion are also diagramed on my DP-only professioanlly scaled map available for free to all here:

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DPonly.gif

Considering the furrows another way.... IF Mrs. HARTMAN's location is correct, and IF the furrows were caused by a shot(s) at the president at circa Zf-313, then calculating backwards from the furrows, through the president's Zf-313 point would intersect the bushes just east of the north pergola (the same bushes that a woman screamed to D.P.D. JOE SMITH that someone was shooting from), or, the northwest to southwest corner of the TSBD rooftop (ROWLAND observed a second armed assassin in a TSBD 6th floor southwest corner open window circa 12:16 & a man was photographed looking out of one of those TSBD 6th floor southwest corner open windows in a DILLARD photo captured about 30 seconds after the attack ended). Please see:

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DPharperONLY.gif

The HARTMAN's 1982 statements to EARL GOLZ regarding the 2 bullet furrows that they each were directed to by a D.P.D., and each saw, and each touched, and the GK direction they each said the furrows aligned with are available here:

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/HART...StoGOLZ1982.gif

Don

CV-67, "Big John," USS John F. Kennedy Plank Walker

Sooner, or later, the Truth emerges Clearly

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/ROSE...NOUNCEMENT.html

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/BOND...PINGarnold.html

http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/GHOS...update2001.html

T ogether

E veryone

A chieves

M ore

"(D)rehm (sic) seemed to think the shots came from in FRONT OF or BESIDE the President." (my EMPHASIS)

----CHARLES F. BREHM, a gunfire-battle experienced, WWII D-day, United States Army Ranger veteran, quoted just minutes after the attack, "Dallas Times Herald," 11-22-63, final edition

"When the President's automobile was very close to him and he could see the President's face very well, the President was seated, but was leaning forward when he stiffened perceptibly at the same instant what appeared to be a rifle shot sounded. According to BREHM, the President seemed to stiffen and come to a pause when another shot sounded and the President appeared to be badly hit in the head. Brehm said when the President was hit by the second shot, he could notice the President's hair fly up, and then roll over to his side, as Mrs. KENNEDY was apparently pulling him in that direction.

BREHM said that a third shot followed and that all three shots were relatively close together."

----CHARLES F. BREHM, a gunfire-battle experienced, WWII D-day, United States Army Ranger veteran, statement to the FBI, 24NOV63

"I saw a piece fly over in the area of the curb where I was standing. .... It seemed to have come left, and back. .... Sir, whatever it was that I saw did fall, both, in that direction, and, over into the curb there."

----CHARLES F. BREHM, a gunfire-battle experienced, WWII D-day, United States Army Ranger veteran, statements during the 1966 assassination documentary film, "Rush to Judgment"

"After the car passed the building coming toward us, I heard a . . . surprising noise, and [the President] reached with both hands up to the side of his throat and kind of stiffened out . . . And when he got down in the area just past me, the second shot hit which damaged, considerably damaged, the top of his head. . . . That car took off in an evasive motion . . . and was just beyond me when a third shot went off. The third shot really frightened me! It had a completely different sound to it because it had really passed me as anybody knows who has been in down under targets in the Army or been shot at like I had been many times. You know when a bullet passes over you, the cracking sound it makes, and that bullet had an absolute crack to it. I do believe that that shot was wild. It didn't hit anybody. I don't think it could have hit anybody. But it was a frightening thing to me because here was one shot that hit him, obviously; here was another shot that destroyed his head, and what was the reason for that third shot? That third shot frightened me more than the other two, and I grabbed the boy and threw him on the ground because I didn't know if we were going to have a 'shoot-'em-up' in this area."

----CHARLES F. BREHM, a gunfire-battle experienced, WWII D-day, United States Army Ranger veteran, to Larry Sneed, "No More Silence" (1988)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Concerning the direction of the shots. I cannot believe what I am reading in these posts. There is not one single speck of hard evidence to support the belief in ANY shots from the front of the motorcade. I am speechless. Has anyone on this site even watched the Zapruder film? The Zapruder film (and yes it is authentic, there is no evidence of ANY tampering of any kind to the Z-film) shows NO shots entering the front of the President's head. The only reaction to a show is when Kennedy suffers the entrance wound to the back of the head. it breaks apart, blowing a five-inch wound to the right front of the President's head. The Zapruder film is as clear as day on this topic. Kennedy's head suffers the massive trauma to the right frontal lobe, it is propelled backwards by the expulsion of matter, and he falls forward after his backward movement. Theories about gunmen in sewers, or behind the stockade fence, or hiding in trees on the grassy knoll are so ridiculously illogical they do not really merit serious discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Theories about gunmen in sewers, or behind the stockade fence, or hiding in trees on the grassy knoll are so ridiculously illogical they do not really merit serious discussion. "

1) Then why are you bothering to take part?

2) Apparently you are representing a small minority here and in the american public as a whole. If your conclusion is so obviously deductable from the Zapruder film, why do so many disagree with you? Is it because the majority is dumb and you are smart?

3) If the Zapruder film excludes the possibility of a frontal shot, why did the Warren Commission keep it from the American Public, if it would strenghen their case, as you say.

4) Do you build on any authority, qualifications or background to make the statements you do? Your profile doesn't reveal much, so forgive me for wondering.

Wim

Edited by dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning the direction of the shots.  I cannot believe what I am reading in these posts.  There is not one single speck of hard evidence to support the belief in ANY shots from the front of the motorcade.  I am speechless.  Has anyone on this site even watched the Zapruder film?  The Zapruder film (and yes it is authentic, there is no evidence of ANY tampering of any kind to the Z-film) shows NO shots entering the front of the President's head.  The only reaction to a show is when Kennedy suffers the entrance wound to the back of the head. it breaks apart, blowing a five-inch wound to the right front of the President's head.  The Zapruder film is as clear as day on this topic.  Kennedy's head suffers the massive trauma to the right frontal lobe, it is propelled backwards by the expulsion of matter, and he falls forward after his backward movement.  Theories about gunmen in sewers, or behind the stockade fence, or hiding in trees on the grassy knoll are so ridiculously illogical they do not really merit serious discussion.

Welcome to the forum. It is good to have someone join who does not share our view that JFK was not killed as a result of a political conspiracy. I hope you continue to ask us some serious questions about the assassination. In return, no doubt we will ask you some difficult questions. I am a great believer of logical debate and would like to think that between us we can cast some light on these matters.

By the way, like Wim, I have also read your biography. Unlike him, I feel you are fully qualified to express your opinions on this subject (and all others on this forum).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wim wrote: Could I address you on a first name basis? That is rather custom here on this forum. I am being adressed as Wim.

Would you mind sharing at which southern California higschool you are teaching?

T. Folsom: Well I hate to spoil the party but "T" is fine. Concerning which high school at which I teach, my private life is...well...exactly that, my private life. Where I teach American History is not really germane to the discussion is it?

Now on with some points:

Wim wrote: "Theories about gunmen in sewers, or behind the stockade fence, or hiding in trees on the grassy knoll are so ridiculously illogical they do not really merit serious discussion. " (T. Folsom)

1) Then why are you bothering to take part?

Perhaps I misunderstood this purpose of this forum. If the purpose is to toss around strange theories and glassy-eyed scenerios then you ARE right, I'm in the wrong place. If, on the other hand, this is a place to debate the evidence as it is now constituted then I wonder why on earth wouldn't you want someone in here to offer a voice of reason in a sea of paranoia?

2) Apparently you are representing a small minority here and in the american public as a whole. If your conclusion is so obviously deductable from the Zapruder film, why do so many disagree with you? Is it because the majority is dumb and you are smart?

The relative size of a group in no way establishes the validity of their claim now does it. Remember that in the early 18th century MOST Americans advocated slavery and diminished rights for women. Are you implying that because they were in the majority that they were right? Incidently, the number of people here in the United States that believe in a conspiracy is rapidly diminishing. In 1966 the Saturday Evening Post conducted a poll in which nearly 90% of all Americans accepted the conspiracy theories put forth be various "reseachers." When ABCNEWS conducted a similar poll LAST November for the 40th anniversary, that number had dropped to barely 65%. As more and more science is made available more and more conspiracy theories evaporate into the night. At that rate in less than fifteen years the MAJORITY of Americans will have discarded conspiracy thought as a solution to Kennedy's assassination.

3) If the Zapruder film excludes the possibility of a frontal shot, why did the Warren Commission keep it from the American Public, if it would strenghen their case, as you say.

The reason for the Warren Commission keeping the Zapruder film from the public was sadly very simple and very poorly thought out. The Kennedy family, concerned that such a grotesque display of their husband, brother, and father's death would be made public led them to plea with Chief Justice Earl Warren to prevent that (and other graphic depictions) from being released to the public. Jackie Kennedy talked about the artifacts associated with the Lincoln assassination that were released and were soon touring the country in state and county fairs and she did want a similar side-show with her husband's death.

Incidently, the Zapruder film MUST support the rear shot scenerio, otherwise why would so many conspiracy nuts now be claiming that it has been altered? If the Zapruder film supported a frontal shot then why alter it? You can't have it both ways.

4) Do you build on any authority, qualifications or background to make the statements you do? Your profile doesn't reveal much, so forgive me for wondering.

Yes. My authority, qualifications, and background are the following: I can read. I can see. I can think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, T, let me add a little to the paranoia here:

"Advanced Placement American History" +"T. Folsom"

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&ie=UTF-8...btnG=Zoeken&lr=

+"T. Folsom" +"american history"

http://www.google.nl/search?q=%2B%22T.+Fol...UTF-8&hl=nl&lr=

+"T. Folsom" +"Kennedy Assassination"

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&ie=UTF-8...sination%22&lr=

+"T. Folsom" +"JFK Assassination"

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&ie=UTF-8...sination%22&lr=

+"T. Folsom" +"New Zealand"

http://www.google.nl/search?q=%2B%22T.+Fol...8&start=10&sa=N

Mmm, let's see what the T could stand for. Todd, Theo, Tim, .... "Tricky", "taletelling", "track covering"? :tomatoes

Edited by dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, T, let me add a little to the paranoia here:

I think it would be more productive to answer the questions raised by Mr. Folsom. As he rightly says, "my authority, qualifications, and background are the following: I can read. I can see. I can think."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this an example of your research abilities? Do you really think that every Advance Placement American History Teacher is listed on the Internet? If you believe that, then you certainly haven't done much research. The fact that my name doesn't show up on a Google search means only one thing--you are more concerned with finding everything you can about your opponent than about researching the topic at hand. I just looked up my wife's name under Registered Nurses. She didn't come up either. Using your logic, she must not be a nurse. I assume you research everything you can about your postal letter-carrier before you dare accept any of his or her bills, letters, or packages huh? And you referred to ME as paranoid?

Do you plan to address any of the issues I raised or simply waste time trying to find out all you can about me? I've met a hundred people like you over the years and you are all as predictable as a ten cent novel--question, question, question but seldom answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are a scream. Suppose my name isn't T. Folsom?...oooohhhhh....what then....oh no!!!.....notify the authorities we have someone using the site that won't tell us his real name.....sound the alarm!.....nobody say anything to him....shun him.....he can't be trusted.....he is a disinformationist! Don't try to bait me into giving you personal information. You may be considered a master baiter by others but I'm not as easily manipulated as conspiracy lovers. The only reason you would want to know all about any individual is so that you can attack the messenger rather than the message. If you are more concerned with the MESSAGE rather than the MESSENGER then it won't make any difference if my name is James Files, James Sutton, or T. Folsom.

Geez. Grow up.

Is this all that goes on at this site, investigation of everyone who contributes?

Let me pose a couple of real questions of real substance and see what you have to say.

If Kennedy was struck from the front, then why does the medical evidence only support REAR shots? Why was Kennedy's clothing found to have fibers pushed inward at the back and outward at the front? How does one reconcile frontal shots with this troubling evidence which only supports rear entry wounds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are more concerned with the MESSAGE rather than the MESSENGER then it won't make any difference if my name is James Files, James Sutton, or T. Folsom.

The identity of the messager is of course very important to the message. For example "God save the Queen" and "Heil Hitler" could be viewed as essentially the same message, a country heralding its leader, by people that have no clue about the identity of the messenger. Since you claim to have studied history, I trust you don't fall into that category. In general George Bush would alse be more credible than a convicted felon (except for me :) )

Is this all that goes on at this site, investigation of everyone who contributes?

No, only for contributors who give reason for doubts and refuse to clarify their identity when asked simple questions that do not reasonably impose on privacy.

Let me pose a couple of real questions of real substance and see what you have to say.

If Kennedy was struck from the front, then why does the medical evidence only support REAR shots? Why was Kennedy's clothing found to have fibers pushed inward at the back and outward at the front? How does one reconcile frontal shots with this troubling evidence which only supports rear entry wounds?

Read my website and you'll know that I acknowledge shots from the back, like everyone else here. The last fatal headshot came from the front. I noticed that you accused Lee of ignoring the eyewitnesses, that most of them heard 3 shots (which is not true by the way, but I assume everyone who heard more was a crackpot, right?), but why then are you ignoring the many witnesses who heard the last two shots in rapid succession or almost simultaneously and how does that match with one gunman, one gun?

I repeat: Why don't you cut the bullxxxx and tell us which school you teach. If all the pupils and the community there know it, why can't we? Besides, I have never met a teacher who does not disclose his school. After all it's a PUBLIC job, to be proud of. You have a great and SIMPLE opportunity to prove we are suspicious for no reason, instead you provide exhaustive monologues, which fail to mask your consistent and prolonged refusal to answer the question for no good reason.

Edited by dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again you attempt to bait me into following YOUR rules. Nice try, but give it a rest. My private life is...well...my private life.

What is your source for making the claim that most witnesses heard more than three shots?

Also, I'm sure you're aware that the earwitness support for multiple gunmen firing from different locations is minimal. About 2% to be exact. While many witnessed did mistakenly think they heard four shots, virtually NONE said that shots came from two different locations. Doesn't this trouble you a bit?

Also the medical evidence does not support the two direction theory either, nor do the clothes of either victim.

So the witnesses don't agree, the medical facts don't agree, and the clothing doesn't agree. Quite a theory.

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...