How good were the shooters in DP?

[Bill Miller]

I have driven all over Dallas for years and have

never seen such curb stripes.

That's a shocker! Maybe you didn't see them because you were too busy thinking about how Toni Foster got to be 7' tall.

If they warned of a curve, they are

on the wrong side of the street, as it curves AWAY to the left, not

as drivers are headed toward the curb at the right. The stripes

would have been on BOTH SIDES of the street if they signified

a curve, BUT WERE ONLY ON THE LEFT GOING WEST! Old-time

cab drivers? Gimme a break! Hardly a job where there are

long-time professionals!

The yellow stripes would be on the side of the street that you were driving towards where the bend occurs.

As far as the plaza being lit by street lamps - how many street lamps do you count near the south curb on Elm Street on 11/22/63 by looking at the assassination images? I counted "ZERO".

On the other hand, Jack ... you might be on to something. The many times I have taken cabs from DFW to Dallas, the drivers did look like CIA operatives who's sole purpose was to lie about those yellow stripes. In fact, I believe the Museum has photos showing those same stripes dating back to the mid-fifties. I'm thinking that those photos must be forgeries ... yes, its all making sense now.

Where did Beverly Oliver step in the same color wet yellow paint

that day?

Jack, Beverly did not step in "wet paint" any more than the last person who ever scraped their car against a painted pole guard at a fast food drive-thru or brushed against another car when parking was dealing with wet paint. Instead, it was a situation where dried paint was transfered from one surfaceto the other. I cannot fathom the street being painted even hours before the motorcade's arrival and not having the paint dry by then. Do you have any evidence that someone painted the curbs on the morning of 11/22/63?

Why were the stripes painted a foot longer sometime after

that day?

Well, Jack ... you're an investigator, so tell us what the city told you. Has there been a policy change, are they painted at random and without a size requirement, or did you not ever bother to ask anyone which would be my guess?

Bill Miller

Edited June 1, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Mark;

Although fully aware that in all probability you (& most others) will neither accept nor believe it, for the record:

1. There was only ONE shooter.

2. Despite what many will state to the contrary, the 6.5mm Carcano Rifle (in relatively good condition), coupled with the WCC 6.5mm ammo, is a deadly combination.

Accuracy wise, the US Army Ballistics Research Laboratory compared the accuracy as being equivelant to our current US military weapons.

Armed with "match" quality weapons, the Italian Olympics Team had always done quite well and ranked quite high in Olympics Competition, with this weapon.

3. The planning was in fact quite thorough, which included the equi-distant yellow marks painted onto the curb of Elm Street through the "Kill Zone". Which, any shooter would easily recognize as "Range Markers".

Many will attempt to "Sell" this off as some sort of traffic control marking which was utilized by the Dallas Street Department.

Sounds good! However, since these yellow marks were painted only on the downrange & visible (from the TSDB) side of Elm St, and were exactly in the kill zone, and there were no other similar stripes painted onto the curbs of any other streets anywhere in the vicinity, then the "Traffic Control" scenario is a no-floater.

One could add to this the unconfirmed rumor that (I believe it was Jean Hill) got some of this yellow paint on her shoe, from it's being so freshly painted, and the purpose of these yellow marks becomes even more evident.

4. Were we to attempt to "stuff" all three shots fired in to the WC scenario with the Z-312/313 head shot being the Last/Final shot of the three, then the shooting sequence would obviously have to be rushed.

In that regard, exactly why would anyone believe much of anything as stated by the WC?

The Z-312/313 head shot being the SECOND shot, thereby gave the shooter, approximately 5.8 seconds from first shot to second shot.--------Run that one by your "Experts" and see how difficult they claim it is.

Thereafter, the THIRD/LAST/FINAL shot came about, just about as fast as the weapon could be operated, which is of course in the 2.3 (+/-) interval, for a total shooting time of approximately 8.1 to 8.4 seconds.

Give that data to any true "shooter", and you may find that all of the garbage relative to the impossibility of the shots will go back into the garbage can.

In conclusion, anyone who attempts to resolve the issues by searching for the mythical "multiple assassin", will, if age permits, be here for another 40 + years.

The shooting sequence was not difficult, even without the range markers/aka yellow stripes.

The weapon and ammo were entirely capable of the accuracy which it achieved, which by the way was a relatively short distance.

The "target" in moving away from the shooter, virtually guaranteed a "hit", however one must also note that the second shot/aka Z-312/313 shot to the Cowlick area of the back of the head almost went high.

Since you claim to not be a "shooter", then might I recommend that you read up on the works of those such as Ayoob Massad in "AMERICAN HANDGUNNER" magazine.

And, even the resident Chiropractor on the John McAdams site, with relatively little experience, has managed to get off three shots in the 5.8 to 5.9 second time of the WC scenario.

So, would the shooting sequence, as presented by the WC be somewhat difficult?------Yes

Exactly why was it that you believed this BS in the first place?

As a final comment, might I recommend the 10 pages of the WC "circular reasoning" which deals with the "SHOT THAT MISSED", when in fact, other than the fragment strike on the curbe (Tague), there is no indication of any shot having missed.

The "Magic Bullet" did not miss.----Neither is it CE399, as CE399 has not pulled a disappearing act.

Tom

Hi Tom,

No one (not even master marksmen) have duplicated L O Oswald’s alleged performance.

The late Carlos Hathcock an ex marine sniper & instructor could not duplicate it. Craig Roberts (A former marine sniper) after studying the alleged snipers lair said it was impossible.

Tom, have you ever duplicated Oswald's ALLEGED shooting performance.

Chris Brown.

have you ever duplicated Oswald's ALLEGED shooting performance

Chris;

NOPE! But then again, I have never duplicated SUPERMAN's "ALLEGED" flying capability either.

Although there can be little doubt that many here, as well as elsewhere, would like nothing better than for me to go take a "leap" off a tall building.

Were one to accurately re-construct and re-create the firing conditions, and thereafter make an attempt to achieve the WC firing sequence, then they would also know that the WC devoted some 10 pages of circular reasoning to THE SHOT THAT MISSED, and without ever stating as much, the never fully explained exactly which of these shots it was that missed. AND, they discussed the possibility of it being the first; the second; as well as the third shot.

Nevertheless, they indicated that the preponderance of evidence suggested that the Z-312/313 head shot was the last shot fired.

Thus, this is the WC ALLEGED shooting scenario.

Personally, I have never seen that much need to waste one's time in attempting to prove and/or disprove an "allegation".

The Old School, of which I attended, required that we actually conduct independent and full research, and thus base any resolutions on the FACTS! Not ALLEGATION!

In event you will take the time to go backwards in time and research, you may find that not only have I demonstrated that the WC was an intentional lie, but I have also provided more than adequate factual evidence to demonstrate it.

When evaluating "LOGIC", one should take a close look at the frequent mis-applications of this process in deriving a conclusion.

A. Logic: (for those with experience shooting the Carcano) Dictates that the shooting sequence as presented to us by the WC would be a difficult task to achieve, even for an excellent shooter.

True: Although one can, without great difficulty, achieve three shots fired in the WC's reported 5.9 seconds of elapsed time, target re-acquisition for accurate shooting would be extremely difficult for most.

B. Logic: (for those who have thoroughly examined the WC) Dictates that the WC has not told us the factual truth of the assassination.

True: This one is of course a "no-brainer" for anyone who truly knows anything of the WC and their manipulations.

C. Illogical: In event that I am either fully aware of, and/or have high suspicions of the fact that the WC is some form of intentional lie, exactly why is it that I would believe their shooting scenario and attempt to base any factual research around a hypothetical criteria as established by a group of liars.

Unless of course I am a "dumb-ass" who can not resolve the issues of the assassination for myself and therefore demonstrate a severe impairment when it comes to independent thought process as well as being severely lacking in gathering of knowledge; facts; and evidence in order to independently apply this knowledge to problem resolution.

Therefore, let me repeat:

4. Were we to attempt to "stuff" all three shots fired in to the WC scenario with the Z-312/313 head shot being the Last/Final shot of the three, then the shooting sequence would obviously have to be rushed.

In that regard, exactly why would anyone believe much of anything as stated by the WC?

Tom

P.S. There was a "lone" assassin, and there was no: SHOT THAT MISSED!

[Blair Dobson]

I hope I'm not misreading your position on the Shooter here:

P.S. There was a "lone" assassin, and there was no: SHOT THAT MISSED!

No..just the Tague bullet that hit the curb and cut his cheek.

But yeah, if you discount

-the witness statements (post WC) that refer to audible multiple shots in the Plaza,

-the possibility of the dictaphone belt recording being somewhat accurate and revealing more than four shots,

-a pretty reliable witness statement to the effect of "they were shooting at us",

-the obvious impossibilty of Connallys wounds coming from one gunman,

-the lack of powder on Oswald,

-the bad chain of evidence,

-the bullet strike on the limos windscreen frame,

-the fact that Kennedys face wasn't blown onto his lap from a rear shot,

-the photographic evidence that shows nothing in the sixth floor window,

-the fact that the line of fire, regardless of theory, points to triangulation,

-the fact that since 1963, over 200 of the worlds FINEST SHARPSHOOTERS HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO REPEAT THIS AMAZING ACT OF RIFLEMANSHIP (is that even a word? well it is now...)

and the fact that - although unable to prove it can be done, people are still stupid enough to believe it COULD have been done, even if we disregard the WC's "shot timing" based on the Zapruder film.

Case Closed.

One shooter.

I'm going over to Posners for lapdances, beer and I'm taking my clip on Moustache.

How could we all have been so wrong all these years.

Mr. Purvis,

Your posts towards "logic" seem well intentioned provided that we all suspend disbelief and assume that a number of things DIDN'T happen that day that are fairly well documented as having happened, and quite independently of the Warren Omission bunk.

My suggestion is to do what some of the other researchers have done, and take an opposite point of view and look at it from there and by that I mean, use your analysis skills to provide another scenario and use multiple possibilities rather than getting dogmatic about one in particular.

I am not in anyway questioning your expertise with crappy old rifles either, i just think that you should explore other scenarios using the rather vast wealth of information available to you through this board, it's member and other sites around the internet, not discounting the Lone Nut Warren Omission Apologist sites themselves;

I learned quite a lot reading a lot of crap.

It's kinda like watching a magician use diversion:

It shows you where the real action is.

I might add that your

"NOPE! But then again, I have never duplicated SUPERMAN's "ALLEGED" flying capability either.

Although there can be little doubt that many here, as well as elsewhere, would like nothing better than for me to go take a "leap" off a tall building"

comment makes your internal "logic" and the representation thereof somewhat suspect.

It is as if to say " well, my dog is a great swimmer but my cat is better with the rifle but Superman wears red tights so people disagree with me."

I don't understand what superman (a comic book character ) and "logic" have to do with each other?

By comparing an apple to an orange, you make your entire argument seem almost pointless.

Could you please elaborate on that statement and what you meant by it and how superman in any way relates to the case?

Cheers

Dobson.

Edited June 2, 2006 by Blair Dobson

[Blair Dobson]

A quick point, I have always thought that Connally was shot from the rooftop of the TSBD to get his him and his Hat out of the way for the front shot.

I could have all his wounds mistaken of course..

Just a thought.

Cheers

Dobson

[Mark Knight]

Now, let me see if I'm following the program here...

According to Tom Purvis, the first shot occurred before the WC said it did; the second shot coincided with Z-frames 312/313; and there was a third shot AFTER that.

OK, perhaps I can buy that...and perhaps all 3 shots came from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and all 3 shots were fired from a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano.

Where the LN/LHO story falls apart is the negative result in the test for nitrates on Oswald's cheek, IMHO.

So even if there were only 3 shots, and they were all fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and they were all fired from a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano...the evidence linking Oswald to the shooting itself is lacking. The palmprint on the underside of the barrel was protected by the wood stock of the rifle, so there is no physical evidence that Oswald handled that gun on that day, and CERTAINLY no evidence that he fired the gun ONCE, much less three times. No LHO fingerprints on the exposed portions of the rifle, no LHO fingerprints on the cartridges recovered, and no LHO fingerprints on the clip that either was or was NOT found with/in/near the rifle...and no evidence that LHO used gloves on that day.

Has that about covered it?

[Brendan Slattery]

To answer your question, the DP shooter was not on his game that day. After all, it took him three tries to hit his target at close range--with a scope no less. Regrettably, he succeeded.

[Brendan Slattery]

So even if there were only 3 shots, and they were all fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and they were all fired from a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano...the evidence linking Oswald to the shooting itself is lacking. The palmprint on the underside of the barrel was protected by the wood stock of the rifle, so there is no physical evidence that Oswald handled that gun on that day, and CERTAINLY no evidence that he fired the gun ONCE, much less three times. No LHO fingerprints on the exposed portions of the rifle, no LHO fingerprints on the cartridges recovered, and no LHO fingerprints on the clip that either was or was NOT found with/in/near the rifle...and no evidence that LHO used gloves on that day.

Has that about covered it?

Dear Lord. If you worked in law enforcement, no suspicious person would ever be brought in for questioning. Even if they were, they'd be quickly released. "Sure there's a mountain of physical, forensic, ballistic, and circumstantial evidence, but since nobody saw you pull the trigger, you're off the hook!" Lovely.

Btw, where are the curtain rods? You know, his ALIBI.

Edited June 2, 2006 by Brendan Slattery

[John Dolva]

Why would you need an alibi if you planned to leave your traceable gun behind and be prepared to shoot a copper and then go to the movies? ('that was no gun , your honor, that was my curtain rods') 0 to lunatic in 5.6 seconds

Edited June 2, 2006 by John Dolva

[Mark Knight]

Mr. Slattery, I've done my homework, and I've seen your posts on other forums. [Thanks, Google.] I had therefore assumed that, as long as I steered clear of mentioning the Bush family, you might keep me out of your sights; I was mistaken.

I believe there were more than ample grounds to bring Oswald in for questioning. I believe that there was sufficient grounds to charge him with the Tippit shooting, although I'd have left it up to a jury as to whether to convict. But in the case of the shooting of the President, what evidence IS irrefutable is not enough to convict. I consider the "evidence" linking Oswald to a particular rifle purchased from Klein's Sporting Goods to be what it appears, a possible fabrication...based upon the grossly out-of sequence money order produced by postal inspector Harry Hines, along with other questionable material Hines provided regarding the Dallas post office box ["we no longer have the record...but the FBI says other information that might tend to exhonerate Oswald differs from what's on the record...which we no longer have."]

The test for nitrates cannot prove a positive, but police departments in 1963 used it to DISPROVE a NEGATIVE. If traces of nitrates DON'T show up on Oswald's cheek, then he didn't fire a rifle. The test was negative for nitrates on Osawld's cheek. The test on his hands, however, was positive; therefore, it's entirely likely--especially in light of the fact that he was carring a pistol when apprehended--that Oswald fired that pistol that day. The test will NOT prove with certainty that Oswald DID fire a pistol, as other sources can also result in a positive test for nitrates. But the ABSENCE of nitrates on Oswald's cheek almost certainly indicate that he didn't fire a rifle that day.

If not Oswald, then WHO might have fired that rifle from the 6th floor of the TSBD? We may never know, because nobody was asking that question in 1963. In fact, the Mannlicher-Carcano was NOT tested to see if there was any fouling in the barrel, which would indicate that it had been fired since its last cleaning. Obviously, nobody had time to clean the rifle AFTER the assassination; yet the gun was never tested to see whether it had been fired since its last cleaning. Had the rifle been tested, and had it been determined that it had NOT been fired since its last cleaning, that would indicate that the rifle was a "plant."

The only bullet involved in the assassination that was linked to the Mannlicher-Carcano is CE399; and the chain of evidence supporting that bullet as evidence is weak. Other bullet fragments recovered were called "similar" in composition, but they could not POSITIVELY be identified as having come from CE 139, to the exclusion of ALL other rifles.

So, based upon the EVIDENCE--which is the standard used to convict--there is more chance that Oswald shot Tippit [at least once, with a nonjacketed lead bullet] than there is that he fired three times at the President. The preponderance of the evidence is that Oswald probably DID shoot Tippit, but it's simply not clear beyond a reasonable doubt, BASED STRICTLY UPON THE EVIDENCE, that Oswald fired even ONE shot at the President. The WC used a lot of "coulda-woulda-shoulda" to explain how Oswald COULD HAVE run down the stairs and have been standing in front of the vending machine when Officer Baker encountered him there, but they didn't establish that it actually DID happen that way. On the other hand, the HSCA has established that there COULDA been a 4th shot, based upon Dictabelt recordings from DPD Channel 1; but if there actually WAS a 4th shot within the specified time frame, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for all 4 to have come from the TSBD and the M-C rifle...which then would prove a second shooter, and a possible conspiracy...but that would eliminate the "Oswald-as-a-lone-nut" scenario, which then calls Oswald's participation itself back into question.

Funny how the WC itself used a LOT of "woulda-coulda-shoulda" to make THEIR case, but any conflicting scenario that employs the same techinques is written off by WC defenders as "wild speculation." Double standards simply are what they are.

[Brendan Slattery]

Why would you need an alibi if you planned to leave your traceable gun behind and be prepared to shoot a copper and then go to the movies? ('that was no gun , your honor, that was my curtain rods') 0 to lunatic in 5.6 seconds

Um, you'd need an alibi for why you just threw a long paper package into your friend's back seat, and why you wanted him to take you home on Thurs evening instead of the normal Friday. Jeesh.

[Brendan Slattery]

Mr. Slattery, I've done my homework, and I've seen your posts on other forums. [Thanks, Google.] I had therefore assumed that, as long as I steered clear of mentioning the Bush family, you might keep me out of your sights; I was mistaken.

I believe there were more than ample grounds to bring Oswald in for questioning. I believe that there was sufficient grounds to charge him with the Tippit shooting, although I'd have left it up to a jury as to whether to convict. But in the case of the shooting of the President, what evidence IS irrefutable is not enough to convict. I consider the "evidence" linking Oswald to a particular rifle purchased from Klein's Sporting Goods to be what it appears, a possible fabrication...based upon the grossly out-of sequence money order produced by postal inspector Harry Hines, along with other questionable material Hines provided regarding the Dallas post office box ["we no longer have the record...but the FBI says other information that might tend to exhonerate Oswald differs from what's on the record...which we no longer have."]

The test for nitrates cannot prove a positive, but police departments in 1963 used it to DISPROVE a NEGATIVE. If traces of nitrates DON'T show up on Oswald's cheek, then he didn't fire a rifle. The test was negative for nitrates on Osawld's cheek. The test on his hands, however, was positive; therefore, it's entirely likely--especially in light of the fact that he was carring a pistol when apprehended--that Oswald fired that pistol that day. The test will NOT prove with certainty that Oswald DID fire a pistol, as other sources can also result in a positive test for nitrates. But the ABSENCE of nitrates on Oswald's cheek almost certainly indicate that he didn't fire a rifle that day.

If not Oswald, then WHO might have fired that rifle from the 6th floor of the TSBD? We may never know, because nobody was asking that question in 1963. In fact, the Mannlicher-Carcano was NOT tested to see if there was any fouling in the barrel, which would indicate that it had been fired since its last cleaning. Obviously, nobody had time to clean the rifle AFTER the assassination; yet the gun was never tested to see whether it had been fired since its last cleaning. Had the rifle been tested, and had it been determined that it had NOT been fired since its last cleaning, that would indicate that the rifle was a "plant."

The only bullet involved in the assassination that was linked to the Mannlicher-Carcano is CE399; and the chain of evidence supporting that bullet as evidence is weak. Other bullet fragments recovered were called "similar" in composition, but they could not POSITIVELY be identified as having come from CE 139, to the exclusion of ALL other rifles.

So, based upon the EVIDENCE--which is the standard used to convict--there is more chance that Oswald shot Tippit [at least once, with a nonjacketed lead bullet] than there is that he fired three times at the President. The preponderance of the evidence is that Oswald probably DID shoot Tippit, but it's simply not clear beyond a reasonable doubt, BASED STRICTLY UPON THE EVIDENCE, that Oswald fired even ONE shot at the President. The WC used a lot of "coulda-woulda-shoulda" to explain how Oswald COULD HAVE run down the stairs and have been standing in front of the vending machine when Officer Baker encountered him there, but they didn't establish that it actually DID happen that way. On the other hand, the HSCA has established that there COULDA been a 4th shot, based upon Dictabelt recordings from DPD Channel 1; but if there actually WAS a 4th shot within the specified time frame, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for all 4 to have come from the TSBD and the M-C rifle...which then would prove a second shooter, and a possible conspiracy...but that would eliminate the "Oswald-as-a-lone-nut" scenario, which then calls Oswald's participation itself back into question.

Funny how the WC itself used a LOT of "woulda-coulda-shoulda" to make THEIR case, but any conflicting scenario that employs the same techinques is written off by WC defenders as "wild speculation." Double standards simply are what they are.

Googling my name and doing a little oppo research, huh? The paranoia in this place is positively Nixonian.

What I know about parrifin tests you could stick on the head of a pin, so I decided to enter "false negative" and "parrafin" into a search engine. Very little surfaced, save for this very informative page from Dr. McAdams:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

False negatives impossible? Parrifin tests infallible? Bullxxxx. They're about as reliable as a lie detector test.

"But McAdams is a lone nut guy!"

So what? He consulted knowledgable, accredited experts, so I suggest you dig up some of your own. I hate it when uninformed buffs try to play Johnny Scientist.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I hate it when uninformed buffs try to play Johnny Scientist.

From what I've seen, it would be hard to find anyone on this forum who is more uninformed than Mr. Slattery. I have no idea what he thinks he is doing here.

Edited June 3, 2006 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Mark Knight]

On another thread, James Richards wrote:

There is a very suspect public relations company in California who seems mixed up in all of this so make no mistake, people still care about distorting the truth some 43 years later.

Hmmmmm...and Mr. Slattery claims to be in the public relations business as well. Can't say as I'm pleased to make your acquaintance, Mr. Slattery. Pretty slim bio on this site, as well...evidently you never existed before you went into the PR business, if your bio is any indication.

The only reason I researched Mr. Slattery was due to the comments of another poster on this forum who had evidently encountered Mr. Slattery himself on another unrelated forum. Rather than relying on heresay, I thought it best to see the evidence for myself. If that makes me paranoid, then the definition of paranoia has changed a great deal since I last checked.

I checked your McAdams link...and it's essentially a regurgitation of the WC Report's visit to their version of Fantasy Island. Got any others...sources who have NO connection to EITHER side of the LN/CT debate? THOSE are the sources that I'd consider impartial; others have an axe to grind one direction or the other, and are therefore of limited value.

Mr Carroll wrote:

From what I've seen, it would be hard to find anyone on this forum who is more uninformed than Mr. Slattery. I have no idea what he thinks he is doing here.

Mr. Carroll, I'm not qualified to determine just how informed or uninformed Mr. Slattery is; but I believe he thinks he's saving the world on this forum...and I believe he's wrong as well.

[Mark Stapleton]

Also, how would you rate their performance?

Sadly for history, democracy and the USA, their performance was good enough to kill JFK. Had they all missed [there were, I believe, more shooters than fired - if needed] we might have had an investigation as to who was behind it and cleaned up the rats nest that now rules the empire.

Peter,

That they succeeded is self-evident. What I wonder about are the things that probably will never be known:

1. Assuming that the plan was to kill JFK in the first volley, who got their tail kicked? I speculate about five shots--but I don't want to debate that. Did the conspirators rate the shooters' performance as outstanding or just adequate? How confident of success were the conspirators prior to the killing? Many feel that given the outcome, they must have been supremely confident. I doubt that, given the fact that there were so many things that could have gone wrong on the day.

2. Had the head shot missed, how many more shots were going to be made? There must have been a limit to how many shots would be fired before someone aborted the assassination attempt. Had JFK escaped from Dallas alive but injured, what would have been the reaction of the panic-stricken conspirators? If the shooters, for whatever reason, had been as competent as, say, the DPD and JFK had weaved a miraculous passage through a prolonged volley of fire, who would the conspirators have placed the blame on? Would a machine gun have been planted in LHO's possession or would an alternative group of patsies been posthumously condemned?

All this is just idle musing, of course, but they are questions that perplex me.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Now, let me see if I'm following the program here...

According to Tom Purvis, the first shot occurred before the WC said it did; the second shot coincided with Z-frames 312/313; and there was a third shot AFTER that.

OK, perhaps I can buy that...and perhaps all 3 shots came from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and all 3 shots were fired from a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano.

Where the LN/LHO story falls apart is the negative result in the test for nitrates on Oswald's cheek, IMHO.

So even if there were only 3 shots, and they were all fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and they were all fired from a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano...the evidence linking Oswald to the shooting itself is lacking. The palmprint on the underside of the barrel was protected by the wood stock of the rifle, so there is no physical evidence that Oswald handled that gun on that day, and CERTAINLY no evidence that he fired the gun ONCE, much less three times. No LHO fingerprints on the exposed portions of the rifle, no LHO fingerprints on the cartridges recovered, and no LHO fingerprints on the clip that either was or was NOT found with/in/near the rifle...and no evidence that LHO used gloves on that day.

Has that about covered it?

Actually:

According to Tom Purvis, the first shot occurred before the WC said it did

The WC stated that an accurate determination as to when the first shot was fired, could not be determined.

However, they obviously had to admit that JFK was reacting to a shot when he came out from behind the sign, and with their HIGHLY PHONY assassination re-enactment, they determined that the first shot PROBABLY could not have been fired until after Z-210.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...eport_0061b.htm

(And, at this point, it would be beneficial to bring out the point that the WC was somewhat negligent, in that they did not bother to provide us with Z-Frames 208/209/210/& 211 in their printing of frames of the film.)

Now:

1. In event one will "do the math", they will find that based on the distance from the sixth floor window of the TSDB, to the position of Mr. Zapruder, divided by the standard speed of sound, and thus multiplied by the frame exposure rate of the Z-film, that approximately 5-frames of the Z-film would elapse between the point of time in which a shot was fired from the TSDB position, until the sound of that shot would reach the Zapruder position.

This is of course the "highly controversial" JIGGLE ANALYSIS of the Z-film.

And, if one takes a look at the headshot at Z-312/313, and then follows frames of the film thereafter, they will find a relatively distinctive 3-frame blurring of the film beginning at Z-318 and continueing through Z-319 and Z-320.

Now, if one will review the now available Z-film, they will find a similar 3-frame blurring of the film which begins at Z-208 and continues through Z-208 and Z-210.*

*Thanks to the efforts of Mr. Thompson ("SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS") this was known and done many years prior to these frames of the film being available to the internet researcher.

Additionally, if one will back up in review of the Z-film and thereafter look at the outline of the two motorcycle policemen helments in the background to the left of the Presidential Limo, then they can follow the progression of the "V" shaped outline which the direct front center of their helmets makes.

In following this, one can see that at/by Z-209/210, both of these motorcycle policemen have turned their heads to look directly towards JFK.

Then, there is the "crescent/half-moon" outline of the pillbox hat worn by Jackie Kennedy, which will also demonstrate that by Z-210, that she was facing and looking directly into the direction of JFK.

Therefore, were one to accept that the "Jiggle Analysis" has some basis in fact, then, in subtracting 5 frames of elapsed time/frames from the jiggle/blur which begins at/around Z-209, then one would derive a "FIRED" z-frame of approximately Z-204.

And, if one were to assume that there would be at least some short delay in reaction time for the motorcycle policemen, in which JFK reacted and they then diverted their gaze at him, then this as well as the outline of Jackie's pillbox hat, would serve to indicate that a shot was fired prior to Z-209/210.

2. The US Secret Service, in their re-enactment and survey work during the first week of December 1963, established the point of impact for the first shot fired.

And, although they did not assign a Z-frame number to it, when one has in their possession copies of this survey plat and the survey notes, as well as the later WC survey plat and survey notes, then one can accurately assign a Z-frame number to the "X" for the first shot, as determined by the US Secret Service.

This location plats at/approximately, the position of JFK at what is now absolutely definable as Z-208 to Z-210.

Since I have previously posted that portion of the US Secret Service Survey Plat of December 5, 1963, which demonstrates the position of the "#1" shot as determined by the US Secret Service, I will not waste time again provided what has done previously.

3. In addition to the US Secret Service survey work & Survey Plat (which was not known to exist), I also provided portions of the Survey Plat of November 25, 1963, as produced by Mr. Robert West for Time/Life, and which not unlike the SS Survey Plat, did not appear to be known to exist.

This work platted an impact point for the first shot fired, which, without the survey notes of Mr. West, as well as the later and considerably more accurate and complete survey plats of the US Secret Service as well as the WC Survey plat, could not be positioned in relationship to a "Z-frame" number assignment.

However, when all of this information is available to a "single source", then, it can be determined that Time/Life Magazine, though some yet to be discovered means, platted the point of JFK at the time that the first shot was fired, as being at approximately Z-204/205.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, personally, I would not believe anything which "Tom" had to say, unless of course he had the evidence with which to support the statement, and or it could be independently verified through separate, independent, and factual research, or both.

Just as I certainly would not believe anything which the WC had to say without having followed the same research protocol.

Tom