Jump to content
The Education Forum

Craig Roberts: Kill Zone


Recommended Posts

Chris,

You may want to check out my presentation at the link below.

Thanks Pat

I will check it out ASAP

Chris Brown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If I may veer away for a moment regarding the shot numbers, I have a question for all of the faithful die hards, that are no doubt determined to go to their graves bravely defending the sanctity of the virginity of the Z film.....

When these witnesses along with many others, describe JFK's reaction as "SLUMPING" over, rather than exhibiting a violent head and body snap, do you really feel that they truly all have a problem with "vocabulary"? Do you think that what they are really trying to describe is in fact what "YOU" have seen in the Z film following "at any time" after Z312?

"Slump" and "Snap" are probably considered near opposite reactions by some of us illiterates !

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/Sa-landi.htm

It was at this moment that I heard a second report and it appeared that the President's head split open with a muffled exploding sound. I can best describe the sound as I heard it, as the sound you would get by shooting a high powered bullet into a five gallon can of water or shooting into a melon. I saw pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air and the President slumped out of sight towards Mrs. Kennedy.

The time lapse between the first and second report must have been about four or five seconds.

My immediate thought was that the President could not possibly be alive after being hit like he was. I still was not certain from which direction the second shot came, but my reaction at this time was that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, right-hand side of the road.

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

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brehm.htm

According to BREHM, the President seemed do 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. BREHM stated that he was in military service and he has had experience with bolt-action rifles, and he expressed the opinion that the three shots were fired just about as quickly as an individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots.

BREHM stated he definitely knew the President had been shot and he recalled having seen blood on the President's face. He also stated that it seemed quite apparent to him that the shots came from one of two buildings back at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets.

Immediately after the third shot rang out, BREHM pushed his son down on the grass and for the moment was more concerned with the safety of his son who might be hit accidentally by any wild gunfire which might follow.

BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.

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

Simply amazing as to exactly how many witnesses informed us that the headshot at Z313 was the SECOND SHOT!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm

"A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head."

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, as you know I'm right with you in that the eyewitness testimony is crystal clear to anyone who actually reads it that there was a shot after the head shot. Mike Hogan is incorrect to throw out Hudson's statements based on 1) an FBI report, which in this case amounts to hearsay. (Witness after witness before the commission said they were misquoted in their FBI reports. I believe the vast majority of these FBI mistakes were innocent, e.g. Sibert and O'Neill confusing Kellerman for Greer. Ironically, I believe that the report on Charles Givens was correct, and that the WC deliberately pretended it was incorrect because it was so darned inconvenient.), 2) Hudson's saying 2 minutes... A number of the witnesses said minutes when they meant seconds or demonstrated little grasp of time--that doesn't mean they can't tell which shot hit Kennedy; 3) Hudson's saying Kennedy was hit by the first shot in the FBI report and then later saying the first shot probably missed--the FBI may have twisted his "first shot to hit the President" into "first shot." On the other hand, Hudson may have reconstructed the shooting in his mind after speaking to the FBI, and realized the early sound he heard was indeed a shot. The bottom line is, that Hudson's opinion that the second shot hit Kennedy in the head was shared by Chaney, Brehm and Summers. Holland, Jarman, and John Dolva's favorite post office inspector also made statements indicating the second shot was the head shot Moorman and Hill missed the first shot, but swore there was another shot just after the head shot. . Nellie Connally, Abe Zapruder and Gayle Newman also made statements indicating there could have been a shot after the head shot. And then there's the Secret Service... Roy Kellerman, William Greer, Emory Roberts, Sam Kinney, and George Hickey all made statements indicating that there were two shots fired closely together and that it was difficult to determine which one hit Kennedy in the head. Some of them made these statements, furthermore, AFTER the SS decided on a three shots three hits policy, which would intimidate them from saying for sure that Kennedy was hit by the second shot.

My comments, Tom, about the x-rays, did not pertain to the EOP entrance but to the cowlick entrance. If you read the comments of the radiologists, none of them, outside Russell Morgan, of the Clark Panel charade, identifies an entrance...they notice fractures but no entrance, and they place the source of the fractures all over the skull. I have a slide on this in the Re-examining the X-Rays section of my presentation. There was no entrance in the cowlick. A bullet entering the cowlick at frame 313 would almost certainly blow the crown of Kennedy's skull off and leave a large gutter wound. It would not leave the nice elliptical shape seen on the Back of the head photo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike Hogan is incorrect to throw out Hudson's statements based on 1) an FBI report, which in this case amounts to hearsay. (Witness after witness before the commission said they were misquoted in their FBI reports.

Pat, can you show me where I said Hudson's statements should be thrown out based upon the FBI report? This is what I wrote:

Emmett Hudson's testimony (to the Warren Commission) would have been rendered useless in any court of law. What he told the FBI three days after the assassination differed substantially with his WC testimony eight months later. His testimony was riddled with conflicts and impossibilities.

Those are three separate statements. His testimony would be rendered useless in any court, regardless of the FBI report.

First of all, Liebler's questions were so leading as to never be allowed but over and beyond that, it was the inherent conflicts and impossibilities (two minutes between the first and second shot!) in his testimony that makes his observations subject to question.

Pat, if you are going to put your spin on something I wrote, please be fair enough to quote me.

And Pat, when you say "Witness after witness before the commission said they were misquoted in their FBI reports," can you cite a few examples? More than one or two. Remember, witnesses that told researchers don't count. Did Hudson tell Liebler the FBI misquoted him?

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike Hogan is incorrect to throw out Hudson's statements based on 1) an FBI report, which in this case amounts to hearsay. (Witness after witness before the commission said they were misquoted in their FBI reports.

Pat, can you show me where I said Hudson's statements should be thrown out based upon the FBI report? This is what I wrote:

Emmett Hudson's testimony (to the Warren Commission) would have been rendered useless in any court of law. What he told the FBI three days after the assassination differed substantially with his WC testimony eight months later. His testimony was riddled with conflicts and impossibilities.

Those are three separate statements. His testimony would be rendered useless in any court, regardless of the FBI report.

First of all, Liebler's questions were so leading as to never be allowed but over and beyond that, it was the inherent conflicts and impossibilities (two minutes between the first and second shot!) in his testimony that makes his observations subject to question.

Pat, if you are going to put your spin on something I wrote, please be fair enough to quote me.

And Pat, when you say "Witness after witness before the commission said they were misquoted in their FBI reports," can you cite a few examples? More than one or two. Remember, witnesses that told researchers don't count. Did Hudson tell Liebler the FBI misquoted him?

Mike, as you well know, the Warren Commission was not a court of law. If it had been, the medical evidence would have been examined by experts from both sides. If Warren had then denied the doctors access, there would have been a reversal on appeal. Hudson's statements are not worthless. The credibility of a witness is not determined merely by whether or not he says anything wacky, it's also whether or not what he says is consistent with the bulk of the evidence. Hudson was consistent with the other witnesses. In an actual court of law, the lawyer presenting his testimony would have had him time out the length of the shots, so that any confusion over seconds and minutes could be overcome. If saying wacky things alone was the deciding factor in credibility, the WC would not have accepted the testimony of James Humes, who admitted he had a problem with numbers, and said the bullet entered the back of Kennedy's neck at a 45 degree downward angle while presenting them with a drawing of the supposed trajectory that was but 14 degrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..... Hudson's statements are not worthless. The credibility of a witness is not determined merely by whether or not he says anything wacky, it's also whether or not what he says is consistent with the bulk of the evidence. Hudson was consistent with the other witnesses.

Pat, I never said his statements were worthless. That is exactly why I qualified my statement, referring to a court of law.

I did say his testimony was riddled with conflicts and impossibilities. You have your take and I have mine about Emmett Hudson's testimony. You say his testimony was consistent with the other witnesses. That claim is so vague, attempting to rebut it would be useless. And when you attempt to steer our exchange about Hudson's credibility into something about James Humes....it isn't even relevant.

The point is, I was in an exchange with Thomas Purvis where he recommended I start by reading Mary Poppins, because I posted what I did about Hudson. It's characteristic of him and I fully expected it when I posted what I did. He loves to try and intimidate people that don't agree with him. I really don't care, he doesn't intimidate me. But you entered into that exchange by mischaracterizing what I said, and then when I asked you to explain it, ignored it entirely in your response to me. I asked you to quote me accurately, if you are going claim I am incorrect. No response by you there either. No problem.

I also asked you to elaborate on your statement that "Witness after witness before the commission said they were misquoted in their FBI reports." In your response, you ignored that too. If you wanted a discussion, you could have addressed my questions to you. Instead, you went off on some irrelevant tangent about James Humes in your reply to me, changing the subject as it were.

I'm outta this thread. I was gonna reply to Thomas Purvis, but you made me think better of it. Thanks for that. And each and every time you interrupt my dialogue with someone else in a contentious atmosphere, and attribute something to me that I didn't say, I'm going to call you on it.

Who knows, maybe this thread will get back to Craig Roberts. I wouldn't put any money on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..... Hudson's statements are not worthless. The credibility of a witness is not determined merely by whether or not he says anything wacky, it's also whether or not what he says is consistent with the bulk of the evidence. Hudson was consistent with the other witnesses.

Pat, I never said his statements were worthless. That is exactly why I qualified my statement, referring to a court of law.

I did say his testimony was riddled with conflicts and impossibilities. You have your take and I have mine about Emmett Hudson's testimony. You say his testimony was consistent with the other witnesses. That claim is so vague, attempting to rebut it would be useless. And when you attempt to steer our exchange about Hudson's credibility into something about James Humes....it isn't even relevant.

The point is, I was in an exchange with Thomas Purvis where he recommended I start by reading Mary Poppins, because I posted what I did about Hudson. It's characteristic of him and I fully expected it when I posted what I did. He loves to try and intimidate people that don't agree with him. I really don't care, he doesn't intimidate me. But you entered into that exchange by mischaracterizing what I said, and then when I asked you to explain it, ignored it entirely in your response to me. I asked you to quote me accurately, if you are going claim I am incorrect. No response by you there either. No problem.

I also asked you to elaborate on your statement that "Witness after witness before the commission said they were misquoted in their FBI reports." In your response, you ignored that too. If you wanted a discussion, you could have addressed my questions to you. Instead, you went off on some irrelevant tangent about James Humes in your reply to me, changing the subject as it were.

I'm outta this thread. I was gonna reply to Thomas Purvis, but you made me think better of it. Thanks for that. And each and every time you interrupt my dialogue with someone else in a contentious atmosphere, and attribute something to me that I didn't say, I'm going to call you on it.

Who knows, maybe this thread will get back to Craig Roberts. I wouldn't put any money on it.

The point is, I was in an exchange with Thomas Purvis where he recommended I start by reading Mary Poppins, because I posted what I did about Hudson. It's characteristic of him and I fully expected it when I posted what I did. He loves to try and intimidate people that don't agree with him

For any researcher to selectively quote a small portion of Hudson's testimony and claim that it helps "establish an essential parameter" of the shot sequence.....

Let the reader complete the above sentence.

Personally, I could give a xxxx less as to whether you or anyone else agrees with me.

You have demonstrated that either:

A. You have never bothered to even read the statements and testimonies of the WC in an attempt to reserch the JFK matter.

or

B. You read it and it was too difficult for you to comprehend and/or understand.

If "A" above, then might I recommend that time honored effort called research.

If "B" avove, then might I recommend that you go back and begin learning reading comprehension at the Mary Poppins level.

Actually, you did not even have to go to the WC since I long ago pulled up the great majority of the testimonies which demonstrated that the Z313 headshot was the second shot in the shooting sequence, and that there was a third/last/final shot fired immediately thereafter.

And, although I may have the ability to read and comprehend, this certainly in no way demonstrates abilities which exceeded the US Secret Service or the FBI in Crime Scene Investigation.

Therefore, I long ago posted portions of the survey data which demonstrated exactly where impact of the third shot occurred, as well as referred most back to a WC document which escaped detection and also demonstrated this.

Try some research into the matter. It frequently prevents one from sticking their foot into their mouth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I've been following your various posts on this topic for quite some time...and from what I know of the FACTS, I've been inclined to believe that there is a basis for what you've been hinting at for quite some time. But it was not until post #63 on this thread that I've ever read where you came right out and said what you've only suggested or hinted at previously.

As an observer, I believe this is what has your critics so frustrated with you...for, after a couple of years, you finally came out and said what you've only suggested and hinted at before.

I was also surprised that I agreed with Mr. Healy's post. But all the bickering between Healy, Lamson, Miller et al re: alteration of the Z-film has actually steered me away from that discussion ["argument" might be a better term, although the mental picture of monkeys throwing fecal matter at one another seems a better description]. What their bickering has obscured is the obvious: perhaps the focus on alteration of the Z-film SHOULD be on frames being removed--both to eliminate/obscure the alleged "stop" of the motorcade, and the actual third shot--and not so much on altering the contents of any particular frame of the film.

For the WC myth to become fact, the third shot [and any slowing/stopping of the limo] has to be eliminated from the Z-film.

And for the shots to have been fired from the southeast window of the sixth floor of the TSBD, the shooter had to be firing from a kneeling/crouching/nearly prone position, due to the LACK of distance from the window sill to the floor...based upon the testimony of those who claim to have seen a shooter in the window.

SO...am I beginning to understand, Tom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I've been following your various posts on this topic for quite some time...and from what I know of the FACTS, I've been inclined to believe that there is a basis for what you've been hinting at for quite some time. But it was not until post #63 on this thread that I've ever read where you came right out and said what you've only suggested or hinted at previously.

As an observer, I believe this is what has your critics so frustrated with you...for, after a couple of years, you finally came out and said what you've only suggested and hinted at before.

I was also surprised that I agreed with Mr. Healy's post. But all the bickering between Healy, Lamson, Miller et al re: alteration of the Z-film has actually steered me away from that discussion ["argument" might be a better term, although the mental picture of monkeys throwing fecal matter at one another seems a better description]. What their bickering has obscured is the obvious: perhaps the focus on alteration of the Z-film SHOULD be on frames being removed--both to eliminate/obscure the alleged "stop" of the motorcade, and the actual third shot--and not so much on altering the contents of any particular frame of the film.

For the WC myth to become fact, the third shot [and any slowing/stopping of the limo] has to be eliminated from the Z-film.

And for the shots to have been fired from the southeast window of the sixth floor of the TSBD, the shooter had to be firing from a kneeling/crouching/nearly prone position, due to the LACK of distance from the window sill to the floor...based upon the testimony of those who claim to have seen a shooter in the window.

SO...am I beginning to understand, Tom?

For the WC myth to become fact, the third shot [and any slowing/stopping of the limo] has to be eliminated from the Z-film.

Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear!

SOOOOOOOO!

If the actual shot was made to disappear, exactly what else had to disappear as well?????

Yes Virginia, there is a "Magic Bullet"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I've been following your various posts on this topic for quite some time...and from what I know of the FACTS, I've been inclined to believe that there is a basis for what you've been hinting at for quite some time. But it was not until post #63 on this thread that I've ever read where you came right out and said what you've only suggested or hinted at previously.

As an observer, I believe this is what has your critics so frustrated with you...for, after a couple of years, you finally came out and said what you've only suggested and hinted at before.

I was also surprised that I agreed with Mr. Healy's post. But all the bickering between Healy, Lamson, Miller et al re: alteration of the Z-film has actually steered me away from that discussion ["argument" might be a better term, although the mental picture of monkeys throwing fecal matter at one another seems a better description]. What their bickering has obscured is the obvious: perhaps the focus on alteration of the Z-film SHOULD be on frames being removed--both to eliminate/obscure the alleged "stop" of the motorcade, and the actual third shot--and not so much on altering the contents of any particular frame of the film.

For the WC myth to become fact, the third shot [and any slowing/stopping of the limo] has to be eliminated from the Z-film.

And for the shots to have been fired from the southeast window of the sixth floor of the TSBD, the shooter had to be firing from a kneeling/crouching/nearly prone position, due to the LACK of distance from the window sill to the floor...based upon the testimony of those who claim to have seen a shooter in the window.

SO...am I beginning to understand, Tom?

For the WC myth to become fact, the third shot [and any slowing/stopping of the limo] has to be eliminated from the Z-film.

Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear!

SOOOOOOOO!

If the actual shot was made to disappear, exactly what else had to disappear as well?????

Yes Virginia, there is a "Magic Bullet"

Dr. GREGORY -- Our next natural assumption was that that missile having escaped from the thigh had escaped the confines of this X-ray and lay somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

I was wondering if anyone has shot a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle ?

At one time i owned one and mine was just like Oswald's

I tried to get 3 shots and 2 hits in 5.6 seconds in 13 years i owned the rifle may have did it only 2 or 3 times and that was firing at a standing target.

The rifle is a POS

Also i have owned and shot 7.62 sks/ 2520 /22/30.6/ 3030.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wondering if anyone has shot a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle ?

At one time i owned one and mine was just like Oswald's

I tried to get 3 shots and 2 hits in 5.6 seconds in 13 years i owned the rifle may have did it only 2 or 3 times and that was firing at a standing target.

The rifle is a POS

Also i have owned and shot 7.62 sks/ 2520 /22/30.6/ 3030.

Never blame the pencil for being a poor author.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

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

http://mcadams.posc....imony/brehm.htm

According to BREHM, the President seemed do 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. BREHM stated that he was in military service and he has had experience with bolt-action rifles, and he expressed the opinion that the three shots were fired just about as quickly as an individual can maneuver a bolt-action rifle, take aim, and fire three shots.

BREHM stated he definitely knew the President had been shot and he recalled having seen blood on the President's face. He also stated that it seemed quite apparent to him that the shots came from one of two buildings back at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets.

Immediately after the third shot rang out, BREHM pushed his son down on the grass and for the moment was more concerned with the safety of his son who might be hit accidentally by any wild gunfire which might follow.

BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.

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

....

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

Interesting observation by Brehm (Bolded Blue text above).

Using Brehm's estimate of the Limo traveling 12 feet during a 4.86 second shooting sequence yields 2.47 ft/sec, or 1.68 mph average.

Also using the same 12 feet of travel with an extended 8.36 second shooting sequence yields 1.44 ft/sec, or 0.98 mph average.

Brehm's estimate is stark contrast to Greer's WC Testimony:

Arlen Specter: What is your best estimate of the speed of the car at the time of the first, second, or third shots?

William Greer: I would estimate my speed was between 12 and 15 miles per hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Viewing the extant Z-film, it doesn't seem that Kennedy is hit at 190 or even at 225, when he just emerges from behind the Stemmons sign (real or altered). It looks more like both Kennedys were spooked by a near-miss at 190 (perhaps another behind the sign?) and are reacting at 225, just before the obvious throat wound at 226.

What would we expect the reaction of a seated man shot below the right shoulder to be, taking into account that he is an official on parade, concerned with holding himself erect and being reserved in his reactions? Can we compare the expected reaction to the frames where JFK is visible between 190-225?

Edited by David Andrews
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...