Shooter, Radioman, Spotter

[Steven Tomlinson]

LBJ wanted his enemy Yarborough to sit in that seat in

case of a miss. He did not want his longtime friend

JBC in the line of fire. Connally was worried all morning

after LBJ failed to get Smilin' Ralph in the line of fire.

Jack

Where in God's name do you come up with this stuff? LBJ didn't want his good friend to be in the line of fire, but allowed it anyway ... give me a break! It was reported that JBJ wanted he and Kennedy to ride together on that trip, but JFK felt that it was Connally's state, so the two must ride in the same car. Now if LBJ wanted to ride with the President - it hardly seems that Johnson was thinking about gunfire.

Bill Miller

All a person has to come back with is that it was reported, by organised media or witness (the same type of report yours must be), that a different seat allocation drama actually took place, then you simply have a case of 'papers(pistols) at dawn'.

If the reports came prior to the 21nd then Johnson either didn't know about the assassination and wanted to or give the impression of wanting to ride with JFK, or knew about the assassination all along and just wanted to create a good alibi(?), as long as he knew that Kennedy would sideline Johnson's supposed seating desire. The third and my favourite option (if he ever had prior knowledge), that Johnson found out the night before, but not about the whole thing. As long as HE wasn't sitting next to JFK would be his main concern, with prior reports of seating talk via organised media or witness becoming irrelevant to the central question. His political/judicial problems would go away and he only had a relative few hours to think about it, and become or show nerves/ous(?)

If the report came on or after the 22nd and Johnson knew about the assassination then it becomes more important to know the source of the story as it would be helping to indicate his innocence in the aftermath

The only 2 reasons I have to think reasonable to suspect Johnson are his 'supposed' comment to Madelaine Brown, something like, "Those s.o.b. Kennedys won't laugh at me any more after tomorrow" and reading that he 'supposedly' was ducking down somewhat in his seat before the shooting had even started. His questionable involvement in past activities doesn't help much either. There and after becomes very circumstantial.

Sorry, but I need to bring this back directly to Connally.

If Connally was shot either to get his hat out of the way or as an intended target then Johnson's team or the team/s Johnson knew about (if any) probably weren't there for Connally. Unless Connally's death would have helped him immensely. I've not heard that one...Yet!

ST

[Steven Tomlinson]

Sorry! Just realised I'm off topic. My apologies!

ST

[Blair Dobson]

Bill,

thanks for addressing my question . you were i think the only person who actually took the time to read my original post so thank you for that.

your answer was also concise and pleasant to read so again, thanks...

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO OBVIOUSLY CAN'T READ:

LET ME REPHRASE THE QUESTION:

IF SOMEONE WAS INTENTIONALLY SHOOTING AT HIM NOY "WHY"

WHERE WOULD THIS PERCH HAVE BEEN ASSUMING HE WASN"T HIT WITH A LATERAL SHOT MEANING:

WAS IT FROM THE TOP FLOOR OF THE TSBD?

you guys,

read the damn posts please before prattling off about cubans, LBJ and his cronies, JFK's back brace and Lady Bird's stupid name..

not one of you have answered the question here. what you have done is prattle on and on. then Jack gets on with god knows what and why

i thought i asked a simple question basically about his thigh / wrist wound that might implicate another team/location.

this might perhaps be better suited in another thread.

Wasn't trying to threadjack, just thought itmight have to do with SHOOTER SPOTTER AND RADIOS

Stephen, Jack et al

READ PEOPLES POSTS

NOT WHY HOW!!!!!

jesus....

Dobson

Sorry! Just realised I'm off topic. My apologies!

ST

STEPHEN

READ THE POST THOUROUGHLY BEFORE BABBLING YOUR INNER MONOLOGUE PLEASE!

I told you after two rambling and poorly written posts what i was after, instead of just ignoring your garbage, THEN you decide two days later you're "off topic"

This is why there ARE SUBJECT HEADERS .

It doesn't say "free form association word play " just string together 150 abstract thoughts into a jumbled sentence about nothing.

Not once have any of you read it.

"oh LBJ wanted JFK to have a SMD in the hotel and he said no so ..... I think the media killed JFK"

OMGWTFBBQ

again simple for the kids here:

WHERE THE HELL DOES A WRIST AND THIGH WOUND COME FROM IF IT WASN'T FRAM A LATERAL SHOT:

Stephen, Jack anyone who cannot answer or postulate without going off on a bloddy tangent feel free to NOT post. In other words go post on lancer.

thanks all

Dobson

Edited June 11, 2006 by Blair Dobson

[Guest John Woods]

Bill,

thanks for addressing my question . you were i think the only person who actually took the time to read my original post so thank you for that.

your answer was also concise and pleasant to read so again, thanks...

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO OBVIOUSLY CAN'T READ:

LET ME REPHRASE THE QUESTION:

IF SOMEONE WAS INTENTIONALLY SHOOTING AT HIM NOY "WHY"

WHERE WOULD THIS PERCH HAVE BEEN ASSUMING HE WASN"T HIT WITH A LATERAL SHOT MEANING:

WAS IT FROM THE TOP FLOOR OF THE TSBD?

you guys,

read the damn posts please before prattling off about cubans, LBJ and his cronies, JFK's back brace and Lady Bird's stupid name..

not one of you have answered the question here. what you have done is prattle on and on. then Jack gets on with god knows what and why

i thought i asked a simple question basically about his thigh / wrist wound that might implicate another team/location.

this might perhaps be better suited in another thread.

Wasn't trying to threadjack, just thought itmight have to do with SHOOTER SPOTTER AND RADIOS

Stephen, Jack et al

READ PEOPLES POSTS

NOT WHY HOW!!!!!

jesus....

Dobson

Sorry! Just realised I'm off topic. My apologies!

ST

STEPHEN

READ THE POST THOUROUGHLY BEFORE BABBLING YOUR INNER MONOLOGUE PLEASE!

I told you after two rambling and poorly written posts what i was after, instead of just ignoring your garbage, THEN you decide two days later you're "off topic"

This is why there ARE SUBJECT HEADERS .

It doesn't say "free form association word play " just string together 150 abstract thoughts into a jumbled sentence about nothing.

Not once have any of you read it.

"oh LBJ wanted JFK to have a SMD in the hotel and he said no so ..... I think the media killed JFK"

OMGWTFBBQ

again simple for the kids here:

WHERE THE HELL DOES A WRIST AND THIGH WOUND COME FROM IF IT WASN'T FRAM A LATERAL SHOT:

Stephen, Jack anyone who cannot answer or postulate without going off on a bloddy tangent feel free to NOT post. In other words go post on lancer.

thanks all

Dobson

Given the location and what I have seen posted, I would have to agree of

Itek conclusion that this is a reflection. And yes, I know that Itek was founded

by former intel personal.

john w

[Blair Dobson]

Given the location and what I have seen posted, I would have to agree of

Itek conclusion that this is a reflection. And yes, I know that Itek was founded

by former intel personal.

john w

Well I guess I am short one tinfoil hat.

What the hell does that post mean?

" I would have to agree of

Itek conclusion that this is a reflection."

I'm sorry, I missed the part of the board that said "english usage optional"

Am I missing something here or did a Star Trek convention just let out its bilge into an internet cafe handing out free tinfoil hats and typing lessons?

Jesus.. Lancer must be shut down.

I'm going over to tim gratz place for cuban dance lessons......

Edited June 11, 2006 by Blair Dobson

[Guest John Woods]

Given the location and what I have seen posted, I would have to agree of

Itek conclusion that this is a reflection. And yes, I know that Itek was founded

by former intel personal.

john w

Well I guess I am short one tinfoil hat.

What the hell does that post mean?

" I would have to agree of

Itek conclusion that this is a reflection."

I'm sorry, I missed the part of the board that said "english usage optional"

Am I missing something here or did a Star Trek convention just let out its bilge into an internet cafe handing out free tinfoil hats and typing lessons?

Jesus.. Lancer must be shut down.

I'm going over to tim gratz place for cuban dance lessons......

Thanks for pointing out my mistake on this posting, I deeply appreciate

your comments. Sorry, no I'm not a member of Lancer and I'm sure that

Deb will back me up. Yes and kinda no on the Star Trek comment. I have

enjoy the program but never been to a convention. As to the "tinfoil hats"

I never had one but maybe I should per your comment. I can stand outside

in a lightening storm. LOL My typing has never really been any good and

especially when I had the chainsaw accident. Good luck with the dance lessons:)

Once again thanks for pointing out my flaw. I will try to do better on all

the issues you pointed out to me.

Heck, I appreciate it if you would put in the kind comment at night to the

big guy upstair.

john

[John Dolva]

Tom's got some interesting ideas on that. When Kennedy was shot in the head, Connally was leaning back on Nellie who was back against the door, and side on to Kennedy. Connally was a very tall man, so his legs were...? and his wrist raised as well... Not sure on all the geometry, but there are possibilities here.

EDIT:: I get so used to ignoring the silliness and just seeing the serious stuff as usually worth commenting on so I didn't indicate what my comment was in relation to.

Blair asked ::(pardon the french)WHERE THE HELL DOES A WRIST AND THIGH WOUND COME FROM IF IT WASN'T FRAM A LATERAL SHOT

Edited June 12, 2006 by John Dolva

[Blair Dobson]

Mr Woods,

It's your total lack of literacy, syntax or structure thats in question here.

Then to follow up with a poorly written smartassed reply makes it even more unbelievable.

Everyone makes typos but your hamfisting the keyboard aside, your posts make you look like a buffoon.

A quick review of your other posts show alot of the same thing.

It is for this reason that i will leave this thread alone so you and your other attention defecit, semi literate twaddle fans can prattle on, serving no use except to yourselves.

Have a nice day.

Dobson.

Edited June 12, 2006 by Blair Dobson

[Guest John Woods]

Mr Woods,

It's your total lack of literacy, syntax or structure thats in question here.

Then to follow up with a poorly written smartassed reply makes it even more unbelievable.

Everyone makes typos but your hamfisting the keyboard aside, your posts make you look like a buffoon.

A quick review of your other posts show alot of the same thing.

It is for this reason that i will leave this thread alone so you and your other attention defecit, semi literate twaddle fans can prattle on, serving no use except to yourselves.

Have a nice day.

Dobson.

[/quot

Thanks Dobson!

I appreciate your kindess

john w

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom's got some interesting ideas on that. When Kennedy was shot in the head, Connally was leaning back on Nellie who was back against the door, and side on to Kennedy. Connally was a very tall man, so his legs were...? and his wrist raised as well... Not sure on all the geometry, but there are possibilities here.

[/quote

1. Forget about any relationship between the wrist wound and the chest/thigh wound in some mythological "same trajectory".

This is partially why the WC story does not fit.

2. Wrist Wound:------Fragment from head shot at Z-313 aka Shot#2.

3. Back/chest/thigh wound of JBC created by shot# 3 after having passed through the head of JFK.

EOP through mid-brain, to exit in frontal lobe, downward strike into the back of JBC as he lay crumpled and hunched up across the open area between the jump seats, with his back exposed directly into the line of fire.

4. JBC's back wound was elongated somewhat horizontally, from right to left, whereas on a pure downward strike it should have been elongated vertically. (Just as should the back wound of JFK).

The WC made up their tale of the "wobbling" bullet (CE#399) to account for this, as if the bullet actual struck in some unstable position.

When one takes the torso of JBC and leans it over to the left, towards Nellie, then the left to right elongation of the back wound of JBC, now becomes an elongated "Vertically/Downwards" wound, just as it shoud be.

"wheeled back to the right crumpling his shoulders to his knees in the most helpless & pitiful position a tall big man could be in. I reached over and pulled him to me and tried to get us both down in the car.

Then came a third shot."

Page# 8 of Nellie Connally's handwritten notes.

Nothing complicated about any of this that I am aware of!

Unless of course one is attempting to find mythological "grassy knowl" shooters and have the trajectory match their positions.

[John Dolva]

Tom's got some interesting ideas on that. When Kennedy was shot in the head, Connally was leaning back on Nellie who was back against the door, and side on to Kennedy. Connally was a very tall man, so his legs were...? and his wrist raised as well... Not sure on all the geometry, but there are possibilities here.

[/quote

1. Forget about any relationship between the wrist wound and the chest/thigh wound in some mythological "same trajectory".

This is partially why the WC story does not fit.

2. Wrist Wound:------Fragment from head shot at Z-313 aka Shot#2.

3. Back/chest/thigh wound of JBC created by shot# 3 after having passed through the head of JFK.

EOP through mid-brain, to exit in frontal lobe, downward strike into the back of JBC as he lay crumpled and hunched up across the open area between the jump seats, with his back exposed directly into the line of fire.4. JBC's back wound was elongated somewhat horizontally, from right to left, whereas on a pure downward strike it should have been elongated vertically. (Just as should the back wound of JFK).

The WC made up their tale of the "wobbling" bullet (CE#399) to account for this, as if the bullet actual struck in some unstable position.

When one takes the torso of JBC and leans it over to the left, towards Nellie, then the left to right elongation of the back wound of JBC, now becomes an elongated "Vertically/Downwards" wound, just as it shoud be.

"wheeled back to the right crumpling his shoulders to his knees in the most helpless & pitiful position a tall big man could be in. I reached over and pulled him to me and tried to get us both down in the car.

Then came a third shot."

Page# 8 of Nellie Connally's handwritten notes.

Nothing complicated about any of this that I am aware of!

Unless of course one is attempting to find mythological "grassy knowl" shooters and have the trajectory match their positions.

Which Zapruder film frame number is shot 3? I know youve covered this elsewhere. You really should put it all together into a well illustrated e-book and just provide the links as needed.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom's got some interesting ideas on that. When Kennedy was shot in the head, Connally was leaning back on Nellie who was back against the door, and side on to Kennedy. Connally was a very tall man, so his legs were...? and his wrist raised as well... Not sure on all the geometry, but there are possibilities here.

[/quote

1. Forget about any relationship between the wrist wound and the chest/thigh wound in some mythological "same trajectory".

This is partially why the WC story does not fit.

2. Wrist Wound:------Fragment from head shot at Z-313 aka Shot#2.

3. Back/chest/thigh wound of JBC created by shot# 3 after having passed through the head of JFK.

EOP through mid-brain, to exit in frontal lobe, downward strike into the back of JBC as he lay crumpled and hunched up across the open area between the jump seats, with his back exposed directly into the line of fire.4. JBC's back wound was elongated somewhat horizontally, from right to left, whereas on a pure downward strike it should have been elongated vertically. (Just as should the back wound of JFK).

The WC made up their tale of the "wobbling" bullet (CE#399) to account for this, as if the bullet actual struck in some unstable position.

When one takes the torso of JBC and leans it over to the left, towards Nellie, then the left to right elongation of the back wound of JBC, now becomes an elongated "Vertically/Downwards" wound, just as it shoud be.

"wheeled back to the right crumpling his shoulders to his knees in the most helpless & pitiful position a tall big man could be in. I reached over and pulled him to me and tried to get us both down in the car.

Then came a third shot."

Page# 8 of Nellie Connally's handwritten notes.

Nothing complicated about any of this that I am aware of!

Unless of course one is attempting to find mythological "grassy knowl" shooters and have the trajectory match their positions.

Which Zapruder film frame number is shot 3? I know youve covered this elsewhere. You really should put it all together into a well illustrated e-book and just provide the links as needed.

There is no "Z-frame" which now correlates to the impact of this shot. In order to understand exactly where it went, then one must also understand the secrets of the "Running Man" as well as how the Presidential Limousine appears to be travelling at an average of 11mph when in fact, it almost came to a stop after the second shot at Z-312/313.

Nevertheless, the location was provided in the SS Survey Plat of December 5, 1963, as well as with that information relative to the exact position of James Altgens in relationship to the third yellow mark on the curb of Elm St., and his testimony in regards to having observed the impact of this, the third/last/final shot to the head of JFK.

[John Dolva]

This is a last attempt by me to have a serious discussion about the limo stopping. It almost stopped, and very quickly at that. The zfilm properly understood reveals the lens flowing across the scene and continually shifting perspectives. The images we see are blurs in timeto use any frame as basis for measurement s for any other frame will have a growing error margin. There is a continuity that reveals the instant of the bullet striking the head and the moment just before when the brakes were applied. Its an illusion created by freezing a fluxing reality on to a static 2dscreen.

[Bill Miller]

2. Wrist Wound:------Fragment from head shot at Z-313 aka Shot#2.

A fragment from the head shot to JFK could not have caused the wrist wound to JC because of the position of Connally's coat sleeve at that moment. The missile passed through Connally's coat sleeve ... look at Z312 and note where the Jacket sleeve is compared to the actual wrist of Connally.

Bill Miller

[John Simkin]

Mr Woods,

It's your total lack of literacy, syntax or structure thats in question here.

Then to follow up with a poorly written smartassed reply makes it even more unbelievable.

Everyone makes typos but your hamfisting the keyboard aside, your posts make you look like a buffoon.

A quick review of your other posts show alot of the same thing.

It is for this reason that i will leave this thread alone so you and your other attention defecit, semi literate twaddle fans can prattle on, serving no use except to yourselves.

I'm sorry, I missed the part of the board that said "english usage optional"

Am I missing something here or did a Star Trek convention just let out its bilge into an internet cafe handing out free tinfoil hats and typing lessons?

Jesus.. Lancer must be shut down.

I'm going over to tim gratz place for cuban dance lessons......

I think we will achieve a great deal more if we avoid unpleasant attacks on other members. I also think it is ironical that someone makes basic grammatical mistakes in his own attack on the grammar of others:

"thats" "that is"

"i will" "I will"

"english usage optional" "English usage optional"

"I'm going over to tim gratz place for cuban dance lessons" "I'm going over to Tim Gratz's place for Cuban dance lessons."

As this forum is read by students I am very keen that the posts are grammatically accurate. That includes the correct use of capital letters. However, most observers will conclude that if a member concentrates on the grammatical mistakes of another member, this is in itself a recognition that you might be short of logical arguments concerning the content of the posting you are addressing.