You seem to have difficulty understanding the physical impact of an oblique strike on the radius. You continue to talk about a "tremendous impact" but you have made no attempt to quantify it. I have. I have given you a reasoned estimate of the momentum transfer to the wrist at 2 N. sec. or about the force of a 2 kg weight applied for a tenth of a second. You, on the other hand, insist that the bullet made a left-hand turn by striking the back of the radius on the distal side but have never offered an explanation that explains the physics of that miraculous turn. I am not sure what you think happened to CE399 because you seem to offer no explanation for the near pristine condition of that bullet.
Dealing with your comment, I am not sure what you mean by saying the bullet "exploded" out of his chest. The bullet does not appear to have fragmented in his chest, judging by the apertures made in his jacket. It is evident that the holes in the jacket pocket and on the jacket and shirt cuff are all in the same location and pressed together at z271. His wrist is pressed against his chest and made similar holes in the jacket pocket and jacket cuff.
However, it made a much longer and very jagged aperture in the middle of and across the width of the back side of his shirt french cuff. It made no hole in the palm side. The large jagged hole in the french cuff is consistent with the entry of the bullet, the bullet striking the radius followed by the exit of fragments. This would have caused a force in the direction away from the chest but there was a counter-force of his arm pressing into the chest.
It is not over if the third and last shot was z313. If that is the case, you would have to agree that there must have been a shot around z271 because of the last two shots being closer together. So this is not, fundamentally, a disagreement so much about whether there was a shot around z271. It is about whether there was a shot after the headshot.
I thought you were adopting Jerry's assertion that Hickey could not see JFK's head at all.
Hickey could certainly see the top of JFK's head and it is apparent from the zfilm that the hair on the right side flies up at z273-276. What would block that view? It is rather obvious that Hickey's eyes were several feet above the level of JFK's head. The QM was higher than the president's car and JFK was seated while Hickey was standing.
You seem not to have understood my point, which was that you agree that Hickey is stating that he heard a shot just before the head shot - ie. he heard two shots. You just don't think he is reliable. If you didn't agree, you would not be making the point that he is unreliable.
I am puzzled why you think he would report on something that did not happen.
You are, unfortunately, descending into ad hominem argument. It makes your points look desperate when you do that because ad hominems are usually a last resort.
When I say it takes courage to change firmly held beliefs in the face of evidence that refutes those beliefs, that wasn't anything to do with an ad hominem argument. It's the truth. But it doesn't matter.
On your downward spiral you've resorted to various strategies - convenient "misremembering", twisting the meaning of things and general misrepresentation, but now it appears you are resorting to flat-out lying which is something I can't really compete with.
Your desperation is a reflection of the hole you've dug for yourself. It's clear any hope of a reasonable debate is, like your doomed model, over.
So...your final 'Big Point'. Your first witness, Hickey, reports things that do not happen - JFK does not sit up erect before the headshot and he doesn't fall forward after the headshot, quite the opposite. It's clear Hickey is unreliable for this reason. But now we really scrape the bottom of the barrel - William Greer:
5. why the zfilm shows Greer turning rearward around z279-z280 if nothing had just happened. And perhaps you could explain why Greer said he turned immediately after the second shot if it was unequivocally not the case.
The first thing to note about Greer's testimony is how little he seems to remember. Below is a quite startling list of simple questions he cannot answer. It provides a good idea how unreliable he is as a witness and how poor he is at the fundamental function of a witness - observing:
Mr. SPECTER. Now, you have described motorcycles. How many were present with the President's automobile, if any?
Mr. GREER. I could not toll the exact amount of motorcycles that were escorting us at that time.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, do you know how many cars back your car was in the motorcade?
Mr. GREER. No; I don't know how many police cars were ahead of us
Mr. SPECTER. And as you turned onto Elm Street, how far, to the best of your ability to estimate, was your automobile from the overpass which you have just described?
Mr. GREER. I wouldn't have a distance recollection at all on how far it was. It wasn't too far. I just could not give you the distance.
Mr. SPECTER. As you turned onto Elm, did you have any opportunity to observe how far behind you the President's follow-up car was?
Mr. GREER. No, sir. I was not looking in my mirror; I could not say how far it was behind me at the time.
Mr. SPECTER. How many lanes of travel were there on Elm Street?
Mr. GREER. It was either three or four lanes wide. I have forgotten.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you hear anyone in the car say anything from the time of the first shot until the time of the third shot?
Mr. GREER. Not to the best of my recollection, I don't remember.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any bullets strike any portion of the car or ricochet in any way during the course of the shooting?
Mr. GREER. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate of the distance between the point where the assassination occurred and Parkland Hospital?
Mr. GREER. No, sir; I haven't. It seemed like endless miles and probably wasn't very far, but it seemed like to me it was endless getting there. I was-
Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to give us an estimate with reasonable accuracy on the time it took?
Mr. GREER. No, sir.But there is something beyond this general lack of awareness that makes Greer seem particularly unreliable - the things he says he remembers are clearly wrong.
That's right, the few things Greer claims he remembers clearly are completely incorrect.
The main example concerns what Greer was focussed on just before the shots rang out. He is specifically asked to cast his mind back to what was on his mind at that moment and Greer is absolutely clear on the issue:
"Mr. SPECTER. After turning off Main onto Houston, did you have any opportunity to take a look at the building which you have since identified as the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. GREER. No, sir. I had not any chance to look much at that building at all. When I made the turn into Elm Street, I was watching the overpass expressway--the overpass, or what was ahead of me. I always look at any--where I go underneath anything, I always watch above, so if there is anyone up there that I can move so that I won't go over the top of anyone, if they are unidentified to me, unless it is a policeman or something like that. We try to avoid going under them."So Greer is clear - he didn't really notice the TSBD because as soon as he turned on to Elm Street he was focussed on the triple overpass.
Why was he so focussed on the overpass? He gives a very specific response - he doesn't want to drive underneath anyone "unless it is a policeman or something like that". This makes perfect sense. He is driving the President and his main focus is the safety of the President. As the driver this must be one of his main concerns and it is a priority to avoid going under anyone where possible. Greer is questioned further on this aspect of his training:
Mr. CRAIG. If you had observed people on the overpass as you proceeded toward it, and they were other than a policeman or policemen or some other law-enforcement agent, what would you have done?
Mr. GREER. Well, I try never to go underneath a bridge if there are people up over it, if there are people who I don't know as law enforcement, I try not to go underneath them. I will probably veer to one side of them at any time. That is a matter of our training, that we try not to go underneath anyone with an open car where anyone could drop something.Mr. CRAIG. Would you ever stop, if necessary if you thought there were people up there that you couldn't veer around?
Mr. GREER. If there was any danger there I would have to either change my way of traveling. I have never had it happen, and never had any reason to, but we try, I try, not to go underneath a group of people standing on any overpass at any time. I try to move over, if the condition permits me to. Sometimes, when the road is too narrow, I couldn't. But that is part of our procedure, I think, to see that no one is on an overpass.
He couldn't be any more specific. As the driver of the President he has been trained to be particularly aware of people on bridges. If he does not recognise them as law enforcement he will do everything in his power to avoid going under them. That is why he is so specific in his testimony - that he was not really aware of the TSBD, or anything else really, because he was so focussed on the overpass and assessing whether there were people on it who were not law enforcement and who he would have to avoid. A very important aspect of his training. Greer is questioned as to how confident he would be identifying whether there was any concern of that nature:
Mr. CRAIG. Do you believe if you had observed people on the overpass at that time you would now remember it?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; I believe I would; yes, sir.Of course he would remember it. His sole focus was on the overpass he knew he would shortly be going under as per his training as driver of the President. So what exactly did he see on the overpass?
"Mr. SPECTER. At that time, did you make a conscious effort to observe what was present, if anything, on that overpass?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir. I was making sure that I could not see anyone that might be standing there, and I didn't see anything that I was afraid of on the overpass.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you see anything at all on the overpass?
Mr. GREER. Not that I can now remember."Again, Greer could hardly be more specific. He was focussing on the overpass and there was nothing on there that caused him the slightest bit of concern. He is asked this question more than once:
Mr. CRAIG. With respect to your vision, was it unobstructed down the roadway, looking at the overpass?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir; there were no obstructions in the road that I could see.
Mr. CRAIG. As I recall your testimony, you were actually observing the overpass to see if there was any person there.
Mr. GREER. People up there at that time I would be doubtful of going underneath.
Mr. CRAIG. Yes, sir. And you say now you do not recollect that you saw anyone there?
Mr. GREER. Yes, sir.So Greer's testimony is perfectly clear - as soon as the limo turns onto Elm he is focussed on the overpass, it's a vital part of his training. He is so focussed on it that he doesn't really recall much else. Fortunately he observes that there is no-one on the overpass and, therefore, no threat to the safety of the President.
Fortunately we have photographic evidence of what Greer would have seen:
D'OH!!There could hardly be any more people on the overpass.
I count at least ten!!
Greer is driving under 10 people on the overpass!!
This alone completely undermines Greer's credentials as a witness but there is more and things start to take on s slightly sinister twist. When asked about the speed he was driving at moment of the assassination Greer has a clear recollection (oh dear, this can't be good):
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate of the speed of the car at the time of the first, second, or third shots?
Mr. GREER. I would estimate my speed was between 12 and 15 miles per hour.
Mr. SPECTER. At the time all of the shots occurred?
Mr. GREER. At the time the shots occurred.Let's not call this an out-and-out lie for the moment, let's just say that his clear recollection is exactly the opposite of the truth. It is now known that Greer actually slammed on the brakes just before the headshot at z313, and it was only after the headshot that he hit the gas. Maybe he's lying because he felt he'd made a mistake that basically made the President a sitting duck for the fatal headshot.
But there is an indication something more sinister might be at play.
In his testimony, Roy Kellerman states the following:
"...There was enough for me to verify that the man [JFK] was hit. So, in the same motion I come right back and grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, "Let's get out of here; we are hit," and grabbed the mike and I said, "Lawson, this is Kellerman,"--this is Lawson, who is in the front car. "We are hit; get us to the hospital immediately." Now, in the seconds that I talked just now, a flurry of shells come into the car. I then looked back and this time Mr. Hill, who was riding on the left front bumper of our followup car, was on the back trunk of that car; the President was sideways down into. the back seat."
Kellerman hears the first shot, turns to see JFK clutching his throat, realises he's been shot, quickly turns forward, tells Greer " "Let's get out of here; we are hit," and gets on the in-car communication to tell Lawson to head for the hospital.
Greer also remembers the moment Kellerman calls out:
"And I saw Governor Connally like he was starting to fall. Then I realized there was something wrong. I tramped on the accelerator, and at the same time Mr. Kellerman said to me, "Get out of here fast."So Greer's testimony is that he turns and sees JBC 'starting to fall' (at the same moment Kellerman sees JFK is hit). At the same moment Kellerman shouts "Get out of here fast" Greer has stepped on the gas.
However, when we watch the Z-film this is not what happens. We see both men turning to look in the back and they both turn to face forward. Although we can't actually see it, this must be the moment Kellerman shouts out "Get out of here". In his testimony Greer claimed to have then immediately stepped on the gas. But he doesn't. Instead, he hits the brake and turns around looking directly towards JFK until the President's head explodes and
it is only then he hits the accelerator:
Greer doesn't keep a steady speed through the shooting as he claims, far from it, he hits the brakes and turns to look in the direction of JFK until the headshot, then he hits the gas.
Is he lying? It would appear so. Even though he appears to be looking directly at JFK at the moment of the headshot he insists he does not see the President. However, on further questioning he appears to be caught out lying:
"Mr. SPECTER. And describe or indicate how far you turned your head to the right at that time?
Mr. GREER. Just so that my eyes over, caught the Governor, I could see,
I couldn't see the President. I just could see the Governor. I made a quick glance and back again."
Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to see anything of President Kennedy as you glanced to the rear?
Mr. GREER. No, sir;
I didn't see anything of the President, I didn't look, I wasn't far enough around to see the President.
Greer is adamant he never saw the President hit even though the Z-film shows him looking in that direction at the time of the headshot. Then later on in the same testimony:
Mr. SPECTER. And the first part refers to your noticing that the President evidently had been hit. Did you ever
Mr. GREER. I have no recollection of ever telling the agents that I said that; no, sir. If I said it, I don't remember saying it. The Governor was the person that I knew was--when we were first in trouble, when I see the Governor.
Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your current recollection, did you notice that the President had been hit?
Mr. GREER.
No, sir; I didn't know how badly he was injured or anything other than that. I didn't know.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you know at all, from the glance which you have described that he had been hit or injured in any way?
Mr. GREER.
I knew he was injured in some way, but I didn't know how bad or what.
Mr. SPECTER. How did you know that?
Mr. GREER. If I remember now, I just don't remember how I knew, but I knew we were in trouble. I knew that he was injured, but I can't remember, recollect, just how I knew there were injuries in there. I didn't know who all was hurt, even.
Greer denies seeing the President hit four times before admitting he knew he was injured in some way and when asked how he knew the President was injured he comes up with the quite awesome phrase "If I remember now, I just don't remember how I knew..."
As a witness, Greer has zero credibility. Worse than that, he appears to be lying about events surrounding the assassination.
So much for your 'big points'. The model you cling onto has even less credibility than Greer.
