Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory  (Read 16413 times)

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 987
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2022, 06:17:43 PM »
Advertisement
Where do you get the idea that I believe there were only two shots?

JBC was hit by a separate bullet, quite possibly by two bullets (one to the back and the other to his wrist).

Two bullets struck JFK's head, one from behind (slightly above the EOP) and one from the front (in the right temple). This is why there is a cloud of tiny fragments in the right frontal region on the lateral autopsy skull x-ray. This is why the autopsy doctors saw two fragment trails in the skull, one that started at the EOP and went upward to the right orbit, and one that started in the right frontal region and went upward toward the back of the head--and why they had to ignore one of those two fragment trails to maintain the fiction of a single shot to the head from behind. They chose to ignore the high fragment trail. However, the plotters decided that the high fragment trail was less problematic than the low one, so the low one--the one described in the autopsy report but not seen on the skull x-rays--was made to disappear.

Due to the positioning of the two men in the car, the wound in JBC's back can only be explained if the bullet first passes through JFK. This four- shot scenario now leaves two shots, instead of just one, that strike no one. The Zapruder film leaves no doubt as to how many bullets struck JFK's head.

Greer and Kellerman are two shot witnesses.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #16 on: December 27, 2022, 06:17:43 PM »


Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #17 on: December 28, 2022, 02:12:11 PM »
Another interesting fact worth noting about the absence of missing fabric from the slits in the front of JFK's shirt: every undisputed, acknowledged clothing hole made by bullets during the assassination had fabric missing from it. The rear holes in JFK's coat and shirt have fabric missing from them. The holes in the front and back of Connally's coat and shirt all have fabric missing from them. Gee, how about that?! That's because when bullets rip through clothing, they invariably remove some fabric. Yet, no fabric is missing from the shirt slits. Why? Because they were not made by a bullet.

This explains why no metallic traces were found on the slits, why the slits are so irregular in shape, why one of the slits extends partly into the neckband but the other does not, and why the FBI lab initially declined to attribute the slits to a bullet but said they could have been made by a fragment.

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 987
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #18 on: December 28, 2022, 02:42:56 PM »
Another interesting fact worth noting about the absence of missing fabric from the slits in the front of JFK's shirt: every undisputed, acknowledged clothing hole made by bullets during the assassination had fabric missing from it. The rear holes in JFK's coat and shirt have fabric missing from them. The holes in the front and back of Connally's coat and shirt all have fabric missing from them. Gee, how about that?! That's because when bullets rip through clothing, they invariably remove some fabric. Yet, no fabric is missing from the shirt slits. Why? Because they were not made by a bullet.

This explains why no metallic traces were found on the slits, why the slits are so irregular in shape, why one of the slits extends partly into the neckband but the other does not, and why the FBI lab initially declined to attribute the slits to a bullet but said they could have been made by a fragment.

Based on your belief that there were only two shots fired from the sniper's nest, it is known that one bullet caused all the damage on its path through the JFK and JBC, so what is your explanation for this phenomenon.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #18 on: December 28, 2022, 02:42:56 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #19 on: December 29, 2022, 04:20:01 AM »
Due to the positioning of the two men in the car, the wound in JBC's back can only be explained if the bullet first passes through JFK.

 BS:

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #20 on: December 29, 2022, 01:11:30 PM »
Due to the positioning of the two men in the car, the wound in JBC's back can only be explained if the bullet first passes through JFK.

That's just silly. You folks are like the fawning subjects in the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. The amount of evidence you are ignoring in making this claim is incredible and embarrassing.

Let's just try to get you to explain two things, okay?

One: The Z186 shot, identified by the HSCA experts, causes JFK's cheeks to puff, causes him to freeze his waving motion in mid-wave, causes Jackie to suddenly turn to look at JFK, and causes JFK to start reaching for his throat--all before he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207. Anyone with a functioning brain and functioning eyes can see these reactions. (Clearly, this was the throat shot, which is why JFK starts to reach for his throat, but never mind this for now.)

By the way, and I forget to mention this earlier, the first Secret Service analysis of the photographic evidence, mainly the Zapruder film, concluded that JFK was hit before Z200.

Now, how could the Z186 shot have anything to do with Connally's dramatic reactions that start 50 frames later, in Z236, especially the rapid and visible dropping of his right shoulder? Keep in mind that Connally himself--the guy who actually experienced the shot--after studying enlargements of the Zapruder frames for Life magazine, said that he was hit at Z234 and that he was absolutely certain he was not hit before Z230.

Remember, too, that even bullets fired from the low-velocity Carcano rifle would have been traveling at 2,100 fps, which equals 114 feet per Zapruder frame.

Two: How could the Z186 shot have suddenly knocked JFK visibly forward 40 frames later, starting at Z226, when the Z312 head shot causes JFK's head to start moving forward in that frame, i.e., within 1/18-second? Beginning at Z226, JFK's upper body is visibly knocked sharply forward, and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements are quite startling when one compares Z226, where they are first discernible, to Z232, just 1/3-second later. Again, how could the Z186 shot have caused these violent movements?

Government-hired experts have studiously avoided dealing with the dramatic Z226-232 movements because they obviously, plainly show that JFK was struck by a bullet in the back at Z226. Part of the problem with acknowledging these movements is that Connally's shoulder does not begin its dramatic collapse until Z236, much too late to have been caused by a Z224 shot, and, as mentioned, Connally himself was certain he was not hit before Z230 and identified Z234 as the moment he was struck.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2022, 01:21:58 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #20 on: December 29, 2022, 01:11:30 PM »


Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 987
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #21 on: December 29, 2022, 02:11:15 PM »
That's just silly. You folks are like the fawning subjects in the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. The amount of evidence you are ignoring in making this claim is incredible and embarrassing.

Let's just try to get you to explain two things, okay?

One: The Z186 shot, identified by the HSCA experts, causes JFK's cheeks to puff, causes him to freeze his waving motion in mid-wave, causes Jackie to suddenly turn to look at JFK, and causes JFK to start reaching for his throat--all before he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207. Anyone with a functioning brain and functioning eyes can see these reactions. (Clearly, this was the throat shot, which is why JFK starts to reach for his throat, but never mind this for now.)

By the way, and I forget to mention this earlier, the first Secret Service analysis of the photographic evidence, mainly the Zapruder film, concluded that JFK was hit before Z200.

Now, how could the Z186 shot have anything to do with Connally's dramatic reactions that start 50 frames later, in Z236, especially the rapid and visible dropping of his right shoulder? Keep in mind that Connally himself--the guy who actually experienced the shot--after studying enlargements of the Zapruder frames for Life magazine, said that he was hit at Z234 and that he was absolutely certain he was not hit before Z230.

Remember, too, that even bullets fired from the low-velocity Carcano rifle would have been traveling at 2,100 fps, which equals 114 feet per Zapruder frame.

Two: How could the Z186 shot have suddenly knocked JFK visibly forward 40 frames later, starting at Z226, when the Z312 head shot causes JFK's head to start moving forward in that frame, i.e., within 1/18-second? Beginning at Z226, JFK's upper body is visibly knocked sharply forward, and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements are quite startling when one compares Z226, where they are first discernible, to Z232, just 1/3-second later. Again, how could the Z186 shot have caused these violent movements?

Government-hired experts have studiously avoided dealing with the dramatic Z226-232 movements because they obviously, plainly show that JFK was struck by a bullet in the back at Z226. Part of the problem with acknowledging these movements is that Connally's shoulder does not begin its dramatic collapse until Z236, much too late to have been caused by a Z224 shot, and, as mentioned, Connally himself was certain he was not hit before Z230 and identified Z234 as the moment he was struck.

Do you think the Willis photo of JFK waving to the TSBD secretaries at approximately Z202 was a hoax? It is known where the first shot occurred. Right in front of them. They said so, there were not any HSCA members standing beside them. To believe a shot at Z186 means he would have to go back waving to the crowd after being wounded. What a politician to be able to accomplish that.


You want to quote the HSCA, but seemingly forgetful when it comes to Mr. Canning’s analysis of the film and concluding the only possible explanation for the wound to have occurred in JBC’s back was a bullet having first passed through JFK. 

 
The eyewitnesses were unanimous in stating JFK reacted to the first shot. Only Elizabeth Woodward stated he reacted after the second shot, but she states it was after he turned back forward, which does not occur until after Z207.

The experts should have taken the time to talk to the eyewitnesses who were present at the time of the actual assassination.

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #22 on: December 29, 2022, 03:25:57 PM »
Do you think the Willis photo of JFK waving to the TSBD secretaries at approximately Z202 was a hoax? It is known where the first shot occurred. Right in front of them. They said so, there were not any HSCA members standing beside them. To believe a shot at Z186 means he would have to go back waving to the crowd after being wounded. What a politician to be able to accomplish that.

You want to quote the HSCA, but seemingly forgetful when it comes to Mr. Canning’s analysis of the film and concluding the only possible explanation for the wound to have occurred in JBC’s back was a bullet having first passed through JFK. 

The eyewitnesses were unanimous in stating JFK reacted to the first shot. Only Elizabeth Woodward stated he reacted after the second shot, but she states it was after he turned back forward, which does not occur until after Z207.

The experts should have taken the time to talk to the eyewitnesses who were present at the time of the actual assassination.

What??? Holy cow. JFK is not waving at the crowd in Z202! What on earth are you talking about? Starting in Z200, he abruptly stops waving and starts moving his right hand toward his throat. At the same time, Z200-207, Jackie suddenly starts to turn her head to the right toward JFK. If you view this segment in slow motion, you cannot fail to see these movements.

Willis slide 5 is actually solid evidence that a shot was fired just before Z190, as Dr. David Wrone explains in his book The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination. Yes, Willis 5 corresponds to Z202, but you have to allow time  from the moment the shot was fired (1) to the moment Willis heard it, (2) to the moment Willis began his physiological reaction, and (3) to the moment when Willis's physiological reaction resulted in his snapping of the camera's shutter. Making a reasonable allowance for the time these events would have taken (just 12 frames, or 12/18th of a second), the shot that startled Willis into snapping the picture must have been fired "just prior to frame 190" (p. 192).

Of course, one reason this is crucial is that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the intervening oak tree from Z166 to Z210. Thus, whoever fired this shot was not the sixth-floor gunman.

I notice you simply ignored JFK's 226-232 movements and Connally's Z236-242 movements. I also notice you ignored the fact that the first Secret Service analysis of the Zapruder film found that JFK was hit before Z200.

Citing the witnesses as a group to establish the shooting sequence does not work because some of the witnesses did not notice the first shot and/or the second shot, and because at least two of the shots were so close together that they sounded like a single shot to many of the witnesses.

As for Canning, oh boy. Before you ever cite Canning again, you'd better do a little homework. I'm guessing that, for starters, you have not actually read Canning's analysis. You apparently don't realize that Canning concluded that JFK was hit by Z190, noting the same Z200-207 movements that I've discussed. Canning also admitted that his findings included a large margin of error. But Canning got himself into all sorts of nonsense when he tried to make the pre-Z190 shot fit the single-bullet theory. Dr. Michael Kurtz:

Quote
Further divorcing the committee's investigation from reliability was its
dependence upon the analysis of NASA expert Thomas Canning for determining the trajectory of the bullets that struck President Kennedy and Governor Connally. . . .

In permitting Canning to perform his trajectory analysis, the committee ignored the advice of the Pathology Panel. The panel cautioned that there is no reliable method of "determining the missile trajectory . . . particularly if precision within the range of a few degrees is required." This was illustrated by Canning's rejection of the objective medical evidence. Instead of using the true location of the entrance wound in Kennedy's back (approximately four inches below the shoulder), Canning arbitrarily raised it three inches in order to arrive at a trajectory consistent with the sixth-floor window [i.e., the window from which Oswald supposedly fired]. He also computed the angle of the wound as twenty-one degrees downward. This was nothing less than a blatant distortion of the medical evidence, which proved that the bullet entered the president's back at a "slightly upward" angle.

Despite similar distortions of other parts of the objective medical data, Canning's trajectory analysis resulted in margins of error, by his own admission, that would have permitted the assassins to have fired from such diverse locations as the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh floors, and the roof of the Depository, as well as from the two upper floors of the neighboring Dal-Tex building. (Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination from a Historian's Perspective, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1982, pp. 179-180)

And, allow me to quote what I say about Canning and his analysis in my book Hasty Judgment:

Quote
Noticeably absent from Posner's alignment theory is any discussion of the incompatible angles at which the magic bullet would have had to travel. For example, according to chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. James Humes, the bullet that struck Kennedy in the back penetrated at a downward angle of 45 degrees to 60 degrees. The Select Committee's trajectory expert said the downward angle was 21 degrees. But the bullet that injured Connally entered at a downward angle of 27 degrees (2:63; 4:74-75). To further complicate matters, the HSCA's medical panel unanimously concluded that the magic bullet had a "slightly upward trajectory" as it allegedly transited JFK's neck and exited the throat (28:435, emphasis added; 2:390).

How could a bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Book Depository have transited the body and exited the neck at any kind of an upward angle (or even an even angle or an only slightly downward angle)? And how could a bullet exiting JFK's throat at a slightly upward angle have entered Connally's back at a downward angle of over 20 degrees? These are geometric impossibilities, unless one wants to assume that Kennedy was leaning far forward when he was hit and/or that his head was tilted markedly forward. Indeed, as was shown in the 1988 NOVA documentary Who Shot President Kennedy?, the only way to make the magic bullet's vertical trajectory work is to assume that JFK was leaning very far forward and that Connally was leaning noticeably backward at the same time. But the HSCA's own trajectory expert said Kennedy was leaning forward by no more than 18 degrees (he put JFK's forward lean at between 11 and 18 degrees), and the Warren Commission noted that Connally was sitting "erect."

Thomas Canning, the NASA scientist who prepared the Committee's trajectory analysis, found it necessary to, in effect, ignore the medical panel's finding about the magic bullet's trajectory, though I'm sure he would deny this. Canning assumed the missile's entry point was very close to the base of the neck. Canning had to employ these and other assumptions in order to make his trajectory analysis seem plausible.

Additionally, Canning found that he could not get his vertical trajectory lines to match up when he considered the back wound's location as determined by the Committee's medical panel--even that was too low. Canning brushed this problem aside as a meaningless "experimental error." In order to make the horizontal trajectory work, Canning had to assume that Connally was positioned so far to the left that his right shoulder was practically in the middle of the jump seat (see 8:item number 28). Frame 224 alone visibly refutes any attempt to move Connally that far to the left.

No magic-bullet alignment theory has yet explained how bullets coming from the alleged sniper's nest could have caused the damage that was done to the limousine's windshield. The windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a bullet coming down into the car from the sixth-floor window (8:248). The Select Committee speculated that the damage was caused by the supposed rear-head-shot bullet after it exited the skull, but Canning stated that the alleged vertical trajectory of this supposed bullet didn't line up well with the windshield damage (8:246).

There is also the fact that the chrome above the windshield was dented by a bullet (or by a very large fragment). If the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a fragment from the head shot, then it is especially hard to understand how a head-shot fragment could have caused the deep circular dent in the windshield's chrome (the dent was a good inch or two above the windshield damage). (pp. 67-68)
« Last Edit: December 29, 2022, 05:36:08 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 987
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #23 on: December 29, 2022, 07:36:27 PM »
What??? Holy cow. JFK is not waving at the crowd in Z202! What on earth are you talking about? Starting in Z200, he abruptly stops waving and starts moving his right hand toward his throat. At the same time, Z200-207, Jackie suddenly starts to turn her head to the right toward JFK. If you view this segment in slow motion, you cannot fail to see these movements.

Willis slide 5 is actually solid evidence that a shot was fired just before Z190, as Dr. David Wrone explains in his book The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination. Yes, Willis 5 corresponds to Z202, but you have to allow time  from the moment the shot was fired (1) to the moment Willis heard it, (2) to the moment Willis began his physiological reaction, and (3) to the moment when Willis's physiological reaction resulted in his snapping of the camera's shutter. Making a reasonable allowance for the time these events would have taken (just 12 frames, or 12/18th of a second), the shot that startled Willis into snapping the picture must have been fired "just prior to frame 190" (p. 192).

Of course, one reason this is crucial is that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the intervening oak tree from Z166 to Z210. Thus, whoever fired this shot was not the sixth-floor gunman.

I notice you simply ignored JFK's 226-232 movements and Connally's Z236-242 movements. I also notice you ignored the fact that the first Secret Service analysis of the Zapruder film found that JFK was hit before Z200.

Citing the witnesses as a group to establish the shooting sequence does not work because some of the witnesses did not notice the first shot and/or the second shot, and because at least two of the shots were so close together that they sounded like a single shot to many of the witnesses.

As for Canning, oh boy. Before you ever cite Canning again, you'd better do a little homework. I'm guessing that, for starters, you have not actually read Canning's analysis. You apparently don't realize that Canning concluded that JFK was hit by Z190, noting the same Z200-207 movements that I've discussed. Canning also admitted that his findings included a large margin of error. But Canning got himself into all sorts of nonsense when he tried to make the pre-Z190 shot fit the single-bullet theory. Dr. Michael Kurtz:

And, allow me to quote what I say about Canning and his analysis in my book Hasty Judgment:

In Willis #5, JFK has not been wounded and is still waving at Z202. Kind of makes the rest of your post a moot point.

Zapruder Frames - Costella Combined Edit (assassinationresearch.com)

=================
 
The really obvious observation is JFK is not quite directly opposite from the TSBD secretaries. Which is where they state the first shot occurred. The Chism’s stated the first shot took place right before the car reached their location. Jean Newman stated the first shot happened right after the car passed her. 

=====================

Canning is very clear as to the shot that went through JFK’s neck is the only possible explanation for the wound in Gov Connally’s back. 


Canning’s Trajectory Analysis of the wounds clearly places the origin of the shots as having come from the 6th floor of the TSBD. As far as some imaginary shooters from other locations, provide locations and proof they caused some type of wounds. Cannings Analysis explains all of them.

 ====================

Quoting yourself or Kurz is probably of very limited value.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #23 on: December 29, 2022, 07:36:27 PM »