JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Della Cross on November 22, 2023, 01:32:39 AM
-
I'm a newbie, and have not done any research on the possibility that a shot was fired from behind the fence. imho, all shots were fired from behind the presidential limo. But I know that some Parkland doctors believed the throat wound was an entrance wound. A video on YouTube featuring an interview with railroad supervisor Sam Holland, who was standing on the overpass during the assassination on Nov. 22 has caused me to expand my research.
I assume this is old info to people who support the idea of a shot from the front, but it was new to me. Sam Holland was absolutely convincing, and his statement that the Warren Commission misquoted him on the subject of a shot fired from behind the fence at the top of the grassy knoll was shocking. I didn't realize the overpass where Holland was standing is so close to the fence where he heard a shot and saw gun smoke hanging in the air. I'd like to hear from people who already know this issue, and have viewpoints concerning it. Thanks.
-
I'm a newbie, and have not done any research on the possibility that a shot was fired from behind the fence. imho, all shots were fired from behind the presidential limo. But I know that some Parkland doctors believed the throat wound was an entrance wound. A video on YouTube featuring an interview with railroad supervisor Sam Holland, who was standing on the overpass during the assassination on Nov. 22 has caused me to expand my research.
I assume this is old info to people who support the idea of a shot from the front, but it was new to me. Sam Holland was absolutely convincing, and his statement that the Warren Commission misquoted him on the subject of a shot fired from behind the fence at the top of the grassy knoll was shocking. I didn't realize the overpass where Holland was standing is so close to the fence where he heard a shot and saw gun smoke hanging in the air. I'd like to hear from people who already know this issue, and have viewpoints concerning it. Thanks.
As usual some of what Holland said was wrong & some true -- some was important & some not important.
The main thing is that ..........
................a Secret Service man raised up in the seat with a machine gun & then dropped back down in the seat...............
This was supposedly after shot-1 & before a shot-2 & before a shot-3 & before a shot-4.
Anyhow, Holland confirms that Hickey had the AR15 & that Hickey fell.
Apart from that everything else that Holland said/testified was wrong or not important.
Holland added zero to what we know or think we know happened, except re Hickey.
Which possibly makes Holland the most important of all of the witnesses.
But 99% of what Holland said was krapp.
-
I'm a newbie, and have not done any research on the possibility that a shot was fired from behind the fence. imho, all shots were fired from behind the presidential limo. But I know that some Parkland doctors believed the throat wound was an entrance wound. A video on YouTube featuring an interview with railroad supervisor Sam Holland, who was standing on the overpass during the assassination on Nov. 22 has caused me to expand my research.
I assume this is old info to people who support the idea of a shot from the front, but it was new to me. Sam Holland was absolutely convincing, and his statement that the Warren Commission misquoted him on the subject of a shot fired from behind the fence at the top of the grassy knoll was shocking. I didn't realize the overpass where Holland was standing is so close to the fence where he heard a shot and saw gun smoke hanging in the air. I'd like to hear from people who already know this issue, and have viewpoints concerning it. Thanks.
There were 4 shots total fired (according to Holland and I believe he was correct) 3 from the Depository, 1 from behind the fence where Holland places the shooter. First shot from behind missed at Z160, second shot wounded both at Z224, third and fourth hit JFK in head from behind and front starting at Z313 pushing his head forward, and then pushing him back and to the left. Many witnesses heard the Bang-Bang of the last two.
-
There were 4 shots total fired (according to Holland and I believe he was correct) 3 from the Depository, 1 from behind the fence where Holland places the shooter. First shot from behind missed at Z160, second shot wounded both at Z224, third and fourth hit JFK in head from behind and front starting at Z313 pushing his head forward, and then pushing him back and to the left. Many witnesses heard the Bang-Bang of the last two.
Holland early on said that the first shot hit jfk in the head. And made a puff of smoke at the fence.
And that there were 3 more shots.
Later Holland said that the puff of smoke was from the 3rd shot. And that this hit jfk in the head.
As i said, 99% of what Holland said was krapp.
There was no shot from the fence. A shot from the fence was an impossibility (unless by a suicide shooter)(ie a sniper could not conceal hizself).
-
I'm a newbie, and have not done any research on the possibility that a shot was fired from behind the fence. imho, all shots were fired from behind the presidential limo. But I know that some Parkland doctors believed the throat wound was an entrance wound. A video on YouTube featuring an interview with railroad supervisor Sam Holland, who was standing on the overpass during the assassination on Nov. 22 has caused me to expand my research.
I assume this is old info to people who support the idea of a shot from the front, but it was new to me. Sam Holland was absolutely convincing, and his statement that the Warren Commission misquoted him on the subject of a shot fired from behind the fence at the top of the grassy knoll was shocking. I didn't realize the overpass where Holland was standing is so close to the fence where he heard a shot and saw gun smoke hanging in the air. I'd like to hear from people who already know this issue, and have viewpoints concerning it. Thanks.
Hi Della, as you learn more about this case you will discover that for almost every single detail, no matter how small, there is contradictory evidence and contradictory eye/ear-witness accounts. It's a really striking feature of this case and it means that almost any theory can be supported by cherry picking the evidence that suits that particular theory [unless it's something like Marjan's theory that Hickey shot JFK which has literally no evidence to support it and is just made-up nonsense].
Holland is absolutely convincing but there are other witnesses who say contradictory things who are also absolutely convincing.
As you go through all the evidence and all the witness testimony you will find that a theory will emerge that you will find most convincing.
However, this theory won't necessarily reflect what really happened that day, but it will definitely reflect how you look at things.
-
Well, you got DPD Cop Smith smelling Gun Powder in the same parking lot as Holland is reporting Seeing Smoke and hearing a shot. A member of law enforcement backing up your claim is solid corroboration.
-
Go to Dallas and stand behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll. Turn around and look behind you. That location is wide open to half of Dallas for miles. It appears to offer seclusion to a shooter from the Elm St. perspective but it does not. No assassin would stand in that location with a rifle awaiting the motorcade, fire the shots and escape without being apprehended. Nearly every witness claimed three or fewer shots. Almost none indicated that the shots they heard came from two different locations. They did disagree on the location due to the sound distortions but the important point is that almost 100% of the witnesses confirm three or fewer shots from one location. That means one shooter firing two or three shots. There are three fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle.
-
Go to Dallas and stand behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll. Turn around and look behind you. That location is wide open to half of Dallas for miles. It appears to offer seclusion to a shooter from the Elm St. perspective but it does not. No assassin would stand in that location with a rifle awaiting the motorcade, fire the shots and escape without being apprehended. Nearly every witness claimed three or fewer shots. Almost none indicated that the shots they heard came from two different locations. They did disagree on the location due to the sound distortions but the important point is that almost 100% of the witnesses confirm three or fewer shots from one location. That means one shooter firing two or three shots. There are three fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle.
You should review the Holland interviews that are posted frequently on this Forum. Holland clearly states that the parking lot was jammed with cars on 11/22/63. The cars inside that lot were even parked every-which-way. This delayed Holland and his railroad crew from getting a look at the area of the picket fence from which they saw the smoke coming from. Bearing this in mind, on 11/22/63 a shooter positioned along that picket fence would NOT have been, "...wide open to half of Dallas for miles".
-
I'm a newbie, and have not done any research on the possibility that a shot was fired from behind the fence. imho, all shots were fired from behind the presidential limo. But I know that some Parkland doctors believed the throat wound was an entrance wound. A video on YouTube featuring an interview with railroad supervisor Sam Holland, who was standing on the overpass during the assassination on Nov. 22 has caused me to expand my research.
I assume this is old info to people who support the idea of a shot from the front, but it was new to me. Sam Holland was absolutely convincing, and his statement that the Warren Commission misquoted him on the subject of a shot fired from behind the fence at the top of the grassy knoll was shocking. I didn't realize the overpass where Holland was standing is so close to the fence where he heard a shot and saw gun smoke hanging in the air. I'd like to hear from people who already know this issue, and have viewpoints concerning it. Thanks.
Watch the video carefully when it shows the locations of Holland and the fence, about 1:19 in. You'll notice that, from Holland's perspective on 11/22/63, the TSBD is actually behind the fence as well. Sometimes, the evidence can be ambiguous.
-
Watch the video carefully when it shows the locations of Holland and the fence, about 1:19 in. You'll notice that, from Holland's perspective on 11/22/63, the TSBD is actually behind the fence as well. Sometimes, the evidence can be ambiguous.
So are you saying Holland actually saw smoke coming from the TSBD vs his claiming the Picket Fence?
-
So are you saying Holland actually saw smoke coming from the TSBD vs his claiming the Picket Fence?
Holland describes it as "lingering." In my own non-trivial experience with firearms, gunsmoke doesn't linger. It's mostly steam, and it dissipates and disappears almost immediately.
-
Holland describes it as "lingering." In my own non-trivial experience with firearms, gunsmoke doesn't linger. It's mostly steam, and it dissipates and disappears almost immediately.
The "lingering" was allegedly due to tree branches restricting the smoke from rising/drifting/dissipating quickly. That's the contention.
-
Marjan Rynkiewicz wrote:
"... 99% of what Holland said was krapp."
I agree with you completely about Hickey, and his accidental role in the death of JFK. But... did Holland really see a puff of gun smoke from behind the fence? Or did he imagine it? Why would he lie about it? An echo from shots fired by LHO and Hickey might account for the gunshot(s) that some people heard from the grassy knoll. But the puff of smoke? Holland says the area behind the fence was crowded with parked cars, and he and others had to crawl over bumpers and hoods to reach the fence. Those cars could have provided cover for a shooter, and for his escape. Here we are, 60 years later, and the people who actually know what happened are still putting their country thru anguish and torment, rather than reveal the truth.
-
Holland describes it as "lingering." In my own non-trivial experience with firearms, gunsmoke doesn't linger. It's mostly steam, and it dissipates and disappears almost immediately.
On that day, there is no way anything was "lingering" in Dealy Plaza. As always, there is always a constant breeze in Dealey Plaza. That day, wind gusts were recorded at - I believe-25 mph. In the stabilized Zapruder film, you can clearly see the wind blowing the trees as Zapruder is filming the caar disappearing beneath the underpass. I have always doubted that Holland saw any smoke "lingering" that day.
-
Marjan Rynkiewicz wrote:
"... 99% of what Holland said was krapp."
I agree with you completely about Hickey, and his accidental role in the death of JFK. But... did Holland really see a puff of gun smoke from behind the fence? Or did he imagine it? Why would he lie about it? An echo from shots fired by LHO and Hickey might account for the gunshot(s) that some people heard from the grassy knoll. But the puff of smoke? Holland says the area behind the fence was crowded with parked cars, and he and others had to crawl over bumpers and hoods to reach the fence. Those cars could have provided cover for a shooter, and for his escape. Here we are, 60 years later, and the people who actually know what happened are still putting their country thru anguish and torment, rather than reveal the truth.
If u look at all of the pix in Dealey, & all of the footages, u will see that Holland & Co are still on the TUP many minutes after the shots.
So, Holland did not run to the fence after the shots.
Holland hizself says that there were 40 or 50 persons in the carpark when he was looking around in the carpark. So, the footprints & muddy prints etc could have been made after the shots.
Re the supposed smoke, the AR15 would have made a bit of smoke i suppose (4 or 5 shots), & it was just right of the trees from Holland's view.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kXrKbDm1/jfk-holland-saw-smoke.jpg)
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=post;quote=142357;topic=2833.80
-
The "lingering" was allegedly due to tree branches restricting the smoke from rising/drifting/dissipating quickly. That's the contention.
Sorry, Live Oaks don't do diddly to trap smoke or steam.
-
On that day, there is no way anything was "lingering" in Dealy Plaza. As always, there is always a constant breeze in Dealey Plaza. That day, wind gusts were recorded at - I believe-25 mph. In the stabilized Zapruder film, you can clearly see the wind blowing the trees as Zapruder is filming the caar disappearing beneath the underpass. I have always doubted that Holland saw any smoke "lingering" that day.
You got a roughly 5 foot high fence and tree branches almost touching the top of that fence. That would provide a very good "wind break". Every watch "Naked And Afraid"? Holland said he saw smoke. You certainly can "doubt" him, but He was there and You were Not. CASE CLOSED!
-
You got a roughly 5 foot high fence and tree branches almost touching the top of that fence. That would provide a very good "wind break". Every watch "Naked And Afraid"? Holland said he saw smoke. You certainly can "doubt" him, but He was there and You were Not. CASE CLOSED!
Modern rifle ammunition doesn't make a lot of smoke.
Here's Jesse Ventura firing a similar Carcano to Oswald.
(https://i.postimg.cc/WbNXG7HC/Jesse-full-of-it.gif)
Another rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/0yHW2JZ3/gun-smokee.gif)
Maybe you think they were using Muskets?
(https://www.nps.gov/hobe/learn/images/Musket-fire-Horseshoe-Bend_1.jpg?maxwidth=1300&maxheight=1300&autorotate=false)
...and tree branches almost touching the top of that fence.
Hilarious, "almost touching" doesn't create a very effective wind break, besides it was windy day.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qd39KXxq/wind-Dea-LEY-p-LAZA.gif)
JohnM
-
I have had a debate previously about rifle smoke and someone brought up the following situation, in 1966, Charles Whitman was firing from a tower and some sort of particulate matter can be seen, which is in direct contrast to my above examples! Iirc a Weapons Expert advised us that the airborne matter was most likely the dislodging of dust and cement particles from the sonic effects of the repeated firing of the weapon. I believe someone else suggested an overly oiled barrel and the high temperature of constant firing. In conclusion the "behind the fence" sniper was not affected by any of these possible scenarios.
@2:50
JohnM
-
Maybe you think they were using Muskets?
(https://www.nps.gov/hobe/learn/images/Musket-fire-Horseshoe-Bend_1.jpg?maxwidth=1300&maxheight=1300&autorotate=false)
JohnM
:D :D :D
-
Dan O'meara wrote: "...[unless it's something like Marjan's theory that Hickey shot JFK which has literally no evidence to support it and is just made-up nonsense]."
Dan, Thanks for your reply, and for all the information you posted. One thing I disagree with is your statement that Marjan has no evidence to support the idea that Hickey accidentally shot JFK. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence from Dealey Plaza. But the most convincing evidence of all is the bizarre and illegal behavior of the Secret Service, in Dallas and during the 60 years that have followed. Almost immediately on Nov. 22, the Secret Service began a coverup, beginning with an agent outside Parkland removing blood and tissue from the presidential limo with a bucket and sponge. No law enforcement agency behaves that way. Blood spatter is primary evidence in a homicide. It is never disturbed, at least not until a complete set of photos has been taken. To make things worse, neither the Secret Service nor the FBI had jurisdiction in this case. Strange as it sounds, in 1963 there was no federal law against killing a president or anyone else. The law that LHO broke that day was the Texas law against homicide. The State of Texas and the City of Dallas had complete jurisdiction. No wonder the Dallas medical examiner went nuts when the Secret Service removed JFK's body from Dallas before an autopsy could be done in Texas. Ever since Nov. 22, the Secret Service has been conducting itself with "mens rea," legal Latin for "guilty mind." Right from the start, they have threatened the medical examiner, doctors, and x-ray technicians. They removed the Z film frames showing a piece of JFK's skull flying into the air (see the Zapruder Film Mystery on YouTube), and they confiscated JFK's brain and maybe his whole body. This behavior is evidence they were covering up the accidental shot(s) that Hickey fired on Nov. 22. Worst of all, the Secret Service protected itself first, inflicting terrible trauma on the nation they supposedly serve. And they're still doing it 60 years later.
-
Dan O'meara wrote: "...[unless it's something like Marjan's theory that Hickey shot JFK which has literally no evidence to support it and is just made-up nonsense]."
Dan, Thanks for your reply, and for all the information you posted. One thing I disagree with is your statement that Marjan has no evidence to support the idea that Hickey accidentally shot JFK. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence from Dealey Plaza. But the most convincing evidence of all is the bizarre and illegal behavior of the Secret Service, in Dallas and during the 60 years that have followed. Almost immediately on Nov. 22, the Secret Service began a coverup, beginning with an agent outside Parkland removing blood and tissue from the presidential limo with a bucket and sponge. No law enforcement agency behaves that way. Blood spatter is primary evidence in a homicide. It is never disturbed, at least not until a complete set of photos has been taken. To make things worse, neither the Secret Service nor the FBI had jurisdiction in this case. Strange as it sounds, in 1963 there was no federal law against killing a president or anyone else. The law that LHO broke that day was the Texas law against homicide. The State of Texas and the City of Dallas had complete jurisdiction. No wonder the Dallas medical examiner went nuts when the Secret Service removed JFK's body from Dallas before an autopsy could be done in Texas. Ever since Nov. 22, the Secret Service has been conducting itself with "mens rea," legal Latin for "guilty mind." Right from the start, they have threatened the medical examiner, doctors, and x-ray technicians. They removed the Z film frames showing a piece of JFK's skull flying into the air (see the Zapruder Film Mystery on YouTube), and they confiscated JFK's brain and maybe his whole body. This behavior is evidence they were covering up the accidental shot(s) that Hickey fired on Nov. 22. Worst of all, the Secret Service protected itself first, inflicting terrible trauma on the nation they supposedly serve. And they're still doing it 60 years later.
But the most convincing evidence of all is the bizarre and illegal behavior of the Secret Service, in Dallas and during the 60 years that have followed
Hi Della, I couldn't agree more with you about the actions of the Secret Service. The limo should've been treated as a crime scene and the agents who interfered with it would know that. I believe they knowingly destroyed the crime scene and the validity of any ballistic evidence found in the limo.
But this is not evidence that Hickey shot JFK with an AR-15.
And I don't understand why you would think it is evidence that Hickey fired the AR-15 and accidentally killed the President.
I'm really baffled by why you think the two things are linked.
"The most convincing evidence", as you put it, is no evidence at all.
Evidence that Hickey fired the AR-15 would be an image of him doing that. Or film evidence. Or someone in the car he was in mentioning it. Or someone in the cars following his mentioning it or one of the twenty plus witnesses stood a feet away on Elm Street mentioning it.
But there is none of this.
As I said, there is not a single scrap of evidence that Hickey took the head shot.
They removed the Z film frames showing a piece of JFK's skull flying into the air (see the Zapruder Film Mystery on YouTube),
You've made this claim a number of times now and it's false.
I've watched the Zapruder Film Mystery a few times and this is not mentioned.
Doug Horne, who's focus is demonstrating that the Z-film was altered, is interviewing a man who examined the original film in extreme detail.
It is notable that Horne does not ask Dino a single question about alteration [as that is the whole point of this video - Horne using Dino to support the notion that the Z-film was altered]. What happens is really cowardly in my opinion. Horne is interviewing Dino, who never mentions anything even remotely connected to film alteration, and it keeps cutting back to Horne on his own who "interprets" what Dino is saying. It's despicable, really. About half an hour in it cuts to a fraction of another interview between Dino and Peter Janney. Janney is showing Dino a single frame from the Z-film and telling him that this is the only frame that shows JFK's head exploding in the modern version of the Z-film. Dino can't believe it, he says there were definitely more frames showing the "pink mist" of that surrounds JFK's head at the moment of impact. Horne then uses this to imply that Dino is saying the version of the Z-film he worked with is different from the modern version. It's just unbelievably underhand because Janney is lying to Dino when he says the single frame is the only frame showing the head exploding and the pink mist emerging from JFK's head. Dino is right, there are more frames showing this.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SxvP4z3G/harper-skull.gif)
The Z-film is not altered. There is no evidence for alteration. The report by Roland Zavada establishes the authenticity of the Z-film and that it is unaltered.
-
I have had a debate previously about rifle smoke and someone brought up the following situation, in 1966, Charles Whitman was firing from a tower and some sort of particulate matter can be seen, which is in direct contrast to my above examples! Iirc a Weapons Expert advised us that the airborne matter was most likely the dislodging of dust and cement particles from the sonic effects of the repeated firing of the weapon. I believe someone else suggested an overly oiled barrel and the high temperature of constant firing. In conclusion the "behind the fence" sniper was not affected by any of these possible scenarios.
@2:50
JohnM
The tree branch leaves would be covered in dust from the gravel carpark.
Some time ago i said that Hickey's auto burst might have shaken the dust off, what with the direct blast & the echo off the fence, albeit from a long way away.
A shot from on the fence would be more likely to shake dust off, except that a shot from the fence was an impossibility.
-
Dan O'meara wrote: "...[unless it's something like Marjan's theory that Hickey shot JFK which has literally no evidence to support it and is just made-up nonsense]."
Dan, Thanks for your reply, and for all the information you posted. One thing I disagree with is your statement that Marjan has no evidence to support the idea that Hickey accidentally shot JFK. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence from Dealey Plaza. But the most convincing evidence of all is the bizarre and illegal behavior of the Secret Service, in Dallas and during the 60 years that have followed. Almost immediately on Nov. 22, the Secret Service began a coverup, beginning with an agent outside Parkland removing blood and tissue from the presidential limo with a bucket and sponge. No law enforcement agency behaves that way. Blood spatter is primary evidence in a homicide. It is never disturbed, at least not until a complete set of photos has been taken. To make things worse, neither the Secret Service nor the FBI had jurisdiction in this case. Strange as it sounds, in 1963 there was no federal law against killing a president or anyone else. The law that LHO broke that day was the Texas law against homicide. The State of Texas and the City of Dallas had complete jurisdiction. No wonder the Dallas medical examiner went nuts when the Secret Service removed JFK's body from Dallas before an autopsy could be done in Texas. Ever since Nov. 22, the Secret Service has been conducting itself with "mens rea," legal Latin for "guilty mind." Right from the start, they have threatened the medical examiner, doctors, and x-ray technicians. They removed the Z film frames showing a piece of JFK's skull flying into the air (see the Zapruder Film Mystery on YouTube), and they confiscated JFK's brain and maybe his whole body. This behavior is evidence they were covering up the accidental shot(s) that Hickey fired on Nov. 22. Worst of all, the Secret Service protected itself first, inflicting terrible trauma on the nation they supposedly serve. And they're still doing it 60 years later.
Dont forget the dent in the chrome trim.
Dont forget that the AR15 was placed into service in that morning, & taken out of service for ever in the afternoon. Why?
-
Dont forget the dent in the chrome trim.
Dont forget that the AR15 was placed into service in that morning, & taken out of service for ever in the afternoon. Why?
Neither of these things is evidence the AR-15 was fired, let alone shot JFK.
You don't seem to understand the concept of evidence.
The dent in the chrome and the crack in the windscreen were most probably caused by the bullet that fragmented after hitting JFK's head. Fragments of this bullet peppered the front of the limo and were described by Kellerman as a "flurry" of shots entering the limo.
The dent in the chrome is NOT evidence the AR-15 was fired.
As for the AR-15 being taken in and out of service - if that happened, so what?
This is not evidence the AR-15 was fired?
You're interpretation of these things is not evidence. I don't think you understand that.
There is not a single scrap of evidence the AR-15 was fired that day.
Not a single scrap of evidence to uphold your theory.
How can a theory even exist when there is not a single scrap of evidence to support it?
And what is your credible explanation that not a single witness reported it? You never seem to answer this question.
There must have been dozens of people in a position to see or hear such a thing, some only a few inches away from where it was supposed to have happened.
-
Neither of these things is evidence the AR-15 was fired, let alone shot JFK.
You don't seem to understand the concept of evidence.
The dent in the chrome and the crack in the windscreen were most probably caused by the bullet that fragmented after hitting JFK's head. Fragments of this bullet peppered the front of the limo and were described by Kellerman as a "flurry" of shots entering the limo.
The dent in the chrome is NOT evidence the AR-15 was fired.
As for the AR-15 being taken in and out of service - if that happened, so what?
This is not evidence the AR-15 was fired?
You're interpretation of these things is not evidence. I don't think you understand that.
There is not a single scrap of evidence the AR-15 was fired that day.
Not a single scrap of evidence to uphold your theory.
How can a theory even exist when there is not a single scrap of evidence to support it?
And what is your credible explanation that not a single witness reported it? You never seem to answer this question.
There must have been dozens of people in a position to see or hear such a thing, some only a few inches away from where it was supposed to have happened.
The dent in the chrome is the key.
It is obvious to me (hence it is evidence to me) that a hollowpoint slug from the AR15 made it.
Fragments could not make that dent (dent too big).
A carcarno could not make that dent (dent too small).
The slug that made the dent probly annihilated into very small splatter, alltho there might have been a largish central remnant (Hargis said that something hit his fender).
Re the cracked windshield, yes, the remnant AR15 slug at Z313 cracked the windshield (slug not found)(probly bounced into street)(Hargis said that something hit his fender).
Anyhow, what the whole jfk saga needs most today is bullet tests on similar chrome trims, to replicate that dent.
These would prove that the AR15 made that dent.
Then it would be evidence to u.
But, it is already evidence to me, koz i am smarter.
And, much of what u have said is evidence to u is clearly wrong to me & is not evidence to me (talking about much of your other stuff here).
I wonder what happened to the AR15. When & how was it disposed of? Where is it today?
If i had the AR15 i would make a facsimile trophy jfk head & mount it over the AR15 over my fireplace.
Translated to behind the fence. There is no hard evidence for a sniper behind the fence.
The witness that saw smoke, the witness that saw a shooter shoot, none of that is hard evidence.
The supposed photo of smoke would be hard evidence, but it aint smoke, the supposed photo of the head of a shooter would be hard evidence, but it aint a head (& even if it were a head it would not necessarily prove that the head fired a rifle).
And all of your supposed wound evidence that there was a shot from the front or sides is complete krapp.
-
The dent in the chrome is the key.
It is obvious to me (hence it is evidence to me) that a hollowpoint slug from the AR15 made it.
Fragments could not make that dent (dent too big).
A carcarno could not make that dent (dent too small).
The slug that made the dent probly annihilated into very small splatter, alltho there might have been a largish central remnant (Hargis said that something hit his fender).
Re the cracked windshield, yes, the remnant AR15 slug at Z313 cracked the windshield (slug not found)(probly bounced into street)(Hargis said that something hit his fender).
Anyhow, what the whole jfk saga needs most today is bullet tests on similar chrome trims, to replicate that dent.
These would prove that the AR15 made that dent.
Then it would be evidence to u.
But, it is already evidence to me, koz i am smarter.
And, much of what u have said is evidence to u is clearly wrong to me & is not evidence to me (talking about much of your other stuff here).
I wonder what happened to the AR15. When & how was it disposed of? Where is it today?
If i had the AR15 i would make a facsimile trophy jfk head & mount it over the AR15 over my fireplace.
Translated to behind the fence. There is no hard evidence for a sniper behind the fence.
The witness that saw smoke, the witness that saw a shooter shoot, none of that is hard evidence.
The supposed photo of smoke would be hard evidence, but it aint smoke, the supposed photo of the head of a shooter would be hard evidence, but it aint a head (& even if it were a head it would not necessarily prove that the head fired a rifle).
And all of your supposed wound evidence that there was a shot from the front or sides is complete krapp.
You got a serious issue with getting a shot UNDER that steel support beam and then striking that chrome strip at the TOP of the car. And remember, the Limo is traveling Downhill. Personally, if you believe that the Head Explosion was the result of the AR-15, then you need to also expect severe damage to a flimsy chrome strip vs a mere Ding.
-
You got a serious issue with getting a shot UNDER that steel support beam and then striking that chrome strip at the TOP of the car. And remember, the Limo is traveling Downhill. Personally, if you believe that the Head Explosion was the result of the AR-15, then you need to also expect severe damage to a flimsy chrome strip vs a mere Ding.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2833.88.html
Here is my latest drawing of the Z313 AR15 shot cracking the windshield.
As shown Hickey's shot was at 4 deg relative to Elm St (Elm St is shown level in the drawing for simplicity)(the grade of Elms St was actually about 3.3 deg [needs checking]). The (small hollow point)(ie what was left of it) slug veered in JFK's head & cracked the windshield.
As shown Oswald's fake shot-3 (Oswald fired only 2 shots) would have been at 12 deg relative to Elm St. The large remnant FMJ slug would have to have veered a long way to crack the windshield (ie impossible) -- & the large (tumbling) slug would have made a giant hole through the windshield (but there was no hole)(just a crack).
(https://i.postimg.cc/rsXLVYny/hickey-ar15-traject.jpg)
-
You got a serious issue with getting a shot UNDER that steel support beam and then striking that chrome strip at the TOP of the car. And remember, the Limo is traveling Downhill. Personally, if you believe that the Head Explosion was the result of the AR-15, then you need to also expect severe damage to a flimsy chrome strip vs a mere Ding.
........................................From the other thread.....................................https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3832.16.html
Stop the above youtube at 0:54.
I'm not sure that the JFK Limo was partially traveling inside the Fast Lane vs being completely inside the Center Lane. Your video below shows the knockoff JFK Limo being entirely inside the Center Lane. Much like the SBT and the placement of Gov Connally's jump seat vs the position of JFK, you are doing likewise by moving the JFK Limo inside the Fast Lane vs SA Hickey's position inside the Queen Mary.
(https://i.postimg.cc/TPM9r7vX/Hickey-6-shot-burst.jpg)
Yes, the problem of the AR15 is like the SBT. But, the SBT works (ie re line & angle), & the AR15 theory works (ie re line & angle).
U correctly mention that we dont know whether the jfklimo was completely inside the center lane. But this is not critical. If the jfklimo was half in the fast lane then this would only make a say 40 inch difference to the alignment of the limo center line where it meets Tague, ie the center line moves 40 inches to the left, ie a 40 inch offset, but is still parallel, ie the angle to Elm St duznt change in the 2 scenarios, ie if Queen Mary too was half in the fast lane.
Notice that in the above frame the jfklimo is say 20% in the fast lane. I forget where i got that frame. Its from one of the members here. But i painted the stars etc. It shows jfk sitting well right, but at Z312 jfk's head was lower & very near the center line of the limo (ie where the lowest star is drawn)(that star is supposed to show the inshoot)(the hollow star shows the position of the crack damage).
What duznt work is the theory that Oswald fired the headshot, ie from the sniper's nest. The angles are wrong (Donahue in Mortal Error).
And a Carcano FMJ duznt explode (Donahue in Mortal Error)(however soft point Carcano's were available)(& Oswald could have made his own Carcano hollow-point i suppose).
I cant remember whether the horizontal line & angle problem for the AR15 has been dealt with in much detail on this forum.
The vertical line & angle problem has been dealt with in this present thread & in a Bronson footage thread that i started a couple of years ago. https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2836.32.html
Donahue dealt with the vertical line & angle problem for the AR15 in Mortal Error. Not so much the horizontal line & angle problem i think.
Daniel R Roffe wrote a book......... JFK Motorcade: The Accidental Shooting Death of President John F Kennedy.
This deals mainly with the horizontal & vertical line & angle problem i think.
I could not find a used copy for sale on the internet, but would cost about $200.
And i could not find any info or drawings from the book.
As detailed in this thread, some or all of the AR15 shots had to pass throo the gap between the upturned vizors on Queen Mary.
And one or two might have had to pass throo the gap between the upturned vizors in the jfklimo.
All of the shots had to pass over the windshield of Queen Mary.
And the 2nd last shot which dented the chrome trim above the mirror in the jfklimo had to pass under the divider/roll-bar of the jfklimo. In the above frame the divider/roll-bar has been left out (because the frame originally dealt with the SBT i suppose, it did not deal with the AR15).
And the remnant slug from the last shot, the head shot, had to veer 6 deg inside the head, & then crack the windshield.
6 deg is a big ask for a hollow point.
But it works, it has to work.
It was rotten luck, he was just doing his job.
(https://i.postimg.cc/RVq5qtXF/aerial-lester-slug.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/7Z1wD31w/AR15-at-Z310-the-shot-that-made-the-dent.jpg)
(https://s9.gifyu.com/images/Armpit.gif)
-
Dan O’meara wrote: “I believe (the Secret Service) knowingly destroyed the crime scene and the validity of any ballistic evidence found in the limo.
But this is not evidence that Hickey shot JFK with an AR-15.
And I don't understand why you would think it is evidence that Hickey fired the AR-15 and accidentally killed the President.
I'm really baffled by why you think the two things are linked.”
Dan... you recognize that the Secret Service “knowingly destroyed the crime scene and the validity of any ballistic evidence in the limo.” But then
you fail to state why you think they would take such shocking and illegal actions, if not to cover up the accidental Hickey shot? You then ignore
the other examples I give of the Secret Service destroying or altering evidence. What is your explanation for why they did these things? And why
do you keep insisting that Dino Brugioni in The Zapruder Film Mystery interview on YouTube does not describe the head shot causing a piece of
JFK’s skull to fly into the air when he saw the Z film for the first time on the night of SaPersonay, Nov. 23, at the NIPC labs in Washington? Brugioni
makes this statement several times. He also says the Z film that was later released to the public was not the one he saw on Nov. 23. Why do you
keep insisting the Brugioni makes no such statements, when clearly he does?
-
The dent in the chrome is the key.
It is obvious to me (hence it is evidence to me) that a hollowpoint slug from the AR15 made it.
Fragments could not make that dent (dent too big).
A carcarno could not make that dent (dent too small).
The slug that made the dent probly annihilated into very small splatter, alltho there might have been a largish central remnant (Hargis said that something hit his fender).
Re the cracked windshield, yes, the remnant AR15 slug at Z313 cracked the windshield (slug not found)(probly bounced into street)(Hargis said that something hit his fender).
Anyhow, what the whole jfk saga needs most today is bullet tests on similar chrome trims, to replicate that dent.
These would prove that the AR15 made that dent.
Then it would be evidence to u.
But, it is already evidence to me, koz i am smarter.
And, much of what u have said is evidence to u is clearly wrong to me & is not evidence to me (talking about much of your other stuff here).
I wonder what happened to the AR15. When & how was it disposed of? Where is it today?
If i had the AR15 i would make a facsimile trophy jfk head & mount it over the AR15 over my fireplace.
Translated to behind the fence. There is no hard evidence for a sniper behind the fence.
The witness that saw smoke, the witness that saw a shooter shoot, none of that is hard evidence.
The supposed photo of smoke would be hard evidence, but it aint smoke, the supposed photo of the head of a shooter would be hard evidence, but it aint a head (& even if it were a head it would not necessarily prove that the head fired a rifle).
And all of your supposed wound evidence that there was a shot from the front or sides is complete krapp.
Anyhow, what the whole jfk saga needs most today is bullet tests on similar chrome trims, to replicate that dent.
These would prove that the AR15 made that dent.
Then it would be evidence to u.
But, it is already evidence to me, koz i am smarter.
:D :D :D
As I suspected. You don't have a clue what "evidence" means. That's how smart you are.
It's evidence because you think it is??
That's probably the most stupid thing ever posted on this forum and that's up against some stiff competition.
It wouldn't be so bad but this isn't even your own half-wit theory, you're just regurgitating some nonsense you heard elsewhere.
You don't even have the brains to make up your own nonsense.
Just to reiterate - this BS: theory is based on ZERO EVIDENCE.
What kind of buffoon finds 'zero evidence' acceptable?
And all of your supposed wound evidence that there was a shot from the front or sides is complete krapp.
What are you talking about?
I've never posted anything supporting a shot coming from the front or sides as I don't believe there was a shot from the front or the side
You are clearly too dumb to understand what I've posted.
Mind you, if you're dumb enough to believe the 'Hickey and His Invisible Shot' theory I shouldn't be surprised.
And you've not answered the main question [yet again]:
What is your credible explanation that not a single witness reported it?
Do you have enough brains to even understand what this question means?
Is that why you don't answer it?
-
Dan O’meara wrote: “I believe (the Secret Service) knowingly destroyed the crime scene and the validity of any ballistic evidence found in the limo.
But this is not evidence that Hickey shot JFK with an AR-15.
And I don't understand why you would think it is evidence that Hickey fired the AR-15 and accidentally killed the President.
I'm really baffled by why you think the two things are linked.”
Dan... you recognize that the Secret Service “knowingly destroyed the crime scene and the validity of any ballistic evidence in the limo.” But then
you fail to state why you think they would take such shocking and illegal actions, if not to cover up the accidental Hickey shot? You then ignore
the other examples I give of the Secret Service destroying or altering evidence. What is your explanation for why they did these things? And why
do you keep insisting that Dino Brugioni in The Zapruder Film Mystery interview on YouTube does not describe the head shot causing a piece of
JFK’s skull to fly into the air when he saw the Z film for the first time on the night of SaPersonay, Nov. 23, at the NIPC labs in Washington? Brugioni
makes this statement several times. He also says the Z film that was later released to the public was not the one he saw on Nov. 23. Why do you
keep insisting the Brugioni makes no such statements, when clearly he does?
Dan... you recognize that the Secret Service “knowingly destroyed the crime scene and the validity of any ballistic evidence in the limo.” But then
you fail to state why you think they would take such shocking and illegal actions, if not to cover up the accidental Hickey shot?
It's strange.
You seem to be having exactly the same problem Marjan does understanding what "evidence" means.
You do not know why the Secret Service acted the way it did. When you say it's because they were covering up Hickey's accidental shot, you are just guessing, you don't actually know.
And you seem to believe that your guess is "evidence" that the AR-15 was fired.
They may well have been altering the ballistic evidence but we don't know for sure. And even if they were altering the ballistic evidence it still doesn't prove the AR-15 was fired.
Strong evidence that the AR-15 was fired would be eye-witness testimony from the dozens of witnesses who would have been in a position to see or hear the AR-15 being fired, but not a single witness mentions anything about it.
Don't you think this strongly indicates that the AR-15 was not fired?
Why do you think not a single witness mentions it?
And why do you keep insisting that Dino Brugioni in The Zapruder Film Mystery interview on YouTube does not describe the head shot causing a piece of
JFK’s skull to fly into the air when he saw the Z film for the first time on the night of SaPersonay, Nov. 23, at the NIPC labs in Washington?
I've never said that Dino doesn't mention JFK's skull flying into the air.
I've never said that at any time, so I don't understand why you think I "keep insisting".
I know Dino mentions the skull but that's not what I'm pointing out.
You posted this:
They removed the Z film frames showing a piece of JFK's skull flying into the air (see the Zapruder Film Mystery on YouTube),
At no time does Dino mention anything about frames being removed showing pieces of skull flying into the air.
And he never mentions anything about later versions of then Z-film missing pieces of skull.
Where are you getting this idea from?
Can you pinpoint the time-mark [in minutes and seconds] in the video where Dino makes these remarks about the Z-film being altered because I can't find it.
-
Dan O’meara wrote: “I believe (the Secret Service) knowingly destroyed the crime scene and the validity of any ballistic evidence found in the limo.
But this is not evidence that Hickey shot JFK with an AR-15.
And I don't understand why you would think it is evidence that Hickey fired the AR-15 and accidentally killed the President.
I'm really baffled by why you think the two things are linked.”
Dan... you recognize that the Secret Service “knowingly destroyed the crime scene and the validity of any ballistic evidence in the limo.” But then
you fail to state why you think they would take such shocking and illegal actions, if not to cover up the accidental Hickey shot? You then ignore
the other examples I give of the Secret Service destroying or altering evidence. What is your explanation for why they did these things? And why
do you keep insisting that Dino Brugioni in The Zapruder Film Mystery interview on YouTube does not describe the head shot causing a piece of
JFK’s skull to fly into the air when he saw the Z film for the first time on the night of SaPersonay, Nov. 23, at the NIPC labs in Washington? Brugioni
makes this statement several times. He also says the Z film that was later released to the public was not the one he saw on Nov. 23. Why do you
keep insisting the Brugioni makes no such statements, when clearly he does?
The crime scene continues being Destroyed to this very day: (1) Moving of the (N) Light Poles from Elm St curb, (2) Removal of Thornton Sign, (3) Removal of Stemmons Sign, (4) Removal of Tree where the Willis girl stopped chasing the JFK Limo. (Tree frequently WAS used to position the JFK Limo for Scientific Re-Enactment Studies), (5) Removal of Fire Escape from the side of the TSBD. (Only 3 windows down from the Snipers Nest), (6) Picket Fence MOVED roughly 5 inches West, etc, etc, etc. And now there is talk of completely shutting down that entire stretch of Elm St and redesigning Dealey Plaza to include ponds. A literal "Deep Sixing" of Dealey Plaza as it appeared on 11/22/63.
-
Anyhow, what the whole jfk saga needs most today is bullet tests on similar chrome trims, to replicate that dent.
These would prove that the AR15 made that dent.
Then it would be evidence to u.
But, it is already evidence to me, koz i am smarter.
:D :D :D
As I suspected. You don't have a clue what "evidence" means. That's how smart you are.
It's evidence because you think it is??
That's probably the most stupid thing ever posted on this forum and that's up against some stiff competition.
It wouldn't be so bad but this isn't even your own half-wit theory, you're just regurgitating some nonsense you heard elsewhere.
You don't even have the brains to make up your own nonsense.
Just to reiterate - this BS: theory is based on ZERO EVIDENCE.
What kind of buffoon finds 'zero evidence' acceptable?
And all of your supposed wound evidence that there was a shot from the front or sides is complete krapp.
What are you talking about?
I've never posted anything supporting a shot coming from the front or sides as I don't believe there was a shot from the front or the side
You are clearly too dumb to understand what I've posted.
Mind you, if you're dumb enough to believe the 'Hickey and His Invisible Shot' theory I shouldn't be surprised.
And you've not answered the main question [yet again]:
What is your credible explanation that not a single witness reported it?
Do you have enough brains to even understand what this question means?
Is that why you don't answer it?
I apologize for saying that u were in the shot from front or sides camp. I must have been drunk. I will save that for michael griffith.
The Hickey witnesses are well listed in Mortal Error ($25) & in JFK The Smoking Gun ($25). The 2 best books re the jfk saga.
Thems books do not tell us that Newman in a youtube says that an SSA in Queen Mary
was holding (what he called) a machine gun before the headshot.
I will find the link. I will be back.
-
Dan... you recognize that the Secret Service “knowingly destroyed the crime scene and the validity of any ballistic evidence in the limo.” But then
you fail to state why you think they would take such shocking and illegal actions, if not to cover up the accidental Hickey shot?
It's strange.
You seem to be having exactly the same problem Marjan does understanding what "evidence" means.
You do not know why the Secret Service acted the way it did. When you say it's because they were covering up Hickey's accidental shot, you are just guessing, you don't actually know.
And you seem to believe that your guess is "evidence" that the AR-15 was fired.
They may well have been altering the ballistic evidence but we don't know for sure. And even if they were altering the ballistic evidence it still doesn't prove the AR-15 was fired.
Strong evidence that the AR-15 was fired would be eye-witness testimony from the dozens of witnesses who would have been in a position to see or hear the AR-15 being fired, but not a single witness mentions anything about it.
Don't you think this strongly indicates that the AR-15 was not fired?
Why do you think not a single witness mentions it?
And why do you keep insisting that Dino Brugioni in The Zapruder Film Mystery interview on YouTube does not describe the head shot causing a piece of
JFK’s skull to fly into the air when he saw the Z film for the first time on the night of SaPersonay, Nov. 23, at the NIPC labs in Washington?
I've never said that Dino doesn't mention JFK's skull flying into the air.
I've never said that at any time, so I don't understand why you think I "keep insisting".
I know Dino mentions the skull but that's not what I'm pointing out.
You posted this:
They removed the Z film frames showing a piece of JFK's skull flying into the air (see the Zapruder Film Mystery on YouTube),
At no time does Dino mention anything about frames being removed showing pieces of skull flying into the air.
And he never mentions anything about later versions of then Z-film missing pieces of skull.
Where are you getting this idea from?
Can you pinpoint the time-mark [in minutes and seconds] in the video where Dino makes these remarks about the Z-film being altered because I can't find it.
It's probably worth noting that Dino was 90 years old at the time the video was originally made. That is, he was a 90-year-old man trying to remember something he saw one night 50 years before. It's an awful lot to expect him to remember correctly in detail what everything looked like that night.
-
It's probably worth noting that Dino was 90 years old at the time the video was originally made. That is, he was a 90-year-old man trying to remember something he saw one night 50 years before. It's an awful lot to expect him to remember correctly in detail what everything looked like that night.
The Dino Brugioni interview starts @25:02 and the part where Dino discusses the head explosion is @36:39.
It appears that Dino was talking about only Z313 and a low quality one at that, Dino would have seen a clear excellent version, these interviewers were as they in the classics, are leading the witness.
Even on this lower quality GIF the head mist is seen for several frames and visually dissipates at the same rate as seen in my real world example. On the night Dino would have seen a much clearer version being properly projected.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJ1646pb/Zapruder-deer-mist.gif)
JohnM
-
The crime scene continues being Destroyed to this very day: (1) Moving of the (N) Light Poles from Elm St curb, (2) Removal of Thornton Sign, (3) Removal of Stemmons Sign, (4) Removal of Tree where the Willis girl stopped chasing the JFK Limo. (Tree frequently WAS used to position the JFK Limo for Scientific Re-Enactment Studies), (5) Removal of Fire Escape from the side of the TSBD. (Only 3 windows down from the Snipers Nest), (6) Picket Fence MOVED roughly 5 inches West, etc, etc, etc. And now there is talk of completely shutting down that entire stretch of Elm St and redesigning Dealey Plaza to include ponds. A literal "Deep Sixing" of Dealey Plaza as it appeared on 11/22/63.
The crime scene continues being Destroyed to this very day:
Hilarious, you don't know if your Martha or Arthur!
On one hand you have repeatedly shouted from the rooftops the virtue of Knott Labs SBF laser scanned recreation and on the other hand you are openly admitting that the laser scanned information that is the very foundation of their work has been destroyed?!?!?
Royell, inadvertently you have always been good for a laugh!
JohnM
-
Hilarious, you don't know if your Martha or Arthur!
On one hand you have repeatedly shouted from the rooftops the virtue of Knott Labs SBF laser scanned recreation and on the other hand you are openly admitting that the laser scanned information that is the very foundation of their work has been destroyed?!?!?
Royell, inadvertently you have always been good for a laugh!
JohnM
John - You need to review the extensive process Knott Lab Laser 360 Technology uses to map/restore (if required) a CRIME SCENE. This SCIENCE is accepted in courtrooms across the country. For what You do, You do a decent job. But let's face it. At the tip-top of your game, you're a Neanderthal compared to these guys and the Laser 360 Technology/SCIENCE they employ. SCIENCE has delivered a JFK Assassination verdict. NO SBT = CONSPIRACY. You're day is done regarding the JFK Assassination.
-
I'm a newbie, and have not done any research on the possibility that a shot was fired from behind the fence. imho, all shots were fired from behind the presidential limo. But I know that some Parkland doctors believed the throat wound was an entrance wound. A video on YouTube featuring an interview with railroad supervisor Sam Holland, who was standing on the overpass during the assassination on Nov. 22 has caused me to expand my research.
I assume this is old info to people who support the idea of a shot from the front, but it was new to me. Sam Holland was absolutely convincing, and his statement that the Warren Commission misquoted him on the subject of a shot fired from behind the fence at the top of the grassy knoll was shocking. I didn't realize the overpass where Holland was standing is so close to the fence where he heard a shot and saw gun smoke hanging in the air. I'd like to hear from people who already know this issue, and have viewpoints concerning it. Thanks.
with the greatest of respect here , you say you have not done any research as to whether a shot or shots could have been or where fired from the area of the knoll /picket fence , but immediately in saying that you discount such a notion . how can one admit they never conducted any research into a particular area of this case and then dismiss without that research ? . i am sorry i am not trying to be rude here and i am not attacking you , i just saw what you said above and i thought surely one would want to research this area as it relates to the case before they dismiss it out of hand .
in regards parkland and the staff there . generally (but not always the case ) an entry wound is smaller than an exit wound .dr perry saw a small wound on the throat which led him (rightly or wrongly ) to initially believe the wound was of entry .later in testimony he would say it could have been either entry or exit .
but they also said they saw a large gaping right rear head wound and cerebellum . staff at bethesda including the mortician also said they saw such a wound .
there were 3 people up on the over pass , symmons , dodd and holland who all said they heard a report and saw a puff of smoke under the trees at the knoll .they were not the only ones who said they saw smoke . all be it some people attribute seeing smoke to some who did not specifically say they saw smoke .
-
with the greatest of respect here , you say you have not done any research as to whether a shot or shots could have been or where fired from the area of the knoll /picket fence , but immediately in saying that you discount such a notion . how can one admit they never conducted any research into a particular area of this case and then dismiss without that research ? . i am sorry i am not trying to be rude here and i am not attacking you , i just saw what you said above and i thought surely one would want to research this area as it relates to the case before they dismiss it out of hand .
in regards parkland and the staff there . generally (but not always the case ) an entry wound is smaller than an exit wound .dr perry saw a small wound on the throat which led him (rightly or wrongly ) to initially believe the wound was of entry .later in testimony he would say it could have been either entry or exit .
but they also said they saw a large gaping right rear head wound and cerebellum . staff at bethesda including the mortician also said they saw such a wound .
there were 3 people up on the over pass , symmons , dodd and holland who all said they heard a report and saw a puff of smoke under the trees at the knoll .they were not the only ones who said they saw smoke . all be it some people attribute seeing smoke to some who did not specifically say they saw smoke .
I believe those eyewitnesses that had an Elevated View also had a greater perspective as to what was going on. Eyewitnesses at ground level were fixated on what was going on at ground level. This is what people generally do. They have a bowling alley perspective of things in general. They seldom look UP, certainly no higher than a regulation basketball hoop/10 ft max. It is therefore Not surprising that eyewitnesses that were positioned along Elm St and looking straight down Elm would FAIL to see smoke or anything else unfolding above the TOP of the Picket Fence at the TOP of the Grassy Knoll. In addition to those gents standing atop the Triple Underpass and looking DOWN into Dealey Plaza/Elm St, Lee Bowers also had a great view from the Top Floor of that 2 story Railroad Tower that he manned on 11/22/63. Bowers was looking almost straight down/directly down the N-S section of the Picket Fence. The WC Testimonies of these people hold Great Value due to their Unique Perspectives.
-
A sniper behind the fence is & was an impossibility.
He she would have been seen as per frame below. And would have been seen by Bowers up in the railway control room. And by Zapruder & Sitzman.
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3F9gkn1/spot-the-snipers.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/9fN8Dpyk/Spot-the-snipers.jpg)
-
99% of what Holland said was krapp.
If u look at all of the pix in Dealey, & all of the footages, u will see that Holland & Co are still on the TUP many minutes after the shots.
So, Holland did not run to the fence after the shots.
Holland hizself says that there were 40 or 50 persons in the carpark when he was looking around in the carpark. So, the footprints & muddy prints etc could have been made after the shots.
Re the supposed smoke, the AR15 would have made a bit of smoke i suppose (4 or 5 shots), & it was just right of the trees from Holland's view.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kXrKbDm1/jfk-holland-saw-smoke.jpg)
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?action=post;quote=142357;topic=2833.80
-
Clemon Johnson standing on the underpass saw puffs of smoke on Elm St, not near the picket fence.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Bncw0NGw/clemon-earl-johnson-Copy-Copy.jpg)
-
As can be seen in Moorman's polaroid there is no shooter at the fence.
And we know that there was no outshoot on the lhs of JFK's head.
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYgpmXfq/moorman-polaroid-of-fence.jpg)
-
Clemon Johnson standing on the underpass saw puffs of smoke on Elm St, not near the picket fence.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Bncw0NGw/clemon-earl-johnson-Copy-Copy.jpg)
let me see if i understand what you are saying here . it seems you cite clem johnson as proof that simmons , dodd and holland saw no smoke under the bushes . yet johnson by his own admission in the article you provided stated that he was looking at jfk and his limo which was in the center lane of elm and that to quote johnson I DIDNT HARDLY LOOK UP UNTIL HE (jfk) WAS GONE , I WASNT LOOKING UP AT THESE BUSHES .
so with all due respect how does a man who by his own admission did not even look in the area in question until after jfk was no longer in his sight dispute the 3 men who said they did look that way and saw smoke at the bushes ? .
in regard the images you show of two men behind the fence now please correct me if i am wrong now but wasnt that footage from mark lanes documentary rush to judgement ? . wasnt that some 3 years after the assassination ? . if so were the trees and bushes seen in 1966 in the same condition as they were in 1963 ? IE had they been trimmed / cut back etc ?. looking at the image of holland up on the over pass certainly from that vantage point the bushes were still quite thick and trees etc over hung . none of these people were expecting shots to be fired , they were there to see jfk and jackie , so they would not be looking up at the fence line or at buildings .
and again to say what a person said is crap is not a valid argument , if a person was 100% wrong and all evidence contradicts them so be it , if every other witness 100% contradicts them so be it . but we need some proof here . we know holland (and im not quoting now ) said along the lines of they pretty much immediately ran around to look behind the fence . he told lane he got to the steam pipe and saw a sea of cars . now we know and you pointed it out i believe that images show these men still on the over pass after the limo had passed beneath the over pass . i dont think for a second that holland and these two other men lied . it was their interpretation of a traumatic event . i believe it was holland that said he immediately ran around to look behind the fence , it was not immediate as the shots rang out but more immediate after jfks limo was out of his sight .
if my memory serves me you are working on a theory , i never do that , i am simply just trying to get at the facts what ever they are . but if you are working on the hickey did it theory well you will look for that which tends to validate your theory .but in my own research of this case i have to say ive seen no proof that hickey did it . in fact i know that atleast 3 law suits came from the hickey did it mortal error theory . and again if my memory serves me the author /publisher settled all 3 law suits , one was from hickey himself was it not ? . now my thinking here would be that surely if they could prove hickey did it that they would have gladly met him in court and shown their proof wouldnt they ? . instead they settled with mr hickey .
-
let me see if i understand what you are saying here . it seems you cite clem johnson as proof that simmons , dodd and holland saw no smoke under the bushes . yet johnson by his own admission in the article you provided stated that he was looking at jfk and his limo which was in the center lane of elm and that to quote johnson I DIDNT HARDLY LOOK UP UNTIL HE (jfk) WAS GONE , I WASNT LOOKING UP AT THESE BUSHES .
so with all due respect how does a man who by his own admission did not even look in the area in question until after jfk was no longer in his sight dispute the 3 men who said they did look that way and saw smoke at the bushes ? .
in regard the images you show of two men behind the fence now please correct me if i am wrong now but wasnt that footage from mark lanes documentary rush to judgement ? . wasnt that some 3 years after the assassination ? . if so were the trees and bushes seen in 1966 in the same condition as they were in 1963 ? IE had they been trimmed / cut back etc ?. looking at the image of holland up on the over pass certainly from that vantage point the bushes were still quite thick and trees etc over hung . none of these people were expecting shots to be fired , they were there to see jfk and jackie , so they would not be looking up at the fence line or at buildings .
and again to say what a person said is crap is not a valid argument , if a person was 100% wrong and all evidence contradicts them so be it , if every other witness 100% contradicts them so be it . but we need some proof here . we know holland (and im not quoting now ) said along the lines of they pretty much immediately ran around to look behind the fence . he told lane he got to the steam pipe and saw a sea of cars . now we know and you pointed it out i believe that images show these men still on the over pass after the limo had passed beneath the over pass . i dont think for a second that holland and these two other men lied . it was their interpretation of a traumatic event . i believe it was holland that said he immediately ran around to look behind the fence , it was not immediate as the shots rang out but more immediate after jfks limo was out of his sight .
if my memory serves me you are working on a theory , i never do that , i am simply just trying to get at the facts what ever they are . but if you are working on the hickey did it theory well you will look for that which tends to validate your theory .but in my own research of this case i have to say ive seen no proof that hickey did it . in fact i know that atleast 3 law suits came from the hickey did it mortal error theory . and again if my memory serves me the author /publisher settled all 3 law suits , one was from hickey himself was it not ? . now my thinking here would be that surely if they could prove hickey did it that they would have gladly met him in court and shown their proof wouldnt they ? . instead they settled with mr hickey .
Johnson went further, he said that the guys that saw smoke at the fence were crazy. But i did not bother to find the exact reference.
Re the shrubbery, i dont know whether the shrubbery had been trimmed back say 3 years later.
Holland & Co were still seen to be on the TUP a long time after the shots, but i dont think that i ever put a number on how long after the shots.
U & me & all have to work on a theory, & then see what fits & what dont fit.
When there are so many facts & contrafacts & factoids it is impossible to do otherwise.
My theory (that Hickey fired the head shot) is i am sure 100% correct.
All of my stuff is 100% correct.
-
let me see if i understand what you are saying here . it seems you cite clem johnson as proof that simmons , dodd and holland saw no smoke under the bushes . yet johnson by his own admission in the article you provided stated that he was looking at jfk and his limo which was in the center lane of elm and that to quote johnson I DIDNT HARDLY LOOK UP UNTIL HE (jfk) WAS GONE , I WASNT LOOKING UP AT THESE BUSHES .
so with all due respect how does a man who by his own admission did not even look in the area in question until after jfk was no longer in his sight dispute the 3 men who said they did look that way and saw smoke at the bushes ? .
in regard the images you show of two men behind the fence now please correct me if i am wrong now but wasnt that footage from mark lanes documentary rush to judgement ? . wasnt that some 3 years after the assassination ? . if so were the trees and bushes seen in 1966 in the same condition as they were in 1963 ? IE had they been trimmed / cut back etc ?. looking at the image of holland up on the over pass certainly from that vantage point the bushes were still quite thick and trees etc over hung . none of these people were expecting shots to be fired , they were there to see jfk and jackie , so they would not be looking up at the fence line or at buildings .
and again to say what a person said is crap is not a valid argument , if a person was 100% wrong and all evidence contradicts them so be it , if every other witness 100% contradicts them so be it . but we need some proof here . we know holland (and im not quoting now ) said along the lines of they pretty much immediately ran around to look behind the fence . he told lane he got to the steam pipe and saw a sea of cars . now we know and you pointed it out i believe that images show these men still on the over pass after the limo had passed beneath the over pass . i dont think for a second that holland and these two other men lied . it was their interpretation of a traumatic event . i believe it was holland that said he immediately ran around to look behind the fence , it was not immediate as the shots rang out but more immediate after jfks limo was out of his sight .
if my memory serves me you are working on a theory , i never do that , i am simply just trying to get at the facts what ever they are . but if you are working on the hickey did it theory well you will look for that which tends to validate your theory .but in my own research of this case i have to say ive seen no proof that hickey did it . in fact i know that atleast 3 law suits came from the hickey did it mortal error theory . and again if my memory serves me the author /publisher settled all 3 law suits , one was from hickey himself was it not ? . now my thinking here would be that surely if they could prove hickey did it that they would have gladly met him in court and shown their proof wouldnt they ? . instead they settled with mr hickey .
Your point is the same one I often make. The eyewitnesses with Elevated viewing positions have the best overall view of Dealey Plaza. They are looking downward onto Elm St and therefore see much more than eyewitnesses at ground level on Elm St. People in everyday life seldom look Upward. Their vision seldom raising higher than roughly 10 feet high off the ground. Ground level eyewitnesses were fixated on the JFK Limo traveling down Elm St. These eyewitnesses were like a Pirate peering through an eye glass or someone on a submarine looking through a periscope. Very restricted vision. The higher ground vision of those on the Triple Underpass and Lee Bowers in the Railroad Tower is far superior. The WC attorney never asked Bowers, but I would bet that a pair of binoculars is standard equipment inside that Railroad Tower. Bowers needing to see the Top of the Triple Underpass would mandate a pair of binoculars being inside that tower to aid his vision for great distances such as this. I believe he probably used binoculars on 11/22/63. This would make his observations prior to the shooting all the more valuable/precise.
-
johnson had an opinion about these men and that is his right , but that is proof of nothing . again by his own admission he was not looking where simmons , dodd and holland said they looked until after jfk and his limo were out of his sight . so he really cant be used to contradict them .
well i think we need to know if the shrubbery was cut back at all between november 1963 and when mark lane and holland were there some 3 years later . if they were not cut back they should have grown quite a bit in 3 years i would imagine .perhaps another poster or duncan has information on this and can chime in and let us know . i do know that holland also stood behind the fence alone while another picture was taken from across the street , if you will in the area where mary moormon stood .upon zooming in he could be seen all be it not clearly . and im sure the camera used was of a better quality than the cameras used that tragic day .
i agree holland did not immediately run around to look behind the fence , i am sure he was not being dishonest about that . more that the nature of events caused him to believe he had ran around the fence sooner than he did . but that could have been dealt with by the commission in order to ascertain just how long it was before he left where he stood .
i have no problem with anyone who may have a theory as long as it is merited and supported by evidence .
if your theory re hickey is 100% correct with all due respect then it should have iron clad proof to back it up .ive yet to see anyone who goes alone with the hickey did it theory come anywhere near to proving it . not even the author who came up with it and the publisher who published it . if they did have proof why would they not take that to a court of law to win the law suits ? . all of that said if anyone has a valid theory and they have evidence or even proof in support of it i am only too willing to look at it .i have seen a lot of your work on this site regarding the hickey theory or regarding other aspects of the case and as i have said i just feel i am asking valid questions and some times posting relevant information , and am in no way meaning any disrespect to you . i value all info posted on this site about this case even if i may not always agree with it . thanks for your reply .
-
Your point is the same one I often make. The eyewitnesses with Elevated viewing positions have the best overall view of Dealey Plaza. They are looking downward onto Elm St and therefore see much more than eyewitnesses at ground level on Elm St. People in everyday life seldom look Upward. Their vision seldom raising higher than roughly 10 feet high off the ground. Ground level eyewitnesses were fixated on the JFK Limo traveling down Elm St. These eyewitnesses were like a Pirate peering through an eye glass or someone on a submarine looking through a periscope. Very restricted vision. The higher ground vision of those on the Triple Underpass and Lee Bowers in the Railroad Tower is far superior. The WC attorney never asked Bowers, but I would bet that a pair of binoculars is standard equipment inside that Railroad Tower. Bowers needing to see the Top of the Triple Underpass would mandate a pair of binoculars being inside that tower to aid his vision for great distances such as this. I believe he probably used binoculars on 11/22/63. This would make his observations prior to the shooting all the more valuable/precise.
hello i agree with you in regard elevation for sure .and also that people were looking at jfk and or jackie . i have often bee told but witnesses would have seen a man /men behind the fence , but as we agree witnesses had no need to look there , well not until shots rang out any way . they were fixed looking at jfk and jackie in the center lane of elm . witnesses are never 100% accurate , its human nature .some may embellish or lie as i think happened in this case . not necessarily always for money but yes for some it may have been a factor . for some maybe just to insert them selves into history . even cops did this .do i think holland and co lied ? no , i have no reason at all to believe so . was holland wrong about how long it was before he ran to look behind the fence ? yes he was , greatly wrong ? no but wrong none the less . however that does not invalidate his observations .
in my humble opinion the WC didnt want bowers observations on record . i do think he saw more than he admitted to . that said he saw quite a bit as can be seen in his testimony . the commission could have gotten a lot more from him had THEY WANTED TO . lane asked him in essence to say what he was going to say to the commission before they cut him off and he did . he said something happened up there on the knoll a flash of light or smoke , but he was not sure what .the W/C could have gotten so much more from witnesses but they didnt want to .thank you for your reply royell .
-
hello i agree with you in regard elevation for sure .and also that people were looking at jfk and or jackie . i have often bee told but witnesses would have seen a man /men behind the fence , but as we agree witnesses had no need to look there , well not until shots rang out any way . they were fixed looking at jfk and jackie in the center lane of elm . witnesses are never 100% accurate , its human nature .some may embellish or lie as i think happened in this case . not necessarily always for money but yes for some it may have been a factor . for some maybe just to insert them selves into history . even cops did this .do i think holland and co lied ? no , i have no reason at all to believe so . was holland wrong about how long it was before he ran to look behind the fence ? yes he was , greatly wrong ? no but wrong none the less . however that does not invalidate his observations .
in my humble opinion the WC didnt want bowers observations on record . i do think he saw more than he admitted to . that said he saw quite a bit as can be seen in his testimony . the commission could have gotten a lot more from him had THEY WANTED TO . lane asked him in essence to say what he was going to say to the commission before they cut him off and he did . he said something happened up there on the knoll a flash of light or smoke , but he was not sure what .the W/C could have gotten so much more from witnesses but they didnt want to .thank you for your reply royell .
You and I agree right down the line. Just looking at Holland physically, it would have taken him awhile to get back behind the picket fence had he immediately headed there. The assorted film images show a lot of people atop the Triple Underpass at least 90 seconds maybe 2 minutes after the kill shot. You can see them up there on the Couch footage of Officer Haygood straightening his motorcycle up at the curb.
I do believe that Lee Bowers is a No Nonsense kinda person. What he says is not going to be exaggerated. His detailed description of those 3 cars along with his detailing a guy talking into something inside a car tells me he probably had binoculars trained on those cars. Bowers mentioned that the streets around Dealey Plaza had been blocked and this made Dealey Plaza absent any vehicle traffic. This is why those 3 cars drew his immediate attention. He could Not figure out how they gained access to Dealey Plaza and were able to then pass by his Railroad Tower.
-
You and I agree right down the line. Just looking at Holland physically, it would have taken him awhile to get back behind the picket fence had he immediately headed there. The assorted film images show a lot of people atop the Triple Underpass at least 90 seconds maybe 2 minutes after the kill shot. You can see them up there on the Couch footage of Officer Haygood straightening his motorcycle up at the curb.
I do believe that Lee Bowers is a No Nonsense kinda person. What he says is not going to be exaggerated. His detailed description of those 3 cars along with his detailing a guy talking into something inside a car tells me he probably had binoculars trained on those cars. Bowers mentioned that the streets around Dealey Plaza had been blocked and this made Dealey Plaza absent any vehicle traffic. This is why those 3 cars drew his immediate attention. He could Not figure out how they gained access to Dealey Plaza and were able to then pass by his Railroad Tower.
If you believe Bowers then you have a couple of problems. The first one is on the number of shots. Here is his WC testimony.
Mr. BOWERS - I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together. Also reverberation from the shots.
Mr. BELIN - And were you able to form an opinion as to the source of the sound or what direction it came from, I mean?
Mr. BOWERS - The sounds came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass.
Three shots. From either the TSBD or the mouth of the underpass. Since JFK and Connally were both shot from behind that rules out the underpass.
The second is a supposed shooter from behind the fence. He said this in the Lane interview:
"Now I could see back or the South side of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."
He further said that the "flash of light or smoke " was where the two men - in *front* of the fence were located. Nothing from *behind* the fence.
So, three shots and no shooter from behind the fence. Not a good witness for the conspiracy believers.
-
If you believe Bowers then you have a couple of problems. The first one is on the number of shots. Here is his WC testimony.
Mr. BOWERS - I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together. Also reverberation from the shots.
Mr. BELIN - And were you able to form an opinion as to the source of the sound or what direction it came from, I mean?
Mr. BOWERS - The sounds came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass.
Three shots. From either the TSBD or the mouth of the underpass. Since JFK and Connally were both shot from behind that rules out the underpass.
The second is a supposed shooter from behind the fence. He said this in the Lane interview:
"Now I could see back or the South side of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."
He further said that the "flash of light or smoke " was where the two men - in *front* of the fence were located. Nothing from *behind* the fence.
So, three shots and no shooter from behind the fence. Not a good witness for the conspiracy believers.
You seem to believe that ALL people claiming conspiracy think in lock-step as to how the assassination was carried out. Your Premise is FALSE and DQ's everything you propose from that point forward.
To me, Lee Bowers is a critical witness due to his documenting there being a White Shirt Man "....in line with the Triple Underpass". Do the research and give this some Objective consideration.
-
You seem to believe that ALL people claiming conspiracy think in lock-step as to how the assassination was carried out. Your Premise is FALSE and DQ's everything you propose from that point forward.
To me, Lee Bowers is a critical witness due to his documenting there being a White Shirt Man "....in line with the Triple Underpass". Do the research and give this some Objective consideration.
Once again Bowers said he saw no one behind the fence at the time of the shooting. And he said he heard three shots. That is him saying this not me.
You can disqualify me, whatever that means, but you can't disqualify Bowers and his account while at the same time saying he's your "critical witness". You have to confront the fact that he said he saw no shooter behind the fence and that he heard three - not four, not five, not six - shots.
It is Bowers you need to deal with - to disqualify - not me or my views of the conspiracy advocates. I am quoting him I am not quoting me.
And of course I don't believe "all conspiracy believers" believe the same thing or are in lock step agreement. That's really their problem. They have 20 different theories - at least - as to what happened. That can't be true. It only happened one way. They need to look at the evidence first and then come up with a theory and not start with a pre-existing theory - the CIA, the military, the mob, the anti-Castro Cuban, the rich Texas oilmen - and then find evidence for it.
Did you ever ask yourself why so many conspiracy believers are at odds with each other?
-
Once again Bowers said he saw no one behind the fence at the time of the shooting. And he said he heard three shots. That is him saying this not me.
You can disqualify me, whatever that means, but you can't disqualify Bowers and his account while at the same time saying he's your "critical witness". You have to confront the fact that he said he saw no shooter behind the fence and that he heard three - not four, not five, not six - shots.
It is Bowers you need to deal with - to disqualify - not me or my views of the conspiracy advocates. I am quoting him I am not quoting me.
And of course I don't believe "all conspiracy believers" believe the same thing or are in lock step agreement. That's really their problem. They have 20 different theories - at least - as to what happened. That can't be true. It only happened one way. They need to look at the evidence first and then come up with a theory and not start with a pre-existing theory - the CIA, the military, the mob, the anti-Castro Cuban, the rich Texas oilmen - and then find evidence for it.
Did you ever ask yourself why so many conspiracy believers are at odds with each other?
I'll start with you last misnomer. All those that believe there were multiple shooters can interpret the Evidence differently. This is along the lines of, "many paths leading to the same destination".
When are we going to see a single LN using SCIENCE to dispel the findings of Knott Lab and their Laser 360 Technology which is routinely used in courtrooms around this country? The SBT = DOA
-
You and I agree right down the line. Just looking at Holland physically, it would have taken him awhile to get back behind the picket fence had he immediately headed there. The assorted film images show a lot of people atop the Triple Underpass at least 90 seconds maybe 2 minutes after the kill shot. You can see them up there on the Couch footage of Officer Haygood straightening his motorcycle up at the curb.
I do believe that Lee Bowers is a No Nonsense kinda person. What he says is not going to be exaggerated. His detailed description of those 3 cars along with his detailing a guy talking into something inside a car tells me he probably had binoculars trained on those cars. Bowers mentioned that the streets around Dealey Plaza had been blocked and this made Dealey Plaza absent any vehicle traffic. This is why those 3 cars drew his immediate attention. He could Not figure out how they gained access to Dealey Plaza and were able to then pass by his Railroad Tower.
the parking area was sealed off or atleast so we were told . and as you said certainly once they knew jfk was enroute they would have closed off roads .and blocked access .so yes both bowers and us must question how those cars came to get into the car parking area , an area if memory serves was used by the dallas police . seemingly they had no business in there and also should not have been able to get in there .all that said bowers as you mentioned seems to have seen someone talking on a radio or similar . i have had a thought that that one car might have been some type of law enforcement but then why if that is the case have the police never said this ? . that only to my thinking brings is back to who ever they were they should have not been in there .
as to the question of binoculars ive seen you mention this before if im correct , and yes you raise a valid point there that i had not considered . but im not familiar enough with the workings of a railroad tower so i cant say . but yes it seems reasonable on the surface that bowers would have binoculars .
-
Once again Bowers said he saw no one behind the fence at the time of the shooting. And he said he heard three shots. That is him saying this not me.
You can disqualify me, whatever that means, but you can't disqualify Bowers and his account while at the same time saying he's your "critical witness". You have to confront the fact that he said he saw no shooter behind the fence and that he heard three - not four, not five, not six - shots.
It is Bowers you need to deal with - to disqualify - not me or my views of the conspiracy advocates. I am quoting him I am not quoting me.
And of course I don't believe "all conspiracy believers" believe the same thing or are in lock step agreement. That's really their problem. They have 20 different theories - at least - as to what happened. That can't be true. It only happened one way. They need to look at the evidence first and then come up with a theory and not start with a pre-existing theory - the CIA, the military, the mob, the anti-Castro Cuban, the rich Texas oilmen - and then find evidence for it.
Did you ever ask yourself why so many conspiracy believers are at odds with each other?
if you dont see a person somewhere does that mean they were never there ? . of course not .so its not impossible that bowers didnt see someone there .the place was a sea of cars and trucks with over hanging trees and shrubbery and shadow from them .. he was not expecting an assassination , no one was . its not unreasonable that he looked at the space between the knoll fence and the pergola because logically that is the only spot he could have hoped to see any of the motorcade through . what it seems you are in essence saying is if he was asked DID YOU SEE ANYONE ? and he said NO that that can only mean no one was there . while it can mean no one was there it can equally mean he just did not notice someone there .
-
if you dont see a person somewhere does that mean they were never there ? . of course not .so its not impossible that bowers didnt see someone there .the place was a sea of cars and trucks with over hanging trees and shrubbery and shadow from them .. he was not expecting an assassination , no one was . its not unreasonable that he looked at the space between the knoll fence and the pergola because logically that is the only spot he could have hoped to see any of the motorcade through . what it seems you are in essence saying is if he was asked DID YOU SEE ANYONE ? and he said NO that that can only mean no one was there . while it can mean no one was there it can equally mean he just did not notice someone there .
The Railroad Tower that Bowers was inside is in a DIRECT LINE with the parking spaces that run directly into the N-S section of the Picket Fence. Bowers was looking straight down the space between the Picket Fence and the Concrete Walkway that leads to The Steps. The only thing possibly blocking Bowers "Shot Gun" view down that "corridor" would be the large tree that is close to the shelter and roughly 3 feet out from the picket fence. That tree has a thick trunk on it. Other than that, Bowers could have fired a cannon down that "corridor" and Not hit anything.
-
johnson had an opinion about these men and that is his right , but that is proof of nothing . again by his own admission he was not looking where simmons , dodd and holland said they looked until after jfk and his limo were out of his sight . so he really cant be used to contradict them .
well i think we need to know if the shrubbery was cut back at all between november 1963 and when mark lane and holland were there some 3 years later . if they were not cut back they should have grown quite a bit in 3 years i would imagine .perhaps another poster or duncan has information on this and can chime in and let us know . i do know that holland also stood behind the fence alone while another picture was taken from across the street , if you will in the area where mary moormon stood .upon zooming in he could be seen all be it not clearly . and im sure the camera used was of a better quality than the cameras used that tragic day .
i agree holland did not immediately run around to look behind the fence , i am sure he was not being dishonest about that . more that the nature of events caused him to believe he had ran around the fence sooner than he did . but that could have been dealt with by the commission in order to ascertain just how long it was before he left where he stood .
i have no problem with anyone who may have a theory as long as it is merited and supported by evidence .
if your theory re hickey is 100% correct with all due respect then it should have iron clad proof to back it up .ive yet to see anyone who goes alone with the hickey did it theory come anywhere near to proving it . not even the author who came up with it and the publisher who published it . if they did have proof why would they not take that to a court of law to win the law suits ? . all of that said if anyone has a valid theory and they have evidence or even proof in support of it i am only too willing to look at it .i have seen a lot of your work on this site regarding the hickey theory or regarding other aspects of the case and as i have said i just feel i am asking valid questions and some times posting relevant information , and am in no way meaning any disrespect to you . i value all info posted on this site about this case even if i may not always agree with it . thanks for your reply .
The dent in the chrome trim is to me the hard proof that the AR15 did the dirty deed.
The stink of gunsmoke in the motorcade is hard evidence too.
My giffs of Hickey holding the AR15 all the way from where Bell's sequence starts all the way to the TUP where the sequence stops is hard evidence too.
Comparing the printscreen from the youtube to the Moorman photo, yes, the shrubbery has grown taller, & yes the leafage had been pruned a bit.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9fN8Dpyk/Spot-the-snipers.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYgpmXfq/moorman-polaroid-of-fence.jpg)
-
I'll start with you last misnomer. All those that believe there were multiple shooters can interpret the Evidence differently. This is along the lines of, "many paths leading to the same destination".
When are we going to see a single LN using SCIENCE to dispel the findings of Knott Lab and their Laser 360 Technology which is routinely used in courtrooms around this country? The SBT = DOA
The various claims are shooters from the fence, shooters from the underpass, shooters from the sewer, shooters from the Dal-Tex building.....you folks have shooters all over the place. How many shooters? How many shots? From where?
There is no same destination when you can't agree on any of these basics: the number of shots, where the shooters were and how many of them were there. That's fundamental differences that 60 years later you all can't agree with. Just saying "We all believe in a conspiracy" and that's our agreed upon destination is meaningless.
Meanwhile, your "crucial witness" Lee Bowers is still telling you there was no one there. You've got a problem on your hands.
-
The various claims are shooters from the fence, shooters from the underpass, shooters from the sewer, shooters from the Dal-Tex building.....you folks have shooters all over the place. How many shooters? How many shots? From where?
There is no same destination when you can't agree on any of these basics: the number of shots, where the shooters were and how many of them were there. That's fundamental differences that 60 years later you all can't agree with. Just saying "We all believe in a conspiracy" and that's our agreed upon destination is meaningless.
Meanwhile, your "crucial witness" Lee Bowers is still telling you there was no one there. You've got a problem on your hands.
Not sure WHERE you are referring to when You say, "Lee Bowers is still telling you there was NO ONE THERE". Specifically, where is THERE? Bowers does mention "commotion", but that would indicate possible activity by a person or persons. Like I said previously, with Bowers being responsible for track switching and train traffic atop The Triple Underpass, I believe a pair of binoculars was standard equipment inside the Railroad Tower that he manned. His detailed WC description of what men were wearing, "in line with the Triple Underpass"/grassy knoll, the 3 cars, bumper stickers, etc , makes me believe he was using binoculars at least part of the time leading up to the Kill Shot. With that corridor view he had straight down into the area between the cement walkway/The Steps and the picket fence, he was a very valuable witness that the WC failed to cultivate.
-
Not sure WHERE you are referring to when You say, "Lee Bowers is still telling you there was NO ONE THERE". Specifically, where is THERE? Bowers does mention "commotion", but that would indicate possible activity by a person or persons. Like I said previously, with Bowers being responsible for track switching and train traffic atop The Triple Underpass, I believe a pair of binoculars was standard equipment inside the Railroad Tower that he manned. His detailed WC description of what men were wearing, "in line with the Triple Underpass"/grassy knoll, the 3 cars, bumper stickers, etc , makes me believe he was using binoculars at least part of the time leading up to the Kill Shot. With that corridor view he had straight down into the area between the cement walkway/The Steps and the picket fence, he was a very valuable witness that the WC failed to cultivate.
Cultivate this, do you "believe" Bowers was using his binoculars when he saw the invisible motorcycle? Hehehe.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any activity in this high ground above Elm after the shot?
Mr. BOWERS - At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.
Mr. BALL - On his motorcycle?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did he come by way of Elm Street?
Mr. BOWERS - He was part of the motorcade and had left it for some reason, which I did not know.
Mr. BALL - He came up---
Mr. BOWERS - He came almost to the top and I believe abandoned his motorcycle for a moment and then got on it and proceeded, I don't know
Mr. BALL - How did he get up?
Mr. BOWERS - He just shot up over the curb and up.
JohnM
-
Cultivate this, do you "believe" Bowers was using his binoculars when he saw the invisible motorcycle? Hehehe.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any activity in this high ground above Elm after the shot?
Mr. BOWERS - At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.
Mr. BALL - On his motorcycle?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did he come by way of Elm Street?
Mr. BOWERS - He was part of the motorcade and had left it for some reason, which I did not know.
Mr. BALL - He came up---
Mr. BOWERS - He came almost to the top and I believe abandoned his motorcycle for a moment and then got on it and proceeded, I don't know
Mr. BALL - How did he get up?
Mr. BOWERS - He just shot up over the curb and up.
JohnM
This is where people such as yourself are at a tremendously embarrassing disadvantage. You would rather screw around with posting gory cartoons and pictures vs becoming familiar with JFK Assassination Sworn Testimonies. Skinny Holland also reported seeing a motorcycle jumping the curb and racing Up the Knoll. The common denominator of Holland and Bowers would be their: (1) Close Proximity, and (2) Uniquely HIGHLY ELEVATED VIEW of the Knoll. There's never anything humorous in the face of ignorance.
-
The various claims are shooters from the fence, shooters from the underpass, shooters from the sewer, shooters from the Dal-Tex building.....you folks have shooters all over the place. How many shooters? How many shots? From where?
There is no same destination when you can't agree on any of these basics: the number of shots, where the shooters were and how many of them were there. That's fundamental differences that 60 years later you all can't agree with. Just saying "We all believe in a conspiracy" and that's our agreed upon destination is meaningless.
Meanwhile, your "crucial witness" Lee Bowers is still telling you there was no one there. You've got a problem on your hands.
They can't even agree on the "conspiracy." In some instances, Oswald is completely innocent. In others, he has some unspecified involvement but is not the shooter. In still others, he is the shooter but there were other shooters and/or participants. Working backward toward the facts to avoiding accepting the obvious conclusion that Oswald was the assassin and there is no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else after 60 years of trying to make that case.
-
They can't even agree on the "conspiracy." In some instances, Oswald is completely innocent. In others, he has some unspecified involvement but is not the shooter. In still others, he is the shooter but there were other shooters and/or participants. Working backward toward the facts to avoiding accepting the obvious conclusion that Oswald was the assassin and there is no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else after 60 years of trying to make that case.
The SCIENCE has proven the SBT is IMPOSSIBLE. This means at least 2 shooters. You might want to ignore this, but it is FACT!
-
This is where people such as yourself are at a tremendously embarrassing disadvantage. You would rather screw around with posting gory cartoons and pictures vs becoming familiar with JFK Assassination Sworn Testimonies. Skinny Holland also reported seeing a motorcycle jumping the curb and racing Up the Knoll. The common denominator of Holland and Bowers would be their: (1) Close Proximity, and (2) Uniquely HIGHLY ELEVATED VIEW of the Knoll. There's never anything humorous in the face of ignorance.
Can you please point out the motorcycle that you see, in the following film still images or photographs? Thanks in advance.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/bond4.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/2015-009-0004.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/stoughton.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Image57~0.jpg)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/snapshot20111219191102.jpg)
These images come from the JFK Assassination Research Photo Gallery, link above.
Btw I can't see any motorcycle tracks or motorcycles or do you think for some unknown reason the evil conspirators edited out the motorcycle?
JohnM
-
The SCIENCE has proven the SBT is IMPOSSIBLE. This means at least 2 shooters. You might want to ignore this, but it is FACT!
It's impossible? I know there is a full moon but surely you don't believe that. There have been recreations using the same rifle and ammo that demonstrate that it was not only possible but the ONLY possible result. You can see it with your own eyes.
-
Not sure WHERE you are referring to when You say, "Lee Bowers is still telling you there was NO ONE THERE". Specifically, where is THERE? Bowers does mention "commotion", but that would indicate possible activity by a person or persons. Like I said previously, with Bowers being responsible for track switching and train traffic atop The Triple Underpass, I believe a pair of binoculars was standard equipment inside the Railroad Tower that he manned. His detailed WC description of what men were wearing, "in line with the Triple Underpass"/grassy knoll, the 3 cars, bumper stickers, etc , makes me believe he was using binoculars at least part of the time leading up to the Kill Shot. With that corridor view he had straight down into the area between the cement walkway/The Steps and the picket fence, he was a very valuable witness that the WC failed to cultivate.
My memory tells me that Bowers could not see the 3 guys halfway down thems steps.
Geometrically impossible. U can check that today if u like.
But, Bowers would have seen them if they occasionally wandered over closer to the fence, or if/when they were further up the stairs, in the minutes before the shooting.
And, of course, binoculars would not change that.
-
It's impossible? I know there is a full moon but surely you don't believe that. There have been recreations using the same rifle and ammo that demonstrate that it was not only possible but the ONLY possible result. You can see it with your own eyes.
To be fair. It is possible geometrically speaking that 2 different shots from the same spot could give 2 wound trajectories that could possibly be lined up such that they gave the impression of a single shot.
This could possibly even be done if the 2 shots were from 2 slightly different spots.
But, i agree that, other evidence suggests that the SBT was the only possible result of all of the evidence.
And, the SB was by Oswald from Oswald's window, &, the SB was at Z218.
Z218 makes it more difficult for the SBT i think, i mean compared to Z219 or later, due to the geometry involved.
By the way, anti SBTists, & pro SBTists, have never mentioned that the SB would almost certainly not have gone dead straight, it would have veered.
After all, it went throo say 8" of jfk, & then say10" of connally.
A FMJ Carcano slug might veer say up to 8 deg in 8", & then the tumbling slug might veer say up to 10 deg in 10".
Shot-1 (Oswald) was at Z105, ie at the signals.
Shot-3 to shot-6 (or shot-3 to shot-7)(Hickey) were at say Z300 to Z312.
-
It's impossible? I know there is a full moon but surely you don't believe that. There have been recreations using the same rifle and ammo that demonstrate that it was not only possible but the ONLY possible result. You can see it with your own eyes.
Maybe you missed the Knott Labs Laser 360 Technology conclusion = "IMPOSSIBLE"
-
They can't even agree on the "conspiracy." In some instances, Oswald is completely innocent. In others, he has some unspecified involvement but is not the shooter. In still others, he is the shooter but there were other shooters and/or participants.
Just because the LN-faithful march in lock-step over their faith-based narrative doesn’t make that narrative correct.
Working backward toward the facts to avoiding accepting the obvious conclusion that Oswald was the assassin
LOL.
-
It's impossible? I know there is a full moon but surely you don't believe that. There have been recreations using the same rifle and ammo that demonstrate that it was not only possible but the ONLY possible result. You can see it with your own eyes.
BS: cite these “recreations”.
-
It's impossible? I know there is a full moon but surely you don't believe that. There have been recreations using the same rifle and ammo that demonstrate that it was not only possible but the ONLY possible result. You can see it with your own eyes.
Yes, I have seen the numerous re-creations. That is ALL they are. RE-CREATIONS. That is NOT SCIENCE. That is Rich Little doing Jimmy Stewart. It is an attempted "Knock-Off". Rich Little is NOT SCIENCE. A lot of you guys wanna "follow the science" until you don't. You're now being "Hoisted on your own petard". SCIENCE has determined that the SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE! Some of us are going to ensure that this declaration of Multiple Shooters = Conspiracy does not get buried by "Re-Creations" or other sophomoric "Dress Rehearsals". You will Not dodge THE SCIENCE.
-
Yes, I have seen the numerous re-creations. That is ALL they are. RE-CREATIONS. That is NOT SCIENCE. That is Rich Little doing Jimmy Stewart. It is an attempted "Knock-Off". Rich Little is NOT SCIENCE. A lot of you guys wanna "follow the science" until you don't. You're now being "Hoisted on your own petard". SCIENCE has determined that the SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE! Some of us are going to ensure that this declaration of Multiple Shooters = Conspiracy does not get buried by "Re-Creations" or other sophomoric "Dress Rehearsals". You will Not dodge THE SCIENCE.
Interesting, you feel that if it was you sitting in front of JFK that you would not have been struck by the bullet that exited JFK's throat? All because of some odd belief that some psuedo science is on your side and despite the fact that the HSCA expert assured you that being struck by the bullet would be the only possible outcome.
-
Interesting, you feel that if it was you sitting in front of JFK that you would not have been struck by the bullet that exited JFK's throat? All because of some odd belief that some psuedo science is on your side and despite the fact that the HSCA expert assured you that being struck by the bullet would be the only possible outcome.
OK, now the attempt is made to label Knott Lab Laser 360 "pseudo science". So, what are you saying about our Justice System which currently routinely uses this SCIENCE to track bullet trajectories? And YOU wanna fall back on the HSCA? You do realize that was pushing 50 YEARS AGO? You like others around here are on TILT. Take a couple of Excedrin, lay down, and then get back to me. You're raving.
-
OK, now the attempt is made to label Knott Lab Laser 360 "pseudo science". So, what are you saying about our Justice System which currently routinely uses this SCIENCE to track bullet trajectories? And YOU wanna fall back on the HSCA? You do realize that was pushing 50 YEARS AGO? You like others around here are on TILT. Take a couple of Excedrin, lay down, and then get back to me. You're raving.
This is not a 20 foot or less shooting scene with known parameters. It appears their model cannot handle the distance and unknowns. All they do is provide a graphic representation. The same can be accomplished with a paper and pencil.
-
This is not a 20 foot or less shooting scene with known parameters. It appears their model cannot handle the distance and unknowns. All they do is provide a graphic representation. The same can be accomplished with a paper and pencil.
"Paper and pencil"? And when are You planning NASA's next Moon trip?
-
"Paper and pencil"? And when are You planning NASA's next Moon trip?
The reality of it is it just a computer representation of what can also be accomplished with a paper and pencil. You don't understand that?
-
Yes, I have seen the numerous re-creations. That is ALL they are. RE-CREATIONS. That is NOT SCIENCE. That is Rich Little doing Jimmy Stewart. It is an attempted "Knock-Off". Rich Little is NOT SCIENCE. A lot of you guys wanna "follow the science" until you don't. You're now being "Hoisted on your own petard". SCIENCE has determined that the SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE! Some of us are going to ensure that this declaration of Multiple Shooters = Conspiracy does not get buried by "Re-Creations" or other sophomoric "Dress Rehearsals". You will Not dodge THE SCIENCE.
Sorry to interrupt this verbal diarrhoea Royell, the Warren Commission never relied on the SBF. Oops
There is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds. However, Governor Connally’s testimony and certain other factors have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability, but there is no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President’s and Governor Connally’s wounds were fired from the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository
JohnM
-
The reality of it is it just a computer representation of what can also be accomplished with a paper and pencil. You don't understand that?
Your believing that the findings of SCIENCE can be replicated with a coloring book and a crayola explains why you accept the SBT along with falling back on the 50 yr old HSCA. Don't forget to shoe your horse and grease the wheels on that buggy of yours.
-
This is not a 20 foot or less shooting scene with known parameters. It appears their model cannot handle the distance and unknowns. All they do is provide a graphic representation. The same can be accomplished with a paper and pencil.
The way to prove the SBT is to park the jfklimo at Z218, with a Connally sitting (with a bullseye on his back) & a jfk sitting (with bullseye on his back/neck), & look throo telescopic sights from up at the SN.
Then, by trial & error, arrange jfk & Connally & scope such that when jfk is removed the crosshairs on the scope are pointing at the bullseye on Connally.
If the position of Connally & jfk are nearnuff as per the Z frames before going behind the sign (&/or after emerging), then we have proved the SBT.
I think that there have been a number of tests over the years kind of similar to the above, & on each occasion the testers were happy with the SBT.
But i daresay that thems tests have had many shortcomings (eg using Queen Mary).
Proper tests were needed.
-
The way to prove the SBT is to park the jfklimo at Z218, with a Connally sitting (with a bullseye on his back) & a jfk sitting (with bullseye on his back/neck), & look throo telescopic sights from up at the SN.
Then, by trial & error, arrange jfk & Connally & scope such that when jfk is removed the crosshairs on the scope are pointing at the bullseye on Connally.
If the position of Connally & jfk are nearnuff as per the Z frames before going behind the sign (&/or after emerging), then we have proved the SBT.
I think that there have been a number of tests over the years kind of similar to the above, & on each occasion the testers were happy with the SBT.
But i daresay that thems tests have had many shortcomings (eg using Queen Mary).
Proper tests were needed.
No matter how much they whine, cry, and babble on, SCIENCE has proven the, "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE". Case Closed!
-
...
"Now I could see back or the South side of the wooden fence in the area, so that obviously that there was no one there who could have - uh - had anything to do with either - as accomplice or anything else because there was no one there - um - at the moment that the shots were fired."
He further said that the "flash of light or smoke " was where the two men - in *front* of the fence were located. Nothing from *behind* the fence.
So, three shots and no shooter from behind the fence. Not a good witness for the conspiracy believers.
Steve,
have you read the full transcript? Because Bowers makes it clear in there that he was talking about the south side of the fence where the cop Haygood ran to. It's a pain but it's a fact.
I hope the answer is No. Then I'd have to ask why not?
If it's Yes, then where exactly did you see it and do you know if it's available online(I've looked but had no luck)?
And you must know, even if you've only seen snippets, that Bowers never, ever said the two men he saw were in front of the fence.
"I could see the back of the fence" and "One man dissapeared behind the fence". One statement was clarified with not one but two references to the south. The other was not.
Just so you know, I am of the opinion that the Bower/Lane transcript points us to the area where Hudson stood too and it's most likely those people he saw milling around. I also believe that Lane would not have used Bowers if Lee made it clear that they weren't behind the fence. The fact is, is that he never said they weren't and he never said the were and that's down to Lane. Mark Lane left it alone because he knew the answer already.
-
Steve,
have you read the full transcript? Because Bowers makes it clear in there that he was talking about the south side of the fence where the cop Haygood ran to. It's a pain but it's a fact.
I hope the answer is No. Then I'd have to ask why not?
If it's Yes, then where exactly did you see it and do you know if it's available online(I've looked but had no luck)?
And you must know, even if you've only seen snippets, that Bowers never, ever said the two men he saw were in front of the fence.
"I could see the back of the fence" and "One man dissapeared behind the fence". One statement was clarified with not one but two references to the south. The other was not.
Just so you know, I am of the opinion that the Bower/Lane transcript points us to the area where Hudson stood too and it's most likely those people he saw milling around. I also believe that Lane would not have used Bowers if Lee made it clear that they weren't behind the fence. The fact is, is that he never said they weren't and he never said the were and that's down to Lane. Mark Lane left it alone because he knew the answer already.
Whenever possible, I confine my Focus on anyone's eyewitness story to what they detail in an Official Setting such as the WC, HSCA, and ARRB. People in a setting such as this are inclined to minimize their hyperbole. This is why Bowers during his WC Testimony described "commotion" regarding what he saw following the Kill Shot. He simply was Not sure what he witnessed at that point in time.
I often review the Mark Lane "interviews", but I also keep in mind that Lane wrote a book/$$ and probably prepped the witnesses he brought forth/filmed. That said, I do appreciate the "walk-through" Lane conducted with Skinny Holland there inside Dealey Plaza. That is very helpful and eliminates a lot of speculation as to where Holland saw smoke, cigarette butts, the car with mud on the bumper, etc. Also, actually seeing Holland "walk" across that parking lot makes me wonder how Long it took him to travel across that same lot with it jammed with cars on 11/22/63. Holland is anything but nimble.
-
Whenever possible, I confine my Focus on anyone's eyewitness story to what they detail in an Official Setting such as the WC, HSCA, and ARRB...
Lane got more details from Bowers, important details that your enemys are using. He got them within an exceptable time frame too and in a professional manner. I've not heard one reason why we shouldn't use them, in fact they are treated like gold dust. I take these things on a case by case basis, just like you do and of course I know you do because just ten minutes ago I read what you wrote about Josia Thompson's interviews for his first book SSID in the thread that refers to it as a classic. I wish I had access to those interviews but the unedited ones is where the juice is.
-
Lane got more details from Bowers, important details that your enemys are using. He got them within an exceptable time frame too and in a professional manner. I've not heard one reason why we shouldn't use them, in fact they are treated like gold dust. I take these things on a case by case basis, just like you do and of course I know you do because just ten minutes ago I read what you wrote about Josia Thompson's interviews for his first book SSID in the thread that refers to it as a classic. I wish I had access to those interviews but the unedited ones is where the juice is.
Thompson's 1st book issa classic and always will be due to being written long before the Internet, YOU TUBE, and Forums such as this. The avenues of communication were extremely few and far between way back then and his book served as a JFK Assassination clarion call. But that's the book, which also generated him $$. As to Thompson the man, he was basically a Navy Seal before there were Navy Seals. This forever connects him to the Military Industrial Complex. Thompson also admits that while on the Time/Life payroll he snuck into the high security Time/Life HQ and stole/snapped photos/16mm negatives of the Z Film. What happened to any of those pics? Thompson never mentions or is ever asked about the whereabouts of those pics he took. And then he disappears for 20-30 yrs eventually resurfacing with the claim he has been doing PI Work during this extended hiatus? Who can support a family for 20-30 years with PI work? Thompson's past and now his suddenly rising from the dead with book #2 are strange to say the least. The interviews he conducted for his "Six Seconds In Dallas" (1967) had to of been audio taped due to Thompson's verbatim transcripts from those interviews. I've read both of his books and he Never mentions having a stenographer on hand at any of the interviews he conducted. I believe these audio taped interviews and his photos/16mm Z Film stills are at best another selfish withholding of early/valuable JFK Assassination information by another alleged JFK Assassination "researcher". On the other hand, it is extremely early JFK Assassination Information such as this that might also serve as a dual Life Insurance & annuity/$$ policy. On top of all of this, I recently saw a clip of Thompson announcing he was now done with the JFK Assassination and going "on vacation" with his wife. The way he said it, made it sound like a Very Long Vacation. Going way back and now up to this day he continues to smell of fish.
-
Those 2 men that Bowers saw “in line” with the Triple U bridge, preceding the shooting yet not AT the time of shooting , could be that they had either left or were not in LOS of Bowers anymore. That suggests the possibility of a shooter and his accomplice located at the far storm drain at the junction of the wooden fence and the concrete bridge abutment.
The shooter could have arrived at the far storm sewer by access to an unguarded larger diameter drain pipe that exited near the stream that ran some distance beyond the parking lot.
This is about the only probable place that a shooter fairing at the front of the limo, could have had the angle to bypass the limo Front windshield and JCs head.
It’s about the only probable way a shot from the front could strike the right temple of JFK where the “V” wound is in the autopsy photo, the bullet then traverses across the right side of the skull causing the radial fragmentation lines visible in the JFK lateral skull x-Ray, and without any damage to the left side of of JFK skull, and the exit wound in back of the head still be to the right side the longitudinal centerline of the skull.
There were many cars parked along behind the wooden fence in line all the way to this far storm sewer location which could have provided cover from LOS from the tower position Bowers was viewing the parking lot from.
So one gunman at ground level actually standing in the sewer would have a plausible prone position to fire from thru just a small gap in the wooden fence section, and taking advantage of ground foliage ti obscure barrel yet allow a view thru the scope with clear LOS to JFK at about Z313.
-
Those 2 men that Bowers saw “in line” with the Triple U bridge, preceding the shooting yet not AT the time of shooting , could be that they had either left or were not in LOS of Bowers anymore. That suggests the possibility of a shooter and his accomplice located at the far storm drain at the junction of the wooden fence and the concrete bridge abutment.
The shooter could have arrived at the far storm sewer by access to an unguarded larger diameter drain pipe that exited near the stream that ran some distance beyond the parking lot.
This is about the only probable place that a shooter fairing at the front of the limo, could have had the angle to bypass the limo Front windshield and JCs head.
It’s about the only probable way a shot from the front could strike the right temple of JFK where the “V” wound is in the autopsy photo, the bullet then traverses across the right side of the skull causing the radial fragmentation lines visible in the JFK lateral skull x-Ray, and without any damage to the left side of of JFK skull, and the exit wound in back of the head still be to the right side the longitudinal centerline of the skull.
There were many cars parked along behind the wooden fence in line all the way to this far storm sewer location which could have provided cover from LOS from the tower position Bowers was viewing the parking lot from.
So one gunman at ground level actually standing in the sewer would have a plausible prone position to fire from thru just a small gap in the wooden fence section, and taking advantage of ground foliage ti obscure barrel yet allow a view thru the scope with clear LOS to JFK at about Z313.
Bowers testified that 1 of those 2 men "in line" with the Triple Underpass was wearing a WHITE SHIRT. With none of the 3 guys standing on The Steps wearing a white shirt, Bowers WHITE SHIRT MAN has always been dismissed. Problem is, this WHITE SHIRT MAN is clearly visible moving Up The Steps and disappearing into darkness on the Nix Film. Not surprisingly, the Original Nix Film has been missing for decades. No telling what else might be on the Original Nix Film. The WHITE SHIRT MAN is only visible on roughly 3 frames immediately following the Kill Shot.
-
No matter how much they whine, cry, and babble on, SCIENCE has proven the, "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE". Case Closed!
The single bullet topic is a FACT, no matter how many times you deny it, it's still a fact until you and every other doubter can prove where the bullet went that exited President Kennedy's throat went upon exit if, as you claim, it didn't wound Governor Connally. You have no proof, and never will, because the bullet entered Governor Connally's back sideways because the bullet tumbled once it exited President Kennedy's throat. The scar on Connally's was oval which proves that it had tumbled after exiting the president's throat. During the life of the HSCA, G. Robert Blakey asked the Governor to remove his shirt so he could see the scar on his back. Blakey describes it as being in the shape of the bullet-oblong- which proves the bullet entered the governor sideways, not straight in. Blakey describes his meeting with Governor, as well as the single bullet with Burt Griffin at 1:04:33 during a discussion of the bullet within this documentary Truth Is The Only Client released in 2019.
-
The single bullet topic is a FACT, no matter how many times you deny it, it's still a fact until you and every other doubter can prove where the bullet went that exited President Kennedy's throat went upon exit if, as you claim, it didn't wound Governor Connally. You have no proof, and never will, because the bullet entered Governor Connally's back sideways because the bullet tumbled once it exited President Kennedy's throat. The scar on Connally's was oval which proves that it had tumbled after exiting the president's throat. During the life of the HSCA, G. Robert Blakey asked the Governor to remove his shirt so he could see the scar on his back. Blakey describes it as being in the shape of the bullet-oblong- which proves the bullet entered the governor sideways, not straight in. Blakey describes his meeting with Governor, as well as the single bullet with Burt Griffin at 1:04:33 during a discussion of the bullet within this documentary Truth Is The Only Client released in 2019.
You claim the SBT to be Fact, and then submit HEAR SAY to corroborate it? Really? Did Blakey say how Aunt Martha's lumbago is doing these days? The Knott Labs Laser 360 SCIENCE has found the, "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE". Case Closed!
-
You claim the SBT to be Fact, and then submit HEAR SAY to corroborate it? Really? How's Aunt Martha's lumbago doing these days? The Knott Labs Laser 360 SCIENCE has found the, "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE". Case Closed!
LOL!! You are such a character, Storing! This is why so few people in here support what you say. Since when is what the Chief Counsel of a government investigation said considered "Hearsay"? Oh! Because you say it is. Of course! Blakey confirmed it when he asked the Governor to take his shirt off so he could see the scar. Just because you say it's "Hearsay" doesn't mean it's hearsay, Storing.
-
LOL!! You are such a character, Storing! This is why so few people in here support what you say. Since when is what the Chief Counsel of a government investigation said considered "Hearsay"? Oh! Because you say it is. Of course! Blakey confirmed it when he asked the Governor to take his shirt off so he could see the scar. Just because you say it's "Hearsay" doesn't mean it's hearsay, Storing.
What you are proffering is HEARSAY. It does Not matter whether it was Blakey recalling this "story" or Joe The Bartender down at Hanks Pizza. And just for the record, my "support" has always been The Truth.
-
What you are proffering is HEARSAY. It does Not matter whether it was Blakey recalling this "story" or Joe The Bartender down at Hanks Pizza. And just for the record, my "support" has always been The Truth.
Utter B.S. , Storing.Your support is not the truth. You wouldn't know the truth if it came up and smacked you a good one in the face.
-
For a long time, I didn't believe there was a shot from the front. Several things have now made me think it's at least possible. First, the well-known statement by Parkland MD Malcolm Perry, at a press conference an hour or two after the assassination, that the throat wound was an entrance wound. Perry said he had treated hundreds of patients with similar wounds and he knew the difference between an exit and entrance wound. The SS confiscated all film and transcripts of that press conference. [i(https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry)[/i] Second, Perry, while still in Parkland, was threatened by an SS agent and warned to retract his statement about the entrance wound. Why would they have done such a thing? The above web page states, correctly, that "Malcolm Perry was a victim of a large-scale crime." Third, NPIC analyst Dino Brugioni, who saw the original Z film on the evening of Nov. 23, 1963, which had been brought to Washington by two SS agents, who themselves had not yet seen the film, said the film showed a piece of JFK's skull flying into the air. Those frames are not in the version we see today. Doug Horne is correct that if any aspect of the Z film has been altered, the entire film is suspect. Fourth, the bullet found by retired SS agent Paul Landis on top of the rear seat of the JFK limo, might be the one that hit JFK's throat from the front.
-
The still image (from the video) in the first post of this thread with the camera basically looking over Holland’s shoulder while on the triple underpass shows an aspect that I had not realized until now. That is the close alignment of Holland’s position with the area where smoke was reportedly seen and the sixth floor sniper’s nest window in the TSBD. Like all the photos of the Secret Service Agents, etc, during the shooting, Holland was apparently looking at ground level for a gunman. Gunshot sounds coming from the sniper’s nest window would tend to draw someone’s attention at Holland’s location towards the source of the sounds. And as he (and many others) was apparently only focusing on ground level, the area where smoke was reported is aligned very closely with the sniper’s nest window. So, it isn’t like his attention was drawn in a drastically different direction from where the shots apparently originated.
-
The still image (from the video) in the first post of this thread with the camera basically looking over Holland’s shoulder while on the triple underpass shows an aspect that I had not realized until now. That is the close alignment of Holland’s position with the area where smoke was reportedly seen and the sixth floor sniper’s nest window in the TSBD. Like all the photos of the Secret Service Agents, etc, during the shooting, Holland was apparently looking at ground level for a gunman. Gunshot sounds coming from the sniper’s nest window would tend to draw someone’s attention at Holland’s location towards the source of the sounds. And as he (and many others) was apparently only focusing on ground level, the area where smoke was reported is aligned very closely with the sniper’s nest window. So, it isn’t like his attention was drawn in a drastically different direction from where the shots apparently originated.
Based on your, "Gunshot sounds coming from the sniper's nest window would tend to draw someone's attention at Holland's location towards the source of the sounds", would therefore mean that Holland would have HEARD ALL 3 SHOTS FIRED FROM THE SNIPER'S NEST WINDOW. Holland has Never made this claim. Are you Now claiming there were fewer than 3 shots fired from the sniper's nest , or is your contention when scrutinized morphing into a slice of swiss chesse.
-
Based on your, "Gunshot sounds coming from the sniper's nest window would tend to draw someone's attention at Holland's location towards the source of the sounds", would therefore mean that Holland would have HEARD ALL 3 SHOTS FIRED FROM THE SNIPER'S NEST WINDOW. Holland has Never made this claim. Are you Now claiming there were fewer than 3 shots fired from the sniper's nest , or is your contention when scrutinized morphing into a slice of swiss chesse.
I am simply pointing out that the direction of the area of the reported smoke (from Holland’s point of view at the time of the shots) is very similar to the direction of the sniper’s window. It is not “way off to the left somewhere” from Holland’s point of view as I had previously assumed/imagined.
-
All anyone has to do here is look at an aerial view of Dealey Plaza. No assassin could or would have stood in such an exposed position behind that fence. They would have been seen and apprehended. It has only become a suspect location because it appears to give seclusion and proximity from the Elm St. perspective of the assassination. That is a false impression. The backside of the fence is a very exposed location. And that doesn't even get into the logic of framing Oswald as the assassin from the 6th floor window of a building using a specific rifle, but then actually assassinating JFK from the GK using an entirely different rifle. There is no unconvincing Bigfoot believers and JFK conspiracy Grassy Knoll believers because they would not have reached these conclusions in the first place had they applied facts and logic to reach these conclusions. It simply isn't so.
-
Richard Smith wrote: "There is no unconvincing Bigfoot believers and JFK conspiracy Grassy Knoll believers because they would not have reached these conclusions in the first place had they applied facts and logic to reach these conclusions. It simply isn't so."
You make some good points. I'm not entirely convinced myself about a shot from the front. But your post ignores some of the evidence I mentioned. Perhaps you'd care to speculate on why the SS went nuts in Parkland Hospital. First, they threatened Dr. Perry for giving a medical opinion about a gunshot wound, a subject where he has expertise. Then the SS confiscated all evidence of the Parkland Nov. 22 press conference. Then they threatened to rescind Dr. Perry's medical license unless said what they wanted him to say. Only extortionists behave like this. When the SS first began its terror campaign against Dr. Perry on Nov. 22 -- and it continued for many years -- no one could possibly have known whether a shot had been fired from the front or not. So why did the SS behave this way? Perhaps you have some facts and logic that can explain it.
-
All anyone has to do here is look at an aerial view of Dealey Plaza. No assassin could or would have stood in such an exposed position behind that fence. They would have been seen and apprehended. It has only become a suspect location because it appears to give seclusion and proximity from the Elm St. perspective of the assassination. That is a false impression. The backside of the fence is a very exposed location. And that doesn't even get into the logic of framing Oswald as the assassin from the 6th floor window of a building using a specific rifle, but then actually assassinating JFK from the GK using an entirely different rifle. There is no unconvincing Bigfoot believers and JFK conspiracy Grassy Knoll believers because they would not have reached these conclusions in the first place had they applied facts and logic to reach these conclusions. It simply isn't so.
Just my opinion, but I believe ALL of this focus on the Inside of the picket fence is a ploy. It's the Outside of the Picket Fence that merits attention. The wide trunk'd tree that sits close to the Shelter behind Zapruder and roughly 3 feet Outside of the N-S section of picket fence would be a good shooting position. That area is blanketed in very dark shadow, and the wide tree trunk is dark too. Whether viewed from an elevated position or ground level, this extremely dark area would swallow up a shooter. A shooter firing from this area would also jibe with Gordon Arnold claiming a shot was fired over his left shoulder and explain the quickness with which he was confronted after he dove to the ground. I also believe this same dark tree trunk area/3 feet outside of the picket fence would have been difficult for Lee Bowers to see into from his Railroad Tower position.
-
Richard Smith wrote: "There is no unconvincing Bigfoot believers and JFK conspiracy Grassy Knoll believers because they would not have reached these conclusions in the first place had they applied facts and logic to reach these conclusions. It simply isn't so."
You make some good points. I'm not entirely convinced myself about a shot from the front. But your post ignores some of the evidence I mentioned. Perhaps you'd care to speculate on why the SS went nuts in Parkland Hospital. First, they threatened Dr. Perry for giving a medical opinion about a gunshot wound, a subject where he has expertise. Then the SS confiscated all evidence of the Parkland Nov. 22 press conference. Then they threatened to rescind Dr. Perry's medical license unless said what they wanted him to say. Only extortionists behave like this. When the SS first began its terror campaign against Dr. Perry on Nov. 22 -- and it continued for many years -- no one could possibly have known whether a shot had been fired from the front or not. So why did the SS behave this way? Perhaps you have some facts and logic that can explain it.
The question should be where are you getting this stuff from and why would anyone believe it?
-
Richard Smith wrote: "There is no unconvincing Bigfoot believers and JFK conspiracy Grassy Knoll believers because they would not have reached these conclusions in the first place had they applied facts and logic to reach these conclusions. It simply isn't so."
You make some good points. I'm not entirely convinced myself about a shot from the front. But your post ignores some of the evidence I mentioned. Perhaps you'd care to speculate on why the SS went nuts in Parkland Hospital. First, they threatened Dr. Perry for giving a medical opinion about a gunshot wound, a subject where he has expertise. Then the SS confiscated all evidence of the Parkland Nov. 22 press conference. Then they threatened to rescind Dr. Perry's medical license unless said what they wanted him to say. Only extortionists behave like this. When the SS first began its terror campaign against Dr. Perry on Nov. 22 -- and it continued for many years -- no one could possibly have known whether a shot had been fired from the front or not. So why did the SS behave this way? Perhaps you have some facts and logic that can explain it.
You are suggesting that the Secret Service was in on the plot and their role was to "go nuts" and intimidate the Parkland doctors? Doesn't that sound a bit farfetched as part of any plan? I imagine that just after seeing the President's head blown off and knowing that they would forever go down in history as failing in their jobs, that they were under a bit of stress. No credible evidence of conspiracy even if what you are alleging were true. Here is what the conspirators would have done had there been any plot to assassinate JFK and frame Oswald. They would have used the rifle linked to Oswald to commit the assassination and fired that rifle from whatever location that they intended to be traced to him (i.e. the 6th floor window). That greatly simplies the risk of discovery. No need to recover the evidence or rely upon the secret service, doctors, random citizens, and others to be part of the plot etc.
-
You are suggesting that the Secret Service was in on the plot and their role was to "go nuts" and intimidate the Parkland doctors? Doesn't that sound a bit farfetched as part of any plan? I imagine that just after seeing the President's head blown off and knowing that they would forever go down in history as failing in their jobs, that they were under a bit of stress. No credible evidence of conspiracy even if what you are alleging were true. Here is what the conspirators would have done had there been any plot to assassinate JFK and frame Oswald. They would have used the rifle linked to Oswald to commit the assassination and fired that rifle from whatever location that they intended to be traced to him (i.e. the 6th floor window). That greatly simplies the risk of discovery. No need to recover the evidence or rely upon the secret service, doctors, random citizens, and others to be part of the plot etc.
What other than delivering a corpse to Parkland Hospital did the SS actually accomplish on 11/22/63? The SS freely admits Failing to return fire with even a single shot. What kinda "protection" is this?
-
What other than delivering a corpse to Parkland Hospital did the SS actually accomplish on 11/22/63? The SS freely admits Failing to return fire with even a single shot. What kinda "protection" is this?
What other? I will tell u what other.
They accomplished blowing jfk's head half off. And cracking the windshield. And making a mess all round. With the one shot.
They made a dent in the chrome trim.
They wounded Tague.
Off topic. What was the bill from Parkland? [Praps $300,000 today]
What share should Oswald have paid? [Praps $200,000]
What share Hickey? [Praps $100,000]
Who paid the $300,000? Was jfk covered? Was he in a union? Questions questions.
-
What other than delivering a corpse to Parkland Hospital did the SS actually accomplish on 11/22/63? The SS freely admits Failing to return fire with even a single shot. What kinda "protection" is this?
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make as this is incoherent. Obviously, they did "fail" since JFK was assassinated. Not sure there was much that they could have done under the circumstances, however. A shooter in a building behind them had ample opportunity to commit the crime. That is why they no longer drive the President around in an open car on a preannounced route. Recently, the secret service stood around gaping after a car collided with the presidential motorcade. Fortunately, it was no more than a drunken democrat, but if it had been a bomb they would have been in trouble. Old Joe stood gaping like a dementia patient before they ushered him into the car.
-
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make as this is incoherent. Obviously, they did "fail" since JFK was assassinated. Not sure there was much that they could have done under the circumstances, however. A shooter in a building behind them had ample opportunity to commit the crime. That is why they no longer drive the President around in an open car on a preannounced route. Recently, the secret service stood around gaping after a car collided with the presidential motorcade. Fortunately, it was no more than a drunken democrat, but if it had been a bomb they would have been in trouble. Old Joe stood gaping like a dementia patient before they ushered him into the car.
You're talking about "prevention". I'm talking about "apprehension". The SS did absolutely Nothing but flee the crime scene and steal the body of JFK after the Kill Shot. It does Not get any weaker than that.
-
I wrote a reply that had specific points that no one replied to. So, I'm posting them again. First, the SS threatened Dr. Malcolm Perry for giving a medical opinion about a gunshot wound, a subject where he had expertise. Second, the SS confiscated all evidence, video and transcripts, of the Nov. 22 press conference at Parkland, which took place a couple of hours after the assassination. It was at this press conference that Dr. Perry -- an expert in gunshot injuries -- identified the front throat wound as an entrance wound. Third, the SS threatened to rescind Dr. Perry's medical license if he ever said that again. Only extortionists behave like this. What makes this all so strange, is that the SS began its terror campaign against Dr. Perry on the afternoon of Nov. 22. At that time, no one could possibly have known whether or not a shot had been fired from the front. So, why did the SS behave this way? Is there no one on this forum who can at least offer some speculation? To repeat, why was the SS, before they had done any investigation of the crime scene, so rock solid certain that no shot had been fired from the front?
-
Royell Storing wrote: "The SS did absolutely Nothing but flee the crime scene and steal the body of JFK after the Kill Shot. It does Not get any weaker than that."
Sometimes we forget that in 1963, assassinating the President of the United States, or anyone else, was not a federal crime. The Secret Service had no jurisdiction in this case. Only the laws of the State of Texas had been violated, and Governor Connally was himself in critical condition, unable to issue any orders. The SS fled Dallas with the president's body because, although they had no legal power over the case, they had a huge interest in controlling the investigation. They did not want Texas doing a real autopsy, in accordance with state law.
-
Royell Storing wrote: "The SS did absolutely Nothing but flee the crime scene and steal the body of JFK after the Kill Shot. It does Not get any weaker than that."
Sometimes we forget that in 1963, assassinating the President of the United States, or anyone else, was not a federal crime. The Secret Service had no jurisdiction in this case. Only the laws of the State of Texas had been violated, and Governor Connally was himself in critical condition, unable to issue any orders. The SS fled Dallas with the president's body because, although they had no legal power over the case, they had a huge interest in controlling the investigation. They did not want Texas doing a real autopsy, in accordance with state law.
With the SS having no jurisdiction, and this not being a federal crime, the Dallas PD was foolish to surrender their evidence.
-
You're talking about "prevention". I'm talking about "apprehension". The SS did absolutely Nothing but flee the crime scene and steal the body of JFK after the Kill Shot. It does Not get any weaker than that.
well they did fan out on elm very briefly before being called back to the follow up car , and then all traveled to parkland . in terms of returning shots i dont see how they could , i mean in the sense that we can see them in altgens looking around and back but i dont think they had any great sense in those vital seconds where exactly shots came from .now had they seen a man or oswald in the window pulling back a rifle yes i can see them potentially return fire . but given all the civilians on the street and in windows that could be very dangerous .
-
I wrote a reply that had specific points that no one replied to. So, I'm posting them again. First, the SS threatened Dr. Malcolm Perry for giving a medical opinion about a gunshot wound, a subject where he had expertise. Second, the SS confiscated all evidence, video and transcripts, of the Nov. 22 press conference at Parkland, which took place a couple of hours after the assassination. It was at this press conference that Dr. Perry -- an expert in gunshot injuries -- identified the front throat wound as an entrance wound. Third, the SS threatened to rescind Dr. Perry's medical license if he ever said that again. Only extortionists behave like this. What makes this all so strange, is that the SS began its terror campaign against Dr. Perry on the afternoon of Nov. 22. At that time, no one could possibly have known whether or not a shot had been fired from the front. So, why did the SS behave this way? Is there no one on this forum who can at least offer some speculation? To repeat, why was the SS, before they had done any investigation of the crime scene, so rock solid certain that no shot had been fired from the front?
Della his and merry christmas . i am aware shall we say of perhaps some pressure being put on perry to sort of back track if you will , in terms of the throat wound being an entrance wound . and later he would as we know change and say it could have been either exit or entrance . i would be very interested in any information you have , which you spoke of . any video , film , statements by perry etc on this matter . if you can . thank you . i have seen a person who worked with perry who said they asked perry straight out , but that he refused to talk about it . only to later talk and in essence say (in private ) along the lines that he was pressured .this would fall under interfering with witnesses would it not ? .
-
You're talking about "prevention". I'm talking about "apprehension". The SS did absolutely Nothing but flee the crime scene and steal the body of JFK after the Kill Shot. It does Not get any weaker than that.
The responsibility of the SS agents was to stay with the President.
-
responsibility ? meaning duty ? .but they also had a responsibility to protect the President first and fore most . and a duty to adhere to all secret service rules and protocols . they broke those rules in the small hours by all but abandoning the President and going drinking . we can see in Altgens that LBJs agents acted pretty quick to protect him .in JFKs case the only one to react was hill , and he was Jackies agent not the presidents . he put himself as they say in harms way , he could have been hit and killed .what ever else we might say about him now , in those tragic seconds he was a hero . he protected Jackie and tried to help JFK .having decided to take those two turns from main to houston , houston to elm knowing how much the limo would slow they should have had agents either side of the rear of the limo before those two turns .hill in that respect was dong this at different times along the route .but i will say yes their responsibility was both to protect and stay with JFK , they completed half of that , they went to parkland with him .
-
You're talking about "prevention". I'm talking about "apprehension". The SS did absolutely Nothing but flee the crime scene and steal the body of JFK after the Kill Shot. It does Not get any weaker than that.
The job of the SS is to protect. It was the job of the police to apprehend the suspect. Which they did. It is ridiculous to characterize the actions of the SS as fleeing the crime scene, You are suggesting that they should have stopped the car in the kill zone and all jumped out like in a cartoon to search for a suspect? Leaving the injured president sitting in the car. They were taking the president to the hospital. Just as they should have done. There was nothing sinister about this.
-
The job of the SS is to protect. It was the job of the police to apprehend the suspect. Which they did. It is ridiculous to characterize the actions of the SS as fleeing the crime scene, You are suggesting that they should have stopped the car in the kill zone and all jumped out like in a cartoon to search for a suspect? Leaving the injured president sitting in the car. They were taking the president to the hospital. Just as they should have done. There was nothing sinister about this.
If we are to believe the SS, they have a LIMO behind JFK packed with SS Agents to the point of spilling out onto the vehicle's running boards, and NOT a single SS Agent can leave the vehicle to take CONTROL of the crime scene? Really? Common practice is for a single assassin to have a SPOTTER/WING MAN. Yet, here we have an entire LIMO jammed with SS Agents and they remain inside the vehicle as it flees the scene? I never said this was "sinister". What it is is "cowardice". These same big brawny guys had no problem with physically pushing Avg Joe's around at Parkland Hospital in order to steal the body of JFK. Yet, under fire inside Dealey Plaza they ALL ran like dogs. That is about as Cowardly as it gets.
-
If we are to believe the SS, they have a LIMO behind JFK packed with SS Agents to the point of spilling out onto the vehicle's running boards, and NOT a single SS Agent can leave the vehicle to take CONTROL of the crime scene? Really? Common practice is for a single assassin to have a SPOTTER/WING MAN. Yet, here we have an entire LIMO jammed with SS Agents and they remain inside the vehicle as it flees the scene? I never said this was "sinister". What it is is "cowardice". These same big brawny guys had no problem with physically pushing Avg Joe's around at Parkland Hospital in order to steal the body of JFK. Yet, under fire inside Dealey Plaza they ALL ran like dogs. That is about as Cowardly as it gets.
Again, their responsibility was to stay with the President.
-
Again, their responsibility was to stay with the President.
And your SOURCE for the Claim, "STAY With the President" above?
-
Fergus o'brien wrote: i am aware shall we say of perhaps some pressure being put on (Dr. Malcolm Perry) to sort of back track if you will, in terms of the throat wound being an entrance wound. and later he would as we know change and say it could have been either exit or entrance . i would be very interested in any information you have, which you spoke of. any video , film , statements by perry etc on this matter...
Hello, Fergus! There is a ton of information online about the crime that the U.S. government committed against Dr. Malcolm Perry. One of the best articles, "The Ordeal of Malcolm Perry," was written by James DiEugenio. It can be found at the "Kennedys and King" web site, here.
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry
A few quotes from this excellent article. "Dr. Kemp Clark, chief of neurosurgery—the man who actually pronounced Kennedy dead—said he observed a large gaping hole in the rear of Kennedy’s skull. (Michael Benson, Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, p. 80) Dr. Malcolm Perry, who cut a tracheostomy across the bullet wound in Kennedy’s neck, said that the wound was one of entrance. (James DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p. 367)"
Continuing from the article, "Some strange things happened with (the Nov. 22 Parkland press conference). First of all, there is no film available of it today, which is remarkable in and of itself, because, as one can see from pictures and film snippets, there were many reporters in that conference room. It is very hard to comprehend how not one of them called for a film camera to cover the initial public pronouncement of President Kennedy’s death. Second, initially, the Secret Service told the Warren Commission that they did not even have a transcript of this conference. According to former Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) analyst Doug Horne, there are two real problems with the Secret Service saying this. First, according to Horne, the Secret Service went around collecting the films of this press conference. Thus making it disappear. (See Horne at Future of Freedom Foundation conference of May 18th. This is at the FFF web site.)
But further, the Secret Service lied to the Commission about having the transcript..."
Yes, extreme pressure was applied to Dr. Perry by the feds to get him to publicly modify his "entrance wound" statement. But, privately, he never really changed his mind. And this pressure (i.e. threats) began within an hour of the assassination. So shortly after the assassination, no one had yet done an investigation of the crime scene. How could anyone possibly know the hole in the front of JFK's throat was, or was not, an entrance wound? Clearly, the SS pressure on Dr. Perry was not based on forensics or science. It was based on objectives or information that is still being denied to the American people today.
-
And your SOURCE for the Claim, "STAY With the President" above?
Special Agent Lem Johns interviewed in 2005: “Our job is not to investigate. Our only job is to remove the vice president from danger.” The same responsibilities would apply to agents assigned to the President.
-
Special Agent Lem Johns interviewed in 2005: “Our job is not to investigate. Our only job is to remove the vice president from danger.” The same responsibilities would apply to agents assigned to the President.
"REMOVE" anyone from "DANGER" can Quickly be done by Eliminating The Threat. (2) Who said anything about "Investigate"? Investigate happens well after the "danger" is eliminated. They would Not even let Lt Day inside the TSBD to do his CSI work until the building had been "cleared" of a possible shooter.
Who interviewed SA Lem Johns? He is a highly controversial figure. He claimed to have jumped out of the LBJ SS Car and then ran down Elm St toward the JFK Limo. Yet, there is Not 1 single image of his doing this or any Elm St eyewitnesses that said they witnessed his doing any of this.
-
And your SOURCE for the Claim, "STAY With the President" above?
The SS is a federal agency. There was no federal crime committed that day. What authority would they have to investigate or arrest someone for a state crime (i.e. murder)? Their primary responsibility is to protect the president. Even until today, they have very limited law enforcement authority over certain financial crimes such as counterfeit of US currency and forgery. It is silly to suggest that they should have stopped in the danger zone to investigate. They did exactly the right thing and got the president to the hospital and the VP out of danger.
-
The SS is a federal agency. There was no federal crime committed that day. What authority would they have to investigate or arrest someone for a state crime (i.e. murder)? Their primary responsibility is to protect the president. Even until today, they have very limited law enforcement authority over certain financial crimes such as counterfeit of US currency and forgery. It is silly to suggest that they should have stopped in the danger zone to investigate. They did exactly the right thing and got the president to the hospital and the VP out of danger.
With regard to what you are saying above, what Authority did the SS have to demand/take possession of JFK's body? And, there is nothing "silly" about having a SS Agent or 2 leave the Queen Mary in order to have the "6" of the POTUS. Not sure what the value of that AR-15 is when confined to the back seat of the Queen Mary. The possibility of "friendly fire" also rules out firing it at anything in the 10-2 O'Clock line of fire.
-
Fergus o'brien wrote: i am aware shall we say of perhaps some pressure being put on (Dr. Malcolm Perry) to sort of back track if you will, in terms of the throat wound being an entrance wound. and later he would as we know change and say it could have been either exit or entrance . i would be very interested in any information you have, which you spoke of. any video , film , statements by perry etc on this matter...
Hello, Fergus! There is a ton of information online about the crime that the U.S. government committed against Dr. Malcolm Perry. One of the best articles, "The Ordeal of Malcolm Perry," was written by James DiEugenio. It can be found at the "Kennedys and King" web site, here.
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry
A few quotes from this excellent article. "Dr. Kemp Clark, chief of neurosurgery—the man who actually pronounced Kennedy dead—said he observed a large gaping hole in the rear of Kennedy’s skull. (Michael Benson, Who’s Who in the JFK Assassination, p. 80) Dr. Malcolm Perry, who cut a tracheostomy across the bullet wound in Kennedy’s neck, said that the wound was one of entrance. (James DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p. 367)"
Continuing from the article, "Some strange things happened with (the Nov. 22 Parkland press conference). First of all, there is no film available of it today, which is remarkable in and of itself, because, as one can see from pictures and film snippets, there were many reporters in that conference room. It is very hard to comprehend how not one of them called for a film camera to cover the initial public pronouncement of President Kennedy’s death. Second, initially, the Secret Service told the Warren Commission that they did not even have a transcript of this conference. According to former Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) analyst Doug Horne, there are two real problems with the Secret Service saying this. First, according to Horne, the Secret Service went around collecting the films of this press conference. Thus making it disappear. (See Horne at Future of Freedom Foundation conference of May 18th. This is at the FFF web site.)
But further, the Secret Service lied to the Commission about having the transcript..."
Yes, extreme pressure was applied to Dr. Perry by the feds to get him to publicly modify his "entrance wound" statement. But, privately, he never really changed his mind. And this pressure (i.e. threats) began within an hour of the assassination. So shortly after the assassination, no one had yet done an investigation of the crime scene. How could anyone possibly know the hole in the front of JFK's throat was, or was not, an entrance wound? Clearly, the SS pressure on Dr. Perry was not based on forensics or science. It was based on objectives or information that is still being denied to the American people today.
Della thank you so much for your reply and the link you provided for the article . i will read it , thank you .
-
With regard to what you are saying above, what Authority did the SS have to demand/take possession of JFK's body? And, there is nothing "silly" about having a SS Agent or 2 leave the Queen Mary in order to have the "6" of the POTUS. Not sure what the value of that AR-15 is when confined to the back seat of the Queen Mary. The possibility of "friendly fire" also rules out firing it at anything in the 10-2 O'Clock line of fire.
Hickey had the AR15 inside the hozzie. And it stank, as did the 4 or 5 stinking casings in his pocket.
Later the poor lil ÄR15 was confined to nowhere --- in service for a mere 4 hrs --- then out of service for ever.
Not even toy AR15s for the kids at Xmas 1963 --- bang bang bang bang your dead ha ha ha ha --- no i'm not, i'm not the president, i'm an itchybum.
-
With regard to what you are saying above, what Authority did the SS have to demand/take possession of JFK's body? And, there is nothing "silly" about having a SS Agent or 2 leave the Queen Mary in order to have the "6" of the POTUS. Not sure what the value of that AR-15 is when confined to the back seat of the Queen Mary. The possibility of "friendly fire" also rules out firing it at anything in the 10-2 O'Clock line of fire.
I don't think they had the authority to take the body. They had the guns, though. The body should have remained in Dallas. That doesn't mean there was a conspiracy. It just means that some pissed off secret service agents had had enough that day and were getting out of Dallas. Not sure what that has to do with the silly claim that they should have all jumped out of the car in DP and began an investigation. And now you are arguing that the SS should not have been armed because they did not fire off the AR 15? That is even more silly. They had no opportunity to defend JFK from Oswald because he was in a building behind them but other scenarios could have presented themselves including armed assassins along the motorcade. Of course, the SS would want access to the best weapons.
-
I don't think they had the authority to take the body. They had the guns, though. The body should have remained in Dallas. That doesn't mean there was a conspiracy. It just means that some pissed off secret service agents had had enough that day and were getting out of Dallas. Not sure what that has to do with the silly claim that they should have all jumped out of the car in DP and began an investigation. And now you are arguing that the SS should not have been armed because they did not fire off the AR 15? That is even more silly. They had no opportunity to defend JFK from Oswald because he was in a building behind them but other scenarios could have presented themselves including armed assassins along the motorcade. Of course, the SS would want access to the best weapons.
When these gorillas stole the body of JFK, they displayed their having carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. This would include any of them getting out of the Queen Mary and defending the 6 of the POTUS if they so desired. Was anybody ever prosecuted for the JFK Body theft? No mystery why.
If you have Multiple SS Agents committing an illegal act, (JFK Body Theft), by definition you have a Conspiracy.
-
When these gorillas stole the body of JFK, they displayed their having carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. This would include any of them getting out of the Queen Mary and defending the 6 of the POTUS if they so desired. Was anybody ever prosecuted for the JFK Body theft? No mystery why.
If you have Multiple SS Agents committing an illegal act, (JFK Body Theft), by definition you have a Conspiracy.
Was anybody ever prosecuted for the JFK Body theft? No mystery why.
Hmm, now just who would have been responsible for prosecuting “the gorillas”? Let’s see, I think that would have been the district attorney. What was his name? Oh yeah, Henry Wade, right? It turns out that Henry Wade had already (before they left) advised, via telephone, Dr. Earl Rose and Justice Theron Ward that he had no objection to the removal of the president’s body. Maybe that is why…
-
When these gorillas stole the body of JFK, they displayed their having carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. This would include any of them getting out of the Queen Mary and defending the 6 of the POTUS if they so desired. Was anybody ever prosecuted for the JFK Body theft? No mystery why.
If you have Multiple SS Agents committing an illegal act, (JFK Body Theft), by definition you have a Conspiracy.
A conspiracy to do what exactly? You are mixing apples and oranges and claiming that proves you have a grapefruit. There is a good argument that the SS acted inappropriately in taking the body out of the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed. This was not a normal homicide case, however. This was the assassination of the President of the United States. It was the job of the SS to protect him. They failed in that regard but returned him to DC. There is no reason to suggest this somehow proves a "conspiracy" as the term is commonly used in this context to mean a plan to kill JFK and frame Oswald for the crime. The SS were acting in the heat of the moment.
-
Was anybody ever prosecuted for the JFK Body theft? No mystery why.
Hmm, now just who would have been responsible for prosecuting “the gorillas”? Let’s see, I think that would have been the district attorney. What was his name? Oh yeah, Henry Wade, right? It turns out that Henry Wade had already (before they left) advised, via telephone, Dr. Earl Rose and Justice Theron Ward that he had no objection to the removal of the president’s body. Maybe that is why…
What's your Source for Wade green lighting the release of JFK's body? This is 1963 and communication that day in Dallas was a nightmare. Take a look at Wade's WC Testimony. Nothing about this in that lengthy Q/A. Wade was racing around that day and not sitting inside an office making phone calls. On top of that, the body of JFK was at Parkland Hospital for roughly 60 minutes. Not much time for Wade to allegedly OK anything with respect to the JFK Body. Again, what is the source of this tale? I hope it is SWORN Testimony.
-
What's your Source for Wade green lighting the release of JFK's body? This is 1963 and communication that day in Dallas was a nightmare. Take a look at Wade's WC Testimony. Nothing about this in that lengthy Q/A. Wade was racing around that day and not sitting inside an office making phone calls. On top of that, the body of JFK was at Parkland Hospital for roughly 60 minutes. Not much time for Wade to allegedly OK anything with respect to the JFK Body. Again, what is the source of this tale? I hope it is SWORN Testimony.
Wade was racing around that day and not sitting inside an office making phone calls.
Wade testified that he went back to his office after he heard about the shooting.
Sources: 7 H 452–453, WCT Kenneth P. O’Donnell; 2 H 96–97, WCT Roy H. Kellerman; Manchester, Death of a President, pp.297–305; O’Donnell and Powers with McCarthy, Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, pp.35–36, 45; Bishop, Day Kennedy Was Shot, pp.287–289.
Manchester did his own independent investigation concurrently with the WC investigation and wrote:
To Ward, as to Earl Rose earlier, the District Attorney explained that he had no objection to the removal of the body. Holding the receiver with his right hand, the judge waved toward the puddled humanity at the door with his left hand, motioning them to go ahead.
The two WC testimonies above do not specify Wade. But they do indicate some telephone conversations. I haven’t read nor have access to the last two in the list.
-
Wade was racing around that day and not sitting inside an office making phone calls.
Wade testified that he went back to his office after he heard about the shooting.
Sources: 7 H 452–453, WCT Kenneth P. O’Donnell; 2 H 96–97, WCT Roy H. Kellerman; Manchester, Death of a President, pp.297–305; O’Donnell and Powers with McCarthy, Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, pp.35–36, 45; Bishop, Day Kennedy Was Shot, pp.287–289.
Manchester did his own independent investigation concurrently with the WC investigation and wrote:
To Ward, as to Earl Rose earlier, the District Attorney explained that he had no objection to the removal of the body. Holding the receiver with his right hand, the judge waved toward the puddled humanity at the door with his left hand, motioning them to go ahead.
The two WC testimonies above do not specify Wade. But they do indicate some telephone conversations. I haven’t read nor have access to the last two in the list.
Wade went back to his office well after AF-1 was in the air if not already landed. Take the time and read Wade's WC Testimony. He details his itinerary following his finding out about the assassination.
-
"REMOVE" anyone from "DANGER" can Quickly be done by Eliminating The Threat. (2) Who said anything about "Investigate"? Investigate happens well after the "danger" is eliminated. They would Not even let Lt Day inside the TSBD to do his CSI work until the building had been "cleared" of a possible shooter.
Who interviewed SA Lem Johns? He is a highly controversial figure. He claimed to have jumped out of the LBJ SS Car and then ran down Elm St toward the JFK Limo. Yet, there is Not 1 single image of his doing this or any Elm St eyewitnesses that said they witnessed his doing any of this.
"REMOVE" anyone from "DANGER" can Quickly be done by Eliminating The Threat.
As usual you're just flapping your gums without the slightest consideration for logic.
The immediate threat was in Dealey Plaza and by getting Kennedy the heck out of there was their first priority and their ongoing priority was to protect the President from any further attacks.
(https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1358/1*mmZW_rdQpfInxWA2Cl2GDg.png)
And if JFK's Limo was stopped and attacked by terrorist's on the way to Parkland(which at the time would have been a potential consideration), and the SS remained in Dealey Plaza, you'd be the first to jump up and claim that the incompetent SS shouldn't have left the President.
JohnM
-
Wade went back to his office well after AF-1 was in the air if not already landed. Take the time and read Wade's WC Testimony. He details his itinerary following his finding out about the assassination.
According to his testimony he clearly says he went back to his office.
Mr. RANKIN. What did you do after you heard of the assassination?
Mr. WADE. Well, the first thing, we were set up in a bus to go from there to Austin to another party that night for President Kennedy, a group of us, 30 or 40. We got on a bus and went. I went back to the office and sent my wife home, my wife was with me.
And the first thing that I did was go check the law to see whether it was a Federal offense or mine. I thought it was a Federal offense when I first heard about it. We checked the law, and were satisfied that was no serious Federal offense, or not a capital case, anyhow.
There might be some lesser offense. I talked to the U.S. attorney.
Mr. RANKIN. Who was that?
Mr. WADE. Barefoot Sanders and he was in agreement it was going to be our case rather than his and he had been doing the same thing.
Mr. RANKIN. Where did you talk to him?
Mr. WADE. On the telephone as I recall, in his office from my office. I am not even sure I talked with him, somebody from my office talked to him, because I think you can realize things were a little confused and that took us, say, until 3:30 or 4.
I let everybody in the office go home, but some of my key personnel who stayed there. I let the girls or told them they could go home, because they did close all the offices down there. The next thing I did--do you want me to tell you?
Mr. RANKIN. Yes.
Mr. WADE. I will tell you what I can.
The next thing I did was to go by the sheriff's office who is next door to me and talked to Decker, who is the sheriff. Bill Decker, and they were interviewing witnesses who were on the streets at the time, and I asked him and he said they have got a good prospect.
This must have been 3 o'clock roughly.
Mr. RANKIN. The witnesses that were on the street near the Depository Building?
Mr. WADE. Yes, sir; and in the building, I am not sure who they were, they had two court reporters there taking statements.
Mr. RANKIN. Did they tell you anything about a suspect at that point?
Mr. WADE. The Sheriff told me, he said, "Don't say nothing about it, but they have got a good suspect," talking about the Dallas Police.
He didn't have him there. John Connally, you know, was shot also--and he was, he used to be a roommate of mine in the Navy and we were good friends, and are now--and the first thing I did then was went out to the hospital to see how he was getting along.
I must have stayed out there until about 5 o'clock, and in case you all don't know or understand one thing, it has never been my policy to make any investigations out of my office of murders or anything else for that matter. We leave that entirely to the police agency.
This appears to have Wade’s activities outlined from the time that the news of the assassination reached him at the Trade Mart until about 5:00. If you have something else that indicates otherwise, please post it.
-
As usual you're just flapping your gums without the slightest consideration for logic.
The immediate threat was in Dealey Plaza and by getting Kennedy the heck out of there was their first priority and their ongoing priority was to protect the President from any further attacks.
(https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1358/1*mmZW_rdQpfInxWA2Cl2GDg.png)
And if JFK's Limo was stopped and attacked by terrorist's on the way to Parkland(which at the time would have been a potential consideration), and the SS remained in Dealey Plaza, you'd be the first to jump up and claim that the incompetent SS shouldn't have left the President.
JohnM
As usual, you over complicate everything. Who said ALL SS Agents on board the Queen Mary had to stay behind inside Dealey Plaza? 2-3 SS Agents left inside Dealey Plaza would have sufficed. And the SS was Not protecting the President from further attacks. JFK was Dead, and the SS Agents aboard the Queen Mary actually raced away from POTUS LBJ immediately following the Kill Shot. The SS disgraced itself on 11/22/63, and this was after they disgraced themselves on 11/21/63 with their boozing.
-
According to his testimony he clearly says he went back to his office.
Mr. RANKIN. What did you do after you heard of the assassination?
Mr. WADE. Well, the first thing, we were set up in a bus to go from there to Austin to another party that night for President Kennedy, a group of us, 30 or 40. We got on a bus and went. I went back to the office and sent my wife home, my wife was with me.
And the first thing that I did was go check the law to see whether it was a Federal offense or mine. I thought it was a Federal offense when I first heard about it. We checked the law, and were satisfied that was no serious Federal offense, or not a capital case, anyhow.
There might be some lesser offense. I talked to the U.S. attorney.
Mr. RANKIN. Who was that?
Mr. WADE. Barefoot Sanders and he was in agreement it was going to be our case rather than his and he had been doing the same thing.
Mr. RANKIN. Where did you talk to him?
Mr. WADE. On the telephone as I recall, in his office from my office. I am not even sure I talked with him, somebody from my office talked to him, because I think you can realize things were a little confused and that took us, say, until 3:30 or 4.
I let everybody in the office go home, but some of my key personnel who stayed there. I let the girls or told them they could go home, because they did close all the offices down there. The next thing I did--do you want me to tell you?
Mr. RANKIN. Yes.
Mr. WADE. I will tell you what I can.
The next thing I did was to go by the sheriff's office who is next door to me and talked to Decker, who is the sheriff. Bill Decker, and they were interviewing witnesses who were on the streets at the time, and I asked him and he said they have got a good prospect.
This must have been 3 o'clock roughly.
Mr. RANKIN. The witnesses that were on the street near the Depository Building?
Mr. WADE. Yes, sir; and in the building, I am not sure who they were, they had two court reporters there taking statements.
Mr. RANKIN. Did they tell you anything about a suspect at that point?
Mr. WADE. The Sheriff told me, he said, "Don't say nothing about it, but they have got a good suspect," talking about the Dallas Police.
He didn't have him there. John Connally, you know, was shot also--and he was, he used to be a roommate of mine in the Navy and we were good friends, and are now--and the first thing I did then was went out to the hospital to see how he was getting along.
I must have stayed out there until about 5 o'clock, and in case you all don't know or understand one thing, it has never been my policy to make any investigations out of my office of murders or anything else for that matter. We leave that entirely to the police agency.
This appears to have Wade’s activities outlined from the time that the news of the assassination reached him at the Trade Mart until about 5:00. If you have something else that indicates otherwise, please post it.
You claimed that WADE Green Lighted letting the SS have JFK's body. How does any of the above Prove your claim? In fact, the above DISPROVES your claiming WADE surrendered the JFK Body when he says, "..it was going to be OUR CASE rather than his...". A major problem with people researching the JFK Assassination is that they are unfamiliar with Testimony. You're driving this point home.
-
You claimed that WADE Green Lighted letting the SS have JFK's body. How does any of the above Prove your claim? In fact, the above DISPROVES your claiming WADE surrendered the JFK Body when he says, "..it was going to be OUR CASE rather than his...". A major problem with people researching the JFK Assassination is that they are unfamiliar with Testimony. You're driving this point home.
It shows that Wade was in his office, not running around as you claimed.
Here is an excerpt from a 7/20/1992 interview by Wes Wise for the Sixth Floor Museum Oral History Collection. Anyone interested can request a full copy from the SFM for a minimum fee. The pdf file is protected and will not allow copy/paste operations. This is typewritten (and emphasis added) by me, verbatim, from the interview:
Wes: Here's one of a few more random things here that are just left in my notes. The autopsy photos on JFK...on the president were allegedly interfered with at some point along the line between here and Washington DC and so forth. Would that have interfered with your conduct of the case against Lee Harvey Oswald? Possibly interference with those autopsy pictures?
Henry: Well, I don't think those autopsies...the only thing you have to prove, in the way of autopsies, is that John F. Kennedy died of a gunshot wound. Doesn't make any difference where it came in or where it went out... it was a poorly done autopsy, but if anybody is to blame, I might have some blame myself because one of the amusing theories , if there is anything amusing about this...Aaron Ward was a JP at Parkland. He called me just as I got back to the office and he said, "Now, they're having a fight over John F. Kennedy's body." ... He said, "Over one side of the gurney, or the coffin I guess at that time because they bought a coffin, you have the Secret Service, the FBI, and Jackie Kennedy trying to take the body on to Washington, and on the other side, you have Rose, Dr. Rose, the medical examiner here, who wants to do the autopsy and who was doing eight or nine hundred a year, and he was a good one. And so, Dallas police and the sheriff, they're trying...because there's a state law that says you can't take a body out of the state without an autopsy but the fine is $100. And they wanted to do the autopsy here. Well, you had people all over the United States blaming Dallas, and I said, "Is the White House doctor there?" And I got him on the phone, and he told me that... I said, "The only thing is, we've got to have some doctor testify that a gunshot would caused his death." And he said, "Well, we're going to take him to Bethesda." If you say so. "And I'll furnish your doctor when he does the autopsy down here for the trial." And I got Ward back on there and I said, "Tell him to take him on back."
Wes: So, what happened then?
Henry: They took him on to Bethesda where he had the autopsy.
Wes: Why were you contacted?
Henry: Well, I'm the one that has to try the case, you know?
Wes: I see. So, they were going to you as the authority as to how this would take place.
Henry: What the law is and also the $100 fine law taking the body out of the state without an autopsy, and I was familiar with that and so was Aaron Ward, and he was just out there... we still hadn't gotten a JP type passing on the cause of death but we also had a medical examiner thrown into quite an operation down there.
-
It shows that Wade was in his office, not running around as you claimed.
Here is an excerpt from a 7/20/1992 interview by Wes Wise for the Sixth Floor Museum Oral History Collection. Anyone interested can request a full copy from the SFM for a minimum fee. The pdf file is protected and will not allow copy/paste operations. This is typewritten (and emphasis added) by me, verbatim, from the interview:
Wes: Here's one of a few more random things here that are just left in my notes. The autopsy photos on JFK...on the president were allegedly interfered with at some point along the line between here and Washington DC and so forth. Would that have interfered with your conduct of the case against Lee Harvey Oswald? Possibly interference with those autopsy pictures?
Henry: Well, I don't think those autopsies...the only thing you have to prove, in the way of autopsies, is that John F. Kennedy died of a gunshot wound. Doesn't make any difference where it came in or where it went out... it was a poorly done autopsy, but if anybody is to blame, I might have some blame myself because one of the amusing theories , if there is anything amusing about this...Aaron Ward was a JP at Parkland. He called me just as I got back to the office and he said, "Now, they're having a fight over John F. Kennedy's body." ... He said, "Over one side of the gurney, or the coffin I guess at that time because they bought a coffin, you have the Secret Service, the FBI, and Jackie Kennedy trying to take the body on to Washington, and on the other side, you have Rose, Dr. Rose, the medical examiner here, who wants to do the autopsy and who was doing eight or nine hundred a year, and he was a good one. And so, Dallas police and the sheriff, they're trying...because there's a state law that says you can't take a body out of the state without an autopsy but the fine is $100. And they wanted to do the autopsy here. Well, you had people all over the United States blaming Dallas, and I said, "Is the White House doctor there?" And I got him on the phone, and he told me that... I said, "The only thing is, we've got to have some doctor testify that a gunshot would caused his death." And he said, "Well, we're going to take him to Bethesda." If you say so. "And I'll furnish your doctor when he does the autopsy down here for the trial." And I got Ward back on there and I said, "Tell him to take him on back."
Wes: So, what happened then?
Henry: They took him on to Bethesda where he had the autopsy.
Wes: Why were you contacted?
Henry: Well, I'm the one that has to try the case, you know?
Wes: I see. So, they were going to you as the authority as to how this would take place.
Henry: What the law is and also the $100 fine law taking the body out of the state without an autopsy, and I was familiar with that and so was Aaron Ward, and he was just out there... we still hadn't gotten a JP type passing on the cause of death but we also had a medical examiner thrown into quite an operation down there.
YOU claimed Wade OK'd the JFK Body being taken away from Parkland Hospital by the SS. Now you realize Wade did Not. All this other stuff is interesting, but not relevant to the Fact that the JFK Body was muscled out of Parkland Hospital by the SS.
-
Was anybody ever prosecuted for the JFK Body theft? No mystery why.
Hmm, now just who would have been responsible for prosecuting “the gorillas”? Let’s see, I think that would have been the district attorney. What was his name? Oh yeah, Henry Wade, right? It turns out that Henry Wade had already (before they left) advised, via telephone, Dr. Earl Rose and Justice Theron Ward that he had no objection to the removal of the president’s body. Maybe that is why…
BUMP/REMINDER
-
YOU claimed Wade OK'd the JFK Body being taken away from Parkland Hospital by the SS. Now you realize Wade did Not. All this other stuff is interesting, but not relevant to the Fact that the JFK Body was muscled out of Parkland Hospital by the SS.
Can you not read ??? what Wade told Wes Wise for the historical record? Wade volunteered the fact that he OK’d it. 8)
-
BUMP/REMINDER
Thank you! Thumb1:
-
Can you not read ??? what Wade told Wes Wise for the historical record? Wade volunteered the fact that he OK’d it. 8)
I have been and continue to Focus on the point at which the SS STOLE JFK's Body from Parkland Hospital. The "yarn" almost 30 yrs after the fact, (if true), that You are shifting to would have occurred AFTER the body of JFK was already on board AF-1. At that point in time, the SS theft of JFK's body was already a fait accompli.
-
I have been and continue to Focus on the point at which the SS STOLE JFK's Body from Parkland Hospital. The "yarn" almost 30 yrs after the fact, (if true), that You are shifting to would have occurred AFTER the body of JFK was already on board AF-1. At that point in time, the SS theft of JFK's body was already a fait accompli.
… AFTER the body of JFK was already on board AF-1.
No, Wade specifically says it was during the fight.
-
… AFTER the body of JFK was already on board AF-1.
No, Wade specifically says it was during the fight.
Just how long do you believe the SS Agents putzed around inside that hallway over the JFK casket/body with Jackie standing there? These SS Agents that have just Failed to protect the POTUS are not to be confused with Diplomats.
-
Just how long do you believe the SS Agents putzed around inside that hallway over the JFK casket/body with Jackie standing there? These SS Agents that have just Failed to protect the POTUS are not to be confused with Diplomats.
I suggest that you read Kenneth O'Donnell's testimony if you want to know how, why, and when the decision to take the body back to Washington DC occurred. Here are a few excerpts:
First, O'Donnell believed that LBJ wanted him in charge:
Mr. SPECTER. Did Vice President Johnson look to you in any way for a recommendation on his subsequent plans in terms of your being then in charge of the presidential party?
Mr. O'DONNELL. It was my impression that he did, that he, with the President gone that he felt I was--had to assume a position of responsibility, both with regard to Mrs. Kennedy and as to himself. He asked me, as I recall--he asked me for my advice as to his departure and used the words, "I am in your hands now," at some point in the conversation.
But I did get the impression that he wanted official--that isn't the proper word--but that his movements should be approved by all concerned.
Next, O'Donnell found out Jackie's intentions:
Mr. O'DONNELL. ...I then went back to Mrs. Kennedy, who was in a very understandably distraught condition. It was my opinion--I tried to in some way imply that she might leave and come with us, at least to get her out of that room. She was covered with blood.
Mr. SPECTER. Which room was she in then?
Mr. O'DONNELL. She was in the same room. She had not moved. She was sitting near the door.
Mr. SPECTER. That is the room where the President was treated by the Dallas doctors?
Mr. O'DONNELL. Yes; there is a little corridor. There were swinging doors. He was inside the swing door. She was not in the presence of the body.
Mr. SPECTER. What was her response to you?
Mr. O'DONNELL. Her response to me was she would not leave her husband's body. At that point, I realized that she would not. The doctor had continually attempted to get her to take some form of sedation. And she had consistently refused, and told me she would not take anything, that she was going to stay with her husband. I realized that she was going to stay with her husband, no matter what anybody did, and there was no possible way of in any way getting her to leave. And so, therefore, the only alternative I could see was that we move the President. It is an assumption I probably would have arrived at anyway, but I arrived at it in this manner.
O'Donnell describes well the process of his decision making. It appears to me that the decision wasn't made by a bunch of pissed-off SS agents. It was made by a good friend and adviser of the Kennedys who was very much a diplomatic person.
-
I understand your being interested in how different people perceived their roles as events continued evolving around them, but the focal point of Our discussion is WADE. Not DC bureaucrats such as O'Donnell. Wade being informed via telephone as to the specifics of the SS Agents commandeering the JFK Body would have taken time amidst all of the ongoing tumult at both ends of the phone line. (Not to mention the general off/on phone service inside Dallas on 11/22/63.)
-
I understand your being interested in how different people perceived their roles as events continued evolving around them, but the focal point of Our discussion is WADE. Not DC bureaucrats such as O'Donnell. Wade being informed via telephone as to the specifics of the SS Agents commandeering the JFK Body would have taken time amidst all of the ongoing tumult at both ends of the phone line. (Not to mention the general off/on phone service inside Dallas on 11/22/63.)
So I went out and got hold of Dr. Burkley and General McHugh, and one of the agents, and Andy Berger, as I recall, and told them to get a casket, to bring it back, and Dr. Burkley would have the doctors prepare the body for removal, and that we would proceed to the airport and go to Washington.
This was done very rapidly, as I recollect. It seems to me it wasn't more than half an hour that they arrived with the casket. I remember just before they arrived I got Dave Powers and said there was a little room in the back that we ought to just take Mrs. Kennedy under some subterfuge, and talk to her in the room while we brought the casket in, because I thought that might be the final blow. And we did, and--but she knew what was going on. She came out and said, "No, I want to watch it all." And she stood in the doorway, and thanked us for our attempt at being compassionate.
And then they took it in, and put the body in the casket.
We were then all prepared to go. The agents told me the ambulance was ready, and they were prepared to move.
We--the casket was brought out about halfway, and a gentleman arrived who said that we would not be allowed to remove the body from the hospital until the necessary papers had been signed.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you know who he was?
Mr. O'DONNELL. I don't recollect who he was. I think he was---maybe from the coroner's office. My assumption is he would be.
But he took this position. We asked--I don't recollect who transmitted the message that they speed this up as much as possible, and give us some idea how long it took to accomplish this. And they went out into this other little room where there were some telephones, and proceeded to call whoever it was necessary to call to get this permission.
We waited about 10 or 15 minutes, and Dr. Burkley and General McHugh were in the room, and Mr. O'Brien at some time. I went out again and asked them if they had an answer, and nobody seemed to be able to answer the question as to how long it might take, and whether it was a week or an hour.
So I was getting more concerned about Mrs. Kennedy's state all the time although she appeared composed, as she had from the beginning.
Then a gentleman did arrive who has later been identified for me as a Judge Brown, who was on the telephone calling someone. It had been my assumption that upon his arrival that he had the power to permit us to depart. Dr. Burkley was talking to him in a very agitated manner. And the gentleman was very calm and cool and collected. If my recollection is clear, he said something to the effect that as of now this was just a homicide case, and there were certain things that had to be carried out, one of which I interpreted as an autopsy.
Mr. SPECTER. Who was it, Mr. O'Donnell, if you recall, who said this was just another homicide case?
Mr. O'DONNELL. My feeling is it was Brown, but I really would not be--in the excitement of the moment, the discussion of the autopsy, the signing of a certificate from the hospital, and the treatment of this as a homicide case, I would not want to be unfair and misinterpret who might have said it.
My recollection is it was indicated to us that the President is dead, the hospital has to perform certain functions, and the law must be met, no matter who it is, at this moment. In my own mind, when they said autopsy, I realized we were talking not about hours, but perhaps even days, which was an impossible situation for Mrs. Kennedy.
I talked to Dr. Burkley, and had him suggest to them that they could have a doctor come with us, he could accompany the body at all times, and that we would bring him immediately to the Naval Hospital, and that they could perform whatever necessary chores, and there would be no separation physically from the hospital and the performance of their autopsy.
They refused to consider this.
I in my own mind determined that we had no alternative but to just depart. So I went back in the room. I told Mr. O'Brien, and whoever else was assembled there, that we were going to leave. I notified the Secret Service and General McHugh, and told them to get ready to depart. We went in and took the body out. Mrs. Kennedy stood right behind it, I think totally unaware of the problems that were then existing, so perhaps confused as to the speed with which we were attempting to depart.
We pushed the casket out through the hall. This first gentleman that had come in, who, I presume, was from the coroner's office, shouted very loudly, "You can't do that, you can't leave here now." Nobody paid any attention to him. We pushed out through another set of swinging doors. I remember a Catholic priest was between this and the doorway, and was praying. It was most disconcerting because we were concerned at all times that some moment they would say stop, and I hated to think what might happen to Mrs. Kennedy if she had to go back and go through this all over again. So we brushed them all aside and came out the same way we had come in, through the same doors.
There was an ambulance there. Andy Berger was seated in the driver's seat. Several agents were there. The body was put into the ambulance, Mrs. Kennedy got in with it. We climbed into a car alongside of it, and we took off for the airport. I told the agents if they would signal ahead, that there were agents at the airfield, and that as soon as we came through the gate, they were to close the gate and let nobody else in.
-
Again, no Specific mention of WADE. Wade himself during his WC Testimony waffled around whether he or someone inside his office got involved. And I do adhere to Sworn Testimony vs stories/recollections.
-
I find this interesting (from an October 17, 1967 interview for the JFK Library):
McHugh: Did any of the doctors there attempt to begin postmortem procedures?
Burkley: Of course not. First place, postmortem would have to be either authorized by a member of the family or ordered by the court.
McHugh: This was not normally a procedure that they would automatically perform?
Burkley: In no way.
-
I find this interesting (from an October 17, 1967 interview for the JFK Library):
McHugh: Did any of the doctors there attempt to begin postmortem procedures?
Burkley: Of course not. First place, postmortem would have to be either authorized by a member of the family or ordered by the court.
McHugh: This was not normally a procedure that they would automatically perform?
Burkley: In no way.
I do Not know specifically what "postmortem procedures" entails.
-
I do Not know specifically what "postmortem procedures" entails.
Post-mortem
A post-mortem examination, also known as an autopsy, is the examination of a body after death. The aim of a post-mortem is to determine the cause of death.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/post-mortem/
A post mortem is a detailed examination of the body by a doctor who has special training and experience in this field, called a forensic pathologist. During the post-mortem examination, a specialist forensic pathologist examines the deceased person to determine the presence, nature and extent of any disease or damage.
https://coroners.nsw.gov.au/the-coronial-process/post-mortem.html#:~:text=A%20post%20mortem%20is%20a,of%20any%20disease%20or%20damage.
JohnM
-
I do Not know specifically what "postmortem procedures" entails.
Postmortem: 5. Medicine/Medical. a postmortem examination; autopsy
My initial response regarding the encounter was to your question as to why no one was prosecuted. Here’s another excerpt from Manchester’s book regarding some of the aftermath:
Ward himself departed to complete a batch of official forms with his registrar. In his precinct log he docketed the inquest he had never held as No. 210; “Burial-Transit No. 7992,” authorizing “the removal of John F. Kennedy, male, white,” was belatedly drawn up and sent, for some reason, to Oneal’s, Inc.; Kemp Clark’s death certificate turned out to be inadequate under state statutes, so Ward signed another. Accuracy was not a forte of official Dallas that afternoon. On the new document—the deceased’s “usual occupation” was given as “President of the U.S.”—Kennedy’s Washington address was erroneously recorded as 600, not 1600, Pennsylvania Avenue. The transit permit incorrectly listed his age as forty-four. The Dallas Police Department completed a homicide report later in the day and it, too, was imprecise, stating that headquarters had received word of the shooting at 5:10 P.M. With that the local rites were over. Ceremonial homage had been paid to the letter of the law.
And, according to Manchester, the departure of the vehicle carrying JFK’s body away from Parkland Hospital was 2:08 pm local time.
-
Do you believe Sitzman's story about a young black couple sitting to her right, behind a wall, near a bench?
The nearest witnesses to the picket fence, according to her, ran back there after the shooting, immeadiatly. Fleeing to safety into the carpark. And Bowers missed it or at least could not explain it properly.
I believe her. The couple, the smash of the coke bottle that distracted her from the horror she just witnessed in the limo and where she saw them run to. They dissapeared and Sitzman wanted to see where they went. Bowers could not explain it because a parade on Elm Street that he just could not see did not justify his full attention.
Also.
"I could see the back of the fence" and "One man dissapeared behind the fence".
Your back, my behind.
-
A man was seen by Bowers standing on the west side of the fence, “in line” with the Triple U bridge , for some minutes? Preceding the JFK limo entering Dealey plaza?
Then this man disappeared from Bowers LOS just moments before JFK limo comes down Elm st ?
Except for a gap at corner of the fence by the steps, the GK fence is continuous and connects to the bridge abutment. So if the man was in line” with Bowers view from tower to the Triple U, would require the man to JUMP OVER the fence (or the abutment ) to get to opposite side ( east side) of the fence to then be out of LOS of Bowers.
Seems improbable the man could jump over the fence and Bowers would not see that.
The other options for the mystery man:
1. Got into a car parked by the fence
2. Sat on the ground between the west side of the fence and a car that obscured Bowers LOS from the tower.
3. Walked some 100 ft distance from the “in line” area of fence at the abutment going north along west side of the fence till he got to the gap by steps , went thru this gap and then went north or south where he would be obscured by opposite side of fence or the GK pergola structure.
4. Got into the far drain sewer where he could shoot from ground level thru the lower portion of the wood fence, at the JFK limo with a LOS to JFKs head.
If 1 or 2, why was the man not seen again by Bowers, because it’s seems odd the man would not have either stood up or gotten back out of the car to take a look over the fence at the JFK limo and probably still be looking on post shots.
If 3, how probable Bowers could miss seeing the man walking some 100 ft along West side of the fence?
If 4: he was a shooter, and he used the far storm drain sewer , which is at the junction of GK wood fence and Triple U abutment,, which just happens to be “in line” from Bowers perspective to the Triple U bridge, then he could have exited at the other end of the drain and be out of LOS of Bowers.
Option 4: The man for some reason was not interested in watching the JFK limo and he remained in his car , then upon hearing shots fired , started up his car which caused a plume of smoke that was seen by some witnesses who mistook the coincidental timing with shots fired as residue from a rifle just fired.
Bowers , however, did not see any smoke on the west side of the fence.
This might be possible if the car in question , was parked with the tail pipe facing the fence? Hence the smoke blew thru the lower portion of the fence before it “plumed “ on the opposite east side of fence hence Bowers view obscured by fence AND foliage of tree?
-
A man was seen by Bowers standing on the west side of the fence, “in line” with the Triple U bridge , for some minutes? Preceding the JFK limo entering Dealey plaza?
What Bowers actually said was "in a direct line to the mouth of the underpass" not to the underpass itself and he clarified exactly where that was to Mark Lane.
The east end of the fence, west of the pergola and near two trees.
Both Gary Mack and Dale Myers were in agreement on this. From Bowers' POV the "mouth" began somewhere near the bottom of those steps on Elm.
If you aren't referring to the unpublished Rush To Judgment transcript then you will never get this.
-
If you search "Dale Myers Badgeman" you can read part of the transcript and Myers' own analysis of it.
-
Welcome aboard, Ms. Cross,
Always beneficial to have an extra set of eyes & ears, especially someone objective and openminded to weigh in on this 60+ year mystery surrounding the untimely death of President Kennedy on Friday, November 22, 1963.
Five years ago, I shared the following response to a fellow member over on the Quora site (it depicts the same gunsmoke Mr. Holland claims he viewed from his high elevated vantage viewpoint on that fateful afternoon, please scroll down to the 4th comment heading after clicking upon the link below)
https://www.quora.com/Did-you-ever-see-the-Kennedy-assasination-on-video-or-YouTube-do-you-believe-the-driver-shot-the-president
Alan Ford
Author has 3K answers and 1.1M answer views...
Please let me add that Mr. Storing (Royell) is an astute and exemplary researcher, and I would recommend to any new researcher(s) to glean as much information from his posts/responses as possible. He doesn't have an agenda as much as he--like many others here on this forum--are simply seeking light, truth and justice in this case.
P.S. In fairness to you, there seems to be another Alan Ford holding membership here on this forum, so when I attempted to sign-on here I had to insert my middle initial...sorry for any confusion.
Alan,
My sincerest apology.
I never realized there were two of you with very similar names on this forum.
I will make the appropriate correction on the Education Forum.
Chris
My response: Soooo indicative of the genuine class act you are, Mr. Davidson, no harm. no foul sir.
-
Well, you got DPD Cop Smith smelling Gun Powder in the same parking lot as Holland is reporting Seeing Smoke and hearing a shot. A member of law enforcement backing up your claim is solid corroboration.
An excellent point, Mr. Storing, but no great surprise considering the source.
Officer Smith simply confirmed with his nose what Mr. Holland saw with his sense of sight. Those multiple sensory experiences equates to a Bunch of lying treasonous cowards lurking behind a fence to ambush a duly elected representative of the People. Cowards gonna cower and cowards gonna lie, promoting a myth mired in the stench of horse manure about a lone gunman.