Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory

[Joe Elliott]

I'm sure that you're aware of the Photographic and film analysis done of the Kennedy assassination by the ITEK Corporation in 1976. People with training and experience in the following disciplines participated in the program: physics, photographic science, special photographic processing, photo interpretation, image analysis, coherent optical image processing, photogrammetry, and digital image processing.  From the Zapruder film, they determined that Connally was as much as 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy.

And if, like myself, you are not an expert on film analysis, you can always look at the David Powers film, showing a view from directly behind the limousine, that clearly show Connally sitting well inboard of Kennedy. One can generally see almost all of Connally's head, sometimes all of it, showing Connally was at least six to eight inches inboard of Kennedy.

And there is no reason to think that either changed positions during the five minutes Powers had the camera turned off before reaching Dealey Plaza. Connally would stay in the same position, sitting in a bucket seat. And Kennedy would stay in the same position, to keep his right elbow resting on the side of the limousine, something we see in both the Powers and Zapruder films.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Another obvious fact that refutes the lone-gunman theory is the self-evident contradiction between the largest fragment that was supposedly removed from the frontal area of JFK's head and the appearance of that fragment on the autopsy skull x-rays.

The fragment can be seen in CE 843. It is the largest of the fragments in the exhibit. The large fragment in CE 843 is supposed to be the 7 x 2 mm fragment described in the autopsy report and seen on the skull x-rays, but the two fragments look nothing like each other.

The large fragment in CE 843 is roundish in shape and weighs 107 mg. In contrast, the 7 x 2 mm fragment seen on the skull x-rays looks nothing like that: it is a mostly straight and narrow object that bends moderately to the left in the top fourth of its body. Some might refer to it as being shaped like a club.

The FBI only removed about 1 mg of the fragment's substance to perform spectrographic and NAA testing; the removal of such a tiny amount of the fragment's mass would not have drastically altered its shape.

Dr. Mantik discuses this contradiction in his article "The JFK Autopsy Materials: Twenty-Nine Conclusions After Nine Visits":

This is one of the most shocking contradictions in the entire case. The shape of the larger piece of metal is nothing like the supposedly identical piece seen on the X-rays. No measurements taken on this piece can explain its bizarre transformation in shape. Most likely, it is not the piece taken from the skull. Its origin is unknown.

John Hunt has much better quality images, obtained from NARA. Incidentally, I saw only two, not three, fragments at NARA. The largest, however, bears no resemblance to the corresponding image on the X-rays. The larger piece shown here is pancake shaped and was 107 mg. On the other hand, the X-rays show a club shaped object on both X-ray views (see Figures 2 and 6 above). The studies done by the FBI on this object (spectrographic analysis and neutron activation analysis) required only a tiny amount at most, about 1 mg, according to one of the FBI experts. No one has ever offered an explanation for this flagrant discrepancy in the shape of the largest piece. ("The JFK Autopsy Materials: Twenty-Nine Conclusions After Nine Visits," pp. 14-15, http://themantikview.org/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_Materials.pdf)

[Jack Nessan]

Another obvious fact that refutes the lone-gunman theory is the self-evident contradiction between the largest fragment that was supposedly removed from the frontal area of JFK's head and the appearance of that fragment on the autopsy skull x-rays.

The fragment can be seen in CE 843. It is the largest of the fragments in the exhibit. The large fragment in CE 843 is supposed to be the 7 x 2 mm fragment described in the autopsy report and seen on the skull x-rays, but the two fragments look nothing like each other.

The large fragment in CE 843 is roundish in shape and weighs 107 mg. In contrast, the 7 x 2 mm fragment seen on the skull x-rays looks nothing like that: it is a mostly straight and narrow object that bends moderately to the left in the top fourth of its body. Some might refer to it as being shaped like a club.

The FBI only removed about 1 mg of the fragment's substance to perform spectrographic and NAA testing; the removal of such a tiny amount of the fragment's mass would not have drastically altered it shape.

Dr. Mantik discuses this contradiction in his article "The JFK Autopsy Materials: Twenty-Nine Conclusions After Nine Visits":

Wrong thread. This fragments subject is being discussed in the thread:

: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments

In this thread you were explaining how there were two other shots having been fired by an unknown assassin in addition to the two shots that were fired by LHO.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Wrong thread. This fragments subject is being discussed in the thread:

: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments

Umm, there is often some overlap between threads.

Obviously, the large fragment in CE 843 could not be the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes said he removed from the frontal area of JFK's skull, the 7 x 2 mm fragment that appears on the autopsy skull x-rays. The two fragments look nothing like each other. We're still waiting for a single LNer to explain this problem.

In this thread you were explaining how there were two other shots having been fired by an unknown assassin in addition to the two shots that were fired by LHO.

I'm guessing you are not aware of the disclosure about the NAA analysis of the paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek. We now know that that analysis found strong evidence that Oswald did not fire a rifle on 11/22/63.

I'm guessing you are also not aware of the new evidence regarding Oswald's whereabouts during and right after the shooting. It's discussed in the new documentary JFK Revisited. We now know that no one who was on or near the stairs within 90 seconds of the shooting saw or heard anyone else on the stairs.

It was already fairly obvious that Oswald was not on those stairs from Roy Truly's testimony, wherein Truly said that he was running ahead of Baker up the stairs and saw no one coming down the stairs from the third floor and saw no one on the second-floor landing.

Anyway, WC apologists, as we've seen, have no even halfway credible answers for the Z186 shot reactions. Admitting that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit before Z190 was perhaps the most contentious and controversial issue that the HSCA PEP discussed, because of the obvious implications, given the fact that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166-210.

[Dan O'meara]

Anyway, WC apologists, as we've seen, have no even halfway credible answers for the Z186 shot reactions. Admitting that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit before Z190 was perhaps the most contentious and controversial issue that the HSCA PEP discussed, because of the obvious implications, given the fact that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166-210.

Let's have a look at some of Michael's "obvious facts".
This is from the OP:

"...the HSCA admitted that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit with a shot at around Z186-190. JFK's cheeks puff at Z188. At around Z200, JFK's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion; his right hand also drops to the chin or throat level in a fraction of a second and stays there until he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207; and his head moves rapidly from the right toward his wife on his left. The HSCA's photographic experts detected a strong blur/jiggle episode from Z189-197. Here's the problem for the lone-gunman theory: The sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK was obscured by the intervening oak tree from Z166-209. Obviously, this shot did not come from the sixth-floor window."

One of the key "shot reactions" put forward by the HSCA was a rapid movement of JFK's head from right to left. Over two years ago, in my "The First Shot" thread, I debunked this notion:

Look at the hairline of JFK in the following frames:



In the top pic (z207, just before he passes behind Stemmons sign) the parting in his hair on the left side of his head can just be made out. Certainly the way his fringe sweeps up to the parting is clearly visible.
In the second pic (z225, first full frame of JFK emerging from behind Stemmons) his parting is not so visible but the sweep of his hair up to it is.
In the bottom pic (z230, JFK facing straight ahead) the part of his forehead revealed by the sweep of his hairline up to the parting is no longer visible.
Far from turning to his left JFK is still looking to his right as he passes behind the Stemmons sign (z207).
There is no head-snap to the left and, therefore, no reason to suspect JFK is reacting to anything.

In this thread, Reply #32, Gerry posted this clip, also demonstrating there was no head snap from right to left:



The HSCA were completely wrong about this point and this has been clearly demonstrated.
If they were wrong about such a fundamental claim, what other "obvious facts" are in doubt?
Did JFK's hand "freeze" before he passed behind the Stemmons sign?
Looking at Gerry's clip, it's not what I'm seeing - JFK is waving to the crowd, his head is turned to the right, he begins to turn his head forward and he lowers his hand.
That's all!!
JFK is still lowering his hand as he passes from behind the Stemmons sign - that is a fact! Therefore he is not grabbing for his throat.

There are zero obvious "shot reactions"before JFK passes behind the Stemmons sign. Not a single one.
So much for "obvious facts".

[Dan O'meara]

The HSCA's conclusions about Kennedy's head turn and handwave "freeze" was challenged by Dale K. Myers about two decades ago. The critics didn't have enough sense to challenge it, so much are they enthralled with a ca.Z190 shot.

The Z-film shows there was no rapid head turn just before JFK passed behind the Stemmons sign. The HSCA were wrong about this. As such, it is mildly irritating to find some researchers still regurgitating this falsehood, particularly when they are fully aware that it is not the case. There is no obvious "shot reaction" before JFK passes behind the sign,

Aside from the rightward head turns of the Connallys and Mrs. Kennedy (supposedly in reaction to hearing the first shot), the other significant pre-sign reaction is the sudden stopping of the running girl Rosemary Willis. You have to allow a bit of time for her to stop; when she does get stopped, she turns her head towards the direction of the Depository. She said hearing the first shot made her decide to stop.

The non-issue of Rosemary Willis has also been dealt with in my "The First Shot" thread. The OP of that thread focuses on the immediate reactions of agents Landis, Ready and Hickey as shown in Altgens 6 - they are all turned to the right and rear looking back at the TSBD building in response to the first shot. In the Z-film we see Rosemary Willis running along, slowing down and looking around - a so-called reaction to the first shot. However, in the same film we see the agents in the presidential follow-up car showing zero reactions to this supposed shot. We are supposed to believe this little girl reacted to the shot while a car full of agents noticed nothing:

I just find it incredibly unlikely that this little girl is reacting a loud noise that a car full of SS men haven't noticed. Willis can be seen running alongside the Presidential follow-up car so we can compare the reactions of both:



It seems little Rosemary was trying to keep up with the presidential limo. The Croft photo shows that Jackie may well have been watching her as she ran along. She could no longer keep up with the limo so slowed down.
Nothing sinister.

[Joe Elliott]

It seems little Rosemary was trying to keep up with the presidential limo. The Croft photo shows that Jackie may well have been watching her as she ran along. She could no longer keep up with the limo so slowed down.
Nothing sinister.

The limousine at that time was going at or below 12 mph (as I recall). Covering 50 yards in 8.5 seconds. I found on the internet that some typical third grader won a 50 yard dash race in 5.6 seconds. From a standing start. I don't think Rosemary Willis would have had any problem keeping up with that limousine. At 67 years old, I might have been able to keep up with it for a few seconds. And I would easily lose a 50 yard dash race to an eight year old Rosemary Willis. Hell, I might have lost a 50 yard dash to Rosemary if I raced her that day (I was eight years old too). Picking them up and putting them down was not my forte.

Look at the the Zapruder film. Does she ever look like she is flying as fast as she could go? Not to me.

Rosemary Willis just decided not to keep up with the limousine? Possible. Incapable of keeping up with the limousine up through z225? Not a chance.

[Dan O'meara]

The limousine at that time was going at or below 12 mph (as I recall). Covering 50 yards in 8.5 seconds. I found on the internet that some typical third grader won a 50 yard dash race in 5.6 seconds. From a standing start. I don't think Rosemary Willis would have had any problem keeping up with that limousine. At 67 years old, I might have been able to keep up with it for a few seconds. And I would easily lose a 50 yard dash race to an eight year old Rosemary Willis. Hell, I might have lost a 50 yard dash to Rosemary if I raced her that day (I was eight years old too). Picking them up and putting them down was not my forte.

Look at the the Zapruder film. Does she ever look like she is flying as fast as she could go? Not to me.

Rosemary Willis just decided not to keep up with the limousine? Possible. Incapable of keeping up with the limousine up through z225? Not a chance.

I'm not sure what your point is Joe.
I agree that if she'd really tried she could've kept up with the limo for longer. She just doesn't seem that bothered. Maybe she was being called back by one of her family members, being told not to run off. She'd followed the limo from up on Houston street, maybe she was just running out of steam. Maybe she just got bored of running alongside it.
You seem to have focused on my questioning of Rosemary Willis' athletic prowess but I'm not sure why.

Surely, the important point being made was that many researchers like to use Rosemary Willis' slowing down and stopping as "evidence" of a shot before z207 (when JFK passes behind the Stemmons sign) but that this is refuted by the car full of SS agents riding alongside her who make absolutely no reaction to the shot Rosemary is supposed to have heard. Agents who specifically testify to reacting immediately to the first shot, their reactions being recorded in the Altgens 6 pic. Are we to believe this little girl heard the first shot and reacted to it but agents Landis, Ready and Hickey were oblivious to it?