JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Reheat]

I have spent several hours reviewing the HSCA documents. There are obviously discrepancies and questions raised.

I'll just concentrate on one. Dr. Finck observed that the brain had been removed prior to his arrival to the morgue at 8:30. However, there are several references by others witnessing the autopsy that the brain was still intact during the autopsy. How is this resolved since there was a discussion of permission for a partial or a complete autopsy prior to beginning. It's no wonder that there are options for Horne to suspect a conspiracy based on these conflicting statements.

Most of the photographs shown are obviously prior to the brain removal. It is obviously very perplexing for anyone to digest.

Dr. Crenshaw from Parkland is obviously a kook. That is obvious. However, it appears to me that Dr.'s Perry and McClelland are not. How in the hell they could get a the side of the head blown away with a baseball size wound in the rear of the head confused is beyond me.

I see Jack White has weighed in on the authenticity of he Zapruder film. He needs to just go away.

How is the Harper fragment explained? As far as I know it was agreed that it fit along with the fragments found in the vehicle.

I have now concluded that we'll never ever know the true whole story. It will likely be argued for decades if not Centuries....

 

[HSienzant]

The entire principle behind anything at all that might have been modified was to convince everyone that this was the result of the lone nut shooting from behind and not a conspiracy.

Hence, my question, which you have yet to answer, or which Doug Horne has yet to answer: Putting it another way, why would sane conspirators try to frame a lone-nut shooting only from behind by shooting the victim from multiple locations and then have to jump through hoops to make it look like a lone nut did all the shooting? Why not just shoot the victim only from behind, with one weapon, and frame the lone-nut for owning that weapon?

Conally's wounds were consistent with a shot from the rear, Kennedy's wounds were not all consistent with that. So, there was no need to modify anything at all regarding Conally's wounds to accomplish the lone gunman theory.

And hence my question: If JFK's wounds necessitated alterations, why didn't Connally's? And if they did, where and when were his wounds altered?

You just claimed they didn't require alteration. You didn't say why.

Putting it another way, what if both JFK and Connally had survived, and both had be shot from the front? You must admit, that with multiple shooters behind and in front (per your hypothesis), it was sheer happenstance that the surviving victim of gunfire was shot only from behind, and the deceased was the only person shot from the front (according to Horne). If either or both men survived, and had wounds inflicted from the front, how do the conspirators alter those wounds? Does Horne explain the alternative scenarios necessitated by multiple shooters all over the plaza whatsoever?

And remember the only bullets or fragments recovered from the limo or from the victims' stretchers all traced back to Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. How does Horne account for that? Were these bullets and fragments all planted, or did the conspirators get lucky that no other bullets from other weapons survived the shooting and therefore revealed the conspiracy (because they wouldn't be traceable to Oswald's weapon)?

Again, bottom line, why complicate matter with multiple shooters and alteration of the body? If JFK was struck only once in the throat, ducked and the limo exited the scene with no further damage, how does this frame-up of Oswald work? How do they alter JFK's wound to make it look like it was inflicted from behind? Were the doctors at Parkland in on the body alteration scheme as well?

David Lifton, who invented body alteration in his book, BEST EVIDENCE, admits the Parkland doctors must have been part of the scheme: "They go to the hospital, and at the hospital, is a plan to alter the President's body...This is a doctor's plot..." (5:20 into the video). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17tIST8HWRM

I don't know Horne's history. Perhaps he was a looney tune prior to the ARRB. However, he does do a nice job of explaining things with virtually no unanswered questions and many interviews with principles.

Did he answer the questions above? If so, how?

Look I've been to Dealey Plaza. I know the size. Like everyone else who's been there, I was surprised that it was so small. If Oswald fired the supposed 3 shots as quickly as proposed it was a miracle. Not entirely impossible, but implausible.

Quickly? You're allowing how much time for the three shots? And you realize the clock starts with the first shot, and then only two more shots need be fired, right?

Kennedy's wound in the back were obviously from behind. However, the throat wound appeared to have been an entry wound, not an exit wound.

To one or two doctors at Parkland who were more concerned with attempting to save the President's life than with doing a forensic examination of the body. If emergency room physicians impressions are all that's necessary, why bother with autopsies at all?

Your theory presents a problem, what happened to those TWO bullets that struck the President both in the same general area? One in the upper back (didn't exit, wasn't found in the body); another in the neck (didn't exit, wasn't found in the body). Two magic bullets instead of one normal one.

Why wouldn't a bullet traveling over 2000 fps striking a victim in the upper back exit the front of the body? Magic?

That would in and of itself require a conspiracy. The pristine "magic bullet" theory is simply total BS. I know the theory on the seat arrangement, but a bullet of that type can not do the damage it supposedly did and be totally pristine like it was.

It wasn't pristine. It was bent slightly and flattened along one side. The DISCOVERY CHANNEL attempted to recreate this bullet, and came darn close: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-5xfTKqf1A (1:16:00 into the video). You appear to be arguing that CE399 (the bullet recovered at Parkland) is planted to implicate Oswald. That makes no sense. What if there was no wound(s) in either victim that would match up to this bullet? Then the planting would reveal the conspiracy, not further it. How could the plotters know the specifics of the damage each man suffered at the point the bullet was recovered, and how could they risk planting a bullet that might have no corresponding wound?

As far as Kennedy's dalliances with women, that would have required that he be impeached, but adultery was not a crime then or now.

Nonetheless, Kennedy won by the narrowest of margins in 1960, and 1964 was not a lock. Merely revealing his dalliances could have been enough to take him down, without any treasonous activity on the part of the "plotters". Yet instead of doing the easy, non-criminal, thing to get JFK out of office, they jump right away to treasonous activity that could get them all hung instead. Does that course of action make sense to you?

We know that Johnson intensely disliked Kennedy and there were substantial rumors that he would not be his running mate in '64. As ambitious and ruthless as Johnson was it is easy to believe he was in on a conspiracy.

You have to prove a conspiracy, not just assume one, before you start naming names. And you have to have evidence, not just presumptions, to name conspirators. You appear to be getting way ahead of yourself here.

There is also evidence that Johnson would be indicted in the Billy Sol Estes scandal. He had plenty of reasons to want Kennedy gone.

Ok, this is where you should list the evidence that there was a plot, and Johnson was involved. We'll await your evidence.

For all of this to work the Zuperder film would have to have been modified.

Every bit of evidence has to be modified to fit the round conspiracy into the square hole called evidence.

I know the theory gets pretty complicated [ya think?], but there are discrepancies in it. The other films do not show the head shot clearly enough to assume anything.

There are far more discrepancies in any conspiracy theory than in the lone shooter version. You'll have to live with that.

I will stay and discuss this in a rational manner, but I'm not going to be treated like an idiot with snide remarks and snark. I know it's easy to see a conspiracy where there is none and my attitude may be a result of a intense dislike of Johnson. I loathed the man for many reasons, so perhaps I'm predisposed to believing in a conspiracy in this case. I'm not a truther or anything resembling one and I don't invent conspiracies out of whole cloth, so don't imply that I am.

You're merely accepting one man's version of events (Horne's) without being aware of the full body of evidence. For example, are you aware that multiple people saw a shooter or a weapon on the upper floor of the Depository and reported that within minutes, but NO ONE saw a shooter or a weapon anywhere else? Only one weapon was recovered in Dealey Plaza that day? And all three shells, two large fragments, and one nearly whole bullet all pointed to that weapon? Why presume shooters there is no evidence for, merely to shoehorn a conspiracy into the event? (not to mention shoehorning alteration of the body and the Zapruder film into the event as well, planting of a bullet, bullet fragments, as well as god knows what else it turns out Horne is alleging).

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I brought up Hank's idea of the throat alteration theory being a matter of misinterpretation to David Lifton himself on the London Education Forum, and he replied with some information I've never heard of before:

Micah:

There's important missing history of which you are unaware, and which establishes that Dr. Perry's quote (from the 1990's JAMA article) can be set aside (to put it mildly).

What I will now set forth concerns what happened when Robert Groden and a reporter from a Baltimore newspaper visited Dr. Perry in his office in New York City (in the period 1977-78) when Groden was on the staff of the HSCA, and had access to certain prints of the autopsy photos.

Let's begin with my filmed interview of Robert Groden, conducted at his home in Hopelawn, New Jersey in June or July of 1989, a two-night multihour interview. This interview was filmed, professionally, and Pat Valentino was present, and in charge of the sound.

When we interviewed Robert Groden at that time, Robert described, in detail, what happened when he (and a Baltimore news reporter) visited Dr. Malcolm Perry at his New York City office (Perry was then practicing medicine in NYC). Robert Groden was then employed on the staff of the HSCA; and he went to see Perry in New York, the main purpose being get his reaction to see the "stare of death" photo.

Groden showed Dr. Perry the photo--the first time Perry had ever seen it--and Perry shook his head from side to side, and said, referring to the trach incision he had made: "I left the wound inviolate." Let me repeat what Perry said: "I left the wound inviolate."

Now. . .what did he mean by "inviolate"? And how could that be, since he had testified he made his incision through the wound?

Perry was referring to the fact that--based on his unvarnished memory--he had made the incision below the wound. (FYI: This is what Perry had told writer Jimmy Breslin on 11/22/63, and which Breslin then published in the detailed article he wrote, and which was published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Sunday, 11/24/63. FYI: that identical interview was then published (again) in the Saturday Evening Post in early December, 1963 (referring now to the article titled "Death in Emergency Room One" --from memory).

Now let's turn to the word "inviolate" and set aside whether this was the first time he had used that word, in connection with describing the throat wound, and how he believed he had left it.

When Robert related this, I turned to Pat Valentino and said, "Oh no, Perry is wrong. The transcript from his 1966 CBS interview says "invalid", so Perry must be mistaken". (And in fact, the official CBS transcript does in fact use the word "invalid").

But then came this stunner. Groden happened to have, right there in his residence, an excellent copy of that 1966 CBS interview, and so he played t for us. Naturally, I expected to hear Perry say (just as the transcript quoted him as having said) "invalid."

But no, that's not what Perry said. Perry clearly said "inviolate" !

What the heck? Had the transcript been fiddled with? (You betcha!)

Pat and I both rose up out of our chairs, astonished. (Groden didn't understand our reaction, because--in the interest of an unbiased interview--we hadn't (yet) told him any of this backstory.

But there it was, right there on the screen: Perry had said "I left the wound inviolate" (on screen); and he had told Groden (and the accompanying reporter, at his NYC office), the same thing; he said that he had left the wound "inviolate."

Following this, Pat and I then brought Groden completely up-to-date, filling him in on these details, and we did all of this "on camera," to get his reaction as we talked, and we then interviewed him further about his experiences in New York City, and at Perry's office--all about his certainty that yes, there was no doubt about itL in his New York City office, and while looking at the autopsy photo, Perry had said "inviolate." It was a wonderful filmed interview at a time when I had few of the problems with Groden, that later bloomed (and are described in Pig on a Leash, 2003).

Now, here's some additional follow-up:

ITEM #1: Pat and I (and Groden) --the very next day--then went to a Philadelphia audio lab, with Groden's excellent copy of the filmed interview, and did some precise slowed-up copying to see if we could detect how the world "inviolate" had become "invalid." All I can say is that there was plenty of circumstantial audio evidence of digital hanky-panky. (That work should be repeated, with today's better digitial technology).

ITEM #2: Upon returning to Los Angeles, I located the Baltimore reporter who accompanied Groden to Perry's NYC office, and spoke with him by phone. He confirmed that Perry had shook his head from side to side, and made clear that the photograph he was looking was not the way he had left the wound.

ITEM #3: Dr. Perry, in a 1988 interview with PBS, tried to demean, and make fun of, me, and the conversation he had had with me in October 1966. Sorry, but that won't work: On October 27, 1966, he told me that the wound was "2-3 cm." And I wrote it down as he said it.

ITEM $4: I deeply regret, after all of this, having to state that I completely forgot to develop this into a "research package" and send it to Jeremy Gunn on the ARRB. At the time, I was working very closely with the ARRB, and with Doug Horne, speaking to Horne multiple times per week (and recording all of our conversations, with full permission) and speaking with Gunn, too. I just plain forget about what happened six years before, in 1989. But this would have been a perfect example of using the ARRB's subpoena powers to "clarify the record", which was their mandate. Perry should have been put under oath, and --on this subject--depositions should have been taken from both Groden, and the Baltimore reporter. To round out the record, I would have been glad to contribute the 1989 filmed interview with Groden, in which he related, in vivid terms, Perry's reaction to first seeing the "stare of death" autopsy photo, and his saying: "I left the wound inviolate."

ITEM #5: My personal opinion of Dr. Perry: he lied. Its as simple as that. Sure, he told the truth on 11/22/63, and yes, he complained about being badgered about changing his opionion, etc. ; but there was no need for all of that in 1967. A man of integrity would have told the truth. Instead, we have the record of Dr. Perry not only going along with an altered transcript; but then, decades later (and you can find this on the Internet) telling he doctors with whom he worked, in Seattle, (and after swearing this one and that one to secrecy), that of course the wound at the front of the throat was an entry.

* * *

Micah: I hope you now realize that what Dr. Perry said, in a 1990s JAMA article, should be viewed skeptically, to say the least; and in my personal opinion, it is basically worthless.

DSL

2/10/2017 - 6:45 PM PST

Los Angeles, California

You appear to be arguing that there should be two wounds in the front of the President's neck via this quoting of Lifton.

A bullet wound which was left untouched, and a separate trache wound inflicted by the doctors to make an airway for the President's assisted breathing tube.

That makes no sense whatsoever. The autopsy photos show no such development. There is one trache incision visible only, which therefore must be right through the bullet wound the doctors saw.

Lifton's arguments, as always, are well-documented, well-supported, and wholly wrong.

Hank

 

[CORed]

Ok. I'll bite. I haven't done the JFK conspiracy thing in a long time. I've forgotten a lot of what I used to know, so I might be missing some details, but I will try and discuss this in a rational manner.

Once upon a time, I was a conspiracy believer myself, although it was a very long time ago. I came around to the lone gunman theory sometime around age 20, which was over 30 years ago.

One thing I have learned from long participation on conspiracy threads is that the discussions are often whack-a-mole style. You can't nail down anyone. When a position becomes untenable, the subject changes. I've managed to avoid that somewhat in the past, but it happens a lot. Let's see if we can avoid that.

I want to begin with the highlighted assertion above, in part because it was instrumental in my own conversion from conspiracy believer to lone nut believer.

Why do you say that? I don't think it is implausible in the least. One thing I've noticed is that most books on the subject really distort the amount of time available, shortening it considerably. Bearing that in mind, how long do you think he had to fire the three shots? Are you familiar with what the Warren Report says about that time frame, and about what subsequent research has added to either confirm or refute the time available that was stated in the Warren Report?

This has been pointed out before, but most people who claim the three shots were impossibly fast tend to time it incorrectly. They include the time to chamber the first round and aim in their calculations. However, the clock actually starts with firing the first round. We don't know whether the shooter chambered that round immediately before firing or an hour beforehand. So it's fire, chamber round, aim, fire, chamber round, aim, fire, chamber round, aim, fire.

It is not chamber round, aim, fire, chamber round, aim, fire, chamber round, aim fire.

 

[Border Reiver]

The Warren Commission time calculated was 8.3". You're right, I've seen as little as 6.x". Note, the Italian team could not repeat the feat, however, a police team did duplicate the feat a little better. Note: Although Oswald was a Marine, he scored the lowest possible score to pass and that was likely at the peak of his proficiency.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-had-no-time-to-fire-all-Kennedy-bullets.html

I have a British Enfield, reputed to be the fastest bolt action rifle made for repeating shots and I seriously doubt I could recycle three rounds in that time and hit a moving target even at 50 yards, let along any further. An expert rifleman could fire 20-30 rounds in a minute using the Enfield. But, a Carcano is not an Enfield by any stretch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee–Enfield

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcano

BTW: I have no problem discussing this with you as you're a reasonable person.... I've gone the other way. I was just beginning University when this happened, so I didn't have a lot of time to keep up. I accepted the Warren Commission Report with doubt, but I've changed my mind over the years and seriously doubt Oswald did it alone. With all that was at stake for Johnson and his Texas cronies a lot was at stake for them. I don't speculate about who was involved, but I do believe Johnson was behind it....

It's more then reasonable to presume that with a Lee Enfield and sufficient practice, you could easily manage 20-30 rounds/minute. 15 rounds in a 36" circle at 300 yds was the standard to be a First Class Marksman in the British and Commonwealth armies prior to WWI (Rifle Practice no. 22). And a significant number of soldiers were able to achieve this, as demonstrated with their pay records (being a first class marksman brought a pay increase).

Like what Oswald did the shooters started with a loaded rifle aimed at the target prior to the start of the practice - all that is required is to cycle the bolt, reacquire the sight picture on a target that is moving away and fire - twice. Barring a feed problem, this is a fairly easy thing to do with a little practice even with a Carcano

 

[Dave Rogers]

So it's fire, chamber round, aim, fire, chamber round, aim, fire, chamber round, aim, fire.

It is not chamber round, aim, fire, chamber round, aim, fire, chamber round, aim fire.

FTFY, unless Oswald actually fired four times.

Dave

 

[CORed]

FTFY, unless Oswald actually fired four times.

Dave

Good catch. I'm pretty sure it was three, unless one completely escaped detection and Oswald added a cartridge after fired his shots.

 

[Reheat]

Hence, my question, which you have yet to answer, or which Doug Horne has yet to answer: Putting it another way, why would sane conspirators try to frame a lone-nut shooting only from behind by shooting the victim from multiple locations and then have to jump through hoops to make it look like a lone nut did all the shooting? Why not just shoot the victim only from behind, with one weapon, and frame the lone-nut for owning that weapon?

I am not her to answer your questions at you idea of promptly. If one wanted to ensure the successful assassination it would make sense to fire from different locations simultaneously.

And hence my question: If JFK's wounds necessitated alterations, why didn't Connally's? And if they did, where and when were his wounds altered?

You just claimed they didn't require alteration. You didn't say why.

Yes, I did. Reading comprehension problem? Connally's wounds were obviously from the rear, so there was no need to modify anything. Should I repeat it one more time?

 

[BStrong]

That's true, but I have doubts that he did that based on a moving target in addition to the cheap 4X scope on the rifle. It's possible, but I think improbable. If that were the only issue I might accept it, but it isn't the only issue.

Which is your prerogative, but from my side of the street based on my training and experience, LHO's shooting wasn't anything out of the ordinary.

 

[Reheat]

It's more then reasonable to presume that with a Lee Enfield and sufficient practice, you could easily manage 20-30 rounds/minute. 15 rounds in a 36" circle at 300 yds was the standard to be a First Class Marksman in the British and Commonwealth armies prior to WWI (Rifle Practice no. 22). And a significant number of soldiers were able to achieve this, as demonstrated with their pay records (being a first class marksman brought a pay increase).

Like what Oswald did the shooters started with a loaded rifle aimed at the target prior to the start of the practice - all that is required is to cycle the bolt, reacquire the sight picture on a target that is moving away and fire - twice. Barring a feed problem, this is a fairly easy thing to do with a little practice even with a Carcano

I agree with your analysis of the Enfield firing times. That is well documented in many sources. I'm simply questioning Oswald's ability to do it with the Carcano, a cheap scope and mounts. I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was improbable.

Is there any evidence he went to a firing range to sight it in? I've mounted a number of scopes and all required multiple adjustments to get them anywhere near accurate. I lived in Dallas for a year. I know of no ranges in Dallas proper, but I'd guess there are some in various suburban areas. Were any of these checked to determine if Oswald had used any of them?

 

[Reheat]

Which is your prerogative, but from my side of the street based on my training and experience, LHO's shooting wasn't anything out of the ordinary.

I respect your opinion, but why did it take the Italian team 19 seconds to do the same thing? I know we don't know details. I've done a lot of precision shooting too, but with an expensive scope and lots of fiddling and practice. If I had known it was so easy, it would have saved me a lot of $$.

 

[traxy]

A lot of people (myself included) don't think he used the scope at all, outside of possibly for the first shot. Marines are taught to use iron sights in a rapid fire shooting scenario.

 

[traxy]

I respect your opinion, but why did it take the Italian team 19 seconds to do the same thing?

19 seconds? Wow. Can you cite this?

I can link you to a clip of a recreation done for the Discovery Channel where a sniper goes 3 for 3 in the target area from the same distances on a target moving at the same speed in 7 seconds.

CBS did a recreation in 1967 for a TV special on the assassination. 11 shooters were given 3 attempts with the same model weapon shooting at a target moving at the same speed and distance and attempting to get all shots in under an artificially compressed 6 second timeframe. Given the proper 8 second window, 7 of those shooters matched or bettered Oswald's performance on at least one of their attempts.

 

[carlitos]

I respect your opinion, but why did it take the Italian team 19 seconds to do the same thing? I know we don't know details. I've done a lot of precision shooting too, but with an expensive scope and lots of fiddling and practice. If I had known it was so easy, it would have saved me a lot of $$.

If you were speaking with a 9/11 truth person, would you accept an unsourced personal argument from incredulity like your post above? Just curious.

 

[Reheat]

A lot of people (myself included) don't think he used the scope at all, outside of possibly for the first shot. Marines are taught to use iron sights in a rapid fire shooting scenario.

OK, so he took off the scope an then remounted it again after the shots. As I understand it the scope was mounted on the rifle when it was found. Or he fired the first shot and then disassembled the scope from the mounts. This is a preposterous claim. Utterly impossible.

As far as I know it was not a tip-off mount. It was mounted with cheap aluminum rings. Disassembling the scope from the mounts would have taken, at minimum, several minutes. Reassembly several minutes more.

If he was an expert marksman, he possibly could have done the whole shebang with iron sights, but the evidence is he wasn't even at the height of his proficiency.

When I learned shoot, my father made me shoot at a .22 brass hull mounted on a cardboard backing at about 25-30 yards with iron sights. As I recall I hit maybe 3 of ten. I simply don't recall the exact number. That taught me precision shooting, you don't have a clue what that means.

 

[Reheat]

If you were speaking with a 9/11 truth person, would you accept an unsourced personal argument from incredulity like your post above? Just curious.

Likely not, but that's not all we have. In the next sentence I stated the police experts were able to do better. What is your point, that I am full of **** for believing that it was not an easy feat? It might be better if you contributed something better than snark to the conversation.

 

[traxy]

OK, so he took off the scope an then remounted it again after the shots. As I understand it the scope was mounted on the rifle when it was found. Or he fired the first shot and then disassembled the scope from the mounts. This is a preposterous claim. Utterly impossible.

Sigh...

The scope was mounted off the left side of the rifle leaving the iron sights unobstsructed.

https://gastatic.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/carcano-oswald-rifle-scope21-324x300.jpg

 

[HSienzant]

I agree with your analysis of the Enfield firing times. That is well documented in many sources. I'm simply questioning Oswald's ability to do it with the Carcano, a cheap scope and mounts. I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was improbable.

So if we're framing Oswald, doesn't it make sense to frame him for owning an Enfield? Why do you suppose this obvious thought didn't occur to the plotters you envision, and why do you suppose they instead framed him for owning a cheaper, poorer weapon?

Is there any evidence he went to a firing range to sight it in? I've mounted a number of scopes and all required multiple adjustments to get them anywhere near accurate. I lived in Dallas for a year. I know of no ranges in Dallas proper, but I'd guess there are some in various suburban areas. Were any of these checked to determine if Oswald had used any of them?

Yes, numerous folks came forward shortly after the assassination to say they saw Oswald practice shooting, being obnoxious, cross-firing at others targets, etc. The Warren Commission investigated them all, and discounted every one.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-12.html#soviet

See page 665.

Speculation.--Oswald was seen at shooting ranges in the Dallas area practicing firing with a rifle.

Commission finding.--Marina Oswald stated that on one occasion in March or April 1963, her husband told her that he was going to practice firing with the rifle. Witnesses have testified that they saw Oswald at shooting ranges in the Dallas area during October and November 1963. Investigation has failed to confirm that the man seen by these witnesses was Oswald.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Hence, my question, which you have yet to answer, or which Doug Horne has yet to answer: Putting it another way, why would sane conspirators try to frame a lone-nut shooting only from behind by shooting the victim from multiple locations and then have to jump through hoops to make it look like a lone nut did all the shooting? Why not just shoot the victim only from behind, with one weapon, and frame the lone-nut for owning that weapon?

I am not her to answer your questions at you idea of promptly. If one wanted to ensure the successful assassination it would make sense to fire from different locations simultaneously.

So no idea why they did it the hard way from the start. Instead of seeing if just revealing his dalliances would work, they went right for the treasonous activity of trying to assassinate a sitting President, and they went for the frame-up of a lone nut by shooting that President from multiple locations?

Does that plan make sense to you?

Yes, I did. Reading comprehension problem?

Snark, anyone?

Connally's wounds were obviously from the rear, so there was no need to modify anything. Should I repeat it one more time?

Doesn't explain how the conspirators could guarantee that would be what happened. As I pointed out, in some detail, and you avoid again, with shooters in front and behind the President, the plan had to include contingencies for the President or Connally or others being wounded from the front and surviving... does Horne address those issues at all? Can you reasonably advance a contingency plan here that would work?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

How is the Harper fragment explained? As far as I know it was agreed that it fit along with the fragments found in the vehicle.

Can you spell out what you think needs explaining about the Harper fragment?

Hank