JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[cmikes]

Why bother debating how good the rifle was? In the only experiment of it's kind, the HSCA did an experiment where they roped off Dealey Plaza and fired shots from the TSBD and the Grassy Knoll while two observers reported where they perceived the shots coming from. The data says that a shot from the TSBD sounds like a shot from the TSBD and a shot from the Knoll sounds like a shot from the Knoll.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0074b.htm

Since we have half of all Dealey Plaza witnesses screaming from the highest mountains they heard shots from the Knoll area, we can't just say it was confusion or something like that. It had to be an issue of acoustics.

It looks like there was either some activity from the Knoll area, or shooters from behind were using noise-suppressors in conjunction with supersonic ammunition. Noise-suppressors can create the illusion that a gunshot originated from the opposite direction that it truly did.

Diagram from a publication by the Military Armament Corporation about noise-suppressors:

[qimg]https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/ctka/public/images/spattern.gif[/qimg]

The problem with that is that the vast majority of earwitnesses in Dealy Plaza only heard shots from one direction. If you're going to go with the minority of earwitnesses that heard only shots from the grassy knoll, are you now claiming that there were zero shots from the rear? You were arguing just a few pages ago that there was a rear entry wound in JFK's head, you just placed it lower than the authenticated photos and x-rays placed it. Are you now dismissing your previous claim?

 

[traxy]

The problem with that is that the vast majority of earwitnesses in Dealy Plaza only heard shots from one direction. If you're going to go with the minority of earwitnesses that heard only shots from the grassy knoll, are you now claiming that there were zero shots from the rear? You were arguing just a few pages ago that there was a rear entry wound in JFK's head, you just placed it lower than the authenticated photos and x-rays placed it. Are you now dismissing your previous claim?

Precisely. I don't think a single witness out of the hundred plus that were in the Plaza claimed to hear shots from 2 directions. They were either all from the Knoll or all from the Depository.

Since we know for a fact that all wounds in the rear of Kennedy and Connally were entrance wounds, and we know for a fact that multiple witnesses testified to seeing a gunman firing from the 6th floor window, the conclusion must be that anyone claiming all shots came from the knoll is simply wrong.

Also, if we're giving credence to earwitnesses, over 90 percent of them heard 3 shots or fewer.

 

[Reheat]

If the theory means that we always take witness statements at their word, what does Sibert's testimony mean for the theory?

Interesting read and a good point.

And that, in particular, there was the statement that Humes made when we first arrived when the body first came in, and they opened the casket. It was wrapped in sheets, a sheet around the body and a sepatate sheet around the head, which was blood-soaked. But it was either then or when they placed the body on the autopsy table, that Humes made the statement that there’s been an apparent tracheotomy and surgery in the head area.

Another discrepancy here. Remember, Finck who arrived at about 8:30 said the brain had been already removed when he arrived. Finck was a forensic pathologist, so he ought to know.

If this is all correct we have to assume both Humes and Finck made a mistake in their observations about previous surgery. Are we to assume Humes mistook the skull damage as surgery? However, there are photos of the head with the brain removed. So, we have to assume those photos were taken at another time, not during the autopsy. On the other hand, the undertaker took possession of the body immediately after the autopsy. No wonder there's confusion. There's all kinds of room to invent a conspiracy or conspiracies here.

 

[cmikes]

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....

As far as Dr. McClelland goes, which version of this statements are you going by? Dr. McClelland was, by all accounts, a good person and a good doctor, but he was a lousy witness. He gave at least three versions of what he saw regarding the head wound over the years.

First, there's his testimony to the Warren Commission.

Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.

That's a little bit further back than the authenticated photos and x-rays have the wound, but it's pretty close and his locating the wound a bit further towards the back of JFK's head can probably be explained by JFK lying on his back and so the blood and brain matter from his wound would be draining towards the back of his head.

Then there was the famous picture that he supported that everyone's seen a million times of JFK's head wound being completely in the back of his head with nothing at all wrong with the side of his head.

Second picture down at http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm

This not only is at odds with the wound location he gave to the Warren Commission, but it also conflicts with his testimony that he never looked at the back of the President's head.

Mr. SPECTER - In what position was President Kennedy maintained from the time you saw him until the pronouncement of death?
Dr. McCLELLAND - On his back on the cart.
Mr. SPECTER - On his what?
Dr. McCLELLAND - On his back on the stretcher.
Mr. SPECTER - Was he on the stretcher at all times?
Dr. McCLELLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - In the trauma room No. 1 you described, is there any table onto which he could be placed from the stretcher?
Dr. McCLELLAND - No; generally we do not move patients from the stretcher until they are ready to go into the operating room and then they are moved onto the operating table.
Mr. SPECTER - Well, in fact, was he left on the stretcher all during the course of these procedures until he was pronounced dead?
Dr. McCLELLAND - That's right.
Mr. SPECTER - Then, at any time was he positioned in a way where you could have seen the back of his body?
Dr. McCLELLAND - No.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any gunshot wound on his back?
Dr. McCLELLAND - No.

If that drawing is accurate, how could anyone see it without lifting the President's head?

Then, in 1988, NOVA did a special on the assassination and got the Parkland doctors to look at the authenticated photos and x-rays of the autopsy, and Dr. McClelland said "I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly . . . ". Which conflicts not only with his approved conspiracy drawing, but also slightly differs from his Warren Commission testimony.

So, as with a lot of witness testimony separated by decades, we're left with what version of a witness's statements do we believe?

 

[cmikes]

Interesting read and a good point.



Another discrepancy here. Remember, Finck who arrived at about 8:30 said the brain had been already removed when he arrived. Finck was a forensic pathologist, so he ought to know.

If this is all correct we have to assume both Humes and Finck made a mistake in their observations about previous surgery. Are we to assume Humes mistook the skull damage as surgery? However, there are photos of the head with the brain removed. So, we have to assume those photos were taken at another time, not during the autopsy. On the other hand, the undertaker took possession of the body immediately after the autopsy. No wonder there's confusion. There's all kinds of room to invent a conspiracy or conspiracies here.

Well, sure, you can invent a conspiracy anywhere. Maybe aliens did it with a death ray and then mind controlled everyone into believing that bullets did all the damage.

As far as the "surgery" comment that Humes made, we have to remember that Humes wasn't very familiar with gunshot wounds so he was probably surprised at just how much damage a high powered rifle shot could do to a person's head at close range. He stated that Oswald's bullet had done so much damage that he didn't even have to do any sawing of the skull to remove the brain. And as far as I know, Finck never made any comments about prior surgery. This is from a memo that Finck wrote after the autopsy.

The scalp of the vertex is lacerated. There is an open comminuted fracture of the cranial vault, many portions of which are missing.

The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when 1 arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary.

The opening of the large head wound, in the right fronto-parieto-occipital region, is 130 millimeters ( mm ) in diameter.

I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of ENTRANCE. No EXIT wound is identifiable at this 'time in the skull, but close to midnight, portions of the cranial vault are received from DALLAS, Texas. X ray films of these bone specimens reveal numerous metallic fragments. Two of the bone specimens, 50 mm in diameter, reveal BEVELING when viewed from the external aspect, thus indicating a wound of EXIT. Most probably, these bone specimens are part of the very large right skull wound, 130 mm in diameter and mentioned above. This right fronto-parieto-occipital wound is therefore an EXIT.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/finck1.htm

 

[cmikes]

If Oswald was the "Patsy" that he said he was a conspiracy theory would fit quite nicely. Who really cared what rifle he had. If the conspiracy was that someone contrived to show Oswald as the lone shooter or if there was no conspiracy then your theory makes perfect sense. That doesn't prove anything at all, it's irrelevant to reaching any kind of conclusion at all.

Remember where they were. That town was owned by LBJ and his cronies. If it was moronic that fits too, LBJ was a supreme idiot. There are simply too many loose ends for my satisfaction.

Don't put me in the hard core CT faction, I'm mostly just very extremely skeptical and to some extent always have been.

BTW: I think you're referring to a .30-06, not a .306

There are several problems with the "Oswald as patsy" theory. The first of which is how did the evil forces of THEY even know who Oswald was? How did THEY know that Oswald had ordered a rifle? How did THEY know to get Oswald a job at the TSBD even before JFK's trip to Texas had been announced, let alone before the parade route had been decided?

The biggest question of "Oswald as patsy", though, is if you're trying to set up a "lone nut" patsy for an assassination, why would you have three or four people firing at the target? Instead of having a literal cast of thousands all set up to get rid of all the real evidence and replace it all with fake evidence in such a way that none of it can be detected decades later, why not just have one guy commit the assassination in the first place?

 

[MicahJava]

The problem with that is that the vast majority of earwitnesses in Dealy Plaza only heard shots from one direction. If you're going to go with the minority of earwitnesses that heard only shots from the grassy knoll, are you now claiming that there were zero shots from the rear?

I think that witnesses would probably lend more credence to where they thought they heard the last shot come from. I think there are only a very small amount of witnesses who indicated the possibility of two different sources for the loud reports.

You should see that the witnesses would totally be compatible with shooters from the rear using noise-suppressors in conjunction with supersonic ammunition. That would explain a lot. People standing right outside of the TSBD thought the shots came from the Knoll.

You were arguing just a few pages ago that there was a rear entry wound in JFK's head, you just placed it lower than the authenticated photos and x-rays placed it. Are you now dismissing your previous claim?

There is no chain of custody for any of the autopsy films, but giving you that you're still playing pretend. "The American Doctors Association" says Subway is a healthy chain of restaurants. The ARRB showed the X-rays to three fresh forensic experts and neither of them identified a clearly visible entry wound. A new panel of medical experts would be a good idea to get to the bottom of the issues with the X-rays (the autopsy professionals already gave their clear interpretation of the official photographs, they say the red spot is either blood or a defect related to the large head wound). Any random rich person could pay to consult forensic experts on the X-rays available to the public, so it doesn't necessarily have to be an official investigation unless you want to have the original X-ray films enhanced using modern technology.

 

[Reheat]

There are several problems with the "Oswald as patsy" theory. The first of which is how did the evil forces of THEY even know who Oswald was? How did THEY know that Oswald had ordered a rifle? How did THEY know to get Oswald a job at the TSBD even before JFK's trip to Texas had been announced, let alone before the parade route had been decided?

The biggest question of "Oswald as patsy", though, is if you're trying to set up a "lone nut" patsy for an assassination, why would you have three or four people firing at the target? Instead of having a literal cast of thousands all set up to get rid of all the real evidence and replace it all with fake evidence in such a way that none of it can be detected decades later, why not just have one guy commit the assassination in the first place?

Good questions. I believe the parade route was provided to the general public only on the morning of 22 Nov., but I'm pretty sure all of the principles knew the route well before hand. In fact, I'd guess LBJ and Connally were the principles who helped decide on the route. How anyone would have known LHO prior is anyone's guess. There is a tremendous amount of speculation that LHO had intelligence connections. Maybe that's simply speculation, but it all doesn't emanate from the conspiracy crowd.

 

[Reheat]

Since there are several posters that are reviving the Lifton/Horne "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory of the assassination, I have a very simple question. Has anyone with any medical experience ever endorsed the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory? The reason I ask is that even conspiracy theorists with medical training don't seem to believe that any wounds made in JFK's body post-mortem would look at all similar to any wounds that actually happened at or just before his time of death. The only people I've ever heard of supporting the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" theory are people without any medical experience at all, so if anyone has any links I would appreciate it.

The Body Snatcher theory is so preposterous it's actually quite funny anyone would believe it. It has more twist and turns than a corn maze. It's equivalent to some of the same type of crap that was invented by 9/11 conspirators like aircraft swaps and the Pentagon flyover.

I was not familiar with Lipton's Book and Horne is so detailed it easy to be sucked in. He quotes the time of arrival at Bethesda of the "shipping casket" substantiated with interviews so that it's quite convincing. He doesn't cover the period at Love Field during which time the body would have to be snatched, so it's easy to be mislead by that portion in just accepting it as fact. After reading a good account of that period it's obvious that the Body Snatch theory is pure hokum.

 

[BStrong]

Based on everything I've read about it, the rifle is a POS.

Probably from someone who would assert that a Thompson Submachine Gun is uncontrollable in full auto fire and the .357 magnum bullet will go through an engine block.

It doesn't measure up to the Swedish Mauser in 6.5 x 55 mm (the Carcano is in 6.5. x 52R) in build quality and for sure isn't a no4 MK2 Enfield.

Think of it as the difference between the HK G3 and the SIG 510. One is rough, one's the Rolex watch of military rifles. They both get the job done.

 

[Reheat]

Probably from someone who would assert that a Thompson Submachine Gun is uncontrollable in full auto fire and the .357 magnum bullet will go through an engine block.

It doesn't measure up to the Swedish Mauser in 6.5 x 55 mm (the Carcano is in 6.5. x 52R) in build quality and for sure isn't a no4 MK2 Enfield.

Think of it as the difference between the HK G3 and the SIG 510. One is rough, one's the Rolex watch of military rifles. They both get the job done.

You must read some of the same Gun Forums as I do.

That may be true. As we know some gun owners think theirs is the best and unless it also has a $ 1000 scope it is a POS. I have no first hand experience with the rifle, so I only know what I've read about it...

 

[Meadmaker]

To repeat a question (slightly different phrasing).

CE399, the "magic bullet", is a round made for a Mannlicher-Carcanno rifle. It has very little damage to its tip. It has significant flattening at the base.

What could cause that sort of damage?

(Related question: Governor Connally suffered a wound to his thigh from a bullet that penetrated his skin, but fell out. What sort of bullet could cause that sort of wound?)

 

[Pope130]

You must read some of the same Gun Forums as I do.

That may be true. As we know some gun owners think theirs is the best and unless it also has a $ 1000 scope it is a POS. I have no first hand experience with the rifle, so I only know what I've read about it...

I do have a 6.5 Carcanno. Admitting that mine no doubt differs in many minor respects from the weapon in question, I can say that my particular rifle is quite smooth, reliable and accurate. The trigger is not competition grade, but is quite good for a military issue rifle. Cycling is not as slick as an SMLE, but is smoother and faster than a Mauser or Springfield. The challenge of three rounds in 8.3 (or even 6.4) seconds with one hit on point of aim at under a hundred yards is not impossible.

 

[Reheat]

To repeat a question (slightly different phrasing).

CE399, the "magic bullet", is a round made for a Mannlicher-Carcanno rifle. It has very little damage to its tip. It has significant flattening at the base.

What could cause that sort of damage?

(Related question: Governor Connally suffered a wound to his thigh from a bullet that penetrated his skin, but fell out. What sort of bullet could cause that sort of wound?)

I'd speculate that it tumbled and entered Connally backwards or perhaps sideways. I think the bullet in his thigh was just shallow (you said it fell out), more or less a superficial wound. I have not seen a detailed description of his wounds. Now, whether this was the bullet that went thru Kennedy's throat or a different bullet is still up in the air for me.

I read a test/simulation in an attempt to recreate the exit of a bullet from JFK's neck and then hit Connally using pork skins to simulate the neck area. The creator of that experiment was able to reproduce JFK's neck wound due to tight shirt collar restricting the skin to produce an exit woudd that was more similar in appearance to an entry wound. That test/simulation is more convincing than anything else I've seen. The medical results are simply too confusing and contradictory to be of much use at all.

I have two additional questions about bullets. What about the bullet that hit the top of the windscreen frame? There is a photo of that. Also, what about the glancing bullet that hit the guy in the face down by the underpass. There were more than three shots, it seems to me.

 

[cmikes]

Good questions. I believe the parade route was provided to the general public only on the morning of 22 Nov., but I'm pretty sure all of the principles knew the route well before hand. In fact, I'd guess LBJ and Connally were the principles who helped decide on the route. How anyone would have known LHO prior is anyone's guess. There is a tremendous amount of speculation that LHO had intelligence connections. Maybe that's simply speculation, but it all doesn't emanate from the conspiracy crowd.

The parade route was first published to the public on Nov. 19th in the Dallas Times-Herald. It was also published that same day in the Morning News.

As far as who decided on the parade route, it was close Kennedy adviser Kenneth O'Donnell that made the decision to hold Kennedy's speech at the Trade Mart and Secret Service agents Winston Lawson (the White House advance agent) and Forrest Sorrels (agent in charge of the Dallas office) who decided on the actual route. There's no evidence that LBJ or Connally had anything to do with actual route, although they may have been involved in asking JFK to make a Texas campaign trip.

A lot of the details are found here.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/route.htm


Of course, if THEY were subverting some of Kennedy's closest associates and agents of the Secret Service, the question becomes why assassinate him in such a way that requires hundreds, if not thousands of other members of THEY to pull off?

Even if THEY wanted to make sure Kennedy died in Texas for some unknown reason, why have three, four, or a dozen people firing at Kennedy and then depend on a massive cover-up to hide all the evidence of different bullets all coming from different directions? Including having to steal the President's body in order to have it modified by a sooper-sekrit team of surgeons to hide all evidence of any shots from the front and having people in the DPD, more people in the Secret Service than already required, and a bunch of people in the FBI to cover-up all the evidence in order to carry out the evil plot of THEY?

Why not just put one guy in the TSBD and shoot him?

 

[Reheat]

I do have a 6.5 Carcanno. Admitting that mine no doubt differs in many minor respects from the weapon in question, I can say that my particular rifle is quite smooth, reliable and accurate. The trigger is not competition grade, but is quite good for a military issue rifle. Cycling is not as slick as an SMLE, but is smoother and faster than a Mauser or Springfield. The challenge of three rounds in 8.3 (or even 6.4) seconds with one hit on point of aim at under a hundred yards is not impossible.

Thanks for that analysis. I don't recall anyone saying it was impossible. I said it was improbable. That was until Meadmaker prompted me to look at the Warren Commission times. I had remembered the time was about 6.2 seconds. I should have reviewed that prior to making the comments I made. I agree now, that in 8.3 seconds is posssible, but I'm skeptical of the 6.x time for shots at a moving target. It's impossible for me to determine the timing based on the Zapruder film.

I'm skeptical of accepting the Warren Commission as the ultimate authority just as much as I am at accepting the CT versions.

 

[BStrong]

You must read some of the same Gun Forums as I do.

That may be true. As we know some gun owners think theirs is the best and unless it also has a $ 1000 scope it is a POS. I have no first hand experience with the rifle, so I only know what I've read about it...

I'm an old fart that either owns, has owned or at the very least has trigger time on every firearm or caliber I referenced in the post. There are few things funnier in the shooting world than introducing a shooter to the TSMG that has no trigger time on the piece who believes the myths about TSMG controllability in full auto. First magazine always brings wonderment.

Lots of folks have very strongly held opinions about various firearms/calibers that are based in myth, not reality. It raises it's ugly head often in discussions involving the assassination.

 

[Reheat]

The parade route was first published to the public on Nov. 19th in the Dallas Times-Herald. It was also published that same day in the Morning News.

As far as who decided on the parade route, it was close Kennedy adviser Kenneth O'Donnell that made the decision to hold Kennedy's speech at the Trade Mart and Secret Service agents Winston Lawson (the White House advance agent) and Forrest Sorrels (agent in charge of the Dallas office) who decided on the actual route. There's no evidence that LBJ or Connally had anything to do with actual route, although they may have been involved in asking JFK to make a Texas campaign trip.

A lot of the details are found here.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/route.htm


Of course, if THEY were subverting some of Kennedy's closest associates and agents of the Secret Service, the question becomes why assassinate him in such a way that requires hundreds, if not thousands of other members of THEY to pull off?

Even if THEY wanted to make sure Kennedy died in Texas for some unknown reason, why have three, four, or a dozen people firing at Kennedy and then depend on a massive cover-up to hide all the evidence of different bullets all coming from different directions? Including having to steal the President's body in order to have it modified by a sooper-sekrit team of surgeons to hide all evidence of any shots from the front and having people in the DPD, more people in the Secret Service than already required, and a bunch of people in the FBI to cover-up all the evidence in order to carry out the evil plot of THEY?

Why not just put one guy in the TSBD and shoot him?

Well, if THEY want to make sure he was killed, why not more than one shooter. If there was more than one shooter, it worked pretty well. Also, if there were more teams at other locations along the route, that worked too.

Col Fletcher Prouty, who worked in Special Ops at the Pentagon in my opinion is a credible person. He thinks that Gen. E. Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza on 22 Nov. Lansdale was an expert at clandestine operations and reputedly one of the best. I haven't decided if I accept all of that yet.

As I said previously, the Body Snatcher theory is preposterous. No, I don't believe that at all.

 

[BStrong]

To repeat a question (slightly different phrasing).

CE399, the "magic bullet", is a round made for a Mannlicher-Carcanno rifle. It has very little damage to its tip. It has significant flattening at the base.

What could cause that sort of damage?

(Related question: Governor Connally suffered a wound to his thigh from a bullet that penetrated his skin, but fell out. What sort of bullet could cause that sort of wound?)

Typical WWI-WWII service rifle caliber full metal jacket projectiles that penetrate tissue on humans or animals that don't impact major bone structures often display the flattening evident in CE399. I've seen pics of a 30/06 projectile that had noticeable bending along with the flattening as on CE 399 after impacting and transiting a human. It also did not have any "mushrooming" on the tip, just like CE399. The CE399 round also excreted lead from the core through the base of the projectile. That is common as well.

The final impact of CE399 was at a point where the energy had fallen off to the point where it caused slight injury rather than the typical level of penetration that would occur if the round have not already transited JFK & Connally.

Bullet wounds are sometimes shocking in both ways. The typical carnage is readily understood but on the other end of the scale I know two individuals that survived headshots from the combloc 7.62 x 39 round. One ended up disfigured with a speech impediment from a round that struck him from behind and slightly above - not too dissimilar to JFK - that fractured his skull, broke his jaw and took off a good bit of his tongue. The other was hit just about between the eyes as he ran down a steep incline, right towards the fight. When the round impacted it cut a furrow in his skull w/o penetrating and went on it's way. The guy stayed in the fight. We break his balls off and on about always looking surprised. His scar kind of looks like an exclamation mark.

 

[BStrong]

Well, if THEY want to make sure he was killed, why not more than one shooter. If there was more than one shooter, it worked pretty well. Also, if there were more teams at other locations along the route, that worked too.

Col Fletcher Prouty, who worked in Special Ops at the Pentagon in my opinion is a credible person. He thinks that Gen. E. Lansdale was in Dealey Plaza on 22 Nov. Lansdale was an expert at clandestine operations and reputedly one of the best. I haven't decided if I accept all of that yet.

As I said previously, the Body Snatcher theory is preposterous. No, I don't believe that at all.

As a practical manner, even in legitimate use of precision fire, having more than one shooter per target only increases the chances of failure, not success. Adding complexity and command and control redundancy only gets you more moving parts to fail.

Criminal use and intent has a whole different set of problems on top of what I note above. Every individual in a conspiracy, whether it's a JFK fantasy scenario or a real world scam or theft only makes it more likely to be discovered andnit means more mouths to talk.