Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

[bknight]

Cite, explain and argue. Can’t do it for you. You should know this by now.

It is cited, but we can't read it for you, so do your homework. Quit be lazy and open it up and read the material.
PS I shreds your contention of a shooter in front of JFK.

 

[BStrong]

Science profoundly rejects manifesto's bare assertion of blood spatter travelling faster than the bullet itself.

It's right up there with the poster in this thread that asserted that the sound associated with the muzzle blast of a round being fired is caused by the projectile's movement through air and not the expanding hot gases that propel the projectile.

It doesn't rise to the level of the poster who asserted that a headspace gauge is a tool for determining when and if a firearm has been fired, but I don't expect that high water mark of ignorance to ever be topped.

 

[Axxman300]

2. The spattter visible in Z313 is traveling faster than the incoming bullet so it is almost instant = the bullet hits the head in Z313 or a couple of hundredths of seconds before.

I guess the reason we're stunned by this is we wonder if you're really dumb enough to believe this. It is physically impossible for a long list of reasons.

Ergo. The Z312 - Z321 is fully consistent with a bullet from in front to the right (direction of momentum).

No, and we have cited two sources that show this is nonsense.

The next question is how much momentum that would have to be transferred in order to explain the head movement between Z313 and Z321. An ordinarie Winchester rifle with .30-30 soft point ammo could have easily done the job.

Please post a link for the source of this one because whomever it is needs to have his guns taken away for being too stupid to be around firearms let lone own own one.

Proven bogus and a proven scientific fraud willfully fabricated by Luis Alvarez in order to explain away the head violently snapping back and to the left = shot from in front to the right, which the American public came to know 13 years after the fact thanks to Jim Garrison and Geraldo Rivera who showed a copy of the Zapruder film in prime time National TV.

Translation: Two stupid people think something is true and then a scientist shows up to explain why it's not true and ruins the party.

In comes the ”Nobel Prize-winner”, Luis Alvarez.

The same happened a couple of years later when HSCA’s acoustic evidence became known. In comes the ”Nobel Prize-winner”, Luis Alvarez.

It wasn't Alvarez alone, but he has a non-white last name making him easy for you to target.

Alvarez who is also known for covering up the Israeli nuclear weapons tests in the south Indian ocean. Busy carrying water for the US National Security State since his work in the Manhattan Project, developing the bombs who exploded over Japan in 1945.

Hell yes they exploded over Japan. Not seeing what this has to do with JFK, just exposing yourself as fascist sympathizer.

Lol. Rebounds. No, the brace was of cloth and had very little if any effect on JFK’s posture before or after being hit.

Said the guy who's never worn a back brace.

Yes, my contention is that shot/s from in front were covered up in order to lay all blame on the patsy. To protect the guilty men/women who were the real assassins. Yes.

You can relax, Oswald is dead.

As I said, invoking his Nobel Prize all the time has the opposite effect, it shows that you have little faith in the actual science. If not, show me the science.

We've shown you the science. It supports a lone gunman, and points to Oswald. You ignore it out of vanity.

It is not me who has to find facts or arguments in defence of your assertions, Hank.

You know this.

Hank and all of us know that you have no facts. Other than JKF getting shot you have yet to present any.

 

[Axxman300]

Cite, explain and argue. Can’t do it for you. You should know this by now.

Oh no, you're the expert here. You wanted science, I give you science that proves the shot came from behind. Do some honest work for once.

 

[Axxman300]

One of the three autopsy doctors, Pierre Finck MD, was questioned during the Garrison trial against CIA’s Clay Shaw. When asked who was in charge of the autopsy ...

Finck replied that Humes actually stopped and asked, “Who is in charge here?” Finck then said he heard an Army General say, “I am.” Finck then added, “You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law enforcement officials, military people with various ranks, and you have to coordinate the operations according to directions” [ ... ]

When Oser asked if Finck felt he had to take orders from this Army General, the pathologist replied with: “No, because there were others, there were Admirals… . And when you are a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army you just follow orders.” He then testified that at the end of the procedure they were told not to discuss what had happened that night. ~ DiEugenio, Jim: 2013​

Not true. Humes said he was in charge.

All three doctors were employed by the military, doing the autopsy in a military hospital, Bethesda Naval Hospital.

In the military, you obey orders.

They were ordered to do the autopsy, not lie about it.

Lol. The HSCA medical panel did agree on one thing, the autopsy with report was the most shoddy they had ever seen. And this was the autopsy of the assassinated US president.

Not true at all.

So, almost all of the almost 50 witnesses who observed JFK’s headwounds close up had a collective psychosis?

Something like that.

Forensic pathologists, senior neurosurgeons, trauma nurses, forensic photographers, FBI-agents, SS-agents, from three different hospitals and two different federal police agencies? Really?

Okay, so you just wrote that the doctors were coached to lie under oath, but somehow everyone else could say whatever they wanted without repercussion? Dumb.

Plus more than 50 of the asked witnesses in Dealey Plaza saying they heard shots from in front?

Doesn't matter, the other 200 heard the shots coming from behind.

The two world leading expert teams in acoustic ballistics finding five rifle shots on the DPD dictabelt, in perfect topographical order, at the time sequence when the shooting took place, at the same average speed as the motorcade on Elm and a fourth shot with additional sonar analysis showing a wooping P = 1/100 000 for not being a rifle shot fired from the picket fence on the knoll within a spot of ca 1 square yard?

We've covered this. They were wrong. The microphone was not in Dealey Plaza. Game over.

Witnesses smelling gunsmoke around the fence after the shooting?

Yes, all from the motorcade as they DROVE UNDER THE 6th FLOOR OF THE TSBD. I wonder why?

Witnesses seeing smoke coming down the knoll after the shooting?

Technically impossible, and it was only ONE WITNESS from 100 yars away in front of the Post Office.

Photographs of smoke over the knoll after the shooting?

There are none.

Both chiefs of the DPD and the Sheriffs Department ordering their troops to the area behind the picket fence seconds after the shooting?

You mean as if nobody knew what was going on? Also, if it was seconds after then why didn't they catch anyone?

Three police officers reporting SS-agents behind the fence and behind the TSBD just after the shooting in spite of no such agents in the area until about 20 minutes later when agent Sorrels arrived?

He was a Treasury Officer.

Supression of the information in the Zapruder film, showing the presidents head snapping violently back and to the left when hit by the fatal bullet?

Never happened.

LIFE Magazine lying when stating that JFK turned around almost 180˚ when hit in throat in spite of owning the very film showing no such turn around? To explain away the Parkland doctors statement of a typical small, round and punctuated entrance wound in the throat —-> shot from in front?

LIFE Magazine was not a legal document. And forensics shows the throat wound to be an exit wound. Again, long settled.

Sorry but I see a guy in front of me, hands covering the ears and eyes tight shut, jumping up and down screeming very loud:

- ”No no no lalalala ignore ignore lalala nonono ... !!!!”

Correct?

If you're standing in front of a mirror then yes.

 

[Axxman300]

The point is. The x-ray photos are forgeries or all of the medical and police personel in three different hospitals and two federal agencies, who saw JFK’s headwounds close up, had a mysterious collective psychosis not known to science.

Take your pick.

Well, those stories mostly come from Assassination Conspiracy authors and their accounts were not written honestly by those authors, which explains why they often deny having said the things those books claim they said.

And the psychosis is called Munchhausen's by Proxy wherein the conspiracy theorist inserts him or herself into the JFK legend, and becoming (in their mind) equally as important by becoming a crusader for the truth by shining light on an non-existent plot to murder the President in the dumbest scenario in history.

 

[Axxman300]

Correct, these guys will never admit to anything not sanctioned by US National Security State. And, it has nothing to do with ”scientific skepticism”. Nothing. But, this is important to show. To expose.

Keep exposing

You are the guy doing the CIA's work for them.

You've made them into a super-human force.

 

[Axxman300]

Pretty much pointless arguing with these people. They will report and ban you for stupid stuff before showing an honest bone in their body. Quickly, before we get a page full of "well preferably you're not supposed to see any bone in your body".

Guess what? I'm an old-school ghost hunter and I've been on this board for a few years now with no problems.

Would you like to know my secret?

I don't start threads or post claims I can't back up.

I can't tell people ghosts are real without having some kind of solid evidence, and data that can be recreated in a lab. I can't defend my position by playing the "But what if" game, or moving the goal posts each time I lose.

I cannot prove ghosts are real based on eye-witness testimony or ear-witness testimony or posting grainy pictures...does that sound familiar?

I can blow smoke better than you or Manifesto could ever dream of; I can post pseudo science, and old legends about Soviet scientists, and even drag out the CIA's remote viewing program...but it's all nothing more than electronic toilet paper. All that matters is what can be proved, and I cannot prove ghosts exist.

*technically I don't believe ghosts are spirits of the dead, but an involuntary neurological response to external stimulus, but I lack the science to even defend that point of view*

So when I come here and read a bunch of JFK assassination folklore I smile knowing I've dodged a bullet. Just because you want a conspiracy doesn't make it so. And because you've trained your mind to look for conspiracy you now see them everywhere just like people who believe in ghosts see ghosts everywhere.

Maybe you should think about that some time.

 

[HSienzant]

Guess what? I'm an old-school ghost hunter and I've been on this board for a few years now with no problems.

Would you like to know my secret?

I don't start threads or post claims I can't back up.

I can't tell people ghosts are real without having some kind of solid evidence, and data that can be recreated in a lab. I can't defend my position by playing the "But what if" game, or moving the goal posts each time I lose.

I cannot prove ghosts are real based on eye-witness testimony or ear-witness testimony or posting grainy pictures...does that sound familiar?

I can blow smoke better than you or Manifesto could ever dream of; I can post pseudo science, and old legends about Soviet scientists, and even drag out the CIA's remote viewing program...but it's all nothing more than electronic toilet paper. All that matters is what can be proved, and I cannot prove ghosts exist.

*technically I don't believe ghosts are spirits of the dead, but an involuntary neurological response to external stimulus, but I lack the science to even defend that point of view*

So when I come here and read a bunch of JFK assassination folklore I smile knowing I've dodged a bullet. Just because you want a conspiracy doesn't make it so. And because you've trained your mind to look for conspiracy you now see them everywhere just like people who believe in ghosts see ghosts everywhere.

Maybe you should think about that some time.

One could substitute UFOs or mermaids or Bermuda Triangle or 911 or Holocaust denial or spontaneous human combustion or ESP and it would make the point as well.

These folks see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe and nothing can convince them otherwise.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

Snipped with respect


It might interest you to know that

► David Brinkley (NBC News) reported it was 7.65 Mauser

► An unnamed (ABC News) TV reporter at the TSBD ABC reported it was a British (Lee-Enfield) .303 rifle

► Bob Walker (WFAA-TV Dallas) reported it was a .25cal Japanese Rifle of unspecified make.

► Walter Cronkite (CBS) reported it was a 3030 rifle

The above conforms exactly to the standard of uninformed weapon identifications. Observers make identifications based on visual cues they remember from different situations or make it up out of the whole cloth.

The typical 7.65 Mauser and British Enfield rifles uses a magazine housing/trigger housing that can be mistaken for the Carcano, the various Japanese Arisaka rifles of WWII do not but share a common caliber (6.5) designation so there's at least some possible common ground involved, but Cronkite and the 30/30 is so out of left field how is it possible?

Easy.

Untrained observers habitually make the mistake of believing every different type of a given firearm is all one type.

Every hunting rifle is either a 30/30 or a 30-06.

Every large revolver is a .44 Magnum.

Every large automatic pistol is a Colt .45, nowadays it's a Glock.

Every shotgun is a 12 gauge.

Every semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine is an AR or AK. I've posted an account of an individual who insisted the HK 41 (unrelated in every way to the AK) I was firing was an AK...even when I pointed out the manufacturer's engraving on the receiver:

 

[MicahJava]

That failed to convict Shaw. So much for that as evidence.

 

[BStrong]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/ZnNopxJ.jpg[/qimg]

If that's your most cogent response, I guess it stands.

 

[smartcooky]

Funny that you are posting a gif confirming my statement. Look at where the bullet enters the gel block. The gel travels outward = back spatters at the instant the bullet enters the block.

No. It seems that you know nothing about terminal ballistics.

What we see there (the movement of ballistics gel toward the direction from which the bullet has come) is not splatter, it is cratering caused by the impact of the bullet on a SOFT surface. If we were to attach a piece of heavy card or plywood up against the entry point on the ballistics gel, (to simulate the bullet entering a skull) you would not get any detectable cratering.

That said, the gel is not watery blood which continues outward as seen in the Z-film. It rebounds and therefore doesn’t show the relative speed to the bullet travelling through the head.

I take it back, it doesn't just seem that you know nothing about terminal ballistics. Its a fact... you don't.

I suggest you look up the reason why forensic ballistics experts use ballistics gel and ballistics soap when doing impact analyses.

No. It decelerate/stops almost in the same instant that the bullet hits the head. After this, it starts accelerate in the opposite direction until coming to rest in Z321. Inertia.

I think we can add high-school level physics to the list of subjects you know nothing about.

It is clear, and obvious from William Seger's gif I posted earlier post #3583 that JFK's head moves backwards to a greater degree in each subsequent frame Z314, Z315, Z316, Z317. It means his head is moving backwards faster and faster in each frame. This is called "acceleration". Acceleration cannot occur if a force is not being constantly applied to his head. Impact from a bullet might start his head rocking backwards, but it cannot continue to apply a force.

If JFK was hit from the front shortly before Z313, by a bullet travelling at 2500 fps, by the time of Z314 (1/18 of a second later) the bullet has either stopped inside the skull (in which case, it can no longer apply a force) or it passed through and is over 100 feet beyond JFKs head (in which case, it can no longer apply a force).

The momentum transferred from an incoming soft point hunting bullet from in front to the right.

Momentum transfer can only account for the initial movement of an object NOT its continued acceleration; the latter requires continuing application of a force.

No. Conjecture. You are assuming that a bullet hit from behind in Z312 and conjure from that. Teleologically. Not science.

No, simple observation.

I see a beer can struck by a bullet. The can disappears off to the right, I know that the bullet must have been fired from the left.

In the case of JFK's head, we clearly see his head move to the right of screen (forwards). I do not need to assume that there is a shot from the left of screen (behind), I deduce that from the observation.

 

[HSienzant]

I see a beer can struck by a bullet. The can disappears off to the right, I know that the bullet must have been fired from the left.

In the case of JFK's head, we clearly see his head move to the right of screen (forwards). I do not need to assume that there is a shot from the left of screen (behind), I deduce that from the observation.

When CTs thought the Zapruder film showed a backward movement only, we were lectured about how Newtonian physics was all that's required -- "in a shooting gallery, the ducks fall away from the shooter", we ere told.

Now that it's apparent JFK's head moves forward first, Newtonian physics isn't sufficient. Or even understood by CTs, apparently. So we get the mashup that Manifesto presents as the 'new and improved' explanation. And we see him denigrate not one but TWO Nobel Prize winning physicists (Feynman and Alvarez) who independently reached the same conclusion -- the head moves forward as the result of a bullet strike to the head. And then we get the sure to follow ad hominem attack on both men, the expected reaction because Manifesto isn't able to rebut the conclusions of these two men.

Hank

 

[smartcooky]

When CTs thought the Zapruder film showed a backward movement only, we were lectured about how Newtonian physics was all that's required -- "in a shooting gallery, the ducks fall away from the shooter", we ere told.

Now that it's apparent JFK's head moves forward first, Newtonian physics isn't sufficient. Or even understood by CTs, apparently. So we get the mashup that Manifesto presents as the 'new and improved' explanation. And we see him denigrate not one but TWO Nobel Prize winning physicists (Feynman and Alvarez) who independently reached the same conclusion -- the head moves forward as the result of a bullet strike to the head. And then we get the sure to follow ad hominem attack on both men, the expected reaction because Manifesto isn't able to rebut the conclusions of these two men.

Hank

A classic case of a CT trying to manipulate the evidence to fit the theory.

Further to that, we get presented this rubbish that Richard Feynman's area of expertise was quantum physics so he could not possibly be qualified to speak about, or have an opinion about, terminal ballistics (another area of ordinary physics), yet we are expected, as CT's do, to blindly accept that Donald Thomas' expertise in bugs and beetles, qualifies him speak about acoustics.

Figure that one out!

 

[manifesto]

Before your time-out I posted this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12294290&postcount=3357

Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
I didn’t request known nerve reflexes from goats, I requested such from humans, since JFK was, a human.

Do you have any?

Can do easy, disturbing footage at 1:19:



Summary execution of VC suspect by Gen. Nguyen Van Lem, Tet '68. Single .38 special round to the right temple. The victim's head does not move to the left from projectile impact as asserted by your popular fiction based pov of terminal ballistics.

Even better example, w/ no disturbing footage, other than for the adherents of "back and to the left":

No one is claiming that a shot to the head always result in the head snapping in the direction of the incoming bullet. Sometimes it does, sometimes i do not. It depends on a number of factors such as type of weapon, ammo, where in the head the bullet hits, distance to target, etc.

Footage for a law enforcement training video on the effects of common caliber projectiles, and this segment shows live fire testing of both military and law enforcement body armor. Pay particular attention to the visible effect of projectile impact on the tester wearing the military oriented hard armor. He is shot twice from point blank range with a 7.62 NATO cartridge out of an early FAL type rifle, once while balancing on one foot. He was not "knocked down" or visibly moved by either impact.

Specs for the 7.62 x 51 NATO round:Muzzle velocity with the GI 147 grain FMJ round is approx 2,700 feet per second, muzzle energy approx. 2,400 foot pounds - Carcano specs 162 grain round is 2,300 feet per second with approx. 1,900 foot pounds of energy. If a point-blank hit from the NATO round doesn't produce the dramatic Hollywood effect from a man balancing on one foot when shot there's no chance that the effect of the lesser Carcano round will produce that much-loved popular fiction instant reaction to a projectile impact.

Do not forget that JFK already was wounded from a shot in the neck, slumping forward with closed eyes when hit in the head at Z313.

He had probably lost most of his muscle control holding his head up when hit in the head = no resistance when transferred momentum forces the head back and to the left.

Just to be clear, because the Hollywood ballistics experts have noted the difference between a headshot and a center of mass hit on armor and drew the completely wrong conclusion, the impacts from the NATO round on the body armor transferred the whole of the kinetic energy to the tester and any penetrating wound that exits a soft target only transfers a very small portion of the energy to the target.

If the bullet was a soft point hunting ammo it could easily have transferred more than, lets say, 80% of its momentum to the head.

That is more than enough to cause the head to snap back and to the left as seen in the Z-film.

When a human or game animal takes a projectile impact that instantly stops the nervous system (solid brain or spinal cord hit) they collapse according to what their body posture was at that moment. It doesn't matter if it's a .22 long rifle round or a .50 BMG round, they collapse and that's it.

Some more evidence, disturbing footage:



A group of South African miners on strike shot and killed by SA police. The strikers were hit with concentrated fire from the localy manufactured Galil type R4's in 5.56 rounds, semi and full auto and 9mm semi auto pistol fire. Every striker hit collapsed exactly as their body posture was at the moment of impact, moving forward, not backwards as the Hollywood ballistic experts continually assert, and those victims were all hit by multiple projectiles, not single hits. If there was any truth to Oliver Stone's ******** and the jive posted in this thread those strikers should have moved like they were hit by a tidal wave - because a force of water can actually knock someone backwards or in the direction of force from that water, but projectiles can't and don't.

As I said above, sometimes a head hit with a bullet snaps in the direction of said bullet, sometimes it do not.

And further, this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12294429&postcount=3362

For the grown ups. there's been some new examinations of the terminal ballistics by Nicholas R. Nalli

https://www.heliyon.com/article/e00603

...a frontal impact at Z313 is physically ruled out. Of course, the validity of statement (34) does not rule out conjectured missed shots (although no physical evidence was ever recovered for any such shots), nor does it pinpoint the exact origin of the shot that hit (e.g., the TSBD as opposed to another nearby building). But the modeling study (and underlying dynamics and conservation laws) presented in this paper, in corroboration of the autopsy findings [25], do imply that President Kennedy was not hit by a hypothesized gunshot from the front.

The conclusion is an important one given that the hypothesized existence of a shooter in front of the limousine (viz., on the Grassy Knoll) has been the primary physical foundation for virtually all conspiracy conjectures to date on the topic.13 As a parting note, while the simple one-dimensional physical models presented in this paper were derived for application to a special case study (viz., the Kennedy Assassination), the underlying physical principles provide an approximate quantitative description of the interaction between a high-speed projectile (slowed by an intervening atmosphere) and a heterogenous body comprised of bone and visco-elastic tissue (viz., the human head), and may also form a basic conceptual basis for understanding the wounding mechanisms involved in such interactions.

ETA:

https://www.history.com/news/jfk-ass...heory-debunked


When the president was shot, he says, Kennedy’s head exploded, as the film so graphically shows. Nalli’s model shows that the wound wasn’t where the bullet exited, but where it entered. It demonstrates that a temporary cavity formed inside the president’s soft tissue as the momentum and kinetic energy of the bullet smashed into his skull, causing his head to snap forward.

Based on his model, Nalli also thinks that the theory of a second shooter and that of the president being shot by hollow-point or soft-point bullets are also unlikely. Not only were such bullets never recovered, he writes, but the movements of Kennedy’s head are only consistent with a shot from the back.

1. Well, if it was a cover up of shot/s from the front, of course no such bullets was ”never recovered”.

2. It is impossible from your citations to know just how ”Nalli” comes to the conclusion that the head movements are - ”only consistent with a shot from the back”. Please explain.

 

[RoboTimbo]

As I said above, sometimes a head hit with a bullet snaps in the direction of said bullet, sometimes it do not.

, explain. You seem to have no knowledge of the subject you're talking about. Typical CTist.

 

[manifesto]

Nope

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/0vt8xonwo2dpd6o/JFK-Earwitnesses-McAdams.png?raw=1[/qimg]

Wrong. https://www.maryferrell.org/DealeyPlazaWitnessDB.html#page=survey216

Nope

There is no physical evidence whatsoever of any shots hitting JFK from any direction other that from behind and above. The film,

So why did WC/FBI/LIFE/CIA suppress the fact that the Z-film showed JFK’s head snap violently back and to the left when hit by a fatal bullet? Because the Z-film corroborated their conclusion of only two bullets from behind?

Isn’t that a bit, counter productive?

the forensics,

What forensics?

the photographs,

The very few that are still around, maybe. Could be fake. Could be of JFK after they restored him for the funeral.

the x-rays

Proven forgeries.

and the terminal ballistics

Which ”terminal ballistics” are you talking about?

all point to shots from behind

No one is disputing shots from behind. The issue at hand still is if shots were fired from in front. The evidence of this are overwhelming.

If there were shots fired from the Knoll or the top of the triple underpass, they must have all missed.

How come?

The problem here, however, is that there is no physical evidence of these missed shots. The knoll and the triple underpass are both elevated firing positions, so missed shots would not have flown off into the distance never to be seen again.

There are reports of bullet marks on the pavements and one photo of what looks like an officer in civil clothes picking up something small from the grass south of lower Elm Street.

Point is. IF there was/is a cover up of more than one shooter, of course you will not find ”physical” evidence laying around for everyone to pick up.

That said, mistakes were made and little pieces here and there slipped through the net. The Harper fragment is a good example, found by a medical student in the grass south of Elm the day after the assassination. He gave it to his relative, Dr Harper, working as a forensic pathologist at Methodist Hospital in Dallas.

The fragment was a 7x5 cm cranial fragment of occipital bone and at the most a day old. They photographed it, wrote a report and gave it to the Secret Sevice in Dallas never to be seen again. Luckily they kept copies of the photographs and of their written report. Three forensic pathologists.

Occipital bone = lower part of the back of the head. Not a trace of this wound in the x-rays.

Missed shots from the knoll would have hit the outside,

The HSCA acoustic evidence show one rifle shot from the knoll exactly at frame Z313, so no, it didn’t miss.

rear right hand side of the car and/or the rear passenger's seat and/or Jackie and/or or gone beyond the car to strike the grassy area on the north side of Elm. No bullets were found in the back seat or anywhere in the back of the car. Jackie was not hit. When bullets strike a grassy area, they kick up a lot of dirt; witnesses would have seen this, and the bullets would have been easily found with a metal detector.

Missed shots from top of the underpass would also have hit the car and/or the back seat, and/or gone beyond to ricochet off the road well behind the car. The occupants of the follow up car (which had SS agents standing on the running boards, would have been right in the firing line from these ricochets, and would certainly have seen them.

One fatal rifle shot from the knoll was enough, wasn’t it?

Nope.

The triple underpass has a flat surface and is right at the correct angle to reflect the sound of gunshots from the TSBD into Dealey Plaza. However the TSBD is not a completely flat surface. It has windows and ridges that help dissipate the sounds, and is at just about the worst possible angle to reflect the sounds of shots from the knoll or the triple underpass back into Dealey Plaza.

I suppose you have scientific meassurements and empirical tests on blindfolded subjects to back this up?

It might interest you to know that

► David Brinkley (NBC News) reported it was 7.65 Mauser

Did he belong to the group of officers who found the alleged murder weapon?

► An unnamed (ABC News) TV reporter at the TSBD ABC reported it was a British (Lee-Enfield) .303 rifle

Did he belong to the group of officers who found the alleged murder weapon?

► Bob Walker (WFAA-TV Dallas) reported it was a .25cal Japanese Rifle of unspecified make.

Did he belong to the group of officers who found the alleged murder weapon?

► Walter Cronkite (CBS) reported it was a 3030 rifle

The DPD sent out a description on the radio of a suspect man with a Winchester 3030 minutes after the shooting. No one knows who gave that description or from where. Gone.

The point I’m making is that everywhere you look, you see broken, dodgy or non existent chain of custody. This is the case with almost all the technical evidence. Even more alarming is that much of it has to be willfully fabricated since ’honest mistakes’ can’t be the explanation.

Time and again. Everywhere you look.

Why is that?

 

[HSienzant]

No one is claiming that a shot to the head always result in the head snapping in the direction of the incoming bullet. Sometimes it does, sometimes i do not. It depends on a number of factors such as type of weapon, ammo, where in the head the bullet hits, distance to target, etc.

Quantify this for us. Show us the chart where you worked all this out. What's that? You didn't work this out? You just threw these factors into the mix as a distraction? I thought as much.

Do not forget that JFK already was wounded from a shot in the neck, slumping forward with closed eyes when hit in the head at Z313. He had probably lost most of his muscle control holding his head up when hit in the head = no resistance when transferred momentum forces the head back and to the left.

1. JFK's head is tilted forward but not flopped to either side. His muscles were still functioning as can be seen by the arms up at his shoulder level. Fail.
2. A bullet traveling at 2000 FPS will travel through a human head at approximately 1/2000 second. That's when his problems started - and ended. Right then and then. Not before. Not after.

If the bullet was a soft point hunting ammo it could easily have transferred more than, lets say, 80% of its momentum to the head.

1. Show us how you derived this percentage. Is it just a CT-guess, which is analogous to someone pulling the number out of their hind parts? What is the source of this number? You said you would cite your sources.

2. The bullet would have to come from the front to drive JFK back. You're arguing for the overpass now as the source of the shot to the head. Here, let me start you out with the names of two witnesses who thought the shots came from the overpass: Mrs. Davis and Mrs. Kounas.

3. It would have left remnants of itself in the head. The 'lead snowstorm' of minute flakes visible on the x-ray point to the entry wound in the rear of the head. The two large fragments found in the limousine point to Oswald's weapon found in the Depository. There is no damage found at autopsy, no hard evidence found at the crime scene, and no witnesses in Dealey Plaza that came forward to say they saw this shooter.

That is more than enough to cause the head to snap back and to the left as seen in the Z-film.

Says you and what two Nobel Prize winning physicists? Oh, it's just YOU.

As I said above, sometimes a head hit with a bullet snaps in the direction of said bullet, sometimes it do not.

But you provided no details so we can work out which way a shot from the front would move the head. Or from the right front.

1. Well, if it was a cover up of shot/s from the front, of course no such bullets was ”never recovered”.

Well, you have to assume the very point you need to prove to keep your argument alive, of course. I think that's called circular reasoning.

2. It is impossible from your citations to know just how ”Nalli” comes to the conclusion that the head movements are - ”only consistent with a shot from the back”. Please explain.

There's only one head movement that's pertinent here. The one caused by the bullet that pushes the head forward from the instant in time before the bullet hit (Z312) to the first instant in time after the bullet struck (Z313). The head moves forward about 2-3 inches in that 18th of second and the bullet has already transmitted all of its kinetic energy that it will ever transmit to JFK's head by frame Z313 and is already well past Kennedy's head. Any movement you see in frames Z314 and after cannot be caused by the bullet that caused the explosion you see in Z313. It's already too late for that bullet.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Wrong. https://www.maryferrell.org/DealeyPlazaWitnessDB.html#page=survey216

Asked and answered. We've established that website is untrustworthy. We've looked at a couple of witnesses identified as knoll witnesses and found the evidence isn't there for that claim. You yourself went mute after admitting two women (Davis and Kounas) were falsely classified as knoll witnesses on that site. You never did tell us what you thought about Crawford, who was called a knoll witness, but fingered the Depository as the source of the shots by the third shot ["if those were shots, they came from that building" (pointing at the TSBD)].

So why did WC/FBI/LIFE/CIA suppress the fact that the Z-film showed JFK’s head snap violently back and to the left when hit by a fatal bullet?

Begging the question. You haven't shown the suppression of anything, and in fact, it was the Warren Commission exhibits themselves that enabled the early critics like Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, and Josiah Thompson to determine the head did move backward after frame Z313.

I pointed out previously that Zapruder retained the movie rights because he didn't want his film shown on television or as a movie newsreel. He felt it was too gory. You, of course, ignored that, and pretend now you never saw it. This reduces your credibility.

No one is disputing shots from behind. The issue at hand still is if shots were fired from in front. The evidence of this are overwhelming.

Manifesto, meet Micah Java. Micah Java, Manifesto. Micah Java disputes where the head shot struck JFK.

There are reports of bullet marks on the pavements

There is about a quarter-inch deep by about a quarter-inch wide by 1.25 inch long depression in the concrete next to a manhole cover. The concrete was laid down during the Great Depression in the 1930s. The depression in the concrete is apparently caused by a twig that got covered up at the time the concrete was laid down and long ago turned to dust. Enterprising CTs, eager to find evidence of extra shots, scoured Dealey Plaza and found this depression in the concrete. But what kind of bullet makes a depression a quarter inch deep and over an inch long?

and one photo of whats looks like an officer in civil clothes picking up something small from the grass south of lower Elm Street.

Hearsay reports. Not one person came forward - ever - to say they saw a bullet.

Point is. IF there was/is a cover up of more than one shooter, of course you will not find ”physical” evidence laying around for everyone to pick up.

Point is, you have to assume the cover-up you're trying to prove to keep your argument alive. Still not evidence of a coverup. It is evidence of your circular reasoning prowess.

That said, mistakes were made and little pieces here and there slipped through the net. The Harper fragment is a good example, found by a medical student in the grass south of Elm the day after the assassination. He gave it to his relative, Dr Harper, working as a forensic pathologist at Methodist Hospital in Dallas.

It was found south of the location of the limousine at the time of the head shot. Look at a map. That puts it ahead and to the left of the limousine at the time of the head shot. That means the shooter was BEHIND the limousine and the fragment was driven forward by the force of the bullet impact and the expanding damage. The Harper fragment is the large fragment rotating in the sun and spiraling upward at the one o'clock position relative to JFK's head in frame Z313. That fragment comes from the top of the head. The Harper fragment comes from the top of the head.

https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z313.jpg

The fragment was a 7x5 cm cranial fragment of occipital bone and at the most a day old. They photographed it, wrote a report and gave it to the Secret Sevice in Dallas never to be seen again. Luckily they kept copies of the photographs and of their written report. Three forensic pathologists.

The HSCA forensic panel examined the photographs and determined the bone was from the top of the head. Exactly what you see in the Z-film.

Occipital bone = lower part of the back of the head. Not a trace of this wound in the x-rays.

So the original determination was wrong? Fancy that.

The HSCA acoustic evidence show one rifle shot from the knoll exactly at frame Z313, so no, it didn’t miss.

The autopsy doctors and every forensic pathologist to examine the extant autopsy materials begs to differ with you.

One fatal rifle shot from the knoll was enough, wasn’t it?

Every time I think you can't come up with a better example of Begging the Question, you surprise me.

The DPD sent out a description on the radio of a suspect man with a Winchester 3030 minutes after the shooting. No one knows who gave that description or from where. Gone.

Citation for this?

Hank