Ex-Presidents, Johnson Widow Call for JFK Film Probe

AP via TBO ^ | February 2,2004 | Lynn Elber

[#3Fan]

Read the X-Ray reports dictated by radiologists at George Washington University Medical Center and The Hospital of the Good Samaritan in Los Angeles by following the links I posted. Both reports state that the X-Rays were taken at "US Naval Hospital, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland on September 22, 1963".

Like going to the Clinton library to prove Clinton didn't commit treason.

I, myself, am a radiologist and those X-Ray reports describe what I can see with my own eyes on those X-rays I posted.

Why shouldn't they? The pictures are Tippet, the X rays are of Tippet.

You are asking us to believe that a Dallas Police Officer was murdered by the U.S. Government and that his body was taken to Bethesda Naval Hospital where an autopsy was performed on it without any Navy Medical Officer or Corpsman noticing that the body was not that of JFK.

The workers all along the line were harassed by government officials.

You also want us to believe that the widow Tippit buried her husbands body without realizing that it was not his body.

They buried his casket the next day telling her that the body was too mutilated for an open-casket ceremony. An obviously lie, Tippet's body wasn't mutilated during his murder.

So, the U.S. Government, the U.S. Navy and Tippitt's own widow were involved in this fantastic conspiracy of yours.

What's so fantastic about it. It only takes Johnson, Hoover, and a few others to pull it off? They thought they were saving the country from communism. Many have come forward to say they were harassed to do things out of process.

I'm not a Kennedy assasination buff. I am just commenting on the radiology aspect that is right in front of me.

Tippet was shot several times. The shooter had instructions on where to shoot to pin it on a rear shooter. Witnesses say after initially shooting Tippet, the shooter stood over him shooting more times as if aiming carefully.

In order to tell me that what I am seeing with my own eyes and what two radiologists from renowned medical centers saw with their own eyes you are proposing a scenario that is as sick as it is implausible.

Johnson was a sick man. The rest thought they were saving America from Communism. Johnson's first act within days was to reverse Kennedy's order on Vietnam.

And, no, J.D. Tippit does not look like JFK.

He had the same facial structure, and with his eyebrows plucked he looked enough like him to pass it off. Looking at the corpse in the autopsy, you can see a bullet hole in the chest where Tippet was shot. Also JFK's right eye was blown out so there's no way that corpse in the autopsy is JFK.

[Polybius]

So, the U.S. Government, the U.S. Navy and Tippitt's own widow were involved in this fantastic conspiracy of yours.

What's so fantastic about it. It only takes Johnson, Hoover, and a few others to pull it off?

Why, yes, of course!

All they had to do was to simply order or threaten dozens if not hundreds of loyal Americans sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to switch the body (and cover up the switch) of a Dallas Police Officer with the body of the President of the United States and fire a bullet into the skull of the dead Police Officer in order to fake the fact that the bullet hit the skull 3 centimeters higher than it actually did.

Johnson arranges for the Bethesda Navy pathologists and Corpsmen and everyone they know at Bethesda Naval Medical Center to commit treason. Hoover arranges for the entire FBI to commit treason. "A few others" ensure that the entire Dallas Police Department, the Texas Rangers and the Secret Service all commit treason. Tippit's own widow and the Kennedy family and everyone else in America have no clue what is going on.......

They enlisted all those men in a massive and treasonous Rube Goldberg conspiracy in order to cover up a ballistics question that will not be apparent for months into the future and which can easily be explained away by simply stating, "Kennedy slouched 3 centimeters in his car seat".

#3Fan, go to your doctor and ask him for a prescription for this. It will help the voices in your head go away.

[Ichneumon]

That's not true.

Yes it is.

She recently said in an interview here in Houston that upon hearing the first shot she turned to look at the president and further stated that the look in his eyes was chilling or something to that effect. Then her husband was hit with a second shot and she immediately focused her attention on him. Nellie hunted with her husband on more than one occasion and is familiar with the sound of rifle fire, most women her age in Texas are. Her story hasnt changed in over 40 years now.

All well and good, but the Zapruder film contradicts her memory. I'll go with the instant replay, thanks.

I've just rewatched my copy of the Zapruder film for confirmation, and her description is inconsistent with what the visual record shows.

Up until about frame 223, JFK shows no signs of distress, and is smiling at the crowd, although he does show a few moments of hesitation as he turns and looks to his right after frame 157, consistent with reaction to the sound of the missed shot at or before frame 157. (Frame 157 also shows a major "jerk" by Zapruder's hold on the camera, so much so that the frame is double-exposed from two different viewing angles, also consistent with his reflexively jumping at the sound of a shot.) Connally also looks in that direction, and Mrs. Connally turns the same direction at the same time.

It also accords with Connally's own testimony:

"I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd..." (4H132-33)

Unfortunately for Mrs. Connally's memory of the event, not only is JFK not showing any physical reaction to an injury at this point, but he is facing *AWAY* from Mrs. Connally, making it impossible for her to see any sort of look "in his eyes".

At frames 223/224, both JFK and Connally unmistakably show their first signs of trauma.

The 3D computer animation above (from the excellent Secrets of a Homicide website, which would be a large education for the conspiracy folks here) doesn't do it justice -- in the actual film the traumatic reaction of both JFK and Connally are sudden, extreme, and unmistakable. This is clearly the moment when a) either man is first injured, and b) both men are injured simultaneously, or at the very most within a split second of each other.

Connally's right jacket lapel can even be clearly seen flipping out at the time of the presumed shot. This is shown in the 3D recreation above, and is even more obvious in the actual film:

(The above flip-flops between frames 223 and 224.)

Additionally, Connally's wrist of the hand holding his hat had been injured by the shot, and this is why his hat is seen doing a very rapid "lift and flip and drop" which takes place over a mere 1/3 of a second -- in that time it rotates 180 degrees, from being brim down to brim up. There is no other plausible explanation for this rapid a movement except the momenum imparted to Connally's wrist (and thus also hand) by the shot that struck him.

This too is consistent with Connally's testimony:

"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back." (4H133)

This is the movement/position that Connally can be seen in at frames 223/224 of the Zapruder film. By Connally's own testimony, *that's* when he was shot. And that's clearly the same frame/time that JFK was first hit. QED.

*Now* Mrs. Connally may have seen a scary look in JFK's eyes, but since her husband is now also wounded, it is inconsistent with her claim that first she saw JFK's wounded eyes, *then* her husband was later hit.

Her memory is incorrect.

More likely, she first noticed JFK's injury when JFK turned back towards her and was simultaneously hit by the second shot, and she thus incorrectly ascribed it to the first shot she had heard, not realizing he had been uninjured while facing away from her. Then she turned and saw that her husband was injured and ascribed it (correctly in this case) to the second shot.

Posner is full of shit.

Then how odd it is that his analysis is entirely consistent with the facts, and the theories of the conspiracy theorists whom he debunks are not.

And why the ad hominem against Posner? He's hardly the only person to have arrived at the same conclusion from examining the evidence. Are you hoping that by calling Posner names you can obscure the fact that countless other people hold the same conclusions?

[#3Fan]

Why, yes, of course! All they had to do was to simply order or threaten dozens if not hundreds of loyal Americans sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to switch the body (and cover up the switch) of a Dallas Police Officer with the body of the President of the United States and fire a bullet into the skull of the dead Police Officer in order to fake the fact that the bullet hit the skull 3 centimeters higher than it actually did.

No, to hide the huge hole in the back of the head. They couldn't have autopsy photos taken of Kennedy, it would've proved that the shot came from the front.

Johnson arranges for the Bethesda Navy pathologists and Corpsmen and everyone they know at Bethesda Naval Medical Center to commit treason. Hoover arranges for the entire FBI to commit treason. "A few others" ensure that the entire Dallas Police Department, the Texas Rangers and the Secret Service all commit treason.

Not at all. You don't actually believe all these people came in contact with the case or the bodies do you? All it takes is a few agents giving orders in the name of national security. It just takes a few people of authority to pull it off. Johnson, Hoover, the Dallas police chief, the Dallas mayor, a Secret Service authority, a plant in the Dallas morgue to trim up Tippet's body and prepare it. You should watch the History Channel if they're allowed to show the truth again. Everything fits. (Of course they don't claim Tippet is buried under the Eternal Flame, but it's obvious why Tippet was killed) Everything with the magic bullet doesn't fit. Even the government admitted the Magic Bullet Theory was bunkum with the House report.

Tippit's own widow and the Kennedy family and everyone else in America have no clue what is going on.......

Robert knew it wasn't JFK under the Eternal Flame and Tippet's widow was never allowed to see Tippet's body.

They enlisted all those men in a massive and treasonous Rube Goldberg conspiracy in order to cover up a ballistics question that will not be apparent for months into the future and which can easily be explained away by simply stating, "Kennedy slouched 3 centimeters in his car seat".

Kennedy didn't slouch, he couldn't, he had a back brace. The Zapruder film shows no slouch. The 7.5mm back bullet was gone, the supposed neck "bullet" was gone.

#3Fan, go to your doctor and ask him for a prescription for this. It will help the voices in your head go away.

At least I don't drink the government Koolaid, even after the government admits it was Koolaid.

[#3Fan]

Even with your recreation, it's clear that a bullet striking Kennedy at a 45 degree downward angle would've hit the floorboard before striking Connally.

[MAWG]

Kennedy is clearly shot in the throat while Connally is still holding his hat for several frames. As for the flapping lapel, why wasn't a bullet hole found in the lapel? And Nellie Connally was not mistaken. I'll take her " memory" of a traumatic event over POSNERS interpretation of a piece of 8mm film whose authenticity is highly questionable.

And I'm still waiting for the evidence that proves your claim about the first shot being deflected by a tree branch, or is that something that POSNER pulled off the Z film as well.We're all waiting for that one ICHY, or were you just shooting your mouth off?

[tpaine]

And I'm still waiting for the evidence that proves your claim about the first shot being deflected by a tree branch, or is that something that POSNER pulled off the Z film as well.We're all waiting for that one ICHY, or were you just shooting your mouth off?
-MAWG-


_____________________________________



We all wait, while ichy ignores the tough questions..




VaBthang4 wrote:
-- Also consider the first shot was a hit...the second a complete miss and the third a dead on headshot?



_______________________________________


Your chronology is wrong. The first shot missed.

Also all three shots would've struck the target if it were not difficult from the AOA employed.

The first shot was deflected by an intervening tree branch.
227 -ichy-

---

Ahh yesss.. Your complete supposition that the first shot hit the tree would account for the bullet that struck the curb at the underpass, at what, 200/250 yrds plus downrange?

Quite the ricochet. Another magical moment at Dealy..

The next bullet was even better, according to our expert, Arlen Spector..

Give it up ichy..
-- Why is it so important to you to prove that Oswald was alone?

[Ichneumon]

Kennedy is clearly shot in the throat while Connally is still holding his hat for several frames.

You have a vivid imagination.

Feel free to post stills from the Zapruder film which you believe supports your incorrect claim.

In the *real* copy of the Zapruder film, JFK is clearly in no distress of any sort as he disappears momentarily behind the street sign. When he reappears for the first time in frame 225, his face registers pain and his arms have just begun to lift to the "elbows out" position he holds until he is shot in the head. And in that same frame, Connally's hat has already risen far enough to become visible over the car door.

So Connally's reaction to his gunshot wound and JFK's reaction to his gunshot wound first become visible in EXACTLY THE SAME FRAME.

And yet you try to claim, "Kennedy is clearly shot in the throat while Connally is still holding his hat for several frames." No, nice try. To use your own phrase, have you ever actually *looked* at the Zapruder film, "or were you just shooting your mouth off?"

As for the flapping lapel, why wasn't a bullet hole found in the lapel?

Is this your way of trying to pretend that there *wasn't* a bullet hole through the right hand flap of Connally's coat? Would you like to bet money on that before I show you photographs of the coat?

It's true that the bullet didn't pass through the lapel itself, but passage of the bullet through the front coat material would have "slapped" the coat hard enough to cause the loose lapel to flap out before falling back down.

And Nellie Connally was not mistaken.

When her recollection is at odds with the photographic evidence, she's mistaken.

I'll take her " memory" of a traumatic event

It's good that you put "memory" in "scare quotes", since it indicates that you're aware that her recollection may be something else.

over POSNERS interpretation

Posner's hardly the only person who holds that interpretation, nor have I mentioned him. Why do you keep harping on him? As if the reason isn't obvious.

of a piece of 8mm film whose authenticity is highly questionable.

Do you realize how silly you make yourself look with statements like this?

And I'm still waiting for the evidence that proves your claim about the first shot being deflected by a tree branch,

The first shot takes place at around frame 157, according to multiple lines of evidence. According to several independent 3D reconstructions of the placement of the car in the plaza at that time, a shot from the 6th floor of the SDB at JFK would have been through the branches of the nearby tree, which was sparse enough to allow visual sighting of the target through it.

This is a view down from the "sniper's nest" (you can see the windowsill in the bottom right), and any shot taken when the car is passing near this window will be necessarily looking through the nearby trees. In the lower left of this photo is the sharp corner at which the limosine made a sharp left as it turned onto Elm street (leading up and to the right), the street on which the shootings took place.

Nonetheless, despite this being the closest range of the three shots, the bullet missed the car entirely, as no trace of it was found anywhere in or on the car. Not even an amateur could have missed at that distance, so clearly something deflected the bullet, and the oak trees are the most likely culprit.

A separate issue is whether the deflected bullet was the one which struck the curb down by the triple underpass and grazed Tague with a small piece of concrete or bullet fragment. While that's irrelevant to the foregoing discussion, it is consistent with a this deflected shot, on several counts. The bullet which struck that curb had been "dejacketed", and thus had clearly hit something before ending up at the curb. It was not just a stray shot which hit the curb first. More interestingly, Tague has said that the first shot sounded different from the next two. This is entirely consistent if the first shot was the one which deflected into the curb near Tague, since the bullet hitting the curb near him would have made its own distinct sound, quite near him and therefore quite audible, and would have arrived at Tague's ears almost simultaneously with the crack arriving from the shot itself.

So in conclusion, the timing and positioning and results were consistent with a shot ricocheting off an oak tree branch.

or is that something that POSNER pulled off the Z film as well.

You've got a real fixation on "POSNER", don't you?

We're all waiting for that one ICHY,

Glad to be of service, "MAWY".

[Ichneumon]

We all wait, while ichy ignores the tough questions..

No I don't, but thanks for revealing yet again that your judgment is poor.

Quite the ricochet. Another magical moment at Dealy..

Is it somehow your belief that a bullet deflecting off the limb of an oak tree requires "magic"? Fascinating.

Give it up ichy..

I never give up on correcting other people's misconceptions.

-- Why is it so important to you to prove that Oswald was alone?

It's not, nor have I even attempted to "prove" that in this thread.

Instead, it is important to me to point out when other people are spouting nonsense. That's because I care about that "truth" thing that I'm sure you've heard about in passing.

I expect liberals to be dishonest and addle-brained. I expect more from people on a conservative forum. Usually I am not disappointed, but sometimes I am.

But I refuse to allow the facts of various issues to get muddied up by completely untrue nonsense. *That* is what's "so important" to me.

Now then, have you donated that thousand dollars to FreeRepublic yet?

[tpaine]

We all wait, while ichy ignores the tough questions..
Quite the ricochet. Another magical moment at Dealy..

Is it somehow your belief that a bullet deflecting off the limb of an oak tree requires "magic"? Fascinating.

No, the 'magic' involved is in your insistance that this is where the 'curb' bullet came from. One of the three shots hit the curb way down by the underpass. - Which one?
Give it up ichy..
-- Why is it so important to you to prove that Oswald was alone?

It's not, nor have I even attempted to "prove" that in this thread.

Lie.. -- You bet me a thousand dollars you could prove portions of Spectors lone gunman theory. [see 'bold' below.

Instead, it is important to me to point out when other people are spouting nonsense. That's because I care about that "truth" thing that I'm sure you've heard about in passing. I expect liberals to be dishonest and addle-brained. I expect more from people on a conservative forum. Usually I am not disappointed, but sometimes I am. But I refuse to allow the facts of various issues to get muddied up by completely untrue nonsense. *That* is what's "so important" to me.
Now then, have you donated that thousand dollars to FreeRepublic yet?

Actually 'ichy', seeing you were unable to prove your theory, you owe FR.. Big time.

[Ichneumon]

One of the three shots hit the curb way down by the underpass. - Which one?

The first one, for reasons I've already given and which you have failed to even attempt to rebut -- or even actually disagree with, other than issuing gradeschool taunts.

[It's not, nor have I even attempted to "prove" that ["that Oswald was alone"] in this thread. ]

Lie..

Accuse me of lying one more time without cause, and we'll take this to the moderators. I suggest you reign yourself in a bit.

-- You bet me a thousand dollars you could prove portions of Spectors lone gunman theory.

Are you truly unable to grasp that our making a bet over *one* point in the Warren Commission's scenario is not synonymous with necessarily arguing for *all* of them? Get a grip.

Nice try, but what I actually specifically bet you on was whether you were blowing smoke when you claimed that "no one has ever duplicated such a scenario" -- the "scenario" being hitting 2 out of 3 shots on a moving target at speeds and angles similar to the JFK shooting with a bolt action rifle of the same type.

I offered to bet you on that, you foolishly accepted and named a figure for the bet of $1000, and you lost by being shown that at several times recreations by different groups have *indeed* easily equaled that performance.

You lose, pay up and stop dancing, it not only makes you look silly, it makes you look grossly dishonorable. Don't accept bets you can't win, and if you do, pay up when you lose.

You still owe FreeRepublic that thousand dollars, and I'm not going to let you welsh on it.

Actually 'ichy', seeing you were unable to prove your theory, you owe FR.. Big time.

Dance, dodge, misrepresent... Is this the best you can do?

[tang-soo]

Rep Hale Boggs

That's interesting. He was the father of ABC newswoman Cokie Roberts. I say 'was' because he died in a mysterious plane crash in the wilds of Alaska a few years later. Also on that plane was Alaska congressman Nick Begich Sr. He was the father of physicists Dr. Nick Begich Jr. who wrote the very interesting book "Angels Don't play this HAARP". Once you finish reading about the JFK conspiracy (hah), do a search on HAARP and that will curl your toes.

[tpaine]

One of the three shots hit the curb way down by the underpass. - Which one?

The first one, for reasons I've already given and which you have failed to even attempt to rebut -- or even actually disagree with, other than issuing gradeschool taunts.

An arguably 45 degree ricochet off a tree branch, that goes another two hundred yards is sheer 'magical' supposition, and you would know it, if you're a rifleman.

[It's not, nor have I even attempted to "prove" that ["that Oswald was alone"] in this thread. ] Lie.. Accuse me of lying one more time without cause, and we'll take this to the moderators. I suggest you reign yourself in a bit.

How whimpy can you get? -- You accused me of "completly untrue nonsense" at #270. I replied in kind: -- since:
-- You bet me a thousand dollars you could prove portions of Spectors lone gunman theory.

Are you truly unable to grasp that our making a bet over *one* point in the Warren Commission's scenario is not synonymous with necessarily arguing for *all* of them? Get a grip. Nice try, but what I actually specifically bet you on was whether you were blowing smoke when you claimed that "no one has ever duplicated such a scenario" -- the "scenario" being hitting 2 out of 3 shots on a moving target at speeds and angles similar to the JFK shooting with a bolt action rifle of the same type. I offered to bet you on that, you foolishly accepted and named a figure for the bet of $1000, and you lost by being shown that at several times recreations by different groups have *indeed* easily equaled that performance.

"Completely untrue nonsense", as you never proved that the "scenario" of hitting 2 out of 3 shots on a moving target at speeds and angles comparable to the JFK shooting was ever duplicated. You tossed off some posted opinions as your proof, and then clownishly proclaimed victory, as you do again here:

You lose, pay up and stop dancing, it not only makes you look silly, it makes you look grossly dishonorable. Don't accept bets you can't win, and if you do, pay up when you lose. You still owe FreeRepublic that thousand dollars, and I'm not going to let you welsh on it.

Actually 'ichy', seeing you were unable to prove your theory, you owe FR.. Big time.

Dance, dodge, misrepresent... Is this the best you can do?

How many times must I say it? Prove your point..

[Ichneumon]

An arguably 45 degree ricochet off a tree branch,

29.4 degrees, but who's counting? Overstating the angle by 50% does not do you credit.

that goes another two hundred yards is sheer 'magical' supposition,

...because...? Oh, right, just because you say so. Sorry, not convinced, especially since you've been wrong about so many easy facts.

Like the distance, for example -- it was no more than 140 yards. Closer to 130.

Is it truly your contention that a rifle bullet can't hit a hard surface at the very shallow incident angle of 14.7 degrees and skip off it with enough remaining velocity to travel another 130 yards? If so, I've got *another* bet for you -- name your amount, and I'll personally make the demonstration for you. Be sure the amount of the bet will cover my round-trip airfare. How about double or nothing on the last bet?

and you would know it, if you're a rifleman.

I *do* know it, I *am* a rifle owner and shooter, and that's how I know that you're talking out of your hind end.

But don't just take my word for it: Here for example are 9 news stories of bullets still having enough power after a ricochet to *kill* the people they hit (or in one case, moose) -- or are you going to be goofy enough to argue that a bullet going fast enough to kill isn't fast enough to travel 140 yards?

http://www.militarycity.com/valor/2013555.html

http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/GDP/archive/article2DE0831A8B444EA4AC1581C4CF8BEB47.asp

http://users.mildura.net.au/users/marshall/advn/advn005.htm

http://www.bluestarfamilies.com/Pic_Fallen_Soldiers_SC.htm

http://www.albertaoutfitting.com/moose_photographs.html

http://www.cowboymercantile.com/articles/article1.htm

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2003/oct/19/weekend/20031019wek2.html

http://www.iremember.ru/infantry/kotliarova/kotliarova.htm

http://www.nbc11.com/news/2522211/detail.html

How whimpy can you get? -- You accused me of "completly untrue nonsense" at #270.

No, I did not. I said that correcting "completely untrue nonsense" is what motivates me to care about these threads. It's interesting, however, that you would presume that I was talking specifically about *you*. Do you feel that the shoe fits?

Furthermore, when I call something nonsense, I explain *why* it's nonsense, *and* that does not count as an accusation about the poster's motives. They don't need to be lying, they can simply be mistaken.

*You*, on the other hand, accused me specifically of issuing a "lie", which is an accusation of knowingly and dishonestly posting a falsehood. Furthermore, you did it without demonstrating that my statement was even incorrect, much less knowingly incorrect.

*That* is why you had better learn the difference and conduct yourself with more maturity.

since: -- You bet me a thousand dollars you could prove portions of Spectors lone gunman theory.

Why do you keep misrepresenting the actual terms of the bet? The bet was specifically about whether anyone has successfully recreated the shooting performance under similar conditions. You had falsely claimed that no one had, when in fact many have.

Trying to divert the issue to proving or disproving anything about any other person's larget scenario is a red herring on your part, and opens the door for you to drag in all sorts of side issues irrelevant to the specific claim you had made which I challenged. Stick to the subject of the bet.

as you never proved that the "scenario" of hitting 2 out of 3 shots on a moving target at speeds and angles comparable to the JFK shooting was ever duplicated.

Yes, I did. Don't try to squirm out of it now.

You tossed off some posted opinions as your proof, and then clownishly proclaimed victory, as you do again here:

Translation: I posted citations to specific tests detailing the nature of the tests and with sufficient information for you to look them up if you doubt my description. Are you going to try to tell us with a straight face that *this* wasn't specific enough for you to determine the nature of the tests, or look them up to find more detail if you chose?

[From my post #127:] For example, CBS reconstructed the shooting for a 1975 [typo, should be 1967] documentary. Eleven volunteers took three shots each at a moving target using a Carcano rifle, without even doing any prior practice on that model of rifle. Their times ranges from 4.1 seconds (total) to slightly more than 6 seconds, with the average being 5.6 seconds and 2 hits out of 3. Furthermore, the House Select Committee in 1977 did a reconstruction and found that their test shooter could hit all targets with 1.66 seconds between shots.

What more do you want, for me to pull up a chair for you and help you figure out how to load a videotape of them? Do your own homework if you want to start casting about for excuses why the recreations weren't "good" enough, so that you can try to get yourself off this hook by some lawyerly weaseling.

Oh hell, here's more detailed information for you from the HSCA recreation for you, maybe you'll give it up... The tests were conducted from an elevated platform, at targets situated at distances of 143, 165, and 266 feet from the tower, the presumed distances of the three JFK shots. Furthermore:

"Each officer fired two series of three shots and Cornwell and I eac fired one series of two shots.

The test established the following:

The weapon can be quite accurately fired more rapidly using open iron sights than the FBI tests in 1963 indicated, where the telescopic sight was used. For example, Officer Masson, during one test series, hit the body silhouette at 143 and 165 feet on the first two shots, and missed the head portion of the silhouette at 266 feet on the third shot by approximately one inch (1"), taking 2.0 seconds between shots 1 and 2, and a total of less than 5 seconds for all three shots. Two other series, oen by officer Smith and another, again, by Officer Masson, were fired in which only 1.9 seconds elapsed between two shots, and one of the three shots scored a "kill".
...
It is not difficult to fire two consecutive shots from a Mannlicher-Carcano within 1.66 seconds, and to "point aim" if not carefully "sight" it, on the target on each shot. Cornwell fired the rifle twice in 1.2 seconds, and I fired it twice within 1.5 seconds. In both cases the second shot missed, but was close to the silhoutte. In fact, my second shot only missed the silhoutte by approximately 2".

There was ample time for Oswald to have fired 3 shots, hitting with two of them, within 8.3 seconds. All series of 3 shots were fired in less than 8 seconds, two were fired in less than 7 seconds, two in less than 6, and two in less than 5."

As for the CBS test ("CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report", a four part documentary first aired on June 25 1967), one of their volunteers, Howard Donahue, not only made three shots in less than six seconds with a Carcano, he HIT WITH ALL THREE SHOTS. The CBS test was even done through a window 60 feet up, not just a raised platform, at a target on a moving sled. I'm sorry, what's that you were saying about "no one" ever duplicating the JFK shooting?

The fact remains that you claimed that "no one" has "ever duplicated" the speed and accuracy of the three JFK shots.

The fact remains that you foolishly accepted a bet on your inadvisably broad claim.

The fact remains that multiple tests *have* "duplicated such a scenario" successfully. In fact, the best times of both the CBS reconstruction *and* the HSCA reconstruction beat the times (while equaling the accuracy) of even the most *restrictive* conspiracy scenarios (i.e., the ones which left the shooter the least amount of time for the shots).

So the fact remains that you were wrong, and you lost the bet.

The fact remains that you still owe FreeRepublic the thousand dollars.

How many times must I say it? Prove your point..

How many times must I prove the point before you'll stop dancing around it?

[tpaine]

An arguably 45 degree ricochet off a tree branch,

29.4 degrees, but who's counting? Overstating the angle by 50% does not do you credit.

Where did you get that percise angle to a theorized happening?
How daft, when you haven't even established that a shot was made at frame 156 or so.. How could you?
__________________________________________

An arguably 45 degree ricochet off a tree branch that goes another two hundred yards is sheer 'magical' supposition,

...because...? Oh, right, just because you say so. Sorry, not convinced, especially since you've been wrong about so many easy facts. Like the distance, for example -- it was no more than 140 yards. Closer to 130.

See above.. -- Again you're arguing that the limo was in a specific postition when the first shot that missed was fired. Are you psychic? How do you know? Who told you?

Is it truly your contention that a rifle bullet can't hit a hard surface at the very shallow incident angle of 14.7 degrees and skip off it with enough remaining velocity to travel another 130 yards?

a tree branch is a "hard surface"? ----- you're piling BS on top of supposition me boyo. Give it up..

If so, I've got *another* bet for you -- name your amount, and I'll personally make the demonstration for you. Be sure the amount of the bet will cover my round-trip airfare. How about double or nothing on the last bet? and you would know it, if you're a rifleman. I *do* know it, I *am* a rifle owner and shooter, and that's how I know that you're talking out of your hind end. But don't just take my word for it: Here for example are 9 news stories of bullets still having enough power after a ricochet to *kill* the people they hit (or in one case, moose) -- or are you going to be goofy enough to argue that a bullet going fast enough to kill isn't fast enough to travel 140 yards? http://www.militarycity.com/valor/2013555.html http://www.gwinnettdailyonline.com/GDP/archive/article2DE0831A8B444EA4AC1581C4CF8BEB47.asp http://users.mildura.net.au/users/marshall/advn/advn005.htm http://www.bluestarfamilies.com/Pic_Fallen_Soldiers_SC.htm http://www.albertaoutfitting.com/moose_photographs.html http://www.cowboymercantile.com/articles/article1.htm http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2003/oct/19/weekend/20031019wek2.html http://www.iremember.ru/infantry/kotliarova/kotliarova.htm http://www.nbc11.com/news/2522211/detail.html How whimpy can you get? -- You accused me of "completly untrue nonsense" at #270. No, I did not. I said that correcting "completely untrue nonsense" is what motivates me to care about these threads. It's interesting, however, that you would presume that I was talking specifically about *you*. Do you feel that the shoe fits? Furthermore, when I call something nonsense, I explain *why* it's nonsense, *and* that does not count as an accusation about the poster's motives. They don't need to be lying, they can simply be mistaken. *You*, on the other hand, accused me specifically of issuing a "lie", which is an accusation of knowingly and dishonestly posting a falsehood. Furthermore, you did it without demonstrating that my statement was even incorrect, much less knowingly incorrect. *That* is why you had better learn the difference and conduct yourself with more maturity. since: -- You bet me a thousand dollars you could prove portions of Spectors lone gunman theory. Why do you keep misrepresenting the actual terms of the bet? The bet was specifically about whether anyone has successfully recreated the shooting performance under similar conditions. You had falsely claimed that no one had, when in fact many have. Trying to divert the issue to proving or disproving anything about any other person's larget scenario is a red herring on your part, and opens the door for you to drag in all sorts of side issues irrelevant to the specific claim you had made which I challenged.

Stick to the subject of the bet.

I wish you would; ---
-- as you never proved that the "scenario" of hitting 2 out of 3 shots on a moving target at speeds and angles comparable to the JFK shooting was ever duplicated.
You tossed off some posted opinions as your proof, and then clownishly proclaimed victory, as you do again here:

Translation: I posted citations to specific tests detailing the nature of the tests and with sufficient information for you to look them up if you doubt my description. Are you going to try to tell us with a straight face that *this* wasn't specific enough for you to determine the nature of the tests, or look them up to find more detail if you chose? [From my post #127:] For example, CBS reconstructed the shooting for a 1975 [typo, should be 1967] documentary. Eleven volunteers took three shots each at a moving target using a Carcano rifle, without even doing any prior practice on that model of rifle. Their times ranges from 4.1 seconds (total) to slightly more than 6 seconds, with the average being 5.6 seconds and 2 hits out of 3. Furthermore, the House Select Committee in 1977 did a reconstruction and found that their test shooter could hit all targets with 1.66 seconds between shots. What more do you want, for me to pull up a chair for you and help you figure out how to load a videotape of them? Do your own homework if you want to start casting about for excuses why the recreations weren't "good" enough, so that you can try to get yourself off this hook by some lawyerly weaseling.

No, I want specific details of how the recreations were staged.. The devil is in such details, as you well know..

Oh hell, here's more detailed information for you from the HSCA recreation for you, maybe you'll give it up... The tests were conducted from an elevated platform, at targets situated at distances of 143, 165, and 266 feet from the tower, the presumed distances of the three JFK shots.

Two hits, three presumed distances, fixed targets... It all equals BS in the 'details'...

Furthermore: "Each officer fired two series of three shots and Cornwell and I eac fired one series of two shots. The test established the following: The weapon can be quite accurately fired more rapidly using open iron sights than the FBI tests in 1963 indicated, where the telescopic sight was used.

Oswald supposedly used the scope. They used open sights? -- More BS..

For example, Officer Masson, during one test series, hit the body silhouette at 143 and 165 feet on the first two shots, and missed the head portion of the silhouette at 266 feet on the third shot by approximately one inch (1"), taking 2.0 seconds between shots 1 and 2, and a total of less than 5 seconds for all three shots. Two other series, oen by officer Smith and another, again, by Officer Masson, were fired in which only 1.9 seconds elapsed between two shots, and one of the three shots scored a "kill". ... It is not difficult to fire two consecutive shots from a Mannlicher-Carcano within 1.66 seconds, and to "point aim" if not carefully "sight" it, on the target on each shot. Cornwell fired the rifle twice in 1.2 seconds, and I fired it twice within 1.5 seconds. In both cases the second shot missed, but was close to the silhoutte. In fact, my second shot only missed the silhoutte by approximately 2". There was ample time for Oswald to have fired 3 shots, hitting with two of them, within 8.3 seconds. All series of 3 shots were fired in less than 8 seconds, two were fired in less than 7 seconds, two in less than 6, and two in less than 5."

Conclusions reached from firing at fixed targets with open sights?
My BS meter is pegged at the top..

As for the CBS test ("CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report", a four part documentary first aired on June 25 1967), one of their volunteers, Howard Donahue, not only made three shots in less than six seconds with a Carcano, he HIT WITH ALL THREE SHOTS. The CBS test was even done through a window 60 feet up, not just a raised platform, at a target on a moving sled. I'm sorry, what's that you were saying about "no one" ever duplicating the JFK shooting?

That's it on the CBS details? Thats your 'proof'? - Laughable..

The fact remains that you claimed that "no one" has "ever duplicated" the speed and accuracy of the three JFK shots. The fact remains that you foolishly accepted a bet on your inadvisably broad claim. The fact remains that multiple tests *have* "duplicated such a scenario" successfully. In fact, the best times of both the CBS reconstruction *and* the HSCA reconstruction beat the times (while equaling the accuracy) of even the most *restrictive* conspiracy scenarios (i.e., the ones which left the shooter the least amount of time for the shots).

You've presented no 'facts', as I've demonstrated above.. The more detail you get into on these socalled 'recreations' the more devils of fact pop out.. - But do keep it up.. It's amusing to see you get ever more frantic..

So the fact remains that you were wrong, and you lost the bet. The fact remains that you still owe FreeRepublic the thousand dollars.

How many MORE times must I say it? Prove your point..

How many times must I prove the point before you'll stop dancing around it?

I'm not even toe tapping.. -- You're dancing quite hard above, attempting to establish the Spector scenario.. Why is that?

[Shooter 2.5]

http://www.zimmermanjfk.com/frontmenu_000008.htm
Watch the video. If you miss it, just reload the page.

He would have been able to do much better if he had used a sling and a benched position like Oswald. He handicapped himself by using the kneeling position and a shorter time than the 8.3 seconds.

Free Republic, collect your thousand dollars.

[FreedomCalls]

That picture shows no 'bunching'.. The shirt & jacket holes align, showing no 'bunching'.. Portions of the written notes/sketches from the autopsy show the wounds lower on his back, conforming to the holes in his clothes.. Nothing fits, so we must aquits..

If this photo doesn't show "bunching" I don't know what does:

You can see how his jacket has ridden up about three inches and is bunched up around his neck. This would more than account for the discrepancy in the position of the hole in his jacket, his shirt, and his back. And it's why the hole in his jacket appears to be much lower than the hole in his back.

[tpaine]

Get rational..
Does a fitted, tucked in shirt w/tie 'bunch up' like a suit jacket? -- Of course not..

Yet the bullet holes align in JFK's shirt & jacket. -- Proving that they were in the same positions when the shot occurred.

Either they were in normal alignment, or they were magically 'bunched up' exactly in line..
Common sense says they were as normally worn.

[FreedomCalls]

Does a fitted, tucked in shirt w/tie 'bunch up' like a suit jacket? -- Of course not..

Look at the photo! You said my photo didn't show "bunching." Now I have a better one that clearly shows bunching beyond a doubt. Now you claim you are not talking about the jacket, you are talking about the shirt. I have a feeling that if I got you a photo of a buched up shirt, you would claim it was the tie you were talking about.

And yes, a fitted tucked-in shirt does ride up. Ever hear of "shirt garters"?

Yet the bullet holes align in JFK's shirt & jacket. -- Proving that they were in the same positions when the shot occurred.

If they line up then the shirt was bunched up too because my picture taken a few seconds before the shooting clearly shows a bunched up jacket.

Either they were in normal alignment, or they were magically 'bunched up' exactly in line..

Just exactly what is so "magic" about a bunched up jacket? And didn't you just claim that they were indeed lined up? Isn't the fact of their being lined up a part of your agrument? So why is that now a "magical" concept?

Common sense says they were as normally worn.

The picture says the jacket was bunched up. Common sense says you are a loon.