Museum curator seeks to solve JFK mystery

Knight Ridder Newspapers ^ | 11/21/2002 | MIKE COCHRAN

[Doc Savage]

Flash, mlo is related to jlo. There are plants out there whose primary goal in life is to quel any kind inquiry into matters such as this. Your response is well reasoned. mlo is not. It has to be his way or no way. Forget him.

[tenthirteen]

I'm not so sure that nothing was seen from the grassy knoll. I've read reports that there was a trainmaster high above the tracks overlooking that knoll, and he reported seeing gunfire from the knoll. Additionally, a woman stated that she saw a man with a rifle on the knoll, and when she asked what he was doing, he replied that he was with the Secret Service.

Oh, the Secret Service claimed they had no personnel at that site and the trainmaster was killed in a head-on on a secluded Texas highway shortly after the assassination.

But we all know there is no conspiracy, don't we now?

[mlo]

Flash, mlo is related to jlo.

Who is jlo and what makes you think I'm related to this person?

There are plants out there whose primary goal in life is to quel any kind inquiry into matters such as this.

I doubt it very much, unless you are describing yourself.

Your response is well reasoned. mlo is not.

I think you have a problem seeing reason in anything you don't like. If you want to post a well reasoned response, go ahead. You haven't yet.

It has to be his way or no way.

That seems to fit your own attitude better.

[mlo]

I'm not so sure that nothing was seen from the grassy knoll. I've read reports that there was a trainmaster high above the tracks overlooking that knoll, and he reported seeing gunfire from the knoll.

He didn't report seeing any gunfire.

Additionally, a woman stated that she saw a man with a rifle on the knoll, and when she asked what he was doing, he replied that he was with the Secret Service.

Nobody that day reported seeing a man with a rifle on the knoll, and nobody identified themselves as Secret Service. As I've said before, there is a lot mythology attached to this case.

[Shooter 2.5]

At the same time that Kennedy is thrown back, Jackie is thrown forward. You will have to admit, she wasn't hit. Take a look at Connelly. He's slammed into the front seat at the exact same time. He wasn't hit at that time either.

There aren't any errors in the final autopsy report. The wounds were measured right to the centimeter.

The people on the fifth floor only heard three shots. The guy in the railroad tower watched as two disinterested guys hung around the picket fence and he didn't observe them shoot anything. There also was two officers on opposite sides of the railroad bridge plus a few railroad workers. There was a total of five people watching the motorcade from the Book Depository side. There were forty one people who were asked where the shots came from. Two people on the knoll said it came from there. Ten times that number said it came from the Depository. Mrs. Connelly said the shots came from the depository. The guy who took the picture of Ruby killing Oswald, saw Oswald shoot Kennedy as he fired out of the window. He was out of film so he couldn't take a picture. Two other saw the same thing but one person thought he used a lever action.

There are no bushes or anything to hide in on the grassy knoll. There's only the small picket fence. Zapruder would have been in front of the shooter if there was one there.

All of the medical evidence indicates two shots from the back. The trajectory angle on the back shot, IE. Connelly didn't shoot Kennedy and the head shot IE. The driver didn't shoot Kennedy.

[tet68]

That's how I always saw it.
Johnson knew Kennedy was for getting out of Vietnam,
the Diem assasination turned him (Kennedy) around.
Johnson needed the war to keep the country's focus
OFF "the Great Society" welfare scheme until it was
too late to do anything about it.

Johnson it was that gave us the Gulf of Tonkin incident also.
Johnson was a hardball democrat, I don't think he'd have hesitated for a minute.

[tet68]

Most people think the Carcano a cheap piece of junk
incapable of firing these shots. Having handled one or
two, and researched them I found that they were highly
regarded, and were in fact, used by the Italian Olympic
team. The ones I have seen were well made, with good bores.
In the hands of a skilled marksman............

[tenthirteen]

Regarding your comments that no one was seen on the grassy knoll on that day, might I refer you to the Athens Observer, November 25, 1987 page 8A. It seems they reference a photo taken by a Mr. WILLIS that shows a man with what appears to be a rifle at that location.

[Tribune7]

Well, the leaders of nations to be allied in a 10-year-long war dying by assination the same month is a pretty unusual coinicidence.

[Shooter 2.5]

The FBI and the NRA tested Oswald's rifle and they were able to hit with it. Even if all the Carcanos in the world were junk it wouldn't matter to this one. They tested it and they could hit what Oswald hit.

There is also one more thing. I don't know of any bolt action rifle that isn't damaged which can't hit a nine inch group in less than 90 yards. The head shot was at 88 yrds.

Oswald had a lot of time to get the first shot off. The first shot started the seven second time span.

[Paulus Invictus]

Reynolds Wrap alert! I know who killed JFK. The
X Files made it very clear some years back that it was a rogue FBI guy with a rifle he shot out of a culvert near the plaza. Oswald was a set up patsy. If you doubt this plausible theory, keep in mind that Mulder does not lie nor does his shapely partner.

[mlo]

Anyway, what you're saying is that the bullet from behind started his head going down, then the n.m. reaction started the head going back. That would have to be one heck of a n.m. reaction to abruptly overcome the downward momemtum.

Not really. The bullet pushed the head forward and down for an instant, then penetrated. It does not impart massive momentum to the body. I think the talk about a "neuromuscular reaction" makes it seem more mysterious than it is. Just keep in mind that you aren't talking about an inanimate object here. It was a living body. He fell back into the seat. That's all.

And a lot of others have concluded otherwise. The autopsy was fraught with errors and tons of weird discrepencies.

Every single medical panel that has been able to review the autopsy evidence has come to the same conclusion. Every one. Only a few of the photos have been leaked, so only those panels have had access to all the information.

The HSCA concluded two snipers, remember. I know this was based of the accoustic evidence, but still, it shows that experts can disagree.

The disagreement wasn't over the medical evidence. The HSCA accepted the acoustics but was forced to postulate a second sniper whose shot missed entirely. That's because no other evidence supported a shot from the grassy knoll.

Is this true? Even the police tape recorded four "shot-like" sounds...

Yes, it is true that most witnesses reported three shots, and most reported they came from the TSBD. Later I'll look up the cite for you. There are no shots on the police recording.

True, but that's a little misleading. There was a lot of bushes and stuff to hide behind, and everyone had his eyes on the President at the time.

It isn't misleading at all. If anyone had fired a shot from the grassy knoll there would be untold numbers of people who couldn't have missed it. In fact, not one person reported a shot from the grassy knoll that day.

Ther may not be ballistic evidence, but there *is* plenty of "medical evidence" that raises, at least, tons of suspicion.

Not really. Feel free to cite it if you think so.

[mlo]

Regarding your comments that no one was seen on the grassy knoll on that day, might I refer you to the Athens Observer, November 25, 1987 page 8A. It seems they reference a photo taken by a Mr. WILLIS that shows a man with what appears to be a rifle at that location.

The Willis photo only shows a shape that may be a person. It does not show a man with a rifle. There were numerous people in the vicinity of the knoll at the time, so it's not surprising that one might show up in this picture.

[general_re]

Nothing to add here - just want to give you guys kudos for once again having the patience to walk people through this. That's why you're FR's go-to guys on this topic, IMO ;)

Well, okay - one thing to add. People who doubt the official account really need to take some time, go to Dallas, go up to the 6'th floor, and look out the windows onto Dealey Plaza. Once you do that, it becomes really difficult to do anything but admit that it was very much a makeable shot for Oswald.

Also, you might find this interesting, if you didn't see it the first time around ;)

[Itzlzha]

The "Cigarette-Smoking Man" did it. I saw it on the X-Files.

No, the "Future" JFK himself did it from the grassy knoll...

I saw it on "Red Dwarf"!

PS...he's called "Cancer-Man"...don't let the PC mafia change the "Truth"...it's "out there"!

[mlo]

Thanks! I had no idea.

[Shooter 2.5]

Thank you. Michael handles the sound and other facts and I try with the external ballistics.

I went to the ceremony at Dealy Plaza Friday and I overheard a girl about 18 years old exclaim, "Come on, I shoot guns once in a while and I could have made that shot!" They were at the Railroad Bridge and I asked what they were doing there. They said they were sent there because someone stated that's where the second shooter was. I had to tell them they were standing about 25 feet where the police officer and the railroad workers were standing.
The officer had chased some photographers away at the time but he felt he didn't have the authority to chase workers from their own company property. That's why there were five people on the bridge facing the motorcade. It's a shame he chased away a photographer. It would have been more evidence a shooter couldn't have been at the bridge.

[general_re]

I had no idea either. If you scroll back up that thread, I was the one who originally asked 'jmcadams' if he was John McAdams - his reply was apparently misdirected, which is why I never saw it until about twenty minutes ago, when this thread triggered my memory of that one. It was sort of interesting to contemplate the notion that Professor McAdams has been lurking around here, without giving in to the temptation to post to the occasional JFK threads that pop up ;)

[general_re]

I confess that I never really approached the subject with an open mind. Occam's Razor predisposed me to not give much weight to conspiracy theories on this subject. After all, which is the simpler explanation - one lone guy killed the President by himself, or a massive, Oliver Stone-type conspiracy involving about 400 billion people, none of whom have broken their silence in the last 40 years, killed the President? That's why I appreciate folks who take the time to examine the evidence and then arrive at a reasoned conclusion.

Well, okay - maybe it wasn't 400 billion people. But by the time you get through totaling up all the people who were supposed to have been a part of it, it sure seems like it ;)

[Flashlight]

I can just reply quickly tonight. (I'm not ignoring your other points, some are well-taken.)

The HSCA forensic pathology panel concluded that President Kennedy was struck by two bullets from the rear.

(Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., coroner of Allegheny County, Pa. dissented and did not accept this; he was outvoted 8-1.)

The HSCA said: "Because this conclusion appears to be inconsistent with the backward motion of the President's head ...the committee consulted a wound ballistics expert...

The expert concluded that

"nerve damage from a bullet entering the President's head could have caused his back muscles to tighten which, in turn, could have caused his head to move toward the rear."

That's it. Now take a look for yourself at the Zapruder film, where they zoom in on the head. Look at it at normal speed, and at slower speeds.

What you see doesn't look anything remotely possible that could be caused by "tightening back muscles". No way. It looks like something smacked him hard in the forehead.

I admit I'm not an expert.

What I find hard to understand is anyone actually *viewing* this, and actually thinking to themselves, "oh, yeah - I can see how tightening back muscles could have caused this."

What I *can* understand, is someone *reading* the explanation, and accepting it. But after *viewing*, no way.

*I'm* thinking that the HSCA should have said, "since there's no way any sane person could view this and accept the tightening-back-muscle theory, maybe Cyril Wecht (the committee's dissenting member) was right and there *was* a shot from the front."

(no slam intended at anyone who does think it looks like muscle tightening.)