Discussion:
This Old Italian Carcano Rifle
Add Reply
claviger
2018-11-14 21:13:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
American Rifleman TV: I Have This Old Gun—Italian Carcano Rifle

American Rifleman Television examines the Italian Carcano in this
"I Have This Old Gun" segment.
Anthony Marsh
2018-11-15 21:08:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
American Rifleman TV: I Have This Old Gun—Italian Carcano Rifle
http://youtu.be/6Ub3HT-lPJ0
American Rifleman Television examines the Italian Carcano in this
"I Have This Old Gun" segment.
Notice the puff of smoke? Did Oliver Stone add that?
claviger
2018-11-16 18:19:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
American Rifleman TV: I Have This Old Gun—Italian Carcano Rifle
http://youtu.be/6Ub3HT-lPJ0
American Rifleman Television examines the Italian Carcano in this
"I Have This Old Gun" segment.
Notice the puff of smoke? Did Oliver Stone add that?
Did it hover 6-8 ft above the shooter?
Anthony Marsh
2018-11-17 16:03:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
American Rifleman TV: I Have This Old Gun—Italian Carcano Rifle
http://youtu.be/6Ub3HT-lPJ0
American Rifleman Television examines the Italian Carcano in this
"I Have This Old Gun" segment.
Notice the puff of smoke? Did Oliver Stone add that?
Did it hover 6-8 ft above the shooter?
Again, no one said 6-8 feet above the shooter and no one said hover.
You misquote testimony to create straw man arguments.
claviger
2018-11-18 14:27:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
American Rifleman TV: I Have This Old Gun—Italian Carcano Rifle
http://youtu.be/6Ub3HT-lPJ0
American Rifleman Television examines the Italian Carcano in this
"I Have This Old Gun" segment.
Notice the puff of smoke? Did Oliver Stone add that?
Did it hover 6-8 ft above the shooter?
Again, no one said 6-8 feet above the shooter and no one said hover.
You misquote testimony to create straw man arguments.
Mr. HOLLAND - And another report rang out and he slumped
down in his seat, and about that time Mrs. Kennedy was looking
at these girls over here [indicating]. The girls standing---now
one of them was taking a picture, and the other one was just
standing there, and she turned around facing the President and
Governor Connally. In other words, she realized what was happening,
I guess. Now, I mean, that was apparently that---she turned back
around, and by the time she could get turned around he was hit
again along in---I'd say along in here [indicating].

Mr. STERN - How do you know that? Did you observe that?

Mr. HOLLAND - I observed it. It knocked him completely down
on the floor. Over, just slumped completely over. That second---

Mr. STERN - Did you hear a third report?

Mr. HOLLAND - I heard a third report and I counted four shots
and about the same time all this was happening, and in this
group of trees--[indicating].

Mr. STERN - Now, you are indicating trees on the north side of
Elm Street?

Mr. HOLLAND - These trees right along here [indicating].

Mr. STERN - Let's mark this Exhibit C and draw a circle around
the trees you are referring to.

Mr. HOLLAND - Right in there. (Indicating.)
There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot.
I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet
above the ground right out from under those trees.

And at just about this location from where I was standing you could
see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or
something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't
as loud as the previous reports or shots.

Mr. STERN - What number would that have been in the----

Mr. HOLLAND - Well, that would--they were so close together.

Mr. STERN - The second and third or the third and fourth?

Mr. HOLLAND - The third and fourth. The third and the fourth.

Mr. STERN - So, that it might have been the third or the fourth?

Mr. HOLLAND - It could have been the third or fourth, but there
were definitely four reports.

Mr. STERN - You have no doubt about that?

Mr. HOLLAND - I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about
seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either.
__________________________________________________________

S M Holland heard 4 shots, one of those shots knocked the
President "completely down on the floor." A "puff of smoke
came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from
under those trees." So the sniper was 6 or 8 feet tall or the
puff of smoke floated up into the air. Holland was very sure
that he heard 4 shots, so there must have been another rifle
that fired a 4th shot.

Sitting in his office on the second floor of the railroad tower
Bowers could see behind the fence the whole time and saw
no person anywhere in that area during the motorcade.

No witness saw anyone with a rifle behind the fence or in the
parking lot, so another sniper must have been hiding up in the
Dal-Tex building like Groden claims, or the Donahue Theory is
the correct ballistic analysis to explain the 4th shot.
Anthony Marsh
2018-11-19 15:55:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
American Rifleman TV: I Have This Old Gun—Italian Carcano Rifle
http://youtu.be/6Ub3HT-lPJ0
American Rifleman Television examines the Italian Carcano in this
"I Have This Old Gun" segment.
Notice the puff of smoke? Did Oliver Stone add that?
Did it hover 6-8 ft above the shooter?
Again, no one said 6-8 feet above the shooter and no one said hover.
You misquote testimony to create straw man arguments.
Mr. HOLLAND - And another report rang out and he slumped
down in his seat, and about that time Mrs. Kennedy was looking
at these girls over here [indicating]. The girls standing---now
one of them was taking a picture, and the other one was just
standing there, and she turned around facing the President and
Governor Connally. In other words, she realized what was happening,
I guess. Now, I mean, that was apparently that---she turned back
around, and by the time she could get turned around he was hit
again along in---I'd say along in here [indicating].
Mr. STERN - How do you know that? Did you observe that?
Mr. HOLLAND - I observed it. It knocked him completely down
on the floor. Over, just slumped completely over. That second---
Mr. STERN - Did you hear a third report?
Mr. HOLLAND - I heard a third report and I counted four shots
and about the same time all this was happening, and in this
group of trees--[indicating].
Mr. STERN - Now, you are indicating trees on the north side of
Elm Street?
Mr. HOLLAND - These trees right along here [indicating].
Mr. STERN - Let's mark this Exhibit C and draw a circle around
the trees you are referring to.
Mr. HOLLAND - Right in there. (Indicating.)
There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot.
I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet
above the ground right out from under those trees.
ABOVE the GROUND, not above the rifle.
And CAME out not hovered. No one said hovered.
You misrepresent WC testimony to create straw man arguments.
Because you can't argue honestly.
Post by claviger
And at just about this location from where I was standing you could
see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or
something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't
as loud as the previous reports or shots.
Mr. STERN - What number would that have been in the----
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, that would--they were so close together.
Mr. STERN - The second and third or the third and fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - The third and fourth. The third and the fourth.
Mr. STERN - So, that it might have been the third or the fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - It could have been the third or fourth, but there
were definitely four reports.
Mr. STERN - You have no doubt about that?
Mr. HOLLAND - I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about
seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either.
__________________________________________________________
S M Holland heard 4 shots, one of those shots knocked the
President "completely down on the floor." A "puff of smoke
Stop rewriting testimony. We have the films and can see for ourselves
that JFK was not knocked down to the floor.
Post by claviger
came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from
under those trees." So the sniper was 6 or 8 feet tall or the
Just stop your nonsense. Maybe the shooter was 6 feet tall, but I can
guarantee you that McAdams was not there behind the fence on 11/22/63.
Maybe a spectator took a photo of .John when he visited Dealey Plaza
many years later and stood behind the fence to see what the angle looked
lik and that's where all the Bigfoot rumors started.
Post by claviger
puff of smoke floated up into the air. Holland was very sure
that he heard 4 shots, so there must have been another rifle
that fired a 4th shot.
Yes, there was.
Post by claviger
Sitting in his office on the second floor of the railroad tower
Bowers could see behind the fence the whole time and saw
no person anywhere in that area during the motorcade.
NOT TRUE.
Post by claviger
No witness saw anyone with a rifle behind the fence or in the
parking lot, so another sniper must have been hiding up in the
Dal-Tex building like Groden claims, or the Donahue Theory is
the correct ballistic analysis to explain the 4th shot.
Yeah, no witness saw anyone with a rifle in the sniper's nest so you can
claim that no shots were fired from there.
You're simply not trying hard enough. Get out a map and look at the
angles from Holland's position and then claim that what Holland thought
he saw in the fence area was actually in the SS follow-up car!
claviger
2018-11-20 15:56:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Mr. HOLLAND - Right in there. (Indicating.)
There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot.
I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet
above the ground right out from under those trees.
ABOVE the GROUND, not above the rifle.
" 6 to 8 feet
Post by Anthony Marsh
And CAME out not hovered. No one said hovered.
Did it immediately evaporate like modern gun propellant? Doesn't
sound that way in his description. He did say "8 feet". So it could
have been an NBA sniper.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You misrepresent WC testimony to create straw man arguments.
Because you can't argue honestly.
I quote WC Testimony which frustrates you all the time. You keep
trying to change the script but all we have to do is factcheck your
spin control.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
And at just about this location from where I was standing you could
see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or
something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't
as loud as the previous reports or shots.
Mr. STERN - What number would that have been in the----
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, that would--they were so close together.
Mr. STERN - The second and third or the third and fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - The third and fourth. The third and the fourth.
Mr. STERN - So, that it might have been the third or the fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - It could have been the third or fourth, but there
were definitely four reports.
Mr. STERN - You have no doubt about that?
Mr. HOLLAND - I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about
seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either.
__________________________________________________________
S M Holland heard 4 shots, one of those shots knocked the
President "completely down on the floor." A "puff of smoke
Stop rewriting testimony. We have the films and can see for ourselves
that JFK was not knocked down to the floor.
He was knocked forward on the headshot before reacting backward.
We know this from the graphic film in the movie JFK by Oliver Stone.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from
under those trees." So the sniper was 6 or 8 feet tall or the
Just stop your nonsense. Maybe the shooter was 6 feet tall, but I can
guarantee you that McAdams was not there behind the fence on 11/22/63.
How can you guarantee that?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe a spectator took a photo of .John when he visited Dealey Plaza
many years later and stood behind the fence to see what the angle looked
lik and that's where all the Bigfoot rumors started.
Cite please.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
puff of smoke floated up into the air. Holland was very sure
that he heard 4 shots, so there must have been another rifle
that fired a 4th shot.
Yes, there was.
Yes I know. Howard Donahue proved why.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Sitting in his office on the second floor of the railroad tower
Bowers could see behind the fence the whole time and saw
no person anywhere in that area during the motorcade.
NOT TRUE.
He testified under oath.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
No witness saw anyone with a rifle behind the fence or in the
parking lot, so another sniper must have been hiding up in the
Dal-Tex building like Groden claims, or the Donahue Theory is
the correct ballistic analysis to explain the 4th shot.
Yeah, no witness saw anyone with a rifle in the sniper's nest so you
can claim that no shots were fired from there.
Several witnesses saw a rifle in the Sniper's Nest. Three employees
on the 5th floor heard shots above their head. Do the math.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You're simply not trying hard enough. Get out a map and look at the
angles from Holland's position and then claim that what Holland thought
he saw in the fence area was actually in the SS follow-up car!
"After the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat
with a machine gun and then dropped back down in the seat. "
S M Holland 11/22/63
Anthony Marsh
2018-11-22 01:36:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Mr. HOLLAND - Right in there. (Indicating.)
There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot.
I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet
above the ground right out from under those trees.
ABOVE the GROUND, not above the rifle.
" 6 to 8 feet
ABOVE the GROUND. The shooter was 6 feet tall.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
And CAME out not hovered. No one said hovered.
Did it immediately evaporate like modern gun propellant? Doesn't
sound that way in his description. He did say "8 feet". So it could
have been an NBA sniper.
Evaporate? There was no smoke from a gun. Do you mean dissipate or is
that too big a word for you? Yes, the cigarette smoke dissipated very
quickly.

Stop trying to blame the NBA. That's racist. Pin it on Bigfoot or some
professor who is just as tall.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
You misrepresent WC testimony to create straw man arguments.
Because you can't argue honestly.
I quote WC Testimony which frustrates you all the time. You keep
You MISQUOTE it.
Post by claviger
trying to change the script but all we have to do is factcheck your
spin control.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
And at just about this location from where I was standing you could
see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or
something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't
as loud as the previous reports or shots.
Mr. STERN - What number would that have been in the----
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, that would--they were so close together.
Mr. STERN - The second and third or the third and fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - The third and fourth. The third and the fourth.
Mr. STERN - So, that it might have been the third or the fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - It could have been the third or fourth, but there
were definitely four reports.
Mr. STERN - You have no doubt about that?
Mr. HOLLAND - I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about
seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either.
__________________________________________________________
S M Holland heard 4 shots, one of those shots knocked the
President "completely down on the floor." A "puff of smoke
Stop rewriting testimony. We have the films and can see for ourselves
that JFK was not knocked down to the floor.
He was knocked forward on the headshot before reacting backward.
We know this from the graphic film in the movie JFK by Oliver Stone.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
came out about 6 or 8 feet above the ground right out from
under those trees." So the sniper was 6 or 8 feet tall or the
Just stop your nonsense. Maybe the shooter was 6 feet tall, but I can
guarantee you that McAdams was not there behind the fence on 11/22/63.
How can you guarantee that?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe a spectator took a photo of .John when he visited Dealey Plaza
many years later and stood behind the fence to see what the angle looked
lik and that's where all the Bigfoot rumors started.
Cite please.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
puff of smoke floated up into the air. Holland was very sure
that he heard 4 shots, so there must have been another rifle
that fired a 4th shot.
Yes, there was.
Yes I know. Howard Donahue proved why.
So you believe there was a fourth shot, but people only 2 feet away did
not hear it. Let's test your hypothesis. Take your AR-15 to the Super Bowl
and fire a shot over the heads of the people sitting in the row in front
of you and then pretend that NO ONE heard the shot.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Sitting in his office on the second floor of the railroad tower
Bowers could see behind the fence the whole time and saw
no person anywhere in that area during the motorcade.
NOT TRUE.
He testified under oath.
Doesn't mean he was 100% accurate. Never rely on witnesses. He admitted
that he lost track of one person. He said he saw two men just as the
motorcade was coming.

Mr. BOWERS - He was part of the motorcade and had left it for some
reason, which I did not know.
Mr. BALL - He came up---
Mr. BOWERS - He came almost to the top and I believe abandoned his
motorcycle for a moment and then got on it and proceeded, I don't know
Mr. BALL - How did he get up?
Mr. BOWERS - He just shot up over the curb and up.
Mr. BALL - He didn't come then by way of Ell, which dead ends there?
Mr. BOWERS - No; he left the motorcade and came up the incline on the
motorcycle.
Mr. BALL - Was his motorcycle directed toward any particular people?
Mr. BOWERS - He came up into this area where there are some trees, and
where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this.
Mr. BALL - Were the two men there at the time?
Mr. BOWERS - I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not
say.
The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The
white shirt, yes; I think he was.
Mr. BALL - When you said there was a commotion, what do you mean by
that? What did it look like to you when you were looking at the commotion?
Mr. BOWERS - I just am unable to describe rather than it was something
out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in
this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my
eye for some reason, which I could not identify.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
No witness saw anyone with a rifle behind the fence or in the
parking lot, so another sniper must have been hiding up in the
Dal-Tex building like Groden claims, or the Donahue Theory is
the correct ballistic analysis to explain the 4th shot.
Yeah, no witness saw anyone with a rifle in the sniper's nest so you
can claim that no shots were fired from there.
Several witnesses saw a rifle in the Sniper's Nest. Three employees
on the 5th floor heard shots above their head. Do the math.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You're simply not trying hard enough. Get out a map and look at the
angles from Holland's position and then claim that what Holland thought
he saw in the fence area was actually in the SS follow-up car!
"After the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat
with a machine gun and then dropped back down in the seat. "
S M Holland 11/22/63
Sure, sure. HOW SOON after the first shot? Seconds? Minutes?
Not film or photo shows that happening on Elm Street.
claviger
2018-11-20 22:04:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
American Rifleman TV: I Have This Old Gun—Italian Carcano Rifle
http://youtu.be/6Ub3HT-lPJ0
American Rifleman Television examines the Italian Carcano in this
"I Have This Old Gun" segment.
Notice the puff of smoke? Did Oliver Stone add that?
Did it hover 6-8 ft above the shooter?
Again, no one said 6-8 feet above the shooter and no one said hover.
You misquote testimony to create straw man arguments.
Mr. HOLLAND - And another report rang out and he slumped
down in his seat, and about that time Mrs. Kennedy was looking
at these girls over here [indicating]. The girls standing---now
one of them was taking a picture, and the other one was just
standing there, and she turned around facing the President and
Governor Connally. In other words, she realized what was happening,
I guess. Now, I mean, that was apparently that---she turned back
around, and by the time she could get turned around he was hit
again along in---I'd say along in here [indicating].
Mr. STERN - How do you know that? Did you observe that?
Mr. HOLLAND - I observed it. It knocked him completely down
on the floor. Over, just slumped completely over. That second---
Mr. STERN - Did you hear a third report?
Mr. HOLLAND - I heard a third report and I counted four shots
and about the same time all this was happening, and in this
group of trees--[indicating].
Mr. STERN - Now, you are indicating trees on the north side of
Elm Street?
Mr. HOLLAND - These trees right along here [indicating].
Mr. STERN - Let's mark this Exhibit C and draw a circle around
the trees you are referring to.
Mr. HOLLAND - Right in there. (Indicating.)
There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot.
I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet
above the ground right out from under those trees.
ABOVE the GROUND, not above the rifle.
So the sniper was 6-8' tall ?
Post by Anthony Marsh
And CAME out not hovered. No one said hovered.
The puff of smoke came out 6 - 8' "above the ground." Maybe the
sniper fired high to miss the President because he saw Jackie very
close to him, so he missed on purpose.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You misrepresent WC testimony to create straw man arguments.
Because you can't argue honestly.
How did I misrepresent what S M Holland said?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
And at just about this location from where I was standing you could
see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or
something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't
as loud as the previous reports or shots.
Mr. STERN - What number would that have been in the----
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, that would--they were so close together.
Mr. STERN - The second and third or the third and fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - The third and fourth. The third and the fourth.
Mr. STERN - So, that it might have been the third or the fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - It could have been the third or fourth, but there
were definitely four reports.
Mr. STERN - You have no doubt about that?
Mr. HOLLAND - I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about
seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either.
__________________________________________________________
S M Holland heard 4 shots, one of those shots knocked the
President "completely down on the floor." A "puff of smoke
Stop rewriting testimony. We have the films and can see for ourselves
that JFK was not knocked down to the floor.
The President was hit by a bullet from behind that knocked his head
forward first before a neuromuscular reaction recoiled the President
straight back into the seat cushion, not into Jackie.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
puff of smoke floated up into the air. Holland was very sure
that he heard 4 shots, so there must have been another rifle
that fired a 4th shot.
Yes, there was.
The only scientific ballistic analysis indicates a flat trajectory
from directly behind the President.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Sitting in his office on the second floor of the railroad tower
Bowers could see behind the fence the whole time and saw
no person anywhere in that area during the motorcade.
NOT TRUE.
So Bowers was not sitting in his office behind his desk watching
the Motorcade go by? A Deputy saw him in the window.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
No witness saw anyone with a rifle behind the fence or in the
parking lot, so another sniper must have been hiding up in the
Dal-Tex building like Groden claims, or the Donahue Theory is
the correct ballistic analysis to explain the 4th shot.
Yeah, no witness saw anyone with a rifle in the sniper's nest so
you can claim that no shots were fired from there.
Witnesses did see a rifle in the 6th floor window, but keep up your
denial of witness evidence. It destroys your credibility, which was
minimal to begin with.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You're simply not trying hard enough. Get out a map and look at the
angles from Holland's position and then claim that what Holland thought
he saw in the fence area was actually in the SS follow-up car!
I have no idea what you are talking about and neither do you.
Anthony Marsh
2018-11-22 01:37:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
American Rifleman TV: I Have This Old Gun—Italian Carcano Rifle
http://youtu.be/6Ub3HT-lPJ0
American Rifleman Television examines the Italian Carcano in this
"I Have This Old Gun" segment.
Notice the puff of smoke? Did Oliver Stone add that?
Did it hover 6-8 ft above the shooter?
Again, no one said 6-8 feet above the shooter and no one said hover.
You misquote testimony to create straw man arguments.
Mr. HOLLAND - And another report rang out and he slumped
down in his seat, and about that time Mrs. Kennedy was looking
at these girls over here [indicating]. The girls standing---now
one of them was taking a picture, and the other one was just
standing there, and she turned around facing the President and
Governor Connally. In other words, she realized what was happening,
I guess. Now, I mean, that was apparently that---she turned back
around, and by the time she could get turned around he was hit
again along in---I'd say along in here [indicating].
Mr. STERN - How do you know that? Did you observe that?
Mr. HOLLAND - I observed it. It knocked him completely down
on the floor. Over, just slumped completely over. That second---
Mr. STERN - Did you hear a third report?
Mr. HOLLAND - I heard a third report and I counted four shots
and about the same time all this was happening, and in this
group of trees--[indicating].
Mr. STERN - Now, you are indicating trees on the north side of
Elm Street?
Mr. HOLLAND - These trees right along here [indicating].
Mr. STERN - Let's mark this Exhibit C and draw a circle around
the trees you are referring to.
Mr. HOLLAND - Right in there. (Indicating.)
There was a shot, a report, I don't know whether it was a shot.
I can't say that. And a puff of smoke came out about 6 or 8 feet
above the ground right out from under those trees.
ABOVE the GROUND, not above the rifle.
So the sniper was 6-8' tall ?
Post by Anthony Marsh
And CAME out not hovered. No one said hovered.
The puff of smoke came out 6 - 8' "above the ground." Maybe the
sniper fired high to miss the President because he saw Jackie very
close to him, so he missed on purpose.
I like that. It's so cute!
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
You misrepresent WC testimony to create straw man arguments.
Because you can't argue honestly.
How did I misrepresent what S M Holland said?
By saying that he didn't see anybody in the area.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
And at just about this location from where I was standing you could
see that puff of smoke, like someone had thrown a firecracker, or
something out, and that is just about the way it sounded. It wasn't
as loud as the previous reports or shots.
Mr. STERN - What number would that have been in the----
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, that would--they were so close together.
Mr. STERN - The second and third or the third and fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - The third and fourth. The third and the fourth.
Mr. STERN - So, that it might have been the third or the fourth?
Mr. HOLLAND - It could have been the third or fourth, but there
were definitely four reports.
Mr. STERN - You have no doubt about that?
Mr. HOLLAND - I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about
seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either.
__________________________________________________________
S M Holland heard 4 shots, one of those shots knocked the
President "completely down on the floor." A "puff of smoke
Stop rewriting testimony. We have the films and can see for ourselves
that JFK was not knocked down to the floor.
The President was hit by a bullet from behind that knocked his head
forward first before a neuromuscular reaction recoiled the President
straight back into the seat cushion, not into Jackie.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
puff of smoke floated up into the air. Holland was very sure
that he heard 4 shots, so there must have been another rifle
that fired a 4th shot.
Yes, there was.
The only scientific ballistic analysis indicates a flat trajectory
from directly behind the President.
You know nothing about guns. There can't be a FLAT trajectory.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Sitting in his office on the second floor of the railroad tower
Bowers could see behind the fence the whole time and saw
no person anywhere in that area during the motorcade.
NOT TRUE.
So Bowers was not sitting in his office behind his desk watching
the Motorcade go by? A Deputy saw him in the window.
I said nothing about where Bowers was. You misrepresent what I say.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
No witness saw anyone with a rifle behind the fence or in the
parking lot, so another sniper must have been hiding up in the
Dal-Tex building like Groden claims, or the Donahue Theory is
the correct ballistic analysis to explain the 4th shot.
Yeah, no witness saw anyone with a rifle in the sniper's nest so
you can claim that no shots were fired from there.
Witnesses did see a rifle in the 6th floor window, but keep up your
denial of witness evidence. It destroys your credibility, which was
minimal to begin with.
Euins said it was a pipe. Who else you got?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
You're simply not trying hard enough. Get out a map and look at the
angles from Holland's position and then claim that what Holland thought
he saw in the fence area was actually in the SS follow-up car!
I have no idea what you are talking about and neither do you.
I am trying to give you a way out.
claviger
2018-11-23 21:17:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The puff of smoke came out 6 - 8' "above the ground." Maybe the
sniper fired high to miss the President because he saw Jackie very
close to him, so he missed on purpose.
I like that. It's so cute!
LHO didn't care how close the First Lady was. He was a Communist punk.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
You misrepresent WC testimony to create straw man arguments.
Because you can't argue honestly.
How did I misrepresent what S M Holland said?
By saying that he didn't see anybody in the area.
Who did he see in the area? Can you name them?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The only scientific ballistic analysis indicates a flat trajectory
from directly behind the President.
You know nothing about guns. There can't be a FLAT trajectory.
Some trajectories have more arc than others, but in this case flat
trajectory refers to point of origin. The fact we have to explain all
this to you shows how little you know about weapons.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Sitting in his office on the second floor of the railroad tower
Bowers could see behind the fence the whole time and saw
no person anywhere in that area during the motorcade.
NOT TRUE.
So Bowers was not sitting in his office behind his desk watching
the Motorcade go by? A Deputy saw him in the window.
I said nothing about where Bowers was. You misrepresent what I say.
Who did Bowers see behind the fence?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
No witness saw anyone with a rifle behind the fence or in the
parking lot, so another sniper must have been hiding up in the
Dal-Tex building like Groden claims, or the Donahue Theory is
the correct ballistic analysis to explain the 4th shot.
Yeah, no witness saw anyone with a rifle in the sniper's nest so
you can claim that no shots were fired from there.
Witnesses did see a rifle in the 6th floor window, but keep up your
denial of witness evidence. It destroys your credibility, which was
minimal to begin with.
Euins said it was a pipe. Who else you got?
Someone was aiming a pipe at the motorcade? Maybe it was a blowgun.
The hitman was from deep in the Amazon jungle. Blowpipes don't need
a silencer.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
You're simply not trying hard enough. Get out a map and look at the
angles from Holland's position and then claim that what Holland thought
he saw in the fence area was actually in the SS follow-up car!
I have no idea what you are talking about and neither do you.
I am trying to give you a way out.
A way out of your fantasy world?
Anthony Marsh
2018-11-24 20:20:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The puff of smoke came out 6 - 8' "above the ground." Maybe the
sniper fired high to miss the President because he saw Jackie very
close to him, so he missed on purpose.
I like that. It's so cute!
LHO didn't care how close the First Lady was. He was a Communist punk.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
You misrepresent WC testimony to create straw man arguments.
Because you can't argue honestly.
How did I misrepresent what S M Holland said?
By saying that he didn't see anybody in the area.
Who did he see in the area? Can you name them?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The only scientific ballistic analysis indicates a flat trajectory
from directly behind the President.
You know nothing about guns. There can't be a FLAT trajectory.
Some trajectories have more arc than others, but in this case flat
trajectory refers to point of origin. The fact we have to explain all
this to you shows how little you know about weapons.
I uploaded the diagrams. Oswald's rifle had a very high midrange
trajectory height. I seriously dont't think anothr brand of rifle was
used. Do you have any hard evidence that another brand was used?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Sitting in his office on the second floor of the railroad tower
Bowers could see behind the fence the whole time and saw
no person anywhere in that area during the motorcade.
NOT TRUE.
So Bowers was not sitting in his office behind his desk watching
the Motorcade go by? A Deputy saw him in the window.
I said nothing about where Bowers was. You misrepresent what I say.
Who did Bowers see behind the fence?
TWO men. He did not know their names. Do YOU?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
No witness saw anyone with a rifle behind the fence or in the
parking lot, so another sniper must have been hiding up in the
Dal-Tex building like Groden claims, or the Donahue Theory is
the correct ballistic analysis to explain the 4th shot.
Yeah, no witness saw anyone with a rifle in the sniper's nest so
you can claim that no shots were fired from there.
Witnesses did see a rifle in the 6th floor window, but keep up your
denial of witness evidence. It destroys your credibility, which was
minimal to begin with.
Euins said it was a pipe. Who else you got?
Someone was aiming a pipe at the motorcade? Maybe it was a blowgun.
The hitman was from deep in the Amazon jungle. Blowpipes don't need
a silencer.
The point remains that no one could see much of the rifle from down on
the street. Tell me who else you got. You are afraid to answer questios
honestly.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
You're simply not trying hard enough. Get out a map and look at the
angles from Holland's position and then claim that what Holland thought
he saw in the fence area was actually in the SS follow-up car!
I have no idea what you are talking about and neither do you.
I am trying to give you a way out.
A way out of your fantasy world?
A way out for you to salvage YOUR theory.
claviger
2018-11-25 18:36:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The puff of smoke came out 6 - 8' "above the ground." Maybe the
sniper fired high to miss the President because he saw Jackie very
close to him, so he missed on purpose.
I like that. It's so cute!
LHO didn't care how close the First Lady was. He was a Communist punk.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
You misrepresent WC testimony to create straw man arguments.
Because you can't argue honestly.
How did I misrepresent what S M Holland said?
By saying that he didn't see anybody in the area.
Who did he see in the area? Can you name them?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The only scientific ballistic analysis indicates a flat trajectory
from directly behind the President.
You know nothing about guns. There can't be a FLAT trajectory.
Some trajectories have more arc than others, but in this case flat
trajectory refers to point of origin. The fact we have to explain all
this to you shows how little you know about weapons.
I uploaded the diagrams. Oswald's rifle had a very high midrange
trajectory height.
Cite please.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I seriously dont't think anothr brand of rifle was used. Do you have
any hard evidence that another brand was used?
You're a CT who claims the LHO rifle could not be the same weapon
used to shoot the victims inside the Limousine. What kind of rifle do
you think was used in the ambush if not LHO's rifle?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Sitting in his office on the second floor of the railroad tower
Bowers could see behind the fence the whole time and saw
no person anywhere in that area during the motorcade.
NOT TRUE.
So Bowers was not sitting in his office behind his desk watching
the Motorcade go by? A Deputy saw him in the window.
I said nothing about where Bowers was. You misrepresent what I say.
Who did Bowers see behind the fence?
TWO men. He did not know their names. Do YOU?
Cite please.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Euins said it was a pipe. Who else you got?
Someone was aiming a pipe at the motorcade? Maybe it was a blowgun.
The hitman was from deep in the Amazon jungle. Blowpipes don't need
a silencer.
The point remains that no one could see much of the rifle from down on
the street. Tell me who else you got. You are afraid to answer questios
honestly.
Several witnesses saw a rifle barrel in the 6th floor window of the TSBD
at the time loud shots were fired.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
You're simply not trying hard enough. Get out a map and look at the
angles from Holland's position and then claim that what Holland thought
he saw in the fence area was actually in the SS follow-up car!
I have no idea what you are talking about and neither do you.
I am trying to give you a way out.
A way out of your fantasy world?
A way out for you to salvage YOUR theory.
My theory is Howard Donahue and Detective Colin McLaren figured out
what really happened during the motorcade through Dealey Plaza.
Anthony Marsh
2018-11-26 15:28:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The puff of smoke came out 6 - 8' "above the ground." Maybe the
sniper fired high to miss the President because he saw Jackie very
close to him, so he missed on purpose.
I like that. It's so cute!
LHO didn't care how close the First Lady was. He was a Communist punk.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
You misrepresent WC testimony to create straw man arguments.
Because you can't argue honestly.
How did I misrepresent what S M Holland said?
By saying that he didn't see anybody in the area.
Who did he see in the area? Can you name them?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The only scientific ballistic analysis indicates a flat trajectory
from directly behind the President.
You know nothing about guns. There can't be a FLAT trajectory.
Some trajectories have more arc than others, but in this case flat
trajectory refers to point of origin. The fact we have to explain all
this to you shows how little you know about weapons.
I uploaded the diagrams. Oswald's rifle had a very high midrange
trajectory height.
Cite please.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I seriously dont't think anothr brand of rifle was used. Do you have
any hard evidence that another brand was used?
You're a CT who claims the LHO rifle could not be the same weapon
used to shoot the victims inside the Limousine. What kind of rifle do
you think was used in the ambush if not LHO's rifle?
No, silly. I never said anything like that. You just make up crap.
I think someone else used Oswald's rifle in the TSBD and it's defect
caused a miss and a jam.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Sitting in his office on the second floor of the railroad tower
Bowers could see behind the fence the whole time and saw
no person anywhere in that area during the motorcade.
NOT TRUE.
So Bowers was not sitting in his office behind his desk watching
the Motorcade go by? A Deputy saw him in the window.
I said nothing about where Bowers was. You misrepresent what I say.
Who did Bowers see behind the fence?
TWO men. He did not know their names. Do YOU?
Cite please.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Euins said it was a pipe. Who else you got?
Someone was aiming a pipe at the motorcade? Maybe it was a blowgun.
The hitman was from deep in the Amazon jungle. Blowpipes don't need
a silencer.
The point remains that no one could see much of the rifle from down on
the street. Tell me who else you got. You are afraid to answer questios
honestly.
Several witnesses saw a rifle barrel in the 6th floor window of the TSBD
at the time loud shots were fired.
No.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
You're simply not trying hard enough. Get out a map and look at the
angles from Holland's position and then claim that what Holland thought
he saw in the fence area was actually in the SS follow-up car!
I have no idea what you are talking about and neither do you.
I am trying to give you a way out.
A way out of your fantasy world?
A way out for you to salvage YOUR theory.
My theory is Howard Donahue and Detective Colin McLaren figured out
what really happened during the motorcade through Dealey Plaza.
UNHARDENED LEAD
claviger
2018-11-27 13:11:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
You're a CT who claims the LHO rifle could not be the same weapon
used to shoot the victims inside the Limousine. What kind of rifle do
you think was used in the ambush if not LHO's rifle?
No, silly. I never said anything like that. You just make up crap.
I think someone else used Oswald's rifle in the TSBD and it's defect
caused a miss and a jam.
Who is the someone else? How could this situation happen without
LHO being part of the ambush?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Several witnesses saw a rifle barrel in the 6th floor window of the TSBD
at the time loud shots were fired.
No.
Yes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
My theory is Howard Donahue and Detective Colin McLaren figured out
what really happened during the motorcade through Dealey Plaza.
UNHARDENED LEAD
CBLA cannot solve this crime because not enough fragments were tested.
Anthony Marsh
2018-11-28 14:16:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
You're a CT who claims the LHO rifle could not be the same weapon
used to shoot the victims inside the Limousine. What kind of rifle do
you think was used in the ambush if not LHO's rifle?
No, silly. I never said anything like that. You just make up crap.
I think someone else used Oswald's rifle in the TSBD and it's defect
caused a miss and a jam.
Who is the someone else? How could this situation happen without
LHO being part of the ambush?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Several witnesses saw a rifle barrel in the 6th floor window of the TSBD
at the time loud shots were fired.
No.
Yes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
My theory is Howard Donahue and Detective Colin McLaren figured out
what really happened during the motorcade through Dealey Plaza.
UNHARDENED LEAD
CBLA cannot solve this crime because not enough fragments were tested.
All you need are the 2 recovered to EXCLUDE.
claviger
2018-11-29 22:22:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
You're a CT who claims the LHO rifle could not be the same weapon
used to shoot the victims inside the Limousine. What kind of rifle do
you think was used in the ambush if not LHO's rifle?
No, silly. I never said anything like that. You just make up crap.
I think someone else used Oswald's rifle in the TSBD and it's defect
caused a miss and a jam.
Who is the someone else? How could this situation happen without
LHO being part of the ambush?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Several witnesses saw a rifle barrel in the 6th floor window of the TSBD
at the time loud shots were fired.
No.
Yes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
My theory is Howard Donahue and Detective Colin McLaren figured out
what really happened during the motorcade through Dealey Plaza.
UNHARDENED LEAD
CBLA cannot solve this crime because not enough fragments were tested.
All you need are the 2 recovered to EXCLUDE.
Not if two rifles were fired at same target and both bullets fragmented.
Those fragments might be commingled causing confusion. CBLA can
differ inside the same bullet! One more reason why the FBI backed off
CBLA/CABL analysis alone. Still helpful, just not as definitive as once
believed.
Anthony Marsh
2018-12-02 04:36:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
You're a CT who claims the LHO rifle could not be the same weapon
used to shoot the victims inside the Limousine. What kind of rifle do
you think was used in the ambush if not LHO's rifle?
No, silly. I never said anything like that. You just make up crap.
I think someone else used Oswald's rifle in the TSBD and it's defect
caused a miss and a jam.
Who is the someone else? How could this situation happen without
LHO being part of the ambush?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Several witnesses saw a rifle barrel in the 6th floor window of the TSBD
at the time loud shots were fired.
No.
Yes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
My theory is Howard Donahue and Detective Colin McLaren figured out
what really happened during the motorcade through Dealey Plaza.
UNHARDENED LEAD
CBLA cannot solve this crime because not enough fragments were tested.
All you need are the 2 recovered to EXCLUDE.
Not if two rifles were fired at same target and both bullets fragmented.
Those fragments might be commingled causing confusion. CBLA can
differ inside the same bullet! One more reason why the FBI backed off
CBLA/CABL analysis alone. Still helpful, just not as definitive as once
believed.
There were not two hits to the head.
claviger
2018-12-08 02:36:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Not if two rifles were fired at same target and both bullets fragmented.
Those fragments might be commingled causing confusion. CBLA can
differ inside the same bullet! One more reason why the FBI backed off
CBLA/CABL analysis alone. Still helpful, just not as definitive as once
believed.
There were not two hits to the head.
One possibility is LHO fired at the same time as another shot from behind
the Limousine. His shot missed and hit the street while the other shot
hit the President in the head.
Anthony Marsh
2018-12-09 18:33:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Not if two rifles were fired at same target and both bullets fragmented.
Those fragments might be commingled causing confusion. CBLA can
differ inside the same bullet! One more reason why the FBI backed off
CBLA/CABL analysis alone. Still helpful, just not as definitive as once
believed.
There were not two hits to the head.
One possibility is LHO fired at the same time as another shot from behind
the Limousine. His shot missed and hit the street while the other shot
hit the President in the head.
Nope. The acoustical evidence shows that the TSBD shooter fired a split
second after the grassy knoll shooter.
claviger
2018-12-08 16:23:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
You're a CT who claims the LHO rifle could not be the same weapon
used to shoot the victims inside the Limousine. What kind of rifle do
you think was used in the ambush if not LHO's rifle?
No, silly. I never said anything like that. You just make up crap.
I think someone else used Oswald's rifle in the TSBD and it's defect
caused a miss and a jam.
Who is the someone else? How could this situation happen without
LHO being part of the ambush?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Several witnesses saw a rifle barrel in the 6th floor window of the TSBD
at the time loud shots were fired.
No.
Yes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
My theory is Howard Donahue and Detective Colin McLaren figured out
what really happened during the motorcade through Dealey Plaza.
UNHARDENED LEAD
CBLA cannot solve this crime because not enough fragments were tested.
All you need are the 2 recovered to EXCLUDE.
Not if two rifles were fired at same target and both bullets fragmented.
Those fragments might be commingled causing confusion. CBLA can
differ inside the same bullet! One more reason why the FBI backed off
CBLA/CABL analysis alone. Still helpful, just not as definitive as once
believed.
There were not two hits to the head.
Your hero Cyril Wecht thought there was.
Anthony Marsh
2018-12-09 18:34:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
You're a CT who claims the LHO rifle could not be the same weapon
used to shoot the victims inside the Limousine. What kind of rifle do
you think was used in the ambush if not LHO's rifle?
No, silly. I never said anything like that. You just make up crap.
I think someone else used Oswald's rifle in the TSBD and it's defect
caused a miss and a jam.
Who is the someone else? How could this situation happen without
LHO being part of the ambush?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Several witnesses saw a rifle barrel in the 6th floor window of the TSBD
at the time loud shots were fired.
No.
Yes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
My theory is Howard Donahue and Detective Colin McLaren figured out
what really happened during the motorcade through Dealey Plaza.
UNHARDENED LEAD
CBLA cannot solve this crime because not enough fragments were tested.
All you need are the 2 recovered to EXCLUDE.
Not if two rifles were fired at same target and both bullets fragmented.
Those fragments might be commingled causing confusion. CBLA can
differ inside the same bullet! One more reason why the FBI backed off
CBLA/CABL analysis alone. Still helpful, just not as definitive as once
believed.
There were not two hits to the head.
Your hero Cyril Wecht thought there was.
Yes, once, when we did not have better information. But I pointed out
that the acoustical evidence shows a split second between the last two
shots.
claviger
2018-12-11 03:51:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
There were not two hits to the head.
Your hero Cyril Wecht thought there was.
Yes, once, when we did not have better information. But I pointed out
that the acoustical evidence shows a split second between the last two
shots.
More proof for the Donahue Theory. Thanks for your help.
Anthony Marsh
2018-12-12 00:24:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
There were not two hits to the head.
Your hero Cyril Wecht thought there was.
Yes, once, when we did not have better information. But I pointed out
that the acoustical evidence shows a split second between the last two
shots.
More proof for the Donahue Theory. Thanks for your help.
How? Do you claim that there was a double hit to the head at Z-313?
I didn't read that in his book? What page?
claviger
2018-12-14 06:56:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
There were not two hits to the head.
Your hero Cyril Wecht thought there was.
Yes, once, when we did not have better information. But I pointed out
that the acoustical evidence shows a split second between the last two
shots.
More proof for the Donahue Theory. Thanks for your help.
How? Do you claim that there was a double hit to the head at Z-313?
I didn't read that in his book? What page?
Cyril Wecht claimed two bullets from two opposite directions hit the
President in the head at the same instant. Donahue wondered if LHO fired
all 3 shots or just 2 shots plus the accidental shot from behind.

The other scenario is 4 shots were fired with 2 at the same time. One
missed and hit the street in front of the Limousine. If the scope was off
high/right that would explain the shot a witnesses saw bounce off the
street at the time of the last shot(s).

Did one of the empty shells on the 6th floor have more than one dent from
a firing pin?
Anthony Marsh
2018-12-16 02:27:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
There were not two hits to the head.
Your hero Cyril Wecht thought there was.
Yes, once, when we did not have better information. But I pointed out
that the acoustical evidence shows a split second between the last two
shots.
More proof for the Donahue Theory. Thanks for your help.
How? Do you claim that there was a double hit to the head at Z-313?
I didn't read that in his book? What page?
Cyril Wecht claimed two bullets from two opposite directions hit the
President in the head at the same instant. Donahue wondered if LHO fired
all 3 shots or just 2 shots plus the accidental shot from behind.
The other scenario is 4 shots were fired with 2 at the same time. One
missed and hit the street in front of the Limousine. If the scope was off
high/right that would explain the shot a witnesses saw bounce off the
street at the time of the last shot(s).
Did one of the empty shells on the 6th floor have more than one dent from
a firing pin?
Not really, sounds like an Urban Legend.

claviger
2018-12-11 16:28:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
You're a CT who claims the LHO rifle could not be the same weapon
used to shoot the victims inside the Limousine. What kind of rifle do
you think was used in the ambush if not LHO's rifle?
No, silly. I never said anything like that. You just make up crap.
I think someone else used Oswald's rifle in the TSBD and it's defect
caused a miss and a jam.
Who is the someone else? How could this situation happen without
LHO being part of the ambush?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Several witnesses saw a rifle barrel in the 6th floor window of the TSBD
at the time loud shots were fired.
No.
Yes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
My theory is Howard Donahue and Detective Colin McLaren figured out
what really happened during the motorcade through Dealey Plaza.
UNHARDENED LEAD
CBLA cannot solve this crime because not enough fragments were tested.
All you need are the 2 recovered to EXCLUDE.
Not if two rifles were fired at same target and both bullets fragmented.
Those fragments might be commingled causing confusion. CBLA can
differ inside the same bullet! One more reason why the FBI backed off
CBLA/CABL analysis alone. Still helpful, just not as definitive as once
believed.
There were not two hits to the head.
Your hero Cyril Wecht thought there was.
Yes, once, when we did not have better information. But I pointed out
that the acoustical evidence shows a split second between the last two
shots.
Details please.
Anthony Marsh
2018-12-12 00:26:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
You're a CT who claims the LHO rifle could not be the same weapon
used to shoot the victims inside the Limousine. What kind of rifle do
you think was used in the ambush if not LHO's rifle?
No, silly. I never said anything like that. You just make up crap.
I think someone else used Oswald's rifle in the TSBD and it's defect
caused a miss and a jam.
Who is the someone else? How could this situation happen without
LHO being part of the ambush?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Several witnesses saw a rifle barrel in the 6th floor window of the TSBD
at the time loud shots were fired.
No.
Yes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
My theory is Howard Donahue and Detective Colin McLaren figured out
what really happened during the motorcade through Dealey Plaza.
UNHARDENED LEAD
CBLA cannot solve this crime because not enough fragments were tested.
All you need are the 2 recovered to EXCLUDE.
Not if two rifles were fired at same target and both bullets fragmented.
Those fragments might be commingled causing confusion. CBLA can
differ inside the same bullet! One more reason why the FBI backed off
CBLA/CABL analysis alone. Still helpful, just not as definitive as once
believed.
There were not two hits to the head.
Your hero Cyril Wecht thought there was.
Yes, once, when we did not have better information. But I pointed out
that the acoustical evidence shows a split second between the last two
shots.
Details please.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/headshot.txt


Circumstantial Evidence of a Head Shot From The Grassy Knoll
(c) - Copyright 1993 by W. Anthony Marsh
Presented at The Third Decade conference June 18-20, 1993

As much as we would like to have direct evidence of a head shot from
the grassy knoll, such evidence may be missing, inconclusive, or suspect.
However, there may be a body of circumstantial evidence which would
indicate that the fatal shot which struck President Kennedy's head at
Z-313 came from the grassy knoll. This paper will not present conclusive
proof of a head shot from the grassy knoll, but it will cite examples of
circumstantial evidence which strongly suggest that the head shot came
from the grassy knoll. Some of the examples are well known, but need to be
reexamined.
The Zapruder film is the most well-known evidence of the head shot.
Various studies and interpretations of it have been made. Some studies,
such as the one done by Itek, have analyzed the movement of President
Kennedy's head around the time of the head shot. They note that President
Kennedy's head moves forward significantly from Z-312 to Z-313 and cite
that as proof of a shot hitting the head from behind. What they and
everyone else has failed to do is analyze the movements of all the
occupants of the rear compartment of the limousine, including the
Connallys. That is what I have done.
My analysis of the movements of the Kennedys and the Connallys is
not, unfortunately, based on the same reproductions of the Zapruder film
as used in other studies, due to cost considerations. I made measurements
in 1/60th of an inch increments on a photocopy set of prints from Zapruder
frames 312 to 321, as reproduced by Robert Cutler in his dividend to The
Grassy Knoll Gazette of X-79. Bob's reference line is drawn through the
center of the window knob. I made all measurements starting at the front
edge of his reference line. However, I noticed that the distance from the
reference line to the rollbar is not constant. This means that we can not
use unadjusted measurements from these prints to calculate precise
positions, but can estimate relative movements. This may be due to a
variety of factors, such as variations in printing and copying each frame,
changes in perspective, mismeasurements, or blurring. Some Zapruder frames
are too blurred to allow accurate measurements. Each measurement of Nellie
Connally's position is to the front edge of her hair. Each measurement of
John Connally's position is to the front edge of his forehead. Each
measurement of Jackie Kennedy's position is to the front edge of her
pillbox hat. Each measurement of JFK's position is to the edge of his hair
at the rear of his head. All measurements were lined up against the chrome
strip in the background for better contrast. Be sure to remember that
increasing measurements for the Connallys represent forward motion, while
increasing measurements for the Kennedys represent rearward motion. Notice
the direction and amount of movement of each person listed in Figure 1.
Between Z-312 and Z-313, all the occupants of the rear compartment of the
limo moved forward by about the same amount. Unless all four were hit by
bullets (a practical impossibility), their forward movement must be caused
by something else. The most likely cause is inertia due to the limousine
having suddenly slowed down. Dr. Luis Alvarez noted in his study [1] that
the average velocity of the limousine going down Elm Street sharply
decreased just before the head shot. Some researchers have theorized that
Secret Service agent Bill Greer jammed on the brakes or took his foot off
the accelerator. Whatever he did, the limousine very quickly changed from
an average velocity of about 12 MPH to about 8 MPH just before the head
shot. Obeying the law of inertia, passengers in the limo were thrust
forward in relation to their previous positions in the limousine. Further
evidence of this effect is the fact that the Connallys continued to move
forward while President Kennedy was being thrust backwards. I have not
done a similar analysis of previous Zapruder frames to pinpoint the start
of the occupants' forward movement, so I would urge others to do so
themselves, in order to verify my results and observations. Figure 1.





Z-frame rollbar Nellie Connally Jackie JFK
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
x/60" Z312 136 106 77 44 159
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 9 forward 5 forward 10 forward 6 forward 7
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z313 145 111 87 38 152
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 2 forward 2 forward 1 rearward 1 forward 1
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z314 147 113 88 39 151
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 4 0 forward 4 forward 6 rearward 6
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z315 151 113 92 33 157
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 3 forward 2 forward 1 rearward 1 rearward 9
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z316 148 115 93 34 166
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 2 forward 2 forward 7 forward 4
rearward 11
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z317 150 117 100 30 177
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 3 forward 5 forward 2 rearward 5
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z319 153 122 NA 28 182
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 0 forward 4 forward 3
rearward 14
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z320 153 126 130 25 196
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
difference 4 rearward 1 forward 1
----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
Z321 157 NA NA 26 195


Perhaps the most controversial evidence produced by the House Select
Committee on Assassinations would be the acoustical studies. In my
opinion, the conclusion that there was a conspiracy should not rest
entirely on the acoustical studies. But the acoustical studies are useful
for establishing the time between shots. All times are measured in seconds
after the microphone became stuck open for several minutes. BBN found 4
shots on the tape, 3 of which came from the TSBD at 137.70, 139.27, and
145.61 respectively. The grassy knoll shot was found by Weiss and
Aschkenasy to be recorded at 144.90. There was a fifth set of impulses
which was rejected by HSCA as being a false alarm at 140.32. I have looked
at the waveforms more closely to try to determine when the muzzle blast of
each shot was recorded, to a greater degree of accuracy. My best estimate
for each shot is 137.702, 139.268, 140.339, 144.895, and 145.608. You can
get a general idea of the spacing between shots by subtracting one time
from another. But there is an additional variable which must be taken into
account. BBN found that the recorder used that day was running about 5%
slow, so all times must be multiplied by about 1.05 in order to restore
the original spacing. A more accurate correction factor might be borrowed
from the work which W&A did on the grassy knoll shot. They found that a
correction factor of 1.043 produced the best fit for echo delays compared
to their predicted model. Another possible corroboration for the 1.043
correction factor is the 'bell' sound found by BBN at 152.5. Although Todd
Vaughan believes that it is only electrical interference, if we can
determine its true frequency, we can derive the most accurate correction
factor. That holds true for many other sounds on the tape, such as car
horns, tire squeals, police sirens, etc. BBN found that the 'bell' sound
had a nominal pitch of 420 Hz. This is close to the note A, which is
usually 440 Hz. If the sound is really a bell, it might have been tuned to
A=440. We do not know for sure what type of bell it was. Most people have
assumed that it is a carillon bell, but it could be a train bell, a ship's
bell, or a victory bell on a college campus. There are a couple of other
possible tunings which would produce a correction factor close to 1.043.
If the bell had been tuned using a mean-tone temperament scale, it might
have a real pitch of 438.075 Hz. Dividing that by 420 would give us a
correction factor of 1.0430357. If the bell had been tuned to an old
English standard of A=438.9, dividing that by 420 would give us a
correction factor of 1.045. Applying the correction factor to the spacing
between shots as found by BBN will give us the true spacing between muzzle
blasts picked up by McLain's cycle. If we want to then translate those
into Zapruder frames, we must multiply each interval by 18.3 frames.
Figure 2 is a rough approximation of how many frames there were between
all 5 muzzle blasts.
Matching these times to the Zapruder film is more complicated and
depends on making several real-world assumptions such as the speed of the
bullets. We can be fairly confident in ruling out the first three shots as
matching the head shot at Z-313, as such a match would place the first
shot after Z-255, when we can clearly see in Altgens 1-6 that President
Kennedy and Governor Connally have already been hit. The HSCA matched the
last shot with Z-313, because their medical evidence indicated that the
head shot came from behind. My alternative matchup tests the idea that the
head shot came from the grassy knoll.



Figure 2. origin tape time spacing *1.043 *18.3 Z-frame Z-frame TSBD
137.702 162 176
Post by claviger
1.566 1.633 29.89
TSBD 139.268 192 206
Post by claviger
1.071 1.117 20.44
TSBD 140.339 212 226
Post by claviger
4.556 4.752 86.96
Knoll 144.895 299 313
Post by claviger
0.713 0.744 13.61
TSBD 145.608 313 327

The first problem we notice with the HSCA version is that the first
shot is much too early. No other evidence supports a shot that early and
clearly President Kennedy was not hit by a bullet close to that frame. The
first shot was probably a miss. The HSCA places the hit to JFK's back at
around Z190- 192. The problem with that is that we can see President
Kennedy in the Zapruder film during the range Z-190 to Z-210. He does not
yet appear to be reacting to being hit by a bullet. There is absolutely no
indication that Governor Connally was struck by a bullet at about that
time, nor at about Z- 210 to Z-212, if we accept the fifth shot which HSCA
rejected.
My matchup would indicate a hit to JFK's back somewhere in the range
of Z-206 to Z-210, and a hit to Connally's back somewhere in the range of
Z-226 to Z-230. I believe this is more consistent with previous studies of
the Zapruder film and eyewitness testimony. If there is some way to prove
exactly when either President Kennedy or Governor Connally received their
back wounds, that would force us to choose between the HSCA version and
mine, regardless of other evidence.
Just as Altgens 1-6 helps us eliminate the first three shots as
matches with Z-313, it may also help us eliminate the last shot from the
TSBD as matching Z-313. Everyone is familiar with the fact that CE350
shows a crack on the windshield and that it is not seen in Altgens 1-6,
but is seen in Altgens 1-7. There has been some doubt about which shot
from which direction caused that crack. I believe that I am the first
person to notice something in CE350 which would resolve the doubt. If you
look carefully at CE350, you will notice that the back of the rearview
mirror is dented, but you can see that it was not dented in Altgens 1-6.
This damage was caused by a bullet fragment which struck the windshield
from the inside and ricochetted into the rearview mirror. Many people
believe this fragment came from the head shot, which would been fired from
the TSBD. I tend to feel that all the damage to the limousine, consisting
of the crack in the windshield, dented rearview mirror and dented chrome
topping, was done by the same shot. If we can find evidence which
pinpoints when that damage was done, we may be able to show that it came
several frames after Z-313. Photographic enhancement of the Zapruder film,
Muchmore film or the Bronson film might reveal that the windshield was not
cracked by Z-314. If that turns out to be true, then the last shot from
the TSBD must have missed JFK's head and hit the windshield. In turn, that
would mean that the fatal head shot came from the grassy knoll. I
seriously doubt that there is any photograph which would show exactly when
the rearview mirror was dented, but perhaps some as-yet-undiscovered
photograph would show when the chrome topping was dented. That dent could
only have been caused by a shot from behind the limo. If it was undented
at Z-314, that would prove that the head shot came from the grassy knoll.
Another factor which might influence our choosing the HSCA version
or mine would be the jiggle analysis of the Zapruder film. Even the HSCA
admitted that the jiggle analysis matched better when the grassy knoll
shot was lined up with Z-313. [2] Figure 3 compares the timing of the
impulses to the Zapruder film. The HSCA rejected the shot which is
indicated in brackets as being too fast for Oswald to have fired. The
jiggle analysis measured the amount of panning error by Zapruder. To
simply and clarify, I have put the groups into ascending order. The group
with the largest amount of blur is marked 'A', the second largest 'B',
etc. I have chosen the Hartmann figures to be representative, as his are
usually midway between Alvarez or Scott's figures. Zapruder's camera ran
at 18.3 frames per second on average.

Figure 3. Two comparisons of jiggle analysis to acoustical data
Frames Group
158-159 D
191-197 B Note that the start of a jiggle group may not
227 C coincide with the firing or impact of a bullet.
290-291 E In most cases, it takes several frames before
313-318 A1 Zapruder reacts to a stimulus.
331-332 A2

HSCA Z-# hit? origin jiggle Marsh Z-# hit? origin jiggle
137.70 161 miss TSBD D 137.702 179 miss TSBD VI#1 B
139.27 191 JFK/JBC TSBD B 139.268 209 JFK TSBD VI#1
[140.32] 140.339 230 Connally TSBD VI#10 C
144.90 297 miss knoll E 144.895 312.6 JFK knoll A1
145.61 312 JFK TSBD A1 145.608 328 Connally TSBD VI#1 A2


The jiggle analysis can not be used as absolute proof of when a shot
occurred, but it matches up better for the head shot from the grassy
knoll.
Could eyewitness testimony help resolve the question of which shot
hit what? Secret Service agent Clint Hill testified (2H144) that the last
shot he heard sounded as though it had hit some metal place. If he in fact
had heard the last shot from the TSBD hit the chrome topping, that would
not, in and of itself, prove that the TSBD shot missed JFK's head, as the
dent could have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. But it would
narrow the range during which the chrome topping was dented to between
Z-313 to Z-331 and make it more likely that the chrome topping was dented
at the same time that the windshield was cracked, rather than much earlier
as some have speculated.
On pages 126-129 of Six Seconds in Dallas, Josiah Thompson cites the
statements of several witnesses who thought that a shot came from the
grassy knoll. William Newman felt that he and his family were in the
direct path of gunfire. Given their position, it seems more likely that
the head shot came from behind the fence on the grassy knoll than from the
TSBD. Emmett Hudson, who was standing on the steps leading up to the
pergola, said that the shots sounded as if they came from behind him,
above his head and to his left. That would place the origin near the
fence. Zapruder felt that the head shot had come from behind him and
whistled past his right ear. Between these two witnesses and behind them
is the corner of the fence. W&A found a probable shockwave at 24 ms.
before the muzzle blast of the grassy knoll shot. Assuming the weapon was
aimed at the limousine, we can make a rough calculation of the velocity of
the bullet and the resultant angle of the shockwave. Although the
calculation for the decay of the shockwave is too difficult for me, a
rough calculation yielded an exit velocity of the bullet at about 1564.5
fps. This would create a shockwave of at least 45 degrees on either side
of the flightpath of the bullet. All three witnesses were within the cone
of that shockwave and would have felt it very strongly.
How can we know whether the weapon was aimed at the limousine? If it
had been aimed in some opposite direction, the open microphone would have
been outside the cone of the shockwave and thus the shockwave would not
have been recorded. Another indication of where the weapon was aimed can
be found in the statement that Sam Holland made to Josiah Thompson when he
was shown a very clear copy of the Moorman 2 Polaroid. He felt that the
viewpoint was looking right down the barrel of the gun. Given Mary
Moorman's position, the gun would have been aimed at the limousine. In
Moorman 2 we can see the head of a man peering over the fence, about 9
feet from the corner. Interestingly, this is the same spot where W&A
located the origin of the grassy knoll shot, unaware of the existence of
Moorman 2. In Moorman 2 we do not see a side view of any weapon as we
might expect if it was not aimed at the limo. Whoever this man was, he
moved from that position very quickly after the head shot. There is no one
there in later Zapruder frames or in the Stoughton photograph, taken
shortly after the head shot. The Stoughton photograph has never been
analyzed. The Warren Commission and the House Committee were unaware of
its existence. I believe that no one had ever studied it before I found it
at the JFK Library. Unfortunately, I do not have the resources to properly
analyze it and obviously the government will not, as it might reveal the
presence of a gunman on the grassy knoll. One independent researcher, Dale
Meyers, has done some computer analysis which suggests that there is a
person behind the fence, several feet to the right of the corner.
Many witnesses can be seen reacting to the shots in various films.
Some fell to the ground very quickly while others did not seem to realize
the danger. We would expect those witnesses closest to the gun on the
grassy knoll to react very quickly and dramatically to the shockwave
whizzing past them from the grassy knoll. One of the best films to observe
their reactions was taken by Marie Muchmore. In Muchmore frame 42 we can
see Hudson and his two companions on the steps leading up to the pergola.
They do not seem to be reacting to any gunshots. In frame 55 we can see
that two of the men are reacting. It seems inconceivable that these men
would not have reacted to the sound of a shockwave coming from so close
behind them. If the grassy knoll shot was the miss before the head shot,
we would expect to see these men react before the head shot. The fact that
they did not react until after the head shot would seem to indicate that
the head shot came from the grassy knoll.
Based on the circumstantial evidence we have now, I believe it is
more likely that the head shot came from the grassy knoll. Existing
evidence can and should be examined further. More information can be
gleaned from existing data by novel analyses. The release of withheld data
could provide new clues and allow us to verify certain methods, such as
the acoustical studies. I urge other researchers to look for new evidence
and perform new analyses.

------
1. W. Peter Trower, ed., "Discovering Alvarez", (Chicago: The University
Press, 1987), pp. 210-224. Also HSCA Vol. I, pp. 428-442.
2. House Select Committee on Assassinations, Report, p.80, footnote 16
claviger
2018-12-14 20:53:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Some trajectories have more arc than others, but in this case flat
trajectory refers to point of origin. The fact we have to explain all
this to you shows how little you know about weapons.
I uploaded the diagrams.
When and where?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Oswald's rifle had a very high midrange trajectory height.
Compared to what?
Post by Anthony Marsh
I seriously dont't think anothr brand of rifle was used. Do you
have any hard evidence that another brand was used?
Howard Donahue and Detective Colin McLaren found ballistic
evidence another rifle was involved in this multiple shooting
attack on the President.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Sitting in his office on the second floor of the railroad tower
Bowers could see behind the fence the whole time and saw
no person anywhere in that area during the motorcade.
NOT TRUE.
So Bowers was not sitting in his office behind his desk watching
the Motorcade go by? A Deputy saw him in the window.
I said nothing about where Bowers was. You misrepresent what I say.
Who did Bowers see behind the fence?
TWO men. He did not know their names. Do YOU?
I don't recall Bowers testimony that he saw two men behind the fence
during the shooting ambush.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Someone was aiming a pipe at the motorcade? Maybe it was a blowgun.
The hitman was from deep in the Amazon jungle. Blowpipes don't need
a silencer.
The point remains that no one could see much of the rifle from down on
the street. Tell me who else you got. You are afraid to answer questios
honestly.
So your position is there was no rifle in the 6th floor window?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
I am trying to give you a way out.
A way out of your fantasy world?
A way out for you to salvage YOUR theory.
Not my theory. It was first discovered by an experienced rifleman and gun
shop owner with many years of experience and knowledge with weapons and
ammunition who took a college level course in the science of ballistics.
One of his professors was the well known FBI expert in firearms and
ballistic science, Courtlandt Cunningham. As a student in his class
Donahue was able to ask questions pertaining to evidence collected in the
Kennedy assassination.

The other expert in ballistic science who studied this case for several
years was Senior Detective Colin McLaren who had access to experts in
firearms and terminal ballistics.

Both came to the same conclusion: two different type bullets wounded the
President when the motorcade passed through Dealey Plaza.
Loading...