Discussion:
Did a bodyguard accidentally fire a weapon?
Add Reply
claviger
2019-03-29 14:38:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
If so, why did no one Hear it or See it? Especially a Rifle.

Simple Questions and seems impossible to not grasp the
Visual and Audible Evidence.

Possible Answers:

Totally Unexpected Situation.

Confused Perception, Slow Recognition.

Crowd Noise Cheering and Clapping.

Rumbling Motorcycles with Overheated
Backfiring Engines.

Unfamiliarity with Rifle Sounds.

Totally Unexpected Situation.

Realization, Horror, and Shock.

Fear and Flight Instinct.

Seek Cover and Safe Place.

Focus on Children.

Brain Reaction: This Can't Be Happening.

Disrupted Continuity.

All these dynamic Sight and Sound factors interfere with
Focussed Observation or making cognizant Mental Notes
as a Potential Witness.

This does not mean witness observations are worthless.
Some witness did a good job on Segments and made a
significant contribution. One mistake by a witness does
not cancel out all other Perceptions.

It's up to Detectives and Researchers to piece the puzzle
together with the help of ballistic evidence.
Anthony Marsh
2019-03-30 03:24:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
If so, why did no one Hear it or See it? Especially a Rifle.
Simple Questions and seems impossible to not grasp the
Visual and Audible Evidence.
Totally Unexpected Situation.
Confused Perception, Slow Recognition.
Crowd Noise Cheering and Clapping.
Nope
Post by claviger
Rumbling Motorcycles with Overheated
Backfiring Engines.
Nope
Post by claviger
Unfamiliarity with Rifle Sounds.
Nope
Post by claviger
Totally Unexpected Situation.
You said that before.
You have sunk to repeating the same thing and claiming it is another
fact to bolster you hoax.
Post by claviger
Realization, Horror, and Shock.
Fear and Flight Instinct.
Seek Cover and Safe Place.
Focus on Children.
WTF?
Post by claviger
Brain Reaction: This Can't Be Happening.
Disrupted Continuity.
Try to get very scientific when you don't understand anything about science.
To help you out I'll add a few you forgot:

Sonic Boom from a passing airplane

Dogs barking

Big Fart

Blown out tire

loud cough
Post by claviger
All these dynamic Sight and Sound factors interfere with
Focussed Observation or making cognizant Mental Notes
as a Potential Witness.
No, that is psycho talk.
Unwilling to admit facts.
Post by claviger
This does not mean witness observations are worthless.
No one said worthless.
You have no witnesses.
Post by claviger
Some witness did a good job on Segments and made a
significant contribution. One mistake by a witness does
not cancel out all other Perceptions.
Yes, tell us which one.
Post by claviger
It's up to Detectives and Researchers to piece the puzzle
together with the help of ballistic evidence.
Balony. It's up to serious researchers to evaluate.


What the fuck are you doing talking about pieces of the puzzle?
That's MY gig.
bigdog
2019-03-30 17:38:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
If so, why did no one Hear it or See it? Especially a Rifle.
Simple Questions and seems impossible to not grasp the
Visual and Audible Evidence.
Totally Unexpected Situation.
Confused Perception, Slow Recognition.
Crowd Noise Cheering and Clapping.
Rumbling Motorcycles with Overheated
Backfiring Engines.
Unfamiliarity with Rifle Sounds.
Totally Unexpected Situation.
Realization, Horror, and Shock.
Fear and Flight Instinct.
Seek Cover and Safe Place.
Focus on Children.
Brain Reaction: This Can't Be Happening.
Disrupted Continuity.
All these dynamic Sight and Sound factors interfere with
Focussed Observation or making cognizant Mental Notes
as a Potential Witness.
This does not mean witness observations are worthless.
Some witness did a good job on Segments and made a
significant contribution. One mistake by a witness does
not cancel out all other Perceptions.
It's up to Detectives and Researchers to piece the puzzle
together with the help of ballistic evidence.
It is inconceivable that David Powers, Kenny O'Donnell, or any of the
other agents in the Queen Mary would not have recognized the sound of an
AR-15 firing just a few feet from their ears no matter what kind of
sensory overload they were experiencing. That sound would have overwhelmed
everything else.
claviger
2019-03-31 17:56:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
It is inconceivable that David Powers, Kenny O'Donnell, or any of the
other agents in the Queen Mary would not have recognized the sound
of an AR-15 firing just a few feet from their ears no matter what kind of
sensory overload they were experiencing.
I would think so too, but the first loud blast they heard was the rifle
shot+ricochet off the curb right next to the Queen Mary. A second
blast came from up high. The last blast may have sounded to them
like the first.
Post by bigdog
That sound would have overwhelmed everything else.
I would think so. Three witnesses thought a shot came from inside
the Motorcade.
bigdog
2019-04-02 02:19:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It is inconceivable that David Powers, Kenny O'Donnell, or any of the
other agents in the Queen Mary would not have recognized the sound
of an AR-15 firing just a few feet from their ears no matter what kind of
sensory overload they were experiencing.
I would think so too, but the first loud blast they heard was the rifle
shot+ricochet off the curb right next to the Queen Mary. A second
blast came from up high. The last blast may have sounded to them
like the first.
Post by bigdog
That sound would have overwhelmed everything else.
I would think so. Three witnesses thought a shot came from inside
the Motorcade.
Who were they?
claviger
2019-04-02 20:46:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It is inconceivable that David Powers, Kenny O'Donnell, or any of the
other agents in the Queen Mary would not have recognized the sound
of an AR-15 firing just a few feet from their ears no matter what kind of
sensory overload they were experiencing.
I would think so too, but the first loud blast they heard was the rifle
shot+ricochet off the curb right next to the Queen Mary. A second
blast came from up high. The last blast may have sounded to them
like the first.
Post by bigdog
That sound would have overwhelmed everything else.
I would think so. Three witnesses thought a shot came from inside
the Motorcade.
Who were they?
Jean Hill, DPD Bobby Hargis, Austin Miller
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
bigdog
2019-04-03 20:38:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It is inconceivable that David Powers, Kenny O'Donnell, or any of the
other agents in the Queen Mary would not have recognized the sound
of an AR-15 firing just a few feet from their ears no matter what kind of
sensory overload they were experiencing.
I would think so too, but the first loud blast they heard was the rifle
shot+ricochet off the curb right next to the Queen Mary. A second
blast came from up high. The last blast may have sounded to them
like the first.
Post by bigdog
That sound would have overwhelmed everything else.
I would think so. Three witnesses thought a shot came from inside
the Motorcade.
Who were they?
Jean Hill, DPD Bobby Hargis, Austin Miller
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
Jean Hill's testimony is off the rails:



Look at what Miller said:

"Mr. BELIN - Where did the shots sound like they came from?
Mr. MILLER - Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say
from right there in the car. Would be to my left, the way I was looking at
him toward that incline."

It is clear he is saying he though the shots came from the left of the
car. The phrase "from right there in the car" was meant to give
perspective. If taken literally, he is saying the shot came from the
president's car.
Mitch Todd
2019-04-04 01:27:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It is inconceivable that David Powers, Kenny O'Donnell, or any of the
other agents in the Queen Mary would not have recognized the sound
of an AR-15 firing just a few feet from their ears no matter what kind of
sensory overload they were experiencing.
I would think so too, but the first loud blast they heard was the rifle
shot+ricochet off the curb right next to the Queen Mary. A second
blast came from up high. The last blast may have sounded to them
like the first.
Post by bigdog
That sound would have overwhelmed everything else.
I would think so. Three witnesses thought a shot came from inside
the Motorcade.
Who were they?
Jean Hill, DPD Bobby Hargis, Austin Miller
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
AFAIK, Hill always claimed that the shots came from the
GK. And Hargis was another GK witness. In fact, he famously
rode his Harley up the GK to check it out.
Post by bigdog
"Mr. BELIN - Where did the shots sound like they came from?
Mr. MILLER - Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say
from right there in the car. Would be to my left, the way I was looking at
him toward that incline."
It is clear he is saying he though the shots came from the left of the
car. The phrase "from right there in the car" was meant to give
perspective. If taken literally, he is saying the shot came from the
president's car.
claviger
2019-04-04 13:17:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It is inconceivable that David Powers, Kenny O'Donnell, or any of the
other agents in the Queen Mary would not have recognized the sound
of an AR-15 firing just a few feet from their ears no matter what kind of
sensory overload they were experiencing.
I would think so too, but the first loud blast they heard was the rifle
shot+ricochet off the curb right next to the Queen Mary. A second
blast came from up high. The last blast may have sounded to them
like the first.
Post by bigdog
That sound would have overwhelmed everything else.
I would think so. Three witnesses thought a shot came from inside
the Motorcade.
Who were they?
Jean Hill, DPD Bobby Hargis, Austin Miller
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
"Mr. BELIN - Where did the shots sound like they came from?
Mr. MILLER - Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say
from right there in the car. Would be to my left, the way I was looking at
him toward that incline."
It is clear he is saying he though the shots came from the left of the
car. The phrase "from right there in the car" was meant to give
perspective. If taken literally, he is saying the shot came from the
president's car.
We can read English. "I would say from right there in the car" is clear
and unambiguous.

"Would be to my left, the way I was looking at him toward that incline."
However, SS697X Halfback would be to the left behind the Limousine.
bigdog
2019-04-05 19:37:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It is inconceivable that David Powers, Kenny O'Donnell, or any of the
other agents in the Queen Mary would not have recognized the sound
of an AR-15 firing just a few feet from their ears no matter what kind of
sensory overload they were experiencing.
I would think so too, but the first loud blast they heard was the rifle
shot+ricochet off the curb right next to the Queen Mary. A second
blast came from up high. The last blast may have sounded to them
like the first.
Post by bigdog
That sound would have overwhelmed everything else.
I would think so. Three witnesses thought a shot came from inside
the Motorcade.
Who were they?
Jean Hill, DPD Bobby Hargis, Austin Miller
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
"Mr. BELIN - Where did the shots sound like they came from?
Mr. MILLER - Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say
from right there in the car. Would be to my left, the way I was looking at
him toward that incline."
It is clear he is saying he though the shots came from the left of the
car. The phrase "from right there in the car" was meant to give
perspective. If taken literally, he is saying the shot came from the
president's car.
We can read English. "I would say from right there in the car" is clear
and unambiguous.
"Would be to my left, the way I was looking at him toward that incline."
That completely contradicts "from right there in the car". It could not be
"from right there in the car" and at the same time "Would be to my left".
Post by claviger
However, SS697X Halfback would be to the left behind the Limousine.
He was on the overpass facing the motorcade coming at him. Both vehicles
and the TSBD would be in the same general direction. To think he could
distinguish whatever slight difference in direction there was from sound
alone is absurd.
claviger
2019-04-04 00:57:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It is inconceivable that David Powers, Kenny O'Donnell, or any of the
other agents in the Queen Mary would not have recognized the sound
of an AR-15 firing just a few feet from their ears no matter what kind of
sensory overload they were experiencing.
I would think so too, but the first loud blast they heard was the rifle
shot+ricochet off the curb right next to the Queen Mary. A second
blast came from up high. The last blast may have sounded to them
like the first.
Post by bigdog
That sound would have overwhelmed everything else.
I would think so. Three witnesses thought a shot came from inside
the Motorcade.
Who were they?
Jean Hill, DPD Bobby Hargis, Austin Miller
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
Add two more:

Mrs. Jack Franzen: "she heard a noise which sounded to her as if
someone had thrown a firecracker into the President's automobile."

Jack Franzen: "He said he heard the sound of an explosion which
appeared to him to come from the President's car. . ."
Grizzlie Antagonist
2019-03-30 22:37:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
If so, why did no one Hear it or See it? Especially a Rifle.
Simple Questions and seems impossible to not grasp the
Visual and Audible Evidence.
Totally Unexpected Situation.
Confused Perception, Slow Recognition.
Crowd Noise Cheering and Clapping.
Rumbling Motorcycles with Overheated
Backfiring Engines.
Unfamiliarity with Rifle Sounds.
Totally Unexpected Situation.
Realization, Horror, and Shock.
Fear and Flight Instinct.
Seek Cover and Safe Place.
Focus on Children.
Brain Reaction: This Can't Be Happening.
Disrupted Continuity.
All these dynamic Sight and Sound factors interfere with
Focussed Observation or making cognizant Mental Notes
as a Potential Witness.
This does not mean witness observations are worthless.
Some witness did a good job on Segments and made a
significant contribution. One mistake by a witness does
not cancel out all other Perceptions.
It's up to Detectives and Researchers to piece the puzzle
together with the help of ballistic evidence.
**The first question was, could the explosive sound of an AR-15 possibly
go off within a few feet of these men and they not register it, or, at any
rate, believe it came from elsewhere? The strict answer is yes, it is
possible. Since starting its investigation, the St. Martin’s team
has heard numerous accounts of shooting experiences that corroborate that
possibility.

More than that, we’ve heard two first-person accounts from people
who themselves discharged a rifle and were unaware of it. This implies
that the possibility exists that Hickey himself might have, in that most
head-jangling moment of his life, fired his gun and never realized it.
What the mind registers in a moment of such utter extremity is
unpredictable.**

- "Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK", Bonar Menninger (St.
Martin's Press, 1992)
bigdog
2019-04-01 02:09:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Grizzlie Antagonist
Post by claviger
If so, why did no one Hear it or See it? Especially a Rifle.
Simple Questions and seems impossible to not grasp the
Visual and Audible Evidence.
Totally Unexpected Situation.
Confused Perception, Slow Recognition.
Crowd Noise Cheering and Clapping.
Rumbling Motorcycles with Overheated
Backfiring Engines.
Unfamiliarity with Rifle Sounds.
Totally Unexpected Situation.
Realization, Horror, and Shock.
Fear and Flight Instinct.
Seek Cover and Safe Place.
Focus on Children.
Brain Reaction: This Can't Be Happening.
Disrupted Continuity.
All these dynamic Sight and Sound factors interfere with
Focussed Observation or making cognizant Mental Notes
as a Potential Witness.
This does not mean witness observations are worthless.
Some witness did a good job on Segments and made a
significant contribution. One mistake by a witness does
not cancel out all other Perceptions.
It's up to Detectives and Researchers to piece the puzzle
together with the help of ballistic evidence.
**The first question was, could the explosive sound of an AR-15 possibly
go off within a few feet of these men and they not register it, or, at any
rate, believe it came from elsewhere? The strict answer is yes, it is
possible. Since starting its investigation, the St. Martin’s team
has heard numerous accounts of shooting experiences that corroborate that
possibility.
More than that, we’ve heard two first-person accounts from people
who themselves discharged a rifle and were unaware of it. This implies
that the possibility exists that Hickey himself might have, in that most
head-jangling moment of his life, fired his gun and never realized it.
What the mind registers in a moment of such utter extremity is
unpredictable.**
- "Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK", Bonar Menninger (St.
Martin's Press, 1992)
We're supposed to believe that not only was Hickey not aware the gun went
off but none of the other nine men aboard the Queen Mary were not aware of
it. None of the spectators on either side of Elm St. were aware of this.
This theory is as far fetched as any thing the conspiracy hobbyists have
dreamed up and is supported by as much evidence which is none. It is based
on Donahue's OPINION that a Carcano bullet would not fragment and deposit
a trail of fine lead particles inside JFK's head. There are no witnesses
to Hickey firing the AR-15. There is no forensic evidence that Hickey
fired the AR-15. There is nothing but Donahue's misguided analysis. The
only mystery is how this goofy theory ever gained any traction.
claviger
2019-04-02 20:44:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
We're supposed to believe that not only was Hickey not aware the gun went
off but none of the other nine men aboard the Queen Mary were not aware of
it.
Easy to understand why the Cabinet Member who ran Treasury Department and
Secret Service would not want this to be public knowledge. Very curious
reaction to the Dallas parade, the AR-15 was banned from any more parades
while denying it had anything to do with the shooting incident in Dealey
Plaza. Actions speak louder than words.
Post by bigdog
None of the spectators on either side of Elm St. were aware of this.
There is circumstantial evidence some witnesses did see and hear it.
Post by bigdog
This theory is as far fetched as any thing the conspiracy hobbyists
have dreamed up and is supported by as much evidence which is
none.
There is ballistic evidence and 5 eyewitness statements, two DPS
Officers and three bystanders.
Post by bigdog
It is based on Donahue's OPINION that a Carcano bullet would not
fragment and deposit a trail of fine lead particles inside JFK's head.
Not what he said. It is obvious you never read the book. Donahue said it
was possible either bullet could penetrate the posterior skull but with
different terminal ballistics. The AR-15 would be very likely to cause a
massive wound and "lead snowstorm" because of a deadly combination of high
velocity, high thermal load, and thinner jacket. The Carcano was a
heavier, slower projectile with a thick metal jacket.
Post by bigdog
There are no witnesses to Hickey firing the AR-15.
Actually there were some witnesses who said that to a young reporter
for a Dallas Newspaper. He didn't take down takes and phone number
because he didn't believe them. You would have done the same thing.
Post by bigdog
There is no forensic evidence that Hickey fired the AR-15.
What evidence are you referring to?
Post by bigdog
There is nothing but Donahue's misguided analysis. The only mystery
is how this goofy theory ever gained any traction.
The Baltimore Sun was so impressed with his analysis they ran a Sunday
Special with illustrations. By contrast The HSCA did not want to hear his
theory and froze him out. If it was so debunkable why not take a look at
it, then tear it to shreds?
bigdog
2019-04-03 20:37:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
We're supposed to believe that not only was Hickey not aware the gun went
off but none of the other nine men aboard the Queen Mary were not aware of
it.
Easy to understand why the Cabinet Member who ran Treasury Department and
Secret Service would not want this to be public knowledge. Very curious
reaction to the Dallas parade, the AR-15 was banned from any more parades
while denying it had anything to do with the shooting incident in Dealey
Plaza. Actions speak louder than words.
Cite?
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
None of the spectators on either side of Elm St. were aware of this.
There is circumstantial evidence some witnesses did see and hear it.
Cite?
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
This theory is as far fetched as any thing the conspiracy hobbyists
have dreamed up and is supported by as much evidence which is
none.
There is ballistic evidence
Such as?
Post by claviger
and 5 eyewitness statements, two DPS
Officers and three bystanders.
Cite?
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It is based on Donahue's OPINION that a Carcano bullet would not
fragment and deposit a trail of fine lead particles inside JFK's head.
Not what he said. It is obvious you never read the book.
Nobody has ever given me any reason to.
Post by claviger
Donahue said it
was possible either bullet could penetrate the posterior skull but with
different terminal ballistics. The AR-15 would be very likely to cause a
massive wound and "lead snowstorm" because of a deadly combination of high
velocity, high thermal load, and thinner jacket. The Carcano was a
heavier, slower projectile with a thick metal jacket.
That thick jacket didn't stop the Carcano bullet from fragmenting badly.
It created a pressure cavity within JFK's skull and because that skull
ceased to be a solid object with all the fracture lines, it easily blew
open a massive defect in the skull.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
There are no witnesses to Hickey firing the AR-15.
Actually there were some witnesses who said that to a young reporter
for a Dallas Newspaper. He didn't take down takes and phone number
because he didn't believe them. You would have done the same thing.
So you really have no witnesses.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
There is no forensic evidence that Hickey fired the AR-15.
What evidence are you referring to?
The kind of evidence we have for the Carcano. A recovered bullet, bullet
fragment, or spent shell that could be positively matched to the SS AR-15.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
There is nothing but Donahue's misguided analysis. The only mystery
is how this goofy theory ever gained any traction.
The Baltimore Sun was so impressed with his analysis they ran a Sunday
Special with illustrations.
So you think if a newspaper prints it then it must be true?

? By contrast The HSCA did not want to hear his
Post by claviger
theory and froze him out.
Good for them.
Post by claviger
If it was so debunkable why not take a look at
it, then tear it to shreds?
It was silly on the face of it. How many snipe hunts do you think they
should have gone on?
claviger
2019-04-04 18:19:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
We're supposed to believe that not only was Hickey not aware the gun went
off but none of the other nine men aboard the Queen Mary were not aware
of it.
Easy to understand why the Cabinet Member who ran Treasury Department
and Secret Service would not want this to be public knowledge. Very curious
reaction to the Dallas parade, the AR-15 was banned from any more parades
while denying it had anything to do with the shooting incident in Dealey Plaza.
Actions speak louder than words.
Cite?
On June 18, 1964, Rowley provided testimony to the
Warren Commission investigating the assassination
of John F. Kennedy.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. ROWLEY beginning at 5H449...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowley1.htm

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am thinking of this. As you go
along in the motorcade, you have men who are scanning
the buildings along the way, don't you?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And they have submachineguns in one
of the cars.

Mr. ROWLEY. No; for security reasons, I would like to--
we don't have machine-guns now, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I just thought I heard that from the record
here, that they had some kind of guns.

Mr. ROWLEY. They had a weapon, a new weapon; yes, sir.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Well, whatever it is.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowley1.htm
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
None of the spectators on either side of Elm St. were aware of this.
There is circumstantial evidence some witnesses did see and hear it.
Cite?
In a Magazine Article a young reporter for one of the Dallas Newspapers
was notified by telephone shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. Because of
the traffic he ran all the way to Dealey Plaza. He saw some people and
asked what happened. The first 3 people in the crowd he talked to said "A
bodyguard shot the President".

The young reporter was stunned and bewildered so went on to other
witnesses and asked what happened. Those witnesses said gunshots were
fired from a window of the TSBD building. That young reporter made a
historic mistake not taking down the name and phone number of those first
3 witnesses.

He wrote a long two page article that appeared in a magazine a week after
the Assassination. The article was very well written with a lot of
information he worked very hard to collect, but unfortunately he made a
professional mistake and dismissed those 3 eyewitnesses. He could have
been famous but now lives in obscurity, unless he reads this story and
retells his account on this Newsgroup.

For years I've been trying to find that magazine but no luck at all. I
don't remember which one, but I do remember the only photo was a small B&W
picture of the TSBD at the beginning of the article. I remember the young
reporter was a "stringer" for other publications. He mentioned one of his
clients was a newspaper in Houston Tx as I remember, but I've never been
able to track it down.

What I do clearly remember is my own reaction, those first 3 witnesses
must be nuts! Why would any bodyguard decide to assassinate The President
of the United States in front of all those witnesses in the middle of a
parade?!!! I was a teenager in high school and It never occurred to me it
could've been an accident.

If anyone ever discovers that magazine I would appreciate hearing about
it.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
This theory is as far fetched as any thing the conspiracy hobbyists
have dreamed up and is supported by as much evidence which is
none.
There is ballistic evidence.
Such as?
What the book "Mortal Error" is all about. Bonar Menninger takes the
reader on a ballistic journey through all the evidence step-by-step. It's
a fascinating story of meticulous forensic analysis.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
and 5 eyewitness statements, two DPS
Officers and three bystanders.
Two DPD Officers and 3 bystanders. DPD Ellis and DPD Hargis. Ellis saw the
first shot miss hit the curb and Hargis thought a shot took place next to
the Limousine. Actually 5 witnesses heard a shot next to the Limousine:
Hill, Hargis, Miller, Franzen, & Franzen. Max Holland saw it happen.
Post by bigdog
Cite?
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It is based on Donahue's OPINION that a Carcano bullet would not
fragment and deposit a trail of fine lead particles inside JFK's head.
Not what he said. It is obvious you never read the book.
Nobody has ever given me any reason to.
You prefer Shadow Boxing instead of old fashioned Research. I think you
are pulling a Tom Sawyer on me to paint your fence. Why don't you be a
Good Sport and read the book, then we can have a conversation about it.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Donahue said it
was possible either bullet could penetrate the posterior skull but with
different terminal ballistics. The AR-15 would be very likely to cause a
massive wound and "lead snowstorm" because of a deadly combination of high
velocity, high thermal load, and thinner jacket. The Carcano was a
heavier, slower projectile with a thick metal jacket.
That thick jacket didn't stop the Carcano bullet from fragmenting badly.
Against a cement curb, yes. The term "fragmenting badly" is not identical
to nor a synonym for a "lead snowstorm". The reason why is explained in
the book Mortal Error".
Post by bigdog
It created a pressure cavity within JFK's skull and because that skull
ceased to be a solid object with all the fracture lines, it easily blew
open a massive defect in the skull.
Yes.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
There are no witnesses to Hickey firing the AR-15.
Actually there were some witnesses who said that to a young reporter
for a Dallas Newspaper. He didn't take down takes and phone number
because he didn't believe them. You would have done the same thing.
So you really have no witnesses.
We have 3 unknown eyewitnesses because a reporter failed to take notes.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
There is no forensic evidence that Hickey fired the AR-15.
What evidence are you referring to?
The kind of evidence we have for the Carcano. A recovered bullet, bullet
fragment, or spent shell that could be positively matched to the SS AR-15.
Only a couple of fragments were tested. Surprisingly few.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
There is nothing but Donahue's misguided analysis. The only mystery
is how this goofy theory ever gained any traction.
The Baltimore Sun was so impressed with his analysis they ran a Sunday
Special with illustrations.
So you think if a newspaper prints it then it must be true?
Nope, but the Sunday paper was a major presentation indicating
they thought Donahue did a professional job of ballistic analysis.
Post by bigdog
? By contrast The HSCA did not want to hear his
Post by claviger
theory and froze him out.
Good for them.
History will prove Bad for them. Photo analysis already has.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
If it was so debunkable why not take a look at
it, then tear it to shreds?
It was silly on the face of it. How many snipe hunts do you think
they should have gone on?
You are going to eat those words.
bigdog
2019-04-05 19:40:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
We're supposed to believe that not only was Hickey not aware the gun went
off but none of the other nine men aboard the Queen Mary were not aware
of it.
Easy to understand why the Cabinet Member who ran Treasury Department
and Secret Service would not want this to be public knowledge. Very curious
reaction to the Dallas parade, the AR-15 was banned from any more parades
while denying it had anything to do with the shooting incident in Dealey Plaza.
Actions speak louder than words.
Cite?
On June 18, 1964, Rowley provided testimony to the
Warren Commission investigating the assassination
of John F. Kennedy.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. ROWLEY beginning at 5H449...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowley1.htm
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am thinking of this. As you go
along in the motorcade, you have men who are scanning
the buildings along the way, don't you?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And they have submachineguns in one
of the cars.
Mr. ROWLEY. No; for security reasons, I would like to--
we don't have machine-guns now, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I just thought I heard that from the record
here, that they had some kind of guns.
Mr. ROWLEY. They had a weapon, a new weapon; yes, sir.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Well, whatever it is.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowley1.htm
An AR-15 is not a submachine gun. A submachine gun is an automatic carbine
that fires pistol cartridges. The AR-15 fires a rifle cartridge and is a
select fire weapon. The term submachine gun was coined by John Thompson,
inventor of the Thompson submachine gun, aka the Tommy Gun. If fired the
same .45 ACP round as the Colt 1911 which was the standard US Army sidearm
for over 50 years.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
None of the spectators on either side of Elm St. were aware of this.
There is circumstantial evidence some witnesses did see and hear it.
Cite?
In a Magazine Article a young reporter for one of the Dallas Newspapers
was notified by telephone shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. Because of
the traffic he ran all the way to Dealey Plaza. He saw some people and
asked what happened. The first 3 people in the crowd he talked to said "A
bodyguard shot the President".
So you can't cite a specific witness. This is nothing more than hearsay.
You don't even cite the reporter's name which makes this even less
credible.
Post by claviger
The young reporter was stunned and bewildered so went on to other
witnesses and asked what happened. Those witnesses said gunshots were
fired from a window of the TSBD building. That young reporter made a
historic mistake not taking down the name and phone number of those first
3 witnesses.
And yet you find this story credible.
Post by claviger
He wrote a long two page article that appeared in a magazine a week after
the Assassination. The article was very well written with a lot of
information he worked very hard to collect, but unfortunately he made a
professional mistake and dismissed those 3 eyewitnesses. He could have
been famous but now lives in obscurity, unless he reads this story and
retells his account on this Newsgroup.
So you don't even know the reporter's name.
Post by claviger
For years I've been trying to find that magazine but no luck at all. I
don't remember which one, but I do remember the only photo was a small B&W
picture of the TSBD at the beginning of the article. I remember the young
reporter was a "stringer" for other publications. He mentioned one of his
clients was a newspaper in Houston Tx as I remember, but I've never been
able to track it down.
This sounds more like factoid than fact. A rumor that has been repeated
and assumed to be true even though there is no verification for that.
Post by claviger
What I do clearly remember is my own reaction, those first 3 witnesses
must be nuts! Why would any bodyguard decide to assassinate The President
of the United States in front of all those witnesses in the middle of a
parade?!!! I was a teenager in high school and It never occurred to me it
could've been an accident.
That was good thinking back then.
Post by claviger
If anyone ever discovers that magazine I would appreciate hearing about
it.
I'm betting this magazine article doesn't exist.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
This theory is as far fetched as any thing the conspiracy hobbyists
have dreamed up and is supported by as much evidence which is
none.
There is ballistic evidence.
Such as?
What the book "Mortal Error" is all about. Bonar Menninger takes the
reader on a ballistic journey through all the evidence step-by-step. It's
a fascinating story of meticulous forensic analysis.
You're a little sketchy on specifics.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
and 5 eyewitness statements, two DPS
Officers and three bystanders.
Two DPD Officers and 3 bystanders. DPD Ellis and DPD Hargis. Ellis saw the
first shot miss hit the curb and Hargis thought a shot took place next to
Hill, Hargis, Miller, Franzen, & Franzen. Max Holland saw it happen.
Nobody is disputing the first shot hit the curb. The point of contention
is your claim that the third shot was fired by Hickey and killed JFK.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Cite?
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It is based on Donahue's OPINION that a Carcano bullet would not
fragment and deposit a trail of fine lead particles inside JFK's head.
Not what he said. It is obvious you never read the book.
Nobody has ever given me any reason to.
You prefer Shadow Boxing instead of old fashioned Research.
If feel no responsibility to search for evidence that supports your
beliefs. That's your job.
Post by claviger
I think you
are pulling a Tom Sawyer on me to paint your fence. Why don't you be a
Good Sport and read the book, then we can have a conversation about it.
This is your theory, therefore it is your fence. I'm not reading the book
because it is a silly theory on the face of it. If you believe it, it is
up to you to make the case for it. I have not been impressed by your
efforts so far.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Donahue said it
was possible either bullet could penetrate the posterior skull but with
different terminal ballistics. The AR-15 would be very likely to cause a
massive wound and "lead snowstorm" because of a deadly combination of high
velocity, high thermal load, and thinner jacket. The Carcano was a
heavier, slower projectile with a thick metal jacket.
That thick jacket didn't stop the Carcano bullet from fragmenting badly.
Against a cement curb, yes. The term "fragmenting badly" is not identical
to nor a synonym for a "lead snowstorm". The reason why is explained in
the book Mortal Error".
You are assuming the fragmented bullet found in the limo was the first
missed shot even though there is no evidence that supports that. You are
assuming a bullet that hit outside the limo ended up inside the limo and
you ignore the Haag experiment which showed a Carcano bullet completely
disintegrating after striking pavement.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It created a pressure cavity within JFK's skull and because that skull
ceased to be a solid object with all the fracture lines, it easily blew
open a massive defect in the skull.
Yes.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
There are no witnesses to Hickey firing the AR-15.
Actually there were some witnesses who said that to a young reporter
for a Dallas Newspaper. He didn't take down takes and phone number
because he didn't believe them. You would have done the same thing.
So you really have no witnesses.
We have 3 unknown eyewitnesses because a reporter failed to take notes.
We have an unknown reporter's word for that.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
There is no forensic evidence that Hickey fired the AR-15.
What evidence are you referring to?
The kind of evidence we have for the Carcano. A recovered bullet, bullet
fragment, or spent shell that could be positively matched to the SS AR-15.
Only a couple of fragments were tested. Surprisingly few.
Not, it was determined that only two of the fragments contained sufficient
markings to allow them to be positively matched to a specific firearm.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
There is nothing but Donahue's misguided analysis. The only mystery
is how this goofy theory ever gained any traction.
The Baltimore Sun was so impressed with his analysis they ran a Sunday
Special with illustrations.
So you think if a newspaper prints it then it must be true?
Nope, but the Sunday paper was a major presentation indicating
they thought Donahue did a professional job of ballistic analysis.
So we have their opinion. I'm not impressed.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
? By contrast The HSCA did not want to hear his
Post by claviger
theory and froze him out.
Good for them.
History will prove Bad for them. Photo analysis already has.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
If it was so debunkable why not take a look at
it, then tear it to shreds?
It was silly on the face of it. How many snipe hunts do you think
they should have gone on?
You are going to eat those words.
I'm not the least bit worried about that.
donald willis
2019-04-06 16:38:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
We're supposed to believe that not only was Hickey not aware the gun went
off but none of the other nine men aboard the Queen Mary were not aware
of it.
Easy to understand why the Cabinet Member who ran Treasury Department
and Secret Service would not want this to be public knowledge. Very curious
reaction to the Dallas parade, the AR-15 was banned from any more parades
while denying it had anything to do with the shooting incident in Dealey Plaza.
Actions speak louder than words.
Cite?
On June 18, 1964, Rowley provided testimony to the
Warren Commission investigating the assassination
of John F. Kennedy.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. ROWLEY beginning at 5H449...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowley1.htm
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am thinking of this. As you go
along in the motorcade, you have men who are scanning
the buildings along the way, don't you?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And they have submachineguns in one
of the cars.
Mr. ROWLEY. No; for security reasons, I would like to--
we don't have machine-guns now, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I just thought I heard that from the record
here, that they had some kind of guns.
Mr. ROWLEY. They had a weapon, a new weapon; yes, sir.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Well, whatever it is.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowley1.htm
An AR-15 is not a submachine gun. A submachine gun is an automatic carbine
that fires pistol cartridges. The AR-15 fires a rifle cartridge and is a
select fire weapon. The term submachine gun was coined by John Thompson,
inventor of the Thompson submachine gun, aka the Tommy Gun. If fired the
same .45 ACP round as the Colt 1911 which was the standard US Army sidearm
for over 50 years.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
None of the spectators on either side of Elm St. were aware of this.
There is circumstantial evidence some witnesses did see and hear it.
Cite?
In a Magazine Article a young reporter for one of the Dallas Newspapers
was notified by telephone shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. Because of
the traffic he ran all the way to Dealey Plaza. He saw some people and
asked what happened. The first 3 people in the crowd he talked to said "A
bodyguard shot the President".
So you can't cite a specific witness. This is nothing more than hearsay.
You don't even cite the reporter's name which makes this even less
credible.
Post by claviger
The young reporter was stunned and bewildered so went on to other
witnesses and asked what happened. Those witnesses said gunshots were
fired from a window of the TSBD building. That young reporter made a
historic mistake not taking down the name and phone number of those first
3 witnesses.
And yet you find this story credible.
Post by claviger
He wrote a long two page article that appeared in a magazine a week after
the Assassination. The article was very well written with a lot of
information he worked very hard to collect, but unfortunately he made a
professional mistake and dismissed those 3 eyewitnesses. He could have
been famous but now lives in obscurity, unless he reads this story and
retells his account on this Newsgroup.
So you don't even know the reporter's name.
Post by claviger
For years I've been trying to find that magazine but no luck at all. I
don't remember which one, but I do remember the only photo was a small B&W
picture of the TSBD at the beginning of the article. I remember the young
reporter was a "stringer" for other publications. He mentioned one of his
clients was a newspaper in Houston Tx as I remember, but I've never been
able to track it down.
This sounds more like factoid than fact. A rumor that has been repeated
and assumed to be true even though there is no verification for that.
Post by claviger
What I do clearly remember is my own reaction, those first 3 witnesses
must be nuts! Why would any bodyguard decide to assassinate The President
of the United States in front of all those witnesses in the middle of a
parade?!!! I was a teenager in high school and It never occurred to me it
could've been an accident.
That was good thinking back then.
Post by claviger
If anyone ever discovers that magazine I would appreciate hearing about
it.
I'm betting this magazine article doesn't exist.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
This theory is as far fetched as any thing the conspiracy hobbyists
have dreamed up and is supported by as much evidence which is
none.
There is ballistic evidence.
Such as?
What the book "Mortal Error" is all about. Bonar Menninger takes the
reader on a ballistic journey through all the evidence step-by-step. It's
a fascinating story of meticulous forensic analysis.
You're a little sketchy on specifics.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
and 5 eyewitness statements, two DPS
Officers and three bystanders.
Two DPD Officers and 3 bystanders. DPD Ellis and DPD Hargis. Ellis saw the
first shot miss hit the curb and Hargis thought a shot took place next to
Hill, Hargis, Miller, Franzen, & Franzen. Max Holland saw it happen.
Nobody is disputing the first shot hit the curb. The point of contention
is your claim that the third shot was fired by Hickey and killed JFK.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Cite?
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It is based on Donahue's OPINION that a Carcano bullet would not
fragment and deposit a trail of fine lead particles inside JFK's head.
Not what he said. It is obvious you never read the book.
Nobody has ever given me any reason to.
You prefer Shadow Boxing instead of old fashioned Research.
If feel no responsibility to search for evidence that supports your
beliefs. That's your job.
Post by claviger
I think you
are pulling a Tom Sawyer on me to paint your fence. Why don't you be a
Good Sport and read the book, then we can have a conversation about it.
This is your theory, therefore it is your fence. I'm not reading the book
because it is a silly theory on the face of it. If you believe it, it is
up to you to make the case for it. I have not been impressed by your
efforts so far.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Donahue said it
was possible either bullet could penetrate the posterior skull but with
different terminal ballistics. The AR-15 would be very likely to cause a
massive wound and "lead snowstorm" because of a deadly combination of high
velocity, high thermal load, and thinner jacket. The Carcano was a
heavier, slower projectile with a thick metal jacket.
That thick jacket didn't stop the Carcano bullet from fragmenting badly.
Against a cement curb, yes. The term "fragmenting badly" is not identical
to nor a synonym for a "lead snowstorm". The reason why is explained in
the book Mortal Error".
You are assuming the fragmented bullet found in the limo was the first
missed shot even though there is no evidence that supports that. You are
assuming a bullet that hit outside the limo ended up inside the limo and
you ignore the Haag experiment which showed a Carcano bullet completely
disintegrating after striking pavement.
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....

dcw
bigdog
2019-04-07 00:29:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
We're supposed to believe that not only was Hickey not aware the gun went
off but none of the other nine men aboard the Queen Mary were not aware
of it.
Easy to understand why the Cabinet Member who ran Treasury Department
and Secret Service would not want this to be public knowledge. Very curious
reaction to the Dallas parade, the AR-15 was banned from any more parades
while denying it had anything to do with the shooting incident in Dealey Plaza.
Actions speak louder than words.
Cite?
On June 18, 1964, Rowley provided testimony to the
Warren Commission investigating the assassination
of John F. Kennedy.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. ROWLEY beginning at 5H449...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowley1.htm
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am thinking of this. As you go
along in the motorcade, you have men who are scanning
the buildings along the way, don't you?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And they have submachineguns in one
of the cars.
Mr. ROWLEY. No; for security reasons, I would like to--
we don't have machine-guns now, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I just thought I heard that from the record
here, that they had some kind of guns.
Mr. ROWLEY. They had a weapon, a new weapon; yes, sir.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Well, whatever it is.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowley1.htm
An AR-15 is not a submachine gun. A submachine gun is an automatic carbine
that fires pistol cartridges. The AR-15 fires a rifle cartridge and is a
select fire weapon. The term submachine gun was coined by John Thompson,
inventor of the Thompson submachine gun, aka the Tommy Gun. If fired the
same .45 ACP round as the Colt 1911 which was the standard US Army sidearm
for over 50 years.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
None of the spectators on either side of Elm St. were aware of this.
There is circumstantial evidence some witnesses did see and hear it.
Cite?
In a Magazine Article a young reporter for one of the Dallas Newspapers
was notified by telephone shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. Because of
the traffic he ran all the way to Dealey Plaza. He saw some people and
asked what happened. The first 3 people in the crowd he talked to said "A
bodyguard shot the President".
So you can't cite a specific witness. This is nothing more than hearsay.
You don't even cite the reporter's name which makes this even less
credible.
Post by claviger
The young reporter was stunned and bewildered so went on to other
witnesses and asked what happened. Those witnesses said gunshots were
fired from a window of the TSBD building. That young reporter made a
historic mistake not taking down the name and phone number of those first
3 witnesses.
And yet you find this story credible.
Post by claviger
He wrote a long two page article that appeared in a magazine a week after
the Assassination. The article was very well written with a lot of
information he worked very hard to collect, but unfortunately he made a
professional mistake and dismissed those 3 eyewitnesses. He could have
been famous but now lives in obscurity, unless he reads this story and
retells his account on this Newsgroup.
So you don't even know the reporter's name.
Post by claviger
For years I've been trying to find that magazine but no luck at all. I
don't remember which one, but I do remember the only photo was a small B&W
picture of the TSBD at the beginning of the article. I remember the young
reporter was a "stringer" for other publications. He mentioned one of his
clients was a newspaper in Houston Tx as I remember, but I've never been
able to track it down.
This sounds more like factoid than fact. A rumor that has been repeated
and assumed to be true even though there is no verification for that.
Post by claviger
What I do clearly remember is my own reaction, those first 3 witnesses
must be nuts! Why would any bodyguard decide to assassinate The President
of the United States in front of all those witnesses in the middle of a
parade?!!! I was a teenager in high school and It never occurred to me it
could've been an accident.
That was good thinking back then.
Post by claviger
If anyone ever discovers that magazine I would appreciate hearing about
it.
I'm betting this magazine article doesn't exist.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
This theory is as far fetched as any thing the conspiracy hobbyists
have dreamed up and is supported by as much evidence which is
none.
There is ballistic evidence.
Such as?
What the book "Mortal Error" is all about. Bonar Menninger takes the
reader on a ballistic journey through all the evidence step-by-step. It's
a fascinating story of meticulous forensic analysis.
You're a little sketchy on specifics.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
and 5 eyewitness statements, two DPS
Officers and three bystanders.
Two DPD Officers and 3 bystanders. DPD Ellis and DPD Hargis. Ellis saw the
first shot miss hit the curb and Hargis thought a shot took place next to
Hill, Hargis, Miller, Franzen, & Franzen. Max Holland saw it happen.
Nobody is disputing the first shot hit the curb. The point of contention
is your claim that the third shot was fired by Hickey and killed JFK.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Cite?
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It is based on Donahue's OPINION that a Carcano bullet would not
fragment and deposit a trail of fine lead particles inside JFK's head.
Not what he said. It is obvious you never read the book.
Nobody has ever given me any reason to.
You prefer Shadow Boxing instead of old fashioned Research.
If feel no responsibility to search for evidence that supports your
beliefs. That's your job.
Post by claviger
I think you
are pulling a Tom Sawyer on me to paint your fence. Why don't you be a
Good Sport and read the book, then we can have a conversation about it.
This is your theory, therefore it is your fence. I'm not reading the book
because it is a silly theory on the face of it. If you believe it, it is
up to you to make the case for it. I have not been impressed by your
efforts so far.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Donahue said it
was possible either bullet could penetrate the posterior skull but with
different terminal ballistics. The AR-15 would be very likely to cause a
massive wound and "lead snowstorm" because of a deadly combination of high
velocity, high thermal load, and thinner jacket. The Carcano was a
heavier, slower projectile with a thick metal jacket.
That thick jacket didn't stop the Carcano bullet from fragmenting badly.
Against a cement curb, yes. The term "fragmenting badly" is not identical
to nor a synonym for a "lead snowstorm". The reason why is explained in
the book Mortal Error".
You are assuming the fragmented bullet found in the limo was the first
missed shot even though there is no evidence that supports that. You are
assuming a bullet that hit outside the limo ended up inside the limo and
you ignore the Haag experiment which showed a Carcano bullet completely
disintegrating after striking pavement.
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
claviger
2019-04-09 19:20:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
r***@gmail.com
2019-04-10 19:39:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
bigdog
2019-04-11 00:25:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb. The limo was in the
center lane so for the bullet to strike the curb, Oswald would have to
have missed his target by about 15 feet to the right. Then all those
fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees to the right in order to
end up on the floor of the limo. I'm not sure if these are the fragments
that are supposed to have hit the inside of the windshield and made other
strikes inside the car. As with everything else about Donahue's theory,
this makes no sense.
claviger
2019-04-11 14:41:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb. The limo was in the
center lane so for the bullet to strike the curb, Oswald would have to
have missed his target by about 15 feet to the right. Then all those
fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees to the right in order to
end up on the floor of the limo. I'm not sure if these are the fragments
that are supposed to have hit the inside of the windshield and made other
strikes inside the car. As with everything else about Donahue's theory,
this makes no sense.
The completely off target first shot miss hit a curb on the right side of
the street, the North curb. MU Sgt. Stavis Ellis saw it strike the curb.
Those fragments ricocheted to the left toward the Motorcade. As a result
there could be large and small fragments inside the Limousine. The
President reacted in pain exclaiming, "My God, I'm hit!"
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-13 03:22:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb. The limo was in the
center lane so for the bullet to strike the curb, Oswald would have to
have missed his target by about 15 feet to the right. Then all those
fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees to the right in order to
end up on the floor of the limo. I'm not sure if these are the fragments
that are supposed to have hit the inside of the windshield and made other
strikes inside the car. As with everything else about Donahue's theory,
this makes no sense.
The completely off target first shot miss hit a curb on the right side of
the street, the North curb. MU Sgt. Stavis Ellis saw it strike the curb.
Those fragments ricocheted to the left toward the Motorcade. As a result
there could be large and small fragments inside the Limousine. The
President reacted in pain exclaiming, "My God, I'm hit!"
JFK never said anything. What you been smokin down there? Keep it legal.
bigdog
2019-04-13 03:38:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb. The limo was in the
center lane so for the bullet to strike the curb, Oswald would have to
have missed his target by about 15 feet to the right. Then all those
fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees to the right in order to
end up on the floor of the limo. I'm not sure if these are the fragments
that are supposed to have hit the inside of the windshield and made other
strikes inside the car. As with everything else about Donahue's theory,
this makes no sense.
The completely off target first shot miss hit a curb on the right side of
the street, the North curb. MU Sgt. Stavis Ellis saw it strike the curb.
Those fragments ricocheted to the left toward the Motorcade. As a result
there could be large and small fragments inside the Limousine. The
President reacted in pain exclaiming, "My God, I'm hit!"
As the Z-film clearly shows, right up until the time the single bullet
struck, JFK was calmly waving to the crowd to his right. He had just
finished his wave and was starting to lower his hand when he disappeared
behind the sign. One second later he reemerged still lowering his hand.
One frame after that, he reacted to the single bullet strike. Once again
the Donahue theory is at odds with the evidence.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-16 16:02:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb. The limo was in the
center lane so for the bullet to strike the curb, Oswald would have to
have missed his target by about 15 feet to the right. Then all those
fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees to the right in order to
end up on the floor of the limo. I'm not sure if these are the fragments
that are supposed to have hit the inside of the windshield and made other
strikes inside the car. As with everything else about Donahue's theory,
this makes no sense.
The completely off target first shot miss hit a curb on the right side of
the street, the North curb. MU Sgt. Stavis Ellis saw it strike the curb.
Those fragments ricocheted to the left toward the Motorcade. As a result
there could be large and small fragments inside the Limousine. The
President reacted in pain exclaiming, "My God, I'm hit!"
As the Z-film clearly shows, right up until the time the single bullet
struck, JFK was calmly waving to the crowd to his right. He had just
finished his wave and was starting to lower his hand when he disappeared
All you do is BS. SHOW me the last frame where JFK is waving.
Post by bigdog
behind the sign. One second later he reemerged still lowering his hand.
One frame after that, he reacted to the single bullet strike. Once again
the Donahue theory is at odds with the evidence.
What does the Donahue theory have to do with the SBT?
bigdog
2019-04-18 01:42:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb. The limo was in the
center lane so for the bullet to strike the curb, Oswald would have to
have missed his target by about 15 feet to the right. Then all those
fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees to the right in order to
end up on the floor of the limo. I'm not sure if these are the fragments
that are supposed to have hit the inside of the windshield and made other
strikes inside the car. As with everything else about Donahue's theory,
this makes no sense.
The completely off target first shot miss hit a curb on the right side of
the street, the North curb. MU Sgt. Stavis Ellis saw it strike the curb.
Those fragments ricocheted to the left toward the Motorcade. As a result
there could be large and small fragments inside the Limousine. The
President reacted in pain exclaiming, "My God, I'm hit!"
As the Z-film clearly shows, right up until the time the single bullet
struck, JFK was calmly waving to the crowd to his right. He had just
finished his wave and was starting to lower his hand when he disappeared
All you do is BS. SHOW me the last frame where JFK is waving.
Seriously? So next time this comes up you can again pretend I've never
showed it to you before. I could pull your lame dodge and tell you I have
showed it to you in the past, which in my case is true, but even though
I've showed you these frames a number of times, I will do so once again.
I'll begin at Z185 and continue in five frame intervals until JFK goes
behind the sign at Z205.

Loading Image... Clearly looking right and
waving
Loading Image... Still waving
Loading Image... Starts to lower right hand
Loading Image... Still lowering
Loading Image... Still lowering going behind
sign

Are you going to pretend you can't see him waving to the crowd or are you
going to simply ignore these frames and then the next time it comes up
insist I show you where he is waving?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
behind the sign. One second later he reemerged still lowering his hand.
One frame after that, he reacted to the single bullet strike. Once again
the Donahue theory is at odds with the evidence.
What does the Donahue theory have to do with the SBT?
Absolutely nothing so why did you insert the SBT into the conversation?
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-19 13:20:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb. The limo was in the
center lane so for the bullet to strike the curb, Oswald would have to
have missed his target by about 15 feet to the right. Then all those
fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees to the right in order to
end up on the floor of the limo. I'm not sure if these are the fragments
that are supposed to have hit the inside of the windshield and made other
strikes inside the car. As with everything else about Donahue's theory,
this makes no sense.
The completely off target first shot miss hit a curb on the right side of
the street, the North curb. MU Sgt. Stavis Ellis saw it strike the curb.
Those fragments ricocheted to the left toward the Motorcade. As a result
there could be large and small fragments inside the Limousine. The
President reacted in pain exclaiming, "My God, I'm hit!"
As the Z-film clearly shows, right up until the time the single bullet
struck, JFK was calmly waving to the crowd to his right. He had just
finished his wave and was starting to lower his hand when he disappeared
All you do is BS. SHOW me the last frame where JFK is waving.
Seriously? So next time this comes up you can again pretend I've never
showed it to you before. I could pull your lame dodge and tell you I have
showed it to you in the past, which in my case is true, but even though
I've showed you these frames a number of times, I will do so once again.
I'll begin at Z185 and continue in five frame intervals until JFK goes
behind the sign at Z205.
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z185.jpg Clearly looking right and
waving
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z190.jpg Still waving
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z195.jpg Starts to lower right hand
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z200.jpg Still lowering
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z205.jpg Still lowering going behind
sign
Is that the worst quality you could find?
JFK was not hit then.
Post by bigdog
Are you going to pretend you can't see him waving to the crowd or are you
going to simply ignore these frames and then the next time it comes up
insist I show you where he is waving?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
behind the sign. One second later he reemerged still lowering his hand.
One frame after that, he reacted to the single bullet strike. Once again
the Donahue theory is at odds with the evidence.
What does the Donahue theory have to do with the SBT?
Absolutely nothing so why did you insert the SBT into the conversation?
You said Single strike.
bigdog
2019-04-22 01:13:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb. The limo was in the
center lane so for the bullet to strike the curb, Oswald would have to
have missed his target by about 15 feet to the right. Then all those
fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees to the right in order to
end up on the floor of the limo. I'm not sure if these are the fragments
that are supposed to have hit the inside of the windshield and made other
strikes inside the car. As with everything else about Donahue's theory,
this makes no sense.
The completely off target first shot miss hit a curb on the right side of
the street, the North curb. MU Sgt. Stavis Ellis saw it strike the curb.
Those fragments ricocheted to the left toward the Motorcade. As a result
there could be large and small fragments inside the Limousine. The
President reacted in pain exclaiming, "My God, I'm hit!"
As the Z-film clearly shows, right up until the time the single bullet
struck, JFK was calmly waving to the crowd to his right. He had just
finished his wave and was starting to lower his hand when he disappeared
All you do is BS. SHOW me the last frame where JFK is waving.
Seriously? So next time this comes up you can again pretend I've never
showed it to you before. I could pull your lame dodge and tell you I have
showed it to you in the past, which in my case is true, but even though
I've showed you these frames a number of times, I will do so once again.
I'll begin at Z185 and continue in five frame intervals until JFK goes
behind the sign at Z205.
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z185.jpg Clearly looking right and
waving
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z190.jpg Still waving
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z195.jpg Starts to lower right hand
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z200.jpg Still lowering
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z205.jpg Still lowering going behind
sign
Is that the worst quality you could find?
JFK was not hit then.
Nice goal post move. You asked me to show you the last frame JFK was waving. I showed you the frames he was waving and when he started to lower his hand after
completing the wave. Now you shift it to when JFK was shot. Typical for you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Are you going to pretend you can't see him waving to the crowd or are you
going to simply ignore these frames and then the next time it comes up
insist I show you where he is waving?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
behind the sign. One second later he reemerged still lowering his hand.
One frame after that, he reacted to the single bullet strike. Once again
the Donahue theory is at odds with the evidence.
What does the Donahue theory have to do with the SBT?
Absolutely nothing so why did you insert the SBT into the conversation?
You said Single strike.
I mentioned that to counter claviger's claim that JFK had been showered
with debris and fragments from the missed shot striking the curb. It shows
JFK had been calmly waving to the crowd and was lowering his hand from
that wave when he was struck in the back.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-23 17:28:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb. The limo was in the
center lane so for the bullet to strike the curb, Oswald would have to
have missed his target by about 15 feet to the right. Then all those
fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees to the right in order to
end up on the floor of the limo. I'm not sure if these are the fragments
that are supposed to have hit the inside of the windshield and made other
strikes inside the car. As with everything else about Donahue's theory,
this makes no sense.
The completely off target first shot miss hit a curb on the right side of
the street, the North curb. MU Sgt. Stavis Ellis saw it strike the curb.
Those fragments ricocheted to the left toward the Motorcade. As a result
there could be large and small fragments inside the Limousine. The
President reacted in pain exclaiming, "My God, I'm hit!"
As the Z-film clearly shows, right up until the time the single bullet
struck, JFK was calmly waving to the crowd to his right. He had just
finished his wave and was starting to lower his hand when he disappeared
All you do is BS. SHOW me the last frame where JFK is waving.
Seriously? So next time this comes up you can again pretend I've never
showed it to you before. I could pull your lame dodge and tell you I have
showed it to you in the past, which in my case is true, but even though
I've showed you these frames a number of times, I will do so once again.
I'll begin at Z185 and continue in five frame intervals until JFK goes
behind the sign at Z205.
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z185.jpg Clearly looking right and
waving
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z190.jpg Still waving
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z195.jpg Starts to lower right hand
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z200.jpg Still lowering
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z205.jpg Still lowering going behind
sign
Is that the worst quality you could find?
JFK was not hit then.
Nice goal post move. You asked me to show you the last frame JFK was waving. I showed you the frames he was waving and when he started to lower his hand after
completing the wave. Now you shift it to when JFK was shot. Typical for you.
So you're sure that the last frame showing him waving was 205? How does
that prove your SBT du jour? I think JFK was hit between frame 209 and
210. His wave has nothing to do with it.
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Are you going to pretend you can't see him waving to the crowd or are you
going to simply ignore these frames and then the next time it comes up
insist I show you where he is waving?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
behind the sign. One second later he reemerged still lowering his hand.
One frame after that, he reacted to the single bullet strike. Once again
the Donahue theory is at odds with the evidence.
What does the Donahue theory have to do with the SBT?
Absolutely nothing so why did you insert the SBT into the conversation?
You said Single strike.
I mentioned that to counter claviger's claim that JFK had been showered
with debris and fragments from the missed shot striking the curb. It shows
JFK had been calmly waving to the crowd and was lowering his hand from
that wave when he was struck in the back.
OK, how many frames do you think it took for him to lower his hand
before he was hit?
bigdog
2019-04-24 19:40:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb. The limo was in the
center lane so for the bullet to strike the curb, Oswald would have to
have missed his target by about 15 feet to the right. Then all those
fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees to the right in order to
end up on the floor of the limo. I'm not sure if these are the fragments
that are supposed to have hit the inside of the windshield and made other
strikes inside the car. As with everything else about Donahue's theory,
this makes no sense.
The completely off target first shot miss hit a curb on the right side of
the street, the North curb. MU Sgt. Stavis Ellis saw it strike the curb.
Those fragments ricocheted to the left toward the Motorcade. As a result
there could be large and small fragments inside the Limousine. The
President reacted in pain exclaiming, "My God, I'm hit!"
As the Z-film clearly shows, right up until the time the single bullet
struck, JFK was calmly waving to the crowd to his right. He had just
finished his wave and was starting to lower his hand when he disappeared
All you do is BS. SHOW me the last frame where JFK is waving.
Seriously? So next time this comes up you can again pretend I've never
showed it to you before. I could pull your lame dodge and tell you I have
showed it to you in the past, which in my case is true, but even though
I've showed you these frames a number of times, I will do so once again.
I'll begin at Z185 and continue in five frame intervals until JFK goes
behind the sign at Z205.
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z185.jpg Clearly looking right and
waving
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z190.jpg Still waving
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z195.jpg Starts to lower right hand
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z200.jpg Still lowering
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z205.jpg Still lowering going behind
sign
Is that the worst quality you could find?
JFK was not hit then.
Nice goal post move. You asked me to show you the last frame JFK was waving. I showed you the frames he was waving and when he started to lower his hand after
completing the wave. Now you shift it to when JFK was shot. Typical for you.
So you're sure that the last frame showing him waving was 205? How does
that prove your SBT du jour?
Who ever said I did. This has nothing to do with the SBT but you wouldn't
know that because you don't read the posts you resond to.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I think JFK was hit between frame 209 and
210. His wave has nothing to do with it.
Your first sentence is wrong and your second sentence is right.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Are you going to pretend you can't see him waving to the crowd or are you
going to simply ignore these frames and then the next time it comes up
insist I show you where he is waving?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
behind the sign. One second later he reemerged still lowering his hand.
One frame after that, he reacted to the single bullet strike. Once again
the Donahue theory is at odds with the evidence.
What does the Donahue theory have to do with the SBT?
Absolutely nothing so why did you insert the SBT into the conversation?
You said Single strike.
I mentioned that to counter claviger's claim that JFK had been showered
with debris and fragments from the missed shot striking the curb. It shows
JFK had been calmly waving to the crowd and was lowering his hand from
that wave when he was struck in the back.
OK, how many frames do you think it took for him to lower his hand
before he was hit?
I don't know. I've never counted them and see no point in doing so now. You
can't even acknowledge JFK was waving just prior to being shot.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-26 16:55:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb. The limo was in the
center lane so for the bullet to strike the curb, Oswald would have to
have missed his target by about 15 feet to the right. Then all those
fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees to the right in order to
end up on the floor of the limo. I'm not sure if these are the fragments
that are supposed to have hit the inside of the windshield and made other
strikes inside the car. As with everything else about Donahue's theory,
this makes no sense.
The completely off target first shot miss hit a curb on the right side of
the street, the North curb. MU Sgt. Stavis Ellis saw it strike the curb.
Those fragments ricocheted to the left toward the Motorcade. As a result
there could be large and small fragments inside the Limousine. The
President reacted in pain exclaiming, "My God, I'm hit!"
As the Z-film clearly shows, right up until the time the single bullet
struck, JFK was calmly waving to the crowd to his right. He had just
finished his wave and was starting to lower his hand when he disappeared
All you do is BS. SHOW me the last frame where JFK is waving.
Seriously? So next time this comes up you can again pretend I've never
showed it to you before. I could pull your lame dodge and tell you I have
showed it to you in the past, which in my case is true, but even though
I've showed you these frames a number of times, I will do so once again.
I'll begin at Z185 and continue in five frame intervals until JFK goes
behind the sign at Z205.
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z185.jpg Clearly looking right and
waving
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z190.jpg Still waving
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z195.jpg Starts to lower right hand
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z200.jpg Still lowering
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z205.jpg Still lowering going behind
sign
Is that the worst quality you could find?
JFK was not hit then.
Nice goal post move. You asked me to show you the last frame JFK was waving. I showed you the frames he was waving and when he started to lower his hand after
completing the wave. Now you shift it to when JFK was shot. Typical for you.
So you're sure that the last frame showing him waving was 205? How does
that prove your SBT du jour?
Who ever said I did. This has nothing to do with the SBT but you wouldn't
know that because you don't read the posts you resond to.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I think JFK was hit between frame 209 and
210. His wave has nothing to do with it.
Your first sentence is wrong and your second sentence is right.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Are you going to pretend you can't see him waving to the crowd or are you
going to simply ignore these frames and then the next time it comes up
insist I show you where he is waving?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
behind the sign. One second later he reemerged still lowering his hand.
One frame after that, he reacted to the single bullet strike. Once again
the Donahue theory is at odds with the evidence.
What does the Donahue theory have to do with the SBT?
Absolutely nothing so why did you insert the SBT into the conversation?
You said Single strike.
I mentioned that to counter claviger's claim that JFK had been showered
with debris and fragments from the missed shot striking the curb. It shows
JFK had been calmly waving to the crowd and was lowering his hand from
that wave when he was struck in the back.
OK, how many frames do you think it took for him to lower his hand
before he was hit?
I don't know. I've never counted them and see no point in doing so now. You
can't even acknowledge JFK was waving just prior to being shot.
I already acknowledged that he waved. You seem to think it was important
WHEN he stopped waving. Do you think he stopped when he heard the first
shot?
bigdog
2019-04-27 21:43:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb. The limo was in the
center lane so for the bullet to strike the curb, Oswald would have to
have missed his target by about 15 feet to the right. Then all those
fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees to the right in order to
end up on the floor of the limo. I'm not sure if these are the fragments
that are supposed to have hit the inside of the windshield and made other
strikes inside the car. As with everything else about Donahue's theory,
this makes no sense.
The completely off target first shot miss hit a curb on the right side of
the street, the North curb. MU Sgt. Stavis Ellis saw it strike the curb.
Those fragments ricocheted to the left toward the Motorcade. As a result
there could be large and small fragments inside the Limousine. The
President reacted in pain exclaiming, "My God, I'm hit!"
As the Z-film clearly shows, right up until the time the single bullet
struck, JFK was calmly waving to the crowd to his right. He had just
finished his wave and was starting to lower his hand when he disappeared
All you do is BS. SHOW me the last frame where JFK is waving.
Seriously? So next time this comes up you can again pretend I've never
showed it to you before. I could pull your lame dodge and tell you I have
showed it to you in the past, which in my case is true, but even though
I've showed you these frames a number of times, I will do so once again.
I'll begin at Z185 and continue in five frame intervals until JFK goes
behind the sign at Z205.
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z185.jpg Clearly looking right and
waving
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z190.jpg Still waving
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z195.jpg Starts to lower right hand
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z200.jpg Still lowering
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z205.jpg Still lowering going behind
sign
Is that the worst quality you could find?
JFK was not hit then.
Nice goal post move. You asked me to show you the last frame JFK was waving. I showed you the frames he was waving and when he started to lower his hand after
completing the wave. Now you shift it to when JFK was shot. Typical for you.
So you're sure that the last frame showing him waving was 205? How does
that prove your SBT du jour?
Who ever said I did. This has nothing to do with the SBT but you wouldn't
know that because you don't read the posts you resond to.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I think JFK was hit between frame 209 and
210. His wave has nothing to do with it.
Your first sentence is wrong and your second sentence is right.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Are you going to pretend you can't see him waving to the crowd or are you
going to simply ignore these frames and then the next time it comes up
insist I show you where he is waving?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
behind the sign. One second later he reemerged still lowering his hand.
One frame after that, he reacted to the single bullet strike. Once again
the Donahue theory is at odds with the evidence.
What does the Donahue theory have to do with the SBT?
Absolutely nothing so why did you insert the SBT into the conversation?
You said Single strike.
I mentioned that to counter claviger's claim that JFK had been showered
with debris and fragments from the missed shot striking the curb. It shows
JFK had been calmly waving to the crowd and was lowering his hand from
that wave when he was struck in the back.
OK, how many frames do you think it took for him to lower his hand
before he was hit?
I don't know. I've never counted them and see no point in doing so now. You
can't even acknowledge JFK was waving just prior to being shot.
I already acknowledged that he waved. You seem to think it was important
WHEN he stopped waving. Do you think he stopped when he heard the first
shot?
Straw man. I don't think it is at all important when he stopped waving.
You seem to have forgotten that it was you who wanted to know when he
stopped waving. Do you remember saying this to me:

"All you do is BS. SHOW me the last frame where JFK is waving."

In response, I showed you five frames space five frames apart that
indicated when JFK was waving to the crowd and when he stopped. Now you
turn around and pretend it was me who made an issue of when JFK stopped
waving. The fact that he was waving to the crowd and calmly lowering his
hand just before he was shot is a pretty good indication he had not been
showered with debris. He seemed not at all aware that he was under fire,
unlike Connally who immediately thought what he heard was a rifle shot and
an assassination attempt.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-29 00:50:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb. The limo was in the
center lane so for the bullet to strike the curb, Oswald would have to
have missed his target by about 15 feet to the right. Then all those
fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees to the right in order to
end up on the floor of the limo. I'm not sure if these are the fragments
that are supposed to have hit the inside of the windshield and made other
strikes inside the car. As with everything else about Donahue's theory,
this makes no sense.
The completely off target first shot miss hit a curb on the right side of
the street, the North curb. MU Sgt. Stavis Ellis saw it strike the curb.
Those fragments ricocheted to the left toward the Motorcade. As a result
there could be large and small fragments inside the Limousine. The
President reacted in pain exclaiming, "My God, I'm hit!"
As the Z-film clearly shows, right up until the time the single bullet
struck, JFK was calmly waving to the crowd to his right. He had just
finished his wave and was starting to lower his hand when he disappeared
All you do is BS. SHOW me the last frame where JFK is waving.
Seriously? So next time this comes up you can again pretend I've never
showed it to you before. I could pull your lame dodge and tell you I have
showed it to you in the past, which in my case is true, but even though
I've showed you these frames a number of times, I will do so once again.
I'll begin at Z185 and continue in five frame intervals until JFK goes
behind the sign at Z205.
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z185.jpg Clearly looking right and
waving
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z190.jpg Still waving
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z195.jpg Starts to lower right hand
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z200.jpg Still lowering
http://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z205.jpg Still lowering going behind
sign
Is that the worst quality you could find?
JFK was not hit then.
Nice goal post move. You asked me to show you the last frame JFK was waving. I showed you the frames he was waving and when he started to lower his hand after
completing the wave. Now you shift it to when JFK was shot. Typical for you.
So you're sure that the last frame showing him waving was 205? How does
that prove your SBT du jour?
Who ever said I did. This has nothing to do with the SBT but you wouldn't
know that because you don't read the posts you resond to.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I think JFK was hit between frame 209 and
210. His wave has nothing to do with it.
Your first sentence is wrong and your second sentence is right.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Are you going to pretend you can't see him waving to the crowd or are you
going to simply ignore these frames and then the next time it comes up
insist I show you where he is waving?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
behind the sign. One second later he reemerged still lowering his hand.
One frame after that, he reacted to the single bullet strike. Once again
the Donahue theory is at odds with the evidence.
What does the Donahue theory have to do with the SBT?
Absolutely nothing so why did you insert the SBT into the conversation?
You said Single strike.
I mentioned that to counter claviger's claim that JFK had been showered
with debris and fragments from the missed shot striking the curb. It shows
JFK had been calmly waving to the crowd and was lowering his hand from
that wave when he was struck in the back.
OK, how many frames do you think it took for him to lower his hand
before he was hit?
I don't know. I've never counted them and see no point in doing so now. You
can't even acknowledge JFK was waving just prior to being shot.
I already acknowledged that he waved. You seem to think it was important
WHEN he stopped waving. Do you think he stopped when he heard the first
shot?
Straw man. I don't think it is at all important when he stopped waving.
Then why did you bring it up?
Post by bigdog
You seem to have forgotten that it was you who wanted to know when he
"All you do is BS. SHOW me the last frame where JFK is waving."
And was that indeed the last frame where he is waving?
Why didn't you just show me that specific frame?
Post by bigdog
In response, I showed you five frames space five frames apart that
indicated when JFK was waving to the crowd and when he stopped. Now you
turn around and pretend it was me who made an issue of when JFK stopped
waving. The fact that he was waving to the crowd and calmly lowering his
hand just before he was shot is a pretty good indication he had not been
showered with debris. He seemed not at all aware that he was under fire,
unlike Connally who immediately thought what he heard was a rifle shot and
an assassination attempt.
What was your point?
claviger
2019-04-28 01:35:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
So you're sure that the last frame showing him waving was 205?
How does that prove your SBT du jour?
Who ever said I did. This has nothing to do with the SBT but you
wouldn't know that because you don't read the posts you resond to.
Post by Anthony Marsh
I think JFK was hit between frame 209 and
210. His wave has nothing to do with it.
Your first sentence is wrong and your second sentence is right.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Are you going to pretend you can't see him waving to the crowd
going to simply ignore these frames and then the next time it comes
up insist I show you where he is waving?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
behind the sign. One second later he reemerged still lowering his
hand. One frame after that, he reacted to the single bullet strike.
Once again the Donahue theory is at odds with the evidence.
What does the Donahue theory have to do with the SBT?
Absolutely nothing so why did you insert the SBT into the conversation?
You said Single strike.
I mentioned that to counter claviger's claim that JFK had been showered
with debris and fragments from the missed shot striking the curb. It shows
JFK had been calmly waving to the crowd and was lowering his hand from
that wave when he was struck in the back.
OK, how many frames do you think it took for him to lower his hand
before he was hit?
I don't know. I've never counted them and see no point in doing so now.
You can't even acknowledge JFK was waving just prior to being shot.
I already acknowledged that he waved. You seem to think it was important
WHEN he stopped waving. Do you think he stopped when he heard the first
shot?
Zapruder film Zoomed in plus SUPER SLOW MOTION (HIGH QUALITY)
https://www.youtube.com/watch/?v=eqzJQE8LYrQ

Zapruder Film Close up Stable(HIGH QUALITY) - YouTube

Jan 2, 2012 - Non-zoomed in version can be found here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= F207iUDvBh4
That Zapruder film in slow motion video I uploaded ...

https://9tube.tv/search/zapruder-film-(film)/?sort=date
r***@gmail.com
2019-04-15 03:50:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb. The limo was in the
center lane so for the bullet to strike the curb, Oswald would have to
have missed his target by about 15 feet to the right. Then all those
fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees to the right in order to
end up on the floor of the limo. I'm not sure if these are the fragments
that are supposed to have hit the inside of the windshield and made other
strikes inside the car. As with everything else about Donahue's theory,
this makes no sense.
The completely off target first shot miss hit a curb on the right side of
the street, the North curb. MU Sgt. Stavis Ellis saw it strike the curb.
Those fragments ricocheted to the left toward the Motorcade. As a result
there could be large and small fragments inside the Limousine. The
President reacted in pain exclaiming, "My God, I'm hit!"
Mr. SPECTER: Did President Kennedy say anything at all after
the shooting?
Mrs. CONNALLY: He did not say anything. Mrs. Kennedy said, the
first thing I recall her saying was, after the first shot, and
I heard her say, "Jack, they have killed my husband," and then
there was the second shot, and then after the third shot she
said, "They have killed my husband. I have his brains in my
hand," and she repeated that several times, and that was all
the conversation.

[...]

Mr. SPECTER: Did President Kennedy make any statement during
the time of the shooting or immediately prior thereto?
Governor CONNALLY: He never uttered a sound at all that I heard.

[...]

Mrs. KENNEDY. No; I was looking this way, to the left, and I
heard these terrible noises. You know. And my husband never
made any sound.

I don't think Greer testified that he heard JFK say anything
during the shooting sequence, but he didn't say that it absolutely
did not happen, either. Still, that makes one witness, Kellerman,
who thought JFK said "Oh My God, I'm hit!" versus the three
survivors in the back, all of whom said JFK said nothing. At
the very best, Greer would count as an abstention, and may be
another 'said nothing' witness. Three of a kind + a joker beats
a low ace any day.
bigdog
2019-04-16 01:33:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb. The limo was in the
center lane so for the bullet to strike the curb, Oswald would have to
have missed his target by about 15 feet to the right. Then all those
fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees to the right in order to
end up on the floor of the limo. I'm not sure if these are the fragments
that are supposed to have hit the inside of the windshield and made other
strikes inside the car. As with everything else about Donahue's theory,
this makes no sense.
The completely off target first shot miss hit a curb on the right side of
the street, the North curb. MU Sgt. Stavis Ellis saw it strike the curb.
Those fragments ricocheted to the left toward the Motorcade. As a result
there could be large and small fragments inside the Limousine. The
President reacted in pain exclaiming, "My God, I'm hit!"
Mr. SPECTER: Did President Kennedy say anything at all after
the shooting?
Mrs. CONNALLY: He did not say anything. Mrs. Kennedy said, the
first thing I recall her saying was, after the first shot, and
I heard her say, "Jack, they have killed my husband," and then
there was the second shot, and then after the third shot she
said, "They have killed my husband. I have his brains in my
hand," and she repeated that several times, and that was all
the conversation.
[...]
Mr. SPECTER: Did President Kennedy make any statement during
the time of the shooting or immediately prior thereto?
Governor CONNALLY: He never uttered a sound at all that I heard.
[...]
Mrs. KENNEDY. No; I was looking this way, to the left, and I
heard these terrible noises. You know. And my husband never
made any sound.
I don't think Greer testified that he heard JFK say anything
during the shooting sequence, but he didn't say that it absolutely
did not happen, either. Still, that makes one witness, Kellerman,
who thought JFK said "Oh My God, I'm hit!" versus the three
survivors in the back, all of whom said JFK said nothing. At
the very best, Greer would count as an abstention, and may be
another 'said nothing' witness. Three of a kind + a joker beats
a low ace any day.
As with most everything else, we have conflicting reports among the
various witnesses. Who to believe? Whose account makes the most sense? I
would find it odd if JFK said, "My God, I'm hit" after a bullet had grazed
his trachea so it would seem Kellerman has a false memory. Maybe he heard
Connally and thought it was JFK.
claviger
2019-04-13 23:56:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb.
Not a theory. DPDMU Sgt. Steve Ellis saw a bullet hit the curb
and took his MU officers and showed them exactly where the
bullet mark was. I believe we can still see it to this day.
Post by bigdog
The limo was in the center lane so for the bullet to strike the
curb, Oswald would have to have missed his target by about
15 feet to the right.
Yes.
Post by bigdog
Then all those fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees
to the right in order to end up on the floor of the limo.
The Limousine was in the Center Lane to the Left of the North Curb.
Post by bigdog
I'm not sure if these are the fragments that are supposed to have
hit the inside of the windshield and made other strikes inside the
car.
That is what Donahue believed after close examination of those
fragments which were severely mangled with sharp edges and
deep groves. Donahue did not believe a human skull would make
such distorted anfractuous metal shards, but a concrete curb
certainly could.
Post by bigdog
As with everything else about Donahue's theory, this makes no
sense.
To amateurs maybe, but an experienced police officer in Australia
understood and agreed with Donahue about this ballistic analysis.
donald willis
2019-04-14 22:04:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb.
Not a theory. DPDMU Sgt. Steve Ellis saw a bullet hit the curb
and took his MU officers and showed them exactly where the
bullet mark was. I believe we can still see it to this day.
Post by bigdog
The limo was in the center lane so for the bullet to strike the
curb, Oswald would have to have missed his target by about
15 feet to the right.
Yes.
Post by bigdog
Then all those fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees
to the right in order to end up on the floor of the limo.
The Limousine was in the Center Lane to the Left of the North Curb.
Post by bigdog
I'm not sure if these are the fragments that are supposed to have
hit the inside of the windshield and made other strikes inside the
car.
That is what Donahue believed after close examination of those
fragments which were severely mangled with sharp edges and
deep groves. Donahue did not believe a human skull would make
such distorted anfractuous metal shards, but a concrete curb
certainly could.
It's on page 75 of "Mortal Error": one of the fragments found in the
front-seat area "had the jacket peeled backward 180 degrees & folded
almost flat.... One edge... formed a razor edge", as if it had hit "an
immovable object--like concrete...."

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-16 16:03:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb.
Not a theory. DPDMU Sgt. Steve Ellis saw a bullet hit the curb
and took his MU officers and showed them exactly where the
bullet mark was. I believe we can still see it to this day.
Post by bigdog
The limo was in the center lane so for the bullet to strike the
curb, Oswald would have to have missed his target by about
15 feet to the right.
Yes.
Post by bigdog
Then all those fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees
to the right in order to end up on the floor of the limo.
The Limousine was in the Center Lane to the Left of the North Curb.
Post by bigdog
I'm not sure if these are the fragments that are supposed to have
hit the inside of the windshield and made other strikes inside the
car.
That is what Donahue believed after close examination of those
fragments which were severely mangled with sharp edges and
deep groves. Donahue did not believe a human skull would make
such distorted anfractuous metal shards, but a concrete curb
certainly could.
It's on page 75 of "Mortal Error": one of the fragments found in the
front-seat area "had the jacket peeled backward 180 degrees & folded
almost flat.... One edge... formed a razor edge", as if it had hit "an
immovable object--like concrete...."
Or the chrome topping. I don't understand how a fragment can hit the
curb and then go back into the limo to hit the chrome topping.
Do you have a diagram showing that?
Post by donald willis
dcw
bigdog
2019-04-15 19:52:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb.
Not a theory. DPDMU Sgt. Steve Ellis saw a bullet hit the curb
and took his MU officers and showed them exactly where the
bullet mark was. I believe we can still see it to this day.
Post by bigdog
The limo was in the center lane so for the bullet to strike the
curb, Oswald would have to have missed his target by about
15 feet to the right.
Yes.
Post by bigdog
Then all those fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees
to the right in order to end up on the floor of the limo.
The Limousine was in the Center Lane to the Left of the North Curb.
Yes, I should have said it needed to ricochet 90 degrees to the LEFT but
the problem is still the same.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
I'm not sure if these are the fragments that are supposed to have
hit the inside of the windshield and made other strikes inside the
car.
That is what Donahue believed after close examination of those
fragments which were severely mangled with sharp edges and
deep groves. Donahue did not believe a human skull would make
such distorted anfractuous metal shards, but a concrete curb
certainly could.
So we have a bullet hitting a curb, fragmenting, the fragments ricocheting
90 degrees to the left, but then hit the windshield and other places
inside the limo. Should we call this the Magic Fragments Theory?
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
As with everything else about Donahue's theory, this makes no
sense.
To amateurs maybe, but an experienced police officer in Australia
understood and agreed with Donahue about this ballistic analysis.
So in a world with 7 billion people you found one cop who agreed with
Donahue. Are we supposed to be impressed by that?
donald willis
2019-04-16 16:13:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb.
Not a theory. DPDMU Sgt. Steve Ellis saw a bullet hit the curb
and took his MU officers and showed them exactly where the
bullet mark was. I believe we can still see it to this day.
Post by bigdog
The limo was in the center lane so for the bullet to strike the
curb, Oswald would have to have missed his target by about
15 feet to the right.
Yes.
Post by bigdog
Then all those fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees
to the right in order to end up on the floor of the limo.
The Limousine was in the Center Lane to the Left of the North Curb.
Yes, I should have said it needed to ricochet 90 degrees to the LEFT but
the problem is still the same.
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
I'm not sure if these are the fragments that are supposed to have
hit the inside of the windshield and made other strikes inside the
car.
That is what Donahue believed after close examination of those
fragments which were severely mangled with sharp edges and
deep groves. Donahue did not believe a human skull would make
such distorted anfractuous metal shards, but a concrete curb
certainly could.
So we have a bullet hitting a curb, fragmenting, the fragments ricocheting
90 degrees to the left, but then hit the windshield and other places
inside the limo. Should we call this the Magic Fragments Theory?
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
As with everything else about Donahue's theory, this makes no
sense.
To amateurs maybe, but an experienced police officer in Australia
understood and agreed with Donahue about this ballistic analysis.
So in a world with 7 billion people you found one cop who agreed with
Donahue. Are we supposed to be impressed by that?
7 billion?!? Trump is right--there's no more room on the planet....
claviger
2019-04-16 16:15:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
So we have a bullet hitting a curb, fragmenting, the fragments ricocheting
90 degrees to the left, but then hit the windshield and other places
inside the limo. Should we call this the Magic Fragments Theory?
Not 90º. The President was waving to the right. At the sound of the
shot he turned further to the right and looked backward to the sound, then
he suddenly turned forward and raised his hand to his face.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
As with everything else about Donahue's theory, this makes no
sense.
To amateurs maybe, but an experienced police officer in Australia
understood and agreed with Donahue about this ballistic analysis.
So in a world with 7 billion people you found one cop who agreed with
Donahue. Are we supposed to be impressed by that?
A Senior Detective who solved infamous crimes in a modern city, yes.
McLaren studied the assassination of President Kennedy for 4 years
then wrote a book explaining many details and uncovered evidence
Americans had overlooked. There was even a primetime National TV
program in the US about his findings and conclusions that attracted
a large audience.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-16 16:03:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The theory is that bullet hit the concrete curb.
Not a theory. DPDMU Sgt. Steve Ellis saw a bullet hit the curb
and took his MU officers and showed them exactly where the
bullet mark was. I believe we can still see it to this day.
Post by bigdog
The limo was in the center lane so for the bullet to strike the
curb, Oswald would have to have missed his target by about
15 feet to the right.
Yes.
Post by bigdog
Then all those fragments would have had to ricochet 90 degrees
to the right in order to end up on the floor of the limo.
The Limousine was in the Center Lane to the Left of the North Curb.
Post by bigdog
I'm not sure if these are the fragments that are supposed to have
hit the inside of the windshield and made other strikes inside the
car.
That is what Donahue believed after close examination of those
fragments which were severely mangled with sharp edges and
deep groves. Donahue did not believe a human skull would make
such distorted anfractuous metal shards, but a concrete curb
certainly could.
Post by bigdog
As with everything else about Donahue's theory, this makes no
sense.
To amateurs maybe, but an experienced police officer in Australia
understood and agreed with Donahue about this ballistic analysis.
Just another dump cop. And an Aussie to boot.
claviger
2019-04-11 14:39:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The street was asphalt, the curb was concrete.
r***@gmail.com
2019-04-15 03:50:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The street was asphalt, the curb was concrete.
So you're saying that the bullet hit the curb. The one that
all those spectators were standing on. And no one standing
on either side of the street saw that happen right in front
of them? And none of the spectators standing on the curb was
injured by the hail of bullet fragments and concrete bits
that would have been kicked up by the impact? And no one
noticed the inevitable divot gouged out of the concrete by
such a calamity?
claviger
2019-04-16 01:33:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
The street was asphalt, the curb was concrete.
So you're saying that the bullet hit the curb. The one that
all those spectators were standing on. And no one standing
on either side of the street saw that happen right in front
of them?
DPDMU Sgt. Steve Ellis saw that shot and described it in detail.
Slow motion enhanced Zapruder film confirms his description.
Post by r***@gmail.com
And none of the spectators standing on the curb was
injured by the hail of bullet fragments and concrete bits
that would have been kicked up by the impact?
No because fragments sprayed the President. He reacted by
exclaiming "My God, I'm hit!" Three deep fragment wounds
were discovered on his right cheek.
Post by r***@gmail.com
And no one noticed the inevitable divot gouged out
of the concrete by such a calamity?
I've been to Dealey Plaza and there are a half dozen gouges
in the sidewalk in the vicinity. Sgt. Ellis went back and found
the ricochet mark on the curb and showed it to his MU fellow
officers. One in particular is elongated and lines up perfectly
with the 6th floor window.
bigdog
2019-04-18 01:41:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
The street was asphalt, the curb was concrete.
So you're saying that the bullet hit the curb. The one that
all those spectators were standing on. And no one standing
on either side of the street saw that happen right in front
of them?
DPDMU Sgt. Steve Ellis saw that shot and described it in detail.
Slow motion enhanced Zapruder film confirms his description.
You'll have to tell us where you see a bullet strike in the Z-film because
I've looked for it and have never found it. That would be a major
breakthrough if you could identify visual evidence of the first shot
because it would finally tell us definitively when the shot was fired and
where it hit. I'm not optimistic that you can identify such evidence for
us.
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
And none of the spectators standing on the curb was
injured by the hail of bullet fragments and concrete bits
that would have been kicked up by the impact?
No because fragments sprayed the President. He reacted by
exclaiming "My God, I'm hit!" Three deep fragment wounds
were discovered on his right cheek.
Source? I've heard that for years but haven't seen a source for that. The
stare of death autopsy photo should show such wounds if they were there
and I don't see them.
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
And no one noticed the inevitable divot gouged out
of the concrete by such a calamity?
I've been to Dealey Plaza and there are a half dozen gouges
in the sidewalk in the vicinity. Sgt. Ellis went back and found
the ricochet mark on the curb and showed it to his MU fellow
officers. One in particular is elongated and lines up perfectly
with the 6th floor window.
If there are a half dozen gouges in the curb that eliminates those gouges
as evidence of a bullet strike unless you think there were a half dozen
bullet strikes. Otherwise we know something else is causing those gouges.
claviger
2019-04-19 06:19:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
The street was asphalt, the curb was concrete.
So you're saying that the bullet hit the curb. The one that
all those spectators were standing on. And no one standing
on either side of the street saw that happen right in front
of them?
DPDMU Sgt. Steve Ellis saw that shot and described it in detail.
Slow motion enhanced Zapruder film confirms his description.
You'll have to tell us where you see a bullet strike in the Z-film because
I've looked for it and have never found it.
I did not see a bullet strike on the First Shot.
MU Sgt. Stavis "Steve" Ellis saw it happen.
Post by bigdog
That would be a major breakthrough if you could identify
visual evidence of the first shot because it would finally
tell us definitively when the shot was fired and where it hit.
I'm not optimistic that you can identify such evidence for
us.
Based on Sgt. Ellis the President was turned right waving
at cheering people in the crowd as the Limousine passed
by. At the sound of the shot the President turned his head
and looked backward with his hand still up, then suddenly
turned to the front and brushed his face from top to bottom
with his right hand. I found a slow motion enhanced version
of the Zapruder Film and Sgt. Ellis is exactly right.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
And none of the spectators standing on the curb was
injured by the hail of bullet fragments and concrete bits
that would have been kicked up by the impact?
No because fragments sprayed the President. He reacted
by exclaiming "My God, I'm hit!"
THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963, AT DALLAS, TEXAS

We were still traveling at the normal rate of speed of from 12 to
15 miles per hour when I heard a noise, similar to a firecracker,
exploding in the area to the rear of the car, about 12:30 p.m.

Immediately I heard what I firmly believe was the President's voice,
"My God, I'm hit!" I turned around to find out what happened when
two additional shots rang out, and the President slumped into Mrs.
Kennedy's lap and Governor Connally fell_to Mrs. Connally's lap.
I heard Mrs. Kennedy shout, "What are they doing to you?"

Roy H. Kellerman
Assistant Special Agent in Charge
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Three deep fragment wounds were discovered on his right cheek.
Source? I've heard that for years but haven't seen a source for that.
alt.assassination.jfk ›
7 Head Wounds
46 posts by 4 authors

alt.assassination.jfk ›
Shrapnel wounds on face
80 posts by 7 authors

alt.assassination.jfk ›
Stavis "Steve" Ellis
71 posts by 6 authors

Records Review Board Overlooked
http://jfkmurdersolved.com/EMBALMER.htm
Post by bigdog
The stare of death autopsy photo should show such
wounds if they were there and I don't see them.
There were thin razor cuts on the right cheek no one
noticed until they leaked fluid on the table. One CT
accused autopsy doctors of doing that on purpose
with a surgeon's knife.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
And no one noticed the inevitable divot gouged
out of the concrete by such a calamity?
I've been to Dealey Plaza and there are a half dozen gouges
in the sidewalk in the vicinity. Sgt. Ellis went back and found
the ricochet mark on the curb and showed it to his MU fellow
officers. One in particular is elongated and lines up perfectly
with the 6th floor window.
If there are a half dozen gouges in the curb that eliminates those
gouges as evidence of a bullet strike unless you think there were
a half dozen bullet strikes. Otherwise we know something else is
causing those gouges.
DPD Sergeant Ellis went back to the curb defect soon after to find
the mark, then later took his MU crew to show them exactly where
it is located. Why he never notified the FBI I can't answer, maybe a
loss of confidence in FBI and SSA by then.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-19 05:59:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
The street was asphalt, the curb was concrete.
So you're saying that the bullet hit the curb. The one that
all those spectators were standing on. And no one standing
on either side of the street saw that happen right in front
of them?
DPDMU Sgt. Steve Ellis saw that shot and described it in detail.
Slow motion enhanced Zapruder film confirms his description.
Post by r***@gmail.com
And none of the spectators standing on the curb was
injured by the hail of bullet fragments and concrete bits
that would have been kicked up by the impact?
No because fragments sprayed the President. He reacted by
exclaiming "My God, I'm hit!" Three deep fragment wounds
were discovered on his right cheek.
Post by r***@gmail.com
And no one noticed the inevitable divot gouged out
of the concrete by such a calamity?
I've been to Dealey Plaza and there are a half dozen gouges
in the sidewalk in the vicinity. Sgt. Ellis went back and found
the ricochet mark on the curb and showed it to his MU fellow
officers. One in particular is elongated and lines up perfectly
with the 6th floor window.
Show me. You are all talk.
r***@gmail.com
2019-04-19 06:25:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
The street was asphalt, the curb was concrete.
So you're saying that the bullet hit the curb. The one that
all those spectators were standing on. And no one standing
on either side of the street saw that happen right in front
of them?
DPDMU Sgt. Steve Ellis saw that shot and described it in detail.
Slow motion enhanced Zapruder film confirms his description.
What "slow motion enhanced Zapruder," or rather which one?
Any number of people have slowed down, sped up, blown up,
and 'enhanced' the crap out of the Zapruder film over the
years. I can't think of a single one who has found a bullet
strike on a curb. If no one else has publicly done so yet,
it's pretty doubtful that someone's found one now
And promises of some unknown person making a breakthrough
utilizing some undisclosed method have invariably turned
out to be disappointments.

As for Ellis, he's the guy who claimed that there was a
big bullet hole at the base of the Limousine's windshield.
However, it's worth discussing what Ellis said about the
subject at hand:

"We came west on Main Street to Houston Street
and took a right, facing right into that building.
The building with the window was looking right at
us as we came up to Elm Street and made a left,
heading back toward the Triple Underpass. Midway
down Elm I remember waving at my wife’s niece and
nephew, Bill and Gayle Newman, who had apparently
come out to see the President. About the time I
started on a curve on Elm, I had turned to my right
to give signals to open up the intervals since we
were fixing to get on the freeway a short distance
away. That’s all I had on my mind. Just as I turned
around, then the first shot went off. It hit back
there. I hadn’t been able to see back where Chaney
was because Curry was there, but I could see where
the shot came down into the south side of the curb.
It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there
in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a
white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the
concrete. Just seeing it in a split second like that
I thought, 'Oh, my God!' I thought there had been
some people hit back there as people started
falling. I thought either some crank had thrown a
big “Baby John” firecracker and scared them causing
them to jump down or else a fragmentation grenade
had hit all those people. In any case, they went
down! Actually I think they threw themselves down in
anticipation of another shot.
As soon as I saw that, I turned around and
rode up beside the chief’s car and BANG!…BANG!, two
more shots went off: three shots in all! The sounds
were all clear and loud and sounded about the same.
From where I was, they sounded like they were coming
from around where the tall tree was in front of that
building. Of course, I’m forming an opinion based on
where I saw that stuff hit the street, so I knew that
it had to come from up that way, and I assumed that
all the others came from the same place.
But all the time I was moving up, I still
didn’t know it was shots until Chaney rode up beside
me and said, 'Sarge, the President’s hit!” I asked
him how bad, and he replied, “Hell, he’s dead! Man,
his head’s blown off!'"

and, later:

"After the assassination, the FBI did their
investigative work on the curb where I had seen the
shot and cut off the section to analyze. However,
they cut off the wrong section. We later found the
place where it hit. Sergeant Harkness knows. He was
a three-wheel sergeant who worked traffic downtown."

So, Ellis says that "the shot came down into the
south side of the curb." That doesn't sound like
the curb on the North side of Elm. This impression
is reinforced by Ellis' statement, "I hadn’t been
able to see back where Chaney was because Curry
[i.e. the lead car with Curry, Decker, Lawson, and
Sorrels] was there. Ellis was the leftmost of the
squad of lead motorcycles; Chaney was the right
inboard member of the squad flanking the ss100x's
rear. Given Chaney's relationship with the limo,
it's hard to believe that Ellis would have been
able to see a bullet strike behind and to the right
of the limo.

Ellis said that "It looked like it hit the
concrete or grass there." But the curb on the
North side of Elm directly abuts the sidewalk.
If it hit the where the curb was, he wouldn't
have had to hedge his bet as to whether it
hit concrete or grass. On the other side of the
street, there was no sidewalk, so Ellis' fudging
between grass and concrete makes sense.

Also, consider his statement about finding the
divot:

"the FBI did their investigative work on the
curb where I had seen the shot and cut off the
section to analyze."

The only portion of curb that was removed and
analyzed was the mark on the Main St curb near
where James Tague was standing. That was on Main,
next to the triple underpass. While Ellis said,
"they cut off the wrong section" he still places
it near the Tague mark, far from the North side
of Elm, where you'd like it to be.
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
And none of the spectators standing on the curb was
injured by the hail of bullet fragments and concrete bits
that would have been kicked up by the impact?
No because fragments sprayed the President. He reacted by
exclaiming "My God, I'm hit!" Three deep fragment wounds
were discovered on his right cheek.
It must be nice to live in a world where all
you have to do to prove something is to simply
assume that it's true. Kellerman was the only
person to say that JFK said "My God..." during the
shooting. The Connallys and Mrs Kennedy all
said that he said *nothing* during the shooting.
The only other witness in the limo did not claim
that JFK said anything, either.

Now, look at the North side of Elm in the Zapruder
film. Spectators literally have their toes on the
curb. The bullet would have hit the ground literally
at their feet. But no one was hit by fragments of
concrete and metal from the impact a few inches away
from them, while JFK (and only JFK) get hit, at
least in your version. How is that supposed to work?
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
And no one noticed the inevitable divot gouged out
of the concrete by such a calamity?
I've been to Dealey Plaza and there are a half dozen gouges
in the sidewalk in the vicinity. Sgt. Ellis went back and found
the ricochet mark on the curb and showed it to his MU fellow
officers. One in particular is elongated and lines up perfectly
with the 6th floor window.
Exactly how many of those gouges were found freshly made
on or just after Nov 22, 1963? You can't be talking about
the mark Ellis described. That was on the wrong side of
your scenario, as has been demonstrated.
claviger
2019-04-25 18:24:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
The street was asphalt, the curb was concrete.
So you're saying that the bullet hit the curb. The one that
all those spectators were standing on. And no one standing
on either side of the street saw that happen right in front
of them?
DPDMU Sgt. Steve Ellis saw that shot and described it in detail.
Slow motion enhanced Zapruder film confirms his description.
What "slow motion enhanced Zapruder," or rather which one?
Any number of people have slowed down, sped up, blown up,
and 'enhanced' the crap out of the Zapruder film over the
years. I can't think of a single one who has found a bullet
strike on a curb. If no one else has publicly done so yet,
it's pretty doubtful that someone's found one now
And promises of some unknown person making a breakthrough
utilizing some undisclosed method have invariably turned
out to be disappointments.
As for Ellis, he's the guy who claimed that there was a
big bullet hole at the base of the Limousine's windshield.
However, it's worth discussing what Ellis said about the
"We came west on Main Street to Houston Street
and took a right, facing right into that building.
The building with the window was looking right at
us as we came up to Elm Street and made a left,
heading back toward the Triple Underpass. Midway
down Elm I remember waving at my wife’s niece and
nephew, Bill and Gayle Newman, who had apparently
come out to see the President. About the time I
started on a curve on Elm, I had turned to my right
to give signals to open up the intervals since we
were fixing to get on the freeway a short distance
away. That’s all I had on my mind. Just as I turned
around, then the first shot went off. It hit back
there. I hadn’t been able to see back where Chaney
was because Curry was there, but I could see where
the shot came down into the south side of the curb.
It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there
in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a
white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the
concrete. Just seeing it in a split second like that
I thought, 'Oh, my God!' I thought there had been
some people hit back there as people started
falling. I thought either some crank had thrown a
big “Baby John” firecracker and scared them causing
them to jump down or else a fragmentation grenade
had hit all those people. In any case, they went
down! Actually I think they threw themselves down in
anticipation of another shot.
As soon as I saw that, I turned around and
rode up beside the chief’s car and BANG!…BANG!, two
more shots went off: three shots in all! The sounds
were all clear and loud and sounded about the same.
From where I was, they sounded like they were coming
from around where the tall tree was in front of that
building. Of course, I’m forming an opinion based on
where I saw that stuff hit the street, so I knew that
it had to come from up that way, and I assumed that
all the others came from the same place.
But all the time I was moving up, I still
didn’t know it was shots until Chaney rode up beside
me and said, 'Sarge, the President’s hit!” I asked
him how bad, and he replied, “Hell, he’s dead! Man,
his head’s blown off!'"
"After the assassination, the FBI did their
investigative work on the curb where I had seen the
shot and cut off the section to analyze. However,
they cut off the wrong section. We later found the
place where it hit. Sergeant Harkness knows. He was
a three-wheel sergeant who worked traffic downtown."
So, Ellis says that "the shot came down into the
south side of the curb." That doesn't sound like
the curb on the North side of Elm. This impression
is reinforced by Ellis' statement, "I hadn’t been
able to see back where Chaney was because Curry
[i.e. the lead car with Curry, Decker, Lawson, and
Sorrels] was there. Ellis was the leftmost of the
squad of lead motorcycles; Chaney was the right
inboard member of the squad flanking the ss100x's
rear. Given Chaney's relationship with the limo,
it's hard to believe that Ellis would have been
able to see a bullet strike behind and to the right
of the limo.
Ellis said that "It looked like it hit the
concrete or grass there." But the curb on the
North side of Elm directly abuts the sidewalk.
If it hit the where the curb was, he wouldn't
have had to hedge his bet as to whether it
hit concrete or grass. On the other side of the
street, there was no sidewalk, so Ellis' fudging
between grass and concrete makes sense.
Also, consider his statement about finding the
"the FBI did their investigative work on the
curb where I had seen the shot and cut off the
section to analyze."
The only portion of curb that was removed and
analyzed was the mark on the Main St curb near
where James Tague was standing. That was on Main,
next to the triple underpass. While Ellis said,
"they cut off the wrong section" he still places
it near the Tague mark, far from the North side
of Elm, where you'd like it to be.
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
And none of the spectators standing on the curb was
injured by the hail of bullet fragments and concrete bits
that would have been kicked up by the impact?
No because fragments sprayed the President. He reacted by
exclaiming "My God, I'm hit!" Three deep fragment wounds
were discovered on his right cheek.
It must be nice to live in a world where all
you have to do to prove something is to simply
assume that it's true. Kellerman was the only
person to say that JFK said "My God..." during the
shooting. The Connallys and Mrs Kennedy all
said that he said *nothing* during the shooting.
The only other witness in the limo did not claim
that JFK said anything, either.
Now, look at the North side of Elm in the Zapruder
film. Spectators literally have their toes on the
curb. The bullet would have hit the ground literally
at their feet. But no one was hit by fragments of
concrete and metal from the impact a few inches away
from them, while JFK (and only JFK) get hit, at
least in your version. How is that supposed to work?
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
And no one noticed the inevitable divot gouged out
of the concrete by such a calamity?
I've been to Dealey Plaza and there are a half dozen gouges
in the sidewalk in the vicinity. Sgt. Ellis went back and found
the ricochet mark on the curb and showed it to his MU fellow
officers. One in particular is elongated and lines up perfectly
with the 6th floor window.
Exactly how many of those gouges were found freshly made
on or just after Nov 22, 1963? You can't be talking about
the mark Ellis described. That was on the wrong side of
your scenario, as has been demonstrated.
Short Answer. You demolish your own meandering convoluted
theory with one simple fact: there is only one sidewalk on Elm
Street located on the North side of the street. Everything that
Sgt. Ellis saw was on the North side: his Niece and Nephew, his
MU unit formation, President Kennedy waving to the crowd, and
the bullet strike.
bigdog
2019-04-27 21:41:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
The street was asphalt, the curb was concrete.
So you're saying that the bullet hit the curb. The one that
all those spectators were standing on. And no one standing
on either side of the street saw that happen right in front
of them?
DPDMU Sgt. Steve Ellis saw that shot and described it in detail.
Slow motion enhanced Zapruder film confirms his description.
What "slow motion enhanced Zapruder," or rather which one?
Any number of people have slowed down, sped up, blown up,
and 'enhanced' the crap out of the Zapruder film over the
years. I can't think of a single one who has found a bullet
strike on a curb. If no one else has publicly done so yet,
it's pretty doubtful that someone's found one now
And promises of some unknown person making a breakthrough
utilizing some undisclosed method have invariably turned
out to be disappointments.
As for Ellis, he's the guy who claimed that there was a
big bullet hole at the base of the Limousine's windshield.
However, it's worth discussing what Ellis said about the
"We came west on Main Street to Houston Street
and took a right, facing right into that building.
The building with the window was looking right at
us as we came up to Elm Street and made a left,
heading back toward the Triple Underpass. Midway
down Elm I remember waving at my wife’s niece and
nephew, Bill and Gayle Newman, who had apparently
come out to see the President. About the time I
started on a curve on Elm, I had turned to my right
to give signals to open up the intervals since we
were fixing to get on the freeway a short distance
away. That’s all I had on my mind. Just as I turned
around, then the first shot went off. It hit back
there. I hadn’t been able to see back where Chaney
was because Curry was there, but I could see where
the shot came down into the south side of the curb.
It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there
in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a
white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the
concrete. Just seeing it in a split second like that
I thought, 'Oh, my God!' I thought there had been
some people hit back there as people started
falling. I thought either some crank had thrown a
big “Baby John” firecracker and scared them causing
them to jump down or else a fragmentation grenade
had hit all those people. In any case, they went
down! Actually I think they threw themselves down in
anticipation of another shot.
As soon as I saw that, I turned around and
rode up beside the chief’s car and BANG!…BANG!, two
more shots went off: three shots in all! The sounds
were all clear and loud and sounded about the same.
From where I was, they sounded like they were coming
from around where the tall tree was in front of that
building. Of course, I’m forming an opinion based on
where I saw that stuff hit the street, so I knew that
it had to come from up that way, and I assumed that
all the others came from the same place.
But all the time I was moving up, I still
didn’t know it was shots until Chaney rode up beside
me and said, 'Sarge, the President’s hit!” I asked
him how bad, and he replied, “Hell, he’s dead! Man,
his head’s blown off!'"
"After the assassination, the FBI did their
investigative work on the curb where I had seen the
shot and cut off the section to analyze. However,
they cut off the wrong section. We later found the
place where it hit. Sergeant Harkness knows. He was
a three-wheel sergeant who worked traffic downtown."
So, Ellis says that "the shot came down into the
south side of the curb." That doesn't sound like
the curb on the North side of Elm. This impression
is reinforced by Ellis' statement, "I hadn’t been
able to see back where Chaney was because Curry
[i.e. the lead car with Curry, Decker, Lawson, and
Sorrels] was there. Ellis was the leftmost of the
squad of lead motorcycles; Chaney was the right
inboard member of the squad flanking the ss100x's
rear. Given Chaney's relationship with the limo,
it's hard to believe that Ellis would have been
able to see a bullet strike behind and to the right
of the limo.
Ellis said that "It looked like it hit the
concrete or grass there." But the curb on the
North side of Elm directly abuts the sidewalk.
If it hit the where the curb was, he wouldn't
have had to hedge his bet as to whether it
hit concrete or grass. On the other side of the
street, there was no sidewalk, so Ellis' fudging
between grass and concrete makes sense.
Also, consider his statement about finding the
"the FBI did their investigative work on the
curb where I had seen the shot and cut off the
section to analyze."
The only portion of curb that was removed and
analyzed was the mark on the Main St curb near
where James Tague was standing. That was on Main,
next to the triple underpass. While Ellis said,
"they cut off the wrong section" he still places
it near the Tague mark, far from the North side
of Elm, where you'd like it to be.
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
And none of the spectators standing on the curb was
injured by the hail of bullet fragments and concrete bits
that would have been kicked up by the impact?
No because fragments sprayed the President. He reacted by
exclaiming "My God, I'm hit!" Three deep fragment wounds
were discovered on his right cheek.
It must be nice to live in a world where all
you have to do to prove something is to simply
assume that it's true. Kellerman was the only
person to say that JFK said "My God..." during the
shooting. The Connallys and Mrs Kennedy all
said that he said *nothing* during the shooting.
The only other witness in the limo did not claim
that JFK said anything, either.
Now, look at the North side of Elm in the Zapruder
film. Spectators literally have their toes on the
curb. The bullet would have hit the ground literally
at their feet. But no one was hit by fragments of
concrete and metal from the impact a few inches away
from them, while JFK (and only JFK) get hit, at
least in your version. How is that supposed to work?
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
And no one noticed the inevitable divot gouged out
of the concrete by such a calamity?
I've been to Dealey Plaza and there are a half dozen gouges
in the sidewalk in the vicinity. Sgt. Ellis went back and found
the ricochet mark on the curb and showed it to his MU fellow
officers. One in particular is elongated and lines up perfectly
with the 6th floor window.
Exactly how many of those gouges were found freshly made
on or just after Nov 22, 1963? You can't be talking about
the mark Ellis described. That was on the wrong side of
your scenario, as has been demonstrated.
Short Answer. You demolish your own meandering convoluted
theory with one simple fact: there is only one sidewalk on Elm
Street located on the North side of the street. Everything that
Sgt. Ellis saw was on the North side: his Niece and Nephew, his
MU unit formation, President Kennedy waving to the crowd, and
the bullet strike.
Ellis was quite a ways in front of the limo and was looking back over his
shoulder so it is doubtful he would have seen anything clearly. He was
unsure whether the shot hit the curb or the grass.

"It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a flash,"

He certainly didn't see the strike clearly or he would know what it hit.
It is quite possible that what he saw strike the curb was a fragment from
the shot that had hit much closer to the limo. It seems highly unlikely
that a shot aimed at JFK from the sniper's nest would have struck the curb
directly. That would have been an amazingly wild shot.
slats
2019-04-28 17:46:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Ellis was quite a ways in front of the limo and was looking back over
his shoulder so it is doubtful he would have seen anything clearly. He
was unsure whether the shot hit the curb or the grass.
"It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a flash,"
He certainly didn't see the strike clearly or he would know what it
hit. It is quite possible that what he saw strike the curb was a
fragment from the shot that had hit much closer to the limo. It seems
highly unlikely that a shot aimed at JFK from the sniper's nest would
have struck the curb directly. That would have been an amazingly wild
shot.
I can't believe you continue to waste brain cells on this topic. You must
be bored. Just out of curiosity, which do you find more absurd: Lifton's
"body snatch" theory or this one?
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-29 00:50:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
The street was asphalt, the curb was concrete.
So you're saying that the bullet hit the curb. The one that
all those spectators were standing on. And no one standing
on either side of the street saw that happen right in front
of them?
DPDMU Sgt. Steve Ellis saw that shot and described it in detail.
Slow motion enhanced Zapruder film confirms his description.
What "slow motion enhanced Zapruder," or rather which one?
Any number of people have slowed down, sped up, blown up,
and 'enhanced' the crap out of the Zapruder film over the
years. I can't think of a single one who has found a bullet
strike on a curb. If no one else has publicly done so yet,
it's pretty doubtful that someone's found one now
And promises of some unknown person making a breakthrough
utilizing some undisclosed method have invariably turned
out to be disappointments.
As for Ellis, he's the guy who claimed that there was a
big bullet hole at the base of the Limousine's windshield.
However, it's worth discussing what Ellis said about the
"We came west on Main Street to Houston Street
and took a right, facing right into that building.
The building with the window was looking right at
us as we came up to Elm Street and made a left,
heading back toward the Triple Underpass. Midway
down Elm I remember waving at my wife’s niece and
nephew, Bill and Gayle Newman, who had apparently
come out to see the President. About the time I
started on a curve on Elm, I had turned to my right
to give signals to open up the intervals since we
were fixing to get on the freeway a short distance
away. That’s all I had on my mind. Just as I turned
around, then the first shot went off. It hit back
there. I hadn’t been able to see back where Chaney
was because Curry was there, but I could see where
the shot came down into the south side of the curb.
It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there
in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a
white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the
concrete. Just seeing it in a split second like that
I thought, 'Oh, my God!' I thought there had been
some people hit back there as people started
falling. I thought either some crank had thrown a
big “Baby John” firecracker and scared them causing
them to jump down or else a fragmentation grenade
had hit all those people. In any case, they went
down! Actually I think they threw themselves down in
anticipation of another shot.
As soon as I saw that, I turned around and
rode up beside the chief’s car and BANG!…BANG!, two
more shots went off: three shots in all! The sounds
were all clear and loud and sounded about the same.
From where I was, they sounded like they were coming
from around where the tall tree was in front of that
building. Of course, I’m forming an opinion based on
where I saw that stuff hit the street, so I knew that
it had to come from up that way, and I assumed that
all the others came from the same place.
But all the time I was moving up, I still
didn’t know it was shots until Chaney rode up beside
me and said, 'Sarge, the President’s hit!” I asked
him how bad, and he replied, “Hell, he’s dead! Man,
his head’s blown off!'"
"After the assassination, the FBI did their
investigative work on the curb where I had seen the
shot and cut off the section to analyze. However,
they cut off the wrong section. We later found the
place where it hit. Sergeant Harkness knows. He was
a three-wheel sergeant who worked traffic downtown."
So, Ellis says that "the shot came down into the
south side of the curb." That doesn't sound like
the curb on the North side of Elm. This impression
is reinforced by Ellis' statement, "I hadn’t been
able to see back where Chaney was because Curry
[i.e. the lead car with Curry, Decker, Lawson, and
Sorrels] was there. Ellis was the leftmost of the
squad of lead motorcycles; Chaney was the right
inboard member of the squad flanking the ss100x's
rear. Given Chaney's relationship with the limo,
it's hard to believe that Ellis would have been
able to see a bullet strike behind and to the right
of the limo.
Ellis said that "It looked like it hit the
concrete or grass there." But the curb on the
North side of Elm directly abuts the sidewalk.
If it hit the where the curb was, he wouldn't
have had to hedge his bet as to whether it
hit concrete or grass. On the other side of the
street, there was no sidewalk, so Ellis' fudging
between grass and concrete makes sense.
Also, consider his statement about finding the
"the FBI did their investigative work on the
curb where I had seen the shot and cut off the
section to analyze."
The only portion of curb that was removed and
analyzed was the mark on the Main St curb near
where James Tague was standing. That was on Main,
next to the triple underpass. While Ellis said,
"they cut off the wrong section" he still places
it near the Tague mark, far from the North side
of Elm, where you'd like it to be.
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
And none of the spectators standing on the curb was
injured by the hail of bullet fragments and concrete bits
that would have been kicked up by the impact?
No because fragments sprayed the President. He reacted by
exclaiming "My God, I'm hit!" Three deep fragment wounds
were discovered on his right cheek.
It must be nice to live in a world where all
you have to do to prove something is to simply
assume that it's true. Kellerman was the only
person to say that JFK said "My God..." during the
shooting. The Connallys and Mrs Kennedy all
said that he said *nothing* during the shooting.
The only other witness in the limo did not claim
that JFK said anything, either.
Now, look at the North side of Elm in the Zapruder
film. Spectators literally have their toes on the
curb. The bullet would have hit the ground literally
at their feet. But no one was hit by fragments of
concrete and metal from the impact a few inches away
from them, while JFK (and only JFK) get hit, at
least in your version. How is that supposed to work?
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
And no one noticed the inevitable divot gouged out
of the concrete by such a calamity?
I've been to Dealey Plaza and there are a half dozen gouges
in the sidewalk in the vicinity. Sgt. Ellis went back and found
the ricochet mark on the curb and showed it to his MU fellow
officers. One in particular is elongated and lines up perfectly
with the 6th floor window.
Exactly how many of those gouges were found freshly made
on or just after Nov 22, 1963? You can't be talking about
the mark Ellis described. That was on the wrong side of
your scenario, as has been demonstrated.
Short Answer. You demolish your own meandering convoluted
theory with one simple fact: there is only one sidewalk on Elm
Street located on the North side of the street. Everything that
Sgt. Ellis saw was on the North side: his Niece and Nephew, his
MU unit formation, President Kennedy waving to the crowd, and
the bullet strike.
Ellis was quite a ways in front of the limo and was looking back over his
shoulder so it is doubtful he would have seen anything clearly. He was
unsure whether the shot hit the curb or the grass.
"It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a flash,"
It hit the grass? And left a mark?
Post by bigdog
He certainly didn't see the strike clearly or he would know what it hit.
It is quite possible that what he saw strike the curb was a fragment from
the shot that had hit much closer to the limo. It seems highly unlikely
that a shot aimed at JFK from the sniper's nest would have struck the curb
directly. That would have been an amazingly wild shot.
r***@gmail.com
2019-04-27 21:49:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
The street was asphalt, the curb was concrete.
So you're saying that the bullet hit the curb. The one that
all those spectators were standing on. And no one standing
on either side of the street saw that happen right in front
of them?
DPDMU Sgt. Steve Ellis saw that shot and described it in detail.
Slow motion enhanced Zapruder film confirms his description.
What "slow motion enhanced Zapruder," or rather which one?
Any number of people have slowed down, sped up, blown up,
and 'enhanced' the crap out of the Zapruder film over the
years. I can't think of a single one who has found a bullet
strike on a curb. If no one else has publicly done so yet,
it's pretty doubtful that someone's found one now
And promises of some unknown person making a breakthrough
utilizing some undisclosed method have invariably turned
out to be disappointments.
As for Ellis, he's the guy who claimed that there was a
big bullet hole at the base of the Limousine's windshield.
However, it's worth discussing what Ellis said about the
"We came west on Main Street to Houston Street
and took a right, facing right into that building.
The building with the window was looking right at
us as we came up to Elm Street and made a left,
heading back toward the Triple Underpass. Midway
down Elm I remember waving at my wife’s niece and
nephew, Bill and Gayle Newman, who had apparently
come out to see the President. About the time I
started on a curve on Elm, I had turned to my right
to give signals to open up the intervals since we
were fixing to get on the freeway a short distance
away. That’s all I had on my mind. Just as I turned
around, then the first shot went off. It hit back
there. I hadn’t been able to see back where Chaney
was because Curry was there, but I could see where
the shot came down into the south side of the curb.
It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there
in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a
white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the
concrete. Just seeing it in a split second like that
I thought, 'Oh, my God!' I thought there had been
some people hit back there as people started
falling. I thought either some crank had thrown a
big “Baby John” firecracker and scared them causing
them to jump down or else a fragmentation grenade
had hit all those people. In any case, they went
down! Actually I think they threw themselves down in
anticipation of another shot.
As soon as I saw that, I turned around and
rode up beside the chief’s car and BANG!…BANG!, two
more shots went off: three shots in all! The sounds
were all clear and loud and sounded about the same.
From where I was, they sounded like they were coming
from around where the tall tree was in front of that
building. Of course, I’m forming an opinion based on
where I saw that stuff hit the street, so I knew that
it had to come from up that way, and I assumed that
all the others came from the same place.
But all the time I was moving up, I still
didn’t know it was shots until Chaney rode up beside
me and said, 'Sarge, the President’s hit!” I asked
him how bad, and he replied, “Hell, he’s dead! Man,
his head’s blown off!'"
"After the assassination, the FBI did their
investigative work on the curb where I had seen the
shot and cut off the section to analyze. However,
they cut off the wrong section. We later found the
place where it hit. Sergeant Harkness knows. He was
a three-wheel sergeant who worked traffic downtown."
So, Ellis says that "the shot came down into the
south side of the curb." That doesn't sound like
the curb on the North side of Elm. This impression
is reinforced by Ellis' statement, "I hadn’t been
able to see back where Chaney was because Curry
[i.e. the lead car with Curry, Decker, Lawson, and
Sorrels] was there. Ellis was the leftmost of the
squad of lead motorcycles; Chaney was the right
inboard member of the squad flanking the ss100x's
rear. Given Chaney's relationship with the limo,
it's hard to believe that Ellis would have been
able to see a bullet strike behind and to the right
of the limo.
Ellis said that "It looked like it hit the
concrete or grass there." But the curb on the
North side of Elm directly abuts the sidewalk.
If it hit the where the curb was, he wouldn't
have had to hedge his bet as to whether it
hit concrete or grass. On the other side of the
street, there was no sidewalk, so Ellis' fudging
between grass and concrete makes sense.
Also, consider his statement about finding the
"the FBI did their investigative work on the
curb where I had seen the shot and cut off the
section to analyze."
The only portion of curb that was removed and
analyzed was the mark on the Main St curb near
where James Tague was standing. That was on Main,
next to the triple underpass. While Ellis said,
"they cut off the wrong section" he still places
it near the Tague mark, far from the North side
of Elm, where you'd like it to be.
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
And none of the spectators standing on the curb was
injured by the hail of bullet fragments and concrete bits
that would have been kicked up by the impact?
No because fragments sprayed the President. He reacted by
exclaiming "My God, I'm hit!" Three deep fragment wounds
were discovered on his right cheek.
It must be nice to live in a world where all
you have to do to prove something is to simply
assume that it's true. Kellerman was the only
person to say that JFK said "My God..." during the
shooting. The Connallys and Mrs Kennedy all
said that he said *nothing* during the shooting.
The only other witness in the limo did not claim
that JFK said anything, either.
Now, look at the North side of Elm in the Zapruder
film. Spectators literally have their toes on the
curb. The bullet would have hit the ground literally
at their feet. But no one was hit by fragments of
concrete and metal from the impact a few inches away
from them, while JFK (and only JFK) get hit, at
least in your version. How is that supposed to work?
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
And no one noticed the inevitable divot gouged out
of the concrete by such a calamity?
I've been to Dealey Plaza and there are a half dozen gouges
in the sidewalk in the vicinity. Sgt. Ellis went back and found
the ricochet mark on the curb and showed it to his MU fellow
officers. One in particular is elongated and lines up perfectly
with the 6th floor window.
Exactly how many of those gouges were found freshly made
on or just after Nov 22, 1963? You can't be talking about
the mark Ellis described. That was on the wrong side of
your scenario, as has been demonstrated.
Short Answer. You demolish your own meandering convoluted
theory with one simple fact: there is only one sidewalk on Elm
Street located on the North side of the street. Everything that
Sgt. Ellis saw was on the North side: his Niece and Nephew, his
MU unit formation, President Kennedy waving to the crowd, and
the bullet strike.
Did you not read what I wrote, or do you simply not
understand English beyond Dr Suess? Let me do this
again, by the numbers, and with a couple of items
added or moved over from other threads:

1.) Ellis noted that "it looked like it hit the concrete
or grass there." The implication of this statement
clear: the curb directly abutted the grass where
Ellis said saw the bullet strike. As you've pointed
out, that's on the South side of Elm The curb on
the North side of the street abuts the sidewalk, not
grass.

2.) Ellis also said, "I hadn’t been able to see back
where Chaney was because Curry [the lead car] was
there." Ellis was ahead of Curry's car, and to the
left of it. If Curry's car was blocking Ellis' view
of Chaney, who was at the right rear of SS100X, then
it (and SS100X itself, and the Queen Mary) blocked
Ellis' view of the curb where you need the shot to
hit.

3.) And Ellis keeps going: "the FBI did their
investigative work on the curb where I had seen the
shot and cut off the section to analyze." That was
the section of the curb on Main near the TP and
Tague.

4.) In Weisberg's papers, there's a report from an
interview of Ellis. In it, Ellis said that the shot
hit the curb "to his *left* *front*" and "a portion
of the curb where he saw the dust fly has been
removed. This occurred only a few days after the
assassination." Again, the curb section was removed
form a point next to the triple underpass.
(http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/E%20Disk/Ellis%20Starvis%20Major/Item%2001.pdf)

5.) Ellis said that JFK turned to the right *in* *response*
*to* the shot that hit the curb. You need for JFK
to turn to his right *before* the shot hits. How do you
reconcile this contradiction?

6.) You have the shot hitting the curb literally at the
feet of the spectators standing shoulder to shoulder on
the North side of Elm. Yet no one was hit by fragments
of metal or concrete, nor did anyone other than Ellis
notice the impact *right* *in* *front* *of* *them*.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-16 16:03:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The street was asphalt, the curb was concrete.
So you're saying that the bullet hit the curb. The one that
all those spectators were standing on. And no one standing
on either side of the street saw that happen right in front
of them? And none of the spectators standing on the curb was
injured by the hail of bullet fragments and concrete bits
that would have been kicked up by the impact? And no one
noticed the inevitable divot gouged out of the concrete by
such a calamity?
Why can't you have a spectator injured by such debris? James Tague was.
r***@gmail.com
2019-04-21 00:11:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The street was asphalt, the curb was concrete.
So you're saying that the bullet hit the curb. The one that
all those spectators were standing on. And no one standing
on either side of the street saw that happen right in front
of them? And none of the spectators standing on the curb was
injured by the hail of bullet fragments and concrete bits
that would have been kicked up by the impact? And no one
noticed the inevitable divot gouged out of the concrete by
such a calamity?
Why can't you have a spectator injured by such debris? James Tague was.
Don't ask me, it's not my theory. I'm pointing out that
a bullet strike where and when Donahue would have it
ensures that one of the spectators standing on the curb
along Elm would have been hit by debris kicked up by
the impact. Yet, none of these people reported such an
event.
claviger
2019-04-22 01:08:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why can't you have a spectator injured by such debris? James Tague was.
Don't ask me, it's not my theory. I'm pointing out that
a bullet strike where and when Donahue would have it
ensures that one of the spectators standing on the curb
along Elm would have been hit by debris kicked up by
the impact. Yet, none of these people reported such an
event.
No debris so no gunshot. Must have been a firecracker
after all. Did LHO throw it? If not, who did?
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-23 17:28:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why can't you have a spectator injured by such debris? James Tague was.
Don't ask me, it's not my theory. I'm pointing out that
a bullet strike where and when Donahue would have it
ensures that one of the spectators standing on the curb
along Elm would have been hit by debris kicked up by
the impact. Yet, none of these people reported such an
event.
No debris so no gunshot. Must have been a firecracker
after all. Did LHO throw it? If not, who did?
Have YOU ever been it by firecracker debris?
If anyone threw a firecracker, there is no evidence of it and it would
have to be from spectator very close to the limo.
claviger
2019-04-24 04:25:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The street was asphalt, the curb was concrete.
So you're saying that the bullet hit the curb. The one that
all those spectators were standing on. And no one standing
on either side of the street saw that happen right in front
of them? And none of the spectators standing on the curb was
injured by the hail of bullet fragments and concrete bits
that would have been kicked up by the impact? And no one
noticed the inevitable divot gouged out of the concrete by
such a calamity?
Why can't you have a spectator injured by such debris? James Tague was.
Don't ask me, it's not my theory. I'm pointing out that
a bullet strike where and when Donahue would have it
ensures that one of the spectators standing on the curb
along Elm would have been hit by debris kicked up by
the impact. Yet, none of these people reported such an
event.
Invalid assumption.
r***@gmail.com
2019-04-27 21:49:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The street was asphalt, the curb was concrete.
So you're saying that the bullet hit the curb. The one that
all those spectators were standing on. And no one standing
on either side of the street saw that happen right in front
of them? And none of the spectators standing on the curb was
injured by the hail of bullet fragments and concrete bits
that would have been kicked up by the impact? And no one
noticed the inevitable divot gouged out of the concrete by
such a calamity?
Why can't you have a spectator injured by such debris? James Tague was.
Don't ask me, it's not my theory. I'm pointing out that
a bullet strike where and when Donahue would have it
ensures that one of the spectators standing on the curb
along Elm would have been hit by debris kicked up by
the impact. Yet, none of these people reported such an
event.
Invalid assumption.
Sez who?
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-29 00:50:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by r***@gmail.com
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Who said anything about concrete? IIRC, at the time, Elm was
surfaced with asphalt tarmac. That's what the Haag's tested
against, and found that the bullet didn't leave any appreciable
fragments after impact. Now, where are the results of
Donahue's experiments shooting at concrete surfaces? Or his
experiments shooting skulls with 5.56mm M193 rounds?
The street was asphalt, the curb was concrete.
So you're saying that the bullet hit the curb. The one that
all those spectators were standing on. And no one standing
on either side of the street saw that happen right in front
of them? And none of the spectators standing on the curb was
injured by the hail of bullet fragments and concrete bits
that would have been kicked up by the impact? And no one
noticed the inevitable divot gouged out of the concrete by
such a calamity?
Why can't you have a spectator injured by such debris? James Tague was.
Don't ask me, it's not my theory. I'm pointing out that
a bullet strike where and when Donahue would have it
ensures that one of the spectators standing on the curb
along Elm would have been hit by debris kicked up by
the impact. Yet, none of these people reported such an
event.
Invalid assumption.
Sez who?
You can't figure out how a thread works?

Anthony Marsh
2019-04-11 00:01:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Elm Street was not made of concrete.
Guess again.
claviger
2019-04-11 14:40:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled
and ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Elm Street was not made of concrete.
Guess again.
The curbs are made of concrete. I've been there, you have not.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-13 03:22:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled
and ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Elm Street was not made of concrete.
Guess again.
The curbs are made of concrete. I've been there, you have not.
Show me the mark. Was it hardened lead or unhardened lead? Do you even
understand the difference? PPM?
claviger
2019-04-13 23:50:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled
and ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Elm Street was not made of concrete.
Guess again.
The curbs are made of concrete. I've been there, you have not.
Show me the mark.
Already volunteered to meet you in Dealey Plaza and show you
exactly where it is. Tell me when you can be there. You are an
alleged bus driver and the Greyhound Bus Station is in walking
distance
Post by Anthony Marsh
Was it hardened lead or unhardened lead? Do you even understand
the difference? PPM?
Yes and bring a magnifying glass.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-16 16:07:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled
and ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Elm Street was not made of concrete.
Guess again.
The curbs are made of concrete. I've been there, you have not.
Show me the mark.
Already volunteered to meet you in Dealey Plaza and show you
exactly where it is. Tell me when you can be there. You are an
alleged bus driver and the Greyhound Bus Station is in walking
distance
I never drove for Geyhound.
I ask you to show me and you chicken out.
You don't even have a map of Dealey Plaza so you can't mark the spot.
Nor can you show me any mark in any photograph.
All you have is BS.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Was it hardened lead or unhardened lead? Do you even understand
the difference? PPM?
Yes and bring a magnifying glass.
If it is a real bullet mark you shouldn't need a magnifying glass to see
it. You always make up copouts. They didn't need no damn magnifying
glass to see the bullet mark on the curn near Tague.


Loading Image...
bigdog
2019-04-11 00:20:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Nonsense.
claviger
2019-04-12 01:36:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Nonsense.
Which part is nonsense?
bigdog
2019-04-13 03:39:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Nonsense.
Which part is nonsense?
What part is not?
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-13 19:14:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by donald willis
That must have been some hard pavement. If it hit a road here in Vallejo
it would burrow right into it and create another g******damned pothole....
That seemed to be what happened in the Haag experiment. It did create a
small pothole but since asphalt is somewhat malleable, traffic passing
over it would soon smooth it out. If only big potholes could be fixed that
way.
Concrete is not malleable and the reason why the bullet was so mangled and
ended up inside the Limousine. If all the FBI did is wipe off those
fragments there should be blood and brain tissue deep in the folds of the
deformed bullet. Inspection with extreme magnification should reveal brain
matter and fluids dried up. The lack of this type of forensic evidence
indicates those two jagged fragments did not pass through the cranium.
Nonsense.
Which part is nonsense?
YOU
donald willis
2019-04-05 19:41:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
We're supposed to believe that not only was Hickey not aware the gun went
off but none of the other nine men aboard the Queen Mary were not aware
of it.
Easy to understand why the Cabinet Member who ran Treasury Department
and Secret Service would not want this to be public knowledge. Very curious
reaction to the Dallas parade, the AR-15 was banned from any more parades
while denying it had anything to do with the shooting incident in Dealey Plaza.
Actions speak louder than words.
Cite?
On June 18, 1964, Rowley provided testimony to the
Warren Commission investigating the assassination
of John F. Kennedy.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. ROWLEY beginning at 5H449...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowley1.htm
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am thinking of this. As you go
along in the motorcade, you have men who are scanning
the buildings along the way, don't you?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And they have submachineguns in one
of the cars.
Mr. ROWLEY. No; for security reasons, I would like to--
we don't have machine-guns now, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I just thought I heard that from the record
here, that they had some kind of guns.
Mr. ROWLEY. They had a weapon, a new weapon; yes, sir.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Well, whatever it is.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowley1.htm
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
None of the spectators on either side of Elm St. were aware of this.
There is circumstantial evidence some witnesses did see and hear it.
Cite?
In a Magazine Article a young reporter for one of the Dallas Newspapers
was notified by telephone shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. Because of
the traffic he ran all the way to Dealey Plaza. He saw some people and
asked what happened. The first 3 people in the crowd he talked to said "A
bodyguard shot the President".
The young reporter was stunned and bewildered so went on to other
witnesses and asked what happened. Those witnesses said gunshots were
fired from a window of the TSBD building. That young reporter made a
historic mistake not taking down the name and phone number of those first
3 witnesses.
He wrote a long two page article that appeared in a magazine a week after
the Assassination. The article was very well written with a lot of
information he worked very hard to collect, but unfortunately he made a
professional mistake and dismissed those 3 eyewitnesses. He could have
been famous but now lives in obscurity, unless he reads this story and
retells his account on this Newsgroup.
For years I've been trying to find that magazine but no luck at all. I
don't remember which one, but I do remember the only photo was a small B&W
picture of the TSBD at the beginning of the article. I remember the young
reporter was a "stringer" for other publications. He mentioned one of his
clients was a newspaper in Houston Tx as I remember, but I've never been
able to track it down.
What I do clearly remember is my own reaction, those first 3 witnesses
must be nuts! Why would any bodyguard decide to assassinate The President
of the United States in front of all those witnesses in the middle of a
parade?!!! I was a teenager in high school and It never occurred to me it
could've been an accident.
If anyone ever discovers that magazine I would appreciate hearing about
it.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
This theory is as far fetched as any thing the conspiracy hobbyists
have dreamed up and is supported by as much evidence which is
none.
There is ballistic evidence.
Such as?
What the book "Mortal Error" is all about. Bonar Menninger takes the
reader on a ballistic journey through all the evidence step-by-step. It's
a fascinating story of meticulous forensic analysis.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
and 5 eyewitness statements, two DPS
Officers and three bystanders.
Two DPD Officers and 3 bystanders. DPD Ellis and DPD Hargis. Ellis saw the
first shot miss hit the curb and Hargis thought a shot took place next to
Hill, Hargis, Miller, Franzen, & Franzen. Max Holland saw it happen.
Post by bigdog
Cite?
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It is based on Donahue's OPINION that a Carcano bullet would not
fragment and deposit a trail of fine lead particles inside JFK's head.
Not what he said. It is obvious you never read the book.
Nobody has ever given me any reason to.
You prefer Shadow Boxing instead of old fashioned Research. I think you
are pulling a Tom Sawyer on me to paint your fence. Why don't you be a
Good Sport and read the book, then we can have a conversation about it.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Donahue said it
was possible either bullet could penetrate the posterior skull but with
different terminal ballistics. The AR-15 would be very likely to cause a
massive wound and "lead snowstorm" because of a deadly combination of high
velocity, high thermal load, and thinner jacket. The Carcano was a
heavier, slower projectile with a thick metal jacket.
That thick jacket didn't stop the Carcano bullet from fragmenting badly.
Against a cement curb, yes. The term "fragmenting badly" is not identical
to nor a synonym for a "lead snowstorm".
I forget who Menninger said was the first person in the JFK case to use
that term. Do we even know?

dcw
donald willis
2019-04-05 19:41:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
We're supposed to believe that not only was Hickey not aware the gun went
off but none of the other nine men aboard the Queen Mary were not aware
of it.
Easy to understand why the Cabinet Member who ran Treasury Department
and Secret Service would not want this to be public knowledge. Very curious
reaction to the Dallas parade, the AR-15 was banned from any more parades
while denying it had anything to do with the shooting incident in Dealey Plaza.
Actions speak louder than words.
Cite?
On June 18, 1964, Rowley provided testimony to the
Warren Commission investigating the assassination
of John F. Kennedy.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. ROWLEY beginning at 5H449...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowley1.htm
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am thinking of this. As you go
along in the motorcade, you have men who are scanning
the buildings along the way, don't you?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And they have submachineguns in one
of the cars.
Mr. ROWLEY. No; for security reasons, I would like to--
we don't have machine-guns now, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I just thought I heard that from the record
here, that they had some kind of guns.
Mr. ROWLEY. They had a weapon, a new weapon; yes, sir.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Well, whatever it is.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowley1.htm
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
None of the spectators on either side of Elm St. were aware of this.
There is circumstantial evidence some witnesses did see and hear it.
Cite?
In a Magazine Article a young reporter for one of the Dallas Newspapers
was notified by telephone shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. Because of
the traffic he ran all the way to Dealey Plaza. He saw some people and
asked what happened. The first 3 people in the crowd he talked to said "A
bodyguard shot the President".
The young reporter was stunned and bewildered so went on to other
witnesses and asked what happened. Those witnesses said gunshots were
fired from a window of the TSBD building. That young reporter made a
historic mistake not taking down the name and phone number of those first
3 witnesses.
He wrote a long two page article that appeared in a magazine a week after
the Assassination. The article was very well written with a lot of
information he worked very hard to collect, but unfortunately he made a
professional mistake and dismissed those 3 eyewitnesses. He could have
been famous but now lives in obscurity, unless he reads this story and
retells his account on this Newsgroup.
For years I've been trying to find that magazine but no luck at all. I
don't remember which one, but I do remember the only photo was a small B&W
picture of the TSBD at the beginning of the article. I remember the young
reporter was a "stringer" for other publications. He mentioned one of his
clients was a newspaper in Houston Tx as I remember, but I've never been
able to track it down.
What I do clearly remember is my own reaction, those first 3 witnesses
must be nuts! Why would any bodyguard decide to assassinate The President
of the United States in front of all those witnesses in the middle of a
parade?!!! I was a teenager in high school and It never occurred to me it
could've been an accident.
If anyone ever discovers that magazine I would appreciate hearing about
it.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
This theory is as far fetched as any thing the conspiracy hobbyists
have dreamed up and is supported by as much evidence which is
none.
There is ballistic evidence.
Such as?
What the book "Mortal Error" is all about. Bonar Menninger takes the
reader on a ballistic journey through all the evidence step-by-step. It's
a fascinating story of meticulous forensic analysis.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
and 5 eyewitness statements, two DPS
Officers and three bystanders.
Two DPD Officers and 3 bystanders. DPD Ellis and DPD Hargis. Ellis saw the
first shot miss hit the curb and Hargis thought a shot took place next to
Hill, Hargis, Miller, Franzen, & Franzen. Max Holland saw it happen.
Post by bigdog
Cite?
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
It is based on Donahue's OPINION that a Carcano bullet would not
fragment and deposit a trail of fine lead particles inside JFK's head.
Not what he said. It is obvious you never read the book.
Nobody has ever given me any reason to.
You prefer Shadow Boxing instead of old fashioned Research. I think you
are pulling a Tom Sawyer on me to paint your fence. Why don't you be a
Good Sport and read the book, then we can have a conversation about it.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Donahue said it
was possible either bullet could penetrate the posterior skull but with
different terminal ballistics. The AR-15 would be very likely to cause a
massive wound and "lead snowstorm" because of a deadly combination of high
velocity, high thermal load, and thinner jacket. The Carcano was a
heavier, slower projectile with a thick metal jacket.
That thick jacket didn't stop the Carcano bullet from fragmenting badly.
Against a cement curb, yes. The term "fragmenting badly" is not identical
to nor a synonym for a "lead snowstorm". The reason why is explained in
the book Mortal Error".
Post by bigdog
It created a pressure cavity within JFK's skull and because that skull
ceased to be a solid object with all the fracture lines, it easily blew
open a massive defect in the skull.
Yes.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
There are no witnesses to Hickey firing the AR-15.
Actually there were some witnesses who said that to a young reporter
for a Dallas Newspaper. He didn't take down takes and phone number
because he didn't believe them. You would have done the same thing.
So you really have no witnesses.
We have 3 unknown eyewitnesses because a reporter failed to take notes.
Mu guess is that on 11/22/63 those eyewitnesses ( if they existed) were
not altogether unknown. DPD Insp. Sawyer was out front of the depository
having witnesses brought up to him. Somehow, by the time of the hearings,
his notes re the witnesses were lost. And he did take notes, because
Chief Deputy Sheriff Sweatt reported that weekend that he SAW Sawyer
taking notes. Too bad LBJ was rushing the Commission, or they might have
had time to let Sawyer look for his notes....

dcw
donald willis
2019-04-03 20:40:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
We're supposed to believe that not only was Hickey not aware the gun went
off but none of the other nine men aboard the Queen Mary were not aware of
it.
Easy to understand why the Cabinet Member who ran Treasury Department and
Secret Service would not want this to be public knowledge. Very curious
reaction to the Dallas parade, the AR-15 was banned from any more parades
while denying it had anything to do with the shooting incident in Dealey
Plaza. Actions speak louder than words.
This would be pretty substantial evidence if you can cite dates and
reasons, other than We don't want another President to get shot by our SS
agents....
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
None of the spectators on either side of Elm St. were aware of this.
There is circumstantial evidence some witnesses did see and hear it.
Post by bigdog
This theory is as far fetched as any thing the conspiracy hobbyists
have dreamed up and is supported by as much evidence which is
none.
There is ballistic evidence and 5 eyewitness statements, two DPS
Officers and three bystanders.
Post by bigdog
It is based on Donahue's OPINION that a Carcano bullet would not
fragment and deposit a trail of fine lead particles inside JFK's head.
Not what he said. It is obvious you never read the book. Donahue said it
was possible either bullet could penetrate the posterior skull but with
different terminal ballistics. The AR-15 would be very likely to cause a
massive wound and "lead snowstorm" because of a deadly combination of high
velocity, high thermal load, and thinner jacket. The Carcano was a
heavier, slower projectile with a thick metal jacket.
Post by bigdog
There are no witnesses to Hickey firing the AR-15.
Actually there were some witnesses who said that to a young reporter
for a Dallas Newspaper. He didn't take down takes and phone number
because he didn't believe them. You would have done the same thing.
Post by bigdog
There is no forensic evidence that Hickey fired the AR-15.
What evidence are you referring to?
Post by bigdog
There is nothing but Donahue's misguided analysis. The only mystery
is how this goofy theory ever gained any traction.
The Baltimore Sun was so impressed with his analysis they ran a Sunday
Special with illustrations. By contrast The HSCA did not want to hear his
theory and froze him out. If it was so debunkable why not take a look at
it, then tear it to shreds?
claviger
2019-04-04 00:59:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by bigdog
There are no witnesses to Hickey firing the AR-15.
Actually there were some witnesses who said that to a young reporter
for a Dallas Newspaper. He didn't take down names or phone number
because he didn't believe them. You would have done the same thing.
r***@gmail.com
2019-04-06 21:15:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
There are no witnesses to Hickey firing the AR-15.
Actually there were some witnesses who said that to a young reporter
for a Dallas Newspaper. He didn't take down names or phone number
because he didn't believe them. You would have done the same thing.
Some witness you cannot name, interviewed by a reporter whom you also
cannot name, working for a newspaper that you can --coincincidentally--
cannot name.

You're big on claims but short on names, apparently.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-11 14:39:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by claviger
If so, why did no one Hear it or See it? Especially a Rifle.
Simple Questions and seems impossible to not grasp the
Visual and Audible Evidence.
Totally Unexpected Situation.
Confused Perception, Slow Recognition.
Crowd Noise Cheering and Clapping.
Rumbling Motorcycles with Overheated
Backfiring Engines.
Unfamiliarity with Rifle Sounds.
Totally Unexpected Situation.
Realization, Horror, and Shock.
Fear and Flight Instinct.
Seek Cover and Safe Place.
Focus on Children.
Brain Reaction: This Can't Be Happening.
Disrupted Continuity.
All these dynamic Sight and Sound factors interfere with
Focussed Observation or making cognizant Mental Notes
as a Potential Witness.
This does not mean witness observations are worthless.
Some witness did a good job on Segments and made a
significant contribution. One mistake by a witness does
not cancel out all other Perceptions.
It's up to Detectives and Researchers to piece the puzzle
together with the help of ballistic evidence.
Are you deaf?
Would you like to do a test sometime where I sneak up behind you and
fire an AR-15 over your head? And then you tell me that you couldn't
hear it. 167 dB and you can't hear it?
Are you deaf and dumb?
Loading...