JFK Assasination discussion

[a-dog]

the time established by the WC for the shots was-I think-5.6 seconds, this is initially what they said and this is what they said the film showed (even though most of the WC never saw the Z film).

I have never sat down and compared the shots to frames as described above, there are frames missing right around the time they go behind the sign. there is supposed to be a copy out there with those frames but I dont' think it's been made public (a fellow named Robert Groden has it).

The problem with the shots is this:

originally the officail story stated that there was 3 shots, 2 hit JFK and 1 hit connely. They were very, very solid in that assesement. Then the James Tague hit became public so they had to do 1 of 2 things-change the official story as to the number of shots or admit there was another gunman. The tague hit really destroys the initial official story as it means there was 4 shots which would have been impossible as the rifle could not be cycled and fired 4 times in the time allocated. First they tried to ignore the Tague stuff, then they tried to bury it but reporters in dallas pushed the fact and they had to address it. This is what caused the creation of the magic bullet theory.

there is an official report issued by the FBI that doesn't account for the tague hit as they thought the single bullet theory was absurd so they chose to pretend like the tague hit never happened.

See the magic bullet theory is dependent on so many things it's incredible but the first thing you have to address is where did the first shot hit JFK? remember it exited his neck (according to the official story) it was coming downward so it had to strike well above where it exited. If you look at the jacket and the shirt JFK was wearing it shows the bullet hole much lower.

There were 2 FBI agents at bethesda, they filed an independent report (which was ignored for years) where they noted that the hole in the back was in the same spot as the jacket and shirt would indicate.

there is so much more to it than 'could LHO make the shot". To me that's almost a side issue. you can argue his shooting ability till the end of time. You have to look at the quality of the weapon (which was notoriously poor), the scope (which was off) and the timeline. You have to remember how the acknowledgement of the tague hit caused the creatiion of the magic bullet theory.

I don't know if that addresses the post above,. I'm in a mega huge hurry to go home....

you have to watch something like this (along with part 2) to get a handle on all the problems with the magic bullet theory:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKwqhf0MYio


the limo stoppage is a big problem as it's not shown in the Z film but there are bake lights shown coming on in the Nix film (the orginal has recently vanished from the national archives). that gets into talk about the Z film being altered which is an incredible theory. If you really want your mind blown look up what Dan Rather said after he saw the Z film just after the assasination. he describes what he saw and it is almost 100% opposite what we see when we view the z-film today. if the z-film has been altered in any way, shape or form then does that totally remove it's forensic value?

[DustinBones]

the time established by the WC for the shots was-I think-5.6 seconds, this is initially what they said and this is what they said the film showed (even though most of the WC never saw the Z film).

I have never sat down and compared the shots to frames as described above, there are frames missing right around the time they go behind the sign. there is supposed to be a copy out there with those frames but I dont' think it's been made public (a fellow named Robert Groden has it).

The problem with the shots is this:

originally the officail story stated that there was 3 shots, 2 hit JFK and 1 hit connely. They were very, very solid in that assesement. Then the James Tague hit became public so they had to do 1 of 2 things-change the official story as to the number of shots or admit there was another gunman. The tague hit really destroys the initial official story as it means there was 4 shots which would have been impossible as the rifle could not be cycled and fired 4 times in the time allocated. First they tried to ignore the Tague stuff, then they tried to bury it but reporters in dallas pushed the fact and they had to address it. This is what caused the creation of the magic bullet theory.

there is an official report issued by the FBI that doesn't account for the tague hit as they thought the single bullet theory was absurd so they chose to pretend like the tague hit never happened.

See the magic bullet theory is dependent on so many things it's incredible but the first thing you have to address is where did the first shot hit JFK? remember it exited his neck (according to the official story) it was coming downward so it had to strike well above where it exited. If you look at the jacket and the shirt JFK was wearing it shows the bullet hole much lower.

There were 2 FBI agents at bethesda, they filed an independent report (which was ignored for years) where they noted that the hole in the back was in the same spot as the jacket and shirt would indicate.

there is so much more to it than 'could LHO make the shot". To me that's almost a side issue. you can argue his shooting ability till the end of time. You have to look at the quality of the weapon (which was notoriously poor), the scope (which was off) and the timeline. You have to remember how the acknowledgement of the tague hit caused the creatiion of the magic bullet theory.

I don't know if that addresses the post above,. I'm in a mega huge hurry to go home....

you have to watch something like this (along with part 2) to get a handle on all the problems with the magic bullet theory:



the limo stoppage is a big problem as it's not shown in the Z film but there are bake lights shown coming on in the Nix film (the orginal has recently vanished from the national archives). that gets into talk about the Z film being altered which is an incredible theory. If you really want your mind blown look up what Dan Rather said after he saw the Z film just after the assasination. he describes what he saw and it is almost 100% opposite what we see when we view the z-film today. if the z-film has been altered in any way, shape or form then does that totally remove it's forensic value?

The acknowledgement of the Tague hit caused the creation of the magic bullet theory... well, ok, that may well be, but where/why theories came from isn't nearly as interesting as just looking at what evidence there is and deciding on what the most logical conclusion is.

It makes zero sense to me how anyone can view the Zapruder film (especially now that we have really clean versions to study) and not come to the conclusion that JFK and Connely were hit by the same shot. When the limo appears from behind the freeway sign, you can clearly see the 2 men react at EXACTLY the same time. Never mind the obvious question... if the bullet that went through JFK's neck didn't go into Connely, where the hell did it go? He was sitting directly in front of him (or a bit to the left as to the position of the jump seat, which matches where the wounds were).

So... one shot at frame 313, one shot at about 225, and then the first shot which missed. We see the governor snap his head to the right around frame 165 which he says he did when he heard the first shot. How much time passed between him hearing the noise and turning his head, who knows, but we've certainly got a shot prior to that frame. So if Tague is hit by a bullet, or part of one, then clearly that missed first shot deflected off of something and grazed him. That seems a much better explanation to me than trying to come up with a 4th shot to explain it.

And as to the position of bullet holes in JFK's clothes... there are very clear pictures just prior to the shooting of his jacket being bunched up on his upper back due to the way he was seated in the limo, so there's no reason to expect an alignment of holes in body and clothing.

I find it interesting to consider questions like, how the hell did Oswald miss with that first shot? Did it strike a tree branch/light post? Did he accidentally bump one of the boxes behind him and miss because of that? Never know of course, and I suppose the conspiracy theories are more interesting for most.

[a-dog]

my interest in the z film as of late has been with the abnormalities within the film-more along the lines of if it was altered. I have not sat down and looked at what happened when. I dug out some notes I had and I honestly can't speak about what happened during what frame right now. I need a few days to polish up on it.

One thing I do remember reading is that there is a consensus out there that JFK is actually showing signs of being hit before he goes behind the sign and Connely doesn't react until a bit after they come out from behind the sign. I have frame 237 written down as the one where he initially shows signs of being hit.

about the bunching: there is a picture taken right before the shooting that doesn't show the bunching. I could buy the bunching if the siebert and o'niel report didn't indicate the site of the wound was exactly where it was in the shirt and jacket. I'll have to look for the pic I spoke about.

I usually don't post much on the weekends, I'm just sitting down for a sec and checked in. I don't have much to add aside from the above at this time.

I'd like to see the pics of the jacket bunching taken on the day of the assassination just prior to the shooting. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm saying I've seen a pic that doesn't show it.

I know on mccadams site he has pics of the jacket bunching but they are from different days, not the day of the assassination.

edit-look here:

http://22november1963.org.uk/single-...-assassination

about half way down they have a pic of JFK's back right before the shooting and his jacket is not bunched up at all. on the right hand side of the page

[a-dog]

http://www.ctka.net/marler.html

another good breakdown of the shirt and jacket

[DustinBones]

my interest in the z film as of late has been with the abnormalities within the film-more along the lines of if it was altered. I have not sat down and looked at what happened when. I dug out some notes I had and I honestly can't speak about what happened during what frame right now. I need a few days to polish up on it.

One thing I do remember reading is that there is a consensus out there that JFK is actually showing signs of being hit before he goes behind the sign and Connely doesn't react until a bit after they come out from behind the sign. I have frame 237 written down as the one where he initially shows signs of being hit.

about the bunching: there is a picture taken right before the shooting that doesn't show the bunching. I could buy the bunching if the siebert and o'niel report didn't indicate the site of the wound was exactly where it was in the shirt and jacket. I'll have to look for the pic I spoke about.

I usually don't post much on the weekends, I'm just sitting down for a sec and checked in. I don't have much to add aside from the above at this time.

I'd like to see the pics of the jacket bunching taken on the day of the assassination just prior to the shooting. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm saying I've seen a pic that doesn't show it.

I know on mccadams site he has pics of the jacket bunching but they are from different days, not the day of the assassination.

edit-look here:



about half way down they have a pic of JFK's back right before the shooting and his jacket is not bunched up at all. on the right hand side of the page

That's interesting that for someone that has clearly done extensive research on the subject, the Zapruder film hasn't been of more importance to you. That side of things is the most interesting to me... what do the facts show... all of the video/photographic evidence and to some extent the eye and ear witnesses (though obviously that is less reliable). I guess I prefer the science of the case to the hearsay. Now of course if you're of the opinion that the Zapruder film (and therefore the other films as well) were doctored up after the fact, then we can't have a meaningful discussion about it.

So, for example, you mention consensus about JFK being hit before going behind the freeway sign. I'm interested why you use the word consensus there, as I've only read a few articles that claim that. And again, by simply viewing the film and forming my own conclusion, it seems completely ridiculous. JFK raises his arm to wave and smiles as he does so... these articles are claiming that he's grimacing, not smiling and therefore was just hit by a bullet. Such nonsense. He clearly shows no signs of being struck until the frame (225) when he emerges from behind the sign. That frame and the next several clearly show his initial reaction to being struck. And by observing Gov Connally at the exact same time, he is also showing an initial reaction to being hit in frames 225/226. You say you wrote down frame 237 as the first frame that shows that, but you just need to watch the video or look at the still frames to see that is completely false. The two men react at the exact same time.

And about the jacket bunching, you reference the Willis photo, so I'm sure you must be familiar with the Croft photo which is the one I was referring to. It occurs about 2 seconds prior to the Willis photo and shows very clear bunching of the jacket in the upper back. And again, watching the film, JFK doesn't make any major movements after that which would cause any great change to the jacket positioning. You mention mcadams site which is ironic because there's a page there that goes into extreme detail in demonstrating the jacket positioning with many pictures in the moments prior to the assassination (not from different days).
Now, mind you, the autopsy photos show the position of the upper back wound fairly well anyway, so it should be obvious that the clothing must have been in a bit of an unnatural position.

At any rate, you mention that you're going to brush up a bit on what the films show, I'd be interested in hearing your opinions again after doing so.

[a-dog]

That's interesting that for someone that has clearly done extensive research on the subject, the Zapruder film hasn't been of more importance to you. That side of things is the most interesting to me... what do the facts show... all of the video/photographic evidence and to some extent the eye and ear witnesses (though obviously that is less reliable). I guess I prefer the science of the case to the hearsay. Now of course if you're of the opinion that the Zapruder film (and therefore the other films as well) were doctored up after the fact, then we can't have a meaningful discussion about it.

So, for example, you mention consensus about JFK being hit before going behind the freeway sign. I'm interested why you use the word consensus there, as I've only read a few articles that claim that. And again, by simply viewing the film and forming my own conclusion, it seems completely ridiculous. JFK raises his arm to wave and smiles as he does so... these articles are claiming that he's grimacing, not smiling and therefore was just hit by a bullet. Such nonsense. He clearly shows no signs of being struck until the frame (225) when he emerges from behind the sign. That frame and the next several clearly show his initial reaction to being struck. And by observing Gov Connally at the exact same time, he is also showing an initial reaction to being hit in frames 225/226. You say you wrote down frame 237 as the first frame that shows that, but you just need to watch the video or look at the still frames to see that is completely false. The two men react at the exact same time.

And about the jacket bunching, you reference the Willis photo, so I'm sure you must be familiar with the Croft photo which is the one I was referring to. It occurs about 2 seconds prior to the Willis photo and shows very clear bunching of the jacket in the upper back. And again, watching the film, JFK doesn't make any major movements after that which would cause any great change to the jacket positioning. You mention mcadams site which is ironic because there's a page there that goes into extreme detail in demonstrating the jacket positioning with many pictures in the moments prior to the assassination (not from different days).
Now, mind you, the autopsy photos show the position of the upper back wound fairly well anyway, so it should be obvious that the clothing must have been in a bit of an unnatural position.

At any rate, you mention that you're going to brush up a bit on what the films show, I'd be interested in hearing your opinions again after doing so.

I don't have much time this morning but I did want to clarify a couple of things really quick:

first, when I said I was more focused on the abnormalities within the Z film and couldn't speak about what happens during each frame what I meant and what I should have said was that for the last couple of years I've been more interested in the possible alteration of the film. I have watched it numerous times in the past and am very familiar with what is going on but if I want to talk about what specifically happens at a certain point in the film I'd need some time to brush up on it.

second, I meantioned mccadams site but I said I would prefer it if people did not go there. He is a very big proponenet of the jacket bunching up and I am aware of the page he has but from what I remember the page with the pics you are speaking from are from different dates showing that it had happened in the past, he didn't have a good photo showing this happening on the day of the assasination. The pic I posted above (or the link with the pic) it doesn't look to me like it is bunched if it is it is very slight and it would not account for the difference between the location of the shirt and jacket hole and the "official" back wound location. the jacket, shirt, siebert and o'neal report and even humes notes have the wound in the location it would be in if the jacket wasn't bunched up, that's a very big coincedence isn't it?

I have about 3 meetings to go to today so I don't know if I'll be able to post anything else.

when I talk about film alteration I guess I need to clarify what I'm talking about. I am not of the mindset that the entire film has been altered, I believe aspects of the film have been tampered with. An example of some of the things I'm talking about are covered here:

http://johncostella.com/jfk/intro/

take some time and go through the site, look at the evidence that he presents. some of it is very hard to just brush aside IMHO.

edit-this gets into a bit of the timing and it mentions frame 238 as the first frame in which connely shows any reaction to being shot, it also explains that there is some movement by connely at frame 224 but if that was caused by a shot is dubious (according to the website). It claims that even if the reaction of connely is at 224 it would still be inconsistant with JFK and connely being hit by the same bullet

http://22november1963.org.uk/governo...lly-lapel-flap

that was what I found really quick, I did not verify everything in the article but it touches on alot of the issues concerning the timing of the shot.

edt part 2-sorry, I went through a few notes I had on my phone and I have a note that says the HSCA determened that JFK had been hit just prior to going behind the freeway sign (I believe this is where the splice is in the version of the film most are familiar with), I have no additional notes on it.

I know this post is a bit scattered and I'm sorry for that.

[ArchAngel'73]

Case solved!

[DustinBones]

I don't have much time this morning but I did want to clarify a couple of things really quick:

first, when I said I was more focused on the abnormalities within the Z film and couldn't speak about what happens during each frame what I meant and what I should have said was that for the last couple of years I've been more interested in the possible alteration of the film. I have watched it numerous times in the past and am very familiar with what is going on but if I want to talk about what specifically happens at a certain point in the film I'd need some time to brush up on it.

second, I meantioned mccadams site but I said I would prefer it if people did not go there. He is a very big proponenet of the jacket bunching up and I am aware of the page he has but from what I remember the page with the pics you are speaking from are from different dates showing that it had happened in the past, he didn't have a good photo showing this happening on the day of the assasination. The pic I posted above (or the link with the pic) it doesn't look to me like it is bunched if it is it is very slight and it would not account for the difference between the location of the shirt and jacket hole and the "official" back wound location. the jacket, shirt, siebert and o'neal report and even humes notes have the wound in the location it would be in if the jacket wasn't bunched up, that's a very big coincedence isn't it?

I have about 3 meetings to go to today so I don't know if I'll be able to post anything else.

when I talk about film alteration I guess I need to clarify what I'm talking about. I am not of the mindset that the entire film has been altered, I believe aspects of the film have been tampered with. An example of some of the things I'm talking about are covered here:


take some time and go through the site, look at the evidence that he presents. some of it is very hard to just brush aside IMHO.

edit-this gets into a bit of the timing and it mentions frame 238 as the first frame in which connely shows any reaction to being shot, it also explains that there is some movement by connely at frame 224 but if that was caused by a shot is dubious (according to the website). It claims that even if the reaction of connely is at 224 it would still be inconsistant with JFK and connely being hit by the same bullet


that was what I found really quick, I did not verify everything in the article but it touches on alot of the issues concerning the timing of the shot.

edt part 2-sorry, I went through a few notes I had on my phone and I have a note that says the HSCA determened that JFK had been hit just prior to going behind the freeway sign (I believe this is where the splice is in the version of the film most are familiar with), I have no additional notes on it.

I know this post is a bit scattered and I'm sorry for that.

Appreciate the response even though you're rushed. I won't add too much more until you've had more time to review, but have to make 2 quick points.

First off, Mcadams site is certainly not to be avoided. He has a great page on there that does show pics from immediately prior to the assassination (just after the turn onto Elm) including the Willis one that you referenced. The best one is the Croft photo, as it is taken from the side and very clearly shows the jacket bunching and also can be mapped to frame 161 or so in the Zapruder film which means we can track Kennedy's movement after the photo was taken and see that he doesn't do anything that would make any major change to the positioning of the jacket. Please have a look for yourself (I don't post much on here so am unable to include the link).

And secondly, there's no need at all to find references to what other people say is shown in the Zap film as far as the timing of the hits to JFK and Connelly... just look for yourself. It's very easy to find a high-res version of the film and it is as clear as day that both men react to being struck at frame 225/6. If someone watches the governor's reaction at that point in the film and try to say that he's not reacting to a gunshot then they clearly aren't interested in the truth of what happened that day.

[mslman71]

Is he still dead?

[Karl_Hungus]

Is he still dead?

Bro, he never was dead. Neither was Elvis for that matter. A Kennedy body-double was the one who was killed. The real JFK was kidnapped, had a piece of his brain removed (that was replaced by a bag of sand), and he was dyed black (srs).

[a-dog]

Appreciate the response even though you're rushed. I won't add too much more until you've had more time to review, but have to make 2 quick points.

First off, Mcadams site is certainly not to be avoided. He has a great page on there that does show pics from immediately prior to the assassination (just after the turn onto Elm) including the Willis one that you referenced. The best one is the Croft photo, as it is taken from the side and very clearly shows the jacket bunching and also can be mapped to frame 161 or so in the Zapruder film which means we can track Kennedy's movement after the photo was taken and see that he doesn't do anything that would make any major change to the positioning of the jacket. Please have a look for yourself (I don't post much on here so am unable to include the link).

And secondly, there's no need at all to find references to what other people say is shown in the Zap film as far as the timing of the hits to JFK and Connelly... just look for yourself. It's very easy to find a high-res version of the film and it is as clear as day that both men react to being struck at frame 225/6. If someone watches the governor's reaction at that point in the film and try to say that he's not reacting to a gunshot then they clearly aren't interested in the truth of what happened that day.

everyone is certainly entitled to use mccadams site, I'd just ask that they take a minute and consider how disengenuous he's been in the past. he has an agenda and he will do pretty much whatever it takes to pursue that agenda, he's used false identities at simposiums (sp). he's presented information on some of the bigger message boards in the past, he's been proven wrong and he just moves to another board and starts over.


this is all stuff that I've seen over the years. he presents one side of the story and only one side. He'll ignore almost every other aspect if it doesn't fit his agenda. That's fine if you're in the "oswald" did it camp then he's totally your guy. I however am not. I actually thought at one time he was sort of sensible but then I heard a debate he had and he put forth the notion that LBJ was more liberal than JFK and pushed his opinion that JFK was a "hawk" and just wanted war in Nam.....I can't look past that one. it's very, very far out of line IMHO.

I was doing some searching during a break trying to find the piece of information that stated that JFK was hit before he went behind the sign and I came across an article by this guy which lead me to watch his video's on lunch. The impressive thing about his presentation is that he uses all availible footage, not just the z-film and he breaks it down very well, he covers almost every aspect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkAc7...1v2IyEo1A6US0A

you have to watch all 8 parts but he does say that JFK was actually hit right before he went behind the sign but he also says that there was a shot about the time they emerged from behind the sign which would explain wthe connely situation that came up over the weekend.

I really like his analysis, he touches on alot of little things that happen that most don't notice. he also takes the time to explain why JFK's arms went up in the manner they did (which always seemed strange to me).

[ChazWood]

I think it was all just an elaborate scheme...

I think JFK is still alive having buttseks to this day in some seedy alley in Thailand with 9 year old boys who just want a hamburger.

They won't be making that movie. Even Oliver Stone wouldn't touch that.

Then again...

[a-dog]

The acknowledgement of the Tague hit caused the creation of the magic bullet theory... well, ok, that may well be, but where/why theories came from isn't nearly as interesting as just looking at what evidence there is and deciding on what the most logical conclusion is.

it's very important IMHO to understand the origins of the SBT because it shows the lengths at which the government would go to convince the public that LHO acted alone. They (the governement) isn't even internally consistant in what they say happened when you consider the often forgotten report filed by Hoover and his croonies that ignored the tague hit and the magic bullet theory.

here's a nice article (by one of my favorite researchers) about the "magic" bullet:

http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html

[DustinBones]

everyone is certainly entitled to use mccadams site, I'd just ask that they take a minute and consider how disengenuous he's been in the past. he has an agenda and he will do pretty much whatever it takes to pursue that agenda, he's used false identities at simposiums (sp). he's presented information on some of the bigger message boards in the past, he's been proven wrong and he just moves to another board and starts over.


this is all stuff that I've seen over the years. he presents one side of the story and only one side. He'll ignore almost every other aspect if it doesn't fit his agenda. That's fine if you're in the "oswald" did it camp then he's totally your guy. I however am not. I actually thought at one time he was sort of sensible but then I heard a debate he had and he put forth the notion that LBJ was more liberal than JFK and pushed his opinion that JFK was a "hawk" and just wanted war in Nam.....I can't look past that one. it's very, very far out of line IMHO.

I was doing some searching during a break trying to find the piece of information that stated that JFK was hit before he went behind the sign and I came across an article by this guy which lead me to watch his video's on lunch. The impressive thing about his presentation is that he uses all availible footage, not just the z-film and he breaks it down very well, he covers almost every aspect:


you have to watch all 8 parts but he does say that JFK was actually hit right before he went behind the sign but he also says that there was a shot about the time they emerged from behind the sign which would explain wthe connely situation that came up over the weekend.

I really like his analysis, he touches on alot of little things that happen that most don't notice. he also takes the time to explain why JFK's arms went up in the manner they did (which always seemed strange to me).

But I don't see how any of what you say about mcadam has anything to do with the photographic evidence? I'm just saying that there's a very detailed analysis of the bunching up of the jacket that is clearly shown in photographs taken just prior to the assassination... where it is done is irrelevant, the pictures exist independent of any particular website. Well... let's be specific... have a look at the Croft photo and discuss that one in particular. It's directly from the side so is very clear in what it shows.

I'm familiar with Robert Harris and his videos and I would agree, I quite enjoy his presentations. I don't agree with his conclusions of course, but he's very thorough in his analysis and doesn't seem to pick and choose his evidence. But I haven't seen anything other than the "he's grimacing therefore he was just hit by a bullet" argument to suggest a strike prior to the president disappearing behind the sign. Do you any specific articles/videos that offer anything more than that?

[a-dog]

But I don't see how any of what you say about mcadam has anything to do with the photographic evidence? I'm just saying that there's a very detailed analysis of the bunching up of the jacket that is clearly shown in photographs taken just prior to the assassination... where it is done is irrelevant, the pictures exist independent of any particular website. Well... let's be specific... have a look at the Croft photo and discuss that one in particular. It's directly from the side so is very clear in what it shows.

I'm familiar with Robert Harris and his videos and I would agree, I quite enjoy his presentations. I don't agree with his conclusions of course, but he's very thorough in his analysis and doesn't seem to pick and choose his evidence. But I haven't seen anything other than the "he's grimacing therefore he was just hit by a bullet" argument to suggest a strike prior to the president disappearing behind the sign. Do you any specific articles/videos that offer anything more than that?

I'll have to go through something's, I don't want to just post a zillion YouTube videos without context.

If you post a link to mccadams jacket bunching I'll look at it. If it's been posted previous then I missed it. I'm open to having a discussion.

I will post a link to the siebert and o'neal report and some additional information when I get a chance.

[DustinBones]

I'll have to go through something's, I don't want to just post a zillion YouTube videos without context.

If you post a link to mccadams jacket bunching I'll look at it. If it's been posted previous then I missed it. I'm open to having a discussion.

I will post a link to the siebert and o'neal report and some additional information when I get a chance.

My apologies, I don't post much here so do not have permissions to provide links... but if you go to the section on Mcadam's site on the single bullet theory, at the bottom of the page there's a link to an article by John Hunt Jr. The third page in that article contains the images I'm referring to and should be a good source for discussion.

[a-dog]

My apologies, I don't post much here so do not have permissions to provide links... but if you go to the section on Mcadam's site on the single bullet theory, at the bottom of the page there's a link to an article by John Hunt Jr. The third page in that article contains the images I'm referring to and should be a good source for discussion.

I just found out I have training for the next 4 days on a new application we are using at work so I don't know if I can post much over the next several days.

we can pick this back up or if anyone wants to discuss any other issues we can do that when my training is done.

[a-dog]

I took some time today at lunch to look at a few things because I was curious about the "bunching" we've been discussing as of late. First I watched the first video I posted yesterday and looked specifically at JFK in the Towner film. I don't really see any bunching, his jacket seems to be "snug" around his shoulders. Could there be a slight rise locally along the midline of his back towards the collar? I don't see one in the towner film. I then looked at the enhanced frames shown in the Robert Harris video series (I think it was part 2) right before JFK goes behind the freeway sign and again, I don't see any significant bunching. I went to the Mcadams site and looked at his presentation and at best in the wrost case scenerio I'd be willing to say that the fabric was displaced about an inch, it was no way bunched enough to account for the several inch descrepency (sp) we are talking about here. We are talking about several inches not an inch or 2 from what I remember so I did a quick search and came across this file I had bookmarked:

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/backwound.htm

I also would suggest anyone interested to take not of all the people who verified where the back wound was located, virtually everyone who took note of it prior to the creation of the single bullet theory notes it is lower than what the SBT dictates it has to be. I"l paste them below:

* Dr. Boswell's autopsy face sheet diagram shows the wound five to six inches below the neck. That face sheet, by the way, was marked "verified."

* The President's death certificate places the wound at the third thoracic vertebra, which corresponds to the holes in the coat and shirt. This document was also marked "verified."

* Dr. John Ebersole, who got a look at the back wound during the autopsy, said the wound was near the fourth thoracic vertebra (63:721). This is even slightly lower than where the death certificate places the wound.

* Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who was called to the morgue for the specific purpose of viewing Kennedy's wounds, said the entrance point was "about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column" (18:77-78). Hill's placement of the wound corresponds closely to the location of the holes in the President's shirt and coat.

* The FBI's 9 December 1963 report on the autopsy, which was based on the report of two FBI agents who attended the autopsy (James Sibert and Francis O'Neill), located the wound below the shoulder (i.e., below the top of the shoulder blade) (18:83, 149-168).

* Three Navy medical technicians who assisted with the autopsy, James Jenkins, Paul O'Connor, and Edward Reed, have stated that the wound was well below the neck. Jenkins and O'Connor have also reported that it was probed repeatedly and that the autopsy doctors determined that it had no point of exit (10:260, 262, 302-303; 63:720).

* Floyd Riebe, one of the photographers who took pictures at the autopsy, recalls that the back wound was probed and that it was well below the neck (10:162-163, 302).

* Former Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki, who was present for much of the autopsy, says the wound was "several inches down on the back" (10:206).

* Former Parkland nurse Diana Bowron, who washed the President's body before it was placed in the casket, has indicated that the back wound was two to three inches below the hole shown in the alleged autopsy photo of JFK's back, and this hole, by the HSCA's own admission, is about two inches lower than where the WC placed the wound. In other words, Nurse Bowron located the wound five to six inches below the neck, and at the same time challenged the authenticity of the alleged autopsy picture of the President's back. We will return to her account in a moment. (Some WC defenders argue that Bowron told the WC she didn't see any wound other than the large head wound. But if one reads her testimony carefully, it is clear she was speaking of the condition of Kennedy's body when she first saw it in the limousine. What she said in effect was that she didn't notice any wounds other than the head wound when she first saw his body lying in the limousine. See 6 H 136.)

* In the transcript of the 27 January 1964 executive session of the Warren Commission, we read that chief counsel J. Lee Rankin said the bullet entered Kennedy's back below the shoulder blade (63:632). Rankin even referred to a picture which he said showed that "the bullet entered below the shoulder blade" (68:78-79).

* Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who got a very good look at the President's body, said the wound was "in the shoulder."

* Three recently released HSCA wound diagrams place the wound well below the neck, and in fact in almost the exact same spot shown on the autopsy face sheet. The diagrams were drawn for Select Committee investigators by Kellerman, Sibert, and O'Neill, each of whom got a very good, prolonged look at the body. This shows that when Kellerman said the wound was "in the shoulder," he meant it was visibly below the top of the right shoulder blade. Each agent placed the wound well below the neck, and visibly below the throat wound.



I am of the opinion that the bunching does not compensate for the 5-6 inch difference. I'm sorry.


after JFK is hit and his arms fly up then yes there is a significant "bunching" of the fabric but this is after the shot would have hit him.

[DustinBones]

I took some time today at lunch to look at a few things because I was curious about the "bunching" we've been discussing as of late. First I watched the first video I posted yesterday and looked specifically at JFK in the Towner film. I don't really see any bunching, his jacket seems to be "snug" around his shoulders. Could there be a slight rise locally along the midline of his back towards the collar? I don't see one in the towner film. I then looked at the enhanced frames shown in the Robert Harris video series (I think it was part 2) right before JFK goes behind the freeway sign and again, I don't see any significant bunching. I went to the Mcadams site and looked at his presentation and at best in the wrost case scenerio I'd be willing to say that the fabric was displaced about an inch, it was no way bunched enough to account for the several inch descrepency (sp) we are talking about here. We are talking about several inches not an inch or 2 from what I remember so I did a quick search and came across this file I had bookmarked:


I also would suggest anyone interested to take not of all the people who verified where the back wound was located, virtually everyone who took note of it prior to the creation of the single bullet theory notes it is lower than what the SBT dictates it has to be. I"l paste them below:

* Dr. Boswell's autopsy face sheet diagram shows the wound five to six inches below the neck. That face sheet, by the way, was marked "verified."

* The President's death certificate places the wound at the third thoracic vertebra, which corresponds to the holes in the coat and shirt. This document was also marked "verified."

* Dr. John Ebersole, who got a look at the back wound during the autopsy, said the wound was near the fourth thoracic vertebra (63:721). This is even slightly lower than where the death certificate places the wound.

* Secret Service agent Clint Hill, who was called to the morgue for the specific purpose of viewing Kennedy's wounds, said the entrance point was "about six inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column" (18:77-78). Hill's placement of the wound corresponds closely to the location of the holes in the President's shirt and coat.

* The FBI's 9 December 1963 report on the autopsy, which was based on the report of two FBI agents who attended the autopsy (James Sibert and Francis O'Neill), located the wound below the shoulder (i.e., below the top of the shoulder blade) (18:83, 149-168).

* Three Navy medical technicians who assisted with the autopsy, James Jenkins, Paul O'Connor, and Edward Reed, have stated that the wound was well below the neck. Jenkins and O'Connor have also reported that it was probed repeatedly and that the autopsy doctors determined that it had no point of exit (10:260, 262, 302-303; 63:720).

* Floyd Riebe, one of the photographers who took pictures at the autopsy, recalls that the back wound was probed and that it was well below the neck (10:162-163, 302).

* Former Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki, who was present for much of the autopsy, says the wound was "several inches down on the back" (10:206).

* Former Parkland nurse Diana Bowron, who washed the President's body before it was placed in the casket, has indicated that the back wound was two to three inches below the hole shown in the alleged autopsy photo of JFK's back, and this hole, by the HSCA's own admission, is about two inches lower than where the WC placed the wound. In other words, Nurse Bowron located the wound five to six inches below the neck, and at the same time challenged the authenticity of the alleged autopsy picture of the President's back. We will return to her account in a moment. (Some WC defenders argue that Bowron told the WC she didn't see any wound other than the large head wound. But if one reads her testimony carefully, it is clear she was speaking of the condition of Kennedy's body when she first saw it in the limousine. What she said in effect was that she didn't notice any wounds other than the head wound when she first saw his body lying in the limousine. See 6 H 136.)

* In the transcript of the 27 January 1964 executive session of the Warren Commission, we read that chief counsel J. Lee Rankin said the bullet entered Kennedy's back below the shoulder blade (63:632). Rankin even referred to a picture which he said showed that "the bullet entered below the shoulder blade" (68:78-79).

* Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who got a very good look at the President's body, said the wound was "in the shoulder."

* Three recently released HSCA wound diagrams place the wound well below the neck, and in fact in almost the exact same spot shown on the autopsy face sheet. The diagrams were drawn for Select Committee investigators by Kellerman, Sibert, and O'Neill, each of whom got a very good, prolonged look at the body. This shows that when Kellerman said the wound was "in the shoulder," he meant it was visibly below the top of the right shoulder blade. Each agent placed the wound well below the neck, and visibly below the throat wound.



I am of the opinion that the bunching does not compensate for the 5-6 inch difference. I'm sorry.


after JFK is hit and his arms fly up then yes there is a significant "bunching" of the fabric but this is after the shot would have hit him.

And this I guess is why it's 50 years later and discussions like this still occur... there's so much conflicting testimony on pretty much every facet of the case that whichever side of the argument you're on, you've got a boatload of material to point at to justify your point of view.
And that is why I prefer to look at the evidence without getting into the he-said/she-said stuff. For example, you've mentioned Sibert and O'Neill a few times now. And I'm sure you're aware of the statements that they were a distraction during the autopsy because they were constantly chatting with people outside the room. Is that true? I have no idea... but what I can do is look at their drawings of the wounds and then look at the autopsy photos and draw my own conclusions on how much they were paying attention.

When I do that, I see that they indicate the throat wound to be at about the Adam's apple. The autopsy photo clearly shows it at the very base of the neck. So they missed that one by quite a bit, how much stock should I put into their other drawings and comments?
To me, the best answer is to forget about these crude drawings of the wounds that exist... there are actual autopsy photos of JFK that allow me to see for myself. When I do that, I see a wound that's a bit below the neck and to the right of the spine on the back and a wound at the very base of the neck in the front.

So if someone reported that wound from behind as being below the shoulder or in the upper back, sure I can see why they would say that. But I can also see that it's nowhere near as low as some of those drawings would indicate. And I can without a doubt see that it is not lower than the throat wound(as Sibert and O'Neill's drawings would indicate).

So then we continue looking at evidence... from videos and photos, I know that JFK was resting his right arm on the side of the limo. That would raise the whole shoulder girdle up somewhat. All I need to do is take 10 seconds of my time and look in the mirror to see that, based on where the autopsy photos show the wounds to be, a bullet from behind and above would take a downward trajectory in the ballpark of those 2 locations.

But then the clothing shows the bullet holes too low. Well, are there credible videos/photos that can explain that? Yes, the Croft photo taken about 3 seconds before the shot shows significant bunching of the president's jacket on his upper back. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here in that I can't provide links, but a-dog I think you're being more than a bit misleading when you say the fabric was displaced about an inch. That easily looks like several inches to me. But, no way to be completely accurate with that, so it is what it is I guess.

Anyway, my point is that I'd rather not read that this person said the wound was here or this other person said it was there... I'll just look at the autopsy photos and see for myself. I'm not going to take someone else's word that a shot happened at a certain time and came from a certain direction... I'll watch the videos and draw my own conclusions. That's the part of the case that I've taken interest in.

And a-dog, I realize that your original intent of the thread was likely to focus on that other stuff, of which you've attained a very impressive knowledge. So maybe I'm derailing things a bit... but doesn't seem to be a lot of other focused comments in here lately, and I do enjoy the conversation.

[a-dog]

And this I guess is why it's 50 years later and discussions like this still occur... there's so much conflicting testimony on pretty much every facet of the case that whichever side of the argument you're on, you've got a boatload of material to point at to justify your point of view.
And that is why I prefer to look at the evidence without getting into the he-said/she-said stuff. For example, you've mentioned Sibert and O'Neill a few times now. And I'm sure you're aware of the statements that they were a distraction during the autopsy because they were constantly chatting with people outside the room. Is that true? I have no idea... but what I can do is look at their drawings of the wounds and then look at the autopsy photos and draw my own conclusions on how much they were paying attention.

When I do that, I see that they indicate the throat wound to be at about the Adam's apple. The autopsy photo clearly shows it at the very base of the neck. So they missed that one by quite a bit, how much stock should I put into their other drawings and comments?
To me, the best answer is to forget about these crude drawings of the wounds that exist... there are actual autopsy photos of JFK that allow me to see for myself. When I do that, I see a wound that's a bit below the neck and to the right of the spine on the back and a wound at the very base of the neck in the front.

So if someone reported that wound from behind as being below the shoulder or in the upper back, sure I can see why they would say that. But I can also see that it's nowhere near as low as some of those drawings would indicate. And I can without a doubt see that it is not lower than the throat wound(as Sibert and O'Neill's drawings would indicate).

So then we continue looking at evidence... from videos and photos, I know that JFK was resting his right arm on the side of the limo. That would raise the whole shoulder girdle up somewhat. All I need to do is take 10 seconds of my time and look in the mirror to see that, based on where the autopsy photos show the wounds to be, a bullet from behind and above would take a downward trajectory in the ballpark of those 2 locations.

But then the clothing shows the bullet holes too low. Well, are there credible videos/photos that can explain that? Yes, the Croft photo taken about 3 seconds before the shot shows significant bunching of the president's jacket on his upper back. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here in that I can't provide links, but a-dog I think you're being more than a bit misleading when you say the fabric was displaced about an inch. That easily looks like several inches to me. But, no way to be completely accurate with that, so it is what it is I guess.

Anyway, my point is that I'd rather not read that this person said the wound was here or this other person said it was there... I'll just look at the autopsy photos and see for myself. I'm not going to take someone else's word that a shot happened at a certain time and came from a certain direction... I'll watch the videos and draw my own conclusions. That's the part of the case that I've taken interest in.

And a-dog, I realize that your original intent of the thread was likely to focus on that other stuff, of which you've attained a very impressive knowledge. So maybe I'm derailing things a bit... but doesn't seem to be a lot of other focused comments in here lately, and I do enjoy the conversation.

I don't know what you expect.

You said look at the films, I did and I don't see any bunching.

Dismissing seibert and o'neal is preposterous as they were not compromised in their assessments at all. In fact they were not called before the WC. Why? Because they wouldn't support the official story.

I don't believe any of the "autopsy" photos are genuine. The photographer who was at the autopsy testified to the HSCA that he didn't use the type of film or processing procedure the pics in evidence use. He basically said he didn't take them.

I'll take doctors statements from the time and eyewitness accounts over potentially garbage evidence.

I'll look at the enhanced z film
Again and see if I see bunching. Do you honestly think his shirt rode up enough to account for 5-6 inches? And his shirt did the EXACT same thing? Then all of these people (including Humes) just happen to indicate that the wound was in his back EXACTLY where the shirt should have been?

[a-dog]

Never once have I heard that seibert and o'neal were being disruptive during the autopsy. Did you get that from mccadams site too?

I have heard that the autopsy was being ran by military officials, I think Bosswell actually said that during the Shaw Trial.

The autopsy was atrocious and ANTONE who tells you otherwise is being disingenuous in every regard.

[DustinBones]

I don't know what you expect.

You said look at the films, I did and I don't see any bunching.

Dismissing seibert and o'neal is preposterous as they were not compromised in their assessments at all. In fact they were not called before the WC. Why? Because they wouldn't support the official story.

I don't believe any of the "autopsy" photos are genuine. The photographer who was at the autopsy testified to the HSCA that he didn't use the type of film or processing procedure the pics in evidence use. He basically said he didn't take them.

I'll take doctors statements from the time and eyewitness accounts over potentially garbage evidence.

I'll look at the enhanced z film
Again and see if I see bunching. Do you honestly think his shirt rode up enough to account for 5-6 inches? And his shirt did the EXACT same thing? Then all of these people (including Humes) just happen to indicate that the wound was in his back EXACTLY where the shirt should have been?

The dismissive approach to the evidence is a bit frustrating... don't like what the autopsy photos show, well then they are fakes. Don't like what the videos show, well they've been altered. I don't know, I guess everyone has to draw their own conclusions on such things, but it just seems like a bit of a cop out to me.

Anyway, we're discussing the bunching a lot, but it is an interesting point and it has to have an explanation that fits in each person's interpretation of what happened that day. I didn't specifically say to look at the films on that, I said to look at the Croft photo to establish that there was significant bunching of the jacket and then use the Zap film to see that JFK's position didn't change drastically after that point until he was struck by the bullet.

I'd appreciate if you could provide the link to the page on Mcadam's site that shows the Elm St photos so that anyone else that's checking this out can see the photos themselves (I can't post links). You're asking if I think his shirt/jacket rode up enough to account for 5-6 inches... well, again you're being a bit misleading with that. Isn't the official measurement that the holes were 5.75 inches below the collar? As I said, the autopsy photos seem to show a back wound that's maybe a couple inches below the collar area. So the question should be is there evidence that provides for the possibility of about 3 and a half inches of difference? Well... the measurement was done on flat clothing. So just the act of someone wearing it will alter it a bit. Then add in the significant bunching that is clearly shown in the Croft photo and on top of that consider that JFK was wearing some kind of back brace (I've never seen a picture of it, so can't make any specific claim on the effect it would have had) and I would say that yes, I can see those factors accounting for 3.5 (or so) inches of difference. Now obviously that isn't the most exact way to establish measurements, but it is enough for me to say that it is explainable in the context of what I believe occurred that day.

Speaking of which, it would be nice to hear some sort of description of what your view of the events is. It's easy to keep posting link after link of inconsistencies, but all of this stuff has to fit into one coherent theory of what happened.

And regarding Sibert and O'Neill... why would it be preposterous to question their input? If there's evidence that indicates that what they provided wasn't terribly accurate, why dismiss that? And that doesn't mean by any stretch that they deliberately fabricated something, just that perhaps they weren't paying as close attention as they should have been (or didn't get a good view of something, etc). The comment about them being a distraction during the autopsy comes from Dr. Boswell himself. The exact quote was that "the agents were talking on their radios to people outside the room all the time... they were causing an awful lot of distraction". That's from a radio interview in the early 90s.
But my point in bringing that up is that how do I know that is actually true, or isn't an exaggeration? Maybe Boswell had an axe to grind with them, I don't know. I feel that's the danger in always relying on the he said/she said stuff. I can make my own assertion of how much they were paying attention by comparing their drawings to what the autopsy photos show... that is where I see inaccuracies in their report, so I don't consider that to be gospel when forming my opinions on the case.

[a-dog]

you're actually playing the john mcadams game to a tee, I don't know if you know that or not. With him it's always look at the official story first, and the official photo's and dismiss everything that doesn't line up with them. there are alot of inconsistancies with the autopsy photo's so I don't think it's out of line to at least say they may have been tampered with. You basically have 1 photo in question to support the location of the back wound and you have alot of evidence to suggest that it could be in a different spot. You have witness's who indicated the back wound was lower and all of them seem to indicate that the wound was in the spot it would have been without this incredible bunching phenomonon (sp), all of the stories and accounts are internally consistant. How can you discount that?

Sorry, I won't post a link to mccadams site. I don't like the guy. I've heard him talk a ton of times and I think he's an a-hole. It's easy enough to find, let people look for themselves.

Look at the towner film shown in the link above, you get a very, very good look at JFK and his jacket and it is not bunched. Did something happen from the time of that film and the shot to dramatically change how his jacket was fitting on his body? no. You can also look at the enhanced Z-film in that video series and see close ups that dispell the bunched jacket.

I'd be willing to move to another aspect at this point as it seems kind of pointless to keep bringing up the bunching jacket......

Boswell said Siebert and O'neal were being disruptive.....lol. c'mon. you honestly believe that when it had never been brought up in 30 years? he discredits them because thier report totally contridicts his hack autopsy report.

[a-dog]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnzpDZDnvNY

Mark Lane's increidible Rush To Judgement film.

the best thing about this is that it was done at a time when the witnesses were still alive.

The WC had a very concentrated effort to only present the evidence that supported thier claim that LHO did it, they ignored tons of people and onl printed aspects of the peoples testimony that suited thier case for the witness's they did interview.

Note what Fritz says at about 5 mins in..the FBI knew Oswalsd was there and didn't really care, they didn't even inform the DPD

I would also ask that anyone who is taken aback by the possiblility that evidence has been tampered with take a second and actually look into the claims. Look into the possiblity that the z-film has been altered, look at the potential fast forward mistakes, consider that almost everyone who saw the assasination says that the limo slowed or stopped and the z-film just doesn't show that. Look into why I'm saying it. I totally understand that the first reaction to something like this is to think it's crazy. i thought it was crazy but once I actually looked at some of this stuff....you just can't discount it. You can't discount the fact that the z-film was bought by Life magazine and that life was a CIA asset. You cannnot discount the fact that it sat without anyone seeing it until the Shaw trail, they literally had years to remove frames or do whatever they wanted to do. Consider that they (life) actually printed slides of the film out of order to help support the SBT. Just look into it.

With this case, what the lone nut guys like to do is point out how insane it is to question the official evidence but there is room to question almost everything we've been told surrounding this case.

again, look here for a simple introduction into some of the problems with the z film:

http://johncostella.com/jfk/intro/

[DustinBones]

you're actually playing the john mcadams game to a tee, I don't know if you know that or not. With him it's always look at the official story first, and the official photo's and dismiss everything that doesn't line up with them. there are alot of inconsistancies with the autopsy photo's so I don't think it's out of line to at least say they may have been tampered with. You basically have 1 photo in question to support the location of the back wound and you have alot of evidence to suggest that it could be in a different spot. You have witness's who indicated the back wound was lower and all of them seem to indicate that the wound was in the spot it would have been without this incredible bunching phenomonon (sp), all of the stories and accounts are internally consistant. How can you discount that?

Sorry, I won't post a link to mccadams site. I don't like the guy. I've heard him talk a ton of times and I think he's an a-hole. It's easy enough to find, let people look for themselves.

Look at the towner film shown in the link above, you get a very, very good look at JFK and his jacket and it is not bunched. Did something happen from the time of that film and the shot to dramatically change how his jacket was fitting on his body? no. You can also look at the enhanced Z-film in that video series and see close ups that dispell the bunched jacket.

I'd be willing to move to another aspect at this point as it seems kind of pointless to keep bringing up the bunching jacket......

Boswell said Siebert and O'neal were being disruptive.....lol. c'mon. you honestly believe that when it had never been brought up in 30 years? he discredits them because thier report totally contridicts his hack autopsy report.

Hmmm... this is kind of weird, I get the impression that you're a "skimmer" because you don't seem to be following my points very well. Do I honestly believe that Sibert and O'Neill were being disruptive during the autopsy? My whole point was that I don't know if that was true or not.

And I've mentioned the Croft photo at least 5 times and you haven't addressed it yet. So, let's keep it brief this time... you mention the Towner film and that you can't see any bunching of the jacket. Well the Towner film ends just around the time when Zapruder restarted his camera. The Croft photo is taken a little less than 2 seconds later and is extremely clear in showing the bunching. So please address that issue. Man, never thought I'd have this deep of a conversation on jacket bunching ;-)

And totally understand your not wanting to link to Mcadam's site if you don't like the guy, that's fair enough.

[a-dog]

Hmmm... this is kind of weird, I get the impression that you're a "skimmer" because you don't seem to be following my points very well. Do I honestly believe that Sibert and O'Neill were being disruptive during the autopsy? My whole point was that I don't know if that was true or not.

And I've mentioned the Croft photo at least 5 times and you haven't addressed it yet. So, let's keep it brief this time... you mention the Towner film and that you can't see any bunching of the jacket. Well the Towner film ends just around the time when Zapruder restarted his camera. The Croft photo is taken a little less than 2 seconds later and is extremely clear in showing the bunching. So please address that issue. Man, never thought I'd have this deep of a conversation on jacket bunching ;-)

And totally understand your not wanting to link to Mcadam's site if you don't like the guy, that's fair enough.

I post from work so my posts are very fast. Do I address everything? Prolly not.

I've looked at a ton of photos over the last few days. I have not specifically looked for the croft photo. As I said earlier, I looked at towner-no bunching. I looked at enhanced zapruder-no bunching. I posted a photo taken appx 2 seconds before the shots were fired-no bunching. I posted a ton of people who said the back wound was too low for the SBT including Humes original autopsy sheet that says "verified" on it.....I looked at the mccadams site and it here was a pic that showed a slight elevation to the jacket. That in no way accounts for the distance in question.

I don't see how I wouldn't see it on the enhanced, zoomed in z film from right before he goes behind the sign. Especially when that's all I was looking for.

[a-dog]

I honestly have no interest in going over the jacket and shirt anymore. There is enough stuff out there for people to draw their own conclusions. Look at Towner, look at Zapruder, look at ALL Of the photos taken THAT DAY. Not a few weeks before showing a bunched jacket but from that day. EDIT-I just specifically looked up the Croft photo....the jacket is up appx 1 inch, again thus does not compensate for the issue. This bunching is all smoke and mirrors, look at the photos for yourself.

Let's talk Oswald. Do you guys have any questions about him? There is a lot of false information out there about him.

[Phattso]

What was the real reason Ruby wanted Oswald dead?

[a-dog]

What was the real reason Ruby wanted Oswald dead?

Ruby never admitted anything. He did make a statement where he said he was forced to do what he did and I believe he hinted at LBJ.
I can post a link tomorrow.

[a-dog]

Ruby had an incredible history to him. He had ties to the mob. He was a paid FBI informant at one time. I seem to remember him being tied to Nixon as well. You have to look at everything he did that weekend, he was hanging out at police headquarters. He knew stuff about Oswald that Wade didn't know-Ruby actually corrected him at a press conference where Ruby was pretending to be a reporter. Ruby knew all the cops, he was on a first name basis with them. Even though it is denied there is a possibility he was let into the garage. If he was I don't think the DPD thought he was there to kill LHO.

He was forced to do it. By who, I don't know.

Oswald did a few very strange things once he was arrested. He tried to call an ex CIA guy (they didn't let that call go through) and he was seeking council with some strange lawyers. Note the ex CIA guy he tried to call....why would he do that and how did he get that guys number? I'll post some links tomorrow.