JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[FISHY1118]

I don’t think a handful of witnesses who stated that they heard the 2^nd and 3^rd shot fired within a second or two from each other urged them to create the SBT. What had led to the SBT was the findings that the bullet that had supposedly hit the president in the neck hadn’t caused the damage to the inside of the limousine. It was judged that the bullet exiting the president’s throat would have been much too fast for the damage they did find. However, the bullet hitting the back and coming out the throat couldn’t have missed both the car and its occupants. So, the question remained: if it didn’t cause the damage found on the car, then could it have hit the person or persons sitting in front of the president?

(FrankO)

Robert MacNeil (journalist in motorcade), Roy Kellerman (Secret Service Agent in Presidential limousine), George Hickey (Secret Service Agent in motorcade), Mary Woodward (the journalist who was closest to the Presidential limousine), Seymour Weitzman (policeman), Linda Willis (one of the closest bystander witnesses), and Lee Bowers (who had an excellent view of the motorcade from above) all stated that the last two shots they heard were very close together.

The SBT was a Single Bullet Necessity.

Without the invented shot in the back of the neck, the hole in the front of Kennedy's neck had to be an entrance wound, as verified by every doctor who had seen it, and Connally had to have been hit by a separate shot.

That meant at least two more shots than Earl Warren was prepared to admit (three, if you take into account the double shot) - and at least two gunmen.

According to Dr Humes' examination of the back wound, the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back did not penetrate far.

It could not, therefore, have exited the front of Kennedy's throat which, in any case, was - according to his own autopsy diagrams and FBI witnesses - about half a foot higher than the bullet hole.

The Warren Commission invented a neck wound and, without any precedent in the history of shootings anywhere, claimed that a bullet entering the back of the neck could exit the front of the neck, just as it claimed without any precedent that a shot fired from behind would throw someone violently backwards.

The fact that both Connally and his wife were definite that he was shot by a separate bullet, that according to his own account and a viewing of the Zapruder film he could not have been hit less than half a second after the 'Single' bullet was fired, and his own impression that there were multiple gunmen - remarkably similar to Kellerman's testimony - should settle the matter.

The matter was settled many post ago P.I .

But its always pleasing to see further evidence that backs up multiple shooters.

[GBinOz]

As you know, I don’t share your view, especially not because you have been unable to give a good alternative for a separate shot hitting Connally. Just saying you don’t see any sign of distress until somewhere between frames 279 and 293 doesn’t cut it for me. After all, we know Connally held on to his hat throughout the ordeal, despite the factthat we know a bullet had gone through his wrist. And during frames 279 to 293, Connally had his back towards his wife and leaned back into her lap, so, if a shot were to enter close to his right armpit and exit a bit below his right nipple, then he had to have been hit from a shot coming from the direction of the Criminal Courts Building or Old Court House.

Hi Frank,

In Connolly's interview here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZgSM3Hsuuc&ab_channel=DavidVonPein%27sJFKChannel

he states that he turned to the right to try to see Kennedy and had just started turning back to his left when he was hit. Looking at the ZFs that I have linked before and this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc&ab_channel=antdavisonNZ

It can be seen that the turning process that Connolly describes occurs between frames 240 and frames 290, which is the frame that I nominate as him being hit, reinforced by his very obvious reaction in the frames that follow. This turning process is not visible before frame 240.

This would be consistent with this diagram, except without the President in the path of the bullet.


While I appreciate that you do not agree, I find this to be a better alternative that a theory that lines up seven wounds occurring behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.

I guess we'll have to continue to agree to disagree.

Just as a comment on the Brennan description of Oswald, can anyone tell me the height and weight of the two men seen in this photo?



Best regards, George

[cobalt]

Obviously very difficult to judge height and weight from that angle. I think the photo you attached was from the FBI reconstruction prior to the WC? I am guessing that is Harold Norman on the right hand side and Bonnie Ray Williams, a taller man as could be guessed probably, on the left.

Brennan actually 'fingered' Bonnie Ray Williams to a policeman as someone he had seen in the upper floor windows and that presumably is why Williams- but not Jarman or Norman- was taken to DPD soon after the shooting. Williams must by then have realised that the 6th floor was the crucial area for during his first interview he did not mention the fact he had eaten his lunch there after 12.00. Once his chicken bones and juice bottle were discovered he must have realised it was better to admit where he had been.

[cobalt]

Here's the reconstruction photo from inside. Much easier to guess Williams' height when you can see his legs.

[cobalt]

Here's a photo of the three work colleagues together. Norman and Jarman seem around the same height, so why did Oswald allegedly say he saw 'Junior' and a 'short negro?'
Well that would be because he didn't know Hank Norman's name and was distinguishing him from the very tall Bonnie Ray Williams.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Frank,

In Connolly's interview here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZgSM3Hsuuc&ab_channel=DavidVonPein%27sJFKChannel

he states that he turned to the right to try to see Kennedy and had just started turning back to his left when he was hit. Looking at the ZFs that I have linked before and this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc&ab_channel=antdavisonNZ

It can be seen that the turning process that Connolly describes occurs between frames 240 and frames 290, which is the frame that I nominate as him being hit, reinforced by his very obvious reaction in the frames that follow. This turning process is not visible before frame 240.

This would be consistent with this diagram, except without the President in the path of the bullet.


While I appreciate that you do not agree, I find this to be a better alternative that a theory that lines up seven wounds occurring behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.

I guess we'll have to continue to agree to disagree.

Just as a comment on the Brennan description of Oswald, can anyone tell me the height and weight of the two men seen in this photo?



Best regards, George

Can you remind me who took that photo of the fifth and sixth floor south-eastern windows?

Or is it a still from a movie?

I have tried to find it online but it never comes up in Google search.

The Hughes movie shows the building in colour but the windows appear to be closed.

Can you recall who took the photograph of the same sixth floor window, supposedly when one of the shots was fired - the photo that went missing?

[Fiver]

Can you remind me who took that photo of the fifth and sixth floor south-eastern windows?

Or is it a still from a movie?

I have tried to find it online but it never comes up in Google search.

It's there on Wikipedia.

The picture was taken by photographer Tom Dillard of the Dallas Morning News. He was well back in the motorcade, approaching the Book Depository when the shots rang out. Dillard did nor see the shooter, but identified "three approximately equally spaced" rifle shots. Another reporter saw a rifle, so Dillard took pictures.

Dillard Exhibit A shows a closeup, with two men visible in the 5th floor window and a 6th floor window open.

Dillard Exhibit B shows a wide angle shot of the Book Depository. Taken shortly after Exhibit A, it shows those and other windows open.

The Hughes movie shows the building in colour but the windows appear to be closed.

The windows appear open in the Highs film.

Can you recall who took the photograph of the same sixth floor window, supposedly when one of the shots was fired - the photo that went missing?

Norman Similas, who died in 2009, claimed to have taken a picture that showed two people in a window of the Book Depository. The negatives were lost by the the photo editor for the Toronto Telegram.

Similas' account, which saw print in several papers, is full of provable falsehoods.

[Fiver]

It is quite obvious that Weitzman was pressured into changing his testimony - and he was not the only one treated in that way.

The only people that appear to have been pressured into changing their testimony are people that Mark Lane talked to, like Clemmons and Bowers.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

It's there on Wikipedia.

The picture was taken by photographer Tom Dillard of the Dallas Morning News. He was well back in the motorcade, approaching the Book Depository when the shots rang out. Dillard did nor see the shooter, but identified "three approximately equally spaced" rifle shots. Another reporter saw a rifle, so Dillard took pictures.


Thanks for that information.

The name Dillard does ring a bell.


Dillard Exhibit A shows a closeup, with two men visible in the 5th floor window and a 6th floor window open.


And Dillard's testimony, to which you provided a link, was that he took the photograph just after the last shot he heard fired, and yet there is no sign of anyone at the sniper's nest window.


Norman Similas, who died in 2009, claimed to have taken a picture that showed two people in a window of the Book Depository. The negatives were lost by the the photo editor for the Toronto Telegram.

Similas' account, which saw print in several papers, is full of provable falsehoods.


Thanks for that information, but I was thinking of the person who handed over her film to someone who I think was an FBI agent and the photo never materialised.

[FrankO]

Please see my replies below.

Originally posted by FrankO View Post


Then, with regards to the Parkland doctors: as they weren’t responsible for studying the wounds on the president and giving their opinions about it as would be so in case of an autopsy, I wouldn’t call it ‘verified’.


They were the only doctors who saw the wound in its original condition and all believed it to be an entrance wound.

I would call that verification.



And I suppose you’re not familiar with or a fan of FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier’s testimony, who examined the president’s clothes and found that the object having created the holes on the front of his shirt had travelled through it from the inside out, as fibres had been pushed from the back to the front of the shirt.


According to Frazier, the holes in the jacket and shirt were 5 3/8 and 5 3/4 inches below the bottom of their respective collars.

The bullet could therefore not have passed through Kennedy's neck and throat.



But when, according to you, was the president hit from the front in the throat? And from where, exactly?

Let me, furthermore, ask you, as I asked George: from where and at what point during the motorcade do you think Connally was hit if he wasn’t hit by the ‘single bullet’?


As I stated, Connally could not have been hit less than half a second after Kennedy, and quite possibly a full second after.

As for which building that shot came from, I do not know, but I do know that a shot entering Kennedy's back about six inches below his neckline, at a downward angle, could not have passed through the front of his throat.

If it had exited the front of his body, it could not have hit Connally in the back.



Because I think that if you don’t believe the SBT, you have to have a good, clear and realistic idea of the origin and trajectory of a separate bullet striking Connally after the president was hit. For me, not believing the SBT should go hand in hand with a good, clear and realistic idea.


I would like to know the locations of all the shooters, but I don't need to know them in order to know that there were multiple marksmen and Kennedy was not even shot in the back of the neck, and at least six shots were fired.

Hi PI,

OK, so you believe in at least 6 shots and multiple gunman and you have no clear idea of the locations of the shooters.

So, what you’re proposing, at least in part, seems to be (not necessarily in chronological order) – and please correct me if I’m wrong about any of them:

1. Kennedy is shot in the back from behind at the level of thoracic vertebra 3, supposedly with a high speed bullet that doesn’t enter his body very profoundly and at an angle of 45 to 60 degrees or in the best case at an angle of 30 to 45 degrees;
2. Kennedy is shot in the throat from the front, also supposedly with a high speed bullet that apparently doesn’t exit either;
3. Connally is shot in the back, close to the right armpit, the bullet exiting just below the nipple line, then enters and exits the wrist and then enters the left thigh;
4. Kennedy is hit in the back of the head;
5. Kennedy is hit in the right temple, presumably from the grassy knoll;

The first thing to say is that Kennedy wasn’t hit, yet, when he disappeared behind the Stemmons Freeway sign at Zapruder frame 205, but he was when he reappeared at Z225. Then, Connally, according to his own words, was hit around frames Z231 to 234.

So, between Z205 and 225 Kennedy was hit in the back and the throat by 2 separate bullets and around Z231-234 Connally was also hit in the back by, yet, another separate bullet.

Below questions that I’d have regarding 4 or the 5 points above.
With regards to 1:

• How/from where could a bullet have entered the president’s back at an angle of 30 to 45 degrees, let alone 45 to 60?
• How could a high velocity bullet not enter into his body beyond the length of a little finger?

With regards to 2:

• A shot from the front hitting the president in the throat would have to have come from the direction of the south end of the triple overpass or the south grassy knoll; how come nobody on or near the overpass heard or saw anything from that end? Officer Foster was only some 40 yards away from that end and, among others, Tague and Doland were only some 20 yards away. How can it be that Tague only heard sounds to his left?

With regards to 3:

• The Zapruder film shows that Connally at frame 223 he’s turned somewhat to his right and between frames 224 and 229 he’s lowering his right shoulder, whilst turning back to his left and moving his hat up and down and, from frame 229 onwards, is holding his hat almost at shoulder level; seen from above the bullet travelled through Connally’s upper body slightly from right to left, while his wrist was right in front of his shoulder or even slightly right of it; so, how can a bullet enter the back close to his armpit, then exit, at a somewhat lower point, below his right nipple and then go on to hit him in the wrist?

With regards to 5:

• How could an entering bullet cause the skull to explode upon impact? It has no precedent. Normally, an entry wound is small and an exit wound (much) bigger.
• Where is this bullet supposed to have exited?

Regards,
Frank

[Fiver]

Looking at the ZFs that I have linked before and this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc&ab_channel=antdavisonNZ

It can be seen that the turning process that Connolly describes occurs between frames 240 and frames 290, which is the frame that I nominate as him being hit, reinforced by his very obvious reaction in the frames that follow. This turning process is not visible before frame 240.

Thank you for sharing this. It proves that Oliver Stone is deliberately, repeatedly lying to us.

Stone - "Frame 232, the third shot -- the President has been hit in the back, drawing him downward and forward".

The Zapruder film shows JFK doesn't start leaning to his left until about Frame 245. Stone depicts Jackie Kennedy putting her hand on her husband's right shoulder and pulling him to the left, which never happened.

Stone -"Connally, you will notice, shows no signs at all of being hit. He is visibly holding his Stetson which is impossible if his wrist has been shattered."

The Zapruder film shows Connally was still holding his hat as late as Frame 275.

Nelly Connally testified that her husband did not let go of his hat - "Second shot. I pulled him down in my lap because I didn’t want them to hurt him anymore. I didn’t want them to shoot at him anymore. And while I had him in my lap, there was another shot. And my reaction to that was: bloody matter all over the car, it fell all over us. Third shot. John had his hat in his hand. He always had that hat somewhere. He had the hat in his hand when I pulled him over and crouched him down, and he was holding that hat up against him. We closed that wound that would’ve killed him before we got to the hospital. I didn’t know we were saving his life."

Stone - "Connally's turning now here. Frame 238 . . . the fourth shot misses Kennedy and takes Connally in the back."

As previously noted, the Zapruder film shows that JFK doesn't start leaning to his left until about frame 245.

BTW, here's a stabilized slo-mo panorama of the Zapruder film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk3sdfXFkc

[FrankO]

Hi George,

Thanks for taking some time to give a more precise version of your view regarding a seperate bullet stiking Connally. I still don't agree with it, and I'll explain why below.

he states that he turned to the right to try to see Kennedy and had just started turning back to his left when he was hit.

As I've written earlier, memory is not a recording device and even though Connally may have been close enough, I believe he was a fraction too late with his memory - which is actually quite good as far as a memory goes.

The lapel movement and odd movement of Connally moving his hat up and down, lowering his shoulder and keeping his arm and right hand close to his body, simultaneously to Kennedy bringing up his hands and elbows are all a bit too coincidental to mean nothing.

It can be seen that the turning process that Connolly describes occurs between frames 240 and frames 290, which is the frame that I nominate as him being hit, reinforced by his very obvious reaction in the frames that follow. This turning process is not visible before frame 240.

At frame 223 Connally is turned slightly to his right; between 224 and 230 he turns to his left, lowering his right shoulder and at 236 he starts to turn to his right again, reaching a point he doesn't go beyond at around 265; he seems to hold his upperbody too close to the right side of the car to be able to see Kennedy; he remains in this position until about 273, when he starts to slowly lean back into his wife and by frame 290 starts turning his face towards Zapruder's camera, a position he arrives at in frame 295. So, he makes two 'left turns', one between frames 224 and 230 and one between 290 and 295.

This would be consistent with this diagram, except without the President in the path of the bullet.

I think that, by frame 290 the situation was like this as to Connaly's angle at which his upperbody was, not so much as its position closer to or further away of his wife:

While I appreciate that you do not agree, I find this to be a better alternative that a theory that lines up seven wounds occurring behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.

I guess we'll have to continue to agree to disagree.

That's no problem, George. It's good that we've been able to exchange our views, even though we don't agree.

Cheers,
Frank

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hello FrankO,

I'm not knowledgeable enough about firearms, wounds caused by them, nor possible shooting locations in Dealey Plaza, to answer your questions.

There were certainly plenty of locations on high buildings in the Plaza.

I would suggest that the alternative to what I have argued is considerably more farfetched.

I don't need to explain exactly how Connally was hit by a separate bullet from one that hit Kennedy to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that is what happened. Half of the occupants of the presidential limousine were quite definite about that and the Warren Commission had to falsify the location of one of Kennedy's wounds in order to claim otherwise.

I don't need to pinpoint the location of the shooter who hit Kennedy in the throat to be able to prove that the shot was fired from in front of the limousine.
The Warren Commission Report had to raise the wound to Kennedy's back by more than five inches in order to have a bullet entering the back of his neck going on to exit the front of his throat and passing through cervical vertebrae on the way, for which it could find no precedent.

The same goes for the Warren Commission's neurological explanation for Kennedy's being thrown backwards by a shot from behind: they could provide no reference to any precedent, and there is abundant evidence of an exit wound in the back of the head, which could not have been caused by a shot from behind.

I stand by my statement that at least six shots were fired.
Once you reject the raising of the back wound by five inches, the SBT implodes, which means two additional shots.
The double shot heard at the end, supported by evidence from the Zapruder film and evidence of fragments from two bullets in Kennedy's brain, points to two head shots.
That makes a total of six.


The Warren Commission's finding of three shots was pre-determined to match the three cartridge cases found.
Originally, they had no SBT, because it was not necessary.

Humes' finding that the shot that hit Kennedy in the back had exited the front of his throat was received with incredulity by two FBI agents present because it was evidently impossible.

It was necessitated by the shot that had hit Connally.

It was only when they discovered proof of an additional shot missing the vehicle that the lawyers for the Warren Commission 'realised' that it was obvious that a single bullet had gone through two people and that people like me are too stupid to see what was so obvious that no-one would otherwise even have considered such a possibility.

[Fiver]

I was going to post exactly the same thing.
And Marion Baker, who saw Oswald two minutes after the shooting, described his clothing said;

"At that particular time I was looking at his face, and it seemed to me like he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white - looking shirt"

Based on PIs reasoning, it couldn't have been Oswald, since Baker could only identify Oswald's face, but mistook a shirt for a jacket and described that article of clothing as light brown instead of the dark brown,

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Based on PIs reasoning, it couldn't have been Oswald, since Baker could only identify Oswald's face, but mistook a shirt for a jacket and described that article of clothing as light brown instead of the dark brown,

Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 150, would this appear to be anything that you have ever seen before?

Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir; I believe that is the shirt that he had on when he came -- I wouldn’t be sure of that. It seemed to me like that other shirt was a little bit darker than that whenever I saw him in the homicide office there.

Mr. BELIN. What about when you saw him in the School Book Depository Building, does this look familiar as anything he was wearing, if you know?

Mr. BAKER. I couldn’t say whether that was - it seemed to me it was a light-colored brown but I couldn’t say it was that or not.

Mr. BELIN. Lighter brown did you say, I am just asking what you said. I couldn’t quite hear.

Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir ; all I can remember it was in my recollection of it it was a light brown jacket.



It is obvious that Baker identified Oswald's light-brown shirt as the light-brown 'jacket' he saw him wearing.

The jacket Oswald had at the TSBD that day was reportedly grey-blue.