Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» What strange affidavits these are!
Today at 7:38 pm by Ed. Ledoux

» Kennedys and King website
Today at 6:05 pm by Paul Francisco Paso

» The Facts about Connally's Wounds
Today at 5:53 pm by Paul Francisco Paso

» Kent Courtney
Yesterday at 11:47 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» a ramble in and around Pine St, NO
Yesterday at 11:45 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» Anatomy Of A Second Floor Encounter
Yesterday at 11:01 pm by barto

» ROKC Lampoon
Yesterday at 7:56 pm by steely dan

» Backyard photo´s rifle
Yesterday at 11:04 am by Ed. Ledoux

» No Shots Fired From The TSBD
Yesterday at 4:48 am by Stan Dane

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking Digg  Social bookmarking Delicious  Social bookmarking Reddit  Social bookmarking Stumbleupon  Social bookmarking Slashdot  Social bookmarking Furl  Social bookmarking Yahoo  Social bookmarking Google  Social bookmarking Blinklist  Social bookmarking Blogmarks  Social bookmarking Technorati  

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Affiliates
free forum
 



The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by greg parker on Mon 27 Oct 2014, 7:33 am

FB post made by Linda Giovanna Zambanini. Linda has a background in nursing. I'll take this from Linda over a thousand pages of "research" by certain others on this topic every single time. Yes, we all knew the SBT was crap - but now we have an actual logical explanation for the wounds and prima facie evidence that a change in stories was coerced.


Frankie Vegas, I don't think you or Greg Parker are in a the JFK groups I'm in, so I wanted to share with you and the whole Downunder Crew a BOMBSHELL I found yesterday! :
I came upon a fascinating WBAP TV (NBC) film that is composed of clips from JFK's Texas stops. It has many clips I have never seen before, including an absolute BOMBSHELL from an interview of Dr. Shaw and the other surgeon, Dr. Shires, discussing their surgery on Connolly.
Dr. Shires opens, saying there were 3 wounds - and lists the back wound separately from the wrist and leg wounds, calling it a "tangential wound" - not a through and through wound. Shaw then says CLEARLY, the bullet that entered Connolly's back DID NOT PENETRATE into the body cavity! It was STOPPED by the rib which it shattered and fragments of the rib penetrated the pleura (lining) and lung. The bullet did not penetrate the lung - let alone transit the thorax and exit the anterior chest wall! Of course, this is absolute proof the "magic bullet" was a complete fabrication - the bullet never passed THRU THE BODY to hit the wrist and then the thigh! It completely and utterly destroys the SBT! The clip goes from 40:00 to 43:03. At 41:00 Shaw starts talking about the back wound .... at 41:45 - 42:07 Shaw says:
"In other words, the bullet never actually entered the body cavity, but it caused an opening into the body cavity, by the shock like impact against the rib, which it fractured. THE BULLET, ITSELF, DID NOT ENTER THE BODY CAVITY - IT ONLY WENT THROUGH THE CHEST WALL."
In concluding, Dr. Shires says he agrees with Mrs. Connolly that it's a good thing he turned because "...otherwise the bullet would have been straight through and through and would have involved the heart."

http://www.nbcuniversalarchives.com/nbcuni/clip/51A02395_s01.do


_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3440
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by greg parker on Mon 27 Oct 2014, 7:37 am

More from Linda


 It should have been clear to us all along that the op report and testimony of Dr Shaw HAD TO BE changed by him later, OR forged by someone else, to go along with the SBT. 


Doctors *immediately* dictate or hand write their op reports (usually dictate - even in '63 I believe, especially in metropolitan hospitals). So his original op report would have been dictated before, and agreed with, his statements in this early press conference in which he reports the bullet did NOT transit the chest! It would have detailed exactly what he clearly described in laymen's terms to the press only hours later! Of course...this was BEFORE Tague's account necessitated the SBT to cover up the coup, and thus necessitated a drastic change in Shaw's op report - and his WC testimony.
 

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3440
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by Stan Dane on Mon 27 Oct 2014, 5:08 pm

Very cool.

I'd like to see this more fully fleshed out by the right people, because if this holds up, how can anyone refute it without resorting to even more magical hocus-pocus bullshit? I know they can, and will, but there comes a point when something becomes so obviously and conspicuously true, to further refute it destroys any credibility one may have. It may take a long time, but truth always wins out in the end.

Stan Dane

Posts : 2322
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by Martin Hay on Tue 28 Oct 2014, 1:13 am

I'm sorry but Linda is wrong.

Nothing that Dr. Shaw said in that interview was in anyway different to what he said in his 11/22/63 operative report or his Warren Commission testimony.

In that interview, Dr. Shires refers to a "tangential wound of the right side of the chest which Dr. Shaw can best describe." He then hands the microphone to Dr. Shaw who says the same thing he said every other time he described the wound:

"the bullet which entered the right shoulder in the back, went down across the chest, and struck the fifth rib in such a way that it was partially shattered and this caused an opening through the chest wall into the pleural cavity which allowed the right lung to collapse...the bullet actually did not enter the body cavity, but it caused an opening into the body cavity by the shock-like impact against the rib which it fractured. The bullet itself did not enter the body cavity, it only went through the chest wall."

Now one can clearly see that Shaw said that the bullet entered the back and ranged "down across the chest". He said nothing about it being stopped by the rib. And what he said is the same as what he said to the Commission:

Dr. SHAW: The bullet, in passing through the Governor's chest wall struck the fifth rib at its midpoint and roughly followed the slanting direction of the fifth rib, shattering approximately 10 cm. of the rib. The intercostal muscle bundle above the fifth rib and below the fifth rib were surprisingly spared from injury by the shattering of the rib, which again establishes the trajectory of the bullet...It was found that approximately 10 cm. of the fifth rib had been shattered and the rib fragments acting as secondary missiles had been the major contributing factor to the damage to the anterior chest wall and to the underlying lung." (6H86-87)

The confusion here seems to be over Dr. Shaw's statement that bullet did not enter the "body cavity". The term "human body cavity" usually refers to the "ventral body cavity" which is in the anterior of the body and is made up of the thoracic cavity and the abdominopelvic cavity:



That's what he said the bullet did not enter. He never meant nor suggested at any time that the bullet didn't exit the body.

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by Martin Hay on Tue 28 Oct 2014, 1:48 am

What Dr. Shaw told the HSCA 14 years later was still in accordance with what he said in that first day interview. He told Andy Purdy that

"the bullet struck the fifth rib in a tangential way, pushing it out, causing a fracture at a point farther up the rib...Bullet and rib fragments exited out the front of the Governor causing his larger exit hole...the bullet did not traverse the thorax; it was essentially a '...chest-wall wound...' with much of the damage to the Governor being caused by a 'blast-like' effect which resulted from the bullet tangentially striking the fifth rib, turning pieces of it into secondary missiles...The bullet did not traverse the lung; there was essentially a chest wall injury which involved the lung because of the blast effect..." (7HSCA325-27)

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by steely dan on Tue 28 Oct 2014, 2:44 am

I'm a little confused by Robert Mady's scenario. First shot -throat wound. Second shot-fatal head wound. Third shot-Connally's wounds. Fourth shot-Kerb strike which injures Tague. And no back wound on JFK?.

steely dan

Posts : 277
Join date : 2014-08-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by Stan Dane on Tue 28 Oct 2014, 2:58 am

So what I'm hearing is that the bullet enters Connally's back, runs down along the outer, peripheral part of his body (the tangential path), hits a rib, shatters it, some of the bone fragments cause more internal wounds, and what exited his body were bullet and bone fragments. Correct? If so, this suggests a shot originating from the rear and from above. How Connally's wrist and thigh were injured are bullets of another color.

Stan Dane

Posts : 2322
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by Martin Hay on Tue 28 Oct 2014, 3:42 am

Stan Dane wrote:So what I'm hearing is that the bullet enters Connally's back, runs down along the outer, peripheral part of his body (the tangential path), hits a rib, shatters it, some of the bone fragments cause more internal wounds, and what exited his body were bullet and bone fragments. Correct? If so, this suggests a shot originating from the rear and from above. How Connally's wrist and thigh were injured are bullets of another color.


That's about right, Stan. But Shaw testified that no metallic fragments were found anywhere in Connally's chest so in all likelihood the bullet stayed in one piece and what exited was a complete bullet plus bone fragments.

FWIW it's my opinion that in their 2013 Duquesne presentation Josiah Thompson and Keith Fitzgerald demonstrated a very high probability that Connally's wrist was struck at Zapruder frame 327-328 by a fragment from the second headshot.

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by greg parker on Tue 28 Oct 2014, 6:47 am

I'll let Linda respond to Martin. In the meantime, here is more of what she she wrote during that FB discussion:


I just read and reread the op report several times. It reports there was an entrance AND exit wound, which were both excised/debrided. But, revealingly, in the 2nd sentence it only mentions ONE "occlusive dressing and manual pressure" applied over *a* sucking chest wound of the right chest! (the occlusive dressings used for such wounds are Vaseline impregnated gauze dressings - which seal the wound). If there was an entry and exit wound there should have been TWO occlusive/Vaseline dressings used to seal them. Nowhere in the report does it mention an occlusive dressing placed over BOTH the entrance and (alleged) exit wounds - which would be REQUIRED to control the sucking chest WOUNDS (plural!). This is either the uneducated error of a forger who is not medically trained and does not understand sucking chest wounds OR an accidental Freudian slip up by the author (Dr Shaw?) who DOES understand them, but subconsciously errors, knowing there was actually only ONE chest wound - the entrance wound in the back. http://history-matters.com/.../wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0021b.htm

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3440
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by Martin Hay on Tue 28 Oct 2014, 8:34 am

greg parker wrote:I'll let Linda respond to Martin.

I'll look forward to that.

She didn't take it at all badly when I tried to explain to her why Doug Horne's body alteration theory is utter bullshit...

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by greg parker on Tue 28 Oct 2014, 9:48 am

Martin Hay wrote:
greg parker wrote:I'll let Linda respond to Martin.

I'll look forward to that.

She didn't take it at all badly when I tried to explain to her why Doug Horne's body alteration theory is utter bullshit...
I wrote a quite brilliant ballad (said he, tooting his own horn) for Doug Horne on the Ed Forum. It seems to have disappeared.  It's such a great name for playing around with rhymes... but one mustn't take the Mickey out of favored authors at the Ed Forum.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3440
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by Stan Dane on Wed 29 Oct 2014, 6:24 am

Martin Hay wrote:FWIW it's my opinion that in their 2013 Duquesne presentation Josiah Thompson and Keith Fitzgerald demonstrated a very high probability that Connally's wrist was struck at Zapruder frame 327-328 by a fragment from the second headshot.
Martin, is this presentation available anywhere for viewing or download? I did some searching but I haven't come up with anything. Of course, I may have overlooked something obvious, which I all too often do.

Thanks.

Stan Dane

Posts : 2322
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by Martin Hay on Wed 29 Oct 2014, 7:08 am

Stan Dane wrote:
Martin Hay wrote:FWIW it's my opinion that in their 2013 Duquesne presentation Josiah Thompson and Keith Fitzgerald demonstrated a very high probability that Connally's wrist was struck at Zapruder frame 327-328 by a fragment from the second headshot.
Martin, is this presentation available anywhere for viewing or download? I did some searching but I haven't come up with anything. Of course, I may have overlooked something obvious, which I all too often do.

Thanks.


Yes, Stan. You can - and should! - download it from Ben Wecht's website here:

http://www.historyexhumed.com/downloads-from-passing-the-torch/

There's a bunch of top-quality presentations available, all for less than three dollars each.

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by Stan Dane on Wed 29 Oct 2014, 7:25 am

You da man! Thanks, Martin.

Stan Dane

Posts : 2322
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by Martin Hay on Thu 30 Oct 2014, 1:23 am

Stan Dane wrote:You da man! Thanks, Martin.

No worries, Stan.

If you do download the Thompson/Fitzgerald presentation, let me know what you think of it. I'd be very interested to hear your opinions.

Martin Hay

Posts : 217
Join date : 2013-06-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by Stan Dane on Thu 30 Oct 2014, 3:57 am

Martin Hay wrote:
Stan Dane wrote:You da man! Thanks, Martin.

No worries, Stan.

If you do download the Thompson/Fitzgerald presentation, let me know what you think of it. I'd be very interested to hear your opinions.
Ordered.
 
I usually don't offer many research-related opinions here because I know my limitations. I possess a wide, but not deep, knowledge of the Kennedy case, so my opinions are generally not worth much. What I like to do is ask questions and rely on the expertise of member researchers to get answers or to get pointed in the right direction.
 
I'll review the presentation and give my impressions of it, highlighting key points/claims made, and then others can chime in here and we can determine the strengths and weaknesses of the material.
 
Thanks!

Stan Dane

Posts : 2322
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by beowulf on Fri 31 Oct 2014, 1:53 am

Greg, wasn't Linda the person who was writing something about a Prayer Man theory? Did she ever write it up? I'm curious to hear what she came up with.
EDIT: Which reminds, have you heard from Sean Murphy lately. I hope he's alright and has only temporarily burned out on JFK research. He certainly ended on a high note wit that phenomenal Prayer Man thread.

beowulf

Posts : 364
Join date : 2013-04-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Fri 31 Oct 2014, 7:28 am

Martin Hay wrote:FWIW it's my opinion that in their 2013 Duquesne presentation Josiah Thompson and Keith Fitzgerald demonstrated a very high probability that Connally's wrist was struck at Zapruder frame 327-328 by a fragment from the second headshot.

Sounds interesting. I'll have to view the presentation myself.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1778
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by greg parker on Fri 31 Oct 2014, 8:07 am

beowulf wrote:Greg, wasn't Linda the person who was writing something about a Prayer Man theory? Did she ever write it up? I'm curious to hear what she came up with.
EDIT:  Which reminds, have you heard from Sean Murphy lately.  I hope he's alright and has only temporarily burned out on JFK research.  He certainly ended on a high note wit that phenomenal Prayer Man thread.
I'm hopeful Linda will come and not only present her PM stuff but sort out the issues Martin has raised with this.

Haven't heard from Sean. It was his previous pattern to pop up on some forum or other and then disappear for a while before turning up again - usually in a different forum. I think this is maybe his longest absence. There are many people keen to see him back and believe efforts may be made to track him down. I personally don't see any point in contacting him. He is his own man and attempts at persuasion will be unlikely to succeed. If he comes back to this, it will be when and if he's ready, and not before.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3440
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by Stan Dane on Fri 07 Nov 2014, 4:09 am

Stan Dane wrote:
Martin Hay wrote:No worries, Stan.

If you do download the Thompson/Fitzgerald presentation, let me know what you think of it. I'd be very interested to hear your opinions.
Ordered.
 
I usually don't offer many research-related opinions here because I know my limitations. I possess a wide, but not deep, knowledge of the Kennedy case, so my opinions are generally not worth much. What I like to do is ask questions and rely on the expertise of member researchers to get answers or to get pointed in the right direction.
 
I'll review the presentation and give my impressions of it, highlighting key points/claims made, and then others can chime in here and we can determine the strengths and weaknesses of the material.
 
Thanks!

I finally started viewing the presentation yesterday. I decided to take notes as went along and post them, so in a way this is a rough pseudo transcript. I'll do the whole thing in a series of posts over the next day or so, then I'll comment/others can comment at the end. I'll lay it all out. I inserted time reference marks along the way e.g., |1:21| to make it easier for anyone who wants to verify what they're reading with the presentation. Here goes...
 
Passing the Torch - Last Seconds in Dallas
Josiah Thompson
 
After 50 years, we are finally returned to the basic evidence of the case and to what our own eyes told us about that evidence. Objective: return to where we started and to know the place for the first time (quoting T.S. Eliot). |1:21| Where is the place where we started?
 
For JT, that was July 1966. National Archives (NA) visit was only way to see Zapruder film in 1960s. Frame 313 produced an audible intake of breath. |3:29| It looked then like it has looked ever since: it looked like JFK was hit in his right temple with a baseball bat. He bowled over to the left rear, his head leading the movement, his right shoulder and elbow elevated, his whole body thrown violently against the seat, to bounce forward and then crumple. Forty six years later, I'm here to tell you that what my eyes and your eyes tell us about these few frames of film is undeniably correct. |4:05| JFK was not struck with a baseball bat but he was hit with a bullet, a bullet from the right front. After all the attempts at telling us something else, all the attempts to explain what we see is a shot from the rear, the jet effect theory, neuromuscular reaction, after all these theories have been studied and rejected for good reason, we are returned to what our eyes tell us and have told us from the very beginning.
 
Talk today about how and why this is the case. Frame Z-313. They brought a projector to the NA to compare Z-312 and Z313 because they heard a from Ray Marcus (SP?) in Los Angeles when you compared Z-312 with Z-313 you could see something invisible when the film is running; JFK's head moves forward several inches, so they used the projector to compare. [Z-312 and Z-313 shown] Marcus was right: JFK's head did jump forward between the two frames. |6:03| Undeniable. On the ride back home, they talked about what they saw. The explosion seen in Z-313 had to be the exit of a bullet that had just hit him in the rear of the head and blasted it forward all in less than an 1/18 of a second. Within 3 months JT had been hired by Life magazine as a consultant on the Kennedy assassination which meant he had access to their quite remarkable copies of the Zapruder film. He made copies of these copies and used these to do what govt investigators should have done years before: measure the movement of JFK's head between the two frames. He found the head moved forward 2.16 inches. JT graphed this:



You see a forward movement after Z-312 and then an enormous backward movement.



This double movement within 1/18 of a second meant to JT that JFK had been hit twice in the head. |8:19| First from the rear, and then from the front. What else could it be? Oddly enough, JT found that the basic evidence in the case concerning the head injury resembled this, i.e., the evidence around this injury came in packages of two. Duality.
 
EVIDENCE IN PACKAGES OF TWO
 
1) JFK'S HEAD MOVES FORWARD AND BACK.
2) IMPACT DEBRIS FROM HEAD SHOT GOES FORWARD AND BACK.
3) MEDICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS SHOT FROM REAR AND SHOT FROM FRONT.
4) WITNESS AND PHOTO EVIDENCE OF SHOT FIRED FROM REAR AND SHOT FIRED FROM RIGHT FRONT.

Now we confront a tremendous irony. All of this latter evidence that came in packages of two was no linked to any particular time in the shooting. We know that only some impact debris went forward at some time and at some time debris also went backward. Likewise for the medical evidence and the other evidence indicating shots from both the front and the rear. It was all there but it didn't carry with it a tag indicating time. The only part of the evidence package that was linked to a specific time was the 2 inch movement between Z-312 & 313. Occurring in the split second interval meant that JFK had to have been hit twice. It was the discovery of the 2 inch movement that opened JT's eyes to see all the other instances of dual packed evidence. |10:12|

But the 2 inch movement as we shall see has turned out to be an optical illusion. JFK's head DID NOT move forward 2 inches between 312 & 313. The movement of Zapruder camera in 313 produced a blur that JT mistakenly read as movement of JFK's head. Yet for over 40 years, this mistaken measurement has been accepted by everyone, by WCR defenders, by WCR critics, bystanders, etc., everybody has accepted this as a fundamental fact of the assassination. And this 2 inch movement has an amazing logical position in the makeup of the case. If you pull this piece out, everything changes.

The only plausible way to combine that forward jog of 2 inches with the much more massive left backward snap of the head and body is to suppose a virtually simultaneous double hit. There were problems with this idea that came to mind even then. What were the chances of in such a shooting that two bullets would arrive on target within 1-2/18 second? Talking about two impacts on JFK's head but only one (explosion 313) was visible. Two impacts, but can only see one. |12:12|
 
Next, Part 2.

Stan Dane

Posts : 2322
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by Stan Dane on Fri 07 Nov 2014, 9:00 am

Part 2
 
The notion of a simultaneous double hit therefore immediately was vulnerable to attack. |12:22| Since the explosion at Z-313 had to be the exit of the bullet causing the 2 inch forward movement, if one could explain the left backward snap as following from the same shot the double movement would explained as the consequence of a single shot from the rear and we are all back in the happy company of the Warren Commission.
 
Enter Luis Alvarez. Nobel laureate and distinguished professor of physics at UC Berkeley. Alvarez first gained national attention with respect to JFK assn. when he appeared in June 1997 as part of the CBS defense of the Warren Report. He appeared in a cameo role backing a theory that blurs in a film could be correlated with shots. He pointed out that the upshot of his work "was that there were indeed three shots fired just as the Commission said." Due to his appearance on the program, JT had correspondence with him where he said he was quite pleased that his efforts have done the most to persuade the public that assignation critics are a bunch of nuts and that the WC is essentially correct. He went on to say that he was happy to play the role of helping to restore some sanity to the American public.
 
Within a couple of weeks of this exchange, Alvarez set to work on his jet effect theory. His efforts to show that the left backward snap was due to the momentum transfer effects of a bullet fired from the rear. But he waited a long time to publish anything on this but he did in 1976; he published his theory in the American Journal of Physics.
 

 
There you see a melon that has been shot with a 30-06 rifle and lo and behold the melon came back towards the rifle. |14:35| His theory is remarkably simple. It pointed out that if a bullet struck a human skull and deposited little momentum on the skull when it hit, and it also blew out a lot of material when it left the skull, that balance of momentum might fall on the side of the material driven out. If so, the skull would move back toward the weapon that fired the bullet. |15:07| Physics. You can see in the illustration. Bullet enters [at rear], blows out large defect [front] with fragments going in every direction, and with balance of momentum the skull moves backward. What happens when you empirically test this theory by firing a rifle? Don't use a human skull because they are think and absorb momentum when struck, so Alvarez suggested melons be shot because a melon has an outer layer that would be sliced through like butter, thus reducing to zero the forward momentum imparted.
 
Alvarez's results were six out of seven melons recoiling backward. |16:40| Yes and no. It's true that on May 31, 1970, only melons were shot and 6 out 7 recoiled, but what Alvarez never told readers was that there had been two earlier firing tests. Within the last two years JT gained access to the raw notes and photos of all the tests. They tell a different story than Alvarez told in his American Journal of Physics article. 
 
The first test was done on June 29, 1969 and melons were shot and they did just what Alvarez said they would do—they came backward. Coconuts with Jello filling were also shot and they went 39 feet downrange (forward). A plastic jug with jello was shot; it was blown forward. An 11 lb. watermelon was shot; notes unclear. A plastic jug of water was blown forward 6 feet.
 
On February 15, 1970, the firing tests were run again. Five rubber balls filled with gelatin were blown forward. Five plastic bottles with water exploded. A taped pineapple was shattered with the largest piece going perpendicular to the bullet's path.
 
Here's two photos that show what happened when a rubber ball filled with gelatin was shot.
 

 
Notice the direction of the bullet...it goes downrange as you'd expect. In other words in these tests, anytime they shot anything but a melon, it went with the bullet. But Alvarez didn't tell anybody that. |18:54| In fact, JT never knew these other tests were performed; just learned about them in the last two years.
 
Six months later on May 31, 1970, everyone came together for a final shoot. (JT shows a picture of Alvarez holding a melon with his wife and two small children which looked more like a family picnic than a scientific experiment.) As before, the bullets fired in these experiments were 30.06 all lead bullets. For some reason, they hand loaded the cartridges and raised the muzzle velocity from 2800 fps (feet per second) to 3000 fps. Why...who knows? "Oswald's bullet" would have had a velocity of around 1800 fps and it was a military jacketed round and the kinetic energy transferred is MV2 (mass times velocity squared) so the difference in velocities between 1800 fps and 3000 fps is absolutely enormous. The melons were reduced in size from 4-7 lbs. to 1.1-3.5 lbs. And they behaved even "better!" |20:58|

The final nail in the jet effect theory "coffin" was driven in by a technician from the Army's Edward Arsenal who testified before the HSCA in 1978. He testified about experiments performed at Edward's with skulls, they were filled with a simulant that accurately replicated the interior of a living human brain. Both gelatin and animal fur was draped over the back of each skull to simulate scalp, and the rifle found on the Sixth Floor was fired into each skull using the exact same military jacketed ammunition that was found in the weapon on Nov 22—you can't replicate it any more than that. Ten skulls, every one, each one of those ten skulls went downrange when hit by a bullet.

I'll let other people characterize the kind of science Luis Alvarez was practicing here. Over forty years ago my dear friend Sylvia Meagher pointed out that too much investigation in this case is eminence-based, not evidence-based, and I think that about covers it. |22:22|

Next, Part 3.


Last edited by Stan Dane on Sat 08 Nov 2014, 4:45 am; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : Clarify mass time velocity expression)

Stan Dane

Posts : 2322
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by steely dan on Fri 07 Nov 2014, 6:44 pm

Still following Mady's thread ( Cryptic Chris has joined in). Still no mention of a back wound in JFK, so either i dreamt about the wound, or Mady's scenario needs more work and another bullet.

steely dan

Posts : 277
Join date : 2014-08-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by Terry W. Martin on Sat 08 Nov 2014, 1:56 am

Stan Dane wrote:Part 2
 
Enter Luis Alvarez. Nobel laureate and distinguished professor of physics at UC Berkeley.

*******

I'll let other people characterize the kind of science Luis Alvarez was practicing here. Over forty years ago my dear friend Sylvia Meagher pointed out that too much investigation in this case is eminence-based, not evidence-based, and I think that about covers it. |22:22|

Stan,

Thanks for the synopsis. I can hardly wait for part three.

So many researchers I have seen over the years refer to the "hard physical evidence" blah, blah, blah. And today, "science" is enjoying trmendous celebrity even garnering a prestigious Facebook page called "I Fucking Love Science". And you can't do much better than that.

Except what they are touting is a far cry from science. My dad was a scientist working as a research chemist for an oil company in Texas before moving to Washington, DC, and working for NASA.

Most researches are done to prove an hypothesis. This is known at the outset - science is not just nobly searching for "truth" as we are told - and ANY experiment that does not produce the desired result is tagged "equivocal". Only after producing enough positive result that "prove" the theory, do they publish and all the erroneous results are swept under a carpet somewhere.

The Alvarez example shows us how easily people can be duped by our deferential attitudes toward "science" and how evidence can be twisted and presented to shore up shoddy theories.

If researchers in this case depend too much on scientific evidence, I think they should all learn something by the dogged determine of TJ in the above.

Just because someone can "prove" something does not mean it is the absolute truth.

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by Stan Dane on Sat 08 Nov 2014, 4:18 am

Terry W. Martin wrote:The Alvarez example shows us how easily people can be duped by our deferential attitudes toward "science" and how evidence can be twisted and presented to shore up shoddy theories.

If researchers in this case depend too much on scientific evidence, I think they should all learn something by the dogged determine of TJ in the above.

Just because someone can "prove" something does not mean it is the absolute truth.
I agree Terry.

I found this quote attributed to Luis Alvarez:
 
"There is no democracy in physics. We can't say that some second-rate guy has as much right to opinion as Fermi."
 
When I read this I see condescending arrogance. Meagher's eminence trumping evidence. I agree expert opinions carry more weight, but Fermi started out as a "second-rate guy" once, not an expert. History has many examples of "second-rate guys" who were proven to be right. 

Years ago, a junior chemistry technician came to me with an idea to not only simplify the way we sampled dissolved gases in radioactive primary coolant, but to improve the accuracy and precision of the measurements as well. Every senior chemist he approached summarily dismissed him, saying some variation of it won't work. But I was the department head (I worked at Palo Verde, Terry) and I gave him the go ahead to test his method side-by-side with our existing procedures. Bottom line: it worked amazingly well, it saved us time and money, and results were vastly improved. Nobody would consider ever doing it the old way again.

Science may not be a democracy, but it's not an oligarchy either. Everything should be transparent and independently tested. You're only as good as your next idea.
 
Alvarez wasn't stupid, so he was either dishonest or he was on the payroll.

PS: I'm finding this very interesting so far. The way I'm doing this is time consuming, but I think it's better to see the underlying material rather than to simply hear my thoughts after reading it. More "scientific."

Stan Dane

Posts : 2322
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 63

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by Terry W. Martin on Sat 08 Nov 2014, 4:29 am

Stan Dane wrote:
Alvarez wasn't stupid, so he was either dishonest or he was on the payroll.

PS: I'm finding this very interesting so far. The way I'm doing this is time consuming, but I think it's better to see the underlying material rather than to simply hear my thoughts after reading it. More "scientific."

My guess is he was on the payroll since he was so proud of supporting the WC. Even a cursory reading of their case shows its worse than Swiss cheese.

And I'm loving the way this is presented.

Thanks!

Terry W. Martin

Posts : 690
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 65
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Facts about Connally's Wounds

Post by Sponsored content Today at 10:37 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 4 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum