Zach Robertson Wrote:Seamus and Gordon:

Great points. I would like to see photos from the south knoll / overpass area if any available online, or that could be uploaded here. I may have missed them when I was looking for something else.

On another note, here is the gif I think Bernice had. Hopefully it works...

Zach

http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=1193&fullsize=1

Zach Robertson Wrote:Seamus and Gordon:

Great points. I would like to see photos from the south knoll / overpass area if any available online, or that could be uploaded here. I may have missed them when I was looking for something else.

On another note, here is the gif I think Bernice had. Hopefully it works...

Zach

http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=1193&fullsize=1

Gordon Gray Wrote:

Zach Robertson Wrote:Seamus and Gordon:

Great points. I would like to see photos from the south knoll / overpass area if any available online, or that could be uploaded here. I may have missed them when I was looking for something else.

On another note, here is the gif I think Bernice had. Hopefully it works...

Zach

http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=1193&fullsize=1

I've been to Dealy Plaza several times and have gone to all the positions where I thought gunmen might have been placed. The first thing I noticed was that it would be difficult to have more than one shot from any of these positions given, trees, walls and other obstructions that would have occurred as the limosine moved down Elm St. I have stood at the end of the over pass and on the south knoll, but unless I had a scope to sight through it would be difficult to tell if an unobstucted shot could have been taken. I have seen photos of sightlines from the TSBD, the Dal Tex 2cnd floor window, the fence along the knoll, and I have sighted myself from the storm drain at the edge of north knoll and the overpass. I wonder if any one has photographed the line of sight from the south knoll area as well.

Gordon Gray Wrote:

Zach Robertson Wrote:Betty, great topic.

In my opinion it is highly likely that you are exactly right. I believe the shot came from the front where the overpass meets the fence [with two other shooters behind, possibly one in the Dal Tex and one in the TSBD on the opposite end of the "snipers' lair"].

Have you read the Roy Hargraves Interview with Noel Twyman? He sticks to the script of Castro/Soviet conspiracy but drops in a few nuggets about what you have posted about. He describes 'signal man' [DCM] as his good friend Felipe Vidal Santiago. It is very likely that Umbrella Man is someone Vidal worked very closely with. Hargraves had also had fake secret service ID and admitted to being in Dallas with Vidal. He went on to say that Vidal had a walkie talkie.

Vidal is clearly signalling the crossfire with a series of clenched and unclenched fists while it appears to me that Umbrella Man's purpose was to get the Limo drivers [secret service] to look at him and get their attention and slow down. I think it is the Bronson image where the umbrella is a blur which we can deduce he is pumping it up and down very violently.

The ambush in Dallas was done by professionals who were well trained by the CIA. There would be contingency plans, diversions and false trails planted leading in all sorts of directions. Off-the-books assets like the Cuban military snipers described by Bradley Ayers were probably used. Their spotters were likely trained in infiltration techniques, things that CIA operations officer Dave Morales and his people were teaching them in 62-63. I think Morales planned the assassination and used contacts as cut outs to manage the project who in turn would be on site in Dallas. Hargraves goes on to mention that these people, described as 'handlers,' would be on the ground to let the operators know the op was genuine and the danger was real and shared by all.

Zach

While I believe a shot definitely struck the President in the head from the front, I have always questioned how a trajectory from the right front(Grassy Knoll, edge of the fence and overpass) could be consistent with an exit wound on the right rear of his head, given the orientation of his head and the position of the car at the moment of impact. That would seem to be more consistent with a wound to the left rear. It seems to me the President's wounds are more consistent with a trajectory from the left front, originating on the south end of the overpass or the south knoll. I question whether this trajectory would allow for a shot that did not strike Jackie or Greer and did not penetrate the limosine windshield. I wonder if anyone has done sightings from these positions to see if it is possible.

James Lewis Wrote:You questioned how a shot from the right front of Kennedy's head could make an exit wound on the right rear of the head, right? Simple...after a bullet, especially a hollowpoint one, doesn't always follow a straight path. Deflection from the resistance of the skin or bone can cause a bullet to take a direction completely different from the original point of entry. Being a hunter, I've seen bullets end up in completely different places than their entry points would originally suggest.

Gordon Gray Wrote:[quote=Zach Robertson]Betty, great topic.

In my opinion it is highly likely that you are exactly right. I believe the shot came from the front where the overpass meets the fence [with two other shooters behind, possibly one in the Dal Tex and one in the TSBD on the opposite end of the "snipers' lair"].

Have you read the Roy Hargraves Interview with Noel Twyman? He sticks to the script of Castro/Soviet conspiracy but drops in a few nuggets about what you have posted about. He describes 'signal man' [DCM] as his good friend Felipe Vidal Santiago. It is very likely that Umbrella Man is someone Vidal worked very closely with. Hargraves had also had fake secret service ID and admitted to being in Dallas with Vidal. He went on to say that Vidal had a walkie talkie.

Vidal is clearly signalling the crossfire with a series of clenched and unclenched fists while it appears to me that Umbrella Man's purpose was to get the Limo drivers [secret service] to look at him and get their attention and slow down. I think it is the Bronson image where the umbrella is a blur which we can deduce he is pumping it up and down very violently.

The ambush in Dallas was done by professionals who were well trained by the CIA. There would be contingency plans, diversions and false trails planted leading in all sorts of directions. Off-the-books assets like the Cuban military snipers described by Bradley Ayers were probably used. Their spotters were likely trained in infiltration techniques, things that CIA operations officer Dave Morales and his people were teaching them in 62-63. I think Morales planned the assassination and used contacts as cut outs to manage the project who in turn would be on site in Dallas. Hargraves goes on to mention that these people, described as 'handlers,' would be on the ground to let the operators know the op was genuine and the danger was real and shared by all.

Zach

While I believe a shot definitely struck the President in the head from the front, I have always questioned how a trajectory from the right front(Grassy Knoll, edge of the fence and overpass) could be consistent with an exit wound on the right rear of his head, given the orientation of his head and the position of the car at the moment of impact. That would seem to be more consistent with a wound to the left rear. It seems to me the President's wounds are more consistent with a trajectory from the left front, originating on the south end of the overpass or the south knoll. I question whether this trajectory would allow for a shot that did not strike Jackie or Greer and did not penetrate the limosine windshield. I wonder if anyone has done sightings from these positions to see if it is possible.

Seamus Coogan Wrote:

James Lewis Wrote:You questioned how a shot from the right front of Kennedy's head could make an exit wound on the right rear of the head, right? Simple...after a bullet, especially a hollowpoint one, doesn't always follow a straight path. Deflection from the resistance of the skin or bone can cause a bullet to take a direction completely different from the original point of entry. Being a hunter, I've seen bullets end up in completely different places than their entry points would originally suggest.

Gordon Gray Wrote:[quote=Zach Robertson]Betty, great topic.

In my opinion it is highly likely that you are exactly right. I believe the shot came from the front where the overpass meets the fence [with two other shooters behind, possibly one in the Dal Tex and one in the TSBD on the opposite end of the "snipers' lair"].

Have you read the Roy Hargraves Interview with Noel Twyman? He sticks to the script of Castro/Soviet conspiracy but drops in a few nuggets about what you have posted about. He describes 'signal man' [DCM] as his good friend Felipe Vidal Santiago. It is very likely that Umbrella Man is someone Vidal worked very closely with. Hargraves had also had fake secret service ID and admitted to being in Dallas with Vidal. He went on to say that Vidal had a walkie talkie.

Vidal is clearly signalling the crossfire with a series of clenched and unclenched fists while it appears to me that Umbrella Man's purpose was to get the Limo drivers [secret service] to look at him and get their attention and slow down. I think it is the Bronson image where the umbrella is a blur which we can deduce he is pumping it up and down very violently.

The ambush in Dallas was done by professionals who were well trained by the CIA. There would be contingency plans, diversions and false trails planted leading in all sorts of directions. Off-the-books assets like the Cuban military snipers described by Bradley Ayers were probably used. Their spotters were likely trained in infiltration techniques, things that CIA operations officer Dave Morales and his people were teaching them in 62-63. I think Morales planned the assassination and used contacts as cut outs to manage the project who in turn would be on site in Dallas. Hargraves goes on to mention that these people, described as 'handlers,' would be on the ground to let the operators know the op was genuine and the danger was real and shared by all.

Zach

While I believe a shot definitely struck the President in the head from the front, I have always questioned how a trajectory from the right front(Grassy Knoll, edge of the fence and overpass) could be consistent with an exit wound on the right rear of his head, given the orientation of his head and the position of the car at the moment of impact. That would seem to be more consistent with a wound to the left rear. It seems to me the President's wounds are more consistent with a trajectory from the left front, originating on the south end of the overpass or the south knoll. I question whether this trajectory would allow for a shot that did not strike Jackie or Greer and did not penetrate the limosine windshield. I wonder if anyone has done sightings from these positions to see if it is possible.

[/QUO

Okay Jim what calibre hollowpoint we talking about here? And where's your direction. No right or wrong I've always been interested in this sort of thing. My mates been telling me about hunting slugs with hollow points he's been using that are really small but do a shit load of damage he says they are relatively newish. Question what sort of smaller high velocity rounds were capable of doing that to someone in that era. Jim Di has always said they may well have used some pretty fancy shit before its time.

James Lewis Wrote:Seamus, I believe we're looking at something like a .243 or a .270 Winchester. Also, it has been suggested that the actual bullet that struck Kennedy may have used a sabot - a device used to fit a small caliber bullet into a larger shell. That very well could have caused the massive damage to his head, but my personal opinion is that he was struck by a hollowpoint medium caliber hunting bullet of either of the calibers I suggested above.

Seamus Coogan Wrote:

James Lewis Wrote:You questioned how a shot from the right front of Kennedy's head could make an exit wound on the right rear of the head, right? Simple...after a bullet, especially a hollowpoint one, doesn't always follow a straight path. Deflection from the resistance of the skin or bone can cause a bullet to take a direction completely different from the original point of entry. Being a hunter, I've seen bullets end up in completely different places than their entry points would originally suggest.

[quote=Gordon Gray]While I believe a shot definitely struck the President in the head from the front, I have always questioned how a trajectory from the right front(Grassy Knoll, edge of the fence and overpass) could be consistent with an exit wound on the right rear of his head, given the orientation of his head and the position of the car at the moment of impact. That would seem to be more consistent with a wound to the left rear. It seems to me the President's wounds are more consistent with a trajectory from the left front, originating on the south end of the overpass or the south knoll. I question whether this trajectory would allow for a shot that did not strike Jackie or Greer and did not penetrate the limosine windshield. I wonder if anyone has done sightings from these positions to see if it is possible.

[/QUO

Okay Jim what calibre hollowpoint we talking about here? And where's your direction. No right or wrong I've always been interested in this sort of thing. My mates been telling me about hunting slugs with hollow points he's been using that are really small but do a shit load of damage he says they are relatively newish. Question what sort of smaller high velocity rounds were capable of doing that to someone in that era. Jim Di has always said they may well have used some pretty fancy shit before its time.

Seamus Coogan Wrote:

James Lewis Wrote:Seamus, I believe we're looking at something like a .243 or a .270 Winchester. Also, it has been suggested that the actual bullet that struck Kennedy may have used a sabot - a device used to fit a small caliber bullet into a larger shell. That very well could have caused the massive damage to his head, but my personal opinion is that he was struck by a hollowpoint medium caliber hunting bullet of either of the calibers I suggested above.

Seamus Coogan Wrote:[quote=James Lewis]You questioned how a shot from the right front of Kennedy's head could make an exit wound on the right rear of the head, right? Simple...after a bullet, especially a hollowpoint one, doesn't always follow a straight path. Deflection from the resistance of the skin or bone can cause a bullet to take a direction completely different from the original point of entry. Being a hunter, I've seen bullets end up in completely different places than their entry points would originally suggest.

[/QUO

Okay Jim what calibre hollowpoint we talking about here? And where's your direction. No right or wrong I've always been interested in this sort of thing. My mates been telling me about hunting slugs with hollow points he's been using that are really small but do a shit load of damage he says they are relatively newish. Question what sort of smaller high velocity rounds were capable of doing that to someone in that era. Jim Di has always said they may well have used some pretty fancy shit before its time.

Right I had a look and this guy knows what he's doing. I was thinking were I to shoot at say a moving target would you be inclined to go with a gun calibre with this less kick? The .27o here looks pretty grunty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCaVU6tkbLQ&feature=related

Heres one of a .243

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLkTEluwehY

I'm inclined to go with the lighter calibre myself. But yeah with a sabot and a hollowpoint.

The problem I have with Macks remake here is of course they don't explain the actual calibre of the gun Yardley uses, the neck on the model is stiff and doesnt leave anywhere for the impact to go and Yardley is also shooting from near on the side. Also I think Yardleys gun is far to cumbersome. These guys had to get in and get the hell out real fast. At least thats what I think. Any insights Jim?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szGciJo0iPo

James Lewis Wrote:The most likely caliber would probably be the .243, both because of its recoil, which would be quite a bit less than a .270, and also because it's a lighter and slightly more portable rifle. The sabot is also a likely candidate, because the recoil would be even lighter. My personal choice, though, would most likely be the .243, for the reasons I stated above.

Seamus Coogan Wrote:[quote=James Lewis]Seamus, I believe we're looking at something like a .243 or a .270 Winchester. Also, it has been suggested that the actual bullet that struck Kennedy may have used a sabot - a device used to fit a small caliber bullet into a larger shell. That very well could have caused the massive damage to his head, but my personal opinion is that he was struck by a hollowpoint medium caliber hunting bullet of either of the calibers I suggested above.



Right I had a look and this guy knows what he's doing. I was thinking were I to shoot at say a moving target would you be inclined to go with a gun calibre with this less kick? The .27o here looks pretty grunty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCaVU6tkbLQ&feature=related

Heres one of a .243

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLkTEluwehY

I'm inclined to go with the lighter calibre myself. But yeah with a sabot and a hollowpoint.

The problem I have with Macks remake here is of course they don't explain the actual calibre of the gun Yardley uses, the neck on the model is stiff and doesnt leave anywhere for the impact to go and Yardley is also shooting from near on the side. Also I think Yardleys gun is far to cumbersome. These guys had to get in and get the hell out real fast. At least thats what I think. Any insights Jim?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szGciJo0iPo

Seamus Coogan Wrote:

James Lewis Wrote:The most likely caliber would probably be the .243, both because of its recoil, which would be quite a bit less than a .270, and also because it's a lighter and slightly more portable rifle. The sabot is also a likely candidate, because the recoil would be even lighter. My personal choice, though, would most likely be the .243, for the reasons I stated above.

Seamus Coogan Wrote:[quote=James Lewis]Seamus, I believe we're looking at something like a .243 or a .270 Winchester. Also, it has been suggested that the actual bullet that struck Kennedy may have used a sabot - a device used to fit a small caliber bullet into a larger shell. That very well could have caused the massive damage to his head, but my personal opinion is that he was struck by a hollowpoint medium caliber hunting bullet of either of the calibers I suggested above.



Right I had a look and this guy knows what he's doing. I was thinking were I to shoot at say a moving target would you be inclined to go with a gun calibre with this less kick? The .27o here looks pretty grunty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCaVU6tkbLQ&feature=related

Heres one of a .243

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLkTEluwehY

I'm inclined to go with the lighter calibre myself. But yeah with a sabot and a hollowpoint.

The problem I have with Macks remake here is of course they don't explain the actual calibre of the gun Yardley uses, the neck on the model is stiff and doesnt leave anywhere for the impact to go and Yardley is also shooting from near on the side. Also I think Yardleys gun is far to cumbersome. These guys had to get in and get the hell out real fast. At least thats what I think. Any insights Jim?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szGciJo0iPo

Awesome. Cheers the .243 looked sweet as to me. Did you check the Mack Attack?