Anthony DeFiore Wrote:If you read the entire article, you can see that the "oval shape" is caused by "lateral" inclination / cant. For you, if the oval shape is in a northward direction (which this one is / towards the northside of Elm Street) then that is caused by a shot coming from the President's LEFT HAND SIDE ~ in a lateral direction ~ which is the premise of the article. The LEFT HAND SIDE of the President is where the South Knoll is located. I once again ask you to contact me to read my research compilation and the entire article's thesis. It is very apparent from a close up view of the bullet hole in the windshield that the oval shape has been caused by a shot from the South Knoll, and the spider marks of the windshield break are following the oval in a comet-like form. And no, it isn't badgeman.
What indication do you have from your fuzzy photo, that the direction wasn't right to left, back to front? I don't see how any of this proves anything. The key word here is prove.
Uh.. cause the bullet didn't hit Jackie ?? and no GG not "prove" but corroborate... no one on the left side of the limo was shot, hence anything entering the front of the vehicle MUST travel right to left thru the vehicle, front to back. If YOU want to support a proof for if being something from behind... do so. Anthony has shown step by step that the veracity of the testimony in support of a limo stop, a wide turn onto Elm and frontal shots... also extends to the hole in the limo's windshield. That inadequate recording of the damage or the events related to the windshield are in the same vein as the fraud we've illustrated in the autopsies and protocols... and proves a FACT about the assassination that remains refuted by the official position of the government. If the windshield was innocent of incriminating evidence showing a conspiracy, it would have been paraded around as such instead of being replaced as with the images, brain, slides, xrays and accounts of the autopsy. I would simply ask that any evidence that suggested anything other than Oswald from the rear with a broomstick be presented, right here GG, that was not summarily REVERSED at some point to remove from possibility a conspiracy. It boggles the mind that there remains limitations to the conspiracy within people's minds here - "they could do THIS but wouldn't do THAT"... Who insists there was not hole in that windshield and why... and who insists there was and why. Are you comfortable taking Kellerman's word for it... or Greer... or the FBI?
Your agenda confuses your reading comprehension. I don't deny there was a hole in the windshield, I simply don't accept that the evidence is overwhelming that it was a) front to back, b) a shot that struck the president in the throat. I also accept a wide turn on Elm St. and something of a limo stop. I think the president was shot in the neck from the front, twice in the head from the rear and the front, and once in the back from the rear. Certainly there was a conspiracy, multiple shooters, and Oswald didn't shoot an body. But I don't see how any of that has anything to do with having doubts about the direction of a shot through the windshield, or whether it struck the president in the throat, or the head or both through the same hole, as some fanciful theorists would seem to have it, or whether there was body alteration at the autopsy. You seem to have a difficulty staying on track with a simple line of thinking, if it doesn't totally concur with what you think. It's really fruitless to try and have a discussion with you because you don't seem to be able to listen. I don't expect you to agree, but I see little evidence that you even listen. It strikes me that you have something you need to prove, that has nothing to do with this case. So please don't bother to respond to me because I have no more interest in discussing this further with you.
Mr. Gray, I don't believe DJ has a hard time staying on track. I have communicated with him quite frequently, and it simply is not true. As for the hole in the windshield, perhaps you would like to join me in an experiment in Dealey Plaza with a topographic laser and other friends of the research community, and we can gather evidence. I am applying for a permit for the experiment with the City of Dallas. I am ever hopeful, but you never know. Having a masters in city planning from NYU, I am familiar with urban developments like Dealey Plaza, and I think the gathering the measurements will be very enjoyable. Please send me your research on the front shot, and I implore you to read my research compilation and the work by others on the matter so that we are all understanding of each others ideas before we get there. I would hate to be stuck snipping on message boards when there is so much work to be done. Cheers. TD
Anthony DeFiore Wrote:If you read the entire article, you can see that the "oval shape" is caused by "lateral" inclination / cant. For you, if the oval shape is in a northward direction (which this one is / towards the northside of Elm Street) then that is caused by a shot coming from the President's LEFT HAND SIDE ~ in a lateral direction ~ which is the premise of the article. The LEFT HAND SIDE of the President is where the South Knoll is located. I once again ask you to contact me to read my research compilation and the entire article's thesis. It is very apparent from a close up view of the bullet hole in the windshield that the oval shape has been caused by a shot from the South Knoll, and the spider marks of the windshield break are following the oval in a comet-like form. And no, it isn't badgeman.
What indication do you have from your fuzzy photo, that the direction wasn't right to left, back to front? I don't see how any of this proves anything. The key word here is prove.
Uh.. cause the bullet didn't hit Jackie ?? and no GG not "prove" but corroborate... no one on the left side of the limo was shot, hence anything entering the front of the vehicle MUST travel right to left thru the vehicle, front to back. If YOU want to support a proof for if being something from behind... do so. Anthony has shown step by step that the veracity of the testimony in support of a limo stop, a wide turn onto Elm and frontal shots... also extends to the hole in the limo's windshield. That inadequate recording of the damage or the events related to the windshield are in the same vein as the fraud we've illustrated in the autopsies and protocols... and proves a FACT about the assassination that remains refuted by the official position of the government. If the windshield was innocent of incriminating evidence showing a conspiracy, it would have been paraded around as such instead of being replaced as with the images, brain, slides, xrays and accounts of the autopsy. I would simply ask that any evidence that suggested anything other than Oswald from the rear with a broomstick be presented, right here GG, that was not summarily REVERSED at some point to remove from possibility a conspiracy. It boggles the mind that there remains limitations to the conspiracy within people's minds here - "they could do THIS but wouldn't do THAT"... Who insists there was not hole in that windshield and why... and who insists there was and why. Are you comfortable taking Kellerman's word for it... or Greer... or the FBI?
Your agenda confuses your reading comprehension. I don't deny there was a hole in the windshield, I simply don't accept that the evidence is overwhelming that it was a) front to back, b) a shot that struck the president in the throat. I also accept a wide turn on Elm St. and something of a limo stop. I think the president was shot in the neck from the front, twice in the head from the rear and the front, and once in the back from the rear. Certainly there was a conspiracy, multiple shooters, and Oswald didn't shoot an body. But I don't see how any of that has anything to do with having doubts about the direction of a shot through the windshield, or whether it struck the president in the throat, or the head or both through the same hole, as some fanciful theorists would seem to have it, or whether there was body alteration at the autopsy. You seem to have a difficulty staying on track with a simple line of thinking, if it doesn't totally concur with what you think. It's really fruitless to try and have a discussion with you because you don't seem to be able to listen. I don't expect you to agree, but I see little evidence that you even listen. It strikes me that you have something you need to prove, that has nothing to do with this case. So please don't bother to respond to me because I have no more interest in discussing this further with you.
Mr. Gray.... taking potshots at the work of others with rhetorical questions and gasps of incredulity seems to me to speak more of an agenda than one with an open mind to consider the research and work of others... you post a link to an article that doesn't even support your position and ignore that implication... and then you agree on a frontal throat wound but offer nothing beyond that... we all KNOW the wound appeared as an entry wound... but given what we know about the direction of the limo and JFK you offer little if anything to identify where such a shot could come from OTHER than thru the glass from the south.... All I've shown, repeatedly, is that we cannot rely on what was said/photographed/x-rayed in DC that night... I'm sorry you cannot connect the condition of the evidence with your desire to PROVE something... That you chose not to believe Whitaker and the Ford story is your POV... those of us who have spent time with ALL the evidence in ALL the areas see how the windshield fits with the pattern... (ie the ONLY order printed from Kleins was HIDELLS. The microfilm from which that order was printed had hundreds of orders that would have shown what Kleins was shipping for OTHER C20-T750 orders... but not only were no other orders printed to establish that shipping anomaly, the micro film - like the brain and slides etc - is no longer at the Archives - GONE - and only the empty envelope remains) They are called THEORIES for a reason Mr. Gray... they are discussed and prodded and tested and whether they stand up to these tests gives them their validity. It appears that all you want to do is disprove the hole in the windshield as ever being there... and discuss OTHER THEORIESTS as if they have anything to do with what we are discussing here... If you have any evidence that you want to hang your hat upon that there was NO HOLE in that windshield... why do you not present it rather than repeatedly asking the same questions? What is interesting is that you consider this crack something that was caused from behind... from a fragment of bone or lead.... that just happens to travel exactly between everyone in the limo... no other fragments cause any other damage to anyone else in the vehicle... save this one which impacts at a spot that just happens to align with a shot to his throat from the south knoll... AMAZING! I have no trouble at all not only staying on track while providing corroborating situational evidence to support that when evidence DISAPPEARS or is INCOMPLETE you can be sure it had something to do with it being impossible that a Lone shooter from behind did this. A discussion requires two sides... so far I for one have seen little of your side of the discussion other than rudimentary questions about some easily understandable facts related to the case. What is your agenda Gordon? What would you like to see supported and proven? If the xrays can be altered to remove evidence of metal or destruction of bone... and we KNOW there are at least 2 sets of xrays and 3 sets of photos and 3 autopsy protocols.... AND at least two bullets mentioned yet unaccounted for.... (chest and behind the ear) AND the windshield is GONE... what will it take for this to be PROVEN to anyone's satisfaction? DJ (ps for some reason the <enter> key does not work... sorry for the long paragraph)
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
You claim a problem with others' reading comprehension yet won't read the analysis upon which you pronounce your predictable thumbs-down.
Would you save bandwidth and use "ibid" instead?
Anthony
I read your analysis when it was 295 pages and found it very useful for a list of reasons including but not limited to:
It returns to the event Allen Dulles found most damaging, that of Dr. Malcolm Perry's description of the throat wound.
It addresses the suspicious manufacture of a replacement or of replacements for the windshield on the 25th reported by Whitaker (in a position to know).
It combines the known phenomenon of JFK throwing his hands up to his throat (I won't agree he did not) and that hole which the authorities refer to as the Scottish play.
David
Your most recent query was thought-provoking indeed, we have the front seat agents holding their hands up.
At 12:35 pm it was not to block the glaring Western sun.
I might add that all the speculative lay person's worry to the contrary notwithstanding we are not dealing with clumsy hunters shooting themselves navigating Farmer Brown's fence--
--but the elite military and criminal cleaners not to mention the world-class assassins available to say a Clay Shaw associate of the OAS and the model for The Day of the Jackal.
It is quite productive to pursue all aspects of the assassination on the section with such a description.
And is it not ironic that we deal with the Unspeakable which would first shoot the martyred president in the throat.
Phil Dragoo Wrote:At 12:35 pm it was not to block the glaring Western sun.
I might add that all the speculative lay person's worry to the contrary notwithstanding we are not dealing with clumsy hunters shooting themselves navigating Farmer Brown's fence--
--but the elite military and criminal cleaners not to mention the world-class assassins available to say a Clay Shaw associate of the OAS and the model for The Day of the Jackal.
It is quite productive to pursue all aspects of the assassination on the section with such a description.
And is it not ironic that we deal with the Unspeakable which would first shoot the martyred president in the throat.
Oh my Phil: Does this mean you don't think James Files was a shooter?
Color me stunned. :rocker:
Phil Dragoo Wrote:At 12:35 pm it was not to block the glaring Western sun.
I might add that all the speculative lay person's worry to the contrary notwithstanding we are not dealing with clumsy hunters shooting themselves navigating Farmer Brown's fence--
--but the elite military and criminal cleaners not to mention the world-class assassins available to say a Clay Shaw associate of the OAS and the model for The Day of the Jackal.
It is quite productive to pursue all aspects of the assassination on the section with such a description.
And is it not ironic that we deal with the Unspeakable which would first shoot the martyred president in the throat.
As for those pesky jackals looking for work from the trade marts, who knows....
"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War." Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta." The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
Does not the mortician's report of "shrapnel wounds" to JFK's face lend some degree of support to the notion of windshield-originating shards of glass moving into the car at relatively high speed?
Charles Drago Wrote:Does not the mortician's report of "shrapnel wounds" to JFK's face lend some degree of support to the notion of windshield-originating shards of glass moving into the car at relatively high speed?
Excellent point Charles... adding to this...Could the identified area be these wounds? Robinson does not say "neck" but in the "face" two holes were filled... I see no other place on the face this could pertain to.... plus it appears to be bruised/discolored right there as well.. Yet more proof of injuries not recorded in the autopsy [ATTACH=CONFIG]4930[/ATTACH]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Thom Robinson gave this information to Joe West who worked with Files (b. Sutton) then died suspiciously causing Files to sit for interviews.
Files is as so many aspects not to be taken out of context.
The obvious schrapnel is the result of the windshield-transiting throat shot.
Crack, and the firecracker sound of the silenced shot accompanies the crystalline shell as the moon to the lead planet.
Someone had to draw the attention to the fence--the entire Morman Tabernacle Choir went on and on about sounds and smoke and smell of gunpowder.
As a source for the headshot--have to have the president presenting that right hemisphere line at ten feet from the corner under the tree.
A better match for throat and head is at the south.
So I stipulate Files gains nothing for this limited hangout, but does distract attention from other subjects of potential interest.
Hunt, too, was a Grassy Knoll cheerleader.
A flurry. That's a nice round imprint of the windshield chrome above the mirror--symmetrical and opposite to the South Knoll shot coming through, dusting the agents and the president.
Bodyguard of lies, increased, even as conventional security stripped.
