JFK assassination show

[nicky g]

Last night I watched a BBC documentary on the JFK assassination that was quite convincing in its attempt to support the lone gunman theory and discredit the conspiracy theories.

One aspect of its argument didn't quit persuade me however, though I'm too ignorant of the relevant science to take a definitive stance on it. It showed a clip from Stone's JFK where Costner slows down the Zapruder film to show Kennedy's head moving backwards and to the left (I think) when struck by the fatal bullet, which would indicate a shot from in front of the car rather than from behind, where Oswald was. Without explaining the hows and whys, the programme simply said that the movement in fact was in no way indicative of where the shot came from , and that it could have moved in any direction regardless of where the shot came from.

I find this counterintuitive; I would have thought that a force that was strong enough to push a single bullet through Kennedy's throat, and his co-passenger's chest and wrist, would easily be powerful enough to forcefully push Kennedy's head in the direction it was travelling. But I know very little of the physics or other forces involved. I suppose the fact that the point of a bullet is to focus all of its force on one point in order to penetrate, rather than spread its force across the whole object, might have something to do with it but that's just a guess. Anyone care to enlighten me?

[elwoodblues]

I remember in High School watching a video that showed several melons lined up on a table. Each was shot from the front with a rifle. Some of the melons jerked forward, some jerked back.

[nicky g]

That'll do. Can anyone explain why?

[adios]

Newton's Laws of Motion should help.

Newton's Three Laws (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html)


I would think all three would apply. Again the autopsy should provide the "best evidence" of bullet trajectories etc. Autopsy was botched we can discuss the results of the autopsy at length if you'd like but I can't do that right now. I would recommend reading both sides of the issue i.e. the Warren Commission Report on the autopsy and the counter arguments. The JFK brain would be the best evidence for the trajectory of the kill shot. Sadly the brain is missing (I believe it was determined to be missing in 1966) as it was sent to the National Archives and can't be found. Several critical autopsy photos of the brain are missing from the National Archives as well. A couple more coincidences I guess.

[Copernicus]

There are too many things going on in the body during severe trauma to look at it as a simple physics problem or shooting melons, especially where the neck or spine are involved. On top of that, as I recall, when shots were fired the reaction of the driver was to step on it to get out of range, which would cause the head to jerk backwards.

The lack of explanation for that doesnt trouble me as much as Ruby killing Oswald, and his associations. I finally concluded that it was Oswald alone because Oliver Stone thought otherwise.

[adios]

I wrote:

"Newton's Laws of Motion should help."

You responded:

"There are too many things going on in the body during severe trauma to look at it as a simple physics problem or shooting melons, especially where the neck or spine are involved."

I said it was a physics problem, not necessarily a simple physics problem. However, an analysis of the forces involved is certainly a rational approach. Again I emphasize for the last time that the bullet trajectories of the kill shot can be discerned conclusively from the brain of JFK.

[adios]

About that show, do you have any kind of link that might provide the synopsys for the basis of their conclusions? I've always wondered about the trajectory of the bullet that caused JFK's throat wound. The autopsy data and JFK's clothing are consistent with bullet holes to the back, about 5.5" to 6" below the neckline. The reason given by the Warren Commission for the bullet holes in the clothes being non aligned with a throat wound I believe is that they "rode up" on JFK. The Warren Commission found the autopsy drawing of the body showing the bullet wound to the back to be simply stated as an error by the chief autopsy doctor, Hume. However, even if the throat wound was from behind (where the School Book Depository was) and the entry was 5.5" to 6" higher then doesn't this imply a too flat trajectory? Did they discuss any of this evidence in the show? Too bad that Hume missed the throat wound in his original autopsy on Friday and had to try and guess from doctors accounts at Parkland hospital. More coincidences probably.

[nicky g]

Hi Tom,

I'm afraid they didn't go into that kind of detail. You seem to know a lot about the topic - I'm not sure if you would have learned much from the show. Here's a link to a puff piece for it; unfortunately that's all i've found.

BBC on JFK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3226908.stm)

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
On top of that, as I recall, when shots were fired the reaction of the driver was to step on it to get out of range, which would cause the head to jerk backwards.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is definitely wrong. After the shots start, the driver can be seen to look over his right shoulder to see what is happening. As he does this, there is film (by Orville Nix, I believe), photographic, and eye witness statements that show the break lights on the car went on for a second or two. Shortly after we see Kennedy's reaction to the head shot, the car does indeed begin speeding up as it races to Parkland hospital.

With no complete answers to what happened to Kennedy, many people have included the driver as part of a conspiracy. However, it's much more likely that the driver depressed the brake slightly as a cautionary measure as he took his eyes off the road- not realizing yet that the President was being murdered.

[andyfox]

Yes, one would think hitting the breaks would be a natural reaction to either the confusion/noise or taking his eyes off the road. The radical conspiracists often make much over such details.

[adios]

Hi Nicky,

Thank you sir. Case closed /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Hey about burritos uh I think I'd put up the burritos here in New Mexico up against anybody's burritos.

adios

[Zeno]

No body in a moving vehicle is static, especially a body that is being hit by a number of bullets in short secession. There are various relative motions going on at all times and I think many conspiracy theorists do not understand this or ignore it.

-Zeno

[gonores]

Actually, many physicists who studied the case agree that the head shot can be explained using momentum. The equations I'm writing here are from a semester-long case study class examining the assassination. The class was taught in Spring 2002 here at Marquette by Dr. John McAdams, one of the most respected assassination buffs of America.

Many of the assumptions in this model are deemed to be quite conservative, even by some conspiracy theorists.

Mass (JFK's head) = 1000 * Mass (bullet)
Mass (Jet) = 1/10 * Mass (Jfk's head)

The "jet" is the debris that flew out of JFK's head (and forward, toward the front of the car) when he was shot. It is the difference in the mass of JFK's head before and after he was shot. Most estimates, I believe, are that actually 20-25% of his head mass was blown out by the bullet (or 1/5 to 1/4 of the mass of his head).

Energy (jet) = 1/10 * energy (bullet)

The other 90% of the energy was used to do the actual damage to the head (with some energy lost to heat, etc. throuwn in there). Once again, this estimate is widely regarded as conservative.

momentum = mass*velocity
energy = .5*mass*velocity^2

Therefore

momentum = (2*mass*energy)^.5

momentum (jet) = [2*mass (jet)*energy (jet)]^.5
= (2*100*mass (bullet)*.1*energy (bullet))^.5
= [10^.5]*[2*mass (bullet)*energy (bullet)]^.5
= [10^.5]*momentum (bullet)
~ 3.1*momentum (bullet)

The sum of the momentum of jet and the momentum of the bullet is larger than the inititial momentum of the bullet before it struck the skull.

Momentum of the bullet before hitting JFK's head

---------->
bullet

Sum of the momentums after the hit

---->------------------------------->
bullet jet

Since the sum of all the momentums must cancel back to the initial momentum (the momentum of the bullet), JFK's head (or what is left of it) must move backward.

I am bringing that up off the top of my head, so I hope someone with a better knack for science can back me on this. I'm very certain about the relative masses and energies I assigned to the variables, but I am not so sure about the equations, and my algebra.

Biologically, a different argument can be made. When the nervous system loses its control over the muscular system, the muscular reflex is to contract. Since the back muscles are the largest in the body, they overwhelm the other muscles and pull everything (including the head) toward the back. Had Kennedy been suspended in midair, his arms and legs would have been pulled backwards as well. Obviously, one who uses this argument would not be able to conclude where exactly the shot came from.

As for the physical brain, the Kenedy family (namely RFK) requested that it be removed from the national archives and moved to the Kennedy Library, if I am not mistaken. After that, the receptionist at the library received the package and things became rather fuzzy. Apparently the brain was misplaced, and the Kennedy Library staff takes responsibility for the misplacement. Many argue (mostly lone gunman theorists) that the family disposed of the brain in good form. Unfortunately, Robert was unavailable for comment on the matter for the Warren Commission, which took place in 1974. The rest of the family either does not know of the brain's whereabouts or does not wish to tell.

If anyone has any questions, I will be glad to try to get in touch with Dr. McAdams. My main area of expertise is Betty Oliver, who at the time was one of Ruby's strippers, and who just happened to be sitting in the infield of Dealey when the assassination took place. She also claims she was filming the motorcade and the assassination with a state of the art video camera given to her by her then boyfriend, an executive at Kodak. Unfortunately, when she gave this testimony in the early '80s, she mistakenly identified her camera as a model that was not developed until 1966...a fascinating story for another time.

Doug

[jokerswild]

WEll, do some reading/ The facts indicate that the government is in a losing battle to convince the American public that the government wasn't involved in the very least with a coverup, and quite possibly the assassination itself through the CIA's covert operations group. Read Regicide. Ir's based on documentation compiled by Robert T.Crowley He was the assistant director of clandestine operations of the CIA at the time. Decent material can also be found put out by Victor Marchetti, as assistant deputy director for Richard Helms. I suggest cross referencing the material in Regicide regarding William Harvey with the notes published in Twyman's Bloody Treason. Twyman's material is photocopied notes of William Harvey's notes describing the planned assassination of Castro. They pre-date the JFK assassination by a few months. A list of US politicians that do not believe the Warren Commision is long: Lyndon Johnson(interview with Howard K Smith) Richard Nixon, Sen Russell Long, Rep.HAle Boggs(Warren Commission member), Sen. Frank Church, Sen Sweiker, and Jesse Ventura to name just a few

[adios]

Basically what you've espoused here is the reason's why the melon's moved forward (the jet stream). When I heard this theory some time ago my first reaction was "Well the head is attached to the body." Anyway here's a refutation of that theory which the calculations you offer (appreciated) try to prove:



JET EFFECT THEORY

Luis Alverez, A Physicist Examines the Kennedy Assassination Film, American Journal of Physics Vol. 44, No. 9, September 1976, performed a good study of the Zapruder Film but failed to understand his ballistic experiments. Alverez proposed the jet effect theory as the reason Oswald’s third shot to the back of the head caused the backward headsnap. Alverez used tapped covered melons shot with a 30-06 at 3000 ft/sec and found that the melon was propelled towards the shooter and not away as expected. A melon is not a head attached to a body nor does it simulate the skull and energy transference of the bullet. Alverez wrongly assumes most of the kinetic energy of a bullet is transferred to heat and not mechanical energy. A bullets kinetic energy is transformed into the work of penetrating the target, crushing the wood as it penetrates which is then transformed into the movement of the wood block both horizontally and vertically. Alverez totally ignores his own experimental results of the large spray of melon fluid in the direction and path of the exiting bullet. He then ignores the fact that most of JFK’s blood and brain was blown back and left of JFK indicating a frontal shot. Alverez does not disprove a frontal shot as the cause for the head snap he only suggests the “jet effect” theory as a justification for Oswald’s third shot. I have never shot taped melons like Alverez.
Having shot many closed containers filed with water, the only times the containers falls towards the shooter is when the container split causing near 99% of the water to exit out the very large exit hole. The lighter container is then moved slightly towards the shooter by the 1% of water that was being forced out the entry hole due to the increased pressure prior to the bullet exit. Pascal’s law, fluid pressure is the same in all directions. As the bullet penetrates the container the internal pressure increases forcing fluid out the entry towards the shooter. The large exit occurs and the container bursts releasing most of the fluid away from the shooter. Due to the light weight of the now empty container the fluid moving towards the shooter via the entry I able to move the container towards the shooter. The jet effect is real but of a very minimal force that rarely occurs in water filed heavy containers and probably never in animal or human targets. The jet effect is limited to very light weight containers filed with water and not heavy bodies. The jet effect could not account for JFK’s head snap as explained under “Bullet impact to the Skull #5 and #6” above. In the case of JFK the skin flap folded over the right ear after the explosion of the head dissipating the last of the jet effect energy of the frontal entry.
Principles of physics must be followed in evaluating the assassination. Bullet energy transfer to the body is obtained by measuring velocity at entry and exit. Newton’s laws: momentum is conserved in a collision to wit the momentum “before” has to equal the momentum after. Momentum is transferred along the line of flight to the object struck. Likewise energy is conserved to wit total energy of a system of bodies in isolation is always constant although energy transformations may occur from one form to another within the system. Thus a change in kinetic energy must equal a change in potential energy plus other dissipative forces such as work or movement, friction, heat, and etc. Energy is never destroyed but transformed within the system. Likewise fluid pressure is the same in all directions. Pascal’s law: An external pressure applied to an enclosed fluid is transmitted uniformly throughout the volume of the liquid. Fluid transmits pressure undiminished in a hydraulic press. The head is simply a closed container filled with water. Newton’s second law of motion: When a force acts upon a body, it produces an acceleration in the direction of the force, an acceleration that is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass of the body. When two bullets enter the right temple area of JFK with about 1100 foot-pounds of force transmitted to the head you have the head exploded with a head snap back and to the left with blood and brain sprayed to behind and left of JFK. The Zapruder film is consistent with the laws of physics and the autopsy photos and the blood splatter patterns and two bullets to the right temple area.
Take a block of wood to simulate different values of JFK’s assumed head neck mass of 10, 15, 20, 25 or 34 lbs. Mounting the block on a skateboard reduces the energy lost to friction but the total weight of the block and the skateboard must equal the assumed head mass. Fire a bullet of known size, about 160 grains, and speed, at least 2000 ft/sec, into it. Measure the distance the block moves. In the example below the block of wood is fixed and does not move. Repeat the experiment with a bullet that delivers 1000 foot-pounds of total energy. This experiment proves the head snap to be the result of a frontal shot to the head if a bullet can move the assumed head neck mass block a distance of one foot without friction.

To simulate the JFK head snap, a block of wood equaling the weight of assumed head mass should be suspended on two long strong wire cables for stability to prevent spinning of the block and shot with a Carcano 160gr bullet at 2000 ft/sec or similar bullet and measure both the height of displacement and horizontal displacement. This experiment proves the head snap to be the result of a frontal shot to the head if a bullet can move the assumed head neck mass block a distance of one foot horizontally. The so-called, Luis Alvarez “jet effect” theory of a rear entry with ejected brain causing a reward head snap is fiction. Construct the block of wood so that the bullet penetrates 3 to 4 inches and exits instead of stopping the bullet then repeat the experiment. Or since the JFK bullets exited after delivering about a 1000 foot-pounds try the test with a pistol bullet delivering about 1000 foot-pounds of total energy without exiting. Does the block move one foot horizontally?

1 gram = 15.432 grains
160 grains = 10.4 grams
1 grain = .065 gram

9.8 m/sec2 = 32 ft/sec2
speed of gravity


1 m/sec = 3.3 ft/sec
2000 ft/sec = 606 m/sec


JET EFFECT THEORY (http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:eYj2FdCVadcJ:karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Frontal_shot(s)/Tobias_frontal_shots/Jet_effect.html+"Melon""JFK"&hl=en&ie=UTF-8)


Now as far as the brain is concerned, you're basically repeating the Posner version. He distorts the facts much like I pointed out in the post about the Frontline show. Anyway here's a commentary on what happened with the brain:

On Gerald Posner (http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/27th_Issue/onposner.html)

An excerpt:

One of Posner's colossal lies is that the autopsy was incomplete and that it was limited by the Kennedys. A lot of us were suckered by this for a long time.

Now comes another major lie: "The Review Board obtained the first testimony proving that Kennedy's military physician, Admiral George Burkley left Bethesda carrying the president's brain in a bucket. He said he was going to 'deliver it to Robert Kennedy.' JFK's brain has never been found, and was presumably later interred with the President at Arlington." The House Assassinations Committee investigated this and found that the brain was never interred at Arlington (7 HSCA 32), and again, Posner seriously confuses the issue when he doesn't tell us when Burkley removed the brain. The man does not do his homework.

It is true that there was a container which was listed as containing a brain which was kept at the National Archives in a trunk under the control of the President's secretary, Eveyln Lincoln, for several years until returned to the Kennedy family. It's also clear from the investigation conducted by the HSCA that the brain was not interred with the body in November, 1963 (7 HSCA 23-4) or later when the permanent grave was completed. "The pathologists retained various sections of organs as well as the entire brain after the autopsy for subsequent microscopic examination. . . the pathologists placed the brain in a formaldehyde solution in a stainless steel bucket and then deposited this in the closet of Admiral Galloway. . . Dr. Burkley supported this information by informing the committee that he directed the 'fixation and retention of the brain for future study.'. . . In an affidavit and interview with Dr. Burkley, he informed the committee that shortly after this supplemental examination of the organs and brain, he directed the Bethesda Naval Hospital to transfer all the physical autopsy material in its possession to Bouck at the Executive Office Building. Dr. Burkley stated further that Captain Stover gave him the brain in a white granite or stainless steel bucket and that he personally transferred it to the White House where it was placed in a locked Secret Service file cabinet (7 HSCA 25)."

Therefore, the story that Gerald Posner tells is true insofar as Kennedy's doctor carrying the bucket out of Bethesda to the White House, but it is the date that is important because the transfer happened after the supplemental examination of the brain described along with the autopsy report itself.

[Cyrus]

The backward spasm of JFK's head at the moment the second and fatal bullet impacted his head from the back can be explained by the phycics of fluids, plus the reflexive muscular action caused by the nervous system being violently impaired.

Posner's book expands on that issue in some detail and in a most illuminating manner. (Unfortunately for legend, the facts are always more pedestrian. But we all know that when the legend becomes fact, we print the legend.)

[Cyrus]

From the BBC piece:

"The account of Oswald's tortured personality by his brother and those who knew him points to a loner desperate to secure some kind of fame in a world which rejected him.

Nowadays he would probably try to get on Big Brother."

Would he make the final ?

[nicky g]

"Would he make the final ?"

He'd be the only one left well before the final, I'd imagine.

Thanks for all the discussion/info guys. I think I have a better idea of the forces involved now, though don't have the background to come to a definitive conclusion.

As I said Tom, the programme probably wouldn't have convinced you. It refuted a lot of the main conspiracy arguments (eg the magic bullet) but didn't go into anything like the sort of detail people have gone into here, for example. Not knowing that much about the assassination, it could quite easily have been setting weaker arguments up in order to knock them down.

As for burritos I'm not really qualified to comment, but the Anna's burritos are damn good. If there are even better ones, then I look forward to even happier times /images/graemlins/laugh.gif.

[adios]

Here's an interesting article IMO about the debate between Arlen Spector who forumulated the "Single Bullet Theory" and Dr. Cyril Wecht a forensic pathologist who has basically called the Warren Commission and the "Single Bullet Theory" a sham. A couple of excerpts from the article:

Wecht, now the Allegheny County coroner and a power in local and state politics for decades, became one of the foremost critics of that official version. In his 1993 book, "Cause of Death," Wecht characterized the Warren Report as "absolute nonsense" and Specter's single-bullet assertion "an asinine, pseudoscientific sham at best."

Wecht didn't need to look up anything. With dizzying dispatch, he rattled off the frames per second of the Zapruder film (18), the time it would have taken Oswald to fire, reload and fire again (2.5 seconds), the time between Kennedy and Connally reacting to their wounds (1.5 seconds), and the weight of the so-called "magic bullet" the commission said struck both men (158.6 grains). All showed the single-bullet theory to be what he has categorized as "scientifically absurd."

He repeated his oft-repeated challenge for any forensic pathologist to produce a bullet that had done what the nearly pristine magic bullet is purported to have done. He first threw down that gauntlet in the late 1970s when, unlike him, the eight other members of the pathology panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations accepted the single-bullet theory

To be honest I've never heard or read what I would consider a vigorous defense of the "Single Bullet Theory" by any forensic pathologist. Such a link would be greatly appreciated.

40 years on, Arlen Specter and Cyril Wecht still don't agree how JFK died (http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20031116jfk1116p3.asp)

40 years on, Arlen Specter and Cyril Wecht still don't agree how JFK died

Sunday, November 16, 2003

By Michael A. Fuoco, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, forensic pathologist and renowned-coroner-in-the-making, was in a Los Angeles morgue surrounded by corpses when the news broke.

Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney Arlen Specter was stepping into an elevator en route to a murder trial. The clock at City Hall said 1:40 p.m.

It was 40 years ago next Saturday. President Kennedy, torchbearer of a new generation of Americans, trailblazer to the New Frontier, had been cut down by an assassin's bullet in Dallas.

Neither Wecht, then 32, nor Specter, then 33, could have known then they would soon become inextricably linked with that momentous event and the endless debate about what really happened during those "six seconds in Dallas" on Nov. 22, 1963.

Specter, now the state's senior U.S. senator, went on to work with the Warren Commission's investigation of the assassination, and wrote the famous or, depending on one's perspective, infamous "single-bullet theory" that supported the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed Kennedy.

Wecht, now the Allegheny County coroner and a power in local and state politics for decades, became one of the foremost critics of that official version. In his 1993 book, "Cause of Death," Wecht characterized the Warren Report as "absolute nonsense" and Specter's single-bullet assertion "an asinine, pseudoscientific sham at best."

Specter, Wecht and other experts on both sides of the four-decade-old debate will present their views during a four-day national symposium on the assassination at Duquesne University beginning Thursday.

The two have argued their positions for decades but don't seem to tire of it, viewing it as a civic duty to explain their polar-opposite views of what happened.

Memories of the day

Everyone in their mid-40s or older has the same tragic touchstone of more youthful days, remembering exactly where they were and what they doing when they heard Kennedy had been shot.

Wecht was visiting a new friend and professional colleague, deputy Los Angeles coroner Thomas Noguchi, who later became "coroner to the stars" for his investigations into the deaths of Marilyn Monroe, Natalie Wood and John Belushi, among others.

Wecht, at that time director of laboratory sciences and pathology at Leech Farm Veterans Hospital in Pittsburgh, and Noguchi were in the Los Angeles morgue discussing where to eat lunch when they learned from Noguchi's secretary what had happened.

"I was very, very upset," Wecht recalled recently in an interview in his second-floor office in the Allegheny County Morgue. "Like the overwhelming majority of young, educated, fairly liberal Democrats, I was taken with John Kennedy, considering him to be an outstanding leader in so many respects.

"The shock of hearing of his assassination, therefore, was very great, very traumatic," Wecht said as a pensive JFK looked down from a large black-and-white photograph mounted above the fireplace. "We barely nibbled at lunch, watching television as it unfolded. It was quite emotionally disturbing. It was a matter of sadness, a feeling of great loss."

Like everyone, he said, "I wondered who did this and why and how did it happen." He doesn't recall worrying that proper procedures would be followed in the autopsy and collection of evidence.

"To the extent that I thought about it, I [assumed] it would be handled by competent people," he said. "It wouldn't have occurred to me they would get someone less than the best to handle this."

Within a year, he would begin to feel differently.

Specter, too, was stunned.

"It was hard to believe that President Kennedy, the most powerful man in the world, a man of great accomplishments, a man with a great future, had been shot," Specter said during a telephone interview last week.

On that day, Specter worried about the president's family, his young children, the country.

"I had no idea my life would intersect with that investigation," he said.

At the time, Specter was a Democrat and had impressed Attorney General Robert Kennedy for successfully prosecuting Teamsters on racketeering charges in Philadelphia. Six months earlier, Bobby Kennedy had asked Specter to join the Justice Department team prosecuting Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa. Specter declined, wanting to stay in Philadelphia for personal and professional reasons.

On New Year's Eve 1963, Howard Willens, a deputy attorney general and a law school classmate of Specter's, called and asked if he were interested in serving as a junior counsel to the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, more commonly known as the Warren Commission. Again, wanting to stay in Philadelphia, Specter balked. But after talking to friends at a New Year's Eve party at his home and then with his wife, he decided to take it.

"The uniform reaction was it was something that needed to be done," Specter said. "It was a call to public service."

Specter made his first train trip to the commission's headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 13, 1964, a snowy day, and returned home that night after cramming his briefcase full of materials. On the ride home, he looked at the autopsy report. He'll never forget it.

"I still shudder when I think about it," Specter said last week. "It was an overwhelming experience to read what happened to the president."

Over the next 10 months, Specter would become immersed in the killing and its immediate aftermath. Based upon the trajectory, ballistic, witness, photographic, forensic and scientific evidence, Specter concluded that Commission Exhibit 399 -- the so-called "magic bullet"--had caused Kennedy's neck wounds and all of Texas Gov. John Connally's nonfatal wounds.

On June 7, 1964, Specter and Chief Justice Earl Warren, who headed the commission, visited the "sniper's nest" on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, from where Oswald was supposed to have fired his rifle. There, for eight minutes, Specter detailed for Warren his contention that the same bullet had killed Kennedy. Warren subsequently agreed with Specter's argument, as did the commission.

Convincing such skeptics as Wecht would be another matter.

The 'magic bullet' problem

Wecht closed his eyes and folded his hands on his desk. A study in concentration, he began speaking in measured tones about the JFK assassination and the Warren Report. But, soon, his passion, his incredulity, took over. His timbre rose. He stood and used his body as a model to show the location of Kennedy's and Connally's wounds. He laughed heartily at what he considers the incompetence of the commission's findings, particularly Specter's single-bullet theory.

Wecht didn't need to look up anything. With dizzying dispatch, he rattled off the frames per second of the Zapruder film (18), the time it would have taken Oswald to fire, reload and fire again (2.5 seconds), the time between Kennedy and Connally reacting to their wounds (1.5 seconds), and the weight of the so-called "magic bullet" the commission said struck both men (158.6 grains). All showed the single-bullet theory to be what he has categorized as "scientifically absurd."

He repeated his oft-repeated challenge for any forensic pathologist to produce a bullet that had done what the nearly pristine magic bullet is purported to have done. He first threw down that gauntlet in the late 1970s when, unlike him, the eight other members of the pathology panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations accepted the single-bullet theory.

"Get me one bullet in one case, just one from hundreds of thousands of cases ... that has done this. Nobody has ever produced one," he said.

There's little limit to his frustration at how the case was handled. As he has since February 1965, when he presented a paper before the American Academy of Forensic Scientists, Wecht blasted the decision that let Kennedy's autopsy be performed by two doctors who had never done a gunshot wound autopsy. "Forensic science was ... thwarted, stymied, perverted, ignored," he said.

But Wecht's tone softened as he discussed literally touching history at the National Archives in August 1972, when he was given permission to examine the Warren Commission's evidence.

For 16 hours over two days, he looked at it all -- clothing with bullet holes, Oswald's rifle, the "magic bullet," autopsy photographs and X-rays.

"It was very exciting, very challenging," he said. "Holding the shirt, the bullet. When you think, 'My God. This was Kennedy.'"

And then, there was the fascination and increased frustration when he discovered during that examination that Kennedy's brain, supposedly preserved for examination, was missing. Wecht's discovery was a front-page story the next morning in The New York Times -- "Mystery Cloaks Fate of Brain of Kennedy."

Wecht became one of the best known critics of the Warren Commission, arguing that the government twisted evidence to pin the assassination on Oswald because the truth of what occurred would be too much for the American public to take. Wecht speculates that "truth" is that rogue elements of the CIA had the Mafia kill Kennedy.

His widespread criticism led movie director Oliver Stone to hire him as a technical consultant for the 1991 film "JFK" based on the investigation of the Kennedy assassination by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison.

For Wecht, it was art imitating life, because Garrison had asked him in the fall of 1968 to serve as an expert witness in the conspiracy trial of New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw. Wecht turned Garrison down because, at that time, he didn't have access to the assassination evidence.

But while he didn't get into the real life courtroom with Garrison, he did so in the movie, in which Kevin Costner plays Garrison. He proudly noted that he was directly responsible for the courtroom scene in which the single-bullet theory is excoriated by tracing its "scientifically impossible" trajectory using two of the movie's characters standing in for Kennedy and Connally.

Costner, as Garrison, tells the jury: "Rather than admit to a conspiracy or investigate further, the commission chose to endorse the theory put forth by an ambitious junior counselor, Arlen Specter. One of the grossest lies ever forced on the American people, we've come to know it as the 'magic bullet theory.' "

In his book, Specter said he considered suing Stone for libeling him, but decided against it because he had a Senate campaign in 1992 and, he said, "I didn't need a movie company."

Debate about the Kennedy assassination is likely to continue for some time, both Wecht and Specter said.

Criticism of the single-bullet theory doesn't bother Specter, who noted there were still books being written challenging findings about President Abraham Lincoln's assassination.

"There will be questions about the assassination of President Kennedy for centuries," he predicted. "I'm not reticent about discussing the subject. I have inside knowledge. And being in public life, I have a duty to speak out, ... to answer questions."

Wecht, likewise, has never been shy about discussing the matter and will continue to do so.

"People, as they should be, are fascinated by this case," Wecht said.

Given its political, cultural, historical heft, that seems natural, Specter said.

"I think this is the experience of our lifetimes, ... an historical event of overwhelming importance."

On that, two men of such divergent beliefs can agree.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Fuoco can be reached at mfuoco@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1968.

[nicky g]

The programme's take on the magic bullet and its apparently miraculous trajectory was that, it in fact travelled in a more or less straight line, and that the theory that it would have had to repeatedly change direction to account for all three injuries (Kennedy's throat, the other guy's chest and wrist) was based on a misunderstanding of where the other guy (sorry, I keep forgetting who he was - a senator?) was sitting (three inches lower than the magic bullet theorists assumed) and what direction he was facing when hit.

[adios]

Besides the trajectory issue there's another issue and that is the condition of the bullet after creating all of the wounds. The condition of the "magic bullet" is more or less intact and that what was what Wecht was referring to in the article. If you add the weight of the "magic bullet" and the bullet fragments found in the victems it is significantly greater than the weight of a bullet before being fired. Also Wecht's proposition refers to the fact that nobody has ever been able to produce a relatively unscathed bullet causing the damage that this bullet was supposed to have caused and come out in the condition that it came out in which was more or less intact. Finally Wecht's mention of the timing between when the first bullet struck Kennedy and when Connally reacted indicates that the "Single Bullet Theory" is a sham since it wouldn't take 1.5 seconds for the bullet to hit Kennedy and then Connally.

Start assigning probabilities to the bodies being perfectly aligned (no proof that this is actually true); the bullet taking 1.5 seconds to travel from Kennedy to Connally; the bullet causing seven wounds through two bodies breaking bones etc. coming out unscathed; the weight of the bullet fragments from the wounds that they supposedly caused plus the weight of the "magic bullet" being much greater than an unfired bullet; as well as a lot of other issues (like the autopsy as well as where school book depository employees saw Oswald before the shooting and after and the timing involved) that are too numerous to mention as we've gone over them somewhat before and IMO you start coming up with the Warren Commission findings being an extremely low probability event.

I went to Dealy Plaza years ago. I visited the alleged snipers nest on the 6th floor and the surrounding area including the area behind the picket fence which is amazingly still there. The area was smaller, more compact than I had imagined. Behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll there was and still is an observation tower for the railroad traffic in the area. It has a commanding view of the area behind the fence. The tower was occupied durring the assassination by an individual named Lee Bowers who did testify before the Warren Commission. A link to his testimony:

TESTIMONY OF LEE E. BOWERS, JR. beginning at 6H284... (http://www.jmasland.com/testimony/dealey/bowers.htm)

His testimony:

TESTIMONY OF LEE E. BOWERS, JR. beginning at 6H284...

The testimony of Lee E. Bowers, Jr. was taken at 2 p.m., on April 2, 1964, In the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex. by Mr. Joseph A. Bail, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.

Mr. BALL. Will you stand and be sworn, Mr. Bowers?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give for this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Will you state your name, please.
Mr. BOWERS. Lee E. Bowers, Jr.
Mr. BALL. And what is your residence address?
Mr. BOWERS. 10508 Maplegrove Lane.
Mr. BALL Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BOWERS. Dallas.
Mr. BALL. And would you tell me something about yourself, where you were born, raised, and what has been your business, generally, or occupation?
Mr. BOWERS. I was born right here in Dallas, and lived here most of my life except when I was in the Navy, art he age of 17 to 21, and I was away 2 years going to Hardin Simmons University, also, attended Southern Methodist University 2 years, majoring in religion. I worked for the railroad 15 years and was a serf-employed builder, as well as---on the side. And the first of this year when I went to work as business manager for Dr. Tim Green who operates this hospital and convalescent home and rent properties.
Mr. BALL. What railroad did you work for?
Mr. BOWERS. Worked for the Union Terminal Co. with the 8 participating railroads.
Mr. BALL. And on November 22, 1963, were you working for the Union Terminal Co.?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What kind of work were you doing for them?
Mr. BOWERS. I was tower man in the north tower, Union Terminal, operating the switches and signals controlling the movement of trains.
Mr. BALL. Through railroad yards?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. What were your hours of work?
Mr. BOWERS. 7 to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Mr. BALL. Now, do you remember what is the height of--above the ground at which you worked in the tower?
Mr. BOWERS. It is second story, it is 14 feet, 12 or 14 feet.
Mr. BALL. You worked about 14 feet above the ground?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And the tower was arranged so that you could see out?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes; it is windows except for posts that--posts on each comer. It is windows on all four sides.

284

Page 285

Mr. BALL. Where is that located with reference to the corner of Elm and Houston?
Mr. BOWERS. It is west and north of this corner, and as to distances, I really don't know. It is within 50 yards of the back of the School Depository Building, or less.
Mr. BALL. Did you say that it is built on higher ground, the base of the tower on higher ground than around Houston and Elm ?
Mr. BOWERS. Approximately the same.
Mr. BALL. Same? It is higher ground than Elm as it recedes down under the triple underpass?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes, sir; considerably.
Mr. BALL. And the base of your tower is about the same height as the triple underpass, isn't it?
Mr. BOWERS. Approximately.
Mr. BALL. Now, can you tell me why you refer to that as a triple underpass? In our conversation here before you were sworn your description--you described it as a triple underpass.
Mr. BOWERS. It is just a local connotation for it since there are three streets that run under it.
Mr. BALL. I see. And how many sets of tracks do you control from your tower?
Mr. BOWERS. There are about 11 tracks in the station and 2 freight tracks.
Mr. BALL. That would be 13 tracks that is, the tracks altogether, that pass in front of your tower?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes; of course where the tracks converge and cross and split off to various railroad yards---
Mr. BALL. And the tracks are to the north and west of your tower, aren't they?
Mr. BOWERS. Well, the tracks are west, but they proceed in all directions, I they are both north and south.
Mr. BALL. Now, you were on duty on November 22, 1963, weren't you?
Mr. BOWERS. That's correct.
Mr. BALL: Close to noon, did you make any observation of the area around between your tower and Elm Street?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes; because of the fact that the area had been covered by police for some 2 hours. Since approximately 10 o'clock in the morning traffic had been cut off into the area so that anyone moving around could actually be observed. Since I had worked there for a number of years I was familiar with most of the people who came in and out of the area.
Mr. BALL. Did you notice any cars around there?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes; there were three cars that came in during the time from around noon until the time of the shooting.
Mr. BALL. Came in where?
Mr. BOWERS. They came into the vicinity of the tower, which was at the extension of Elm Street, which runs in front of the School Depository, 'and which there is no way out. It is not a through street to anywhere.
Mr. BALL. There is parking area behind the School Depository, between that building and your tower?
Mr. BOWERS. Two or three railroad tracks and a small amount of parking area for the employees.
Mr. BALL. And the first came along that you noticed about what time of day ?
Mr. BOWERS. I do not recall the exact time, but I believe this was approximately 12:10, wouldn't be too far off.
Mr. BALL. And the car you noticed, when you noticed the car, where was it?
Mr. BOWERS. The car proceeded in front of the School Depository down across 2 or 3 tracks and circled the area in front of the tower, and to the west of the tower, and, as if he was searching for a way out, or was checking the area, and then proceeded back through the only way he could, the same outlet he came into.
Mr. BALL. The place where Elm dead ends?
Mr. BOWERS. That's right. Back in front of the School Depository was the only way he could get out. And I lost sight of him, I couldn't watch him.

285

Page 286

Mr. BALL. What was the description of that car?
Mr. BOWERS. The first car was a 1959 Oldsmobile, blue and white station wagon with out-of-State license.
Mr. BALL. Do you know what State?
Mr. BOWERS. No; I do not. I would know it, I could identify it, I think, if I looked at a list.
Mr. BALL. And, it had something else, some bumper stickers?
Mr. BOWERS. Had a bumper sticker, one of which was a Goldwater sticker, and the other of which was of some scenic location, I think.
Mr. BALL. And, did you see another car?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes, some 15 minutes or so after this, at approximately 12 o'clock, 20 to 12--I guess 12:20 would be close to it, little time differential there--but there was another car which was a 1957 black Ford, with one male in it that seemed to have a mike or telephone or something that gave the appearance of that at least.
Mr. BALL. How could you tell that?
Mr. BOWERS. He was holding something up to his mouth with one hand and he was driving with the other, and gave that appearance. He was very close to the tower. I could see him as he proceeded around the area.
Mr. BALL. What kind of license did that have?
Mr. BOWERS. Had a Texas license.
Mr. BALL. What did it do as it came into the area, from what street?
Mr. BOWERS. Came in from the extension of Elm Street in front of the School Depository.
Mr. BALL. Did you see it leave?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes; after 3 or 4 minutes cruising around the area it departed the same way. He did probe a little further into the area than the first car.
Mr. BALL Did you see another car?
Mr. BOWERS. Third car, which entered the area, which was some seven or nine minutes before the shooting, I believe was a 1961 or 1962 Chevrolet, four-door Impala, white, showed signs of being on the road. It was muddy up to the windows, bore a similar out-of-state license to the first car I observed, occupied also by one white male.
Mr. BALL. What did it do?
Mr. BOWERS. He spent a little more time in the area. He tried-he circled the area and probed one spot right at the tower in an attempt to get and was forced to back out some considerable distance, and slowly cruised down back
towards the front of the School Depository Building.
Mr. BALL. Then did he leave?
Mr. BOWERS. The last I saw of him he was pausing just about in--just above the assassination site.
Mr. BALL. Did the car park, or continue on or did you notice?
Mr. BOWERS. Whether it continued on at that very moment or whether it pulled up only a short distance, I couldn't tell. I was busy.
Mr. BALL. How long was this before the President's car passed there?
Mr. BOWERS. This last car? About 8 minutes.
Mr. BALL Were you in a position where you could see the corner of Elm and Houston from the tower?
Mr. BOWERS. No; I could not see the corner of Elm and Houston. I could see the corner of Main and Houston as they came down and turned on, then I couldn't see it for about half a block, and after they passed the corner of Elm and Houston the car came in sight again.
Mr. BALL. You saw the President's car coming out the Houston Street from Main, did you?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes; I saw that.
Mr. BALL.. Then you lost sight of it?
Mr. BOWERS. Right. For a moment.
Mr. BALL. Then you saw it again where?
Mr. BOWERS. It came in sight after it had turned the corner of Elm and Houston.
Mr. BALL. Did you hear anything?

286

Page 287

Mr. BOWERS. I heard three shots. One, then a slight pause, then two very close together. Also reverberation from the shots.
Mr. BELIN. And were you able to form an opinion as to the source of the sound or what direction it came from, I mean?
Mr. BOWERS. The sounds came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass.
Mr. BALL. Were you able to tell which?
Mr. BOWERS. No; I could not.
Mr. BALL. Well, now, had you had any experience before being in the tower as to sounds coming from those various places ?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes; I had worked this same tower for some 10 or 12 years, and was there during the time they were renovating the School Depository Building, and had noticed at that time the similarity of sounds occurring in either of those two locations.
Mr. BALL Can you tell me now whether or not it came, the sounds you heard, the three shots came from the direction of the Depository Building or the triple underpass?
Mr. BOWERS. No; I could not.
Mr. BALL. From your experience there, previous experience there in hearing sounds that originated at the Texas School Book Depository Building, did you notice that sometimes those sounds seem to come from the triple underpass? Is that what you told me a moment ago?
Mr. BOWERS. There is a similarity of sound, because there is a reverberation which takes place from either location.
Mr. BALL. Had you heard sounds originating near the triple underpass before?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes; quite often. Because trucks backfire and various occurrences.
Mr. BALL. And you had heard noises originating from the Texas School Depository when they were building there?
Mr. BOWERS. They were renovating. I---did carpenter work as well as sandblasted the outside of the building.
Mr. BALL. Now, were there any people standing on the high side---high ground between your tower and where Elm Street goes down under the underpass toward the mouth of the underpass?
Mr. BOWERS. Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.
Mr. BALL.. Were they standing together or standing separately?
Mr. BOWERS. They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.
Mr. BALL. In what direction were they facing?
Mr. BOWERS. They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anyone standing on the triple underpass?
Mr. BOWERS. On the triple underpass, there were two policemen. One facing each direction, both east and west. There was one railroad employee, a signal man there with the Union Terminal Co., and two welders that worked for the Fort Worth Welding firm, and there was also a laborer's assistant furnished by the railroad to these welders.
Mr. BALL. You saw those before the President came by, you saw those people?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes; they were there before 'and after.
Mr. BALL. And were they standing on the triple underpass?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes; they were standing on top of it facing towards Houston Street, all except, of course, the one policeman on the west side.
Mr. BALL.. Did you see any other people up on this high ground ?
Mr. BOWERS. There were one or two people in the area. Not in this same vicinity. One of them was a parking lot attendant that operates a parking lot there. One or two. Each had uniforms similar to those custodians at the courthouse. But they were some distance back, just a slight distance back.
Mr. BALL. When you heard the sound, which way were you looking?

287

Page 288

Mr. BOWERS. At the moment I heard the sound, I was looking directly towards the area---at the moment of the first shot, as close as my recollection serves, the car was out of sight behind this decorative masonry wall in the area.
Mr. BALL. And when you heard the second and third shot, could you see the car?
Mr. BOWERS. No; at the moment of the shots, I could---I do not think that it was in sight. It came in sight immediately following the last shot.
Mr. BALL. Did you see any activity in this high ground above Elm after the shot?
Mr. BOWERS. At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.
Mr. BALL. On his motorcycle?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did he come by way of Elm Street?
Mr. BOWERS. He was part of the motorcade and had left it for some reason, which I did not know.
Mr. BALL. He came up---
Mr. BOWERS. He came almost to the top and I believe abandoned his motorcycle for a moment and then got on it and proceeded, I don't know
Mr. BALL. How did he get up?
Mr. BOWERS. He just shot up over the curb and up.
Mr. BALL. He didn't come then by way of Ell, which dead ends there?
Mr. BOWERS. No; he left the motorcade and came up the incline on the motorcycle.
Mr. BALL. Was his motorcycle directed toward any particular people?
Mr. BOWERS. He came up into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this.
Mr. BALL. Were the two men there at the time?
Mr. BOWERS. I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say.
The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The white shirt, yes; I think he was.
Mr. BALL. When you said there was a commotion, what do you mean by that? What did it look like to you when you were looking at the commotion?
Mr. BOWERS. I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify.
Mr. BALL. You couldn't describe it?
Mr. BOWERS. Nothing that I could pinpoint as having happened that---
Mr. BALL. Afterwards did a good many people come up there on this high ground at the tower?
Mr. BOWERS. A large number of people came, more than one direction. One group converged from the corner of Elm and Houston, and came down the extension of Elm and came into the high ground, and another line another large group went across the triangular area between Houston and Elm and then across Elm and then up the incline. Some of them all the way up. Many of them did, as well as, of course, between 50 and a hundred policemen within a maximum of 5 minutes.
Mr. BALL. In this area around your tower?
Mr. BOWERS. That's right. Sealed off the area, and I held off the trains until they .could be examined, and there was some transients taken on at least one train.
Mr. BALL. I believe you have talked this over with me before your deposition was taken, haven't we?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Is there anything that you told me that I haven't asked you about that you think of?
Mr. BOWERS. Nothing that I can recall.
Mr. BALL. You have told me all that you know about this, haven't you?

288

Page 289

Mr. BOWERS. Yes; I believe that I have related everything which I have told the city police, and also told to the FBI.
Mr. BALL. And everything you told me before we started taking the deposition?
Mr. BOWERS. To my knowledge I can remember nothing else.
Mr. BALL Now, this will be reduced to writing, and you can sign it, look it over and sign it, or waive your signature if you wish. What do you wish?
Mr. BOWERS. I have no reason to sign it unless you want me to.
Mr. BALL. Would you just as leave waive the signature?
Mr. BOWERS. Fine.
Mr. BALL. Then we thank you very much.


To me a particularly interesting excerpt:

Mr. BOWERS. At the time of the shooting there seemed to be some commotion, and immediately following there was a motorcycle policeman who shot nearly all of the way to the top of the incline.
Mr. BALL. On his motorcycle?
Mr. BOWERS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did he come by way of Elm Street?
Mr. BOWERS. He was part of the motorcade and had left it for some reason, which I did not know.
Mr. BALL. He came up---
Mr. BOWERS. He came almost to the top and I believe abandoned his motorcycle for a moment and then got on it and proceeded, I don't know
Mr. BALL. How did he get up?
Mr. BOWERS. He just shot up over the curb and up.
Mr. BALL. He didn't come then by way of Ell, which dead ends there?
Mr. BOWERS. No; he left the motorcade and came up the incline on the motorcycle.
Mr. BALL. Was his motorcycle directed toward any particular people?
Mr. BOWERS. He came up into this area where there are some trees, and where I had described the two men were in the general vicinity of this.
Mr. BALL. Were the two men there at the time?
Mr. BOWERS. I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not say.
The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The white shirt, yes; I think he was.
Mr. BALL. When you said there was a commotion, what do you mean by that? What did it look like to you when you were looking at the commotion?
Mr. BOWERS. I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify.
Mr. BALL. You couldn't describe it?
Mr. BOWERS. Nothing that I could pinpoint as having happened that---
Mr. BALL. Afterwards did a good many people come up there on this high ground at the tower?

Too bad Bowers was cut off from his attempt at describing what he saw at the time of the shooting in more detail. Bowers died in a one car accident in 1966. The cause of the accident is unclear as there were no eyewitnesses to it.

[nicky g]

The alignment of Kennedy and Connally was, according to the film, based on a computer recreation/simulation based on the Zapruder footage and the layout of the car (according to the film, the magic bullet theory didn't take into account the fact that Connally was sitting on a booster seat 3 inches lower than the seats the Kennedys were on).
The 1.5 second difference I wasn't aware of - on the Zapruder film it looks as if Kennedy and Connally react at the same time, no? Connally twists in pain as Kennedy raises his arms to his throat.

The film had a throwaway explanation for the condition of the bullet, but I forget exactly what it was; it didn't seem particularly convincing. I wasn't aware of the bullet/fragments weight anomaly and the film didn't address it. The Bowers testimony is interesting, thanks.

[CORed]

You have actually found a socially redeeming value for "reality TV" (which, as far as I can tell, has little or nothing to do with reality). This is a feat which I previously believed to be utterly impossible.

[Rocco17]

If I could add just one point. The driver of Kennedy's car may have been accelerating quickly to flee the shots and that could certainly cause Kennedy's head to move backward. I do recall that a man(Secret Service?) is running behind the car and attempts to jump in and is assisted by The First Lady. The fact that he appears to be running to catch up to the car indicates to me that the driver was accelerating. Just a guess -

[CORed]

I didn't see the BBC show in question. However, several years ago. Nova (the PBS science show) did an episode on the JFK assassination. I do recall them addressing this issue. You are correct that the force of the bullet impacting and decelerating in the body would tend to move the body in the direction of travel of the bullet. However, since the bullet is hitting a living organism, a neoromuscular response could easily move the body in the opposite direction. Sice the movie is actually a sequence of still photographs, taken 1/24 of a second apart, it could have missed the initial movent in the direction of the bullet and caught the neuromuscular movement in the opposite direction. The Nova program concluded that there was no evidence that conclusively disproved that Oswald was the lone gunman.

However, the subsequent murder of Oswald has always made me consider the possibility that he might have been part of a conspiracy, and was killed to keep him from talking.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The alignment of Kennedy and Connally was, according to the film, based on a computer recreation/simulation based on the Zapruder footage and the layout of the car (according to the film, the magic bullet theory didn't take into account the fact that Connally was sitting on a booster seat 3 inches lower than the seats the Kennedys were on).

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the simulation your referring to was done by a group called Failure Analysis Associates (FaAA). There was a mock trial sponsored by the American Bar Association in the early 1990's. FaAA was contracted to provide expert witness testimony for the prosecution and the defense in the mock trial. Gerald Posner has used this simulation to show the POSSIBILITY of the bodies in alignment. I posted about this in another thread. In case you may have missed it here's the post:

-------------------------------------------------------

Interesting how the cited work of Failure Analysis Associates (I think the company name has changed) was portrayed on the web site. Doesn’t seem to reference the work done by them in context. In the early 90’s their was a mock trial of Oswald sponsored by the ABA. Failure Analysis Associates (FaAA) was contracted to provided evidence and expert testimony for both the prosecution and the defense. In fact the CEO of FaAA at the time testified for the defense. The mock trial ended in a hung jury. Posner often cites the possible trajectory evidence worked up for the prosecution case in this mock trial without referencing it in context. FaAA itself from my understanding came to no conclusions regarding what exactly happened in the assassination. Here’s an affidavit from the then CEO (I don’t know if he still is). Particularly note item 6:

6. Each of our teams sought to find sufficient information in the extensive investigation records of the Warren Commission, and the House Select Committee proceedings, that, when combined with the unparalleled technical analysis skills of our organization, would produce incontrovertible scientific findings that would resolve some of the outstanding issues one way or another. I believe the jury's inability to resolve Oswald's guilt in light of FaAA's investigation, and state-of-the-art visualization, stems from the fact that 1) FaAA did not have the time or resources to completely analyze the whole investigatory record, and 2) there are gaps in the factual record that our analysis was unable to bridge. For example, if the National Archives could locate the brain of President Kennedy, which was sent to them and not buried with his body, we believe the direction of the fatal bullet could be incontrovertibly resolved.

The missing brain of the former president from the National Archives would be particularly valuable in establishing the bullet trajectory of the kill shot. I believe the brain was discovered to be missing in 1966 when all the controversy about the Warren Commission really started to heat up. Another coincidence I suppose. Any way if the Frontline show didn’t discuss the FaAA study in context I would say that the show was being at least slightly disingenuous. If the show did reference the FaAA work in context bully for them, much more honest than Posner.

FaAA Avadavit

Affidavit of Roger L. McCarthy


I, Roger L. McCarthy, having been duly sworn, declare as follows:



I am Chief Executive Officer of Failure Analysis, Associates, Inc., (FaAA) which is headquartered in Menlo Park California. FaAA, founded in 1967, is the largest engineering firm in the nation dedicated primarily to the analysis and prevention of failures of an engineering or scientific nature. FaAA is a wholly owned subsidiary and the largest operating unit of The Failure Group, Inc., (Failure). Failure employs almost 500 full time staff, including almost 300 degreed professionals, more than 90 of whom hold doctorates in their fields. We maintain nine offices in the U.S., three in Europe, and one in Canada. I am also Chief Executive Officer of The Failure Group, Inc. The Failure Group, Incorporated is a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ exchange, under the symbol "FAIL."


I hold five academic degrees: 1) A Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy from the University of Michigan, 2) A Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Michigan, 3) An S.M. degree in Mechanical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 4) The professional degree of Mechanical Engineer (Mech. E.) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and 5) A Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). I graduated from the University of Michigan Phi Beta Kappa, Summa Cum Laude, the Outstanding Undergraduate in Mechanical Engineering in 1972, and a National Science Foundation Fellow.


I am a Registered Professional Mechanical Engineer in the states of California (#M20040) and Arizona (#13684). I have authored several dozen scientific papers, and currently serve on the Visiting Committee of MIT's Mechanical Engineering Department. In 1992 I was appointed by President Bush to two year term on the President's Commission on the National Medal of Science. I have attached my current resume with a listing of my publications as exhibit 1.


In early 1992 Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. (FaAA) was approached by the representatives of the American Bar Association (ABA) to assist in putting together a "courtroom of the 21st century" instructional session, in the form of a mock trial, for the Annual ABA meeting, which was to be held that summer in San Francisco, California. FaAA was involved in the process of selecting the topic of the trial, which was eventually decided to be the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald for first degree murder for the assassination of President John. F. Kennedy in Dallas in 1963. To simplify the task in coordinating the extensive computer analysis and evidence, FaAA agreed to provide the expert witness analysis, and the testifying experts themselves, for both the prosecution and defense. Separate teams were assembled to assist each side.


While FaAA was not funded for the investigation or evidence developed for either side, we applied the best techniques available to some, but certainly not all, of the questions that have remained concerning the assassination, and Lee Harvey Oswald's role in it. The "Courtroom of the 21st Century" theme required the most modern computerized animation and video presentation. There was not a conclusion reached by FaAA as a company concerning the issues of the assassination. Each of our teams did its best within the factual, time and resource constraints to assist the two eminent trial lawyer teams to resolve the key issues for their respective sides. In the end, after two days of trial, the mock jury, selected by the jury analysis firm DecisionQuest, was split 7 for conviction and 5 for acquittal of Lee Harvey Oswald on the first degree murder charge.


Each of our teams sought to find sufficient information in the extensive investigation records of the Warren Commission, and the House Select Committee proceedings, that, when combined with the unparalleled technical analysis skills of our organization, would produce incontrovertible scientific findings that would resolve some of the outstanding issues one way or another. I believe the jury's inability to resolve Oswald's guilt in light of FaAA's investigation, and state-of-the-art visualization, stems from the fact that 1) FaAA did not have the time or resources to completely analyze the whole investigatory record, and 2) there are gaps in the factual record that our analysis was unable to bridge. For example, if the National Archives could locate the brain of President Kennedy, which was sent to them and not buried with his body, we believe the direction of the fatal bullet could be incontrovertibly resolved.



Subsequent to our presentation one Gerald Posner contacted Dr. Robert Piziali, the leader of the prosecution team, and requested copies of the prosecution material, but not defense material, which we provided. Eventually Random House published a book by Mr. Posner entitled Case Closed. While Mr. Posner acknowledges in the book the material from Failure Analysis Associates he does not mention or acknowledge the ABA, or mention or acknowledge that there was additional material prepared by FaAA for the defense. Incredibly, Mr. Posner makes no mention of the fact that the mock jury that heard and saw the technical material that he believes is so persuasive and "closed" the case, but which also saw the FaAA material prepared for the defense, could not reach a verdict.


In early televised interviews of Mr. Posner that were witnessed by FaAA staff, Mr. Posner made no attempt to correct any supposition by a questioner that the FaAA analytical work was performed at his request for him, and certainly left quite the opposite impression.


Further the affiant sayth not.



This affidavit was signed by Roger L. McCarthy and notarized on December 6, 1993

[ QUOTE ]
The 1.5 second difference I wasn't aware of - on the Zapruder film it looks as if Kennedy and Connally react at the same time, no? Connally twists in pain as Kennedy raises his arms to his throat.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Warren Commission's theory is that the first bullet that struck Kennedy happened when the sign blocked the view of JFK from the camera. Zapruder testified to the Warren Commission that he saw Kennedy react to the bullet before Kennedy reached the sign. It is an issue that is relevant IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
The film had a throwaway explanation for the condition of the bullet, but I forget exactly what it was; it didn't seem particularly convincing. I wasn't aware of the bullet/fragments weight anomaly and the film didn't address it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem that I see with many of these shows is that their presentations are superficial and don't really address the relevant issues in the case. They more or less try to prove why it had to be a lone assassin without in my mind very convincing arguments in light of the really crucial issues about much of the forensic evidence or lack thereof. Also totally ignoring eye witness testimony about Oswald's location in the book depository before and after the shooting and the timing involved leads me to believe that the particular show in question was quite frankly another Warren Commission apology.