Here you go then!
Here are my comments on the Assassination Apologist's lecture at the weekend. I've written them up according to my notes, and
there are sure to be points that I have missed.
The evidence concerning shots from the rear:
============================================
A crack in the windshield of the Presidential Limousine was referred to in the lecture,
based on a photograph by press photographer James Altgens. This picture shows
a starfish shaped crack (although the resolution is low), and eyewitnesses
reported the damage as being on the interior surface of the car (although
some witnesses at Parkland did report that there was a bullet HOLE in the
windshield). This was seen as good corroboration for rear shots fired at JFK.
However, the windshield is made of a special laminate of safety glass, whereby
the damage occurs on the opposite side to the point of inflection. In other words,
damage on the inside surface would have come from a shot from the front. When this
was pointed out, the "damaged" windshield vanished, to be replaced by an undamaged one.
When was the first shot fired?
==============================
The lecturer made much of the statement by Phil Willis's daughter (whose name I
cannot recall off the top of my head!) saying that she stopped running alongside
the limousine when the first shot went off. She allegedly said to the lecturer
that she had seen a funny man in the Texas School Book Depository (presumably
the assasin), and the lecturer made a great play on this fact. However, what the
lecturer did not say was that, in 1988, she was interviewed for TV and said that
she was under the impression that the headshot came from the FRONT.
I must also point out here that Phil Willis said that as the first shot was fired,
he stepped off the curb into the road and he took a picture at this time, which
can be found distributed on the internet. Also, JFK stops waving and looks around
at this time, so there is good corroboaration from the 8mm Zapruder Film.
However, some of the lecturer's other assertions are laughable, even more so when
he constantly used his apologetic mantra "this is physics" to justify shoddy research.
I recall the lecturer saying that the first bullet went through the tree outside the
Book Depository, and that such passage can cause "great defection" in its path, citing
witnesses who saw something in the street behind the Limousine, and then mentioning
bystander James Tague who was hit by richocheting debris from this missed shot.
All very well and good, except that it doesn't bear scrutiny.
Ignoring the laughable assertion that passage through a tree's branches would deflect
a bullet significantly, this first shot would have been angled more or less downwards.
For the shot to hit near Tague, some distance away, near the Triple Overpass, the bullet
would have had to have gone a lot more horizontal - and miss the Limousine by a couple of
hundred yards!
James Tague's evidence was ignored until it reached such prominence (in the local press)
that officialdom had to do something about it. So, the upper echelons of power traipsied
off to the spot and rather than finding the mark in the pavement from which metallic
fragments could be obtained, they found that SOMEONE had cemented over the mark.
This pavement slab dug up and carted off to Washington for analysis, and a picture was
indeed displayed by the lecturer. Shame he didn't mention that someone tried to destroy the evidence.
Ballistics Evidence
===================
Two things for which I am indebted to the lecturer: he showed what had actually happened to
JFK's brain after he had been buried (his body was exhumed and his reburied with the brain).
The second one are the ballistics signatures of Bullet 399 ("The magic bullet") which showed
that it had come from Oswald's rifle. I don't think anyother disputes this. What we are not
sure is whether it was indeed fired that day! And, to counter the lecturer's argument that
the bullet's chain of evidence was unbroken; it travelled from the Hospital to Washington
in the pocket of a Secret Service agent!!! And some witnesses at Parkland Hospital remembered
seeing a bullet with a pointed nose, not a round one like the Carcano exhibit 399 bullet.
Indeed, the metal fragments recovered from Governor Connally (who was seated in front of
JFK and was also hit) make it dubious that they could have come from exhibit 399. What a shame
the lecturer didn't discuss this point; instead he wavered by taking Warren Commission critics
to task by their description that this bullet is "pristine". Well, it isn't, but to argue over
semantics is trivial obsession raised above all else.
Another point of contention: the lecturer said that, initially the police identified
Oswald's Manlicher-Carcano rifle as a Mauser, but recanted later on. Granted, shown pictures
of the two, they are extremely similar. However, the poicce officer recalled that the rifle
he was shown had the word "Mauser" stamped on the barrel!
With reference to the boxed-off sniper's nest, and the positiong of the three rifle bullets,
different photos exist showing different layouts. The photo that was shown of the positioning
of the three spent cartridges show two close together and one further away, which is plausible.
However, one of the first police into the Book Depository picked up the three bullets (lying
SIDE BY SIDE - surely impossible for a bolt action rifle!) for the sake of a journalist who
wanted a picture of them, and then tossed them back down on the ground!
The Single Bullet Theory
========================
The Warren Commision relies on two people (JFK and Connally) being hit by the same
bullet for a non-conspiracy finding to be tenable. In this, Kennedy is hit in the throat
and Connally is hit in the back. If this is not true, then more bullets are needed, and
the Warren Commission's case collapses. It got tedious listening to the lecturer saying
that the Magic Bullet antithesis to the Single Bullet theory is a "fraud" and "it never
happened". His arguments were as vacuous as the Single Bullet Theory.
We know when the first bullet was fired, and it seemingly had no effect on the limousine.
We know roughly when Kennedy was hit in the throat ( as he emerged from behind a street
sign, as seen by the Zapruder film, even though Doctor's impressions in Dallas was that this
was an entry wound in the front of the neck!). However, the lecturer used bogus logic
to try to convince us that Connally was hit at the same time, by citing his lapel flapping up.
Let us consider what Connally said: he heard a rifle shot, and recognised it as such. He turned
round to look over his right shoulder (where the noise had come from) but couldn't see anything.
He was turning round to look over his left shoulder when he felt the impact of the bullet that
hit him. It doubled him up and he saw that he was covered in blood. If you watch the Zapruder film,
you can see this happening. One slight problem for the lecturer: JFK's neck shot and Connally's
"bent over" reaction are a couple of seconds apart. Did the bullet pause in mid air during this
time?
And despite the lecturer saying that the JFK/Connally trajectories could be aligned when one
considers that they weren't sitting quite in front of each other (Connally was on a jump seat),
photographs taken that day show that, to all intents and purposes, they were sitting almost in
a line.
Another laughable point raised by the lecturer. He said that critics were "wrong" to suggest
the Magic Bullet could not have happened because of the low location of the wound in the back
of his clothing. Obviously, a downwards trajectory requires a bullet going through (say) the
neckline and emerging from below the adam's apple, where the wound was located. The lecturer
made the feeble remark that the shirt and jacket could have ridden up (showing an unconvincing
photograph), to make the wounds line up.
The holes in Kennedy's back, shirt and jacket are 5 1/2 inches below the neckline. How on earth
could the clothing have ridden up so high to ensure that the trajectories line up? Simple: they
can't.
Jet Effect
==========
One again, this old chestnut was raised as an attempt to explain why Kennedy's head
flew backwards upon impact from a bullet to the back of the head ( and the lecturer using
the repulsive suggestion that "this is how you go on holiday" - ie. the jet effect).
Its almost as ludicrious as the Neuromuscular spasm used to explain away the effect when
the Zapruder film came to the American people's widespread attention in the mid-1970s.
Personally, I prefer Newton's 3rd Law ("Action and reaction are equal and opposite").
It has remained inviolate for millenia and explains why, when you hit something, it moves
in the opposite direction. Kennedy may have been unique in history but I doubt even he
could break the laws of physics!
The Backyard Photos
===================
Again, the lecturer disparaged the Warren Commission critics for suggesting that the photos
showing Oswald holding guns and rifles in his backyard may been faked to incriminate him.
What the lecturer did not say was that, after the film JFK was released, another backyard
photo was unearthed from the police,
showing a blank, white space where the figure of "Oswald" would have been. Who made this,
why, and where was Oswald?
Bogus Witnesses
===============
It was right of the lecturer to decry the bogus witnesses of the assassination, such as Jean Hill
et al. A shame his logic amounted to little more than a dismissal of all eye and earwitnesses.
Why didn't he mention people like railroad worker S.M.Holland who was standing on the Triple
Land Overpass, and saw not only that the JFK throat shot and the Connally shot must have
been from different bullets, but also saw a puff of smoke that emerged from behind the
picket fence on the Grassy Knoll as the fatal head shot was fired? By the time he and
his colleagues got to the location, whoever it was who had fired the shot had gone,
leaving footprints, cigarette butts, and a muddy mark on one of the cars there where someone
had stood to get a better view of the motorcade. Also in the air was the smell of gunpowder.
And there are other credible witnesses, like Billy Newman who was with his young son.
When the fatal shot occurred (from behind him, on the Knoll), he dived to the ground and
covered his son. When interviewed a few minutes later by a TV station, he affirmed that
the shot had come from over this shoulder.
It seems ludicrous that the lecturer could get away with the bald statment that "80% of
witnesses said the shots came from the Book Depository". That percentage of people may
indeed have said that some shots came from the building, but the majority said that
some shots, included the fatal shot came from the Knoll. Interestingly, all these witnesses
were dismissed by the Warren Commission on the grounds that they were mistaken.
The "paper bag"
===============
The lecturer made peripheral mention of the paper bag used to transport the broken down
Carcano rifle into the School Book Depository Building. However, there are a number
of problems with this.
Oswald was driven to work that day, and yes, he did have a large brown paper bag with him.
He was asked what was in it, and he said "curtain rods" (for refurbishing someone's house
- sorry, I can't remember whose!). He left the car carrying the bag by cupping the contents
between his armpit and his palm. The problem is the broken down rifle is significantly longer
than this distance! And when the paper bag was found, there were no traces of oil on it - odd,
for a very oily rifle!
