From: schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: PBS special
Reply-To: Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:39:16 GMT

sdevries@fys.ruu.nl (Sjoerd de Vries) writes:

>In <schuck.722153210@sfu.ca> schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

>>sdevries@fys.ruu.nl (Sjoerd de Vries) writes:


>>>What are Donahue's answers to these arguments?

>>>1. At z-225 Kennedy reacts to a ricochet shot, the one that missed
>>>   the car. The debris of this shot hit bystander James Tague
>>>   and  some landed in the car, and were found there later, free
>>>   of blood and tissue.
>>>   At z-236 both Kennedy and Conally are hit. So we don't have any
>>>   timing problem.

>>Two big problems with this explanation.
>>a) Zapruder saw JFK react to his throat wound before JFK went behind
>>the street sign. That means it happened before 210. There is a lot of
>>evidence that the shot actually occurred at 189. That leaves a *big*
>>gap. The idea that JFK reacts to a shot starting at 225 is hard to
>>believe because he only becomes visible at 225 and he's
>>*already* moved his hands very close to his throat. I think he is
>>still reacting to a shot at 190. Thats only two seconds, and he
>>probably had spinal cord damage at the time, making a 2 second delay
>>for grabbing at or near his throat realistic. To claim he reacted to a
>>shot at 225 and got his hands near his throat *instantaneously* is not
>>believable.

>Ah, I'm sorry, I misrepresented Menninger words. What I meant to say is that
>at z-225 JFK is seen to react to a ricochet shot, NOT that he was shot at
>that moment.

The criticism still holds. If he is reacting at 225, he must be
reacting to something that happened many frames earlier.

>>b) Tague is almost 500 feet away from JFK at this time.
>>The only direct path from the TSBD to Tague is 30 feet over JFK's
>>head and 20 feet to his right. If a bullet hit the street behind JFK
>>it would have had to leap a curb, curve to the right, and travel 500
>>feet, and arc down to strike another curb, and bounce off that curb,
>>up to Tague about 20 feet from the last curb. Many people don't
>>realize that Tague wasn't even on Elm street. He was between Main and
>>Commerce and almost under the Triple underpass. The FBI estimated that
>>a straight line from the TSBD to Tague only happened at the equivalent
>>of Zapruder frame 410, over 100 frames after JFK's head shot.
>>There is *no* way a bullet could have hit the street behind JFK and
>>then gone on to wound Tague.

>I agree with you that if you assume that the bullet continues in a
>straight line after hitting the road behind JFK then Tague's wounds
>argue against Donahues theory. BUT, if I understand Donahue right,
>in fact he does assume that the debris isn't continuing in a straight
>line. How else could part of it fall in the car? Again, I agree with you
>that it sounds highly unlikely that Tague is hit after TWO bounces.

Also remember, the curb near Tague was lower than the curb near JFK at
this time. The streets slop down towards Tague at a three degree
angle. Not only would the bullet have to vear horizontally, it would
have to arc over the nearest curb to hit the far curb. It's unlikely
to have had the energy to do this over 500 feet after hitting the
street once.
 
>Donahue's arguments to call this shot a ricochet are:

>1. No blood and tissue on the remainders

Good point. That rules them out as fragments from JFK's head wound.

>2. Sharp edges on them, typical for impact on very hard material

They could have been planted.

>3. Some metal visible on the X-rays on the OUTSIDE of the skull

That can be explained by postulating a lead bullet hitting. They have
been known to leave lead scrapings on the outside of the skull.

>4. One (or more, I don't recall) bystander(s) saw the impact behind
>   JFK.

It would have had to be many feet behind the limo to clear the trunk
of the limo, otherwise you postulate a large arc, which means very
little energy.

>>>2. In fact, there is no zig zag movement. Conally was seated on a
>>>   jumpseat that was clearly to JFK's left (a photograph of the
>>>   empty car in the book shows this very well). Donahue claims
>>>   the displacement is about one feet (if I'm not mistaken, it may be
>>>   more).
>>>   At z-236 all wounds line up.

>>It is possible for them to line up on the horizontal plane. However,
>>it is impossible for them to line up on the vertical plane at that
>>time. The angle down through Connally was almost 40 degrees, while the
>>TSBD to JFK angle was only 21 degrees at frame 210 and 19 degrees at
>>235 [WC Exhibit 884] Plus, the JFK back wound was actually lower than
>>his throat wound. On the Nova special, the computer simulation had JFK
>>leaning unrealisitically forward, and Connally leaning way back to
>>account for the vertical angle difference. This positioning was nver
>>seen by anybody, it certainly was not visible on the Z film at 237,
>>and could only have occurred at 210-225, when they were behind the
>>Stemmons Freeway Sign. However, it is impossible to believe they
>>performed this maneuver in 15 frames, especially since it isn't
>>visible on any any film taken that day.

>If you look at the photograph in "Mortal Error" of the empty car,
>you'll see that the jump seats are much lower than JFK's seat.
>In fact, it looks like these seats are almost on the floor of the
>limousine. So Conally wasn't on the same level as JFK was. 
>Couldn't that explain the angle? Perhaps the bullet deflected somewhat
>after hitting JFK's spine?

It would have to deflect from 20 degrees down to 40 degrees downwards,
meaning it hit bones in JFK. 

>>>3. The bullet is not pristine; it is flattened at the base, with some
>>>   lead extruding and it is bent. Donahue argues that only at high
>>>   velocities the bullets will show the mushroom effect. Before the
>>>   bullet hit Conally's rib it had slowed down considerably. I believe
>>>   this is the same argument Mitchell used before. I haven't heard of
>>>   a proof of the contrary.

>>Well, there is a picture in the HSCA report that Cyril Wecht submitted
>>to the HSCA. It shows the 'magic' bullet beside a 6.5mm
>>Mannlicher-Carcano round that had been fired into cotton for test
>>purposes. The cotton bullet is bent more and has more lead extruded
>>from the base than the magic bullet. This proves to me, it was
>>probably fired into something softer than cotton, probably a water
>>tank.
>>Don't forget, the 'magic' bullet also had no blood on it, and considering
>>the number of wounds it caused, this is unrealistic. 
>>Also, the considered opinion of Connallys Surgeons is that the wrist
>>wound was caused by a bullet that had completely mushroomed, which the
>>'magic' bullet had not.
>>One of the ballistics experts also testified that at 2000 feet per
>>second, a bullet impact should leave an imprint of the material a
>>bullet hits on the bullet. Copper isn't that hard. He was of the
>>opinion, the weave of JFK's jacket, or Connally's should have been
>>microscopically visible. It wasn't. There was no imprint of anything
>>on the bullet. It probably never hit anything harder than water.

>A few months ago I read something about FMJ bullets being fired through
>a couple of feet of wood and coming out pristine. I'm not sure whether I
>should believe this, but if it is true, than it appears that these
>bullets can do really unexpected things.

I didn't see the bullet, and they used pine boards. Pine is very soft.
You can scratch pine with your fingernail. You can't scratch bone with
your fingernail.


>Actually, I'm curious what you think about Donahue's main thesis, that
>the final shot was fired accidentily by SS agent Hickey. Though it sounds
>ridiculous, Donahue's analysis clearly points in this direction. He even
>has some witnesses who claim to have heard the shot from this direction
>and a whole car of SS agents who refuse to give any comment.

My main fault with his thesis is that AR-15's throw the spent
cartridge forward and to the side, meaning it would have had to land
on the street. No witness found it, and I think it would have been
found.

His research is good though, and I don't think there is any evidence
proving him wrong. 

>As I don't have a scale map of Dealy plaza I'm not sure about this, but
>could Donohue's analysis indicate that the head shot came from the
>DalTex building or the county records building, passing closely above or
>to Hicky's left/right?

Yes. It would have lined up with the lower floors of the Dal-Tex, a
much better firing position. 

If you remember James Tague, a bullet fired from the Dal-Tex lower
floors could have missed JFK by only a foot or two and hit the curb
near Tague. Looking at a map of Dealey Plaza, you realize ther are
many positions for this to occur because of the way Elm curves.
From the TSBD, such a shot is unlikely to line up with Tague until
after the head shot. [The FBI said 100 frames afterward]

> Donahue clearly shows that this shot was quite
>different from the previous ones, that it was a frangible bullet.

Yes, thats a key point. Donahues research proves to me JFK was *not*
hit by an FMJ round, thereby absolving Oswald of the fatal shot.



-- 
......

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk