Don’t Discredit Grassy Knoll In JFK Assassination Conspiracy As A Basis To Attack Charlie Kirk Conspiracies

 

     Zadrozny claimed 'JFK conspiracy was defining one of 20th century'

Brandy Zadrozny fancies herself a kind of 'new wave' conspiracy reporter, now digging into the morass of right wing conspiracy theories in her podcast series 'The Deep End'- as she did last night on ALL In,

MS NOW reporter behind Charlie Kirk series delves into dangerous conspiracy theory ‘machine’ - YouTube

But then dragging in the JFK assassination,  about which she clearly knows little to nothing.  In her segment on Chris Hayes ALL In she analogized the plethora of theories that grew out of the Kirk killing last September, to "second shooter" conspiracy theories in the JFK assassination.  This also followed a her JFK references in an earlier NBC piece (after the attempted assassination of Trump):

"The assassination attempt on Donald Trump  unleashed a flood of unfounded conspiracy theories from the right and the left: that the shooting was part of a deep state coup, or that it was staged by the former president himself to win sympathy and the election. 

One conspiracy theory has undergirded both, however: that there was a second shooter, positioned on a nearby water tower. A modern version of the discredited grassy knoll conspiracy theory — which posited that Lee Harvey Oswald was aided in assassinating President John F. Kennedy by another shooter atop a nearby hill 

There is no "discredited grassy knoll" conspiracy and if Ms. Zadrozny had done even minimal research in this area she would not have trotted out such benighted twaddle. The fact she did merely displays her massive ignorance about what occurred in that pivotal 20th century assassination  - which bears zero resemblance to what happened to Charlie Kirk. 

A bit of digging on her part would have revealed the contributions of acoustics analysts Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy, of Queens College, who reviewed the data and concluded that "with the probability of 95% or better, there was indeed a shot fired from the grassy knoll'.) They detected four gunshots on the tape, and the two acoustic physicists)  told the HSAC committee that they believed one came from the grassy knoll" — not the Texas School Book Depository. 

 This, by the way, also formed the basis of the House Subcommittee on Assassinations' conclusion that the assassination was a conspiracy with 95% probability. 

The HSCA original team of acoustic physicists (who had vastly more credentials than the  subsequent Ramsey National Academy of Sciences group which featured NO acoustic specialists) in fact methodically matched specific gun impulses in the acoustic record to the evident impacts visible in the Zapruder film, In the course of doing this, they traced the final (4th impulse)  to the head shot - and that it most plausibly originated from the grassy knoll, NOT the Texas Book Depository.

 The conclusion of four separate shots then coincides with 4 impacts visible in the Z-film, and the reactions therein. The acoustic impulses were retested in a 2001 investigation ('Echo Correlation Analysis and the Acoustic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination Revisited' ) by D.B. Thomas and published in the Journal Science and Justice., Vol. 41, p. 21, 2001.   The impulses are shown below, with the four highest amplitude peaks associated with rifle muzzle blasts (an association I will justify subsequently):

 

Thomas treated both the test evidence and actual data from the original date- aware of the same misgivings that Zadrozny now superficially claims. Thomas' re- test evidence was obtained in August, 1978 when a test shot was fired in Dallas’ Dealey Plaza to provide a fiducial mark for the Grassy Knoll shot – such that it could be compared with the impulse record obtained on Nov. 22, 1963 and also how this mark lined up to events recorded on the Zapruder film. Thus, the test evidence (mainly in terms of echoes and echo delay times received via an echogram from a test shot (See Thomas' Fig. 1) is essentially used to confirm the microphone recording & positions for the shots made on the actual date, by resort to microphones placed at the same (or approximately so) locations.

The hypergeometric p-function was used for differing weighting factor distribution sets, H{M..N, n, i} to assess significance or likelihood of occurrence. It's based on the no. of echo  'windows'  M,  with each spanning 190msec (total time)  at 2msec width per window and n for assigned impulses in the evidence pattern, with 'i' the "coincident impulses" or those matching the original (11/22/63)evidence and the test result. The question was whether a succession of first impulses of given amplitude could be manifesting a signal or was merely random noise. 

Thomas found that for a given configuration for 2 motorcycles at designated locations, 1 for (GK) shooter location and one for alignment of muzzle blasts with one pair of echoes, the p -value is 0.000012 or about 1 in 100,000 against the null hypothesis, i.e. that the impulses were from random noise. An alternative way to put this is that the odds are 100.000 to 1 in favor of the impulses comprising actual rifle shots.

For the test shot, using Thomas' sonar model and the muzzle velocity for a Norma 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano (which is very doubtful that the GK shooter used), one arrives at a 171 msec time for the shock wave to take the defined path to the microphone, from a distance of 28.3m. One must add the time taken for the putative bullet to travel the distance to the time for the shock wave. In this case: 126 msec + 45 msec. The first parameter is relatively fixed since the distance from bullet to test microphone is fixed at 44.2m and the speed of sound defined for the sonar model was 350 m/s.  The geometry used by Thomas (op. cit.) is shown below:

The second component will alter depending on the muzzle velocity. A German Mauser, with muzzle velocity not much greater than 760 m/s will have its bullet traverse the 28.3 m distance in 37 msec, so that the time will now be: 126 msec + 37 msec or 163 msec, which is some 8 msec shorter. If the rifle used is now a Remington Fireball with muzzle velocity 825 m/s then the total time becomes: t1 + t2 = 126 msec + 34 msec = 160 msec, or 3 msec shorter still.

In the “analytically determined” schema (e.g. actual data obtained on 11/22/63), all the above values change slightly. For example, the distance to Kennedy (from the GK shooter) becomes 30.5 m, and the speed of sound is 342 m/s given the air temperature was 18  C (64.4 F)  at the time of the assassination. The distance from the (GK) assassin to the nearest motorcycle was 67 m leading to the muzzle blast arriving at the motorcycle some Delta t = [67m/ 342 m/s] = 196 msec, after the shot. When air resistance is corrected for by + 11.5% (from the shooter location) the muzzle velocity resulting becomes 748 m/s (using a starting assumed bullet speed of 672 m/s). Because of a shooter “location uncertainty” of +/- 1.5 m (A<-> A') the muzzle velocity uncertainty is at least +/- 32m/s, so one is left with a range of: 748 +/- 32 m/s. Assuming Thomas’ parameters are correct, then this excludes a Remington Fireball as the potential candidate weapon, but it does permit either a German Mauser or a .30-30 Winchester.

The bottom line is that Thomas' investigation soundly reconfirmed the original acoustic tests and that the kill shot came from the grassy knoll.   Note, however, this diverged from the HSCA take that the shot came from the rear (Texas School Book Depository). Many investigators (e.g. Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation) have complained bitterly about this tomfoolery, and that the HSCA didn't want to diverge too much from the WC. In most researchers' minds it amounted to trying to 'square the circle' given the evidence, which we will get to.

 Indeed, in examining the actual autopsy photos it's clear the HSCA finding of a rear shot is absurd, no matter who said what on what panel (i.e. Clark Panel).  A mere examination of the bogus Warren autopsy photo (below left) and the real one sets the record straight, and exposes the HSCA's own brand of cowardice: you simply cannot physically have the rear of a skull blown out by a rear shot! Rather the linear momentum of a bullet fired from the FRONT will blow out the rear of a skull!

 

The physics here (transfer of linear momentum) is brutally confirmed with the Zapruder image of Jackie arching across the limo rear to try to retrieve a blown out fragment of JFK's skull - as she stated in her secret Warren Commission testimony, e.g.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Zadrozny doesn't even appear to be aware of the CIA's Assassination handbook, available since 1954 i.e.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/

Did Ms. Zadrozny research any of this before spouting her blatherskite? Evidently not. She lazily made some cursory comparisons to the Charlie Kirk killing without any basis then analogized it to the 2nd shooter in the JFK assassination. Further calling the latter a "discredited conspiracy theory". No, Brandy, you discredited yourself last night on ALL In and thereby exposed yourself as another ill-informed, superficial pundit on the JFK hit.  Real research, including the mathematical analyses was too much for Brandy's brain.

Speaking of which, we now know in retrospect the Warren Commissioners used the fake photo of the JFK head autopsy- above left- to try to make people believe the shot came from behind, i.e. the Texas School Book Depository.  Note also, the actual rear shot hit Kennedy in the middle of the upper back. Bullet hole in suit coat to prove it, but the suit coat was destroyed, e.g.

Interestingly the upper shoulder strike comports with the original Warren Exhibit- a sketch by  WC artist H.A. Rydberg -on the bullet direction.

                           Sketch as it originally appeared in Warren Report.

Note the upper inclined arrow (from the upper shoulder) through Kennedy’s throat marks the original placement.     This was done in order to simultaneously account for the (actual) upper back wound (5.5. inches below the tip of the right mastoid process)  and the throat wound without adding an extra shot (entry from front) , which would have pointed to conspiracy (i.e. at least two shooters). 

 Thus the "single bullet" or "magic bullet" theory is manifest. 

 But Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford soon realized he needed to change the angle and placement (on JFK's back) else it would require someone firing from street level (blue arrow), as opposed to firing from the Texas School Book Depository.  Ford's "genius" - if it could be called that - was to raise the bullet's path by 5.5. inches- leading to a downward sloping angle for a bullet from the School Book Depository to ALSO make the throat wound (thereby eliminating a frontal 4th shot.)  The problem is that Ford had to violate the original autopsy report from Admiral George Burkley, to accomplish this manipulation.  The original autopsy report read:

“A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine."

 Ford altered it to read:

“A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."

The deliberate act of manipulation was reported decades later by the NY Times. 

 Clearly Brandy Zadrozny is no serious JFK assassination researcher - likely merely culling her blather from actual discredited fare - such as Gerald Posner's 'Case Closed' and Vince Bugliosi's 'Reclaiming History'.  Like those two colossal misfires, Zadrozny was not savvy or informed enough to factor in any of the cited alterations, i.e. as part of the JFK assassination coverup. Which makes me wonder if she even read the Warren Commission Report (or the HSCA Report)

What D.B. Thomas did then, was to rectify the disparity with his own investigation and trace the head shot correctly to where the HSCA ought to have tracked it, had they the courage to do so. (Which, if they'd done this, would also have eliminated Oswald as the killer, since he'd been claimed to have been at the TBSD not the grassy knoll.)

Let me now address the issue of the nature or signature of the impulses shown in Fig. 1. Are they "noise", motorcycle backfires, or actual rifle shots?  The clue is the steepness of the 4 highest peaks which the original MIT physicists associated with gun shot impulses. The technical term is that each  impulse conforms to a Dirac delta function (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function   ). The point is such extreme profiles would not be confused with any white noise, distant motorcycles or backfires or the like.  It is precisely the timing spaces between these four major impulses in the acoustic record which led the MIT physicists to conclude gun shots  - FOUR in all- and then tie them chronologically to the action in the Zapruder film - leading to four shots fired (the upper back shot - from behind, the missed shot near James Tague, the shot wounding Connally in the wrist, and the head shot). The imprint for the missed (Tague) shot is shown below:

For what it's worth, I reiterate Harrison Livingstone's remark that "only an idiot" would accept or believe that the truth or falsity of conspiracy rests exclusively on the acoustic record. ('Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century, Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1995  )

There is simply too much supplemental supporting evidence, i.e. including from the ballistics, the additional films taken that day, e.g. Nix film, and the actual autopsy photos, as well as skull radiographs and the negative  test results from the purported Oswald weapon by a team of sharpshooters appointed by the Warren Commission. Not to mention the inordinately improbable deaths of  witnesses, see e.g.      

Lastly, nearly all serious researchers dispute that Lee Oswald had any role at all in the hit. More than likely he'd been set up as the patsy to allow the actual perps to escape, by telling him he'd be the one to help expose the plot. But, by the time the head shot had transpired, he knew he'd been played, and he was the decoy - soon to be nailed.  Author James Douglass  (JFK and the Unspeakable) conjectures Lee became the patsy after he likely called the Chicago FBI to expose the earlier (Nov. 2nd) plot that nailed Thomas Arthur Vallee.

One thing we do know after her performance last night, is that Brandy Zadrozny is not a serious JFK assassination researcher - but more a dilettante like Tina Brown - who also tried to spike the Grassy knoll over a decade ago, i.e.

Tina Brown: “Grassy Knoll Craziness”? How About Tina Brown IDIOCY?

Anyone who can't discern a rear shot from a frontal shot, by inspection of the actual autopsy photo, has no business commenting on anything to do with the JFK assassination, period.

See Also:

Dallas Journalists Need To Grow Up And Face The Reality of Conspiracy In Kennedy Assassination

And:

'JFK Through The Looking Glass' - A Superb Oliver Stone Documentary (But Perhaps Too Much For Casual Viewers)

And:

In One Blockbuster JFK Assassination Documentary 7 Parkland Doctors Expose The Chicanery Of The Warren Commission 

And:

CBS' Nancy Cordes Proves She's A Gullible Idiot By Comparing QAnon Conspiracy Manure to Oliver Stone's 'JFK'

And:

The Assassination Sequence from Executive Action.

And:

Skeptics Society Still Tilting At JFK Conspiracy "Windmills"

And:

Brane Space: Frequently Asked Questions on fhe JFK Assassination (Pt. 6): Oswald's Rifle and The WC Rifle Tests (brane-space.blogspot.com)

And:

The Southern Poverty Law Center: Still In Over Its Head On the JFK Assassination

And:

HBO's John Oliver Blows It Conflating JFK Assassination With Kooky COVID Conspiracies

And:

WaPo Writer Muddies Conspiracy Waters - Mixing Epstein File Ideations With JFK Hit - As Young MAGAs Still Cheer Trump In Tampa

And:

• Tom Hanks Finally Gets To Broadcast His JFK Anti-Conspiracy Bollocks ( In Miniature) 

Solution To Mensa Tetrahedron Challenge

 

Solution:

The edges connecting the base vertices are face diagonals of the cube. Therefore, the base of the tetrahedron is an equilateral triangle  of edge length  Ö2. 

 

The height h of the equilateral triangle can be found from the Pythagorean theorem:

 Ö2 / 2) ²    +   h ²    =   Ö(2) ²   Þ  (½)   +   h ²    =   2

h ²    =   3/2  Þ   h     =   Ö6/ (2)

The distance from a base vertex to the center of the base is: Ö6/ (2)  -   x

Then:

( Ö2 / 2) ²    +   x ²    =  (Ö6/ (2)  -   x )   x ²

And:

(½)   +   x ²    =   3/2   -   Ö6 x )  -  x ²

^{Ö6 x )  =   1}

^Þ 

  ^{x  =    1  /} Ö6  =   ( Ö6/ 6)

The distance from a base vertex to the center of the base is now:

Ö6/ (2)  -   ( Ö6/ 6  )  =   2 ( Ö6/ 6  ) =  ( Ö6/ 3)

The height H of the tetrahedron can then be found from  Pythagorean theorem, i.e.:

( Ö6/ 3  ) ²  +    H  ²  =  1 ²

^Þ 

 

2/3 +    H  ²  =   1    

H  ²  =   1    -  2/3   = 1/3

H  =   Ö3/ 3  )

The volume  V of the tetrahedron can then be found from  

 V  = 1/3 Area of the base x height H

Then the volume:

V = 1/3    [½] (Ö2) (Ö6/ 2)   (Ö3/ 3  )

V =  1/6  cubic units

The Threat Of AI- Developed Bioweapons And The Devolution Program

Hypothetical pathogen developed by AI model

Just when we thought the worst that could happen, with Trump ordering a tactical nuclear strike on Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain, 

Trump CRASHES OUT & Sends NUCLEAR PLANES TO IRAN!!! | The Kyle Kulinski Show

we now learn biological weapons are at the forefront in a secretive plan called Devolution.  This according to a NY Times piece 10 days ago which few may have actually read given the blitz of news flooding the limited U.S. citizens' attention 'zone'.  But this is a big deal given most Americans have never even heard of this nation's proposed Bio-weapon plan which name doesn't exactly have an inspiring ring to begin with - given the word literally means regression, or backward evolution.

Let's also note here that Biological weapons have been illegal since the Biological Weapons Convention took effect in 1975. The international treaty prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling and use of biological and toxin weapons. But that hasn't stopped dozens of nations from going gung ho into their development. 

 To fix ideas, A global survey published in 2025 identified 110 BSL-4 labs in 34 countries and 3,515 BSL-3 labs across 149 countries, possibly more. The authors of this study note, “91.6% of countries with at least one BSL-3 laboratory lack guidelines for dual-­use research of concern.”

BSL-4 labs must have the tightest standard, to contain 'baddies' like smallpox, Ebola or pneumonic plague.  But now one must also reckon with the role of AI models in assisting in bioweapon development - and unlike nuclear weapons- there is no chain of command to monitor whether some Wack job might be making one in his basement using AI.

Not so far-fetched given that not long ago a Stanford microbiologist -Dr. David Relman - went cold at his laptop as an A.I. chatbot told him how to plan a massacre using a bioweapon.

 According to an April 26 NYTimes report:

A.I. Bots Told Scientists How to Make Biological Weapons - The New York Times

 The transgressive bot described in vivid detail (to a Stanford AI researcher) how to release a vicious pathogen – in fact a superbug-  identifying a security lapse in a large public transit system.  We read:

"Dr. Relman asked The New York Times to withhold the name of the pathogen and other specifics for fear of inspiring an attack. The bot outlined a plan to maximize casualties and minimize the chances of being caught.

Dr. Relman was so shaken he took a walk to clear his head....

Dr. Relman is part of a small group of experts enlisted by A.I. companies to vet their products for catastrophic risks. In recent months, some have shared with The Times more than a dozen chatbot conversations revealing that even publicly available models can do more than disseminate dangerous information. The virtual assistants have described in lucid, bullet-pointed detail how to buy raw genetic material, turn it into deadly weapons and deploy them in public spaces, the transcripts show. Some have even brainstormed ways to evade detection."

Adding:

"Kevin Esvelt, a genetic engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, shared conversations in which OpenAI’s ChatGPT explained how to use a weather balloon to spread biological payloads over a U.S. city. In another chat, Google’s Gemini ranked pathogens by how much they could damage the cattle or pork industries. Anthropic’s Claude produced a recipe for a novel toxin adapted from a cancer drug."

Former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) understands this threat in unusually personal terms. His Senate office was targeted during the 2001 anthrax attacks. The result of a major biological attack will be “death physically. Death governmentally. Death in virtually every context,” Daschle said. “People doing inhuman things, just to survive.”

"Very much like nuclear war, there is no real homeland defense against a  large-scale biological attack, only things you can do to mitigate extermination,” retired Air Force colonel Dr. Thomas Ehrhard says in the book , “Biological War: A Scenario”. 

Not only is there no defense, but Ehrhard makes clear that there would be no recovery.  In the words of former British intelligence officer Dr. Christopher Davis in the same book:

“You do not choose plague as a battlefield weapon. You choose plague because you’re going to take out the other person’s country.”

The book lays out real worst case scenario possibilities in the event of a bio attack.  In one case the federal government conducted a live-action simulation exercise involving thousands of participants, showing what might happen if terrorists released pneumonic plague inside the Denver Center for the Performing Arts.

Allowing for a real-life transmission rate of 2.4 — meaning that every infected person would spread to infection to 2.4 other people — the ordeal quickly overwhelmed the participants. The exercise ended after four generations of infections because by then, the book notes: “the Denver healthcare system essentially collapses.”

The simulation’s after-action summary noted that “health department officials became exhausted and a feeling of hopelessness quickly overwhelmed a number of those participating,” with supplies and medications dwindling and first responders unable to triage victims fast enough.  

This is the threshold where Devolution would kick in. Devolution, whose operational details remain scant, kicks in precisely when the myriad supports of civilized society collapse: power grids, food stores, petrol for vehicles, and all medical facilities - overrun. Hence, an essential government authority will be needed to keep the peace as best it can - which certainly will entail martial law and extreme measures. 

According to the author of Biological War:

“Devolution is the secret transfer of power to backup leaders and hidden command centers. Devolution ensures the government keeps running even as the nation’s infrastructure collapses and hundreds of millions of American citizens die.”

The Devolution Plan would be activated “when officials fear what is happening could result in America’s downfall.”

Adding:

"The Devolution Plan has been covertly rehearsed countless times over eight decades, in every administration since the invention of the atomic bomb,” writes Jacobsen. “Devolution is the final federal government effort to maintain a last tenuous thread of control.”

 One needs to make clear, however, that saving citizens is not under the purview of Devolution. The whole premise is one of mass obliteration via the bioweapon attack - leaving very few survivors. And those who do survive will likely wish they hadn't. No, Devolution is simply based on the preservation of an authority - 'continuity of government' if you will - irrespective of what happens to the unfortunate masses caught in such an apocalypse.

For a look at how such a future may unfold, once the authority itself breaks down, check out the movie, The Road, e.g.

See Also:

AI creates never-before-seen virus

And:

Provisional Ethics in a Post-Apocalyptic World

And:

 The H3 N2 Flu - Are We Ready For The Onslaught? What About An Avian (H5 N1) Pandemic?

Solutions To Single Particle Dynamics and Hertizian Dipole Problems

 1)Given the situation shown below for a particle in plasma:

And: v _o = v _xo x^ + v _yo y^ (for initial velocity)

Solve the equation of motion: F = q(E + v X B)

Solution:

m dv/dt = q(E + v X B)

v _x   =   qB (v _y)/m   +  q E _x /m

v _y  =  - qB (v _x)/m  

Or: 

v _y  =  - qB/m [qB (v _y)/m   +  q E _x /m]

=  - W _e ² (v _y)   -  W _e ² (E _x) / B 

v _x   =   - W  _e ² (v _x) -  W  _e ² (E _x ) / B 

 

2) (a)If the perpendicular velocity component ( v⊥) is 10⁵  m/s for an electron in a plasma, find its Larmor radius, gyration energy and its gyro-period.

Solution.

Larmor radius:  r  = m/ q [v⊥ / B] =  v⊥/ (qB/ m _e) = v⊥/ Ω _e

 r = (10 ⁵  m/s) / 1.7 x 10 ⁷  /s   =     0.0056 m or:  0.56 cm

Gyro-period: T = 2 p  / Ω _e  =   2 p / 1.7 x 10 ⁷  /s   =  3.5 x 10 ^-7  s

Gyration energy E = m _e  (v⊥)²/ 2 =  
  (9.1 x 10 ^-31  kg) (10 ⁵  m/s) ²  / 2

 E =    4.5 x 10 ^-21  J  

 = 0.028 eV

(b) Find the guiding center positions for the electron referenced in (a) if t = T/2.

Solution:

  The gyro-period is: T = 2 p  / Ω  

Then: T/2 =   2 p  /2 Ω  =  p / Ω  

Bear in mind the gyration energy:

E  = m _m  B = m/2 (E/B) ²,

Guiding center positions:

 x – x_o =   r sin (Ω _e t)   =  (0.0056 m)  sin (Ω _e   p  / Ω _e  ) = (0.0056 m) sin p

=  (0.0056 m) 0 = 0

y – y_o =    r  cos (Ω _e   p  / Ω _e  )   =    

(0.0056 m) cos p   =   - 0.0056 m

The Hertzian Dipole Problem Solution:

The Problem:

Find the total average power (P_rad) radiated by a Hertzian dipole over a closed sphere of radius r.   (Take  h_o as the impedance of free space, with I_o   the steady current and k  =  w /c  the wave number.

The Solution