JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[ka9q]

Let me put it this way

No, let me put it this way.

Have you, profmunkin, ever seen a live human (other than JFK) being shot through the head with a rifle? If so, what happened? How did he move?

You say you haven't been so unfortunate as to witness such a horrible thing? Good for you; I wouldn't wish it on anybody.

So what makes you so sure of what would happen if you've never seen it yourself? What makes your ignorant speculation more reliable than a scientific analysis by the physicists, doctors and biologists who have actually studied human shooting victims (e.g., casualties of war) and conducted laboratory experiments with animals? What makes you right and them wrong?

I'm really curious to know the basis of your arrogance.
 

[profmunkin]

No you are not. You have repeatedly failed to demonstrate any willingness to learn. Or, more precisely, you have failed to demonstrate any willingness to set aside your own preconceptions as to how the world and people work and admit to the possibility of other factors existing. Page after page after page you were told that the wounds on Kennedy and Connally had been duplicated using a Carcano at the same distance and elevation as the sixth floor window of the TSBD, and you refused to even acknowledge it. When you finally did you dismissed it as an irrelevance. That is not willing to learn, that is stubbornly refusing to accept reality.

You must of misinterpreted a post.
I don't recall agreeing with anyone on the forum about the nature of the wounds or how they were caused. But If I somehow inadvertently did, I formally retract it now.

[profmunkin]

I do not know the precise details of the acoustic charcter of Dealye Plaza, nor a detailed plan of exactly what sound waves went where. I do know from personal experience, however, that localising the sound of something like a rifle report is very difficult in a built up area. That is why I discount the people saying they heard the shot from the knoll as being reliable evidence: not because of prejudice, not because of a blind faith in the reality of the Warren Commission's findings, not because of anything other than the knowledge from my own experience that such reports ARE unreliable, and that therefore there needs to be more than just a number of people saying they heard something from there.
 

Localizing, what does this mean?

If it means determining the exact location for a sound, I can agree with you, if you are insinuating that most people can't determine the general direction, front back left right up down from their position, is utter non-sense.

You need to try and connect this "scientific" rhetoric with some reality.

[BazBear]

Actually the troubling part is those who can't see theforest through the trees. I also find it hard to believe patriotism has anything to do with your BS and ignorance of FACTS.

Just arrogance.

Why do you think the state of Texas started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the congress started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the senate started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the warren commisssion started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the city of new orleans started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the Hsc started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the Arrb started an inquiry into the assignation?

Because we never believed and still do not believe Oswald did it or did it alone.

WTF is an assignation?

[gillianren]

WTF is an assignation?

An affair.  But you know, I've always thought that what happens between two consenting adults is their business . . . .

[twik]

It appears profmunkin thinks that the main concern of the Warren Committee and subsequent investigations was whom the President was sleeping with.

[Jason Thompson]

You must of misinterpreted a post.

No, you were asked for page after page to acknowledge the fact that the wounds as described in the autopsy report had been duplicated and you refused to do so, finally saying it didn't matter because the shots came from somewhere else anyway. All you had to do was acknowledge that this simple experiment had been carried out, and you refused for page on page on page.

If you think the wounds were caused by a sniper on the knoll, explain how. We've done the bit where we explain how they can be caused from the TSBD. Your turn.

[Jason Thompson]

You need to try and connect this "scientific" rhetoric with some reality.

It IS connected with reality. What part of the experience I have recounted twice now was not clear to you?

Let me say it again: a local fort ran a shooting exercise a few weeks ago. Depending on where I was standing, the shots seemed to be coming from a variety of locations, even at times when I could clearly see the person holding the gun. The sound of the shots did NOT always match up with the direction of the shooter, due to the effects of the buildings and trees and other things around me.

That is a FACT. Not rhetoric, not smokescreen, but FACT, born of an understanding of how sound travels and PERSONAL experience. Do you wish to accuse me of lying about that?

[Echnaton]

Localizing, what does this mean?

If it means determining the exact location for a sound, I can agree with you, if you are insinuating that most people can't determine the general direction, front back left right up down from their position, is utter non-sense.

You need to try and connect this "scientific" rhetoric with some reality.

There is a significant difference between locating the general direction of a sound and the location of the source of the sound.  This is what you fail to admit to. 

[DataCable]

3) The FACT that the WC Report can be "cherry-picked" into infinitum by testimony from it's own proceedings should be the ultimate cause for concern and patriotic doubt in the WC report conclusions.

You are claiming that absolutely every piece of testimony given must be 100% in agreement with every other piece, that there is no room for human error in reporting the details of such a sudden, chaotic and traumatic event.  You are claiming that humans are perfect observers and the human memory a perfect record of events which it has experienced.

A government can not decide when this case is closed, nor a President a Chief Justice a committee or the media has the power or authority to tell the American Public when this case is closed.

Who or what does have the authority to make this decision?

And certainly the government has the previlige of presenting its case and narrative, but at the same time an elected independent defense team must have equal input to secure adequate checks and balance to the evidence and conclusions.

Elected by whom?  Independent of what?  Defending who or what?

What is cherry picking?

Presenting only evidence which supports your case, ignoring evidence which doesn't, even to the point of claiming it doesn't exist.

[Echnaton]

A government can not decide when this case is closed, nor a President a Chief Justice a committee or the media has the power or authority to tell the American Public when this case is closed.

Meaningless babel because you use the word "case" in a meaningless way.  The government can only decide when its inquiry is complete and that is all it has ever decided.  On the other hand, historical scholarship is never finished.  If you would try to apply methods appropriate to historical scholarship you might get somewhere.

This is a case of conspiracy of the highest sort.

Prove it. If you had any theory of a conspiracy, you would have brought it forward my now yet you can't even tell us where you think the shooters were. 

[gillianren]

It appears profmunkin thinks that the main concern of the Warren Committee and subsequent investigations was whom the President was sleeping with.

Shockingly, it turns out that we have more evidence that Profmunkin doesn't know the definitions of many of the words he uses. 

Actually, in this case, it could well be a stupid autocorrect problem.  It wouldn't be the first time and it wouldn't be the last, but no matter who made the error, Profmunkin didn't catch it despite its appearing seven times in the section you quoted.  I can't be the only person who reads over their posts before submitting them!

[ka9q]

Localizing, what does this mean?

If it means determining the exact location for a sound, I can agree with you, if you are insinuating that most people can't determine the general direction, front back left right up down from their position, is utter non-sense.

Yes, it means determining the location (position) of the source of a sound.

It's a fact -- hardly nonsense -- that humans are easily fooled in determining the direction of a sound. In particular, it is quite common for a sharp sound like a gunshot to seem to come from the exact opposite direction than it really did. It depends on things like the exact position of your head at the moment the sound arrives.

Humans have two ears to help them to sense the direction of a sound. The brain compares the signals from the two ears and looks for several cues to determine direction:

One is the relative loudness in each ear; the ear toward the source tends to hear a louder sound.

Another is the frequency spectrum; the ear toward the source tends to hear a broader range of its frequencies, especially higher frequency sounds.

And a third is time of arrival; the ear toward the source hears the sound before the ear that's farther away.

Not all of these mechanisms are fully operative in the case of a sharp explosive sound like a gunshot. Time of arrival is probably the most important cue, but think about what happens when you're facing either directly toward or away from the source, or even if it's directly over you; in these cases the sound arrives at both ears simultaneously. You can't tell these directions apart. And that's why it's quite possible for a sound in front of you to seem like it's behind you, or vice versa.

But to point out what others have pointed out, in the context of the JFK assassination this is all totally moot because we have plenty of other evidence that JFK was shot from behind and only from behind, and we have plenty of independent evidence of the source and type of the shots: witnesses who saw the rifle in the window (and Oswald firing it), witnesses directly under it who heard the bolt being operated and the spent shells hitting the floor, and of course the discovery of the rifle on the 6th floor of the depository and the ironclad linking of it to Oswald as the purchaser and possessor.

[ka9q]

Let me say it again: a local fort ran a shooting exercise a few weeks ago. Depending on where I was standing, the shots seemed to be coming from a variety of locations, even at times when I could clearly see the person holding the gun. The sound of the shots did NOT always match up with the direction of the shooter, due to the effects of the buildings and trees and other things around me.

I'm curious about something. I used to shoot rifles and shotguns a lot when I was younger, but I haven't done it in some time so the experience isn't fresh in my memory.

While you were watching these exercises, did you notice separate sounds from the bullet shock, muzzle blast and target impact (assuming these were supersonic rifle bullets)? I read that soldiers are trained to locate a sniper by ignoring the loud, sharp shock wave of the bullet and listening for the softer "thump" of the muzzle blast that usually arrives some time after the bullet shock (especially if you're being shot at). The bullet crack can seem to come from anywhere, while the muzzle "thump" will usually seem to come from the true direction of the shooter.

[ka9q]

Profmunkin, I would really like an answer to my question.

Assuming you have not been unlucky enough to actually witness a live human being shot through the head with a rifle, how do you know what should happen? Why do you consider your expectations to be more reliable than the doctors, physicists, forensic technicians and other researchers who actually study this sort of thing as a profession?

I really want you to answer this question. Thank you.