Assassination team of 3 shooters, positioned in 3 locations.
What is the possible motive for Oswald to want JFK dead, JFK may have been the only friend to Cuba in the U.S. government?
The Dallas police were tipped off concerning Lee Harvey Oswald being the shooter within 15 minutes after the assassination.
Who knew Oswald was the assassin, who tipped off the police?
The police went to the the boarding house to find Oswald, where did they get this address?
Why would Oswald's boss suspect him, he just saw Oswald in the lunch room on the second floor within 2 minutes after the shots.
gillianren, Information on record at the TSBD had his place of residence where Marina his wife and his child were staying.
The Dallas police went to the boarding house where Oswald basically slept during week days.
The tip to Dallas Police concerning Oswald came via an anonymous phone call.
Traceable source for the boarding house address was Army Intelligence.
When Felt from the FBI is told to investigate, Nixon is informed and tells CIA to tell FBI to lay off. Felt won't stop, maybe he see's the connection, Felt is "Deep Throat"Then why didn't he give Woodward and Bernstein any of this information while he was acting as Deep Throat? It's awfully convenient to claim that a dead man might have had certain information, but I wouldn't call that evidence for anything in particular. It's just speculation.
Would anyone care to discuss this or any other details from this tragedy?Would you care to even try to read the Warren Commission report or any of the many other investigations of the JFK assassination that all came to the same conclusion?
Assassination team of 3 shooters, positioned in 3 locations.What happened to evidence of shooters? Without a gun are they really shooters? Where is the beef?
What happened to evidence of shooters? Without a gun are they really shooters? Where is the beef?There's not just a lack of guns (except the Carcano found in the TSBD), but also...
3 shooters and 6 shots
shot 1 - JFK hit in throat from the front - Grassy Knoll
shot 2 - JFK - hit in the back from the rear - Dal-Tex Building or TSBD
3 shooters and 6 shots
shot 1 - JFK hit in throat from the front - Grassy Knoll
shot 1 - JFK hit in temple from the front - Grassy Knoll
I have posted a variety of story lines connected to the JKF assassination to, maybe too quickly, sketch a scenario that comfortably fits the evidence and actions of people that are associated with these events.I don't see even a sketch of a story line here. Just a bunch of disjointed claims.
Maybe I should have started this thread by asking if it is conceivable that JFK assassination was a conspiracy?Being "conceivable" is a pretty low standard. For instance I might ask if it conceivable that you are a bot so that we might discuss how bot like you are. Practically anything is conceivable to one with a active imagination.
Answer yes, then I would ask that we first examine that information and evidence that you find that tends to support a conspiracy.Perhaps plausible is what you meant. Every conspiracy theory surrounding the assassination has been shown not to be plausible, therefore counterfactual. We here tend not to have much of an appetite for discussions of how counterfactual conspiracies might have really taken place.
If your answer is no and everything fits perfectly, then any information I may present will just be debated, uh huh, na huh...A typical conspiracy assumption is that either "everything fits perfectly" according to some arbitrary standard or there is some room for a conspiracy. That is not the case. As the proponent of an alternate theory of the events, it is your job to provide a full accounting of the events that supports your theory. No amount of sniping at the Warren Report is going to make your belief in a conspiracy any more plausible.
Echnaton without going into the autopsy evidence, the evidence in support of the fatal head shot coming from the front is overwhelming.From what I can see, if the JFK head shot had come from the grassy knoll or any where near there, the bullet would have hit Jackie or struck the car behind JFK. Since neither of these happened, we can rule out your interpretation of a front shot. Or do you can to be more specific about where the shooter was and tell us why you have this knowledge while the professional investigators have all missed this "overwhelming" conclusion.
Well, Jim Garrison's deeds actually include convincing a bunch of on-the-fence jurors that it wasn't a conspiracy.
http://www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html
Playboy interview of Jim Garrison
Honest men, doing the right thing, why do they even bother to try.
Mark Lane managed the New York City area's campaign for JFK's 1960 presidential bid, started out trying to determine for himself the facts concerning JFK assassination, along the way he was asked by Oswald's mother to represent Oswald before the Warren Commission, he agreed only on the provision that if he found Oswald to be guilty he would actively pursue his guilt.
The Warren Commission refused to allow Lane or anyone to represent Oswald.
The hearings were closed to the media and public, hence secret.
What lawyer could not build a case if they controlled all of the evidence.
A not guilty verdict was returned in, iirc, 45 minutes. 15 minutes of that was the jury using the bathroom before coming back to announce their verdict.
Oswald was dead so there was no one to represent in front of the Warren Commission. There was no trial so there was no case to build and no need to provide evidence to a lawyer who had nothing to contribute to the investigation.That's right. There's simply no provision in our system of justice for a posthumous trial. In our adversarial system, inherited from England, each side presents its best case. Our Constitution provides strong guarantees to a defendant in a criminal trial the right to competent legal counsel of his choice who maintains his confidence and works for his interests; to prepare his case with counsel in private; to confront and question the witnesses against him; to compel evidence and witnesses who can testify in his favor; to testify himself in court in his own defense if he chooses; or to remain silent and not have that silence held against him.
Ka9q correction Warren Commission, was closed door, not open to the public and not open to the media.
Rnab it would be positive to agree on something, can we agree .....
JFK when hit, the impact drove him back and to his left.
Common sense would tell you that any sensible conspirator would not have multiple shooters from completely different angles.Common sense has little to do with conspiracy theories. Look at the baroque complication of most 9/11 conspiracy theories, involving switching the airliners for missiles or remote-controlled aircraft, occupied buildings rigged for demolition and organisations like ASCE and NIST bribed to comply with some "official" theory.
Good question on Jackie not being struck, maybe because the bullet exited back right.
To support the shots only coming from the rear, all of this evidence supporting shots coming from the front had to be disregarded and was.
Unless this thread turns into uh huh and na huh can we agree that the evidence I just presented is authentic and corroborated by multiple witnesses?
gwiz
please keep your incoherent 911 stories to yourself or start another thread.
Echnton your playing a trolls game.
I posted earlier, referencing Doug Horne's research and proof's concerning the falsification of evidence.
The evidence within the WC may have justified their findings, the problem is their findings do not support major portions of the evidence.
If you want to continue to badger me about shooters, why not you take a stab at explaining the evidence I have posted concerning JFK neck wound, that appeared to be an entrance wound.
Echnaton
I already provided a sketch that covers all of the shots
Shot 4 - hit JFK in the temple, from the front - from the grassy knoll
evidence supported by witnesses that saw the head shot and by Parkland emergency room doctors and staff and witnesses to the autopsy.
Now your turn, explain the neck wound evidence I posted.
. . . Garrison has integrity and objectivity . . . .
gwiz
Why would you only have a single shooter?
All you "proof" is meaningless hypothetical that can be ruled out unless you can tell us how the bullet did not hit Jackie or the limo. She was right behind JFK's head when the bullet hit, from the perspective of the knoll.
Why on earth would you have more than one, or at most a group firing from a single position? Three shooters from three different angles is a ridiculous way to try to persuade people that there was one shooter, as well as tripling the chances of being discovered by accident.
Wrong. Garrison manifestly has neither. Garrison is so far from reality that other conspiracy theorists want nothing to do with him. There were a lot of conspiracists who were really looking forward to the Oliver Stone JFK who refused to have anything to do with it once it was determined that Garrison's was the version to be told. Most of what Garrison claims as fact is known to be wrong.
How many pieces of evidence do you think I could reference from On The Trail Of The Assassins before you could disprove one?
I would guess that if Oswald lone gunman failed there would have been another secondary story ready to go to cover multiple shooters.
The bullet hits the temple nearly square on from the right, on a downward trajectory. Yet it makes a sharp left turn and exits up and back and flies completely out of the limo. Now that is an imaginative visualization. Do you have any experts that will support this magic bullet flight? Or is it your personal interpretation?All you "proof" is meaningless hypothetical that can be ruled out unless you can tell us how the bullet did not hit Jackie or the limo. She was right behind JFK's head when the bullet hit, from the perspective of the knoll.
It is easier to visualize a bullet hitting JFK in the temple from the front, and deflecting enough to blow a hole in the back right side of this head, as all the evidence I mentioned supports.
How does a bullet from the rear, cause the back of JFK's head to explode with matter blown back and to the right?
Why does the WC evidence of the head wound not match "any" evidence from witness testimony?
Why on earth would you have more than one, or at most a group firing from a single position? Three shooters from three different angles is a ridiculous way to try to persuade people that there was one shooter, as well as tripling the chances of being discovered by accident.
The primary goal of the mission would have been to kill JFK
If JFK had not been killed, there would have been a lot of people put away for a long time as well as some major changes made to our government agencies and polices.
"They" had to assume there would be only a single opportunity. JFK had to be killed.
The only insurance they would have had was multiple shooters.
This is the same team configuration as S-Force squads they created to kill Cuban officials, 3 snipers per team for a kill.
Second goal would be to get away with it. I would guess that if Oswald lone gunman failed there would have been another secondary story ready to go to cover multiple shooters.
How many pieces of evidence do you think I could reference from On The Trail Of The Assassins before you could disprove one?
One.
(Oh, and I assume that if you believe in "deflection" of bullets, you have no problem with accepting that the path of the bullet through JFK into Connolly was well within possibilities. Certainly more possible than a high-powered rifle shot from the side deflecting inside a cranium and exiting the back of the head.)http://dolk.host.sk/dolkpage96/horror/famosos/jfk2.htm
OK here is One of as many as you want.
page 44
Garrisons is talking about a CIA camp that was near Lake Pontchartrain that had been raided by the FBI.
The camp "was preparing for future CIA-sponsored attacks on Cuba, " That "the FBI raid came in response to pressure from President Kennedy who wanted the bureau to stop the CIA's undending violations of the Neutrality Act."
I wonder how many examples of things (or even people, as plenty of real film of such exists) being shot and not being blasted backwards by the impact of the bullet one has to provide before JFK conspiracy theorists will finally concede that physics does not support the idea that a head being blown backwards and to the left could be caused by a bullet entering from the front right....
Prove it is connected to Kennedy's assassination. Just because someone has a motive to commit murder doesn't necessarily mean they're guilty.
This is motive, which make the CIA suspect.
This is motive, which make the CIA suspect.I didn't ask for speculation, I asked for proof. I'm beginning to wonder if you know the meaning of the word.
I'll repeat: just because someone had a motive to commit murder doesn't mean they're guilty. You might as well say that Jackie Kennedy is a suspect because she was upset that her husband cheated on her. Soon your list of suspects will be so long that you can't rule anyone out and you'll be even further from solving the case than you were before you started investigating it.
I wonder how many examples of things (or even people, as plenty of real film of such exists) being shot and not being blasted backwards by the impact of the bullet one has to provide before JFK conspiracy theorists will finally concede that physics does not support the idea that a head being blown backwards and to the left could be caused by a bullet entering from the front right....
Then show me the phisics that supports JFK being thrown violently backward toward the path from where the bullet came and to the side
It didn't. Autopsy face sheets aren't drawn to scale. The autopsy report itself describes the location of the back wound in relation to other anatomical features: http://www.awesomestories.com/media/user/14d3199a9e.pdf third page, second paragraph.(Oh, and I assume that if you believe in "deflection" of bullets, you have no problem with accepting that the path of the bullet through JFK into Connolly was well within possibilities. Certainly more possible than a high-powered rifle shot from the side deflecting inside a cranium and exiting the back of the head.)http://dolk.host.sk/dolkpage96/horror/famosos/jfk2.htm
this link lead to the autopsy sheet on JFK
once you validate this as evidence, you can explain to me how a bullet traveling at a downward angle, hits JFK's back, deflets upward to exit about 6" higher from his throat, then deflects downward into Connelly, which is another story.
Then show me the phisics that supports JFK being thrown violently backward toward the path from where the bullet came and to the side
OK here is One of as many as you want.
page 44
Garrisons is talking about a CIA camp that was near Lake Pontchartrain that had been raided by the FBI.
The camp "was preparing for future CIA-sponsored attacks on Cuba, " That "the FBI raid came in response to pressure from President Kennedy who wanted the bureau to stop the CIA's undending violations of the Neutrality Act."
It didn't. Autopsy face sheets aren't drawn to scale. The autopsy report itself describes the location of the back wound in relation to other anatomical features: http://www.awesomestories.com/media/user/14d3199a9e.pdf third page, second paragraph.(Oh, and I assume that if you believe in "deflection" of bullets, you have no problem with accepting that the path of the bullet through JFK into Connolly was well within possibilities. Certainly more possible than a high-powered rifle shot from the side deflecting inside a cranium and exiting the back of the head.)http://dolk.host.sk/dolkpage96/horror/famosos/jfk2.htm
this link lead to the autopsy sheet on JFK
once you validate this as evidence, you can explain to me how a bullet traveling at a downward angle, hits JFK's back, deflets upward to exit about 6" higher from his throat, then deflects downward into Connelly, which is another story.
It didn't. Autopsy face sheets aren't drawn to scale. The autopsy report itself describes the location of the back wound in relation to other anatomical features: http://www.awesomestories.com/media/user/14d3199a9e.pdf third page, second paragraph.
It didn't. Autopsy face sheets aren't drawn to scale. The autopsy report itself describes the location of the back wound in relation to other anatomical features: http://www.awesomestories.com/media/user/14d3199a9e.pdf third page, second paragraph.
Back wound "Upper right posterior thorax" where exactly is this bullet hole?
It didn't. Autopsy face sheets aren't drawn to scale. The autopsy report itself describes the location of the back wound in relation to other anatomical features: http://www.awesomestories.com/media/user/14d3199a9e.pdf third page, second paragraph.
Back wound "Upper right posterior thorax" where exactly is this bullet hole?
Back wound "Upper right posterior thorax" where exactly is this bullet hole?
[Apparently in Kennedy's back, two inches below the crease of his neck. Just behind the holes in his jacket and shirt.
[Apparently in Kennedy's back, two inches below the crease of his neck. Just behind the holes in his jacket and shirt.
Referencing David Lifton book ' Best Evidence' has autopsy photos
Are these photos igitimate evidence?
...the evidence in support of the fatal head shot coming from the front is overwhelming... Witnesses that described the shot to JFK said a cloud of wound debris flew back and to the left.
Back wound "Upper right posterior thorax" where exactly is this bullet hole?
The President's Neck Wounds
During the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital another bullet wound was observed near the base of the back of President Kennedy's neck slightly to the right of his spine which provides further enlightenment as to the source of the shots. The hole was located approximately
Page 88
5 1/2 inches (14 centimeters) from the tip of the right shoulder joint and approximately the same distance below the tip of the right mastoid process, the bony point immediately behind the ear.162 The wound was approximately one-fourth by one-seventh of an inch (7 by 4 millimeters), had clean edges, was sharply delineated, and had margins similar in all respects to those of the entry wound in the skull.163 Commanders Humes and Boswell agreed with Colonel Finck's testimony that this hole--
... is a wound of entrance... The basis for that conclusion is that this wound was relatively small with clean edges. It was not a jagged wound, and that is what we see in wound of entrance at a long range.164
The autopsy examination further disclosed that, after entering the President, the bullet passed between two large muscles, produced a contusion on the upper part of the pleural cavity (without penetrating that cavity), bruised the top portion of the right lung and ripped the windpipe (trachea) in its path through the President's neck.165 The examining surgeons concluded that the wounds were caused by the bullet rather than the tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital. The nature of the bruises indicated that the President's heart and lungs were functioning when the bruises were caused, whereas there was very little circulation in the President's body when incisions on the President's chest were made to insert tubes during the tracheotomy.166 No bone was struck by the bullet which passed through the President's body.167 By projecting from a point of entry on the rear of the neck and proceeding at a slight downward angle through the bruised interior portions, the doctors concluded that the bullet exited from the front portion of the President's neck that had been cut away by the tracheotomy.168
Warning: Gory details which some people might prefer to not read.
Well, let's see. The building overlooked the motorcade route, and strong evidence showed that shots were fired from it. In fact, policemen were inside the building within less than fifteen minutes.
No wonder Jack Ruby looks perplexed in the photograph taken later out front of the TSBD.
Well, let's see. The building overlooked the motorcade route, and strong evidence showed that shots were fired from it. In fact, policemen were inside the building within less than fifteen minutes.
Immediately after the shots were fired
Over 50 policemen and over one hundred citizens were searching the grassy knoll and railyards where some testified seeing the snipers, some the smoke and others heard the report from the rifle.
And after they had finished searching the railyard and arresting 3 men (never officially identified) The police turned their attention to the TSBD and the Dal-Tex building.
One Policeman ran immediately into the TSBD (what a coincidence that the
person officier Marrion Baker located was Lee Harvey Oswald, on the second floor, casually strolling in a side room drinking some pop AND this policeman "knows" the shots came from the 6th floor just seconds ago, but he STOPS to identify a person strolling in the lunchroom on the second floor)
Can't shoot a patsy when they are not where they were supposed to be.
No wonder Jack Ruby looks perplexed in the photograph taken later out front of the TSBD.
Ask why the majority of Americans know that the assassination was a conspiracy, it is facts like this and hundreds to thousands more that resonate true and are in opposition to the governments official version.
Immediately after the shots were fired
Over 50 policemen
and over one hundred citizens were searching the grassy knoll
and railyards where some testified seeing the snipers,
some the smoke and others heard the report from the rifle.
And after they had finished searching the railyard and arresting 3 men (never officially identified)
The police turned their attention to the TSBD and the Dal-Tex building.
One Policeman ran immediately into the TSBD (what a coincidence that the
person officier Marrion Baker located was Lee Harvey Oswald, on the second floor, casually strolling in a side room drinking some pop AND this policeman "knows" the shots came from the 6th floor just seconds ago, but he STOPS to identify a person strolling in the lunchroom on the second floor)
Can't shoot a patsy when they are not where they were supposed to be.
No wonder Jack Ruby looks perplexed in the photograph taken later out front of the TSBD.
I understand the notion that evidence must be vetted before it should be regarded for consideration, however an impasse is immediately reached in a discussion on JFK assassination if the only evidence deemed admissible is that which has undergone processing through government agencies.
A discussion on conspiracy is not possible if evidences of a conspiracy are inadmissible as evidence.
By its very nature, a discussion on conspiracy must take the form where official evidence is challenged for its sustainability when examined within the field of known facts.
Ask why the majority of Americans know that the assassination was a conspiracy,Believe equals knowledge?
I understand the notion that evidence must be vetted before it should be regarded for consideration, however an impasse is immediately reached in a discussion on JFK assassination if the only evidence deemed admissible is that which has undergone processing through government agencies.
A discussion on conspiracy is not possible if evidences of a conspiracy are inadmissible as evidence.
By its very nature, a discussion on conspiracy must take the form where official evidence is challenged for its sustainability when examined within the field of known facts.Challenges to what can reasonably be considered accepted facts are made by proposing and defending an alternative scenario. You have been reticent to provide even the most basic elements of a alternate scenario and run away from defending them.
Okay, enough games. What, exactly, do you think happened? Who fired what shots from where? Why? How do you explain the physical evidence which contradicts it?Daniel Sheehan has an excellent talk that best summarizes the conspiracy.
Ask why the majority of Americans know that the assassination was a conspiracy...Then ask why the majority of humans once knew that the sun revolved about the earth.
Daniel Sheehan has an excellent talk that best summarizes the conspiracy.
I believe that there were at least 3 shooters
Okay, enough games. What, exactly, do you think happened? Who fired what shots from where? Why? How do you explain the physical evidence which contradicts it?Daniel Sheehan has an excellent talk that best summarizes the conspiracy.
I believe that there were at least 3 shooters
"...the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the one that passed through my back, chest, and wrist, and worked itself loose from my thigh"
WC Exhibit 399 bullet?
"...the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the one that passed through my back, chest, and wrist, and worked itself loose from my thigh"
WC Exhibit 399 bullet?
The quote is from Governor Connally's book, the bullet dislodged from Connally's leg and fell to the floor, it and other fragments recovered from his body were given to Nurse Audrey Bell, she sealed them in an brown envelope and gave them to the FBI."...the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the one that passed through my back, chest, and wrist, and worked itself loose from my thigh"
WC Exhibit 399 bullet?
I'd presume,although I am not familiar with the details. Why don't you tell us?
The title of that video is "Daniel Sheehan - Conspiracy Theories and the UFO Phenomenon"
Dude, seriously?
What? That a UFO shot JFK?
The title of that video is "Daniel Sheehan - Conspiracy Theories and the UFO Phenomenon"
Dude, seriously?
If you have not seen it, I urge you to do so, Mr Sheehan is speaks the truth.
The quote is from Governor Connally's book, the bullet dislodged from Connally's leg and fell to the floor, it and other fragments recovered from his body were given to Nurse Audrey Bell, she sealed them in an brown envelope and gave them to the FBI.Connally is factually wrong about the discovery of the bullet that hit him. This is hardly surprising given that he was seriously wounded by it and barely conscious when he reached the hospital. He would have likely died without prompt medical attention.
If this is the bullet that hit Connally, what is bullet 399 and where did it come from?
Watch the video, Daniel Sheehan explains what a conspiracy is.I'm sorry, but someone who thinks intelligent aliens are regularly visiting earth but somehow consistently managing to avoid creating any credible evidence of their presence is not someone who's likely to teach me what a conspiracy is. Or much of anything, for that matter.
Connally is factually wrong about the discovery of the bullet that hit him. This is hardly surprising given that he was seriously wounded by it and barely conscious when he reached the hospital. He would have likely died without prompt medical attention.
It was found on a gurney (not the floor) by the building engineer (not a nurse) after it had been returned to a hallway (not as he was moved to the operating table). The engineer gave it to a secret service agent.
Over 50 policemen? Citation needed.'Rush to Judgment" Lee Edward Bowers - railyard tower operator
Over 50 policemen? Citation needed.'Rush to Judgment" Lee Edward Bowers - railyard tower operator
said police immediately sealed off the railyards "with over 50 police within 3 to 5 minutes"
Just Curious, do you know what he has to say about the shooter at the fence?
Mark Lane, huh? Yeah, he's not a very reliable source. He has been caught misquoting people too many times for me to give him any credibility. He's slightly more credible than Jim Marrs.
Bowers said nothing of value to the Warren Commission about what he saw at the fence.
Mark Lane, huh? Yeah, he's not a very reliable source. He has been caught misquoting people too many times for me to give him any credibility. He's slightly more credible than Jim Marrs.Maybe I didn't make it clear, these are filmed or video taped interviews of the witnesses by Mark Lane, he is not quoting anyone, the witnesses speak for themselves.
Maybe you should check this out because Nurse Bell testified to the HSCA that she placed 4 or 5 bullet fragments into an envelope she gave to the FBI.Maybe you should check your facts a little more carefully. CE 399 was the bulk of the bullet that passed through JFK's neck and then through Connally. It was found on his gurney. The bullet fragments in the envelope were tiny bits of lead recovered from Connally's wrist during his surgery. They matched the missing bits of the CE399 bullet squeezed out its base.
Also the pristine bullet was found on a stretcher NOT associated with JFK assassination, per the testimony of orderly Darrell Tomlinson, the man who discovered the bullet.Wrong on every count except the name of the guy who found it. (He was the senior building engineer, not an orderly.)
Also the pristine bullet was clean, it had no trace of blood or tissue on it. It was fired by "Oswald's" Rifle, but had never penetrated flesh, nor penetrated bones.
What is the value of eyewitness testimony compared to physical evidence?Eyewitness testimony is of enormous value when the physical evidence won't tell you what you want to hear.
Mark Lane, huh? Yeah, he's not a very reliable source. He has been caught misquoting people too many times for me to give him any credibility. He's slightly more credible than Jim Marrs.
Bowers said nothing of value to the Warren Commission about what he saw at the fence.
Bowers said he was cut off by the commission, "I was there to only to tell them just what they asked"
"When they wanted to cut off the conversation, as far as I was concerned that was the end of that"
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 - 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?
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.
Bowers said he was cut off by the commission, "I was there to only to tell them just what they asked"
"When they wanted to cut off the conversation, as far as I was concerned that was the end of that"
The shooter, an ex-Marine marksman, owned and frequently practiced with the rifle later found at the site and conclusively linked to the murder.
Equivocation. The phrase "cut off" is used two ways here. You use it to say the conversation was stopped before Bowers was finished, while in the quote Bowers is saying the conversation stopped because it was finished.
Despite repeated serious expressions of concern for his safety, the victim was philosophical, repeatedly instructing them to stay back and not impair the public's view. Since he was their boss, they could not overrule him.
Immediately after becoming a murderer, the shooter abandoned his weapon, left his place of work, went home, changed his clothes, picked up a revolver, and left again. A few minutes later, when he was stopped and questioned by a police officer, without provocation he emptied his revolver into the police officer and ran away, reloading, before perhaps a dozen witnesses.Immediately?
Continuing refusal to address the responses to your direct questions noted. Your 'let's keep throwing mud at the wall and see what sticks' approach is getting tiring to the point of not even being worth reading any more. If you want to discuss this, then for heaven's sake pick a couple of issues and stick with them rather than this scattergun approach that buries us all in crap.
Is it true that the WC had 3 experts try to duplicate the three shots and failed to do so?
"Oswald" Rifle found without a clip?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid6.htm
"1985 book Reasonable Doubt, Henry Hurt intones:
Without a clip, the cartridges must be hand-loaded, one by one, making rapid shooting flatly impossible.
There is not a shred of positive evidence that such a clip was found with the Mannlicher-Carcano in the sniper's nest. (p. 103) "
That link has a picture of the rifle with the clip clearly visible!!!
Continuing refusal to address the responses to your direct questions noted. Your 'let's keep throwing mud at the wall and see what sticks' approach is getting tiring to the point of not even being worth reading any more. If you want to discuss this, then for heaven's sake pick a couple of issues and stick with them rather than this scattergun approach that buries us all in crap.
What issue do you want to stick with?
Profmunkin, why did you link to a well-known anti-conspiracy site to make your case for a conspiracy? Were you hoping that none of us were familiar with John McAdams? Did you think we were too lazy to click on the link and read this quote in context?"Oswald" Rifle found without a clip?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid6.htm
"1985 book Reasonable Doubt, Henry Hurt intones:
Without a clip, the cartridges must be hand-loaded, one by one, making rapid shooting flatly impossible.
There is not a shred of positive evidence that such a clip was found with the Mannlicher-Carcano in the sniper's nest. (p. 103) "
That link has a picture of the rifle with the clip clearly visible!!!
Equivocation. The phrase "cut off" is used two ways here. You use it to say the conversation was stopped before Bowers was finished, while in the quote Bowers is saying the conversation stopped because it was finished.
Lee Bowers interview
See for yourself
BTW, Profmunkin, you never answered my question of weather you had actually been to Dealey Plaza. Have you?Yes, I have visited Dealey Plaza and the TSBD museum.
Either way you look at it, there is no way to reconcile the idea of them using multiple shooters in multiple locations and then trying to use a lone gunman cover story as the action of a halfway competent intelligence agency. Even multiple shooters in the same location would have been a better idea. If a whole bunch of us can see that without even thinking about it, how did an agency supposedly adept at arranging secret assassinations with plenty of preparation time utterly fail to do so and instead come up with such a ludicrous plan?If the public can be convinced it was a single gunman, then it is single crazy nut, end of a sad story.
If the public can be convinced it was a single gunman, then it is single crazy nut, end of a sad story.
If there were more then one shooter, it is a conspiracy.
Ludicrous plan? What are you talking about, it worked didn't it?
If the public can be convinced it was a single gunman, then it is single crazy nut, end of a sad story.
If there were more then one shooter, it is a conspiracy.
Ludicrous plan? What are you talking about, it worked didn't it?
If the public can be convinced it was a single gunman, then it is single crazy nut, end of a sad story.
Ludicrous plan? What are you talking about, it worked didn't it?Circular reasoning.
BTW, Profmunkin, you never answered my question of weather you had actually been to Dealey Plaza. Have you?Yes, I have visited Dealey Plaza and the TSBD museum.
If the public can be convinced it was a single gunman, then it is single crazy nut, end of a sad story.Not at all, because as others have pointed out, even a single shooter could have a conspiracy behind it. That's why the WC looked at Oswald's background in painstaking detail to see if he worked with anyone, was assisted by anyone, or was put up to the assassination by anyone.
The autopsy shows a single shooter from a single location.Do you think you know more then all of these witnesses about the head wound?
Before we can seriously discuss how the wounds were made, lets establish the FACT that the autopsy report given to the WC is a fabrication.
And did you notice that any shots from the Grassy Knoll would not have Hit JFK front on, but more from up and to the side? Which still leaves open the question of what happens to the bullet? Since the head shot didn't hit Jackie or the limo, what happened to it. And please don't try the magic bullet trajectory of making a sharp ricochet and exit at the back of the head without citing a source that provides a detailed, expert analysis.Most likely a frangible missile, it broke up into a score of fragments, it liquefied right half of the Presidents brain as it bore thru exploding out the back side of his head. Every witness to the head shot in motorcade and near the limo testified to this. Witnesses in motorcade and near the limo testified to rifle report coming from grassy knoll area. Every witness at Parkland corroborated this wound in the back of the Presidents head. Witnesses at the Bethesda autopsy corroborated the location of wound.
And http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Ballistics_and_head_wounds.html
It is interesting to note that although Dr. Olivier fired bullets into 10 skulls, he only cited one skull as having an exit wound that was at all similar in location and size to the large exit wound described by the autopsy doctors.
As a matter of fact, most of the resulting exit wounds were in the frontal area--they shattered bones in the forehead area (Menninger 84). Bear in mind, too, that the Commission's exit wound was different from the one later proposed by the HSCA, and from the one described in detail by the Dallas doctors and nurses who treated the President at Parkland Hospital immediately after the shooting. The Parkland doctors and nurses reported seeing a large wound in the right rear part of the head, strongly indicating a shot from the front. And, thanks in part to newly released HSCA interview files, we now know that witness after witness at the autopsy told Committee investigators that the large wound was in back of the head.
And did you notice that any shots from the Grassy Knoll would not have Hit JFK front on, but more from up and to the side? Which still leaves open the question of what happens to the bullet? Since the head shot didn't hit Jackie or the limo, what happened to it. And please don't try the magic bullet trajectory of making a sharp ricochet and exit at the back of the head without citing a source that provides a detailed, expert analysis.Most likely a frangible missile, it broke up into a score of fragments, it liquefied right half of the Presidents brain as it bore thru exploding out the back side of his head....I don't understand the ballistics as to angle of attack and results, but there is no doubt that there was massive damage to the back right side of JFK's head.
Lets seeBefore we can seriously discuss how the wounds were made, lets establish the FACT that the autopsy report given to the WC is a fabrication.
Yes, why don't you do that.
Lets seeBefore we can seriously discuss how the wounds were made, lets establish the FACT that the autopsy report given to the WC is a fabrication.
Yes, why don't you do that.
Testimony from witnesses to the assassination is not persuasive
Testimony from Doctors and Nurses at Parkland is not persuasive
Testimony from witnesses present at Bethesda autopsy is not persuasive
Experts review of the evidence does not have an impact
Lets seeBefore we can seriously discuss how the wounds were made, lets establish the FACT that the autopsy report given to the WC is a fabrication.
Yes, why don't you do that.
Testimony from witnesses to the assassination is not persuasive
Testimony from Doctors and Nurses at Parkland is not persuasive
Testimony from witnesses present at Bethesda autopsy is not persuasive
Experts review of the evidence does not have an impact
Experts review of the evidence does not have an impact
Most likely a frangible missile, it broke up into a score of fragmentsEven "frangible missiles" obey the laws of physics. They keep moving in the same direction at constant velocity until acted upon by an external force. When they break up, it's because of an outside force. When they change direction, it's because of an outside force.
Your argument is not persuasive. You really don't understand how presenting evidence works, do you?
Hey I am sorry about this "gish golly" but as I search for information to properly answer some of your questions I run across more interesting information that supports my earlier posts.
The 3 tramps as it turns out were never booked anywhere, no record can be found of who these guys were.
Looks like might have to, I would like to do some digging first.
Now, do you wish to retract your claim that the 3 tramps were never identified?
Looks like might have to, I would like to do some digging first.
Now, do you wish to retract your claim that the 3 tramps were never identified?
Thanks for the links.
Check out this Youtube video it you haven't already
Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza Nov 22 1963
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5ATbhCUZxjQ
Sorry I am not any good at this.
Not for ideological reasons but simply because nothing the conspiracist side presents meets the burden of evidence in a court of law.
"nothing the conspiracist side presents meets the burden of evidence in a court of law" this illustrates just high biased this forum is and it indicates how foolish it is to post on this forum any information not in total support of government findings.
It is sad that journalism, historically our societies partner and imperative to our freedom in keeping in check our government, institutions and businesses, seems to be held in utter disdain, disregard and mistrust on this Forum.
It is a shame that the term 'conspiracy' has turned into a buzz word to prevent any real dialog from taking place, is used as a hammer to prevent questions from being addressed and prevents many to even dare to look at issues.
I am going to be out of communication for a few weeks, so I AM NOT IGNORING posts, I just won't be in a position to monitor, ask or answer posts.Have a nice break, wherever it takes you.
Exactly what is the burden of evidence in a court of law?Here's a good start. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
Since no one here has most likely been in direct contact with any original evidence, everything is hearsay...Hair-split. The conspiracy authors consider the available materials suitable to draw their conclusions. Therefore it's disingenuous to suggest that the critics of those conclusions would be hobbled when working with the same material.
...this illustrates just high biased this forum is and it indicates how foolish it is to post on this forum any information not in total support of government findings.You keep making this accusation every time someone says your argument is insufficient. Has it ever occurred to that we're not brainwashed robots, and that your argument really is insufficient?
It is sad that journalism...Conspiracism is not journalism.
It is a shame that the term 'conspiracy' has turned into a buzz word to prevent any real dialog from taking placeRegurgitating long-debunked claims is not a dialog. Similarly, simply telling your critics that they're hopelessly biased is not very conducive to dialogue either.
Since no one here has most likely been in direct contact with any original evidence, everything is hearsay
so far the only thing I have seen is that government sources are a prerequisite to be acceptable.
this illustrates just high biased this forum is and it indicates how foolish it is to post on this forum any information not in total support of government findings.
It is sad that journalism, historically our societies partner and imperative to our freedom in keeping in check our government, institutions and businesses, seems to be held in utter disdain, disregard and mistrust on this Forum.
I am going to be out of communication for a few weeks, so I AM NOT IGNORING posts, I just won't be in a position to monitor, ask or answer posts.
One of the cops who interrogated Oswald told his niece who told her boyfriend who told his mother who told a reporter that Oswald confessed to killing JFK and Tippit. Case closed.Well, I'm convinced.
I will address previous posts.
But first...
Tip O'Neill is a respected politician, he obtained the political high level of Speaker of the House.
This is not just anyone who talked to someone, this is a man who considers what to say and how to say it.
Tip O'Neill talked with Dave Powers and Ken O'Donnell who were witnesses in Dealey Plaza and are also men of some stature and he is relaying what they said to him.
Speaker of the House is claiming the FBI prejudiced testimony, this is no small charge.
How can anyone take you guys seriously if the response to substantial evidence is so flakey.
Now, do you wish to retract your claim that the 3 tramps were never identified?
Name one court anywhere on this planet that categorizes hearsay evidence as "substantial".
Name one court anywhere on this planet that categorizes hearsay evidence as "substantial".
It is not hearsay, Tip O'Neill states he was present (as the witness) and conversed with these two men.
We can go into the integrity of the WC members later.
Citation> please just go watch Tip O'Neill on extras, 19:07 minutes into documentary.
So, someone says some other people said something? This is what you call evidence?
Tip O'Neill has a direct knowledge of the conversation he had between himself Powers and O'Donnell, period. It is not hearsay no matter what you want to call me.QuoteYou're calling JFK a documentary???
Typical slam, yes, there is a JFK documentary on disk 2.
No I will not go into the integrity of the WC members.
Tip O'Neill has a direct knowledge of the conversation he had between himself Powers and O'Donnell, period. It is not hearsay no matter what you want to call me.
No I will not go into the integrity of the WC members.
Tip O'Neill carries more then enough weight to be taken seriously.
Yes, this is exactly what I call evidence.
[Prouty is a crackpot. He was a colonel when he retired and was awarded a Commendation Medal for his retirement. A colonel being awarded a Commendation Medal for his retirement is a slap in the face. It is the equivalent of saying, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." If he had been any thing other than an office boy who fetched coffee for the general he would have received at least a Meritorious Service Medal.
Tip O'Neill is stating that he had a conversation with Powers and O"Donnell, that conversation is within his direct knowledge, it is not hearsay.Tip O'Neill has a direct knowledge of the conversation he had between himself Powers and O'Donnell, period. It is not hearsay no matter what you want to call me.
That is what hearsay evidence is!!!
Dictionary: "unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge"
Tip O'Neill carries more then enough weight to be taken seriously.
Yes, this is exactly what I call evidence.
It's a good thing you aren't a lawyer, then.
Tip ONeill, former Speaker of the House, is documented on film in JFK movie extras, states that Ken O'Donnell (JFK top aid) and Dave Powers (JFK Special Assistant) both candidly claim the shots came from the front
[Prouty is a crackpot. He was a colonel when he retired and was awarded a Commendation Medal for his retirement. A colonel being awarded a Commendation Medal for his retirement is a slap in the face. It is the equivalent of saying, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." If he had been any thing other than an office boy who fetched coffee for the general he would have received at least a Meritorious Service Medal.
IF they are not on your side they are crackpots, got it.
What is more likely
Prouty gets a inadequate commendation while leaving the military so he fingers his old boss in the JFK assassination as retribution?
Or Prouty believes his oath actually means something "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic" and acts accordingly.
Prouty "the flake" worked for 9 years in the pentagon working closely with the >CIA<
Why flake? Because Prouty fingers Ed Lansdale in a picture taken in Dealey Plaza
Marine Lietenant General Victor Krulak agreed with Prouty "That is indeed a picture of Ed Lansdale"
he goes on to ask "It's Lansdale. What in the world was he doing there?"
Tip O'Neill is stating that he had a conversation with Powers and O"Donnell, that conversation is within his direct knowledge, it is not hearsay.Tip O'Neill has a direct knowledge of the conversation he had between himself Powers and O'Donnell, period. It is not hearsay no matter what you want to call me.
That is what hearsay evidence is!!!
Dictionary: "unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge"
I am not claiming they said anything, Tip O'Neill is making that claim, I am referencing video of Tip stating the content of the conversation.Tip ONeill, former Speaker of the House, is documented on film in JFK movie extras, states that Ken O'Donnell (JFK top aid) and Dave Powers (JFK Special Assistant) both candidly claim the shots came from the front
Assuming for a second that they actually said what you're claiming they said...
It doesn't matter who they are, their claims about where the shots came from are only their opinion. They are human like all of the other witnesses and are therefore equally prone to the same errors in judgement. They are not experts in ballistics or acoustics, so I don't trust their judgement when it comes to determining where the shots came from.
Which brings us full circle on Tip O'Neill
If Tip is lying then what he said is not important.
BUT For what reason would he lie about a conversation that could be disproved with phone calls to Powers and O'Donnell and be fully discredited?
Tip is telling the truth about the conversation, you now have direct evidence
that in the opinions of both Powers and O'Donnell they were persuaded by the FBI to alter and fabricate their testimonies to the WC so as to be aligned with the official story line.
My first impression was that the shots came from the right and overhead, but I also had a fleeting impression that the noise appeared to come from the front in the area of the triple overpass. This may have resulted from my feeling, when I looked forward toward the overpass, that we might have ridden into an ambush. Link (http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/powers1.htm)
Mr. SPECTER. And what was your reaction as to the source of the shots, if you had one?
Mr. O'DONNELL. My reaction in part is reconstruction---is that they came from the right rear. That would be my best judgment.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any reaction by any of the other people around in any specific direction?
Mr. O'DONNELL. The agents all turned to the rear. I would think, watching the reaction of the President when the shot--the first shot hit--that it would be automatic it would have to have come from the rear. I think any experienced agent would make that assumption immediately.
Mr. SPECTER. And was the reaction of the agents which you have referred to as coming from the rear, to the right rear or to the left rear?
Mr. O'DONNELL. The reaction I note would be right rear. And, again, looking at the manner of the President's movement, I would think you would have to feel the thrust of the shot was from the right rear.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what was there about the President's movement which leads you to that conclusion?
Mr. O'DONNELL. He was leaning out waving. He may have just been withdrawing his hand. And the shot hit him, and threw him to the left. He slumped on Mrs. Kennedy. Link (http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/odonnell.htm)
Not the point.
The point is the FBI agents persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to alter and fabricate their testimony
FBI agents persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to lie before the WC.
FBI agents persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to lie to you and me.
Until he told someone else, then it became hearsay. He told someone else, right? That's how you know about it, right?
The conversation is in Tip's direct knowledge, period.
It is not hearsay.
The video of Tip relaying the conversation from his direct knowledge, is in my direct knowledge.
Evidence twice removed from the witness is not direct evidence; it is hearsay evidence.
It is not Hearsay!
Chew, Tip O'Neill IS the witness here, he has direct evidence ONLY of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell.
Tip's direct knowledge of this conversation has nothing to do the possibility that Powers and O'Donnell where telling the truth.
I hope you can understand this.
They told Tip the shots came from front right not the rear but were persuaded by the FBI to change their stories.
So what point are you proving, that they lied in testimony to the WC or that Tip O'Neill is a liar?
It is not Hearsay!
Chew, Tip O'Neill IS the witness here, he has direct evidence ONLY of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell.
Tip's direct knowledge of this conversation has nothing to do the possibility that Powers and O'Donnell where telling the truth.
I hope you can understand this.
If we were asking about the colour of the wallpaper in the room where Tip O'Neil had that conversation with O'Donnell and Powers, then yes, he would be a perfect witness. But the subject of the story is what allegedly happened between the FBI, O'Donnell, and Powers. Tip O'Neil did not personally witness that event, he's only repeating what he was told. That makes it second hand knowledge... hearsay.
Tip said Powers and O'Donnell "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"They told Tip the shots came from front right not the rear but were persuaded by the FBI to change their stories.
So what point are you proving, that they lied in testimony to the WC or that Tip O'Neill is a liar?
1. Even if they did tell Tip O'Neil that they believed the shots came from front right, that doesn't mean it's true. They could have been mistaken due to confusion caused by echoes or their lack of understanding about how someone being from the right rear shot ought to move.
2. Tip O'Neil did not witness any of the interactions between the FBI and the other two men, and therefore can't verify their stories.
Also, what does "they were persuaded by the FBI" mean, exactly? It could mean they were threatened at gun point, or that the FBI provided enough evidence that the shots came from the School Book Depository to convince them that their initial beliefs about the source of the shots were wrong.
Evidence twice removed from the witness is not direct evidence; it is hearsay evidence.
It is not Hearsay!
Chew, Tip O'Neill IS the witness here, he has direct evidence ONLY of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell.
Tip's direct knowledge of this conversation has nothing to do the possibility that Powers and O'Donnell where telling the truth.
I hope you can understand this.
Not the point.
The point is the FBI agents persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to alter and fabricate their testimony
FBI agents persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to lie before the WC.
FBI agents persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to lie to you and me.
No, the FBI allegedly persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to change their testimony. Since we're not hearing this directly from the people involved it's just hearsay. Did it really happen? You accept it as fact because you think it supports your beliefs, you don't seem to mind that you're hearing it second or third hand from someone who wasn't in the room when it happened.
'On the trail of the assassins" page 279
Richard Randolf Carr testified at Shaw trail that when he tried to tell the FBI about what he saw as a witness in Dealey Plaza, the FBI told him to keep his mouth shut.
Evidence twice removed from the witness is not direct evidence; it is hearsay evidence.
It is not Hearsay!
Chew, Tip O'Neill IS the witness here, he has direct evidence ONLY of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell.
Tip's direct knowledge of this conversation has nothing to do the possibility that Powers and O'Donnell where telling the truth.
I hope you can understand this.
Yeah. He has knowledge that he had that conversation. What he does not have knowledge of is the event itself except as it was described to him. Telling what you've been told is hearsay. Telling what you've experienced is not. That he had a conversation with someone is not hearsay. What that person said is hearsay. This is basic legal principle.
What would the motive be for Powers and O'Donnell to change their testimony in the first place, if they weren't coerced?
That on further questioning they realised their impressions may have been wrong?They accused the FBI of persuading them to alter their testimony.
Enough of the irrelevancies. Are you claiming that it is impossible that they might have realised that their own impressions of where the shots came from in an acousitcally complex environment such as Dealey Plaza might have been in error, if given further information? Is coercion really the only explanation your narrow mind can accept?Again with the personal attacks "narrow mind"
The FBI coercion explanation is not mine, it is what Tip said Powers and O'Donnell stated.
Although I introduced the term coercion, where they said persuaded.
I understand that you must twist or discredit this information so as to maintain your steadfast grasp to the WC fiction.
Lets move on there are many more fish to fry.
Enough of the irrelevancies. Are you claiming that it is impossible that they might have realised that their own impressions of where the shots came from in an acousitcally complex environment such as Dealey Plaza might have been in error, if given further information? Is coercion really the only explanation your narrow mind can accept?Again with the personal attacks "narrow mind"
YES as a matter of fact, I have no reason to doubt the validity of Tip's revelation of this conversation.
The FBI coercion explanation is not mine, it is what Tip said Powers and O'Donnell stated.
Although I introduced the term coercion, where they said persuaded.
I understand that you must twist...
Lets move on there are many more fish to fry.
The evidence of the video of Tip O'Neill's disclosure of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell stands.
If you get you panties in a wade over coercion then it is a personal problem.
The FBI agents applied enough psychological pressure to both Powers and O'Donnell
you can tip toe and pretend it just persuasion or whatever you want.
The evidence of the video of Tip O'Neill's disclosure of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell stands.
If you get you panties in a wade over coercion then it is a personal problem.
The FBI agents applied enough psychological pressure to both Powers and O'Donnell to get them to lie under oath, this is coercion, you can tip toe and pretend it just persuasion or whatever you want.
We don't have to pretend anything... Tip O'Neil said they were persuaded. You're the one who imagines that beatings and water torture must have been involved.
Powers and O'Donnell were persuaded by the FBI agents to lie under oath, they testified and "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"
So the FBI persuaded them to commit a crime, then knowing they had lied under oath, ignored it.
So, what of this conversation? Well, maybe they did say they were persuaded, but it is you and you alone that is interpreting it to mean psychological pressure and coercion were used. It is possible to persuade someone with reason and evidence, although it would seem to be near impossible in your case.
Powers and O'Donnell were persuaded by the FBI agents to lie under oath, they testified and "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"
So the FBI persuaded them to commit a crime, then knowing they had lied under oath, ignored it.
You still don't get the fact that you are making a huge leap to 'lied under oath', do you?
Prove that they were persuaded to lie, rather than persuaded they were incorrect about their initial impressions of the origin of the sounds they said they heard, or that they simply could not say with certainty where the shots came from.
Where, when and how was the FBI granted any authority to persuade a witness of anything?
Tip said Powers and O'Donnell testified and "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"
They gave their testimonies to the FBI, the testimonies did not fit the prearranged story lines so the FBI persuaded them to fabricate the testimony to fit the prearranged story lines and then they lied under oath.
[You still don't get the fact that you are making a huge leap to 'lied under oath', do you?I don't have to prove it, it is within the Tip O'Neill disclosure.
Prove that they were persuaded to lie, rather than persuaded they were incorrect about their initial impressions of the origin of the sounds they said they heard, or that they simply could not say with certainty where the shots came from.
Who claimed Tip O'Neill had any knowledge other then obtained in the conversation?
Why do you feel it essential to repeat exactly what I just said "he has direct evidence ONLY of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell."
I don't have to prove it, it is within the Tip O'Neill disclosure.
"said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"
For the last time, where is it within the powers of the FBI to influence the testimony of any witness? The FBI should have functioned only to take statements, not persuade witnesses to follow a predetermined concocted story line.
Witness impression is exactly that! Their experience of an event, that is what makes their testimony of any potential value.
If it is not their direct experience then it is just FICTION.
That is the reason the hearsay rules apply in law; you want your evidence from the closest source possible.I agree
If one comes to understand that JFK died as a result of coup, then 'legally' fails to mean anything other then a farce and the defence against the truth.
In reality Tip's revelation should have rocked our world.
As I said there is no information that can be presented on this forum that will make any impact.
Excerpt from Tip O’Neill’s 1987, Man of the House:
“It was such a sad day that it seemed like the whole world had come apart.
I was never one of those people who had doubts or suspicions about the Warren Commission’s report on the president’s death. But five years after Jack died, I was having dinner with Kenny O’Donnell and a few other people at Jimmy’s Harborside Restaurant in Boston, and we got to talking about the assassination.
I was surprised to hear O’Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence.
‘That’s not what you told the Warren Commission,’ I said.
‘You’re right,’ he replied. ‘I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn’t have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn’t want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family.’
‘I can’t believe it,’ I said. ‘I wouldn’t have done that in a million years. I would have told the truth.’
‘Tip, you have to understand. The family — everybody wanted this thing behind them.’
Dave Powers was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O’Donnell’s. Kenny O’Donnell is no longer alive, but during the writing of this book I checked with Dave Powers. As they say in the news business, he stands by his story.
And so there will always be some skepticism in my mind about the cause of Jack’s death. I used to think that the only people who doubted the conclusions of the Warren Commission were crackpots. Now, however, I’m not so sure.Link (http://www.thechickenhawk.com/blog1/?p=10037)
So, someone says some other people said something? This is what you call evidence?
Tip O'Neill carries more then enough weight to be taken seriously.
Yes, this is exactly what I call evidence.
You know, I asked at the very beginning of all of this whether there was any point refuting any of the arguments CTs present. After eighteen pages, it's conclusive. Nothing we can say will penetrate "but I believe it was a coup!" Not logic, not law, not ballistics, not forensics. What matters is belief, and those persuaded more by evidence are not needed.There are a couple of debates on youtube with Mark Lane
There are a couple of debates on youtube with Mark Lane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l0mSVjzKE0s
The primary tactic that is used by the WC members and supporters is personal attacks on Mark Lane. They avoid any debate on the 'evidence' presented by Lane.
It just gets laughable and embarrassing for the few supporters there are for the WC report.
When incongruities are found within the WC report, its termed nitpicking.
When deception and lies are uncovered it generates personal attacks.
That's all you got!
Nitpicking and personal attacks.
I know it to be a conspiracy because of the mountain of evidence showing the assassination of JFK to be a coup at the highest levels topped with the absurdity, lies and deceptions that can be found within the WC report.
Ballistics!!! - two words for you 'magic bullet'
You believe in the magic bullet, logic won't help you, it's trapped you!
Crackpot actually applies to believers in the 'magic bullet'.
Forensics!!! - Police paraffin test shows Oswald did not fire a rifle on November 22 - HSCA performed neutron activation analysis of the paraffin casts and could not find any residue of gun powder on the Oswald's side of the casts. There is no evidence he fired a gun on November 22. But lets not let facts cloud your reasoning.
Also lets just pretend the police did not find a Mauser 7.65 rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD, it is impossible to explain away.
Or that palm prints magically appeared on the Carcano.
Or the ammunition manufactured in 1947 supposedly fired by Oswad was tested and found to be mainly unusable.
Or the fact that the world greatest markman in 1963 said Oswald's assassination feat was impossible. As well as other expert marksman. Not even considering the first shot was almost through the tree blocking the view from the TSBD.
Or the fact that the carcano advertised for mail order was not the same as the one found on the 6th floor.
Autopsy - Back wound never probed for bullet path. Existence of Neck wound unknown at autopsy, which was an entrance wound per Parkland doctors.
Back wound was at 3rd thoracic vertebra, yet artist (who was not allowed to see autopsy photos) produced WC exhibit showing back wound now to be a 'high back wound' that was in reality high on the neck and almost a foot higher so that the 'magic bullet' theory could be contrived to work.
Head wound, hit in the temple from the front, blowing out the back right side of JFK's head, the only dissenting view is from Humes (who destroyed evidence, his notes and the first draft of the autopsy) and his 2 cronies. Witnesses at the scene and at Parkand and Bethesda adamantly deny Humes position of the head wound.
Humes was not even allowed to do the autopsy without a general telling him what he could do and what he was not allowed to do. Besides the FACT he wasn't a qualified forensic pathologist.
FBI sends a warning of potential assassination attempt to all offices a few days prior to Dallas, well we know about the FBI by now.
Despite cancelling the Miami motorcade because of credible evidence of an assassination attempt, the SS does little to nothing to protect the President in Dallas, despite treason leaflets and a full page ad against JFK. An army security support group is told to stand down down as well as extra law enforcement officers.
The SS agent in charge calls off agents that would normally ride on the rear of JFK's limo
They move JFK's limo to the front the motorcade behind the lead car.
The motorcycle escorts are told to stay back, away from the limo
During the shooting Greer slows or stops the limo.
The SS agents do notning but watch JFK get assassinated.
There was no apparent reason for the Dallas Police to to be looking for Oswald, yet that is exactly the direction they immediately proceed.
What was it 30 cop cars surround a theatre because of a person sneaking in to the movies.
JFK body was forcibly and illegally removed from the hospital by the SS.
The limo, which was evidence in the murder was taken by the SS and sanitized before it could be examined for any evidence.
Dallas Police allowed Ruby access to kill Oswald. Despite warnings to the FBI (yea why bother) and Police that Oswald would be killed.
Ruby claims that he was forced to kill Oswald and stated that there was a conspiracy from the highest levels, but he is ignored.
You got nothin but WC lies and deceit to defend.
Do you guys post on this board as part of a job or do you actually believe the Warren Commission was truthful and factual?
Seriously getting frightened here, that you guys are nuts.
That's it? That's what you have? You don't have a coherent narrative. You don't have the evidence to show that anything you cite is actually true, and you don't have the decency to admit when you're wrong. Even when it's over something so basic as a person's qualifications. You say that all we engage in is name-calling and nit-picking, but we're nuts? Seriously. Can you at least acknowledge that you were wrong that Dr. Hume wasn't qualified as a forensic pathologist? Can you at least admit that he was more qualified as one, given that he was board-certified, than a bunch of ER doctors who weren't?Yep that's it in 1 blast.
Do you guys post on this board as part of a job or do you actually believe the Warren Commission was truthful and factual?
Seriously getting frightened here, that you guys are nuts.
Do you guys post on this board as part of a job or do you actually believe the Warren Commission was truthful and factual?1 Stop being an ass.
Seriously getting frightened here, that you guys are nuts.
You really don't have a clue about the known facts associated with the JFK assassination do you?
You are defending a cover up that has long ago been recognized and exposed as fraudulent.
You need some serious deprogramming.
And yes Humes was less qualified than the Doctors at Parkland who dealt with bullet wounds on a routine basis
Do you guys post on this board as part of a job or do you actually believe the Warren Commission was truthful and factual?
Seriously getting frightened here, that you guys are nuts.
Why wouldn't I believe you?
I solemnly swear that I am not paid anything for posting on this, or any other, forum. Of course, that will not convince you, but I doubt that there's anything any poster can do that would do so.
And I am still waiting for your proof that there were SIX shooters from THREE locations.
I gave you two options, I see my error now, I should have left a space blank so you could fill it in.Do you guys post on this board as part of a job or do you actually believe the Warren Commission was truthful and factual?
Seriously getting frightened here, that you guys are nuts.
Why is it every conspiracy theorist seems to think that if they can only think of two options then no other option exists?
Yes, the 3 pigs, the 3 shooters would both be stories we have no evidence for. So I guess they both could be classed as fairy tales.Why wouldn't I believe you?
I solemnly swear that I am not paid anything for posting on this, or any other, forum. Of course, that will not convince you, but I doubt that there's anything any poster can do that would do so.
And I am still waiting for your proof that there were SIX shooters from THREE locations.
It is really folly to talk about 3 shooters and 6 shots
when there is no recognition that the wounds could not have been created by 2 shots from the rear, including a 'magic bullet' that maintained a near pristine condition after 7 wounds, which would make the pristine bullet also magical or mystical or factually, an impossibility. As long as you dream in fairy tales how can I possibly wake you from the dream.
We might just as well change the subject and argue whether the story of the 3 pigs was real.
It is really folly to talk about 3 shooters and 6 shots
when there is no recognition that the wounds could not have been created by 2 shots from the rear
It is really folly to talk about 3 shooters and 6 shots
when there is no recognition that the wounds could not have been created by 2 shots from the rear
There was no apparent reason for the Dallas Police to to be looking for Oswald, yet that is exactly the direction they immediately proceed.
What was it 30 cop cars surround a theatre because of a person sneaking in to the movies.
Sure doesn't look near pristine to me.Because you don't realize what you should be looking at.
The back wound is at the 3rd thoracic vertebra, right of his spinal column.
The location of this wound is well below the neck wound
Parkland Doctor that performed tracheotomy on JFK said bubbling blood was seen, which would be an indication of damage to a lung.
It is improbable to traverse thru flesh and maintain it's 'pristine' shape
It is an impossibility to shatter bones and not be seriously flattend, deformed and fractured.
Ce-399 appears to be in a more pristine shape then bullets test fired for ballistic comparison.
Still waiting for the evidence for 3 shooters and 6 shots.What ever I would present, the rebuttal would be that the evidence is invalid and Oswald in the TSBD 6th floor window, so what would be the point?
How can we take your theory seriously if you fail to give us the details of what exactly you are proposing? If it was not your intention to argue the above theory, why did you put it in your thread title?
Because you don't realize what you should be looking at.
This bullet is accountable for causing 7 wounds
in so doing also shattered one of Connally's ribs
and also shattered bones in Connally's wrist
It is improbable to traverse thru flesh and maintain it's 'pristine' shape... the rest of your post is question begging.
It is an impossibility to shatter bones and not be seriously flattend, deformed and fractured.
That's it? That's what you have? You don't have a coherent narrative. You don't have the evidence to show that anything you cite is actually true, and you don't have the decency to admit when you're wrong. Even when it's over something so basic as a person's qualifications. You say that all we engage in is name-calling and nit-picking, but we're nuts? Seriously. Can you at least acknowledge that you were wrong that Dr. Hume wasn't qualified as a forensic pathologist? Can you at least admit that he was more qualified as one, given that he was board-certified, than a bunch of ER doctors who weren't?Yep that's it in 1 blast.
Dr Humes was a qualified pathologist
He was not a qualified forensic pathologist.
And yes Humes was less qualified than the Doctors at Parkland who dealt with bullet wounds on a routine basis, Parkland Doctors where fully qualified to make their stated conclusions.
What ever I would present, the rebuttal would be that the evidence is invalid and Oswald in the TSBD 6th floor window, so what would be the point?
Lets try to agree on the wounds first, then it would be easier to speculate on the shooters and positions.Your failure to separate speculation from supported theory and fact is what got you into this mess in the first place. The fact that you don't even have a theory about where the shooters would have to have been to make the case that you initially suggested was true is a primarily example of this failure.
If we can't agree on the wounds then it is rather silly to present information on additional shooters from additional postions is it not?
If you are not capable of recognizing the deceptions within the WC report I have doubts that there is anything that I can present to you to help you see.
What ever I would present, the rebuttal would be that the evidence is invalid and Oswald in the TSBD 6th floor window, so what would be the point?
Lets try to agree on the wounds first, then it would be easier to speculate on the shooters and positions.
If we can't agree on the wounds then it is rather silly to present information on additional shooters from additional postions is it not?
There is nothing on this page that addresses the issue of deformation of bullets when shattering bones.It is improbable to traverse thru flesh and maintain it's 'pristine' shape
It is an impossibility to shatter bones and not be seriously flattend, deformed and fractured.
Even for a bullet designed to do just that?
http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/issues_and_evidence/single-bullet_theory/Pristine_bullet/Pristine_bullet.htmlQuoteCe-399 appears to be in a more pristine shape then bullets test fired for ballistic comparison.
No it doesn't. See link above. In fact it's about as distorted as would be expected.
How do you justify your claim? What evidence do you have for it?You continue to argue about non-sense.
Or is this just the normal confusion that goes on in a catastrophic situation, when people misspeak, and other people misremember what was properly spoken?
How do you justify your claim? What evidence do you have for it?You continue to argue about non-sense.
Repeat - Humes was not a qualified forensic pathologist(.)
He was a qualified pathologist.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhumes.htm
The doctors at parkland have stated that they dealt with bullet wounds on a routine or on a daily basis.
the doctors that viewed the neck wound at Parkland said it appeared to be an entrance wound. They go into detail why thy considered it to be so.
It is amazing that all the witnesses that were doctors and nurses at parkland stated what the wounds were on JFK, none of them concure with Dr Humes, not one. Witnesses from Bethesda don't even concure with Humes.
Man what in the world would it take to wake you up?
There is nothing on this page that addresses the issue of deformation of bullets when shattering bones.
Please provide an example of a bullet fired thru both a rib and a wrist that in any way is comparable to the 'pristine' nature of ce-399
Please explain the extra bullet fragments that could not be removed from Connally's wrist that can not be accounted for when compared with the loss of weight from ce-399 bullet?
It is amazing that all the witnesses that were doctors and nurses at parkland stated what the wounds were on JFK, none of them concure with Dr Humes, not one. Witnesses from Bethesda don't even concure with Humes.
The simple fact is, prof, you don't actually understand the physics of bullet impacts at all. You are simply applying your layman's expectation that a bullet hitting a bone must get massively distorted. Bone might feel hard to you when you hit it, but to a piece of metal travelling at great speed it almost might as well not be there. I repeat, these bullets are designed to penetrate flesh and bone.A major reason the CE399 bullet is still mostly in one piece is the large amount of energy it lost in first passing through JFK's neck without hitting any bones. It then yawed in the air between JFK and JBC, hitting JBC almost sideways -- his entrance wound was oval, and rifle bullets simply don't do that over a distance of only 60 or so yards unless they pass through something else first.
Gee, the HCSA seems a very poor conspiratory body.You feel a compulsion to believe the WC and HSCA, the programing is working well.
Please explain the extra bullet fragments that could not be removed from Connally's wrist that can not be accounted for when compared with the loss of weight from ce-399 bullet?
Please explain the extra bullet fragments that were surgically removed from Connally and given to Nurse Bell who sealed them in an envelope, then passed them on to a State Trooper, that can not be accounted for when compared with the loss of weight from ce-399 bullet?
HSCA had nurse Bell draw a picture of the bullet fragments she had placed in the envelope,
because they seemed to have inexplicably disappeared from evidence, the HSCA after viewing her drawing promptly destroyed it. (more destruction of evidence, guess the FBI is not alone in this routine)
State trooper recalled the envelope given to him by Nurse Bell, saying Bell had said it contained a bullet, trooper said, thru the envelope it was maybe 2 by 3 inches.
Connaly even said they found the bullet and gave it to nurse Bell to give to a trooper. Please explain this.
Getting silly posting anything if you are unwilling to do the work to determine the validity of what I am presenting.
Ya I know your response, that's my job, no it's not, not really, all I can do is point to the truth, if I present evidence, the only way you will really know, is to investigate the evidence thread yourself and discover if it is validity.
If you are satisfied that you know the WC is complete and unimpeachable, you have made up your mind, your mind is sealed off from any alternatives, maybe you believe that all the research done by the 'CT' since 1963 is some evil plot with the purpose to contaminate your thoughts, fear can be difficult to overcome.
As posted previously: If there is no evidence the conspiracy theorist can present that is valid... ||| stop ||| and think what this really means. You guys are totally closed off, so much so that there is nothing that can penetrate your shields. Nothing.
Is there any reason to continue to post other then having a passtime of arguing, uh huh... na huh?
Getting silly posting anything if you are unwilling to do the work to determine the validity of what I am presenting.
Ya I know your response, that's my job, no it's not, not really,
the only way you will really know, is to investigate the evidence thread yourself and discover if it is validity.
If there is no evidence the conspiracy theorist can present that is valid... ||| stop ||| and think what this really means.
Is there any reason to continue to post other then having a passtime of arguing, uh huh... na huh?
Jason I can't even imagine how slouched over JFK would have to be to get his neck wound location below the location of the 3rd thoracic vertebra, I think he would have to be almost in a prone position.The back wound is at the 3rd thoracic vertebra, right of his spinal column.
The location of this wound is well below the neck wound
If, and only if, you assume without any justification whatsoever that he is sitting up straight. Kennedy was demonstrably not sitting up straight in the limo, and the third thoracic vertebra is not so far below the throat exit wound that simply slouching cannot place it slightly above.
Jason I can't even imagine how slouched over JFK would have to be to get his neck wound location below the location of the 3rd thoracic vertebra, I think he would have to be almost in a prone position.
Don't be confused by contrived red herring fiction about coat riding up and JFK slouching.
If you reach back you may be able to feel your shoulder blade tip near your spine, that is about the location, it is about 5-6 inches below the adams apple (JFK top of tie was nicked) , check it out for yourself.
There is nothing on this page that addresses the issue of deformation of bullets when shattering bones.
That page refers to shooting bullets through blocks of wood and notes their relative lack of deformation, and refers to shooting cadavers with the bullets. Do you want to suggest that not one shot through a cadaver went through a bone?
Jason I can't even imagine how slouched over JFK would have to be to get his neck wound location below the location of the 3rd thoracic vertebra, I think he would have to be almost in a prone position.You could save yourself (and us) a lot of trouble if you'd look at the Dale Myers computer model. Everything lines up -- where JBC and JFK were sitting, their body positions, the straight line trajectory between the two (and connecting their wounds) all the way back to Oswald's window. Perfectly.
The bullet is made of lead, with a thin casing of copper, it deforms on impact, it deforms and can fragment just traversing through gelatin.Do you understand the significance of the part I have emboldened?
Typical -Typical. Neither were the emergency room physicians. In fact, they weren't even pathologists.
Humes was not a qualified forencic pathologist to do the autopsy, you have no argument. now just let it go.
Jason there is no place on this page or I will venture any page you can find that shows a bullet that has maintained it's 'pristine' shape after traversing through a human bone, it will mushroom and deform.
The bullet is made of lead, with a thin casing of copper, it deforms on impact, it deforms and can fragment just traversing through gelatin.
Figure this out.
Humes was not a qualified forencic pathologist to do the autopsy, you have no argument. now just let it go.
Way cool - thanks for the images.Jason I can't even imagine how slouched over JFK would have to be to get his neck wound location below the location of the 3rd thoracic vertebra, I think he would have to be almost in a prone position.
Well, have you even tried to work this out?
If you want to argue qualifications, Humes was more qualified to make a judgement about the entry and exit wounds than any of the doctors who operated on JFK in the ER.Especially given that Hume had two assistants, both medical doctors and pathologists. And one was also Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch at Walter Reed Medical Center. That tells me the guy knew at least a little about what bullets do in the human body, don't you think?
Are you serious?Yes, we are. And yes, we've examined the evidence. Quite a bit more closely than you have, it would seem.
I can't help myself here...Ya Jason that is exactly how President Kennedy was slouching in that limo, I remember seeing him leaning forward probably picking some lint off of his socks when he was struck.
Give your self a brake and examine the evidence.
And you brushed right by the FACT that the WC had to have an artist produce a contrived conceptual drawing to even begin to make single bullet theory work.
stop thinking and see
Shot in temple, exit wound in back right side of head vs Humes shot from behind, exit wound right middle
This is not a case where numbers make the difference in determining who is more likely to be correct.
Shot in temple, exit wound in back right side of head vs Humes shot from behind, exit wound right middleLet's say a shot had hit JFK in the manner you describe. Where could it have come from? There were no bullet holes in the limousine windshield (though there was a crack after the 3rd shot when it was struck by a bullet fragment from the inside) so you must agree that we can rule out all trajectories requiring the third bullet to pass through that windshield before hitting JFK.
top of head
Shot in temple, exit wound in back right side of head vs Humes shot from behind, exit wound right middle
top of head
Get it, no one agreed with the 3 doctors that performed the autopsy at Bethesda, no one.
Okay, they go to all this trouble to set up Oswald as a patsy...yet they plant a bullet that's "too pristine"? Why not keep firing slugs until they get something a bit more mangled? Not to mention, at that point they would have had no idea what bullets would be found. One too many bullets and that certainly would have blown a conspiracy wide open.Sure doesn't look near pristine to me.Because you don't realize what you should be looking at.
This bullet is accountable for causing 7 wounds
in so doing also shattered one of Connally's ribs
and also shattered bones in Connally's wrist.
It is improbable to traverse thru flesh and maintain it's 'pristine' shape
It is an impossibility to shatter bones and not be seriously flattend, deformed and fractured.
Plus
Connally had more bullet fragments still remaining in his wrist after surgery then can be accounted for.
Connally had bullet fragments removed during his surgery that also can't be accounted for - see Nurse Bell
Even if this bullet miraculously caused the 7 wounds and shattered bones, the extra bullet fragments can not be accounted for, period.
Plus the man who discovered this bullet stated it was not found on Connaly's stretcher - One more fact that was ignored by the WC.
Ce-399 appears to be in a more pristine shape then bullets test fired for ballistic comparison.
That page referes to shooting bullets through blocks of wood and notes their relative lack of deformation, and refers to shooting cadavers with the bullets. Do you want to suggest that not one shot through a cadaver went through a bone?
Plausable - what is this a guess that it could happen?
Plausable is fiction, what does this mean?
If if happened, then it can be duplicated.
Its not possible, never duplicated and never happened.
Where did all the fragments remaining in Connally's wrist come from?The bullet is made of lead, with a thin casing of copper, it deforms on impact, it deforms and can fragment just traversing through gelatin.Do you understand the significance of the part I have emboldened?
Plausable - what is this a guess that it could happen?
Plausable is fiction, what does this mean?
You really are clueless, aren't you?
Just post the picture of test bullet that duplicates the feats of the 'pristine bullet' and end the arguement
Where did all the fragments remaining in Connally's wrist come from?
Where did all the fragments surgically removed from Connally's wrist come from?
Where did the bullet referenced by Connally / Nurse Bell / Trooper come from?
I have. I also happen to be more qualified in the area of anatomy and biology than you are. The third thoracic vertebra is nowhere near six inches below the adam's apple.Great an expert
[Contrived red herring fiction? You can see that JFK is not sitting up straight in the limo in every bit of film. He is slouched forward, and his coat is definitely ridden up around his neck as would be expected.The position of the coat is irrelevent.
The bullet damage wasn't exactly the same, but it is very, very similar. There are simply too many variables to ever get exactly the same damage. I suspect if the test bullets had the exact same damage, your next claim would be they are too perfect, and hence fake.
Plausable - what is this a guess that it could happen?
Plausable is fiction, what does this mean?
If if happened, then it can be duplicated.
Its not possible, never duplicated and never happened.
Okay, so where did this shot come from? How did go front to back without hitting the limo windshield and/or the person sitting in the front right? And please explain how Connally received his wounds, without the bullet passing through JFK?[Contrived red herring fiction? You can see that JFK is not sitting up straight in the limo in every bit of film. He is slouched forward, and his coat is definitely ridden up around his neck as would be expected.The position of the coat is irrelevent.
Kennedy wore a back brace, in my opinion he was not slouching forward, he may have slumped after he was shot.
Please post a picture illustrating a forward slouching.
Kennedy was hit lower on his back then the wound on the front, you just posted pictures of how far forward he would have had to slouch to be to accomodate a bullet from even a low angle.
The slouching red herring will not work
Is the back wound depicted in WC exhibit CE386 at the third thoracic vertebra?
Does this picture match location shown on autopsy photos
or autopsy fact sheet?
None of the above answers are exceptable, because the bullet has a downward trajectory.
The position of the coat is irrelevent.
in my opinion he was not slouching forward
You can't possibly provide evidence that any bullet has ever duplicated what CE399 did.The bullet damage wasn't exactly the same, but it is very, very similar. There are simply too many variables to ever get exactly the same damage. I suspect if the test bullets had the exact same damage, your next claim would be they are too perfect, and hence fake.
Plausible - what is this a guess that it could happen?
Plausible is fiction, what does this mean?
If if happened, then it can be duplicated.
Its not possible, never duplicated and never happened.
In any case, it's still up to you to prove CE 399 wasn't the "single bullet". So far all I've seen from you is incredulity and speculation.
post your best example of a bullet that has duplicated CE399The bullet damage wasn't exactly the same, but it is very, very similar. There are simply too many variables to ever get exactly the same damage. I suspect if the test bullets had the exact same damage, your next claim would be they are too perfect, and hence fake.
Plausable - what is this a guess that it could happen?
Plausable is fiction, what does this mean?
If if happened, then it can be duplicated.
Its not possible, never duplicated and never happened.
In any case, it's still up to you to prove CE 399 wasn't the "single bullet". So far all I've seen from you is incredulity and speculation.
What does it matter where the shots came from if you don't understand that the shot in the back has nothing to do with the shot in the throat.Okay, so where did this shot come from? How did go front to back without hitting the limo windshield and/or the person sitting in the front right? And please explain how Connally received his wounds, without the bullet passing through JFK?[Contrived red herring fiction? You can see that JFK is not sitting up straight in the limo in every bit of film. He is slouched forward, and his coat is definitely ridden up around his neck as would be expected.The position of the coat is irrelevent.
Kennedy wore a back brace, in my opinion he was not slouching forward, he may have slumped after he was shot.
Please post a picture illustrating a forward slouching.
Kennedy was hit lower on his back then the wound on the front, you just posted pictures of how far forward he would have had to slouch to be to accomodate a bullet from even a low angle.
The slouching red herring will not work
Is the back wound depicted in WC exhibit CE386 at the third thoracic vertebra?
No, but since that's a drawing based on a verbal description error can be expected. There is a phot of the wound that clearly does place it near there.
You can't possibly provide evidence that any bullet has ever duplicated what CE399 did.
post your best example of a bullet that has duplicated CE399
What does it matter where the shots came from if you don't understand that the shot in the back has nothing to do with the shot in the throat.
Well we have the Zapruder film, frames 312-313. It's pretty obvious where the exit wound was, isn't it?Shot in temple, exit wound in back right side of head vs Humes shot from behind, exit wound right middle
This is not a case where numbers make the difference in determining who is more likely to be correct.
top of head
So Connally was hit by 5 separate bullets?At least 5 ;)
In this case the burden of proof has to lie with youYou can't possibly provide evidence that any bullet has ever duplicated what CE399 did.post your best example of a bullet that has duplicated CE399
You keep forgetting where the burden of proof lies. With you.
Why don't you figure it out and get back to me when you do. I am not going to waste anymore time on this until you can catch up on some reality.My word, that was a fine example of CT projection, Prof.
It is not possible to prove a bullet can do what CE399 was supposed to do.
Why would you guys argue this, it has never been duplicated.
Why don't you figure it out and get back to me when you do. I am not going to waste anymore time on this until you can catch up on some reality.
Prove me wrong by telling us where all of the shots came from, if not from the 6th floor of the School Book Depository.
If you mean the exact condition of the bullet hasn't been duplicated then no, it hasn't, because (like others have said) there are too many variables. Show me two wrecked cars with identical damage. You can't.
No, that wasn't a helicopter overhead, it was an alien stealth scout ship.Prove me wrong by telling us where all of the shots came from, if not from the 6th floor of the School Book Depository.
Well, according to prof, bullets cannot exit a body once they enter. So, JFK was hit in the back, hit in the neck, hit in the back of the head, hit in the top right of the head, Connally was hit in the back just below the right armpit, hit in the chest just below the right nipple, hit on the top of the left wrist, hit on the bottom of the left wrist, and finally hit in the thigh, all by separate bullets. I count 9 separate shots. The bottom of the wrist shot obviously came from an assassin laying on the floor of the limo between Connally's legs. The thigh shot had to have come from a hovering helicopter directly above the limo.
Once again in English?do i need to type slowly for you?
Once again in English?do i need to type slowly for you?
With all due respect, discussing the reality of CE399 feats further is nonsense
What does it matter if someone lines up 2 wounds?
The problem is as I have shown the bullet could not go from the location on the back as shown in the autopsy photo and exit higher from the neck.
Still waiting on your fragment weight calculation, btw. Cylinder 2mm diameter, 1 mm thick.Your correct, I was ignoring you
Still waiting on your fragment weight calculation, btw. Cylinder 2mm diameter, 1 mm thick.Your correct, I was ignoring you
Yes with a length and a known material, I could do the calculations
Experts could give good estimates as the dimensions of the fragments,
'pristine bullet' is not possible because no one has ever duplicated it or anything like it.
You say that because you have nothing of substance to say. The "pristine" bullet was not pristine. The "magic" bullet was not magic. The shot has been reproduced both in the real world and using CGI. Your entire argument boils down to "it couldn't happen like that because I don't want to believe it".
What does it matter where the shots came from if you don't understand that the shot in the back has nothing to do with the shot in the throat.We don't "understand" that because it's simply untrue. False. Erroneous. You're not understanding us because you don't want to.
No, you need to write in proper English capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.
There is no doubt that the film has had special effects tampering.Reading fiction again? Who in hell is the "Hollywood Group", and what expertise and credentials do they bring to the problem that hasn't already been provided time and again over nearly 50 years?
The Hollywood Group consisting of Sydney Wilkinson and her husband and others are examining the z film purchased directly from the national achieve, from a special effects experts perspective.
There is no doubt that the film has had special effects tampering.
I love when CTs anomaly hunt.That's all they ever do. It's always the same game: this doesn't look right to me or that's counterintuitive, ergo it must have been a massive conspiracy.
Bullets deform when they traverse flesh, they mushroom and fragment when they hit bones.
I am not going to waste anymore time on this until you can catch up on some reality.
A photograph of the base of CE 399 (the so-called "magic/pristine" bullet)
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif)
Sure doesn't look near pristine to me.
It is improbable to traverse thru flesh and maintain it's 'pristine' shape
[...]
Ce-399 appears to be in a more pristine shape then bullets test fired for ballistic comparison.
Please provide an example of a bullet fired thru both a rib and a wrist that in any way is comparable to the 'pristine' nature of ce-399
If nothing else stop supporting the 'pristine bullet' theory it really makes a person appear to be a crackpot.
You haven't addressed the problem of the missing extra bullet and too many fragments from the 'pristine bullet' that traversed Connally.
Just post the picture of test bullet that duplicates the feats of the 'pristine bullet' and end the arguement
'pristine bullet' is not possible because no one has ever duplicated it or anything like it.
'pristine bullet' is not possible because no one has ever duplicated it or anything like it.First of all, that's just factually wrong. See the Discovery Channel program Inside The Target Car for a very close recreation of Oswald's second shot.
You are correct. Although, I know of no way to discuss possible shooters and their locations if we are describing different events. The event, Posters maintain is that which is created within the warren commission report as established by the warren commission and since the warren commission is closed there is no procedure to establish new evidence as valid. Exceptions seems to occur only when new evidence or revised evidence concurs with established story line. By reasoning 26,000 volumes probably would not contain all of the relevant evidence that could be established, after only 26 volumes the chances are that there is much more evidence that could be yet established, evidence that could potentially alter the established story line.The Hollywood Group consisting of Sydney Wilkinson and her husband and others are examining the z film purchased directly from the national achieve, from a special effects experts perspective.
There is no doubt that the film has had special effects tampering.
I've highlighted this quote. You don't see anything wrong with it? Like, say, claiming to know the conclusions before you start the study?
Profmunkin, if you have any intellectual honesty, you would address the topic you chose for your title, not chase around after every other "anomaly" you can find. Either tell us what you believe was the actual set-up of shooters, and sequence of shots, or admit that you cannot actually come up with anything that fits the facts better than the official story.
Examples posted of FBI destroying documents illustrated a control of evidence.
Examples of FBI influencing witnesses illustrated a control of testimony.
Examples of inaccurate representations of autopsy photo evidence illustrated a willingness on the part of the prosecutors to fabricate evidence.
Examples of prosecutors failure to ask critical questions illustrated a control of testimony
Example of excepting evidence such as 'pristine bullet' on the grounds that it maybe plausable, but unduplicatable, shows a disregard for critical review.
Examples of descenting testimony pertaining to autopsy conclusions shows a disregard for opinions contrary to determined outcome and produces unresolovable conflicts within the report itself.
Even Oswald himself could not have repeated any of his shots with exactly the same results. Indeed, each of his shots had a very different result. That's how the real world works.
Potential to explore a conspiracy, I think not.
Case Closed.
Example of excepting evidence such as 'pristine bullet' on the grounds that it maybe plausable, but unduplicatable, shows a disregard for critical review.
Potential to explore a conspiracy, I think not.
Case Closed.
'Treason doth never prosper: what ’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason'
That about sums it up.
Heck, why not a single shooter in a different location?Like the extreme northwest corner of the roof of the Dal-Tex building across Houston St from the TSBD. Dale Meyer's computer model shows it as the only place (other than Oswald's window) with the correct geometry for shot #2.
Heck, why not a single shooter in a different location?
If the conspiracy wants three shooters in three locations to make sure of the kill, then surely what you do is set up three patsies to take the fall for it. Or am I over-simplifying.
If the conspiracy wants three shooters in three locations to make sure of the kill, then surely what you do is set up three patsies to take the fall for it. Or am I over-simplifying.
For example, with 9/11, the simplest solution, should the PTB want to bring the towers down, would be to have an agent in bin Ladin's camp to hatch the plan, and make sure that it's implemented.
Yeah, Lee was a character, all right. He was in a lot of ways a terrible human being. And yet somehow, we're supposed to believe him when he said he was innocent, as if no one in all of history had ever lied about their guilt in a crime.Exactly. After all, prisons are full of "innocent" people.
And it's not as though Lee Oswald had an impeccable record regarding the truth, either. He lied about plenty of things. Things which are matters of public record and undisputed even by most conspiracists.Including his answers to just about every relevant question during his 12 hours of interrogation.
Actually, I'm inclined the other way. I think conspiracism is Lee's punishment. After all, he really wanted to be important. It's what he wanted most of all. And yet it's generally agreed by an awful lot of people that he simply wasn't important enough to do the one thing he thought would make people pay attention to him. If Lee is aware of what is happening here on Earth, he's furious.
Life on earth was Oswald's hell.
No doubt.Life on earth was Oswald's hell.
Lee's life on Earth was Marina's Hell.
It didn't take long for me to realize the various CT theories were almost all pure bunk.
I just can't understand how anyone who has really looked at the (credible) evidence could come to any other conclusion than that LHO killed JFK, and then killed Tippit, at least beyond any reasonable doubt.
I think the only CT argument that could be made is that Oswald was working for or with someone else; and there is simply no credible evidence of this either, not to mention Lee's biography seems to indicate he wasn't one to play well with others.
The Cubans would have reacted like Oswald was made of high-level nuclear waste.
That's my guess as well. But I suppose short of finding a letter from Havana that says, "In the event Lee Harvey Oswald assassinates Kennedy and asks for asylum, turn him down", I guess we'll never know for sure :)Actually, I think we do know. Castro gave an interview saying that it would have been absolutely suicidal for him to even try to assassinate JFK. He said that would have provoked an all-out US military attack on Cuba. He's almost certainly right.
Lee's life on Earth was Marina's Hell.I suspect her hell has been living for nearly 50 years knowing that she was the only person on earth who could have prevented the assassination but didn't. Had she turned him in for the Walker attempt, JFK (and Tippit) would have lived. So would Oswald himself unless Texas also executes for attempted murder.
I think if he hadn't killed Tippit he would have confessed. Norman Mailer said it best. "But if you shoot a policeman, forget it. You're a punk."I was going to quote that, because I've been thinking about it. If he would have confessed had he not shot Tippit, then why did he shoot Tippit? In fact, why did he run?
See, this is part of why I'm so much more into JFK than Apollo, as far as conspiracies go. The psychology of Lee Harvey Oswald is fascinating. Heck, the psychology of half the people involved in the assassination. Poor Marina--who almost certainly would have been better off if she'd never met him back in Minsk. That egomaniac Jack Ruby. Jackie Kennedy's state of shock and what her grief did to hamper the investigation. Apollo is all about people at their best, and that's great and inspiring. However, there's something to watching what people are like at their worst that's more interesting. Does that make me a bad person? And if it does, how many people are bad people right along with me?If you're a bad person, so am I. I don't think we are though :)
If you're a bad person, so am I. I don't think we are though :)
The psychology of Lee Harvey Oswald is fascinating. Heck, the psychology of half the people involved in the assassination. Poor Marina--who almost certainly would have been better off if she'd never met him back in Minsk. That egomaniac Jack Ruby.You're absolutely right. All this has a very practical use, too. If you can understand what made Oswald tick, you have a much better chance to keep future would-be assassins from suceeding.
Been reading Warren Commission testimoniesWho are you addressing this to? More than one poster in this thread has already read them and told you so.
You guys should read this stuff
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between the first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore characterized as the third shot?
Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to say a matter of seconds. I don't know, 10, 12 seconds. It was extremely rapid, so much so that again I thought that whoever was firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots; a very short period of time.
Been reading Warren Commission testimonies
You guys should read this stuff
Been reading Warren Commission testimonies
You guys should read this stuff
So then, you don't actually have any evidence for 1 shooter (presumably not Oswald) firing 4 shots from an as yet unspecified location. Is that correct?4? 3 or 4
prof, how many bullets hit Connally?1
Stop being coy. You come off as disingenuous. Tell us your 3 shooter, 6 shot scenario.chew there is not 3 shooters and 6 shots
Stop being coy. You come off as disingenuous. Tell us your 3 shooter, 6 shot scenario.chew there is not 3 shooters and 6 shots
that is conspiracy non-sense
there was only 1 shooter
Stop being coy. You come off as disingenuous. Tell us your 3 shooter, 6 shot scenario.chew there is not 3 shooters and 6 shots
that is conspiracy non-sense
there was only 1 shooter
So far I have yet to read any testimonies supporting TSBD as the location for the shots
Please tell me, do we afford any weight to a testimony from a WC witness that has several exchanges like the followling;
"Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. BRENNAN. Positively two. I do not recall a second shot--
Mr. BELIN. By a second shot, you mean a middle shot between the time you heard the first noise and the last noise?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes; that is right. I don't know what made me think that there was firecrackers throwed out of the Book Store unless I did hear the second shot, because I positively thought the first shot was a backfire, and subconsciously must have heard a second shot, but I do not recall it. I could not swear to it."
Please tell me, do we afford any weight to a testimony from a WC witness that has several exchanges like the followling;
there is not 3 shooters and 6 shots
that is conspiracy non-sense
Shot 1:JFK front of neck, out his back, bullet hits street and is noticed by witnesses.
Shot 3:JC gets hit in the back-wrist-leg
Shot:4 hits the molding around the windscreen and a shard hits the windshield, another hits sidewalk then nicks Tague.
1 shooter, 1 spotter
Shot 1:JFK front of neck, out his back,
bullet hits street and is noticed by witnesses.
Not positive if shot 2 hits JFK or JC, there is significant evidence for either scenario
Anyway.
Limo slows almost to a halt some time in here.
For now I will go with... Shot 2:JFK gets hit on the back right portion of his head, propelling his head back and to the left
while disintegrating a round 5 inch portion of his head, splattering Hargis and Martin with body fluids and the exited bullet then burroughed into grass on far side of Elm
and is noticed by witnesses and the authorities. This is supported by testimonies and interesting pictures showing authorities had recovered the bullet fragment from the grass.
Shot 3:JC gets hit in the back-wrist-leg
Please tell me, do we afford any weight to a testimony from a WC witness that has several exchanges like the followling;
"Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. BRENNAN. Positively two. I do not recall a second shot--
Mr. BELIN. By a second shot, you mean a middle shot between the time you heard the first noise and the last noise?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes; that is right. I don't know what made me think that there was firecrackers throwed out of the Book Store unless I did hear the second shot, because I positively thought the first shot was a backfire, and subconsciously must have heard a second shot, but I do not recall it. I could not swear to it."
Would you believe 1 shooter and 4 shots?
Jason: It is indeed is the claim he started this thread with, but to be fair, in this post he screwed up and deleted the first quote tag from a post by Lunar Orbit.there is not 3 shooters and 6 shots
that is conspiracy non-sense
That 'nonsense' is the claim you presented as the title of this entire discussion.
We can agree on that much. But just to refresh your memory, the "3 shooters and 6 shots" nonsense is your nonsense. And now you're trying to distance yourself from it because it's an unsupportable claim.Prof: You might want to proof read better to avoid such confusion.
So who is the shooter, if not Oswald? And where did the shots come from? No more games... if you are going to make a claim just make it now.
Shot 3:JC gets hit in the back-wrist-legJC was seated in front of JFK, but slightly lower and slightly to the left. How could the round that struck JC in the back not have passed through JFK? And if that is the case, why couldn't the fatal head shot have come from the same shooter? There is, after all, solid physical evidence of a shooter in the TSBD building. As for any other possible shooting locations, all you've presented so far is speculation based on cherry picked eye/ear witness testimony.
Using Warren Commission testimonies, virtually every witness testimony I have studied so far overwhelmingly supports a consensus that all of the shots came from the grassy knoll....
Would you believe 1 shooter and 4 shots?
Prof: You might want to proof read better to avoid such confusion.
Possibly...possibly not
But you are entirely unable to reconcile this interpretation with any plausible trajectory of a bullet. A bullet that hit John Connally could simply not have been fired from above on the front right side. The position of the GK when he was hit. The head shot to Kennedy could not have been shot from above and to the right without passing through his skull and hitting Jackie or the limo.
Since your conclusions contradict physical possibilities, there is no option but to believe that your interpretation of the testimony you have read is flawed.
Can we agree that 50 or more officers immediately converged on the grassy knoll and rail yards, with the known exclusion of only 1, which was Baker and his reason was he had observed pigions flying off the roof.
Mr. ROWLAND - I think it would be a very good estimation of 50, maybe more."
Can we agree that 50 or more officers immediately converged on the grassy knoll and rail yards, with the known exclusion of only 1, which was Baker and his reason was he had observed pigions flying off the roof.
Possibly...possibly not
I would like to study more WC testimonies before I attempt to clarify 1 shooter 3 or 4 shots.
All this time and 31 pages of posts proclaiming a conspiracy and you don't have a hypothesis about what actually happened? Much less a defensible hypothesis that includes an explanation of where the shooter(s) were.
I would like to study more WC testimonies before I attempt to clarify 1 shooter 3 or 4 shots.
Typical conspiracist thinking, alas.Alas yes, but it is fun to sometimes write it as is I were surprised. Or should I say "shocked."
HeyI would like to study more WC testimonies before I attempt to clarify 1 shooter 3 or 4 shots.
Why do you need to study testimonies to address the issue that one shooter could not possibly have shot Kennedy from in front and Connally in the back?
And again I note your ongoing refusal to address the duplication of the two shots and their effects.
shaw trial
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/carrshaw.htm
Richard Randolf Carr WW2 - Ranger
"BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: As the result of the conversations with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, what did you do?
A: I done as I was instructed, I shut my mouth.
Q: Were you called to testify before the Warren Commission?
A: No, sir."
Q: Mr. Carr, have you ever heard rifle fire before?
A: I have.
Q: Where?
A: I was a member of the Fifth Ranger Battalion in World War II. I qualified as an expert with a bolt-action rifle which is called a thirty aught six, in the Army it is a 30-caliber rifle, since that time I was -- I used a 225 Winchester, I hunted with a 70 millimeter Remington, I have also loaded my own ammunition, which I do until this day.
Q: Were you ever wounded in action?
A: Yes.
Q: How many times?
MR. DYMOND: I object to that as irrelevant.
THE COURT: That is irrelevant. Why don't you tender Mr. Carr over to the Defense as an expert, at least in the field that he knows a rifle shot when he hears it?
MR. GARRISON: One other question.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: Have you ever heard rifle fire in combat?
A: Yes, I have heard rifle fire in combat.
Q: On how many occasions?
A: I was in -- I landed in Casablanca, I went through North Africa, I was in two major offensives in Africa, and from there I went to Anzio beachhead and my battalion was annihilated, 13 men left in the Fifth Ranger Battalion.
Q: How many of these places did you hear rifle fire?
A: In all of them I heard rifle fire, sir.
MR. GARRISON: We tender the witness.
He was on top of court house overlooking Dealey Plaza
4 shots
Bham...Bham.Bham.Bham
His opinion, automatic rifle fire
Coming from picket fence on top of grassy knoll
saw bullet "knock up grass", presumably by Mary Moorman
Mrs Baker testimony / standing in front of TSBD / shots came from GK / railyard area
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any idea where they were coming from?
Mrs. BAKER. Well, the way it sounded--it sounded like it was coming from-- there was a railroad track that runs behind the building--there directly behind the building and around, so I guess it would be by the underpass, the triple underpass, and there is a railroad track that runs back out there and there was a train that looked like a circus train as well as I can remember now, back there, and we all ran to the plaza--the little thing there I guess you call it a plaza--back behind there this other girl and I almost ran back over there and looked and we didn't see anything.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you say the plaza, you mean Dealey Plaza, the area that lies between Elm Street and this little street that runs by the Texas School Book Depository Building; is that correct? Is that what you mean?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. After you heard the shots, you ran down the little street that runs in front of the School Book Depository?
Mrs. BAKER. Along the grass.
Mr. LIEBELER. Along the grass--alongside there, running toward the triple underpass where Elm Street goes, but you were actually running down the little street or alongside the street on the grass, alongside the street that runs right in front of the Texas School Book Depository?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you say there are some railroad tracks back in there; is that right?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Immediately behind Dealey Plaza away from Elm Street?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. And is that where you thought the shots came from?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. And when you went down there and looked, did you see anybody at all?
Mrs. BAKER Just a policeman and several people were down there around the tracks working.
Mr. LIEBELER. But you didn't see anybody you thought might have been the assassin?
Mrs. BAKER. No, sir.
How many more witnesses are you going to mention who said they went to the area but didn't see anything?
What do you expect them to have seen?
Ed Hoffman reported watching the 2 assassins, said one was dressed in cops uniform the other was in a railway uniform, one dismantled the gun put in in a tool box and they just both walked away in separate directions.
What are you expecting a shoot out or someone standing there with his hands up.
Professional assassins I am sure also plan their getaway.
Professional assassins also don't plan hits in front of 500 people with cameras, a score of police, and a dozen Secret Service agents.
Professional assassins also don't plan hits in front of 500 people with cameras, a score of police, and a dozen Secret Service agents.
Obviously, your wrong.
Obviously by your question no one has ever been killed by a professional assassin while present in front of a large crowd.
Am I? Do you have an example of a professional assassin killing someone in front of a large crowd?
Obviously by your question no one has ever been killed by a professional assassin while present in front of a large crowd.
Am I? Do you have an example of a professional assassin killing someone in front of a large crowd?
How many people are necessary to qualify as a "large crowd"?
How about LBJ telling a lie, to set scene for murder. He tells the American Public that the United States Navy was attacked while in neutral waters in the bay of Tonkin by North Vietnamese torpedo boats and asks for war. This lie is responsible for over 2,000,000 deaths or people assassinated in front of our eyes, and most people never figured out who was doing the killing in time to stop these deaths. Most people still have no clue to this day...at all.So did some of your mysterious assassins end up hiding in the Gulf Of Tonkin? Otherwise, I can't see how it relates to the JFK assassination.
Mr. NORMAN. I believe it was his right arm, and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us."
Well, I couldn't see at all during the time but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle, it sounded as though it was to me.
Mr. BALL. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. NORMAN. Three.
Should what WC says happened in Dealey Plaza be in accord with what can be corroborated by the witnesses?
I think it may well be possible to illustrate how and I intend to prove it when I am ready. This is not a stall it is getting my ducks in a row.
"Mr. SPECTER - Did you tell the police officials at the time you made this statement that there was a Negro gentleman in the window on the southwest corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building which you have marked with a circle "A"--pardon me, southeast?
Mr. ROWLAND - At that time, no. However, the next day on Saturday there were a pair of FBI officers, agents out at my home, and they took another handwritten statement from me which I signed again, and this was basically the same. At that time I told them I did see the Negro man there...
Interesting isn't it, sees man with high powered rifle, on 6th floor of the TSBD, but on the wrong side of building, surprise. Surprise, he also sees another man hanging out of the the "snipers nest" window at the same time.
Yes your are.
I'm a little confused.
Don't forget Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman on the 5th floor of the TSBD who all said the shots came from above them. Norman even said he heard the bolt cycling and the ejected shells hitting the floor.Read the transcripts.QuoteMr. NORMAN. I believe it was his right arm, and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us."
Well, I couldn't see at all during the time but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle, it sounded as though it was to me.
Mr. BALL. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. NORMAN. Three.
what do you mean by Official Story (TM)All this time and 31 pages of posts proclaiming a conspiracy and you don't have a hypothesis about what actually happened? Much less a defensible hypothesis that includes an explanation of where the shooter(s) were.
Typical conspiracist thinking, alas. "I don't know what's right, just that the Official Story (TM) is wrong!" Usually with ridiculously poor research.
Rolwand saw a man with a high powered rifle, with a high powered scope on SW corner 6th floor,
at about the same time he saw a negro man hanging out the window from the "snipers lair" on the SE corner of the 6th floor.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anyone else up there that day?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, I did not.
If you read the transcripts you will know that this was Bonnie Ray Williams eating his lunch until 12:20 or 12:25, before going down to the 5th floor.
Mr. McCLOY. What time of day was this, when you were eating your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. About 12.
Mr. McCLOY. Just 12?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, as you looked towards the southeast corner from where you were sitting, could you see the windows in the southeast corner?
Mr. WILLIAMS. In the southeast--that is--the southeast. I really don't remember if I seen anything-- it would be just the top edge of the window, as I remember.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anyone else up there that day?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, I did not.
Mr. BALL. How long did you stay there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I was there from--5, 10, maybe 12 minutes.
In case you are wondering Williams did not see or hear anything from the 6th floor, Oswald or anyone or anything, while on the 6th floor or 5th floor, before, during or after the assassination.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/williams.htm
"Mr. BALL. Did you hear anything upstairs at all?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I didn't hear anything."
During the time of the assasination Williams was hanging out the 5th floor window, just a few feet from the "sniper" on the 6th floor, and he never detected the shots were coming from just above his head, or hear the bolt or expended shells hit the floor.
The shots were spaced: Bham...Bham.Bham the last two "rather close togeher"
Mr. BALL. Did you notice where did you think the shots came from?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, the first shot-I really did not pay any attention to it, because I did not know what was happening. The second shot, it sounded like it was right in the building, the second and third shot. And it sounded-it even shook the building, the side we were on cement fell on my head.
Mr. BALL. You say cement fell on your head?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Cement, gravel, dirt, or something from the old building, because it shook the windows and everything. Harold was sitting next to me, and he said it came right from over our head. If you want to know my exact words, I could tell you.
Yes your are.
I'm a little confused.
Just to start with, Newman said he thought the shots came from behind him. Here he is indicating where he thought they came from:Have no idea what you have posted and it is not evidence of anything.
Don't forget Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman on the 5th floor of the TSBD who all said the shots came from above them. Norman even said he heard the bolt cycling and the ejected shells hitting the floor.Read the transcripts.QuoteMr. NORMAN. I believe it was his right arm, and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us."
Well, I couldn't see at all during the time but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle, it sounded as though it was to me.
Mr. BALL. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. NORMAN. Three.
Bonnie Ray Williams, did not hear anything from the 6th floor. PERIOD.
James Jarmin Jr. claimed the shots came from below and right (grassy knoll), did not hear anything from the 6th floor.PERIOD.
Representative FORD - Where did you think the sound of the first shot came from? Do you have a distinct impression of that?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, it sounded, I thought at first it had came from below. That is what I thought.
Representative FORD - As you looked out the window and you were looking at the President's car.
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - Did you have a distinct impression as to whether the sound came from your left or from your right?
Mr. JARMAN - I am sure it came from the left.
Representative FORD - But your first reaction, that is was from below.
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - When the second shot came, do you have any different recollection?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, they all sounded just about the same.
Harold Norman never said he heard any shots coming from the 6th floor. He said "sounded like shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle".
Mr. BALL. And you said you thought it came from where?
Mr. NORMAN. Above where we were, above us.
Just to start with, Newman said he thought the shots came from behind him. Here he is indicating where he thought they came from:Have no idea what you have posted and it is not evidence of anything.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/newmwsh.htm
From Shaw Trial
"Q: Do you have any impression as to the direction from which the shots came?
A: Yes, sir. From the sound of the shots, the report of the rifle or whatever it was, it sounded like they were coming directly behind from where I was standing."
Newman was standing by the Stemmons freeway sign, as he had indicated the shots were coming from directly behind, he would have to been facing the grassy knoll during the assassination to have the shots originate from the TSBD.
Have no idea what you have posted and it is not evidence of anything.
what do you mean by Official Story (TM)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/jarman.htm
If you correctly read the transcripts you will know Williams did not eat his lunch at the southeast corner. And by his estimate he finished no later than 12:12 then went down to the 5th floor.QuoteMr. McCLOY. What time of day was this, when you were eating your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. About 12.
Mr. McCLOY. Just 12?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, as you looked towards the southeast corner from where you were sitting, could you see the windows in the southeast corner?
Mr. WILLIAMS. In the Southeast is--the southeast. I really don't remember if I seen anything-- it would be just the top edge of the window, as I remember.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anyone else up there that day?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, I did not.
Mr. BALL. How long did you stay there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I was there from--5, 10, maybe 12 minutes.
I never said nor implied Newman claimed the shots came from the TSBD. I said Newman claimed the shots came from directly behind him, which would put the shooter to at the north end of the pergola. The grassy knoll was directly towards Newman's right.
Are you being intentionally dishonest?
Mr. BALL. Where did you eat your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ate my lunch--I am not sure about this, but the third or the fourth set of windows, I believe.
Mr. BALL. Facing on what street?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Facing Elm Street.
"Mr. BALL - The sidewalk in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - How long did you stand there?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25."
Jarmin and Harold did not proceed to the 5th floor until after 12:20-12:25
Williams was not on the 5th floor when they arrived.
Williams said he did not leave the 6th floor until he after he heard noises coming from the 5th floor and took the elevator down to see if it was his friends.
Are you implying Oswald was lurking on the 6th floor in the "snipers lair" for 20-25 minutes, undetected by Williams only a few windows away?
Oswald could not have known when the President would pass the TSBD, but lunch was over at 12:30, workers would normally be returning to work on the 6th floor at that time. Something to think about.
I wondered why not and was a little disappointed, because those post were about four times harder to produce than normal because I was quite ill. New meds started five days ago have helped a little and returned things to nearer normal.I hope you are feeling better, not under any circumstances would I wish you ill.
I feel sorry for Jason Thompson who has repeatedly asked you something about the duplication of two shots. Why don't you put him out of his misery and answer?
I never said nor implied Newman claimed the shots came from the TSBD. I said Newman claimed the shots came from directly behind him, which would put the shooter to at the north end of the pergola. The grassy knoll was directly towards Newman's right.
Draw a line from where the limo was in frame Z-189 to the grassy knoll, it passes almost right over the top of the Newmans. Newman would have been facing the limo as it came down the street. The shot would have come from directly behind him.
Q: Just tell us what you observed.
A: Well, I observed his ear flying off, and he turned just real white and then blood red, and the President, when the third shot hit him he just went stiff like a board and fell over to his left in his wife's lap, and I told my wife, "That is it, hit the ground," and that is when we hit the ground because I thought the shots were coming over our heads. And then I looked back and I saw Mrs. Kennedy jumping up on the back end of the car and the Secret Service man or whoever it was into the car, and then they shot on off, took off. Link (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/newmwsh.htm)
I don't know how to answer post 103 and 104, since you and others appear to be convinced the Z film is the absolute definitive script and has not been modified by special effects.
What difference does it make what it was, it was not identified as evidence, was it Newman, was he under oath, what was the question and what was the full answer in context?
How can you say it is not evidence of anything if you have no idea what it was?
You could not more clearly illustrate your agenda to simply disprove the official version of events rather than actually try to understand the truth.
I suppose it's not even worth mentioning yet again your ongoing refusal to address the FACT that the shots have been duplicated.
FACT - In reading testimonies of witnesses, so far, I have found 3 people that thought the shots came from the TSBD area, 23 that said the grassy knoll and 33 who were either never asked by the FBI or WC or didn't have an opinion and Bowers who said it could have been either location.
What difference does it make what it was, it was not identified as evidence, was it Newman, was he under oath, what was the question and what was the full answer in context?
you and others appear to be convinced the Z film is the absolute definitive script and has not been modified by special effects.
Prove otherw8ise and we'll have a basis for discussion of that. You can start by telling us exactly what sort of special effects manipulation can actually be done on exposed 8mm film (with an area of image measuring only about 5 x 3 mm), how long this might take, and exactly when it was supposed to have occurred. Until then we have no basis for dismissing any assumption of authenticity for the Zapruder film.
What difference does it make what it was, it was not identified as evidence, was it Newman, was he under oath, what was the question and what was the full answer in context?
The back wound was located lower than the throat wound, so how could anyone duplicate an impossible shot?
But no, this is what we get. A refusal to state exactly what the conspiracist thinks happened. Cherry-picking evidence. (I'm the one who pointed you to McAdams)
Jason to be fair, if the evidence that I present must be restricted to an official legal source, then evidence you present must meet the same criteria.
My point is that you said you had no idea what it was, ergo you had no idea what the answers to those questions were, yet you still dismissed it out of hand.
Seriously, how can I begin to open your mind to alternate possibility if you are convinced the Warren Commission is an honest representation of history?
All evidence I provided was rejected.
The way I have chosen, is to show you what evidence is actually within the Warren Commission testimonies that is highly corroborated and is completely contrary to the Warren Commission findings.
If the Warren Commission report and significant evidence discrepancies cannot be successfully arbitrated, then I am suggesting to you that there is something wrong with the conclusions of the report and a reason for doubt.
So far I have not cherry picked any issue, I have taken the most significant issues I have found that are connected with only "The Big Event"
How can the most fundamental element in this case not be where the shots were fired from?
To that question, I viewed testimonies looking to see what the witnesses experienced that day concerning where they were, impression, shot number, sequence or rhythm and the direction of the shots. This data I have fairly reported to you.
If you choose to ignore this, you are also in effect ignoring findings discovered by the Warren Commission .
Jason you can say it all you want, it means nothing if the shots were not fired from the TSBD.
I will say this clearly again, and your personal disbelief is not a contrary argument: the shots HAVE been duplicated.
Jason you can say it all you want, it means nothing if the shots were not fired from the TSBD.
The evidence does not support this theory.
Jason you can say it all you want, it means nothing if the shots were not fired from the TSBD.
I will say this clearly again, and your personal disbelief is not a contrary argument: the shots HAVE been duplicated.
The evidence does not support this theory.
It came from On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald filmed in 1984. He says where he thought the shots came from starting at 3:35.Are you seriously proposing the inclusion of entertainment as official evidence?
Whenever a conspiracy theorist says he has such a preponderance of shots coming from the grassy knoll compared to the TSBD we know they are lying. Does your list include "honest" mistakes like reversing the direction Jarman stated?
It came from On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald filmed in 1984. He says where he thought the shots came from starting at 3:35.Are you seriously proposing the inclusion of entertainment as official evidence?
Testimonies given under oath is evidence.
Whenever a conspiracy theorist says he has such a preponderance of shots coming from the grassy knoll compared to the TSBD we know they are lying. Does your list include "honest" mistakes like reversing the direction Jarman stated?
Absolutley, I agree, thanks for the correction
Jarmin said below and left, not below and right.
Either way you loose.
What did they do next is the question?
But you have cherry-picked evidence, and what's worse, you have twisted it to support a grassy knoll gunman, like twisting Newman's and the men on the 5th floor testimony to make them support a grassy knoll gunman or refute a gunman on the 6th floor.
Jason you can
The City of Dallas tends to frown on shots being fired in the middle of downtown, for some reason. That's why they'll never replicate the shots of any murder which happened there. However, all the relevant circumstances were duplicated. As is stated on that website you keep quoting, complete with links. As I said, do you really think I don't know what's on it? Do you really think your cherry-picking from it isn't transparent?
So sorry what I meant this to mean was...
What does it matter if the shots can be duplicated if they where actually fired from the grassy knoll and not the TSBD.
You still have not proved to me how a downward angled shot can hit high on the middle back and come out from a higher position from the throat.
It was not entertainment. They did not use actors. All the witnesses were the actual witnesses to the event. It was not scripted. It was not rehearsed. It was presided over by a real practicing Federal judge. All the witnesses were sworn in.
Newman was in the Shaw trial, the point for Garrison bringing Newman in to testify was so he could support the location of the shots being fired from the grassy knoll. A little common sense please.
THEN - this is the best part, you will love this
Mr. BALL. After he made the statement that you mentioned, he thought it came from overhead, and you made some statement, did Jarman say anything?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think Jarman, he I think he moved before any of us. He moved towards us, and he said, "Man, somebody is shooting at the President." And I think I said again, "No bull shit." And then we all kind of got excited, you know, and, as I remember, I don't remember him saying that he thought the shots came from overhead. But we all decided we would run down to the west side of the building.
Mr. BALL. Did you notice where did you think the shots came from?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, the first shot-I really did not pay any attention to it, because I did not know what was happening. The second shot, it sounded like it was right in the building, the second and third shot. And it sounded-it even shook the building, the side we were on cement fell on my head.
Mr. BALL. You say cement fell on your head?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Cement, gravel, dirt, or something from the old building, because it shook the windows and everything. Harold was sitting next to me, and he said it came right from over our head. If you want to know my exact words, I could tell you.
Mr. BALL. Tell us.
Mr. WILLIAMS. My exact words were, "No bull shit." And we jumped up.
Mr. BALL. Norman said what?
Mr. WILLIAMS. He said it came directly over our heads. "I can even hear the shell being ejected from the gun hitting the floor." But I did not hear the shell being ejected from the gun, probably because I wasn't paying attention.
Mr. BALL. Norman said he could hear it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. He said he could hear it. He was directly under the window that Oswald shot from.
Mr. BALL. He was directly under. He told you as he got up from the window that he could hear the shells ejected from the gun?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; he did.
Mr. BALL. After he made the statement that you mentioned, he thought it came from overhead, and you made some statement, did Jarman say anything?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think Jarman, he I think he moved before any of us. He moved towards us, and he said, "Man, somebody is shooting at the President." And I think I said again, "No bull shit." And then we all kind of got excited, you know, and, as I remember, I don't remember him saying that he thought the shots came from overhead. But we all decided we would run down to the west side of the building.
Well maybe Jarmin and Williams didn't really believe Norman, what do you think?
It was not entertainment. They did not use actors. All the witnesses were the actual witnesses to the event. It was not scripted. It was not rehearsed. It was presided over by a real practicing Federal judge. All the witnesses were sworn in.
In what U.S. Court were the testimonies filed, so I may look them up?
Also since the witnesses could not be subpoenaed / exradition for a mock trial, why would they go to England on their own expense Or were they paid to be there?
How can you have a court case and a trial without Oswald, he's dead right?
Did Oswald choose his defense, wait hes dead!
That's right. It was a mock trial, remember?
Thats Entertainment not evidence.
...since you and others appear to be convinced the Z film is the absolute definitive script and has not been modified by special effects.Demonstrate that the Zapruder film has been modified by visual effects.
What does it matter if the shots can be duplicated if they where actually fired from the grassy knoll and not the TSBD.
You still have not proved to me how a downward angled shot can hit high on the middle back and come out from a higher position from the throat.
That's right. It was a mock trial, remember?
No, it's evidence. Their testimony was properly presented, challenged, and recorded by lawyers and a judge using the rules of a court.
No, it's evidence. Their testimony was properly presented, challenged, and recorded by lawyers and a judge using the rules of a court.
I respectfully disagree, so be forewarned that I reject any evidence presented that is outside of the WC FBI sheriff or Shaw Trial testimonies.
Demonstrate that the Zapruder film has been modified by visual effects.
Demonstrate that the Zapruder film has been modified by visual effects.
I might agree to accept the z-flm as is, if you could detail for me what facts can be derived from the z-film to support the WC findings?
I might agree to accept the z-flm as is...Your acceptance is not at issue. You have made a backdoor accusation that the Zapruder film has been tampered with. Substantiate that accusation.
Yep
Weren't you the one who was posting quotes from Mark Lane's book and videos?
Yep
Weren't you the one who was posting quotes from Mark Lane's book and videos?
And everything I posted was rejected, remember?
This forum demanded to play this game by restricting to the WC evidence, ok, I agreed, as long as we all have the same restrictions.
I am posting official WC evidence.
All evidence I provided was rejected.
And everything I posted was rejected, remember?It is mostly your interpretation of the evidence that is in question. You still haven't figured out the difference between evidence and testimony and your personal interpretations.
I disagree
JFK and Connally simultaneously reacting to getting shot starting at frame 224.
Maybe not.
It is mostly your interpretation of the evidence that is in question. You still haven't figured out the difference between evidence and testimony and your personal interpretations.
I really don't understand why conspiracy theorists try so hard to remove Lee Harvey Oswald from the story. Why is it not possible for there to be a conspiracy in which LHO is the lone shooter?
I disagree
JFK and Connally simultaneously reacting to getting shot starting at frame 224.
My opinion is JFK getting hit about Z-189 and Connally not effected by this shot.
Weitzan, graduated in engineering, flew in the air force, owned a sporting good stores and fairly familiar with rifles because he was "in the sporting goods business awhile"
Finds the assassins weapon
He identifies of the rifle declaring that it was a 7.65 Mauser, with a 2.5 Weaver scope.
The next day someone discovered that it was a 6.5 carcano with a cheap Japanese scope
testimony
"Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance."
At a glance it looked like an apple but it turned out to be a banana.
Jason to be fair, if the evidence that I present must be restricted to an official legal source, then evidence you present must meet the same criteria.
Yes, I dismissed it out of hand.
If I must present only that information discovered while a witness was under oath, you must do the same.
Jason you can say it all you want, it means nothing if the shots were not fired from the TSBD.
The evidence does not support this theory.
My opinion is JFK getting hit about Z-189 and Connally not effected by this shot.
He identifies of the rifle declaring that it was a 7.65 Mauser, with a 2.5 Weaver scope.
The next day someone discovered that it was a 6.5 carcano with a cheap Japanese scope
"Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance."
At a glance it looked like an apple but it turned out to be a banana.
Maybe not.
It is mostly your interpretation of the evidence that is in question. You still haven't figured out the difference between evidence and testimony and your personal interpretations.
Would you enlighten me?
I disagree
JFK and Connally simultaneously reacting to getting shot starting at frame 224.
My opinion is JFK getting hit about Z-189 and Connally not effected by this shot.
189??? So he gets shot then rests his arm on the car then 2 seconds later snaps both his arms up to his neck? That is beyond bizarre.
I wonder how anyone can just accept the story that Weitzman and all the other officers present could make such an error in identifying the rifle and also in identifying the scope.
You're straining integrity to the breaking point.
Jason to be fair, if the evidence that I present must be restricted to an official legal source, then evidence you present must meet the same criteria.
No. Physics cares not a jot for legal process. It does not matter where the shots were duplicated, or if they were part of a legal proceeding or not. If they can be duplicated then they can be duplicated. End of story.QuoteYes, I dismissed it out of hand.
If I must present only that information discovered while a witness was under oath, you must do the same.
And yet you still can't grasp the fact that i called you on your dismissal of it immediately after you wrote that you had no idea what it was you were dismissing. you did not know if it met those criteria.
That's your opinion.My opinion is JFK getting hit about Z-189 and Connally not effected by this shot.
Then please explain JFK's total lack of reaction to this shot. The first time anyone reacts to a shot is about 25 frames later.
Jason
Having read your clarification, this still stands. Your earlier argument for saying the shots were not fired from the TSBD was that it was impossible. The evidence of more than one experiment disproves that utterly. It has been demonstrated that two bullets fired from the TSBD sixth floor window CAN produce the pattern of wounds seen in JFK and Connally.
I wonder how anyone can just accept the story that Weitzman and all the other officers present could make such an error in identifying the rifle and also in identifying the scope.
You're straining integrity to the breaking point.
Mr. WEITZMAN - That is correct, Boone and I, and as he was looking over the rear section of the building, I would say the northwest corner, I was on the floor looking under the flat at the same time he was looking on the top side and we saw the gun, I would say, simultaneously and I said, "There it is" and he started hollering, "We got it." It was covered with boxes. It was well protected as far as the naked eye because I would venture to say eight or nine of us stumbled over that gun a couple times before we thoroughly searched the building.
Mr. BALL - Did you touch it?
Mr. WEITZMAN - No, sir; we made a man-tight barricade until the crime lab came up and removed the gun itself.
Mr. BALL - The crime lab from the Dallas Police Department?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Lieutenant Day and Captain Fritz?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I'm not sure what the lieutenant's name was, but I remember Captain Fritz.
Mr. BALL - Did you see Captain Fritz remove anything from the gun?
Mr. WEITZMAN - No, sir; I did not.
Mr. BALL - What did you do after that?
Mr. WEITZMAN - After that, I returned to my office and I was called down to the city that afternoon later to make a statement on what I had seen.
Mr. BALL - In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?
Mr. WEITZMAN - In a glance, that's what it looked like.
Carcano does not stamp their name on their rifle?
Weaver does not stamp their name on their scope?
That's your opinion.My opinion is JFK getting hit about Z-189 and Connally not effected by this shot.
Then please explain JFK's total lack of reaction to this shot. The first time anyone reacts to a shot is about 25 frames later.
Jason
Having read your clarification, this still stands. Your earlier argument for saying the shots were not fired from the TSBD was that it was impossible. The evidence of more than one experiment disproves that utterly. It has been demonstrated that two bullets fired from the TSBD sixth floor window CAN produce the pattern of wounds seen in JFK and Connally.
I have put forward data proving that there is a lack of witness testimony in support for any shots being fired from the TSBD.
This was no small mistake.He identifies of the rifle declaring that it was a 7.65 Mauser, with a 2.5 Weaver scope.
The next day someone discovered that it was a 6.5 carcano with a cheap Japanese scope
Since the two guns closely resemble one another and could easily be mistaken, that is hardly a serious anomaly.Quote"Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance."
At a glance it looked like an apple but it turned out to be a banana.
So you are assuming the scope that was not a Weaver did not bear sufficient resemblance to one to be mistaken for one? Where do you get that information from?
Please define or post "tons" of evidence of the shooter actually being on the 6th floor during the assassination.
No, you have ignored tons of evidence of a shooter being on the 6th floor of the TSBD, including three eyewitnesses who saw a shooter there.
Jason to be fair, if the evidence that I present must be restricted to an official legal source, then evidence you present must meet the same criteria.
No. Physics cares not a jot for legal process. It does not matter where the shots were duplicated, or if they were part of a legal proceeding or not. If they can be duplicated then they can be duplicated. End of story.QuoteYes, I dismissed it out of hand.
If I must present only that information discovered while a witness was under oath, you must do the same.
And yet you still can't grasp the fact that i called you on your dismissal of it immediately after you wrote that you had no idea what it was you were dismissing. you did not know if it met those criteria.
Lets stick to the facts.
That's your opinion.My opinion is JFK getting hit about Z-189 and Connally not effected by this shot.
Then please explain JFK's total lack of reaction to this shot. The first time anyone reacts to a shot is about 25 frames later.
Jason
I have put forward data proving that there is a lack of witness testimony in support for any shots being fired from the TSBD.
This was no small mistake.
I would have expected the Warren Commission would have demanded adequate testimony and evidence to determine exactly how this mistake could have been made, then perpetrated and then how was the identification properly made, who was the genius that actually LOOKED at the rifle and scope and made a positive identification and how did he do it when no one else seemed to be able to do so and why did it take almost a day to determine this? No one present wondered how a 6.5 cartridge would work in a 7.65 Mauser?
Weitzman's excuse of having just glanced at the weapon and scope was sufficient for the Warren Commission to answer all of these questions.
In my opinion he is saying that if he had not just glanced at this scope, that he would have realized it could not have possibly been a Weaver scope, it didn't look anything like a Weaver scope. He is saying that a person familiar with rifle scopes would not say that these scopes could be mistaken one for the other.
Please define or post "tons" of evidence of the shooter actually being on the 6th floor during the assassination.
No, you have ignored tons of evidence of a shooter being on the 6th floor of the TSBD, including three eyewitnesses who saw a shooter there.
Post the names of the eyewitnesses who saw a shooter there, please.
Looked like an apple and turned out to be a banana? Come on, the two weapons and scopes are not that different, especially at just a glance. It's more like it he thought it looked like a macintosh and it turned out to be courtland.This was no small mistake.He identifies of the rifle declaring that it was a 7.65 Mauser, with a 2.5 Weaver scope.
The next day someone discovered that it was a 6.5 carcano with a cheap Japanese scope
Since the two guns closely resemble one another and could easily be mistaken, that is hardly a serious anomaly.Quote"Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance."
At a glance it looked like an apple but it turned out to be a banana.
So you are assuming the scope that was not a Weaver did not bear sufficient resemblance to one to be mistaken for one? Where do you get that information from?
I would have expected the Warren Commission would have demanded adequate testimony and evidence to determine exactly how this mistake could have been made, then perpetrated and then how was the identification properly made, who was the genius that actually LOOKED at the rifle and scope and made a positive identification and how did he do it when no one else seemed to be able to do so and why did it take almost a day to determine this? No one present wondered how a 6.5 cartridge would work in a 7.65 Mauser?
Weitzman's excuse of having just glanced at the weapon and scope was sufficient for the Warren Commission to answer all of these questions.
Weitzman's excuse seems to have been adequate for WC, I am telling you, for me, it does not begin to answer any questions concerning the identification of this weapon, scope or cartridges. Hence leaves the door open to doubt as to what weapon, scope and cartridges were actually found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
I get that information from Weitzman
"Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance."
In my opinion he is saying that if he had not just glanced at this scope, that he would have realized it could not have possibly been a Weaver scope, it didn't look anything like a Weaver scope. He is saying that a person familiar with rifle scopes would not say that these scopes could be mistaken one for the other.
Note: there is a conflict within his statement, did he look at it or did he glance at it to make his identification?
...for me, it does not begin to answer any questions concerning the identification of this weapon, scope or cartridges.Detail for us the obvious physical differences between the weapons, scopes and ammunition in question.
Answer these two quesions, please
I was wrong even though I was right, so what ? I was still right.
I am. It is a FACT that you said you had no idea what he posted and that it was not evidence. Those two statements are contradictory, no matter how much you try and gloss over what you said.
The issue is that you expect a lot more than there is, but for reasons already explained the inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected gievn the layout of the plaza.Who told you this?
The issue is that you expect a lot more than there is, but for reasons already explained the inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected gievn the layout of the plaza.Who told you this?
What does it mean?
You're not taking the slightest bit of notice of anything anyone says here, are you? The two rifles look very similar, and Weitzman has said he did not undertake a detailed investigation of the rifle. Inly a total idiot find a snipers nest and assassination weapon at the scene of a crime and then goes in and disturbs it before bringing in the proper authorities. Weitzman did not examine the rifle up close. He made a simple mistake, and it is a small mistake.You have these answers then?
Inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected given the layout of the plaza.
Maybe the fact that you don't understand what it means is a sign that you're not quite up to the task of "investigating" the JFK assassination.
Inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected gievn the layout of the plaza.
Please define what localize means?
Were there many witnesses that said they had difficulty determining the direction of the shots?Inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected gievn the layout of the plaza.
Please define what localize means?
It means determining the location of a gunman based on the sound of the gun. It's easy to be confused by the echos coming from nearby buildings... which is why people might have thought the gunman was in one location (such as the grassy knoll) when he was really in a different location (like the Schoolbook Depository).
The echoes are also why witnesses might have thought there were more shots fired than there actually were, or that there was more than one gunman.
This is why witness testimony doesn't carry more weight than things like the film footage or the other evidence.
Were there many witnesses that said they had difficulty determining the direction of the shots?Inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected gievn the layout of the plaza.
Please define what localize means?
It means determining the location of a gunman based on the sound of the gun. It's easy to be confused by the echos coming from nearby buildings... which is why people might have thought the gunman was in one location (such as the grassy knoll) when he was really in a different location (like the Schoolbook Depository).
The echoes are also why witnesses might have thought there were more shots fired than there actually were, or that there was more than one gunman.
This is why witness testimony doesn't carry more weight than things like the film footage or the other evidence.
Please post them
So no witness complained that they had difficulty in determining the direction of the rifle reports?
They likely didn't realize that they misjudged the location of the gunman. That is what you don't seem to understand... a witness can be 100% certain that they know where a gunshot came from and not realize that they were basing that judgment on an echo.
So no witness complained that they had difficulty in determining the direction of the rifle reports?
They likely didn't realize that they misjudged the location of the gunman. That is what you don't seem to understand... a witness can be 100% certain that they know where a gunshot came from and not realize that they were basing that judgment on an echo.
Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?
Which witnesses thought there were more or less then 3 shots?
The echoes are also why witnesses might have thought there were more shots fired than there actually were, or that there was more than one gunman.
It's a simple, straight forward question.
Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?
How about you actually read what I said. If they believed they knew where the shot came from why would they complain about such difficulty? Are you really this dense, or are you just being a troll?
Does it carry less?
This is why witness testimony doesn't carry more weight than things like the film footage or the other evidence.
Answer these two quesions, please
1) Have you read Reclaiming History- The Assassination Of JFK by Vincent Bugliosi ?
2) Do you believe what he wrote ?
I was wrong even though I was right, so what ? I was still right.
You have these answers then?
Please share them with me
Was Weitzman the only person allowed to examine this weapon?
Exactly how this mistake could have been made?
Why did the Dallas Police department release information to the News Media concerning the rifle being a 7.65 Mauser before making sure the identification was certifiably correct.
How was the identification of the rifle properly made?
How was the identification of the scope properly made?
Why did it take till the following day to identify it properly?
Who made the identification of the rifle?
Who made the identification of the scope?
Were is there additional testimony that explains these issues?
If Weitzman was incompetent why was he allowed to identify the rifle and the scope?
It's a simple, straight forward question.
Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?
Thank you for your answers.Answer these two quesions, please
1) Have you read Reclaiming History- The Assassination Of JFK by Vincent Bugliosi ?
2) Do you believe what he wrote ?
No, I have not read it, therefore question 2 is unanswerable.
I am not trawling through endless piles of documents and evidence here. I am taking issue only with your interpretations and attitudes.
Have you read the Warren Commission testimonies?
No, I am not being a troll.
How about you actually read what I said. If they believed they knew where the shot came from why would they complain about such difficulty? Are you really this dense, or are you just being a troll?
The question is, how do you know the witnesses had a problem determining the direction of the shots?
No,
Jason, advice concerning JFK assassination, it comes from Vincent Bugliosi in "Reclaiming History - The Assassination Of JFK"
Vincent Bugliosi said -
If you have not read the Warren Commision 26 volumes, you do not know what happened.
This advice is absolutly true.
To anyone, the sound of a distant gunshot echoing from a building sounds the same as a distant gunshot arriving directly. It will sound as if it comes from the building, though it may have come from somewhere else.Please provide evidence that these concepts applies to Dealey Plaza.
Are you seriously trying to tell us you have never expereinced this in your own everyday life?
Please provide evidence that these concepts applies to Dealey Plaza.
Which witnesses said echos were a problem in determining direction of the shots in Dealey Plaza?
I will say this in plain English, prof: I am NOT arguing the evidence, I am arguing your interpretation of it. That does not require reading the testimony itself. I am only examining your interpretations, hypotheses and in some cases outright twisting of the terms used.Jason I could not have said this better "I am NOT arguing the evidence", I agree your not.
No, I am absolutely serious.Please provide evidence that these concepts applies to Dealey Plaza.
You are joking, right? This is physics. It applies everywhere. Sounds reverberate off large flat surfaces, such as the fronts of buildings. The behaviour of sound is universal at any given location on this planet.
I repeat: how could different witnesses report hearing the same number of shots from different locations without this simple echo effect?
All I have tried to do is to get you to understand that the myths you think you know are unfounded, that if you do not examine the actual evidence, you are arguing about shadows.
"outright twisting of the terms used" - I am disturbed that you think that I am in some way being untruthful or deceptive, I will try to be more clear in what I post so that this impression is not perpetuated, my apologies.
No, I am absolutely serious.
Was echos a concern for the Warren Commission in interpreting the evidence from testimonies of witnesses concerning direction of shots?
If there were discrepancies, did the Warren Commission do any scientific studies on the effects of echos in Dealey Plaza to explain discrepancies of witness testimony?
The question is, how do you know the witnesses had a problem determining the direction of the shots?
It's a simple, straight forward question.
Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?
How about you actually read what I said. If they believed they knew where the shot came from why would they complain about such difficulty? Are you really this dense, or are you just being a troll?
Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?
No, I am not being a troll.
I am attempting to get you to understand that you are trying to apply a concept of what you believe happend in a situation, where you have no evidence that it applies.
The question is, how do you know the witnesses had a problem determining the direction of the shots?
Did your read "Reclaiming History - The Assassination Of JFK" by Vincent Bugliosi ?
Do you believe Vincent Bugliosi ?
Just an example of my humor :DI was wrong even though I was right, so what ? I was still right.
Anything to avoid owning up to your own mistakes, eh prof?
Of course you have no idea, no one knows for sure because it was never explained.
I have no idea.
However, it is your interpretation that the first identification was correct. Further by stating "Dallas Police discovered " you are implying that determination was made after some sort of official examination. Why is this interpretation preferred to the alternative of a mistaken identification of one individual?Of course you have no idea, no one knows for sure because it was never explained.
I have no idea.
Because the WC never attempted to ascertain why this happened.
They accepted, sorry I made a mistake as all the evidence they wanted.
This was the greatest single investigation of an event in history, yet the WC negelected to explain how this misidentification happened.
Fact - Dallas Police discovered and identified a 7.65 Mauser with a Weaver scope on the 6th floor TSBD.
Fact - Re-identification changed to a 6.5 Carcano and cheap Japanese scope.
What rifle / scope was discovered?
There is no way to know for sure and if you guess it was a Carcano, you may be correct or you may be wrong. This is not, knowing, this is a belief, please try to understand this.
This is a crack in the wall.
No, I am not. You can't dismiss me that easily, I'm afraid. If you can't respond to questions regarding things like physics, basic posture and the possibiity of simple errors then the problem lies with you, not me.Jason how can I agree with the concept that witnesses had a problem determining where the sound of the shots originated from when virtually all the witnesses that reported a direction said they came from the grassy knoll area and this is irrespective as to what location they were at, in Dealey Plaza, including witnesses inside the TSBD and directly in front of the TSBD.
No, I am not. You can't dismiss me that easily, I'm afraid. If you can't respond to questions regarding things like physics, basic posture and the possibiity of simple errors then the problem lies with you, not me.Jason how can I agree with the concept that witnesses had a problem determining where the sound of the shots originated from when virtually all the witnesses that reported a direction said they came from the grassy knoll area
I know the witnesses had difficulty in determining the source of the gunshots (based on the sound alone) because all humans would have such difficulty. Besides, if there was no confusion all of the witnesses would agree with each other. The fact that some witnesses say the shots came from the Schoolbook Depository and other witnesses say the grassy knoll suggests that there was some confusion.Did you mean to say that you believe the witnesses had difficulty in determining the source of the gunshots?
And in fact, there were some "earwitnesses" who were unsure where the sound came from. It is also true that, while the vast majority of them heard three shots, far more heard fewer than three shots than heard more than three shots, usually because they simply didn't realize the first sound they heard was a shot and it took until other people reacted before they were aware what was going on.The vast majority of witnesses agreed on the direction of the reports, see my earlier post for data.
Because the WC never attempted to ascertain why this happened.
They accepted, sorry I made a mistake as all the evidence they wanted.
This was the greatest single investigation of an event in history, yet the WC negelected to explain how this misidentification happened.
Fact - Dallas Police discovered and identified a 7.65 Mauser with a Weaver scope on the 6th floor TSBD.
Fact - Re-identification changed to a 6.5 Carcano and cheap Japanese scope.
This is not, knowing, this is a belief, please try to understand this.
Jason how can I agree with the concept that witnesses had a problem determining where the sound of the shots originated from when virtually all the witnesses that reported a direction said they came from the grassy knoll area and this is irrespective as to what location they were at, in Dealey Plaza, including witnesses inside the TSBD and directly in front of the TSBD.
However, it is your interpretation that the first identification was correct. Further by stating "Dallas Police discovered " you are implying that determination was made after some sort of official examination. Why is this interpretation preferred to the alternative of a mistaken identification of one individual?Can we get real?
Jason how can I agree with the concept that witnesses had a problem determining where the sound of the shots originated from when virtually all the witnesses that reported a direction said they came from the grassy knoll area
Firstly, your assertion that 'virtually all' identified the knoll as the source of the sounds is wrong. Secondly, yes, that is exactly the sort of thing that can happen when trying to localise a sound. Acoustics is a complicated science, and simply does not conform to your layman's expectations of what you should be able to hear from where.Where is the testimony detailing particular potential problems in detecting the source of reports within Dealey Plaza?
Your arrogance is funny.
Firstly, your assertion that 'virtually all' identified the knoll as the source of the sounds is wrong. Secondly, yes, that is exactly the sort of thing that can happen when trying to localise a sound. Acoustics is a complicated science, and simply does not conform to your layman's expectations of what you should be able to hear from where.
Wow. It's like arguing with an idiot. And I mean that in the archaic sense of someone with an IQ below 25.Ya exactly, I know the feeling
Wow. It's like arguing with an idiot. And I mean that in the archaic sense of someone with an IQ below 25.Ya exactly, I know the feeling
Why is your interpretation of events better than that done by the professional investigators who have accepted the statement as a ms-identification.However, it is your interpretation that the first identification was correct. Further by stating "Dallas Police discovered " you are implying that determination was made after some sort of official examination. Why is this interpretation preferred to the alternative of a mistaken identification of one individual?Can we get real?
Police find a high powered rifle they believed was the murder weapon of a sitting president of the United States.
Weitzman examined and identified the rifle and the scope, how does Weitzman identify a rifle and not read the make and model stamped on the gun? How does Weitzman not read Weaver make and model stamped on the scope?
To propose Weitzman was the only man to look at the gun is preposterous, when the rifle was submitted into evidence a second person had to verify that the evidence submitted was what it was supposed to be. The foolish argument that these guns look similar backfires here because it would be all the more reason for second person to check for the manufactures stamps and serial numbers.
Then a third person examines the rifle for finger prints and fails to read the make and model stamped on the gun and on the scope.
Something this important and you are going to believe Weitzman just glanced at it and guessed it was a Mauser with a Weaver scope then recorded it in a sworn affidavit then submitted it into evidence where identification was not confirmed and the mistaken identity still not uncovered during examination for finger prints ?
Defies logic.
Apparently profmunkin thinks it's first come, first serve in the field of firearms identification.His interpretation must be backed up by reference to someone with an extensive knowledge of Dallas police procedures in effect at the time, surely. I await the posting of his sources. Now where is that smiley for turning blue in the face.
According to Bugliosi, Deputy Sheriff Boone and Deputy Constable Weitzman stated they only saw it at a glance and did not touch it. Weitzman was formerly in the sporting goods business and apparently familial with the Mauser. In fact the Carcano was in a class of rifles know as "Mauser Action" rifles because it uses the same bolt action. Weitzman, himself, has stated that he has no doubts that the Carcano is the same rifle he saw. Weitzman was not part of Dallas PD so your earlier stated that "Dallas Police discovered and identified a 7.65 Mauser with a Weaver scope on the 6th floor TSBD," is in error about everything it says and implies.
According to Bugliosi, Deputy Sheriff Boone and Deputy Constable Weitzman stated they only saw it at a glance and did not touch it. Weitzman was formerly in the sporting goods business and apparently familial with the Mauser. In fact the Carcano was in a class of rifles know as "Mauser Action" rifles because it uses the same bolt action. Weitzman, himself, has stated that he has no doubts that the Carcano is the same rifle he saw. Weitzman was not part of Dallas PD so your earlier stated that "Dallas Police discovered and identified a 7.65 Mauser with a Weaver scope on the 6th floor TSBD," is in error about everything it says and implies.
Dah, No one touched it except Fritz.
Yes you are correct Weitzman was Deputy Constable, I knew that but carelessly included him in "Dallas Police", a painful error, so sorry.
Which is another reason to question why the Dallas Police did not do an identification on the rifle and the scope themselves.
Why would the Dallas Police accept the word of a Deputy Constable to identify the rifle and except it into evidence?
Apparently profmunkin thinks it's first come, first serve in the field of firearms identification.I don't know what you mean to say?
Captain Fritz operated the bolt and ejected a live round.
Weitzman left the TSBD and filed an affidavit of what he did and saw. That is all Weitzman did!
They didn't! Jesus Fucking Christ you're stupid!
Why would the Dallas Police accept the word of a Deputy Constable to identify the rifle and except it into evidence? Why would the Dallas Police accept the word of a Deputy Constable to identify the rifle and except it into evidence?
Apparently profmunkin thinks it's first come, first serve in the field of firearms identification.Are you implying that it was not possible for Deputy Constable Weitzman or Dallas Police to read 7.65 Mauser on the barrel or Weaver on the scope. Please explain.
Captain Fritz operated the bolt and ejected a live round.
]Where is the Mauser stamped and what do you suppose the Dallas Police thought of Argentino 1909 stamp.
For god's sake, Weitzman did not examine the rifle. He saw stuffed between two rows of boxes. Secondly the caliber stamp on the rifle was obscured by the scope, and only visible by close examination.
I know the witnesses had difficulty in determining the source of the gunshots (based on the sound alone) because all humans would have such difficulty. Besides, if there was no confusion all of the witnesses would agree with each other. The fact that some witnesses say the shots came from the Schoolbook Depository and other witnesses say the grassy knoll suggests that there was some confusion.Did you mean to say that you believe the witnesses had difficulty in determining the source of the gunshots?
A witness a few feet away from the sniper and between the sniper and the limo could not tell if the shot was from behind or in front of them?
"Oswald" Rifle found without a clip?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid6.htm
"1985 book Reasonable Doubt, Henry Hurt intones:
Without a clip, the cartridges must be hand-loaded, one by one, making rapid shooting flatly impossible.
There is not a shred of positive evidence that such a clip was found with the Mannlicher-Carcano in the sniper's nest. (p. 103) "
After the last shell is ejected on a Carcano doesn't the clip fall out?
And I'm sorry, but that's a cite from the McAdams site, which makes it quite clear that Henry Hurt is wrong, a fact never acknowledged.
After the last shell is ejected on a Carcano doesn't the clip fall out?No, it falls out after the last round is stripped off of it by the bolt and loaded into the chamber (I own one).
Where is the testimony detailing particular potential problems in detecting the source of reports within Dealey Plaza?
If there isn't any, it was not an issue.
WC ran multiple reenactments in Dealey Plaza, if witness testimonies for acoustics was a problem the WC could have determined the nature and magnitide of the problems during the reenactments, where is the data?
The WC never challenged the FACT that witnesses thoroughly corroborated that the report...report.report came from the grassy knoll they just ignored the FACT.
You can talk about acoustics and physics and theories and science till your blue in the face, but until you can provide evidence that acoustics significantly effected the witnesses to determine the source of the reports, withdraw the arguement.
You made me giggle, I can just see all of the Dallas police running the wrong way because they could not detect the direction of report...report.report.
At least we can marvel at them for all running in the same direction.
What part of "Weitzman did not examine the rifle" do you not understand?]Where is the Mauser stamped and what do you suppose the Dallas Police thought of Argentino 1909 stamp.
For god's sake, Weitzman did not examine the rifle. He saw stuffed between two rows of boxes. Secondly the caliber stamp on the rifle was obscured by the scope, and only visible by close examination.
They both end in an o
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you form any opinion about the direction from which the shots came by the sound, or were you just upset by the thing you had seen?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. No, there was too much reverberation. There was an echo which gave me a sound all over. In other words that square is kind of--it had a sound all over.
Mr. STERN - Just a minute. Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the source of the shots?
Mr. HARGIS - Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from
No, it falls out after the last round is stripped off of it by the bolt and loaded into the chamber (I own one).I would like to understand this.
The Carcano ciip is intended to falll out after the last round is fed into the chamber. But if the clip is bent, very dirty, rifle held sideways or other issues exist, then the clip stays in the rifle.what is this protruding from the bottom of this rifle, is it the clip or the magazine?
What part of "Weitzman did not examine the rifle" do you not understand?I can say the same:
Wow. You can't even keep your own claims straight. Was there a clip or not?
Why should we take you seriously?
That's also the site which lists exactly where all those witnesses stated they believed the shots to come from, which, yes, shows that you're wrong that "virtually all" of the witnesses believed the shots came from the Grassy Knoll.If you read my posts, I said that I am reading the testimonies of witnesses, starting with all of them listed as witnesses to the assassination,
What part of "Weitzman signed an affidavit swearing it was a 7.65 Mauser" do you not get?
Weitzman just glanced at the murder weapon of a sitting president, guessed at the identificaton of the rifle and the identificaton scope then testified to these FACTS in an affidavit to be FACTS.
Why did the Dallas Police announce to the news media that it was a 7.65 Mauser?
Why did the Dallas Police not make a correction till the next day?
Why don't you start reading WC testimonies yourself and quit relying on other people to tell you what you should think?
The Carcano ciip is intended to falll out after the last round is fed into the chamber. But if the clip is bent, very dirty, rifle held sideways or other issues exist, then the clip stays in the rifle.I've never had one fail to fall out, but I certainly can see how it could happen. I'll also have to admit I'm not sure what we are seeing in the McAdams photo of Day carrying out the rifle. If it is the clip, it must have slid part way out and stuck. Since Day's note doesn't say where he found the clip, it's possible McAdams may simply be mistaken about the photo.
I own a Carcano with a 4x scope on it. It is a real piece of crap as the barrel is black and pitted but the bolt cycles smoothly. I am an experienced shooter, but I cannot say I was as good a marksman as Oswald was as he was a Marine. It is a simple matter to pull the trigger three times cycle the bolt twice in six seconds and put each bullet into a man sized target at 80 yards even with my crappy rifle. The fact that the limo was moving slowly away at a small angle only made the feat a bit harder.
Ranb
Why don't you stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you hasn't actually done the research themselves already? .Because it makes the difference, if you read the WC, Shaw and HSC you will know what happened, what didn't happen.
Because it makes the difference, if you read the WC, Shaw and HSC you will know what happened, what didn't happen.
I am not here to argue with you, I am doing this to clarify my thinking on this subject and to bounce facts at you guys in the hope one of you may start to question what you believe you know.
Don't believe me, you have to find out for yourself, check out what I am saying.
Why in the world do you think Warren said we may never really know the truth.
Wake up, don't sleep the rest of your life away.
I would like to study more WC testimonies...Hey, I think you're finally on to something.
Profmunkin, you have two choices as of this moment. Explain, in precise detail and with supporting citations, exactly what you think happened or inaugurate my ignore list. I'm tired of playing games with you. You quibble and bicker and cherry-pick evidence and refused to be pinned down on details. I've had enough of that, because the very first question I asked you in this thread was intended to prevent it from happening. I asked you then if you were capable of learning, and you assured me you were. Very rude of you to lie to me.
This forum so far has been incapable of examining the evidence provided, then forming opinions based on this evidence.
gillianren as I have explained, it would be folly to propose an alternate story if the set of evidences your believing is true blocks your perception to what I might propose.
cherry-pick evidence? - so far the evidence I have been presenting has strictly been taken from WC and has centered on witness corroboration for few specific issues. How can you miss true this to mean cherry-picking?
It is interesting to me that you guys argued against everything I prestented from researchers on the assassination because it wasn't from the Warren Commission
This is a science forum, but no one thinks in terms of examining the data.
I do not lie, I do make mistakes, believe as you will.
Hey, I think you're finally on to something.No.
Why not go all the way and study all of the Warren Commission testimony before you formulate such definite conclusions? Wouldn't that be more productive than randomly leafing around for a few cherry-picked witnesses that you can quote selectively and out of context to support your predetermined conclusion?
The fact that all of the witnesses didn't point to one location as the source of the gunshots, and the fact that one of the locations that they pointed to couldn't possibly have been the source of the shots, means that at least some of the witnesses identified the wrong location as the source of the shots. In other words, they were confused by the echoes.Not only were they confused by the echoes in Dealy Plaza, most of the earwitnesses were unfamiliar with the sounds of rifle fire. Many first thought a motorcycle had backfired or even that some kids had tossed firecrackers into the street. Only experienced hunters like Governor Connally and Officer Baker immediately recognized the shots for what they were.
I'm sure the witnesses closest to the assassin would have had the best chance of identifying the source of the gunshots.Indeed. In that category we have Oswald's coworkers on the floor below him, who even heard the ejected shells hitting the floor. And we also have Howard Brennan across the street who actually saw Oswald firing the shots. Isn't it curious how the conspiracists invariably ignore or dismiss these witnesses, relying instead on a few hand-picked distant earwitnesses who were confused by the physics and the acoustics into giving the direction the conspiracist prefers?
Not all the jigsaw pieces are going to fit. .This is not a jigsaw, this is life,
what is this protruding from the bottom of this rifle, is it the clip or the magazine?
and if it is the magazine, by comparing photos, this does not appear to be the magazine design I have seen on other photos of the Carcano.
What is going on in this photo?
Does the clip fall out the bottom of the rifle or ejected out the top when the last shell is ejected?
what is this protruding from the bottom of this rifle, is it the clip or the magazine?
Does the clip fall out the bottom of the rifle or ejected out the top when the last shell is ejected?
What part of "Weitzman did not examine the rifle" do you not understand?I can say the same:
What part of "Weitzman signed an affidavit swearing it was a 7.65 Mauser" do you not get?
Weitzman just glanced at the murder weapon of a sitting president, guessed at the identificaton of the rifle and the identificaton scope then testified to these FACTS in an affidavit to be FACTS.
Why did the Dallas Police announce to the news media that it was a 7.65 Mauser?
Why did the Dallas Police not make a correction till the next day?
ETA-Apparently Day removed it later that day at the DPD crime lab (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/firearms_hsca.htm), so it must have stuck.
Why don't you start reading WC testimonies yourself and quit relying on other people to tell you what you should think?
Not all the jigsaw pieces are going to fit. .This is not a jigsaw, this is life,
YES...everything fits, when you see the right way.
This forum so far has been incapable of examining the evidence provided, then forming opinions based on this evidence. gillianren as I have explained, it would be folly to propose an alternate story if the set of evidences your believing is true blocks your perception to what I might propose.
I think that a clip is very unlikely to stick out part way. A well lubricated rifle or one that is completely dry will eject a clip that is not bent out of shape. A magazine with lots of grease in it will make a clip stay in, but if a clip starts moving out, then it will most likely keep going. As far as I know there was not lots of grease in the rifle magazine nor was the clip bent out of shape.Yes makes sense.
Ranb
The closer one gets to the truth the more things begin to connect and make sense.
Yes... puzzle pieces always fit if you force them to.
Here are some questions that you need to answer:With a different focus on the evidence it is done.
1) How can someone standing in front of JFK and Governor Connally shoot them in the back?
2) Why would the conspirators use multiple assassins if they want people to believe there was only one? Why position assassins in any position besides the one they want their patsy to be caught in? If the trajectories of the bullets lead investigators anywhere besides that one position then the conspiracy would be discovered.There was only 1 shooter
3) Why would the conspirators plant any make of rifle besides the same one their patsy used?I have not put any attention on this yet
4) Why would the conspirators plant pristine bullets? Or any bullets at all? What do they accomplish by planting the bullets? Aren't the wounds proof enough that the victims were shot?QuoteThe bullet ballistics result in a perfect match to "Oswald's" rifle. Perfect frame up.
The wounds are proof they were shot, yes.
There was only 1 shooter
But if the evidence of the trajectories can be controlled, you can also control the position of the assassin.
Quote3) Why would the conspirators plant any make of rifle besides the same one their patsy used?I have not put any attention on this yet
The closer one gets to the truth the more things begin to connect and make sense.
Yes... puzzle pieces always fit if you force them to.
Quote1) How can someone standing in front of JFK and Governor Connally shoot them in the back?With a different focus on the evidence it is done.
Quote2) Why would the conspirators use multiple assassins if they want people to believe there was only one? Why position assassins in any position besides the one they want their patsy to be caught in? If the trajectories of the bullets lead investigators anywhere besides that one position then the conspiracy would be discovered.There was only 1 shooter
But if the evidence of the trajectories can be controlled, you can also control the position of the assassin.
Quote3) Why would the conspirators plant any make of rifle besides the same one their patsy used?I have not put any attention on this yet
Quote4) Why would the conspirators plant pristine bullets? Or any bullets at all? What do they accomplish by planting the bullets? Aren't the wounds proof enough that the victims were shot?The bullet ballistics result in a perfect match to "Oswald's" rifle. Perfect frame up.
The wounds are proof they were shot, yes.
I have been posting testimony, data and questions
Insulting members of this forum will get you banned quicker than anything else you can do.
It raises the question how the clip was be loaded if it was bent.One of my clips had the lips bent out, this made it wider so that it was a bit sticky in the magazine. I am not aware of any evidence that the clip Oswald used was damaged in any way at all nor have I ever heard of any issues about the clip. The clip can be properly inserted into the magazine with any number of cartridges inserted into it.
Is there any evidence that the clip was bent or rusted?
Did anyone mention any problems of removing the clip?
Is it true that the clip must contain 6 rounds to load or is this a myth?
Forum has replied with hearsay, excuses and compliance to conformity.
I have been posting testimony, data and questions
Forum has replied with hearsay, excuses and compliance to conformity.
If this gets me banned, so be it.
Forum has replied with hearsay, excuses and compliance to conformity.
Conformity, huh? Has it ever occurred to you that I, and I'm assuming a lot of the members on this forum, used to believe the assassination was a conspiracy?
Partial answer. But why pristine bullets? Are the conspirators total morons?
Heck, I'm still willing to entertain the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald was encouraged or assisted. There's just no evidence to support that. And I don't see any scenario in which Oswald was not involved at all in the assassination.
It would be out of keeping with what I've learned about Lee's character, but it's possible he could have been nudged into doing it. It might have been easy to taunt him into doing it--"you think you're so tough" and all that. But again, I've never seen any persuasive evidenceAgreed. I used to consider it possible that the Cubans somehow prompted or encouraged Oswald to kill JFK, perhaps unintentionally, during his visit to their consulate in Mexico City. Maybe they said something like "So you want to be a hero of our Revolution, huh? Go take care of that warmonger JFK and then we'll talk", never dreaming that Oswald could or would actually do it.
I have been posting testimony, data and questions
Forum has replied with hearsay, excuses and compliance to conformity.
I have been posting testimony, data and questions
Insulting members of this forum will get you banned quicker than anything else you can do.
Forum has replied with hearsay, excuses and compliance to conformity.
If this gets me banned, so be it.
Do we know it was empty? On the video posted in this thread the clip contains six rounds. Assuming Oswald had a full clip, he fired three bullets, and a fourth was ejected when the rifle was discovered. That still leaves two bullets in the clip, doesn't it?I may be wrong, but from what I read, Oswald was so unprepared to use his rifle that he only had 4 cartridges left when he got ready to kill JFK. While it is hard for me to load a less than full Garand clip in a rifle, it is easy to load any number of 1 to 6 cartridges into the Carcano.
Yes, I agree; it's easier if it's full but not really hard if it isn't.Do we know it was empty? On the video posted in this thread the clip contains six rounds. Assuming Oswald had a full clip, he fired three bullets, and a fourth was ejected when the rifle was discovered. That still leaves two bullets in the clip, doesn't it?I may be wrong, but from what I read, Oswald was so unprepared to use his rifle that he only had 4 cartridges left when he got ready to kill JFK. While it is hard for me to load a less than full Garand clip in a rifle, it is easy to load any number of 1 to 6 cartridges into the Carcano.
Ranb
Forum has replied with hearsay, excuses and compliance to conformity.
In addition, excusing your own rudeness using a straw man characterization to criticize your opponents is chicken. You simply owe gillianren an apology. That is really all that is required.
One other question that occurs: how does the use of a clip that is not full affect its ejection?
2. I have never heard any Carcano owner complain about their rifle being jam prone. It is based on the Mauser action which is very reliable as most bolt action rifles are. The clip typically does an excellent job of lining up the next cartridge to feed into the chamber. But if the clip is bent, the cartridge may misfeed.
LT Day says he removed the clip while processing the rifle.
I mentioned this in post 652 :)
LT Day says he removed the clip while processing the rifle.
I have read that Captain Fritz emptied the rifle by opening the bolt and ejecting a live cartridge. Assuming that Oswald loaded the fourth load after firing the third, the clip should have been under the window in the room he was firing from. I have never read anything about finding an empty clip.My Carcano has never given me a problem. The only thing I really dislike is the safety is a bear to engage and disengage, but I don't know if that's a common complaint.
1. It is possible that this was done. But what I have read is that Fritz ejected one live round from the chamber, so this means the clip should have not been in the magazine at the time they found the rifle.
2. I have never heard any Carcano owner complain about their rifle being jam prone. It is based on the Mauser action which is very reliable as most bolt action rifles are. The clip typically does an excellent job of lining up the next cartridge to feed into the chamber. But if the clip is bent, the cartridge may misfeed.
3. Who knows, it is possible.
Ranb
Here you go:Myth#1 stiff bolt, check out the video, bolt sticks on third cartridge.
Here you go:Myth#1 stiff bolt, check out the video, bolt sticks on third cartridge.
Myth#2 can't fire faster than 1.8 sec, not important unless your speed shooting. It is fire, recycle, aim then fire, recycle, aim then fire, all the time firing at a crossing, dropping, receding target.
Myth#3 Inaccurate, no no no, it was the scope that was not accurate per WC expert.
Myth#4 Could not fit rifle into bag, no again, it was that an unassembled rifle could not fit between Oswald's palm and his armpit.
Myth#5 who cares
By what? 4 inches at 75 yards?"Mr. LUTZ. The accuracy is fairly undependable, as far as once getting the rifle sighted in and it is very cheaply made, the scope itself has a crosshair reticle that is subject to movement or being capable of being dislodged from dropping, from impact, or a very sharp recoil. So the accuracy would be somewhat questionable for this particular type of a scope."
You do, because it is part of the timing problem of getting Oswald from the first floor at the start of lunch to the sixth floor in time to assemble the rifle.
Myth#4 Could not fit rifle into bag, no again, it was that an unassembled rifle could not fit between Oswald's palm and his armpit.Sound like Frazier remembered exactly how Oswald was carring the "curtain rods".
Frazier said he wasn't sure how Oswald was caring it. He said he didn't pay attention.
By what? 4 inches at 75 yards?"Mr. LUTZ. The accuracy is fairly undependable, as far as once getting the rifle sighted in and it is very cheaply made, the scope itself has a crosshair reticle that is subject to movement or being capable of being dislodged from dropping, from impact, or a very sharp recoil. So the accuracy would be somewhat questionable for this particular type of a scope."
You do, because it is part of the timing problem of getting Oswald from the first floor at the start of lunch to the sixth floor in time to assemble the rifle.
Williams leaves the 6th floor about 12:20 and takes East elevator to 5th floor.
At 12:20 Oswald runs up the stairs, gets the gun from somewhere and is ready to shoot by 12:30
You do understand the "timing problem" then.
Myth#4 Could not fit rifle into bag, no again, it was that an unassembled rifle could not fit between Oswald's palm and his armpit.Sound like Frazier remembered exactly how Oswald was carring the "curtain rods".
Frazier said he wasn't sure how Oswald was caring it. He said he didn't pay attention.
Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
This could not be done with a disassembled Carcano rifle.
Sure, if you stop reading there.QuoteMr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
This means nothing.
He already testified unequivocally he saw Oswald carry this package under his arm in the palm of this hand.
Sure, if you stop reading there.QuoteMr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
This means nothing.
He already testified unequivocally he saw Oswald carry this package under his arm in the palm of this hand.
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.
Now You can never know.This is the ultimate tactic of conspiracy theorist. Just raise enough doubt to make the conspiracy seem possible. Then move directly to declare the conspiracy as proven.
Dodge? Pointing out the obvious is hardly a dodge.Now You can never know.This is the ultimate tactic of conspiracy theorist. Just raise enough doubt to make the conspiracy seem possible. Then move directly to declare the conspiracy as proven.
Your dodge won't work here.
It is the most obvious question that should have been asked to Jarmin and Norman....
Dodge? Pointing out the obvious is hardly a dodge.
It is the most obvious question that should have been asked to Jarmin and Norman, did you see Oswald in the lunch room?
You are comfortable not knowing, you are comfortable that the most obvious question was not asked, you are comfortable with how ever they contrive the truth to be.
This could not be done with a disassembled Carcano rifle.
RanbNever thought about it but a package with curtain rods should be a whole lot smaller.
Current data for the direction of shots
28 Witnesses say Grassy Knoll
3 Witnesses say TSBD and Grassy Knoll
2 Witnesses say Triple underpass
2 Witnesses say Rail road yard
2 Witnesses say Below
3 Witnesses asked had no idea
44 Witnesses were never asked
8 Witnesses say TSBD
summation
8 Witnesses say TSBD
43 Witnesses say someplace other then the TSBD
44 Witnesses were never asked
The acoustics didn't fool 43 people situated at all directions from the grassy knoll, from ground level to 7 floor elevation, even inside the TSBD with windows closed or with witnesses watching from opened windows.
It fooled 8 people, when the sound bounced off the TSBD some people at street level where engulfed by the sound coming from in front and bouncing back at them from above, a few heard more of the above.
The majority of people within the TSBD thought the shots came from outside the building, the others can be explained by application of acoustics.
Current data for the direction of shots
28 Witnesses say Grassy Knoll
The acoustics didn't fool 43 people situated at all directions from the grassy knoll, from ground level to 7 floor elevation, even inside the TSBD with windows closed or with witnesses watching from opened windows.
It is simply impossible for the shots to have come from the GK.What do you base this on?
28 Witnesses say Grassy Knoll
3 Witnesses say TSBD and Grassy Knoll
8 Witnesses say TSBD
summation
8 Witnesses say TSBD
43 Witnesses say someplace other then the TSBD
The acoustics didn't fool 43 people
Are you prepared yet to tell us your hypothesis of locations and number of shots and to defend that hypothesis? Untill you do that you are no different that any random conspiracy crank.Can we agree that the depiction shown in attached image has the bullet entering the back above the throat wound whereas it should be about 5 inches lower then the neck wound. Close to where the arrow is pointing.
More data to come
What maybe interesting is all you conspiricied people have is Euins and Brennan claiming they saw the sniper in 6th floor window. Two half wits, who together wouldn't even make a nit wit.
What were all of the police looking at?
What were all of the Secret Service men looking at?
If the TSBD was the location where the shots came from and there were only a few open windows to see but not one trained professional saw anything. Anything, why?
I will help you, maybe Oswald shot from the shadows and could not be seen.
The police and the Secret Service should have looked toward the picket fence where twice as many people saw smoke and twice as many people saw the sniper.
What maybe interesting is all you conspiricied people have is Euins and Brennan claiming they saw the sniper in 6th floor window.
Are you prepared yet to tell us your hypothesis of locations and number of shots and to defend that hypothesis? Untill you do that you are no different that any random conspiracy crank.Can we agree that the depiction shown in attached image has the bullet entering the back above the throat wound whereas it should be about 5 inches lower then the neck wound. Close to where the arrow is pointing.
RanbNever thought about it but a package with curtain rods should be a whole lot smaller.
Frazier said Oswald palmed it on one end and the other was wedged under his armpit.
Frazier was very specific.
Do you mean Norman, the guy who ran down to look out the window on the West side of the building so he could see all the activity in the rail yards immediately after the last shot? Reluctantly.
You are making an a priori assumption that the shots came from the grassy knoll when you claim the acoustics didn't fool 43 people. The various investigations have always tabulated a greater number of shots originating from the TSBD than from the grassy knoll.
Where are you claiming Harold Norman heard the shots come from?
I also suspect that the reason so many people pointed to the areas around the grassy knoll and the general direction ahead of the motorcade was because that is where a gunshot fired from TSBD would have echoed from the most. I imagine the sound would have travelled in the same direction as the bullet (spreading outwards like a wake behind a boat) and then echoed off of the hard surfaces ahead of the motorcade, bouncing back towards TSBD.Really
Never thought about it but a package with curtain rods should be a whole lot smaller.Show us a link where Fraizer said Oswald palmed the package he was carrying. That word is not in your post I replied to.
Frazier said Oswald palmed it on one end and the other was wedged under his armpit.
Frazier was very specific.
You have more than enough unanswered direct requests for answers to get you banned without dragging up more red herrings.I try not to ignore anything worth answering.
Nobody saw a gunman on the grassy knoll.
Do you mean Norman, the guy who ran down to look out the window on the West side of the building so he could see all the activity in the rail yards immediately after the last shot? Reluctantly.
You are making an a priori assumption that the shots came from the grassy knoll when you claim the acoustics didn't fool 43 people. The various investigations have always tabulated a greater number of shots originating from the TSBD than from the grassy knoll.
Where are you claiming Harold Norman heard the shots come from?
Mr. BALL. Why did you run down to that window?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, it seems as though everyone else was running towards the railroad tracks, and we ran over there. Curious to see why everybody was running that way for. I thought maybe--
I also included that Jarmin claimed the shots came from below and left, or not in the building.
I also included Williams who was asked "Did you hear anything upstairs at all? and William's answered "no, sir, I didn't hear anything". Williams never heard anything from the 6th floor? Reluctantly. If a rifle was fired 12 feet away from Williams and he couldn't notice it was there, ?, it just goes beyond even the realm of twilight zone.
Actually none of them noticed it, did they?
What investigations?
Ed Hoffman saw the gunmanIf you said this as an attorney in court, you'd get cited for contempt for misstating the evidence.
Gordon Arnold saw the gunman
J.C. Price saw the gunman
Lee Bowers saw the gunman
Jean Hill saw the gunman
that's 5 nobodies, do you want more?
You have more than enough unanswered direct requests for answers to get you banned without dragging up more red herrings.I try not to ignore anything worth answering.
Nobody saw a gunman on the grassy knoll.
Ed Hoffman saw the gunman
Gordon Arnold saw the gunman
J.C. Price saw the gunman
Lee Bowers saw the gunman
Jean Hill saw the gunman
that's 5 nobodies, do you want more?
Show us a link where Fraizer said Oswald palmed the package he was carrying. That word is not in your post I replied to."Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
I do not know what size curtain rods you are used to seeing, but they come in all sorts of sizes. What curtain rods were found anywhere that were supposed to have belonged to Oswald?
Ranb
Again please list those witnesses that claimed they heard echos?
What evidence do you have, that discerning the direction of shots in Dealey Plaza would cause the majority of a given population to have a distorted but unified experience all recognizing the direction to be from the exact same location.
You must be reading science fiction.
About 10% of this population had a vague general direction of the shots.
If witnesses are saying the shots came from a position that is impossible then we know those witnesses are wrong. Now, they were either lying or they were fooled by the echoes.
And why Oswald lied about owning a rifle? And why Marina almost fainted when a cop picked up the blanket where the rifle was supposed to be and the rifle wasn't there?Or why Marina, who was outside at Ruth Paine's hanging up clothes to dry when she first heard that the President had been shot, was sufficiently concerned about Lee being involved that she went into the garage to look for the rifle. She saw the blanket on the floor, apparently undisturbed, but didn't look inside. Only later, when the police arrived and picked up the blanket did she realize the rifle had actually been missing.
Again please list those witnesses that claimed they heard echos?
What evidence do you have, that discerning the direction of shots in Dealey Plaza would cause the majority of a given population to have a distorted but unified experience all recognizing the direction to be from the exact same location.
Can we agree that the depiction shown in attached image has the bullet entering the back above the throat wound whereas it should be about 5 inches lower then the neck wound. Close to where the arrow is pointing.
We can agree that the depiction is inaccurate, but we cannot agree that the arrow is pointing anywhere close to 5 inches below the throat wound. You have some seriously distorted ideas about physiology if you think the third thoracic vertebra is anywhere close to 5 inches below the larynx.5 -1/2 inches below the collar of the shirt.
The 3rd thoracic vertebra canard comes from RADM Burkley who estimated the location of the bullet wound in JFK's back for a death certificate. The autopsy report said it entered above the scapula. The bullet exited well below the Adam's Apple.
His jacket was bunched.LoL
The jacket was bunched.
The shirt was bunched.
JFK was hunched.
JFK was leaning forward
Connally moved over a foot
JFK seat was at the highest position
"Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question in response to your statement that the back seat was in its lowest position at the time of the assassination? How do you know that?
Mr. KELLEY. That is a result of questioning of the people who took the car, the driver who took the car from the hospital to the plane. This was one of the drivers of the Presidential car. There was nobody who touched the car until it got back to the White House garage. It was in his custody all the time. And he did not move it." myth busted
JFK was hit in his back, not his neck, no matter how bunched and hunched you can imagine JFK was, it was not possible for a bullet to exit the throat.
His jacket was bunched.LoL
The jacket was bunched.
The shirt was bunched.
JFK was hunched.
JFK was leaning forward
Connally moved over a foot
JFK seat was at the highest position
"Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question in response to your statement that the back seat was in its lowest position at the time of the assassination? How do you know that?
Mr. KELLEY. That is a result of questioning of the people who took the car, the driver who took the car from the hospital to the plane. This was one of the drivers of the Presidential car. There was nobody who touched the car until it got back to the White House garage. It was in his custody all the time. And he did not move it." myth busted
JFK was hit in his back, not his neck, no matter how bunched and hunched you can imagine JFK was, it was not possible for a bullet to exit the throat.
Does that rod point to the grassy knoll, Profmunkin?It does not point to the location of back wound, this we can know without doubt .
Does that rod point to the grassy knoll, Profmunkin?It does not point to the location of back wound, this we can know without doubt .
Any back wound wouldn't be possible at all from the grassy knoll. But I disagree with your interpretation of the position of the wound because you're basing it on a drawing rather than the photos. Is it your intention to try to deceive us, or are you just too stupid to understand that the photograph is more accurate?Please post photo of the back wound so I know what you are referring to
It is simply impossible for the shots to have come from the GK.What do you base this on?
Are you prepared yet to tell us your hypothesis of locations and number of shots and to defend that hypothesis? Untill you do that you are no different that any random conspiracy crank.Can we agree that the depiction shown in attached image has the bullet entering the back above the throat wound whereas it should be about 5 inches lower then the neck wound. Close to where the arrow is pointing.
Any back wound wouldn't be possible at all from the grassy knoll. But I disagree with your interpretation of the position of the wound because you're basing it on a drawing rather than the photos. Is it your intention to try to deceive us, or are you just too stupid to understand that the photograph is more accurate?Please post photo of the back wound so I know what you are referring to
Do you mean to tell me you've made this judgement about the position of the back wound and you've never even seen the photographs? ::)
The autopsy photographs are online. Use Google. I'd prefer to keep such gruesome photographs involving death or serious injuries off of the forum.
Do you mean to tell me you've made this judgement about the position of the back wound and you've never even seen the photographs? ::)
The autopsy photographs are online. Use Google. I'd prefer to keep such gruesome photographs involving death or serious injuries off of the forum.
Which photograph are you referring to, please post it, or a link to a specific photo.
Search for "JFK back wound" using Google Images. It's there. You should have already been familiar with the autopsy photographs before making judgements about the position of the wounds. Do your homework.Please post or link to the exact photo you are referring to
Search for "JFK back wound" using Google Images. It's there. You should have already been familiar with the autopsy photographs before making judgements about the position of the wounds. Do your homework.Please post or link to the exact photo you are referring to
thanks in advance
Do your own research. The images are online. Find them. They are not being posted in this forum because they are too gruesome.They are too gruesome to post a link to?
Do your own research. The images are online. Find them. They are not being posted in this forum because they are too gruesome.They are too gruesome to post a link to?
Is there a reason you are refusing to post a link to the specific photo you are referring to?
Yep reading it after I reached the conclusion that it was a conspiracy.
See above. Is there a reason why you're too lazy to do your own research? You should have already been familiar with the autopsy photos before making judgements about them. The fact that you're apparently only hearing about them for the first time from me is astounding. But I guess I shouldn't be that surprised since you have shown us before that you make your conclusions before doing any research (for example: you only started reading the WC testimony AFTER reaching the conclusion that there was a conspiracy).
Frazier was asked if the package was heavy, he replied that he didn't pay any attention to how heavy it was, because the packaged looked like it was curtain rods not a 10 pound rifle wrapped in shipping paper, Frazier thinks he would have known, he had uncrated curtain rods at a previous job, he hadn't noticed anything out of the ordinary concerning the package of curtain rods Oswald carried.
The bullet threw him to the left, is this possible?
Your making this picture up, if not you would post it or link to it.
I have no idea as to which picture you may be referring to.
Did you know:
Greer did not know where the shots came from.
Kellerman did not know where the shots came from.
McIntyre did not know where the shots came from.
Hill heard a noise from his right rear (these guys do turn to look behind them in their normal duties correct? So which way was he facing when he heard the noise?)
Ready did not know where the shots came from.
Landis thought the shots came from the knoll.
Kinney did not know where the shots came from.
Bennet did not know where the shots came from.
Powers thought the shots came from the knoll.
O'Donnel did not know where the shots came from
Hickey did not know where the shots came from.
Your making this picture up, if not you would post it or link to it.
I have no idea as to which picture you may be referring to.
Bennett "At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder."Please show or link to photographs of the exact ruler Bennett used to measure the distance from Kennedy's shoulder to the bullet wound at the time.
Reading thru Bennett's report I am conflicted as whether or not he recognized the direction of the shots. What do you think?Do you really care what we think? You haven't given that impression.
He hears a "firecracker" and looked to his right and forward (toward the knoll) towards the President, he did not look at the President according to this statement.That's not how I read it, and I thought it was quite clear. Bennett looks "toward the President", sees him hit near the shoulder. How the hell could he have seen this if he wasn't looking at the President??
Did you know:Did you know (or even care):
...
Yep reading it after I reached the conclusion that it was a conspiracy.Well, at least you're honest about it. The Warren Commission report and the accompanying appendices contain the single most complete and accessible collection of evidence that exists anywhere regarding the JFK assassination. One must study the evidence in any case to draw informed conclusions. So you are admitting that you drew your conclusion that there must be a conspiracy without reference to the facts. And you defend this?
When are you going to read it?I dare say that I have read far more of the Warren Commission report than you have. I think that most of the participants in this discussion have also read far more of the Warren Commission report than you have, judging by their accurate knowledge of the evidence, the conclusions reached and the rationale for each one.
There are only a few autopsy photos so it's not like one has to comb through hundreds of em.please post link to exact photo being referenced
It amazes me that someone could reach the conclusion it was a conspiracy without having known about the autopsy photos. And he accuses us of being biased.
I dare say that I have read far more of the Warren Commission report than you have. I think that most of the participants in this discussion have also read far more of the Warren Commission report than you have, judging by their accurate knowledge of the evidence, the conclusions reached and the rationale for each one.Warren Report is just an interpretation an opinion of some specific parts of the evidence.
please post link to exact photo being referenced
I know it won't happen.please post link to exact photo being referenced
You have already been told that will not happen, so stop asking for it. You have also been told how to find them, without us having to post links here. There are only a handful of autopsy pictures, each showing a different aspect. There is, for example, only one showing the back wound.
That human hearing is notoriously inaccurate at determining the location of a fired rifle?
That we have abundant and reliable evidence exclusive of earwitness perceptions of direction, consistently showing beyond any doubt that the shots came from the easternmost window on the south side of the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository?
I dare say that I have read far more of the Warren Commission report than you have. I think that most of the participants in this discussion have also read far more of the Warren Commission report than you have, judging by their accurate knowledge of the evidence, the conclusions reached and the rationale for each one.Warren Report is just an interpretation an opinion of some specific parts of the evidence.
Please post your abundant and reliable evidence.
And while your at it give my you best wild ass guess as to why Norman and Williams could not determine the direction from which the reports came and how could Jarmin's guess be so "incorrect".
Good grief. The forum owner has explained that he does not want those images posted, or linked, and has explained why.I know it won't happen.please post link to exact photo being referenced
You have already been told that will not happen, so stop asking for it. You have also been told how to find them, without us having to post links here. There are only a handful of autopsy pictures, each showing a different aspect. There is, for example, only one showing the back wound.
You can't post evidence that impeaches your postions.
Because when it finally comes down to it, you all know where the back wound was, about right where I said it was.
Significantly lower on JFK's body then his throat wound, which makes the wounds supposedly caused "magic bullet" impossible.
You disagree with this conclusion - post the autopsy picture and lets discuss it.
I know it won't happen.
You can't post evidence that impeaches your postions.
Because when it finally comes down to it, you all know where the back wound was, about right where I said it was.
Significantly lower on JFK's body then his throat wound,
which makes the wounds supposedly caused "magic bullet" impossible.
You disagree with this conclusion - post the autopsy picture and lets discuss it.
Would Norman and Williams testimony be considered abundant and reliable evidence?*SIGH*
How about Jarmin, who had been in the Army for 8 years, he was also 12 feet away but testified the shots did not come from TSBD, would any of this be considered abundant and reliable evidence?
So far I have uncovered 62 people that stated within their testimony that they were aware of a rhythm to the reports.And this is relevant....how, exactly?
http://dolk.host.sk/dolkpage96/horror/famosos/jfk2.htm
This is a link to JFK autopsy sheet
Let us use the autopsy photos as you suggested, instead of relying on a depiction?http://dolk.host.sk/dolkpage96/horror/famosos/jfk2.htm
This is a link to JFK autopsy sheet
Do you believe that is an accurate representation of the location of the bullet wound, Profmunkin? Yes or no?
Let us use the autopsy photos as you suggested, instead of relying on a depiction?http://dolk.host.sk/dolkpage96/horror/famosos/jfk2.htm
This is a link to JFK autopsy sheet
Do you believe that is an accurate representation of the location of the bullet wound, Profmunkin? Yes or no?
Is that diagram an accurate depiction of the location of the wound. Yes or no? Feel free to consult Google if you want.I realized your suggestion is the best, to go to the source.
Of the 10 men in follow up car that were the closest witnesses of the assassination.So what? The Commission directly interviewed only the most important witnesses. That included both agents in the limo (driver Greer and agent in charge Kellerman), one from the followup car (Clint Hill, who ran to Jackie's aid) and one from Vice President Johnson's car (Youngblood).
So far I have uncovered 62 people that stated within their testimony that they were aware of a rhythm to the reports.
44 said it was Bham...Bham-Bham they claimed the last two reports were "simultaneous" or "like automic rifle fire" or "quick" or "rapid". 4 others stated there were 4 shots Bham...Bham-Bham-Bham and another 4 had the order reversed Bham-Bham...Bham
Only 6 people thought the reports had been evenly spaced Bham...Bham...Bham
Of the 10 men in follow up car that were the closest witnesses of the assassination.
Emory Roberts - did not testify under oath to the WC
George Hickey - did not testify under oath to the WC
David Powers - did not testify under oath to the WC
Glen Bennett - did not testify under oath to the WC
Samual Kinney - did not testify under oath to the WC
Paul Landis - did not testify under oath to the WC
John Ready - did not testify under oath to the WC
William McIntyre - did not testify under oath to the WC
Of the 10 men in follow up car that were the closest witnesses of the assassination.
Emory Roberts - did not testify under oath to the WC
George Hickey - did not testify under oath to the WC
David Powers - did not testify under oath to the WC
Glen Bennett - did not testify under oath to the WC
Samual Kinney - did not testify under oath to the WC
Paul Landis - did not testify under oath to the WC
John Ready - did not testify under oath to the WC
William McIntyre - did not testify under oath to the WC
But as for changing the established conclusions of the many investigations of the JFK assassination...sorry, but no. Just no.Of the 12 SS and aids in the first 2 cars
You guys need to at least try and incorporate some facts into your fantasy story, it would make it more believable if you used any facts at all.For you of all people to say this to us is really offensive. Try not lying about the evidence for a change.
What more do you want? Exactly what additional useful information would be gained by having the Commission directly interview every single person in the followup car or anywhere in Dealy Plaza? Or are you just throwing darts randomly at the Warren Commission, hoping against hope to get lucky?The WC found it necessary to have James Romack and George Rackley testify to the WC concerning pigeons, even though they were a block north of the TSBD on Houston, never saw the motorcade but just saw pigeons flying off the roof after the reports, no one mentions pigeons probably flew off every building around Dealey Plaza and the RR yards at the reports.
Why do you suppose John Ready was called back when he started to go to JFK's aid, did anyone ask Emory Roberts why he recalled Ready?No one had to ask Roberts because he explained exactly why in his report soon after the assassination:
12:30 pm. First of three shots fired, at which time I saw the President lean toward Mrs. Kennedy. I do not know if it was the next shot or third shot that hit the President in the head, but I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President's head, saw blood, at which time the President fell further to his left. Mrs. Kennedy was leaning toward the President, however, she immediately raised up in the seat and appeared to be getting up on back of same. About this time I saw SA Clinton Hill trying to get on left rear step of the President's car. He got aboard and climbed up over the back of the car and placed himself over the President and Mrs. Kennedy. After SA Hill got on rear step of the President's car it appeared that SA John Ready was about to follow and go for the right rear step, however, I told him not to jump, as we had picked up speed, and I was afraid he could not make it.
Not at all, what this shows is that whatever a person has their attention on, that becomes part of their experience, some people are more visual some are audio.
I'm not sure how you think this helps your position. It clearly indicates that people were confused by the acoustics, and were having a hard time remembering the exact details.
In other words, whatever happened left "anomalies" simply because that is human nature.
The WC found it necessary to have James Romack and George Rackley testify to the WC concerning pigeons, even though they were a block north of the TSBD on HoustonLike many witnesses, Romack and Rackley were deposed. They did not testify directly to the Commission.
YES sworn in, testimonies of every one in the car as well as everyone known to be a witness in the PlazaMaybe this is because the Warren Commission had a large staff of trained and experienced investigators who knew what information was especially important, while you're a biased, ideological, untrained and inexperienced layman desperately trying to find something, anything with which to deny the results of that and other investigations. Whether or not it's true.
Let us use the autopsy photos as you suggested, instead of relying on a depiction?
I realized your suggestion is the best, to go to the source.
Then again trained proffessionals could not as McIntyre said "none of us could determine the origin of the shots"
Why do you suppose John Ready was called back when he started to go to JFK's aid, did anyone ask Emory Roberts why he recalled Ready?
then slowed the limo down almost to a stop right after the first shot was fired.
Kellerman who should have jumped over the seats to protect the president
is in the front seat ducking down and yelling go go go or whatever.
You guys need to at least try and incorporate some facts into your fantasy story, it would make it more believable if you used any facts at all.
The problem is you have to discount the majority opinion in every category I have posted to maintain your position.
The witnesses testimonies do not support the WC report.
Not at all, what this shows is that whatever a person has their attention on, that becomes part of their experience, some people are more visual some are audio.
I'm not sure how you think this helps your position. It clearly indicates that people were confused by the acoustics, and were having a hard time remembering the exact details.
In other words, whatever happened left "anomalies" simply because that is human nature.
The problem is you have to discount the majority opinion in every category I have posted to maintain your position.
The witnesses testimonies do not support the WC report.
Not surprising since they made it up.
William McIntyre - did not testify under oath to the WCMcIntyre 51 line report, 6 lines described the assassination.
Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said almost all of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
John Ready - did not testify under oath to the WCReady : 38 lines in report, about 5 devoted to assassination.
Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said almost all of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
Paul Landis - did not testify under oath to the WCLandis about 200 line report, 32 lines to assassination.
Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said almost all of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
Samual Kinney - did not testify under oath to the WCKinney 60 line report, 10 line to assassination.
Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said almost all of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
Glen Bennett - did not testify under oath to the WCBennet 23 line report, 7 lines to assassination.
Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said almost all of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
David Powers - did not testify under oath to the WCPowers 62 line report, 9 line to assassination.
Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said almost all of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
George Hickey - did not testify under oath to the WCHickey 75 line report, 13 lines to assassination.
Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said almost all of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
Emory Roberts - did not testify under oath to the WCRoberts 150 line report, 3-6 lines to the assassination
Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said almost all of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said most of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said most of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
Profmunkin, none of these posts seem to advance your proposition of a conspiracy. This has been a long tedious thread, please give us a theory that would incorporate your belief or go away and bother some other forum.You are right
Are you blind? The phrase right before the phrase you highlighted says towards the rear. No, that's not the knoll area. Right and to the rear is the TSBD!!QuoteWe peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area...."particularly the right side of the area" - this is the knoll area.
None of us could determine the origin of the shots, and no shots were fired by any agent."That's a quote completely out of context, and you know it. He meant that none of the agents could determine the precise origin of the shots by actually seeing someone shoot a gun. However, nearly all of them thought the shots came from somewhere behind and to the right of them, i.e., from the direction of the TSBD. This is supported by the famous Altgens photograph taken between shot 2 (the JFK neck shot) and shot 3 (the JFK head shot) showing several agents on the followup car turned sharply around and looking behind them.
Profmunkin, this is really getting tedious. Now you're mischaracterizing even the testimony you selectively quote:If you read the transcipt you would know that Bennett is referering to his actions after the 3rd shot, by then the knoll will be to his right and rear as they sped out of Dealey Plaza.Are you blind? The phrase right before the phrase you highlighted says towards the rear. No, that's not the knoll area. Right and to the rear is the TSBD!!QuoteWe peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area...."particularly the right side of the area" - this is the knoll area.
There was only a dozen TSBD windows open, not one person detected movement in a window, a man with a rifle, rapidly moving the rifle to eject a shell, re-aiming, firing, flash, puff of smoke, rapidly moving the rifle to eject a shell, aiming, firing, flash, puff of smoke, then moving to escape?
Not even Norman, Jarmin or Williams said they looked up.
5 - had no comment as far as any direction for the rifle reports, including "none of us could determine the source of the shots"
Why did the report change from the vague firecracker sound we had been hearing from so many witnesses to causing "a little concussion" and a very loud clap, maybe even a sonic boom?
If you read the transcipt you would know that Bennett is referering to his actions after the 3rd shot, by then the knoll will be to his right and rear as they sped out of Dealey Plaza.Give me a break. Their statements are perfectly clear and consistent with the Altgens photograph taken just after the second shot. Several follow-up car agents are looking to their right and almost completely behind them, directly at the southeast corner of the TSBD. This includes Hickey in the rear seat and both agents on the right running board (Ready and Landis). McIntyre on the left running board is turning to his right. Bennet is not visible, as Altgens' view of him was obstructed by Dave Powers.
Interesting questions from the WC about the assassination.
Mr. McCLOY. Have you ever had any difficulty with the law? Have you ever been convicted of a crime?
Mr. NORMAN. No, sir.
Representative FORD - Have. you ever been in any trouble with the police or
did you ever have any disciplinary troubles in the Army?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.
Representative FORD.Have you ever had any trouble with the law at all?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir.
Representative FORD.No difficulty as far as the law is concerned?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have never been inside of a courthouse before.
These 3 men are the only witnesses I have found in about 100 testimonies, that were asked any question about past legal troubles.
These 3 men are the only witnesses I have found in about 100 testimonies, that were asked any question about past legal troubles.
Because quick movements are more easily detected, guided by a flash, the smoke and the sound, but these trained professionals could detect nothing.
I suppose it's not even worth pointing out that only a few days ago you were demanding we provide examples of witnesses who were not able to say where the shots came from due to acoustics, nor that you have gone from not even remotely considering the echo business plausible to using it to explain why some witnesses did think the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. I suppose it would be equally pointless asking you to explain why they are more likely to be in error than those who said the shots came from the knoll....
Leaving aside the fact that rifle bullets are supersonic and therefore do in fact create a sonic boom, and that where you are standing in relation to a passing bullet will make a difference, do you have any idea how much noise an exploding skull makes?
Yes it is my interpretation of it.These 3 men are the only witnesses I have found in about 100 testimonies, that were asked any question about past legal troubles.
Again it is your interpretation and weighing of evidence that is in question. Things like this that are thrown out, without context or reference to supporting a theory, enforce the idea that you are just just a internet crank engaging in FUD mongering.
Do you think that JFK actually called out he was hit? Please answer, yes or no.No I don't.
To learn more about the assassination based on what the witnesses experienced.
Profmunkin, just what do you hope to accomplish here?
Do you think that JFK actually called out he was hit? Please answer, yes or no.No I don't.
The point is Kellerman, thought he did, then did not react, either by jumping over the seat to protect him or telling Greer to get out of there, not until after the fatal head shot 4-6 seconds after he thought JFK had said he was hit.
Because quick movements are more easily detected, guided by a flash, the smoke and the sound, but these trained professionals could detect nothing.
Some of them said they knew it was a rifle shot, Kellerman said he heard JFK call out that he had been hit, most said they saw JFK in distress, they had 4-6 seconds to react, only one of them said he even started to make a move to protect JFK but was recalled.
While the SS moved instantly to protect LBJ, the SS did not protect JFK
So, if he was wrong about what happened, perhaps he was also wrong about it being six seconds delay? (A delay after something that didn't happen? How exactly does one measure that?)Actually Kellerman never commented on a time factor.
There certainly doesn't appear to be a six second pause in the Zapruder film. Oh, wait, that's faked, isn't it?
People freeze under stress. People misinterpret events. People aren't very good at estimating times, particularly if they are under high stress and have other things to do then look at the second hand on their watches.
Your problem is that you take testimony from multiple witnesses, and instead of realizing that in the best of all possible worlds no two stories will be exactly alike, you consider every discrepancy between testimony to be evidence of some nefarious plot, rather than exactly what you would expect to find.
I look for corroborating testimony that will contribute towards a cohesive and logical narrative.
I look for corroborating testimony that will contribute towards a cohesive and logical narrative.
So tell us, what is your training and expertise in judging how the SS should have acted? Actually I'll help you with that answer, you have demonstrated no abilities in this matter so your posts simply have no meaning. Do you care to dispute my assessment by providing some credentials?FACT: Roberts called off 2 SS agents that should have ridden on the back of the limo.
Great. Please let us know when you find the "cohesive and logical narrative" that disproves the Warren Commission.I do have a specific narrative.
ETA: I'm quite serious about this. You started with a thread title that indicated you might have a specific narrative, but you 've since dissavowed it. Currently, you have anomalies. No narrative. You might find that having a narrative (that works) is more convincing than "I don't think the agents should have hesitated so long". But then that means that people can work at picking holes in YOUR narrative. This should not stop someone with faith in their own conclusions.
Because quick movements are more easily detected, guided by a flash, the smoke and the sound, but these trained professionals could detect nothing.
Concerning the volume of the sound, the limo was considerably further away from TSBD on later shots then the first one, but the succeeding shots became louder. They had to be getting closer to the source.
If you consider the witnesses closest to the limo, knoll area and on viaduct, if you exclude the occupants of the cars.
17 witnesses say reports came from the knoll.
it is curious to see how lacking the WC Report is in actual evidence and how many posts refer to "experts" and "scientific rhetoric" to explain away the majority of testimony that can be corroborated.
Yes, parts of the Z film were altered.
I do have a specific narrative.
How would you view my narrative when you can't even recognize that the WC Report narrative is just FICTION and is not in harmony with corroborated evidence.
it would be folly to present my narrative.
If you don't know the facts, then it is impossible to discern the probability that a specific narrative has merit.
My Expertise and Training IS Irrelevant!
FACT: Roberts called off 2 SS agents that should have ridden on the back of the limo.Because JFK had made it known, repeatedly, that he did not want the agents obstructing the public's view of him. Nevertheless, there are photographs and films of several agents, including Clint Hill, riding the back of the limousine at certain points in the Dallas motorcade. When they reached Dealy Plaza, they expected to speed up soon as they got on a high speed freeway, and it would have been unsafe to ride on the back of the limo. The crowd was also thinning out, and their primary concern was always the crowd.
FACT: The windows were not secured along the motorcade route.Because it was totally infeasible. JFK himself realized this but was fatalistic about it. You may have noticed, though, that US Presidents no longer ride in open convertibles through urban areas past tall buildings with many windows.
FACT: SS allowed the route of the motorcade to make a sharp turn from Houston to Elm.Because that was the only proper way to reach the freeway. Trying to reach it from Main St. would have required driving over a concrete divider. Pretty silly, huh?
FACT: Motorcycle escorts had strict instructions to stay back of the limo.For the same reason the agents were requested to stay off the back of the limo -- so that people who came to see the President and Jackie could indeed see him. Unfortunately, increasing their visibility to the people meant increasing JFK's visibility to a sniper.
FACT: Known threats of assassination existed.Yes, and keeping track of them was the job of the Protective Research branch of the Secret Service. They did not have Oswald in their files. You can attribute this to lack of internal governmental communication, particularly between the CIA, FBI and Secret Service. You can even call it incompetence, if you like. Would that be the first known instance of governmental incompetence? Would that mean they were actively involved in the President's murder?
FACT: Miami motorcade had recently been cancelled because of known threats.Wrong. Miami motorcade went ahead as scheduled.
FACT: Dallas was a conservative hot spot, known to be radically anti JFK.Right, and that's why they went to Dallas. This was primarily a political trip. Until things turned ugly in Dealy Plaza, it seemed to be paying off, too.
FACT: Many agents recognized JFK was in distress after the first shot, but looked away.Their job is to protect him, and that's done in several different ways. Only one of those ways involves physically shielding the president, and that is of limited effectiveness since they were not wearing body armor. As we saw from Oswald's second shot, his bullets were quite capable of going completely through one human body (JFK) and inflicting very serious injury on another (Connally). Agents are also trained to spot sources of danger, so when they realized something was happening they began to look for it but were unsuccessful. At that point they decided the best thing was to remove him from the source of danger as quickly as possible, and that's what they did. There was absolutely no point in sending additional agents to the limo after the president has already been hit and the vehicles are speeding up. You'll just get some agents killed for no reason.
FACT: Kellerman, knew JFK was hit by first shot, but did nothing.Exactly what was he supposed to do? There was a large partition, like a roll bar, between him and the passenger compartment, and additionally Connally and his wife sat between the agents and the President. Roy Kellerman was 48 years old and the senior agent in charge on this trip. Did you really expect him to somersault over the bar, leap over Connally, and cover the president in just a few seconds?
FACT: LBJ was protected immediately, after the 1st report.Because he had a very alert agent in the seat immediately in front of him, with no obstacles to his quickly going over the seat. Ironic but true, LBJ had better protection that day than the President.
FACT: Not one SS agent could be seen to make a move to protect the President.Um, you do see Clint Hill running off the follow-up car and getting on the back of the limousine to cover JFK, don't you?
FACT: Greer slowed the limo down after the first shot, almost to a halt.At first Greer thought he had a tire blowout. Without your benefit of 20-20 hindsight he had no reason to expect to be shot at. Even when the shooting started, it took a few seconds to realize that fact and to react to it, and sadly that was too long. So Greer was a human being with human reactions. He was startled. Are you going to crucify him for that? By all accounts the man was extremely upset by his reaction. It probably tortured him for the rest of his life even though the vast majority of other people probably would have done much worse in his position.
FACT: Kellerman looked backHow else can you find out what's happening behind you when you have no idea what's going on? I remind you, unlike you these people did not know that they were about to be shot at.
FACT: Greer looked back two timesAgain, to find out what had happened. Seems natural to me.
FACT: Greer did not accelerate until after at least the 3rd shot.Correct, once his and Kellerman's human reaction times had been satisfied. They actually reacted pretty quickly; just not quickly enough.
FACT: The SS did not relay any information to law enforcement concerning the perceived location or direction for the sniper.There were no Secret Service agents in Dealy Plaza from just after the assassination to something like a half hour later when one of them returned. None of them had seen the sniper, so how could they possibly give that information to the police? Fortunately, we did have several eyewitnesses who did see the rifle and who immediately reported what they'd seen to the police. One of them had even seen Oswald as the man shooting it, and he identified him later.
FACT: The SS illegally and forcibly removed JFK body from the hospital.True. These were extraordinary circumstances, a situation of extreme stress for everyone involved. No one yet knew if the assassination was part of some larger attack on the United States government. The agents were being pressured by the new President to return to Washington as soon as possible; the new President had said he wouldn't leave without Jackie; and Jackie said she wouldn't leave without her husband's body. The only thing standing between them and immediately returning, as they all desperately wished to do, was a local coroner insisting on protocol. Cut them some slack, eh?
FACT: The SS illegally remove JFK body from Dallas and Texas.You just said that.
FACT: The SS illegally sanitized the crime scene, the limo.How? Pictures of the interior taken later that night after the limo was returned to DC show plenty of blood all over the inside. Didn't look 'sanitized' to me.
FACT: Only 4 of the 12 agents testified under oath.So what? They all gave written statements; why waste time having them repeat verbally what they'd already written? You interview a witness like that only when you have additional unanswered questions.
FACT: Not one of the 4 that testified under oath were ever cross examined by Oswald's defense attorney.Because Oswald never had a defense attorney! He was dead, remember? The United States has an adversarial legal system. Because a dead defendant can hardly act as an adversary in his own defense, that means there's no way to try a dead defendant in our system. But because of the importance of the case, we adopted, ad-hoc, a form of inquiry widely used in countries that don't have an adversarial legal system like ours: a neutral investigative body: the Warren Commission. Their work was not perfect, but I think they did a pretty good job under the circumstances. All of their main conclusions have stood for nearly half a century, notwithstanding a noisy bunch of conspiracy kooks.
My Expertise and Training IS Irrelevant!
I do have a specific narrative.Then either stop dancing around and actually present it or go bother some other forum. If you are so convinced that people here are too brainwashed or paid off to accept your stuff why are you bothering to dance around the actual point rather than just posting the actual meat of what you have so you have a chance of convincing the lurking masses or just going somewhere more receptive to your ideas rather than just dancing around and changing your story for 600 posts.
So tell us, what is your training and expertise in judging how the SS should have acted? Actually I'll help you with that answer, you have demonstrated no abilities in this matter so your posts simply have no meaning. Do you care to dispute my assessment by providing some credentials?Clip
laundry list
/clip
My Expertise and Training IS Irrelevant!
I never wade in on JFK stuff too much, except to bore people with my usual comment that Oswald assassinating JFK by himself by shooting him from the 6th floor of the Texas State Book Depository does in no way preclude the possibility of a conspiracy ... and in fact, were such a conspiracy intended to finger Oswald as the shooter, this is actually the best way to ensure that the desired result is achieved.
I look for corroborating testimony that will contribute towards a cohesive and logical narrative.
This is nothing more than propagation of a filthy stinking lie.FACT: Roberts called off 2 SS agents that should have ridden on the back of the limo.Because JFK had made it known, repeatedly, that he did not want the agents obstructing the public's view of him. Nevertheless, there are photographs and films of several agents, including Clint Hill, riding the back of the limousine at certain points in the Dallas motorcade. When they reached Dealy Plaza, they expected to speed up soon as they got on a high speed freeway, and it would have been unsafe to ride on the back of the limo. The crowd was also thinning out, and their primary concern was always the crowd.
So what? Where is the rest of the evidence for anything being seen or recovered at the knoll?What is this non-sense that some evidence had to be recovered from the knoll.
Witnesses report hearing sounds from a variety of locations, a variety of numbers of shots, and a variety of patterns of shots. They cannot all be correct, since only one chain of events actually occurred.
Where is the corroborating evidence other than what people heard?
November 18th 1963QuoteFACT: Miami motorcade had recently been cancelled because of known threats.Wrong. Miami motorcade went ahead as scheduled.
Because Oswald never had a defense attorney! He was dead, remember? The United States has an adversarial legal system. Because a dead defendant can hardly act as an adversary in his own defense, that means there's no way to try a dead defendant in our system. But because of the importance of the case, we adopted, ad-hoc, a form of inquiry widely used in countries that don't have an adversarial legal system like ours: a neutral investigative body: the Warren Commission. Their work was not perfect, but I think they did a pretty good job under the circumstances. All of their main conclusions have stood for nearly half a century, notwithstanding a noisy bunch of conspiracy kooks.Not true, again.
All the illusion of a real trial, but not more then a fraud.
But if they don't know either of our qualifications or experience, how do they decide which of us to take seriously on which subject?I would not want you to believe anything that I am posting here, I want you to question what I am posting, then go find out for yourself, this is the only way you will know.
This is nothing more than propagation of a filthy stinking lie.Excuse me, sir, but you were not a Secret Service agent on the White House detail. Vince Palamara was not a Secret Service agent on the White House detail.
Vince Palamara has done extensive interviews and correspondence with SS agents that worked with JFK and to a man they have stated that JFK NEVER interfered with their jobs in any way.
JFK NEVER told anyone not to ride on the rear of the limo.
Don't you ever even think about repeating this outrageous lie again.
about 3 minutes into this video as 2 agents are about to mount the limo, Roberts calls them off and they are left behind at the airport, one of the agent shrugging his shoulders 3 times in astonishment.Count the agents in the followup car. Note particularly that the right-hand running board, behind Rybka, already has two agents. In fact, when we see the followup car later in the motorcade, we can see that it is completely full: four agents on the running boards, the driver and Roberts in the front seats, two JFK aides in the jump seats, and two agents in the back seat. Where, exactly, would agent Rybka have stood when the motorcade was going too fast for him to safely cling to the limo's rear step?
My mistake; I was thinking of the Tampa motorcade, which did happen. I mixed up Tampa and Miami.November 18th 1963QuoteFACT: Miami motorcade had recently been cancelled because of known threats.Wrong. Miami motorcade went ahead as scheduled.
http://www.jfkflorida.blogspot.com/
"There would be no motorcade in Miami, however, a decision based on several death threats intercepted by the FBI. Instead, JFK helicoptered to the Americana Hotel in Bal Harbour, a guest of the Inter American Press Association. In the hotel ballroom JFK dined on roast beef in periguex sauce and sipped burgundy before addressing the group.
Yes, parts of the Z film were altered.
Evidence?
Then either stop dancing around and actually present it or go bother some other forum. If you are so convinced that people here are too brainwashed or paid off to accept your stuff why are you bothering to dance around the actual point rather than just posting the actual meat of what you have so you have a chance of convincing the lurking masses or just going somewhere more receptive to your ideas rather than just dancing around and changing your story for 600 posts.Posting, not dancing around anything.
Actually only discarded the pigeon watchers Romack and Rackley, it was just to absurd to think that anyone could attribute their testimonies to support TSBD for a source of the reports.I look for corroborating testimony that will contribute towards a cohesive and logical narrative.
Translation: you cherry-pick pieces of testimony that you can use to support your predetermined conclusion that there was a conspiracy... and then discard the rest.
All the illusion of a real trial, but not more then a fraud.You state the obvious, but the obvious is also that the Warren Commission Report was the indictment against Oswald, he was proclaimed guilty of the assassination the President and Tippet and this judgement was sold as absolute fact to the American Citizens. The fact the Commission was under Chief Justice Earl Warren gave the illusion that this indeed was sanctioned by the court and had a value of fairness.
It could not be an illusion of a trial simply because it was not a trial. There was no defendant and could be no sentence.
Count the agents in the followup car. Note particularly that the right-hand running board, behind Rybka, already has two agents. In fact, when we see the followup car later in the motorcade, we can see that it is completely full: four agents on the running boards, the driver and Roberts in the front seats, two JFK aides in the jump seats, and two agents in the back seat. Where, exactly, would agent Rybka have stood when the motorcade was going too fast for him to safely cling to the limo's rear step?Rybka and the other agent should stand on the back of the limo where there is the provision for 2 agents to stand?
The fact of the matter was explained by Blaine and Hill: Rybka was never even assigned to ride in the motorcade; he was supposed to stay at the airport and wait for its return. He was joking with his co-workers. And since Blaine and Hill know far more about this than you do, I'll go with their report, thank you very much.
Not true, again.Sorry, but the publicity-hungry Mark Lane was never Oswald's defense attorney. Oswald never hired him as his attorney. He never consented to Lane being appointed as his attorney. While he was in custody, Oswald mentioned only the name of attorney John Abt; never the name Mark Lane. And in this country the Constitution guarantees a criminal suspect the right to legal representation of his choice. A dead person cannot exercise choice unless he does it before he dies, as in writing a will.
Mark Lane approached the WC on behalf of Oswald's mother and asked to be appointed the defence for Oswald, the commission consented.
Shortly thereafter they recended the offer to allow Lane to participate.
Rybka and the other agent should stand on the back of the limo where there is the provision for 2 agents to stand?As I explained, it was unsafe for agents to ride on the rear of the limousine at high speeds. Since the motorcade began and ended with freeway stretches, any agents riding on the rear of the limousine would have to fall back to the running boards of the followup car (the "Queen Mary"). And those running boards already had two agents each.
Are you saying agents could stand on the running boards at higher speeds, but they couldn't hang on if the limo drove at high speeds?
Why would they not have designed the footholds and hand holds on the limo to support agents when traveling at higher speeds?
Oh wait a minute, you were kidding, right...lolThat's exactly what Blaine and Hill said. And since they knew Lawton and were actually on the Kennedy Detail themselves, I trust their take far more than yours or anyone else who wasn't there and didn't know them.
"He was joking with his co-workers"...rofl
You state the obvious, but the obvious is also that the Warren Commission Report was the indictment against Oswald, he was proclaimed guilty of the assassination the President and Tippet and this judgement was sold as absolute fact to the American Citizens. The fact the Commission was under Chief Justice Earl Warren gave the illusion that this indeed was sanctioned by the court and had a value of fairnessI know you can't seem to understand this, but the Warren Commission was not a criminal court of law. It could not find Oswald legally guilty of anything because Oswald was dead and we have no provision in this country to try dead people. Nor was it a grand jury, so it could not issue an 'indictment'. The Warren Commission was a fact-finding body, with subpoena powers. And finding and exhaustively analyzing facts and generating conclusions based on those facts is exactly what they did.
Finally, Clint Hill dropped back into position on the left running board of the follow-up car as Bill Greer picked up the speed. Don Lawton was still jogging alongside. Emory Roberts stood up and motioned him back with a Lawton! What in the Sam Hill are you doing? kind of look. The motorcade was just starting and the last thing Roberts wanted was the president getting upset over an agent blocking the view for the people who had come to see Jackie and him. Lawton turned to the follow-up car with a big grin and put up his arms in mocking protest as he dropped back to the sidelines.
"Okay, I've done my job, guys," Lawton said. "It's all yours now. Now go on and get out of here so I can have some lunch."
This was typical Don Lawton. He was joking, but the other agents could tell he'd rather be working the follow-up car than staying at Love Field with Rybka advancing the departure.
Sorry, but the publicity-hungry Mark Lane was never Oswald's defense attorney. Oswald never hired him as his attorney. He never consented to Lane being appointed as his attorney. While he was in custody, Oswald mentioned only the name of attorney John Abt; never the name Mark Lane. And in this country the Constitution guarantees a criminal suspect the right to legal representation of his choice. A dead person cannot exercise choice unless he does it before he dies, as in writing a will.So what's your point.
Actually only discarded the pigeon watchers Romack and Rackley, it was just to absurd to think that anyone could attribute their testimonies to support TSBD for a source of the reports.But they were not used to determine the source of the shots. There was already abundant evidence showing exactly where they had come from: the Texas School Book Depository. Since that had been established, Romack and Rackley, who were behind the TSBD, were asked to testify about the activity they witnessed at the rear of the TSBD immediately after the assassination.
So what's your point.That's correct. Being dead, Oswald could not be the defendant in a criminal case, therefore the Sixth Amendment guarantee of assistance of counsel did not apply.
That just because Oswald is dead he no longer deserves a defense?
Since he couldn't pick a defense he can't have one?Irrelevant because Oswald was dead and therefore neither subject to criminal proceedings nor entitled to a lawyer.
Since Lane wasn't among Oswalds known choices it disqualifies him?
That his family had no right to seek a fair hearing on the behalf of a member of their family murdered while in police custody?That's an entirely different point. The surviving members of the Oswald family, like every other American, had every right to choose and hire attorneys to represent their own interests. Indeed, Mark Lane represented Lee's mother Marguerite Oswald for a short time. But I don't think Lane helped her cause much when it became apparent that he was severely distorting and even manufacturing evidence. His telephone call with Helen Markham, one of the witnesses to the Tippit murder, would probably have gotten him indicted for perjury and witness tampering if there had been an actual trial.
That the family didn't have the right to try to clear the Oswald name of the associatin now and forever with assassination of JFK?
Did you know that Mark Lane is a Jonestown survivor? It's true!I just happened to learn that right before you said so.
It's entirely possible, in fact, that telling that kind of stuff to a man who was at very least paranoid already because of amphetamine addiction, if not actually a schizophrenic, was one of the things which led to what happened.What an excellent insight! If this is what actually happened in Jonestown, it should serve as a very strong warning that paranoid conspiracy nonsense is not just innocent fun; it can sometimes cause a lot of real harm to a lot of real people.
I just happened to learn that right before you said so.
What an excellent insight! If this is what actually happened in Jonestown, it should serve as a very strong warning that paranoid conspiracy nonsense is not just innocent fun; it can sometimes cause a lot of real harm to a lot of real people.
While even the most paranoid conspiracists are fully entitled to First Amendment protection, I just wish they'd think really hard about what they're saying and doing and the effect it might conceivably have on the more unhinged around us.
What is this non-sense that some evidence had to be recovered from the knoll.
The sniper had to leave the rifle or spent shells to have existed?
At least 5 witnesses saw the sniper and the spotter,
4 witnesses saw a puff of smoke
and dozens heard the sound of the report.
Are you saying agents could stand on the running boards at higher speeds, but they couldn't hang on if the limo drove at high speeds?
Why would they not have designed the footholds and hand holds on the limo to support agents when traveling at higher speeds?
If you read the transcipt you would know that Bennett is referering to his actions after the 3rd shot, by then the knoll will be to his right and rear as they sped out of Dealey Plaza.
I would not want you to believe anything that I am posting here, I want you to question what I am posting, then go find out for yourself, this is the only way you will know.
The FACTS
for instance
FACT: Some agents witnessed JFK in distress, then turned away, is in agent reports.
FACT: Roberts called off 2 agents, can be seen in video
If someone wants to argue that it is unfair to criticize an agent for not reacting to the threat in under 6 seconds, I will listen to the argument (assuming he is an expert in human reactions under stress), but it will never change the
FACT: that no agent did move to protect JFK in that 4-6 seconds. Hill's assignment was Jackie, and even then, Hill only moved when Jackie started to climb out of the back seat.
so on
Another factor that may have complicated observing a sniper in the window of the TSBD: it was a bright clear day in November, and notably in the pictures and the Zapruder film you can see the long shadows cast by the spectators, and they all point roughly to the TSBD. That means that anyone looking at the TSBD might find themselves confronted by the glare of the sun reflected in the windows.That's an interesting thought, but I kind of doubt it. Dealy Plaza isn't oriented exactly on the compass directions; instead of running due east-west, the south face of the TSBD actually runs a little southwest-northeast. The time was 1230 local standard time, so the sun was shining from the south or maybe a little west of south. This put the specular reflections off the windows on the south face of the TSBD well east of the assassination site, probably along Houston St.
I truly believe that the purpose of this board is to maintain the official narrative, unblemished.The stated purpose of this board is to discuss questions of an Apollo hoax. We also entertain discussions of other conspiracy theories. This same charge of wanting to maintain a fiction has been made because of our defense of Apollo too. It is always made by people that don't know much about Apollo, claim their own personal rules of physics apply and are, in the phrase of one such contributor, "conspiratorially aware." They frequently argue in a manner like yours which are little more than attempts to call into question things they don't understand or know how to place into the context of an coherent argument. In other words, on top of a strained concept of the physical world, they lack the judgement to make crucial interpretations of information and deny that interpretation is even needed. In reality they have some unspoken agenda, one that is even hidden from themselves, but whose presence is evident to their interlocutors.
All the illusion of a real trial, but not more then a fraud.You state the obvious, but the obvious is also that the Warren Commission Report was the indictment against Oswald, he was proclaimed guilty of the assassination the President and Tippet and this judgement was sold as absolute fact to the American Citizens. The fact the Commission was under Chief Justice Earl Warren gave the illusion that this indeed was sanctioned by the court and had a value of fairness.
It could not be an illusion of a trial simply because it was not a trial. There was no defendant and could be no sentence.
profmunkin - how much smoke would a rifle shot create in 1963? We can assume that your sniper was not using a muzzle-loader.I'll add this question, is a report of seeing gunsmoke a 100% reliable interpretation of the observed event? Is it possible to hear a gun report and notice some form of aerosolized particles in the vicinity of the sound and misinterpret it as gunsmoke? What have you or your sources done to make this differentiation?
profmunkin - how much smoke would a rifle shot create in 1963? We can assume that your sniper was not using a muzzle-loader.If you watch YouTube user mag30th's videos of him firing his Carcano, a very thin cloud of smoke appears very briefly at the muzzle end of the rifle with each shot. And it's probably visible only because of the lighting, camera angle, and closeness of the camera to the gun. I seriously doubt anyone with a slow still camera could capture it at a distance. It's certainly not burning black powder, that's for sure.
Concerning smoke from rifles, here is expert witness from the WC
"Mr. EDGAR. When the assassination occurred, many people in Dealey said they saw puffs of smoke coming from the direction of the grassy knoll. Do rifles or handguns emit smoke that is discernable to the human eye?
Mr. LUTZ. Yes, sir; they do.
Mr. EDGAR. Does that particular rifle emit any smoke when it is fired?
Mr. LUTZ. During the test firings, I did not make observations concerning this particular rifle. I believe Mr. Bates may have some data on that that he could give you, sir."
I have not looked at Bates testimony.
Sorry, can't just let that go. You are not just posting facts, you are posting carefully selected facts that support your position, as evidenced by the way you remove certain passages of testimony to post here leaving out other parts of the same testimony that contradict it. For example: you make great play of one witness seeing Oswald with a package under his arm that Oswald told him was curtain poles and emphasise that a rifle could not have been held the way the witness says it was, but leave out the part of the testimony where he says he actually didn't pay it much attention.Q series
You also emphasise how many witnesses claim to have heard the sound of shots from the grassy knoll, but continue to refuse to address the FACT that it was impossible to inflict the wounds on Kennedy and Connolly from the knoll because (FACT) they were shot in the back while the Knoll was in front of the limo at the time the shots were fired. Nor have you addressed the FACT that the wounds have been duplicated by other shooters using the exact same type of rifle from a the same height, distance and angle as on the day of the assassination.If you believe the Bethesda autopsy, you are partially correct.
Nope
That is a generalization, not a specific to the situation. Do those statements mean that smoke from a gun fired on the GK would have been visible to all witnesses that reported seeing some and identifiable as gun smoke? If so why do you think so? If not, why did you post them?
Concerning smoke from rifles, here is expert witness from the WCLutz is correct; as I said, even modern "smokeless" powder (nitrocellulose) can generate a very small amount of smoke.
Mr. EDGAR. Do rifles or handguns emit smoke that is discernable to the human eye?
Mr. LUTZ. Yes, sir; they do.
NopeWhat? Are you saying that it's not enough that several witnesses saw a person aiming a rifle out of a window directly at JFK's limousine; that they heard several loud bangs emanate from said rifle; and they presumably noticed the rifle recoil a little each time?
I was saying that if a rifle was fired from the TSBD, along with all the other stuff I listed there seems to have been a possibility to also have seen some smoke.
If you believe the Bethesda autopsy, you are partially correct.I prefer the word "accept". "Belief" implies taking something on faith, without proof. No faith is required here. There is plenty of forensic proof that JFK was hit by two bullets from the rear and only from the rear. That was the formal conclusion of the autopsy report.
"Seems to have been a possibility?"Nope
That is a generalization, not a specific to the situation. Do those statements mean that smoke from a gun fired on the GK would have been visible to all witnesses that reported seeing some and identifiable as gun smoke? If so why do you think so? If not, why did you post them?
I was saying that if a rifle was fired from the TSBD, along with all the other stuff I listed there seems to have been a possibility to also have seen some smoke.
So there is simply no rational reason to reject the autopsy findings that two and only two bullets hit JFK, and only from behind and slightly above.
The important word there is "rational," of course! While Kennedy conspiracism is not inherently irrationalInteresting choice of words. When is it not inherently irrational?
No
Are you saying that couldn't have been the murder weapon unless the witnesses also saw smoke come from it each time it was fired?
Wow, what a strangely warped world you live in.
NoWhat about their inability to locate the sniper? Do you really think these agents were superhuman? They had a lot to look at. They were surrounded by tall buildings with many windows and dense crowds of people, any one of which could instantly turn into a deadly threat. They only had a few seconds to do all this, while also keeping a close eye on the people they were supposed to protect.
Remember I was talking about the ss agents and their failures including their inability to locate the sniper.
Remember I was talking about the ss agents and their failures including their inability to locate the sniper.And on what basis do you claim the ability to judge the actions of the SS a failure? Let me remind the readers; there is no basis, because profmunkin has no experience in these matters, nor does he think any is required.
My Expertise and Training IS Irrelevant!
Profmunkin, I'd really like to see you draw a simple diagram of Dealy Plaza showing the following:
- the position of JFK's limo at the times of the two shots that hit him, as well as the positions of the Secret Service cars
- the position of the School Book Depository
- the location of the alleged grassy knoll gunman
The reason I say this is because you say things like "the agent looked back over his right shoulder towards the grassy knoll" and that the shots came from the grassy knoll, which tells me you have no understanding of the layout of the area. Either that or you believe the agents were standing backwards on the car and the assassins bullet performed 180 degree turn in midair.
As expected, despite a number of questions, he just comes back with more and more muck to fling at the wall.None.
Evidence of Zapruder film being altered? None.
Explanation for how the wounds were inflicted from the knoll? None.
Do you actually know what 'evidence' is, prof?
Profmunkin has had ample opportunity to make his case. We should enforce this simple requirement on him to back up his statements before he is allowed to carry on further.I would welcome the challenge to back up any claim I have made concerning testimony.
Profmunkin, I'd really like to see you draw a simple diagram of Dealy Plaza showing the following:You may be correct on my miss interpretations, after all, almost all of the information in the SS reports concerning the assassination are only a few lines long and most of the reports are very vague.
- the position of JFK's limo at the times of the two shots that hit him, as well as the positions of the Secret Service cars
- the position of the School Book Depository
- the location of the alleged grassy knoll gunman
The reason I say this is because you say things like "the agent looked back over his right shoulder towards the grassy knoll" and that the shots came from the grassy knoll, which tells me you have no understanding of the layout of the area. Either that or you believe the agents were standing backwards on the car and the assassins bullet performed 180 degree turn in midair.
I presented evidence outside of the WC investigation and all of it was rejected.
Most recently I have been presenting data, trends and corroborated evidence extracted directly from WC testimonies
and you guys are whining that I am cherry-picking or taking testimony out of context or claiming various phenomenas identified by science in every instance negates all the data that does not support the WC report.
For a "science forum" this is hilarious.
It does not matter what I think happened in Dealey Plaza, what is important is, will what you have been told continue to hold your belief.
Please let me know what points I need to document and elaborate on.
He said : You can always get people to testify about something..."Yes, indeed it is interesting. And yes indeed, a good lawyer -- anyone, for that matter -- can build almost any narrative if unchecked. That's precisely why courts have rules of evidence designed to exclude unreliable, irrelevant and prejudicial evidence, unqualified 'experts', junk science, and the like. That's why witnesses can be prosecuted if they deliberately lie. That's why attorneys can be sanctioned or even held in contempt by the judge for misstating the evidence. That's why each side's witnesses can be cross-examined by the other. That's why it's perfectly reasonable, proper and routine for attorneys to try to 'impeach' the credibility of an adverse witness by citing a past history of deceit or criminality. That's why the trier of fact (the jury, or the judge without a jury) is entitled to consider the credibility and integrity of each witness as they weigh their testimony. That's why juries are routinely admonished not to form premature conclusions but to wait until they have heard all of the evidence.
Interesting, makes me wonder who these people are and why they did not have the opportunity to testify, it should make you wonder too.
Also the last phrase is very interesting, isn't he saying a good lawyer can build any narrative he wants if unchecked?
Explanation for how the wounds were inflicted from the knoll? None.Don't care enough to share.
What a shame that science doesn't conform to your layman's expectations then. If you can't be bothered to cultivate the relevant understanding then that's your problem.I am willing to learn.
It always is to people who don't know the first thing about science. Your disbelief and lack of understanding makes no odds to the reality of science, however.
Don't ask that question as if it's the first time. You have been told over and over and over again what you need to elaborate on. You have been asked over and over again what your alternaitve is, and how you support that with evidence. Just answer the questions that have been posed instead of playing games.Since no one has given a definitive answer as to what evidence actually is, apparently none can be acceptable.
The important word there is "rational," of course! While Kennedy conspiracism is not inherently irrationalInteresting choice of words. When is it not inherently irrational?
I suppose JFK conspiracism could also be driven by simple ignorance of the facts. That would not necessarily be irrational. That what you mean?
Profmunkin has had ample opportunity to make his case. We should enforce this simple requirement on him to back up his statements before he is allowed to carry on further.I would welcome the challenge to back up any claim I have made concerning testimony.
I thought I had been quoting and documenting as posted, but obviously it has been insufficient.
Please let me know what points I need to document and elaborate on.
It always is to people who don't know the first thing about science. Your disbelief and lack of understanding makes no odds to the reality of science, however.I am willing to learn.
Please explain how the science of acoustics accounts for 10 out of 11 people on the grassy knoll who's testimony included direction of the shots stating the reports came from directly behind them, if the shots came from the 6th floor TSBD window say 100-200 feet away?
Then explain to me why there was not testimony that claimed shots coming from Dal-Tex, the Police, the Court or the Terminal Annex building to the south.
How did the acoustics fool the "50" police that rushed to the knoll and rail yards where as no police went to the TSBD except Baker who went there only because of Pigeons flying off the roof.
Get a little tired of this scientific rhetoric being used as a shield against every measure of reasonable sense.
Yes, indeed it is interesting. And yes indeed, a good lawyer -- anyone, for that matter -- canBrilliant sketch of the court system.
But when it comes to informal examinations of the case by private individuals producing books, magazine articles, movies, radio talk shows, interviews, documentaries, Internet blogs, etc, none of these rules apply. Thanks to our First Amendment freedoms of the press and speech (and I wouldn't have it any other way) almost anything goes short of direct threats, incitement to imminent violence or libel. And in the United States (but not in many other countries, notably the UK) a plaintiff who is also a public figure must work very hard to win a libel case.Very nicely done, BRAVO
So when you write your book alleging that JFK was killed by a massive conspiracy involving the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, the Dallas Police Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Mafia, Vice President Johnson, Cuban Intelligence, General Motors, the Soviet KGB, and local Boy Scout Troop 340, you don't have to give both sides of the story. It's your book; say whatever you want. Pick and choose the witnesses that support your case and ignore the rest. Quote only that which helps you and ignore the rest, like the bits that completely change the meaning of what you quoted or reveal the witness to be as nutty as a fruitcake. When discussing the flood of information that came out so haphazardly soon after the assassination, with much of it being 'corrected' later, insist that conspiracies never make 'mistakes'. They only cover things up.
That is pretty much exactly what I mean. I don't think it's ever accurate, but the idea that the death of JFK must have been caused by a conspiracy is not an inherently irrational one; while the majority of both assassinations and assassination attempts in the US have been of the lone-nut variety, there have been a few conspiracies. (Oddly, hardly anyone seems aware that John Wilkes Booth didn't act alone!) I think the choices, however, are ignorant and irrational, and the majority are simply ignorant. They've heard a few "facts" that they think indicate that it has to have been a conspiracy, claims that the Warren Commission has failed in some way, and they simply don't know that those claims are not based on evidence. It's not irrational, because it's not denying evidence. It is ignorant, because it's unaware of evidence.Lone nuts, really?
Why is it the people that are attempting to actively change the system the ones that get killed by the lone nut?
When does the lone nut, kill the guy that is entrenced in the system?
Very nicely done, BRAVOYou do realize I was being sarcastic, do you not?
This is a case of conspiracy of the highest sort.This is a simple murder case with overwhelming evidence of the single perpertrator. It would have been open and shut if not for all the opportunists who came along looking for fame and fortune by shouting "conspiracy", and all the nutcases who give them an audience and money.
If every question concerning the WC Report is answered with hocus pocus, smoke and mirrors, plausibles, impossibles, would you believes and they just made an error, you had better start doubting this fiction youself.If you really think it's hocus pocus to demand that any alternative theory of the assassination be a better explanation of all the evidence, not just your tiny, cherry-picked subset, then you had better start doubting your own sanity. Or at least your own rationality.
1) Official inquiries followed "many" of the rules, agreed, but "they" didn't follow all of the rules and that is the difference.They couldn't follow all of the rules because a criminal proceeding requires the presence of a live, mentally competent defendant working with legal counsel in his own defense. And there was no live criminal defendant in the JFK/Tippit case after November 24, 1963.
2) The FACT that logical, believable cases have been built with alternate narratives should be a cause for doubt.WHAT "logical, believable cases"? What "alternate narrative"? We keep asking you to provide one, and you never do! All we get from you is a hodge-podge of attacks on the Warren Commission report based on your own personal incredulity plus various bits of cherry-picked evidence. And sometimes even your selective quotes aren't correct, much less in their proper context.
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.What? Do you even understand what "cherry picking" means? It appears not.
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.Yes, indeed it is interesting. And yes indeed, a good lawyer -- anyone, for that matter -- canBrilliant sketch of the court system.
I have not finished your post, I will read the rest..
Three things
1) Official inquiries followed "many" of the rules, agreed, but "they" didn't follow all of the rules and that is the difference.
2) The FACT that logical, believable cases have been built with alternate narratives should be a cause for doubt.
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.
I thought it was done very well, Bravo!
You do realize I was being sarcastic, do you not?
If you really think it was impossible for a severely malajusted crackpot with a history of violence to take his rifle to work and shoot an easily identifiable man slowly riding by in an open car, then you really need to adjust your concept of what's possible.
We dont need a criminal proceeding, what gave you that idea?
They couldn't follow all of the rules because a criminal proceeding requires the presence of a live, mentally competent defendant working with legal counsel in his own defense. And there was no live criminal defendant in the JFK/Tippit case after November 24, 1963.Quote2) The FACT that logical, believable cases have been built with alternate narratives should be a cause for doubt.
What? Do you even understand what "cherry picking" means? It appears not.
WHAT "logical, believable cases"? What "alternate narrative"? We keep asking you to provide one, and you never do! All we get from you is a hodge-podge of attacks on the Warren Commission report based on your own personal incredulity plus various bits of cherry-picked evidence. And sometimes even your selective quotes aren't correct, much less in their proper context.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.Try Daniel Sheehan narrative, he brings in all the elements.
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.
I am willing to learn.
Please explain how the science of acoustics accounts for 10 out of 11 people on the grassy knoll who's testimony included direction of the shots stating the reports came from directly behind them, if the shots came from the 6th floor TSBD window say 100-200 feet away?
Then explain to me why there was not testimony that claimed shots coming from Dal-Tex, the Police, the Court or the Terminal Annex building to the south.
Or how Williams, Norman or Jarmin with warehouse windows open, could not tell that the shots came from the next floor up, 12 feet away or why Victoria Adams /&/Sandra Styles (No testimony) /&/ Elsie Dorman (No testimony) /&/ May Garner (No testimony) on the 4th floor, 3rd set of windows over said the shots came from the knoll.
How did the acoustics fool the "50" police that rushed to the knoll and rail yards where as no police went to the TSBD except Baker who went there only because of Pigeons flying off the roof.
Get a little tired of this scientific rhetoric being used as a shield against every measure of reasonable sense.
I would concede that it may have been plausible that JFK may have been shot from the tsbd if you agree it was a conspiracy,
Dan Rather looked America in the face, told us he had seen the Z film and stated the Presidents head was thrown violently forward from a shot hitting him from the rear, in the back of the head. This statement was not disputed.Did he say that? Because if he did, he was absolutely correct! JFK's head was thrown violently forward by a shot hitting him in the back of the head. You can see it very easily by flipping between frames Z312 (just prior to the third bullet impact) and Z313 (just after). JFK's head moves forward several inches in just one frame, just the amount he should have moved.
Essential evidence for the wounds, the Z film was hidden from the view of America.On the contrary, the Z film is one of the best and clearest demonstrations that both shots came from behind. Anyone who says otherwise is simply ignorant.
Americans find out only through the Shaw Trial that the Z film actually shows that the Presidents head moved violently to the left and back, revealing the official story that JFK's head moved violently forward a blatant lie.No, after Z313 Americans see a much slower left-and-back effect that was caused not by a bullet hitting from the front, but from a massive neuromuscular spasm in JFK's body when his brain was destroyed. This effect has been duplicated in the laboratory by shooting goats.
To patch this official lie, the Government and media then presented a "scientific" case that it is normal to move in this manner when struck in the head with a bullet.And that case is indeed scientific and correct, whether you believe it or not.
But the question remained, then why did the government and media lie to us about JFK's head moving violently forward in the first place, when "they" knew the Z film showed JFK's head moving violently left and back?Because, they didn't lie. As I explained above, JFK's head does move violently forward before it moves left and back. In fact, this forward motion is much quicker and far more violent, as it all happens in just one frame. After Z313, the bullet was long gone before the back-and-to-the-left motion even starts. So how could it possibly have pushed his head in that direction even if it had enough momentum to do so, which it didn't?
Why do you think the state of Texas started an inquiry into the assignation?That may indeed be the reason all those entities started their inquiries. Conspiracy theories have a powerful appeal to the simple minded and paranoids among us. They persist like zombies even when there's no evidence whatsoever to support them. When someone comes up with a so-called "anomaly" that is fully explained, they simply ignore the explanation and continue to tout the "anomaly" as though it were still unanswered. The "anomalies" and conspiracy theories just won't die as they should have, long ago.
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.
Let me put it this wayNo, let me put it this way.
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 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?
WTF is an assignation?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?
You must of misinterpreted a post.
You need to try and connect this "scientific" rhetoric with some reality.
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.
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.
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.
It appears profmunkin thinks that the main concern of the Warren Committee and subsequent investigations was whom the President was sleeping with.
Localizing, what does this mean?Yes, it means determining the location (position) of the source of a sound.
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.
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.
Profmunkin, I would really like an answer to my question.How much force is there in a bullet?
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.
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)?
How much force is there in a bullet?
How much force is there in a bullet?That's not an answer to my question.
How much force is there in a similar 6.5 mm bullet fired from this rifle?How much force is there in a bullet?
That would be physics. Are we to assume you will ignore it anyway?
You believe a bullet will throw someone or something back on impact. We have already told you ad infinitum that that is NOT what bullets do, but you just will not accept it, will you?
How much force is there in a bullet?If you are asking about a bullet's ability to "shove" its target, then you are interested in its momentum. I just described what momentum is: mass times velocity. The Carcano fired a 160 grain (10.37 gram) bullet at a muzzle velocity of about 2,000 feet/sec (610 meters/sec). Its muzzle momentum is therefore 6.32 kg m/s, and a little less when it reached JFK.
Yes most certainly your body or head moves in proportion to how much energy is absorbed or transferred from the bullet.
Yes most certainly your body or head moves in proportion to how much energy is absorbed or transferred from the bullet.Not energy, but momentum. They're two different things.
from Wiki
10.5 g (162 gr) RN 700 m/s (2,300 ft/s) 2,572 J (1,897 ft·lbf)
10.5 g (162 gr) RN 661 m/s (2,170 ft/s) 2,293 J (1,691 ft·lbf)
Or if you pressed the rifle stock up to the side of your head, and pulled the trigger, the recoil would most likely render you unconscious as your head was being propelled away from the rifle.
And again I will point out that there are countless experiments involving the effect of bullets hitting various things, not to mention reams of film from wars and the like showing people being shot, and one thing they all have in common is that the bullets do NOT shove their targets on impact to any singificant degree. They punch right through them. That is, after all, what a bullet is supposed to do.As demonstrated by the Mythbusters numerous times. Even a large .50 caliber sniper rifle barely moved its target.
The answer should be equal effect, if all of the bullets momentum is transferred to the head.Yes most certainly your body or head moves in proportion to how much energy is absorbed or transferred from the bullet.
Yes, it does. The question is how much of that energy is absorbed or transferred, and how much is transferred to moving the target rather than simply breaking through it? Bullets are designed to penetrate.
Another bit of physics you won't believe, I'm sure, but you can be hit with a large slow moving object or a small fast moving object, and both can have the same kinetic energy or momentum, and both can have VERY different effects when they hit you due to their size and shape. Hold your hand flat on a wooden surface and hit it with a hammer and it will hurt. Try it with a nail between the hammer and your hand and you'll nail your hand to the wood, despite the same momentum and energy being involved in hitting it with the hammer.
Yes, if you put the stock of the rifle against your head and fired it, the force of the recoil would propel your head, but the stock is a large, flat, wooden area pressed against your head and moving at a significantly lower speed than the bullet, not a small, pointed metal object at extreme speed.
And again I will point out that there are countless experiments involving the effect of bullets hitting various things, not to mention reams of film from wars and the like showing people being shot, and one thing they all have in common is that the bullets do NOT shove their targets on impact to any singificant degree. They punch right through them. That is, after all, what a bullet is supposed to do.
I've gone deer hunting using a 12 gauge shotgun, with slugs as the ammunition. I could hear the "THUMP" of the slug hitting the deer. By the time the slug hits the deer, the sound of the shot is dissipated.Your probably correct, so for this experiment lets hold the gun an inch or so away from your head, lets let it get a little momentum built up before it knocks you sensless.
If you press a rifle to to your forehead, it's highly unlikely it would "knock you out." The recoil would shove your head back. This is why, when firing, you hold the weapon snugly to your shoulder, so it doesn't come back and pound the hell out of your shoulder. Also, never, ever brace your shoulder between aimmovablele object and then shoot. severelylbruiseded or broken shoulder will be the outcome.
Phil
The answer should be equal effect, if all of the bullets momentum is transferred to the head.The only effect that will be equal for a given bullet momentum and target mass is the momentum of the entire target+bullet after the bullet hits and embeds itself in it. The effect of the bullet on the target can vary quite a bit depending on the size, velocity and makeup of the bullet and the nature of the target. That's because the damage to the target is done by the bullet's energy, not its momentum. That energy ultimately ends up as heat.
Were did you see the videos of unconcious people with their heads hanging free getting shot in the head with a high powered rifle? Please post the url.I was talking only about those things that absolutely must happen according to the laws of physics, whether the target is a human head or a block of wood. Conservation of momentum doesn't care.
The answer should be equal effect, if all of the bullets momentum is transferred to the head.
Were did you see the videos of unconcious people with their heads hanging free getting shot in the head with a high powered rifle?
Please post the url.
Your probably correct, so for this experiment lets hold the gun an inch or so away from your head, lets let it get a little momentum built up before it knocks you sensless.
It's Not Newton's 3rd Law
Contrary to the explanations given in some venues, the fact that shooting victims are not thrown violently backwards by bullet impact forces cannot be explained using Newton's 3rd law. These explanations usually claim that the recoil force on the shooter is an action/reaction pair with the bullet impact force on the victim—simply not true.
Action/reaction pairs of forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. They occur simultaneously. While the recoil and bullet impact forces are opposite in direction they do not occur simultaneously. The recoil force begins before the bullet strikes the target. It is generally lower in magnitude than the bullet impact force but lasts for a longer time.
Which bullet hit Tague?Clearly, you do not comprehend the concept of fragmentation.
Any one know where I may find an FBI or Police photo of the cement that shows the gouge and it's direction?
Has anyone viewed the Warren Commission Report to see how many breaks in rational actions and plausible projections it contains?Yup.
If you see many, let us talkNope, but you are unwilling to discuss same in any meaningful way.
If you can't see any, seriously dude you need help.Physician, heal thyself.
The answer should be equal effect, if all of the bullets momentum is transferred to the head.
Which bullet hit Tague?It was most likely a fragment of Oswald's third shot, the one that hit JFK in the back of the head and destroyed his brain. Having traveled less than 100 m, the bullet still had most of its original energy and was flying very stably. When it hit JFK's skull, it decelerated so quickly that the resulting force exceeded the compressive strength of the bullet and it began to disintegrate. The fragments moved through JFK's brain, leaving small bits of metal along the track that were seen in X-ray during autopsy. I think, but would have to check, that several of these fragments were recovered during the autopsy.
One bullet fragment from JFK's head, apparently consisting entirely of lead from the bullet's core, continued downrange. It grazed the corner of a curb on Main St and left a streak of lead without actually chipping the concrete. It apparently continued until it struck James Tague in the face, wounding him slightly.Is all this conjecture or is there any proof?
It penetrates, and continues, with most of its momentum preserved.one possible scenario, another is, bullet strikes a bone and transfers completely all of its momentum to the bone and surrounding tissue.
Clearly, you do not comprehend the concept of fragmentation.Yea yea I get it
one possible scenario, another is, bullet strikes a bone and transfers completely all of its momentum to the bone and surrounding tissue.So you're saying that bullets do not penetrate bone.
one possible scenario, another is, bullet strikes a bone and transfers completely all of its momentum to the bone and surrounding tissue.So you're saying that bullets do not penetrate bone.
It penetrates, and continues, with most of its momentum preserved.one possible scenario, another is, bullet strikes a bone and transfers completely all of its momentum to the bone and surrounding tissue.
So you're saying that bullets do not penetrate bone.Did not say that.
Acoustics?
"Mr. LIEBELER. There was in fact a considerable echo in that area? Mr. TAGUE. There was no echo from where I stood. I was asked this question before, and there was no echo. It was just a loud, oh, not a cannon, but definitely louder and more solid than a rifleshot."
direction of the mark is "the grassy knoll"?
So you're saying that bullets do not penetrate bone.Did not say that.
The bullet could do lots of things
Bullet may lodge in bone
Bullet may penetrate.
Bullet may penetrate and disintegrate
Bullet may richochet off bone.
Bullet may richochet and disintegrate
In wc doctors from parkland say a bullets behavior and path can be unpredictable.
Well then, to use your own method of debating, provide evidence that a high powered rifle bullet does any of those things on impacting a human skull.
We know full well that all the bullet's momentum was not transferred to the head, because there was a large shower of bone and brain matter. The only souce for the momentum of that material was the bullet.
Yes, you did:So you're saying that bullets do not penetrate bone.Did not say that.
bullet strikes a bone and transfers completely all of its momentum to the bone and surrounding tissue.That means:
The bullet could do lots of thingsTransferring how much momentum in the process?
Bullet may lodge in bone
Bullet may penetrate.Transferring how much momentum in the process?
Bullet may penetrate and disintegrateTransferring how much momentum in the process?
Bullet may richochet off bone.Transferring how much momentum in the process?
Bullet may richochet and disintegrateTransferring how much momentum in the process?
Mr. LIEBELER. There is an area circled here with the letter "C" in it. Is that where the policeman ran toward the grassy area; included in that circle, is that right? "As people keep trying to explain to you, repeatedly but to no avail, it doesn't matter where Tague thought the shot came from! We already know, from abundant evidence, exactly where it came from: the easternmost window on the south side of the 6th floor of the TSBD. Why can't you understand this? Why are you still so desperately anxious to fool yourself into thinking it came from someplace else?
direction of the mark is "the grassy knoll"?
In wc doctors from parkland say a bullets behavior and path can be unpredictable.Yes, bullets can indeed be unpredictable. Why? Because you can't exactly control or even precisely measure all the conditions of every shot. As hard as you try, there will always be some slightly different initial condition that may lead to a different outcome. The wind might pick up a little, or change direction. The cartridge might have slightly more or less powder than the last, or be at a slightly different temperature. The rifle barrel will warm up with each shot and change its shape ever so slightly. The air density along the bullet's path may fluctuate slightly as warm air convects off the ground. And so on and on.
Where did you get the evidence that the mark was collinear with the TSBD
When seen from above, Oswald's rifle, JFK's head and the curb mark (or Tague) are close to collinear (form a straight line). But they do not have to be exactly so because the fragment(s) were certainly deflected as they passed through JFK. In fact, an upward deflection was necessary just to clear the windshield. Fragments of the third shot are known to have struck the inside of the windshield and a modest upward deflection (16 degrees according to Dale Myers) was also necessary for them to reach this spot.
Where did you get the evidence that the mark was collinear with the TSBDI used Google Earth; you can too.
Where are the official FBI or Dallas Police photos of this evidence?A picture of the bullet mark on the curb is Tague Exhibit 1 in the Warren Commission collection.
Where is the official FBI or Dallas Police reports concerning this evidence?At this point I think you can search for that information yourself.
Did they search for the bullet fragment that caused this mark, did they locate it?
Tague is certainly a lot more colinear with the TSBD and Kennedy than he is with the knoll and Kennedy. His injury and Kennedy's head wound are certainly more consistent with the known behaviour of bullets than some fanciful notion of a near 90 degree deflection required for Kennedy's head wound and Tague's injury to be caused by someone shooting from the knoll.Maybe it was the acoustics, since Tague imagined that the sound came from the picket fence / grassy knoll area, Tague was able to telekineticly alter the bullets path or the way the bullet marked on the concrete to appear as so it was coming from the knoll, when in reality it was coming from the TSBD. This is plausible, don't you think?
Oh, sure. I don't think the mystery of exactly which shot, first or third, he was struck by a fragment of will ever be resolved.The Warren Commission concluded that a fragment from the third (head) shot most likely hit Tague. Sturdivan, in The JFK Myths (which I recommend), agrees. Tague himself thought it was either the second or third shot, and we know for certain it couldn't have been the second. But most importantly, Tague, JFK and Oswald were closest to collinear (forming a straight line) at the time of the third shot, and we know that this bullet fragmented quite extensively when it hit JFK's skull. So I agree with both the WC and Sturdivan.
Tague was able to telekineticly alter the bullets path[...]This is plausible, don't you think?Ordinarily I would assume that no one could say this without their tongue firmly planted in cheek, but with you I am unwilling to make such an assumption.
I think you can search for that information yourself.Why you wasting your time google searching? Why would you want to guess where Mr. LIEBELER asked Tague to pinpoint the locations.
Why you wasting your time google searching? Why would you want to guess where Mr. LIEBELER asked Tague to pinpoint the locations.You're making even less sense than usual.
Just pull up Commission Exhibit No. 354 it has all the locations, area (c) and number (7) already marked on the map, exhibit 354.Didn't I just cite that exact exhibit for you?
It indicates the exact spot Tague was indicating as the location for the shots and the direction of the mark, coincidentally or not, both are at the corner of the picket fence on the grassy knoll.What?! You haven't even looked at CE354, have you?
Where is this key piece of evidence, the mark on the concrete?I told you it was photographed in Tague Exhibit 1. Why is it 'key'?
Ya you betcha, I could spend my life searching for information that 1 is not there or 2 it is classified because it indicates the grassy knoll as the direction of the shot.Yeah, you probably could spend your life searching for information indicating the grassy knoll as the source of the shot. That's because such information does not exist and never did exist.
Leading the witness is the exact offence they claimed Mark Lane was doing with witnesses, Marks rebuttal was that is exactly what a lawyer for the defence does, not the prosecution.Since Lane is a lawyer, albeit a dishonest one, I'll presume that he actually knows the rules regarding leading questions and so you're simply misquoting him -- just as you misquote so many others.
One important detail to know about Tague is that he was hit on the right cheek.Thank you, I was wondering about that, as I didn't see him asked that question. It makes perfect sense if he was struck by the same fragment that first hit the Main St curb to his right as he faced the motorcade.
Tague is certainly a lot more colinear with the TSBD and Kennedy than he is with the knoll and Kennedy. His injury and Kennedy's head wound are certainly more consistent with the known behaviour of bullets than some fanciful notion of a near 90 degree deflection required for Kennedy's head wound and Tague's injury to be caused by someone shooting from the knoll.Maybe it was the acoustics, since Tague imagined that the sound came from the picket fence / grassy knoll area, Tague was able to telekineticly alter the bullets path or the way the bullet marked on the concrete to appear as so it was coming from the knoll, when in reality it was coming from the TSBD. This is plausible, don't you think?
Or that a bullet hitting a skull would transfer ALL its momentum (meaning its velocity would drop to zero, and the bullet itself would drop to the ground).A bullet could transfer all of its momentum to a skull if it embedded itself inside, never emerging, creating an exit wound or ejecting any matter at all.
Maybe it was the acoustics, since Tague imagined that the sound came from the picket fence / grassy knoll area
Tague was able to telekineticly alter the bullets path or the way the bullet marked on the concrete to appear as so it was coming from the knoll, when in reality it was coming from the TSBD. This is plausible, don't you think?
Wow, 70 pages of this. Was an... interesting read. I got about halfway before giving up, so I zoomed ahead to page 70, and it really seems like nothing really new was brought up.Half way through, that is above and beyond the call of due diligence on this thread. As you say, profmunkin never really got past the first few pages before he ran out of things to contribute. There after it has been an exercise in evading his responsibility to prove his theory.
Prof, I want to ask you honestly -- is it really so impossible for there to have been one shooter from the book depository building? Can't the evidence all point to Oswell? You really don't even have to give up the possibility of a conspiracy for that.
Tague is certainly a lot more colinear with the TSBD and Kennedy than he is with the knoll and Kennedy. His injury and Kennedy's head wound are certainly more consistent with the known behaviour of bullets than some fanciful notion of a near 90 degree deflection required for Kennedy's head wound and Tague's injury to be caused by someone shooting from the knoll.Why couldn't Tague determine if it was shot 2 or 3 or 4?
Why couldn't Tague determine if it was shot 2 or 3 or 4?
Tague can't positively identify the photo, but Liebeler asks Tague to initial the photo as if he had positively identified it.
"Mr. LIEBELER. Immediately to your left, or toward the back? Of course, now we have other evidence that would indicate that the shots did come from the Texas School Book Depository, but see if we can disregard that and determine just what you heard when the shots were fired in the first place. "
Ya, lets.just.disregard.this, Mr Liebler now ask Tague again if the shots could have come from the TSBD, after he just told you multiple times he thought the shots came from the picket fence.
As to your definition of the word 'purport', as expected you highlighted the word 'false' but glossed over the word 'often'. It does not mean that it is always false or suspect.In this case we know exactly what is meant by purport.
In this case we know exactly what is meant by purport.
Since the photo is never defined by a source or which agency took the photo in addition it is not defined as how this photo is relevant or should be considered evidence.
If this is in Dealey Plaza, where is the FBI analysis of the bullet mark?
I am constantly amused how CTists see evil intent in everything, even when it would be against the interests of the person doing it, assuming they had evil intent. The bad guys make bizarre admissions, when it would be clearly idiotic for them to do so.Because what Liebeler inserted into the record had no evidentiary value to the assassination.
Why would the Commission use the word "purported" to mean "false" when they were putting something on the record? It is clear from context that they were using the word simply to mean "assumed", or "not yet fully established". That is a legal term, and quite ordinary in its context.
The Tague exhibit 1 was never defined as even being a mark on a curb in Dealey Plaza or specifically the mark on the curb that Tague could confirm as being "the mark on the curb" after the assassination.
The FBI analysis?
This is nothing but fraud and deception, to understand that this "purported (false) evidence" is not fact and should NEVER have been allowed to be entered into the record without proper identification is necessary to understand how the WC framed the issues.
Same as Liebeler asked Tague where the shots came from, Tague stated the picket fence
Same as Liebeler asked Tague direction of the mark, Tague stated the picket fence
Same as Liebeler asked Tague to conjecture if shots could have come from TSBD.
When is this line of questioning allowed for a prosecution?
I do not know what evidence they could have attained from the mark on the curb, do you?
Perhaps you'll enlighten us as to what analysis precisely is supposed to have been done on a smear of lead on a curb? Wow us with your technical expertise....
There are times when just seeing the evidence is quite adequate. What additional information will be obtained from 'analysing' the curb mark?
I do not know....
I do not know what evidence they could have attained from the mark on the curb, do you?
BUT
Tague stated that he was able to discern the mark was directed toward the picket fence.
Tague testified that it was his impression that D.S. Walthers was able to discern the mark was directed toward the picket fence.
Fact is, the WC did not even ask Tague what it was about the mark that caused him to believe shot came from the picket fence, or Walters or policeman, so we don't have anything worthy of consideration.
That's how we get conspiricied loonies attempting to introduce concepts like co-linear, when they have no f-----g concept of the nature of the mark.
The goal the WC was after was for Tague to put on record the opinion it was plausible that the shots could have come from the TSBD, "case closed".
It is not always just what they said, it is also just as important to understand what they didn't say.
You know, it wouldn't surprise me if the bits are getting left out because they simply don't appear in the source Profmunkin is using. Because I don't really believe he's using the actual Warren Report.
You know, it wouldn't surprise me if the bits are getting left out because they simply don't appear in the source Profmunkin is using. Because I don't really believe he's using the actual Warren Report.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
Good question, I have been using the above site to draw quotes from.
Maybe the mcadams site should not be used to draw evidence from.
Good question, I have been using the above site to draw quotes from.
Maybe the mcadams site should not be used to draw evidence from.
You know, it wouldn't surprise me if the bits are getting left out because they simply don't appear in the source Profmunkin is using. Because I don't really believe he's using the actual Warren Report.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
Good question, I have been using the above site to draw quotes from.
Maybe the mcadams site should not be used to draw evidence from.
It is not evidence, it is testimony. There is a difference.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
Good question, I have been using the above site to draw quotes from.
Maybe the mcadams site should not be used to draw evidence from.
HB: That's ridiculous, you are parroting the official story.
Yes I agree with this definition.
Prof, I'm going to give a shot at this here. Do you know what cherry picking is?
It's where you start with a conclusion and work backwards, trying to fit every piece of data you can find to support the conclusion, ignoring everything else that doesn't seem to support it.
First of all, you have terms mixed around. Things that are not possible are never plausible.No, it's correct, that is exactly correct, plausible, just as a bullet has NEVER smashed thru bones and
It is really a simple question, who made the shots and where were they. Give us this and the support for the accusation. Failing a complete answer to this, profmunkin should be banned.
I propose that he be given a warning to address his critics on this board or if he fails to do that, he will be banned.Came back to answer post, #1063
It is really a simple question, who made the shots and where were they. Give us this and the support for the accusation. Failing a complete answer to this, profmunkin should be banned.
No, it's correct, that is exactly correct, plausible, just as a bullet has NEVER smashed thru bones and
come out similar to the bullet that "traversed thru" JFK and JC but by god some "expert" believes it might be plausible. No one could believe it's possible, how could you, it has never been done, but because an "expert" offers his opinion that it might be plausible, you say oh, OK.
Your nuts!
Did they leave behind shell casings or any trace they were there? No, they did not. Would it have been wise to carry an assassination with more than one shooter, then pretend it was only one? No, it would not have.
> Why would they leave shells behind?
> Don't know, but appearantly you do
>If you dodge the obvious you just come off looking like a toadie.Oh, you'd consider me a "toadie"! Well, that would be terrible. I'd not be able to sleep at night for that!
Do I "really believe Jarmin and Williams and Norman are that stupid, really, really, really, really?" No, I do not "really, really, really, really" believe they were stupid.
>Well then explain their testimony and actions
But you're still picking at small cherries here, and insisting they make a pie. They don't.
>I got a bowl of cherries you got nothin!
We have video evidence of the shooting.
>Really?
We have forensic evidence of the shooting.
>Really?
We have the gun. We have the bullets. Oswald shot a police officer before ducking into a theater.
>Really?
Came back to answer post, #1063I'm not sure what your mentality here is. Why do you resist offering your alternative scenario?
I don't envision posting on this forum an alternative scenario, not now, probably not ever.
If you can't deal with what I post, so what?
All lunarorbit has to do is ask me to leave.
All lunarorbit has to do is ask me to leave.
Let's see the "nothing" I have here:Do you know if it would have been possible for an expert to take a film similar to the z-film and add special effects to it?
Zapruder Film.
Do you know if it would have been possible for an expert to take a film similar to the z-film and add special effects to it?
Do you know if special effects can be easily detected?
Do you know for certain the chain of custody of the Z-film?
My understanding is the chain of custody was broken by the CIA, this comes form Douglas P. Horne "inside the ARRB", I know blah blah blah
Besides the fact, NO ONE would have believed JFK was hit from the rear after viewing the Z-FilmAnd you are wrong here.
Is it the same to you?All lunarorbit has to do is ask me to leave.
I guess you don't consider having been banned from the Proboards forum the same thing as being asked to leave.
What is so difficult about answering our questions, Prof? You're so certain that Lee Oswald was innocent, but you haven't provided an alternative scenario. That means you have failed to make the case that the conclusions of the Warren Commission are wrong.
No, it's correct, that is exactly correct, plausible, just as a bullet has NEVER smashed thru bones and
come out similar to the bullet that "traversed thru" JFK and JC but by god some "expert" believes it might be plausible. No one could believe it's possible, how could you, it has never been done, but because an "expert" offers his opinion that it might be plausible, you say oh, OK.
Your nuts!
YES 5 witnesses saw gunmen YES 4 saw puff of smoke
Why would they leave shells behind?
please address the issue, can you detect the direction of gun firing from 12 feet away from an open space not?
Do you know if it would have been possible for an expert to take a film similar to the z-film and add special effects to it?
Do you know if special effects can be easily detected?
My understanding is the chain of custody was broken by the CIA, this comes form Douglas P. Horne "inside the ARRB", I know blah blah blah
if JFK was shot from the front / side how would you hide it, make a spray of blood to the front and disguise the hole in the back of the head.
Better adjust the background timing, because it sucks to have to answer why the limo came to almost a complete stop.
Could they have accomplished this?
Besides the fact, NO ONE would have believed JFK was hit from the rear after viewing the Z-Film
I am trying to point out that some of the conclusions of WC Report cannot be correct.
I don't envision posting on this forum an alternative scenario, not now, probably not ever.
If you can't deal with what I post, so what?
I'm going to make it official.
I can't convince you there was no shooter on the 6th floor, why would I suggest not only was the shooter not on the sixth floor, that he may not have been inside the TSBD?The way to convince people that there was no shooter on the sixth floor is to provide an alternative location and demonstrate why shots fired from that location better fit the entirety of the evidence.
Came back to answer post, #1063I'm not sure what your mentality here is. Why do you resist offering your alternative scenario?
I don't envision posting on this forum an alternative scenario, not now, probably not ever.
If you can't deal with what I post, so what?
All lunarorbit has to do is ask me to leave.
Do you know if it would have been possible for an expert to take a film similar to the z-film and add special effects to it?
Does it not cause you to wonder---You know, you may actually be onto something here.
How 3 men could not detect 3 reports from a rifle 12 feet away? Is this even in the realm of plausible, because it sure as hell is not possible. Have you ever been around firearms? If so you KNOW that it is not possible to have a rifle, 12 feet away, fire and not KNOW it. Without ear protection your ears may even be ringing after a report.
Does it not cause you to wonder---You know, you may actually be onto something here.
How 3 men could not detect 3 reports from a rifle 12 feet away? Is this even in the realm of plausible, because it sure as hell is not possible. Have you ever been around firearms? If so you KNOW that it is not possible to have a rifle, 12 feet away, fire and not KNOW it. Without ear protection your ears may even be ringing after a report.
While Williams, Jarman and Norman all clearly heard Oswald's shots, quickly agreeing that the shots came from directly above them, no one on or near the 'grassy knoll' (e.g., Zapruder and Sitzman) noticed any rifles being firing just a few feet away from them.
So, by your own reasoning, I guess that pretty much rules out a shooter on the grassy knoll, huh?
I think this is actually pretty conclusive. There were a number of people near the knoll (which makes it a really bad choice for a shooter, in multiple ways). No one near the knoll spotted a shooter or reported the effects of shots right next to them.Yes, it certainly is conclusive. So much so that if the conspiracists were to ever correctly acknowledge even a fraction of the known facts and evidence of the assassination, their game would be over. Even they would have to agree that Oswald did it, alone, not just beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond practically any doubt.
Most JFK assassination 'theories' are the exact opposite: taking what was actually a very simple and straightforward (albeit huge) crime and complicating it far beyond fantasy.
Do you know if it would have been possible for an expert to take a film similar to the z-film and add special effects to it?No, it wouldn't, because it's impossible to add special effects to a film after it's been shot. You don't even know the correct terminology, therefore you don't have even the faintest clue if it were possible, much less be able to detect if it actually was.
My understanding is the chain of custody was broken by the CIA, this comes form Douglas P. Horne "inside the ARRB", I know blah blah blahMy understanding is that John Fitzgerald Kennedy never actually existed, that he was entirely a holographic projection controlled by Adolf Hitler using alien technology captured by the Illuminati Society. Can you refute this?
No, it wouldn't, because it's impossible to add special effects to a film after it's been shot. You don't even know the correct terminology,I assume you mean optical effects? I suppose they're now more properly called digital effects, because that's how they're now done. Special effects include things like blood squibs on the actual actors and controlled fires and explosions on the actual set. Am I right?
My understanding is that John Fitzgerald Kennedy never actually existed, that he was entirely a holographic projection controlled by Adolf Hitler using alien technology captured by the Illuminati Society. Can you refute this?Good one!
I assume you mean optical effects?"Visual effects" is the term I'm familiar with, the catch-all for anything done in post-production to alter the appearance of footage shot on the practical stage.
Special effects include things like blood squibs on the actual actors and controlled fires and explosions on the actual set. Am I right?You are correct, sir. I see that virtually everyone else responding to this claim also repeated his error, but I am far less prone to cut Bluster Boy any slack.
Danke. Prof has crossed the boundary, for me, from "his claims require a rational rebuttal" to "point and laugh."QuoteMy understanding is that John Fitzgerald Kennedy never actually existed, that he was entirely a holographic projection controlled by Adolf Hitler using alien technology captured by the Illuminati Society. Can you refute this?Good one!
And you're an idiot. The bullet that passed through JFK and Connally did NOT 'smash through' bones. It passed through not one bone in JFK's body and hit side on in Connally's wrist, breaking the bone and flattening the side of the bullet.http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/22nd_Issue/sbt.html
So nothing new to report then, prof? No actual answers to the questions that have been put to you? You've had all that time off to answer them, and yet you come back with this?Just want to show what the actual evidence is.
Profmunkin, you have until the end of the day Friday (June 15, 2012) to provide us with the answers to our questions. Who fired the shots that hit President Kennedy and Governor Connally, and what was the location of the assassin (or assassins)? Explain to us why your scenario makes more sense than Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone gunman.
If you do not provide these answers in the time I have allotted you will be permanently banned. I believe I have been extremely generous in allowing you to make over 400 posts despite what you did to the Proboards forum, but it's time for you to prove you're not just a troll.
By the way, prof, were you hoping we'd all have forgotten this, posted by Lunar Orbit in post #1073 on this thread?Profmunkin, you have until the end of the day Friday (June 15, 2012) to provide us with the answers to our questions. Who fired the shots that hit President Kennedy and Governor Connally, and what was the location of the assassin (or assassins)? Explain to us why your scenario makes more sense than Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone gunman.
If you do not provide these answers in the time I have allotted you will be permanently banned. I believe I have been extremely generous in allowing you to make over 400 posts despite what you did to the Proboards forum, but it's time for you to prove you're not just a troll.
Your convenient disappearance on that day, followed by your reappearance a month later was presumably in the hope that none of us would remember that you are still being held to this requirement to present the answers to those questions.
You're not fooling anyone. Put up, shut up, or get banned. Up to you.
Pretty good, if a bit verbose.
I might go with "Magic Bullet" in the center square, since that covers more ground and (IMO) is the more common concept. Of course, pristine-ness is part of the magic.
In JFK conspiracy circles, the "magic bullet" refers specifically to the second shot from the TSBD, which caused injuries to JFK's neck and Connolly's chest, wrist, and thigh with minimal damage to the bullet, and ended up on a gurney at Parkland Hospital. To the conspiracists that seems flatly impossible, so they sneeringly say it could only have happened by magic.A classic example of an appeal to personal incredulity. People (even Americans) think they know much more about guns and bullets than they really do. Many don't even know that military rifles like Oswald's fire a different kind of bullet than those normally used in civilian hunting. Military rifles fire full metal jacketed bullets while hunters usually use soft or hollow-point lead bullets. I strongly suspect that most of the CTs who think CE399 couldn't have done what it did and come out "pristine" don't realize a) CE399 is actually severely flattened and b) it took a lot of force to do that to a jacketed bullet.
ka9q, that's an interesting point, and one that I think tells against the conspiracy theory in more than one way. We must assume that the presumed conspirators would know how bullets work. If getting rid of JFK was imperative, why didn't they use ammunition that would be more likely to be immediately lethal? Not to mention, something that a civilian would be more likely to have on hand? Lots of hunters in Texas. Whereas the Marine-trained Oswald would naturally gravitate towards using a military weapon.The Discovery Channel program made that exact point. If there was a second gunman, we don't know what weapon he used because no second weapon, spent shells or bullets were ever found. But it's reasonable to assume that if it were a well-organized conspiracy they'd pick an effective one. So to test the conspiracy claims they hired an expert marksman and let him choose an appropriate weapon and ammunition: a .30 Winchester hunting rifle with soft-point ammunition and a good scope. Then he showed that several supposed shooting locations didn't even have a clear shot of the target at the time. When they did simulate a shot from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll, the results were totally different from what actually happened. That's the test where nothing was left of the target. It was obviously a much more capable weapon than the Carcano -- not that the Carcano wasn't sufficient.
Right. The "Mauser" myth falls into that "didn't follow through to the conclusion". So you frame your guy with a Carcano, shoot the President with a Mauser, then leave the Mauser in the building knowing full well it will be found???This is another common element of conspiracy thinking: the conspirators are at once so extraordinarily competent that they pulled off "the crime of the century" (that's what it always is) and got away with it for years or decades, yet also so incompetent as to make dozens of simple mistakes that left absolute proof of their culpability for the conspiracists to find.
*ducks*
Right. The "Mauser" myth falls into that "didn't follow through to the conclusion". So you frame your guy with a Carcano, shoot the President with a Mauser, then leave the Mauser in the building knowing full well it will be found???This is another common element of conspiracy thinking: the conspirators are at once so extraordinarily competent that they pulled off "the crime of the century" (that's what it always is) and got away with it for years or decades, yet also so incompetent as to make dozens of simple mistakes that left absolute proof of their culpability for the conspiracists to find.
I suppose that you could resolve that paradox if you think of yourself as so brilliant that you could find mistakes even by conspirators as powerful and capable as those who killed JFK or faked Apollo...
A CTist often believes that the Dark Side will make stupid slipups like this, because otherwise, their "anomalies" don't mean anything.Or, or, or... some honest soul coerced into participating deliberately left "clues" for anyone with the intelligence to correctly interpret them.
Ok even if it does prove out to be how many shooters....what difference will it make at this stage?
It happened in 63 didn't it? So other shooters if at that time were 21 makes them 70 right now...chances are these.."button" men would be established agents of doom....so say around 30 so chances are they are all dead...what difference in anyone's life would finding this out establish?
It happened in 63 didn't it? So other shooters if at that time were 21 makes them 70 right now...chances are these.."button" men would be established agents of doom....so say around 30 so chances are they are all dead...what difference in anyone's life would finding this out establishTry saying something like that to the Nazi hunters. Some are still pursuing escaped Nazis who by now are in their 90s if even still alive. Now maybe that's justified because the Nazis were uniquely extreme in their evil, but assassinating the President of the United States also ranks up there somewhere.
gwiz
Why would you only have a single shooter?
Why on earth would you have more than one, or at most a group firing from a single position? Three shooters from three different angles is a ridiculous way to try to persuade people that there was one shooter, as well as tripling the chances of being discovered by accident.
The trouble with the JFK conspiracy theories in general is that they assume a simulaneous complete control of every variable, and an inability to control anything. If you need three shooters because the odds are that one cannot successfully pull off a fatal shot, your solution should be to select a better vantage point (or shooter), not have people firing from random compass points. If the grassy knoll is a better location, put the shooter there - not also two other places. Heck, its relative concealment would allow the plotters to shoot and kill a "patsy" on the spot, instead of allowing Oswald to wander off the scene completely unnoticed.
The only reason why conspiracy theorists get obsessed about multiple shooters is that it allows them to stare at fuzzy polaroids and play "let's find the anomaly".
I have always wondered why Oswald would wait until the limo was moving away from him to shoot - I believe that has been covered, but I can't be sure until I research it.
I have always wondered why Oswald would wait until the limo was moving away from him to shoot - I believe that has been covered, but I can't be sure until I research it.
Off the top of my head:
1: Kennedy was in the back of the limo, therefore a shot from behind gives a better target than a shot from the front. Whatever else you may say about Oswald, he wasn't firing indiscriminately: he intended to kill Kennedy and ONLY Kennedy.
2: With the limo moving mostly away it was hardly moving from Oswald's viewpoint, and so made an easier target to line up on and shoot (and he still missed once).
3: With the limo facing away from him so were all the secret service agents, meaning it would take longer for them to find him than if they had been roughly facing his location.
That's a very good question. The video that got pulled was titled "Reply to Jesse Ventura - JFK 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano rifle myths". It contains no other mention of any other living person. The commentary around it is highly critical of Ventura's claim that he could not reproduce the three shots of the assassination, but I saw nothing that wasn't typical of open American debate involving controversial public figures like Ventura.
So Youtube apparently responds to complaints of harassment just as they do to complaints of copyright violations: by presuming the complaint is valid and yanking the video in question, sight unseen. And it would seem that conspiracy nuts take full advantage of this loophole to censor their opponents.
I kept a copy of the video in question and would be happy to provide it on request. It really is an excellent refutation of the top 10 myths about the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle by someone who owns and shoots one.
Just go to http://www.ka9q.net/mag30th.mp4