JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[profmunkin]

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.

Maybe not.
Would you enlighten me?

[Not Myself]

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?

That seems much easier to reconcile with the evidence than all these multiple-shooter scenarios.  And, provided it is kept sufficiently generic, it's probably not even falsifiable - I don't know there is any way we could ever eliminate the possibility that LHO was working for/with some unknown party for some unknown reason.

[Chew]

JFK and Connally simultaneously reacting to getting shot starting at frame 224.

I disagree
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.

[Chew]

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.

More like it looked like a Red Delicious but turned out to be a McIntosh.

http://insideflipside.com/images/weaver%20scope%20brochures.jpg
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/day_clip.gif

You're straining integrity to the breaking point.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

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.

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.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

Absolute utter crap. You have no idea about the slightest hint of the way reality actually works, do you?

If I fire a bullet from an equivalent height to the sixth floor, into two ballistics gel targets an equivalent distance from me as the limo was in Dealey plaza, the result will be the same whether I am firing from the TSBD or not. Physics doesn't care about the trimmings, about which building the shooter is standing in or which car the target is sitting in, or even if the target is the same person who was originally shot. If a gun can be fired from the same elevation and distance into two targets and create the same pattern of wounds then that is the end of the story. There is no discussion to be had. All your anecdotes, witness statements and theories mean nothing, because the evidence, based on pure physics, says something else.

Those shots and their effects HAVE been duplicated. All your sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'lalalalalala' won't change that.

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.

[Jason Thompson]

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 Thompson]

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.

"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?

[Echnaton]

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.

Maybe not.
Would you enlighten me?

Just a few posts later is an example of someone disagreeing with your, personal and unsupported interpretation. 

JFK and Connally simultaneously reacting to getting shot starting at frame 224.

I disagree
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.

You also both dispute the veracity of the Zapruder film with an unsupported accusation of government tampering yet choose to use it to illustrate your ad hoc story line. 

[profmunkin]

You're straining integrity to the breaking point.

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.

Carcano does not stamp their name on their rifle?
Weaver does not stamp their name on their scope?

If the Dallas law officials are this inept, how can you possibly accept any evidence they produced?
 

[profmunkin]

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.

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.

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.

[profmunkin]

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.

That's your opinion.

[profmunkin]

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.

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.
If you want to claim the shots were made from the 6th floor TSBD, maybe you should try to find testimonial evidence in support of anyone being in that location and post it.

[Chew]

You're straining integrity to the breaking point.

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.

Simple. In Weitzman's own words,

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.

Then later in his testimony:

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.

He saw it partially covered by boxes and only got a glance at it.

Carcano does not stamp their name on their rifle?
Weaver does not stamp their name on their scope?

Weitzman never handled the rifle and he did not inspect the rifle.

How stupid do you think the conspirators would be to plant a different caliber rifle than Oswald's in the TSBD in an attempt to frame him?

[Chew]

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.

That's your opinion.

That is not an opinion. That is a fact. Please show how JFK reacted to being hit at 189.