JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[Jason Thompson]

Oh, and your evidence of a Zapruder film being altered is still awaited, as is your explanation for how a sniper on the knoll could have inflicted the wounds on Kennedy and Connally. Even the HSCA report, which was the only official document to conclude the possibility of the knoll being the location of a gunman, still concluded that there had to be someone shooting from the TSBD in order to inflict the wounds seen on Kennedy and Connally.

[Mr Gorsky]

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

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.

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.

Most importantly, you are posting your interpretation of the facts, and not the bare facts themselves, which makes your training and experience relevant. You have given us no reason to believe that your interpretation of the facts should be taken seriously, nor even that you know what you are talking about. And your apparent disregard for actual science is always a red flag for me.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

Do I have any direct evidence of that? No, and I could be completely wrong. However, it is consistent with little things like the known behaviour of light and glass. Has it been considered by anyone who insists Oswald should have been clearly seen by anyone who looked that way?

[ka9q]

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.

But this does raise an interesting question - could there have been glare off the windows of the TSBD into the faces of the agents as they rode along Houston before the turn onto Elm, possibly helping obscure Oswald as he waited in his window? This kind of thing seems a little beyond Oswald's intellectual abilities, though. This will take more analysis. I don't see any window glare in the Dillard picture taken from Houston St seconds after the shooting, but it's a closeup of just the 5th floor (showing two of Norman, Williams and Jarman) and 6th floor (Oswald's) windows and doesn't show the rest of the building.

This should be fairly easy to resolve with an astronomy program giving the exact position of the sun at the time of the shooting and the orientation of the building.

[Echnaton]

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. 

[Echnaton]

All the illusion of a real trial, but not more then a fraud.

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.

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.

Equivocation through the use of a semantic shift.  No indictment was ever handed up as a formal accusation that Oswald had committed a crime.  While you use "indictment" in a metaphorical way such as "a documentary that served as an indictment of the government."   Your conflating of these two meanings is a rhetorical fallacy.  In addition no charges were filed by the Dallas County District Attorney nor were there legal proceedings that put Oswald in jeopardy of life or limb.  Thus there was no requirement for Oswald to have any representation. 

It is your job, and one that you have failed to do, to show the WC conclusions were unfair to Oswald.

[twik]

profmunkin - how much smoke would a rifle shot create in 1963? We can assume that your sniper was not using a muzzle-loader.

[Echnaton]

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?

[gillianren]

If you want some fun, read up on Oliver Stone's trouble getting the claimed puff of smoke reproduced for JFK.  And yet that never actually made Oliver Stone sit and consider the ramifications, because Oliver Stone is a True Believer.  He must be, if he's going to swallow what Garrison claimed as fact.

[ka9q]

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.

[ka9q]

Follow up on the question of sun glint off the TSBD windows. I've looked at several more photographs taken from Houston St of the south side of the TSBD at the time of the assassination, including an uncropped version of the Dillard photograph, and the Hughes movie. It does appear that for some locations on Houston St some of the windows do appear very bright, but it's hard to tell if we're actually seeing a specular reflection of the sun. The windows might not have been completely flat or completely clean; this was an urban area at a time before automotive pollution controls.

Nevertheless, the geometry of Dealy Plaza and the position of the sun at the time of the assassination might have made it more difficult for the agents to scan the windows of the TSBD as they approached it on Houston St. Of course they had to scan many things very quickly, primarily the crowds (although they were thinning) on the sides of the street.

Considering the arrangement of the boxes at the sniper window, it's fairly obvious that Oswald sat where he did so the wall to his left of the window would obscure him from being seen from Houston St. He was still seen, of course, by a few witnesses much closer to the building. He probably kept his rifle out of sight on the floor under the window until he was ready. That would also have minimized the chances of a coworker seeing it had they approached his area on the 6th floor.

 

[profmunkin]

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.

[Echnaton]

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.

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?

[twik]

'Discernable to the human eye' does not necessarily mean "will hang in the air outside, in a stiff wind, so that people across the plaza can see it."

[profmunkin]

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
"Mr. BALL - What did the package look like?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long."

Frazier is specific, he provides a description of the type of brown paper used and size of the package, about 2" long.

Q series
"Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.

Palming it, THE OTHER PART WITH HIS RIGHT HAND


Q series
"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."

If you would read the transcript you will know Frazier is answering the question WAS SOMETHING HEAVY IN THE PACKAGE?
His answer to this question in no way negates all the previous testimony, he is saying No it did not look unusual, it looked like curtain rods would be in the package, the weight or size did not draw any curiosity that the package may have contained anything other than curtain rods.