JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[LunarOrbit]

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?

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.

And since the trajectories of the shots that hit JFK and Governor Connally are not possible from the grassy knoll we know the witnesses who thought they heard shots coming from there must be mistaken.

Did your read "Reclaiming History - The Assassination Of JFK" by Vincent Bugliosi ?
Do you believe Vincent Bugliosi ?

No. I'm not all that interested in the JFK assassination conspiracy theory so I haven't bothered with books or videos on the subject.

[gillianren]

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.

Oh, you want to know my source for this?  Here's a hint.  It's a website which has already been cited several times in this thread.

And I have read enough of Reclaiming History to know that there is one person on this thread who doesn't understand any of Bugliosi's information.  Bugliosi, by the way, is the one who served as prosecutor in a certain mock trial.  Which he says prominently in his book, as anyone who's read it should know . . . .

[profmunkin]

I was wrong even though I was right, so what ? I was still right.

Anything to avoid owning up to your own mistakes, eh prof?

Just an example of my humor 

[profmunkin]

I have no idea.

Of course you have no idea, no one knows for sure because it was never explained.

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.

[Echnaton]

I have no idea.

Of course you have no idea, no one knows for sure because it was never explained.

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.

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?

[Chew]

Weitzman was a deputy constable for Dallas County. He worked in the courthouse. He was not a member of the crime scene unit of the Dallas Police Dept. By his own testimony he got a glance of the rifle behind some boxes. He never picked it up, he never touched it, he never examined it.

Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police Department's identification bureau was responsible for processing the crime scene. He brought the rifle back to his office and dictated the identifying features of the rifle and scope to his secretary.

[profmunkin]

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.

[Chew]

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

Try 33% and you'll be closer.

[profmunkin]

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?

[/quote]
No. I'm not all that interested in the JFK assassination conspiracy theory so I haven't bothered with books or videos on the subject.
[/quote]

speechless

[profmunkin]

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.
You clearly do not have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Of 70 assassination witness testimonies 57 of them described the number of reports experienced.
2 shots - (5)
1 or 3 shots - (2)
3 shots - (41)
3 or 4 shots - (3)
4 shots - (4)
4 to 6 - (1)
"volly" - (1)

One problem with determing the number of shots may have been the spacing of the shots.
Most witnesses describe specific spacing of shots where there was a report followed by a long pause, then a flurry of reports from 2 to 3 more in quick succession. Some witnesses may not have been able to descern each individual shot because the second, third and fourth shots were spced so close together.

Bham...Bham...Bham (1)
Bham...Bham.Bham (21)
Bham...Bham.Bham.Bham (1)
Bham.Bham...Bham.Bham (4)
"Volly" - (1)
"Close together" (2)

[Jason Thompson]

Because the WC never attempted to ascertain why this happened.
They accepted, sorry I made a mistake as all the evidence they wanted.

Explain why that is inadequate.

This was the greatest single investigation of an event in history, yet the WC negelected to explain how this misidentification happened.

Do they have to explain every little thing, or can they legitimately assume that most people with an ounce of sense undertsnad that things like this happen sometimes?

Fact - Dallas Police discovered and identified a 7.65 Mauser with a Weaver scope on the 6th floor TSBD.

Wrong. Dallas police discovered a rifle that one man, looking at it from a distance while it was obscured, suggested might have been a 7.5 mm Mauser. By his own account he did not handle it, examine it closely, or perform any sort of detailed inspection. He merely offered his opinion on what it was from a limited glance he got at it. The weapon was NEVER officially identified as a 7.5 mm Mauser.

Fact - Re-identification changed to a 6.5 Carcano and cheap Japanese scope.

Yes, because that identification was made by proper examination of the rifle.

This is not, knowing, this is a belief, please try to understand this.

It is you suffering from an inability to understand. how many more times must you be told that the rifles and scopes bear sufficient superficial resemblance to be mistaken at a galnce, and that Weitzman did not perform a detailed inspection of the rifle to identify it, just offered up his view on what it was based on a limited observation from a distance?

[Jason Thompson]

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.

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.

[profmunkin]

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.

[profmunkin]

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

Try 33% and you'll be closer.
[/quote]
A figure of 33% ?
What is this evidence of?

[profmunkin]

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?
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.