Author Topic: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots  (Read 603349 times)

Offline twik

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 595
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #855 on: May 31, 2012, 12:58:56 PM »
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.

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?)

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.

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #856 on: May 31, 2012, 01:49:08 PM »
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 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? 
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 02:26:35 PM by Echnaton »
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline profmunkin

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #857 on: May 31, 2012, 02:21:53 PM »
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?)

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.
Actually Kellerman never commented on a time factor.
Landis and McIntyre stated 5 seconds, Powers stated 5-6 seconds from 1st to 3rd shot.

10 Professionals who train for these type scenarios "froze", one initiated action, one acted.

Yes, I agree, time is difficult to gauge, point is if the shots were made by bolt action rifle, it had to take at least 5 to 6 or more seconds to reload, aim and fire 2 more times.

Yes, parts of the Z film were altered.

I look for corroborating testimony that will contribute towards a cohesive and logical narrative.

Offline Chew

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #858 on: May 31, 2012, 02:26:31 PM »
My favorite example of the accuracy of eyewitnesses is the sinking of the RMS Titanic. Half of the survivors said it broke in half before it sank. The other half said it sank in one piece.

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #859 on: May 31, 2012, 02:28:44 PM »
I look for corroborating testimony that will contribute towards a cohesive and logical narrative.

This can be read as being equivalent to "I am performing uninformed anomaly hunting."
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline twik

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 595
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #860 on: May 31, 2012, 03:24:53 PM »

I look for corroborating testimony that will contribute towards a cohesive and logical narrative.

Great. Please let us know when you find the "cohesive and logical narrative" that disproves the Warren Commission.

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.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 03:43:01 PM by twik »

Offline profmunkin

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #861 on: May 31, 2012, 03:44:53 PM »
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.
FACT: The windows were not secured along the motorcade route.
FACT: SS allowed the route of the motorcade to make a sharp turn from Houston to Elm.
FACT: Motorcycle escorts had strict instructions to stay back of the limo.
FACT: Known threats of assassination existed.
FACT: Miami motorcade had recently been cancelled because of known threats.
FACT: Dallas was a conservative hot spot, known to be radically anti JFK.
FACT: Many agents recognized JFK was in distress after the first shot, but looked away.
FACT: Kellerman, knew JFK was hit by first shot, but did nothing.
FACT: LBJ was protected immediately, after the 1st report.
FACT: Not one SS agent could be seen to make a move to protect the President.
FACT: Greer slowed the limo down after the first shot, almost to a halt.
FACT: Kellerman looked back
FACT: Greer looked back two times
FACT: Greer did not accelerate until after at least the 3rd shot.
FACT: The SS did not relay any information to law enforcement concerning the perceived location or direction for the sniper.
FACT: The SS illegally and forcibly removed JFK body from the hospital.
FACT: The SS illegally remove JFK body from Dallas and Texas.
FACT: The SS illegally sanitized the crime scene, the limo.
FACT: Only 4 of the 12 agents testified under oath.
FACT: Not one of the 4 that testified under oath were ever cross examined by Oswald's defense attorney.

My Expertise and Training IS Irrelevant!

Offline profmunkin

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 454
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #862 on: May 31, 2012, 04:08:31 PM »
Great. Please let us know when you find the "cohesive and logical narrative" that disproves the Warren Commission.

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.
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.
All evidence I originally presented to support my narrative was ignored as evidence. some quote to the effect of no evidence will ever be accepted comes to mind. Closed minded.
So far there has not been any ground open for discussion.


So the strategy was altered to utilize actual WC testimony to support my narrative, but since no one will accept corroborated testimony either, it would be folly to present my narrative.
It has just been amusing to see how ignorant of evidence within the testimonies you guys actually are.

If you don't know the facts, then it is impossible to discern the probability that a specific narrative has merit.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #863 on: May 31, 2012, 05:43:52 PM »
Because quick movements are more easily detected, guided by a flash, the smoke and the sound, but these trained professionals could detect nothing.

The flash occurred when they were not looking at the TSBD, and how much smoke do you expect to be visible? As for quick movements, how many people react quickly to hearing a shot? How do you distinguish a quick movement out of the corner of your eye by a man with a gun from a quick movement out of the corner of your eye from a terrified bystander?

Quote
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.

Naive oversimplification of the acoustic situation in a built up area again.

Quote
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.

So what? Where is the rest of the evidence for anything being seen or recovered at 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?
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #864 on: May 31, 2012, 05:47:54 PM »
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.

And it is not even remotely surprising to see you dismissing science in this way. You really have no understanding of it, do you?

FACT: acoustic considerations in a built up area can lead to people misidentifying the location of a short sharp sound. Majority consensus is NOT the way to determine reality, since the majority may be fooled by the same considerations.

FACT: Shots from the TSBD have been shown to be capable of inflicting the wounds on JFK and Connally.

FACT: No such corroborating evidence exists that such wounds could be inflicted from the knoll.

FACT: The effect of the 'back and to the left' movement being caused by a bulolet from behind has been demonstrated.

You have nothing beyond your peristent clinging on to earwitness testimony as if it somehow trumps any and all actual demonstrations.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #865 on: May 31, 2012, 05:48:26 PM »
Yes, parts of the Z film were altered.

Evidence?
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #866 on: May 31, 2012, 05:52:14 PM »
I do have a specific narrative.

Then present it.

Quote
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.

Stop playing games and get on with it. We will view your narrative with scientific rigour. Keep in mind that it doesn't matter is more earwitnesses agree with it if physical evidence is lacking. Start by explaining how the wounds were inflicted by a sniper on the knoll.

Quote
it would be folly to present my narrative.

Nice try, but don't waste time dancing around by saying it's our fault you won't present your own narrative.

Quote
If you don't know the facts, then it is impossible to discern the probability that a specific narrative has merit.

YOU don't know the facts. Your arguments change as and when it is convenient for you to do so. Pages back you said the location of the hole in Kennedy's shirt was irrelevant. Until later on when you discovered it was another favourite anomaly of conspiracy theorists and then you presented it. You dismissed acoustic considerations from your entire argument for page after page until it became convenient for you to use it to explain away some incosistencies you uncovered as you kept reading the testimonies.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #867 on: May 31, 2012, 05:56:06 PM »
My Expertise and Training IS Irrelevant!

Of course it is. It always is for conspiracy theorists, who want to coddle themselves in their nice world where their own limited understanding is everything they need to know, and everything must conform to their expectations or else the whole of reality is suspect. far easier to assume you know everything than to admit to ignorance and that sometimes some technical expertise might actually be useful in these discussions.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #868 on: May 31, 2012, 06:03:52 PM »
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
FACT: Miami motorcade had recently been cancelled because of known threats.
Wrong. Miami motorcade went ahead as scheduled.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

You can Monday-morning quarterback all you want, but because you are not trained in their profession your criticisms are meaningless. Criticisms by others who are actually trained and experienced in the job of personal protection would actually be worth listening to.
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
FACT: Kellerman looked back
How 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.
Quote
FACT: Greer looked back two times
Again, to find out what had happened. Seems natural to me.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?

The law was quickly changed so that assassination of a senior federal official is a federal crime that pre-empts local jurisdiction, so if this ever happens again it will be entirely legal to immediately return the body to Washington.
Quote
FACT: The SS illegally remove JFK body from Dallas and Texas.
You just said that.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.


« Last Edit: May 31, 2012, 06:09:01 PM by ka9q »

Offline Mr Gorsky

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 40
  • Flying blind on a rocket cycle
    • That Fatal Kiss Music
Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
« Reply #869 on: May 31, 2012, 06:36:18 PM »

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.

However, I really do have to take issue with this idea that your training and experience are irrelevant.

It is clear even to me that you don't really have a grip on any of the science involved here, and seem happy to simply dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't match up to your preconceptions of what happened in Dealey Plaza that day. So, as an interested bystander, I have to ask ... why should I listen to what you have to say?

I don't know any of the other posters on this board personally, but in many cases I do know their qualifications an experience, because they have been open about those things, and I am intelligent enough to be able to use what is posted here to cross reference with other sources to see that they know what they are talking about. I am therefore far more likely to accept their analysis of the science here than someone who not only refuses to reveal the basis on which they make their analysis, but also refuses to even acknowledge its relevance.

I am a pension specialist by qualification, training and 25 years of experience, and my clients rightly expect me to be able to prove that and demonstrate proper context for the advice that I give them before listening to what I have to say. I wouldn't expect them to take seriously what my friend the auto mechanic has to say about pensions any more than I would expect them to take my advice on fixing a sticky carburettor over his.

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?
The Optimist: The glass is half full
The Pessimist: The glass is half empty
The Engineer: The glass is twice as big as it needs to be