JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[profmunkin]

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.

Is it the same to you?

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?
I am trying to point out that some of the conclusions of WC Report cannot be correct.

[Jason Thompson]

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!

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.

And for the umpteenth time, yes this HAS been replicated. You've been told this, and shown this, and you STILL refuse to acknowledge it.
 

YES 5 witnesses saw gunmen YES 4 saw puff of smoke

Provide the testimony of those witnesses who saw gunmen. Not just men doing things, but gunmen. ANd please recall also that numerous witnesses report a gunman in the TSBD.

Why would they leave shells behind?

So they spent time looking for their empty shells and picking them up, did they?

Again, please remember that shells WERE found in the TSBD.

please address the issue, can you detect the direction of gun firing from 12 feet away from an open space not?

This is NOT an open space, this is inside a building with open windows. Echoes and reverberations would have made the gunshot sound almost impossible to localise, but again that's physics so I expect you to ignore it.

[SolusLupus]

Still want to know what technology the Secret Service/CIA/hiddengovernmentorganizationofyourchoice had available that could easily replicate actual footage, that no one could tell was different from the real thing, in just a single day.

[Jason Thompson]

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?

Yes, but NOT in the time available.

Do you know if special effects can be easily detected?

Yes they can.

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

That doesn't matter if there just was not enough time to do the effects work on the film, which by that time existed in multiple copies.

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.

How would you do that? All you have is some appeal to 'expert' capabilities, but you have no idea if they even exist. They simply have to in order for your story to make sense.

Better adjust the background timing, because it sucks to have to answer why the limo came to almost a complete stop.

No, there is a simple answer. The driver hears a bang and slows the car to check that the bang wasn't something wrong with the vehicle. That's PERFECT NORMAL BEHAVIOUR! You sit there with your fifty years of hindsight and think everyone should have reacted as though they were being shot at but fail to understand that most people would not have realised they were being shot at until a few seconds later, and those few seconds would be all that was needed to pull off the kill.

Could they have accomplished this?

No.

Besides the fact, NO ONE would have believed JFK was hit from the rear after viewing the Z-Film

Wrong. Anyone with a decent understanding of physics would have believed JFK was hit from the rear. Again, I will tell you, THIS HAS BEEN DUPLICATED. Over and over and over again. Have you even bothered to read up on the work that was done on this? Have you looked at the demonstrations of this fact that have been presented here? Things and people hit by bullets are NOT thrown back by the impact. The bullet penetrates. It does not push.

[Jason Thompson]

I am trying to point out that some of the conclusions of WC Report cannot be correct.

Unfortunately your understanding of the testimony and the science behind the evidence is so limited that you just can't see that what seems incorrect to you makes perfect sense in the context of reality and actual investigative procedure.

You won't post your 'alternative' scenario because you don't have one. You are no more than a troll, and we know this full well. You are wasting everyone's time, and I'm frankly not even sure you believe half of what you are writing. You have already demonstrated by your behaviour at the Proboards forum that you are intellectually dishonest and cowardly. Your failure to answer the simple questions put to you and your absolute refusal to acknowledge that reams of relevant material that has been presented to you just shows you have no interest in proper debate or discussion. We shan't miss you when the inevitable ban occurs, but don't worry, all your drivel will still be here for anyone to read and ridicule.

[SolusLupus]

Prof, I just don't get it.  Some call you a troll, but if so, you're a dang persistent one.  What are you doing here?   You won't convince us by trying to paint us as stupid when you show you aren't willing to do actual research into the real data.  You won't win us over by parroting people long debunked.

If you aren't here to test your own ideas, you must be here to try to convince us, but you aren't able to adopt a tone that could, in the least, be convincing to people that actually understand the details of the case.  You certainly do no one any favors by CONSISTENTLY IGNORING that the gunshot was replicated, or any of the other very very vital pieces of evidence that you don't like.  In fact, ignoring key pieces of evidence has done you little favors to anyone.

Making claim after claim that is easily debunked, or is based entirely on reading into testimony what isn't even said, makes you look amazingly dishonest, or at the least delusional.

Why are you here?  What are you doing?

[Echnaton]

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?

Evasion noted.    Your ideas lack substance and you refuse to address critical comments that undermine your hypothesis that LHO was not the shooter without putting forward any alternate theory that can be tested.  You continually return to the grassy knoll as a location for a shooter but always back away from making an actual claim and ignore the fact that bullets shot from that position would have had notably different results than what was observed.  Instead you conjure up some mysterious technology that would allow a film to be tampered with in a way that has not yet been noticed.  In other words, what you have posted to date has been handily dealt with through criticisms of your presentation.  The fact is that you are a conspiracy monger and no one here is buying.  I look forward to Friday.

[Echnaton]

I'm going to make it official.

Thanks LO.  I don't like asking for people to be banned, but the frustration level here is getting quite high with the lack of response.  Profmunkin has had ample time to stop cherry picking and answer our question.  We will all be better off if he moves on to another orchard.

[Echnaton]

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.   

[Mr Gorsky]

73 pages in, and still profmunkin doesn't get that you cannot prove that Oswald didn't kill JFK from the sixth floor of the TSBD without providing evidence for an alternative.

Proving a negative is impossible ... which is why a defendant in a criminal trial is not required to prove that they didn't commit the crime, only that there is enough reason for the jury to doubt the prosecution's argument that they did.

Or why I cannot prove to my wife that I wasn't in the pub watching the football. I have to provide evidence that I was still in the office, just as I claimed.

[twik]

Came back to answer post, #1063
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.

I'm not sure what your mentality here is.  Why do you resist offering your alternative scenario?

That's what gets me about so many conspiracy posters. They'll complain endlessly about "the official story", but will never get around to posting their own. Apparently they fear what will happen when *their* story gets the same treatment.

[Jason Thompson]

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?

Here's a question, prof. What experts were there in using special effects on 8 mm film?

Special effects were the purview of the movie-makers. They used 35 mm film. 8 mm film was solely used for home movies in the 1960s, because it was cheap. The small frame size was ideal for simple home movies. It would be terrible for special effects addition, however. Movies that included such things were shot on 35 mm film, which has about 25 times the area per frame to play with. Also notable is the fact that addition of special effects to movies takes months or years. The also tend to use only the section they want to put the effects on and splice it back in later. Just the adjustment of a few frames in the Zapruder film would have taken days. Can you find a gap of several days when all the copies of the film were mysteriously unavailable? Or, as I suspect is more likely, are you laboring under the misapprehension that there was only ever one copy made and held?

And before you consider turning the question back onto me, I don't know the answers, but I'm not the one proposing anything was actually done with the Zapruder film, so I don't actually have a position to defend here.

[ka9q]

Does it not cause you to wonder---
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.

You know, you may actually be onto something here.

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?

[gillianren]

Stephen Sondheim's dramatic conspiracy (John Wilkes Booth, et al., talked Oswald into it) makes more sense than a grassy knoll shooter.  For that one, all you have to do is posit that Lee was hallucinating.  Okay, there's also the precognition issue, but dramatic license.  At least it doesn't violate the laws of physics the way a grassy knoll shooter would.

[twik]

Does it not cause you to wonder---
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.

You know, you may actually be onto something here.

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.