ApolloHoax.net

Off Topic => Other Conspiracy Theories => Topic started by: profmunkin on April 11, 2012, 03:59:22 PM

Title: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 11, 2012, 03:59:22 PM
Would anyone care to discuss multiple shooters in the assassination of JFK?
Assassination team of 3 shooters, positioned in 3 locations.

Would anyone care to discuss this or any other details from this tragedy?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 11, 2012, 04:13:01 PM
Okay, let's.  Explain how this is physically possible and fits with the known evidence without resorting to ludicrous, overblown conspiracies which would be revealed in about six weeks.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 11, 2012, 04:47:29 PM
Ground rules?
Are you are implying "known evidence" as only that evidence which is contained within or accepted in the Warren Commission report, HSCA or AARB?
Will it be acceptable to present evidence not contained within the WC, HSCA or AARB?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 11, 2012, 05:18:57 PM
Depends.  Are the sources reliable?  Has the source changed its story?  How speculative is the source?  Does it require believing that everyone's motives are always pristine unless they say the opposite of what you want to hear, in which case they're always soiled?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 11, 2012, 08:00:21 PM
Go for it.  Make your case.  Explain what other investigators have overlooked or misinterpreted and why your interpretation is better than the wade array of professionals that have come to the one shooter conclusion.  It is a daunting task.  Do you feel up to it.  Remember, the burden of proof lies purely with you.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on April 12, 2012, 08:19:16 PM
Assassination team of 3 shooters, positioned in 3 locations.

We only have concrete evidence of one firearm used.  The Carcano was found in the TSBD along with three expended brass cases.  I am not aware of any other locations containing any evidence of firearms or shooters. 

While a few people pointed to locations other than the TSBD as the location of gunshots, I would surprised if they did not.  The sonic boom of a bullet moving faster than 1150 fps echoes off of anything nearby. 

What evidence do you have?  You have a firearm, ammo, actual eye witness that says they saw a gun being fired?  Perhaps a shooter confessing?

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 12, 2012, 10:33:15 PM
It's my understanding that the acoustics of Dealey Plaza are uncertain at the best of times.  Add to that adrenaline and people unfamiliar with the area, and it's actually kind of surprising to realize that a majority of witnesses still identified three shots as coming from the general vicinity of the TSBD.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 13, 2012, 11:41:57 AM
The Dallas police were tipped off concerning Lee Harvey Oswald being the shooter within 15 minutes after the assassination.
Who knew Oswald was the assassin, who tipped off the police?

The police went to the the boarding house to find Oswald, where did they get this address?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 13, 2012, 12:35:11 PM
Oswald protested on behalf of Fair Play for Cuba. (which according to FBI / WC evidence did not have a branch in N.O.)
Address on flyer's that Oswald handed out on behalf of Fair Play for Cuba was in / adjacent to Guy Banisters office.
Guy Banister was former head of Chicago FBI office.

Oswald was arrested after a "staged" confrontation with DRE.
At the station Oswald requested to talk to the FBI.

After an agent from the FBI talked with Oswald, he was immediately released.
Oswald, proclaimed Communist was then awarded media time to express it's virtues.

Oswald when arrested, had a phone book with the name and phone number of FBI agent James Hosty.
Oswald was an FBI informant, this fact was denied by Hoover to the WC.
Oswald phone book, evidence given to WC by the FBI had 1 page torn out, that had Hosty information.
Who was funding Oswald while he demonstrated in N.O.?

The leader of DRE in 1963 was George Joannides, who was connected with the CIA

Jumping forward George Joannides was identified as being present at the Ambassador Hotel the night RFK was assassinated.

Were there any members of Fair Play for Cuba that were called to give testimony to the WC?

What is the possible motive for Oswald to want JFK dead, JFK may have been the only friend to Cuba in the U.S. government?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 13, 2012, 01:27:27 PM
If I gave you answers to your questions, would you listen?  Because I'm not going to waste my time with someone who'll just say, "Nuh uh!"
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 13, 2012, 01:31:18 PM
What is the possible motive for Oswald to want JFK dead, JFK may have been the only friend to Cuba in the U.S. government?

JFK was a friend to Cubans who wanted to get rid of Castro, not much of a friend to Castro supporters (like Lee Harvey Oswald).
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 13, 2012, 02:10:43 PM
Yes Gillianren, if you can re butt the points that have been made with evidence.
Let me offer one more loop.
1960 Nixon was chairman of the 5412 committee, covert affairs.
At his request, through Howard Hughes, S-Force was created, , basically assassination teams, intended to kill Cuban government officials.
Money for this S-Force was funneled through an account belonging to Manual Ogarrio Daguerre at Banco International in Mexico.
Five assassination teams were trained at a ranch owned by Clint Murchison.

Bay of Pigs was a failure, but commanded by Rip Robertson and Grayston Lynch - more later on this. 
Two of the Five assassination teams were commanded by Frank Sturgis and E Howard Hunt. - more later.
->E Howard Hunt informed his son through a taped confession that he was in Dealey Plaza the day of the assassination, as a bench warmer for the assassination team, just in case.

Mertchison, Nixon, Hoover and LBJ had a closed door meeting at Murchison's estate the night before the assassination, at the conclusion of the meeting LBJ delcared to his mistress, something to the effect that things would change the next day concerning the Kennedy's.

The kicker is that in 1972 the Democratic party appointed Larry O'Brien, former chief lobbyist for Howard Hughes.
Nixon gets paranoid, sends in the plumbers to see if Larry knows about S-force & JFK assassination.
Plumbers are caught, Bernard Barker has a recent cancelled check in his pocket from Manual Ogarrio Daguerre at Banco International in Mexico.

When Felt from the FBI is told to investigate, Nixon is informed and tells CIA to tell FBI to lay off. Felt won't stop, maybe he see's the connection, Felt is "Deep Throat"



Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 13, 2012, 02:16:01 PM
This may be interesting
arrested or being escorted out of the area?
Frank Sturgis
Charles Harrelson - known hit man - later convicted of murdering a federal judge. (father of Woody)
E Howard Hunt. - picture varified to be E Howard Hunt by his son St John Hunt.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 13, 2012, 02:19:54 PM
Did you ever notice where they were being escorted from?
The Texas School book Depository

Do I need to post their individual pictures?
Are we in agreement that these 3 men if not the men claimed are stand-in look a likes?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 13, 2012, 03:01:16 PM
Back to Rip Robertson and his co-commander Graytson Lynch of the failed Bay o Pigs invasion .
Here is Rip Robertson tipping his hat as JFK limo passes just about to trun onto Elm Street, Grayston Lynch is at his side.
Again do I need to post their pictures?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 13, 2012, 03:04:10 PM
Did you ever wonder about this portrait?
If JFK was assassinated because he was believed to be a traitor, the protrait makes sense.
JFK is hanging his head in shame.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 13, 2012, 03:20:18 PM
I'm going to take you at your word and start here before bothering with the rest of this.  But suffice it to say that the identification you posted for at least one of the pictures you're showing is incorrect and only claimed to be correct by conspiracy theorists.

The Dallas police were tipped off concerning Lee Harvey Oswald being the shooter within 15 minutes after the assassination.
Who knew Oswald was the assassin, who tipped off the police?

Well, let's see.  The building overlooked the motorcade route, and strong evidence showed that shots were fired from it.  In fact, policemen were inside the building within less than fifteen minutes.  Fast enough, in fact, so that some conspiracy theorists claim that Oswald can't have been the shooter because he couldn't have gotten to the lunchroom as quickly as he was seen there.  The other employees mostly hung around, because interesting things were happening, but Oswald had taken off.  Why wouldn't the police be suspicious of him?

Quote
The police went to the the boarding house to find Oswald, where did they get this address?

How about from his boss?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 13, 2012, 03:37:34 PM
Jack Ruby any one?
After the Assassination, the FBI got a call the November 22 saying Jack Ruby was seen dropping off some men in Dealey Plaza.
Maybe the FBI couldn't find Jack Ruby for questioning because he was hiding at police headquarters busy correcting a news conference about Oswald and his involvement in "Fair Play for Cuba"

Here is a picture of Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza post assassination.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 13, 2012, 03:47:07 PM
Charles Bronson sent video of the motorcade as it progressed down Elm street to the FBI because it showed the 6th floor window of the TSBD at the time of the shootings.

The FBI refused to accept the video as evidence and returned it because->
FBI claimed "film failed to show the building from which the shots were fired"
& "not sufficiently clear for identification"

Also do you know the FBI also refused a copy of the Zapruder film.
Also refused reports and x-rays from JFK autopsy.

Attached is a still from Bronson video, the motorcade can be seen proceeding down Elm.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: RedneckR0nin on April 13, 2012, 04:02:30 PM
My god this is starting up again??
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 13, 2012, 04:38:18 PM
Why would Oswald's boss suspect him, he just saw Oswald in the lunch room on the second floor within 2 minutes after the shots.

gillianren, Information on record at the TSBD had his place of residence where Marina his wife and his child were staying.
The Dallas police went to the boarding house where Oswald basically slept during week days.

The tip to Dallas Police concerning Oswald came via an anonymous phone call.

Traceable source for the boarding house address was Army Intelligence.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 13, 2012, 05:23:20 PM
Rather then running on about this and that seemingly separate bits of conspiracy lore, please tell us what you think actually happened and why your theory is  better supported.  Without a supportable theory, there is really no reason to pay much attention to these disjointed posts. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 13, 2012, 05:43:52 PM
Why would Oswald's boss suspect him, he just saw Oswald in the lunch room on the second floor within 2 minutes after the shots.

Because, after they saw him, he left.  After they saw him, they discovered the shooter's nest set up where Oswald was known to be at the time.  His coworkers knew where in the building he was, and they knew he was alone up there.  Heck, witnesses place someone looking very much like him there during the shooting, a fact conspiracy sites helpfully ignore.  Are you trying to say that you wouldn't be suspicious?  Heck, you base suspicion on a painting of Kennedy where he looks sad, which somehow "proves" he was a traitor.  Before you continue that particular line of thought, I suggest you to look into what happened to Jackie Kennedy between her previous public appearance and her trip to Texas which culminated in that fateful day.  Are you saying that betraying his country is the only reason JFK had to ever look sad or even just tired?

Quote
gillianren, Information on record at the TSBD had his place of residence where Marina his wife and his child were staying.
The Dallas police went to the boarding house where Oswald basically slept during week days.

So no one knew that he was staying there?  And doubtless you have documentation of this?

Quote
The tip to Dallas Police concerning Oswald came via an anonymous phone call.

Traceable source for the boarding house address was Army Intelligence.

According to whom?  Provide your sources or admit you can't and that it's speculation.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: DataCable on April 13, 2012, 06:13:38 PM
Sooo, prof, where is the evidence of 6 shots from 3 shooters (the alleged topic of this thread)?  Or should the title be changed to JFK - A Gish Gallop?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Laurel on April 13, 2012, 09:44:09 PM
When Felt from the FBI is told to investigate, Nixon is informed and tells CIA to tell FBI to lay off. Felt won't stop, maybe he see's the connection, Felt is "Deep Throat"
Then why didn't he give Woodward and Bernstein any of this information while he was acting as Deep Throat? It's awfully convenient to claim that a dead man might have had certain information, but I wouldn't call that evidence for anything in particular. It's just speculation.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on April 13, 2012, 10:03:04 PM
"Gish Gallop" is right! All I've seen from profmunkin is a random, disjointed mish-mash of innuendo and claims that were disproved long, long ago. Do conspiracy theorists ever learn from their mistakes? Sure doesn't seem like it. Doesn't even seem like they want to learn, because that might take them away from the conclusion they want.



Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on April 13, 2012, 10:06:34 PM
Would anyone care to discuss this or any other details from this tragedy?
Would you care to even try to read the Warren Commission report or any of the many other investigations of the JFK assassination that all came to the same conclusion?

I mean, if you're going to attack the official account, you ought to at least know what it says and why it says what it says.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 13, 2012, 10:10:44 PM
Personally, I don't mind talking JFK.  It's better suited to my abilities as an amateur historian than most of the Apollo stuff.  What's more, I think there's a lot more education possible.  A lot more people fall for JFK conspiracy garbage than for Apollo conspiracy garbage, and since most of them don't care too passionately about it, it's a lot easier to talk them out of it.  Most of them are willing to be educated.  But I suspect anyone citing some of the stuff Profmunkin is regurgitating isn't willing to learn exactly how wrong it is.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on April 13, 2012, 10:17:07 PM
Assassination team of 3 shooters, positioned in 3 locations.
What happened to evidence of shooters?  Without a gun are they really shooters?  Where is the beef?

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on April 14, 2012, 08:23:47 AM
What happened to evidence of shooters?  Without a gun are they really shooters?  Where is the beef?
There's not just a lack of guns (except the Carcano found in the TSBD), but also...

A total lack of spent bullets in or near the victims and target car (except for those fired from the Carcano);

A total lack of spent shells (except for those found on the 6th floor of the TSBD);

A total lack of witnesses (except those on the street and in the windows directly under the shooter who saw and heard the three shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD);

A total lack of autopsy and ballistics evidence indicating shots fired from anywhere but the 6th floor of the TSBD;

and on and on and on...
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 14, 2012, 07:47:13 PM
Lunarorbit you maybe correct.
JFK also halted the Bay of Pigs invasion, Operation Mongoose attacks on Cuba, Operation S-Force intended to assassinate Cubian leaders and JFK told Kruschev America would discontinue our aggressions against Cuba.

Again JFK appeared to be offering to build the first bridge to peace with Russia and Cuba.
From watching video of Oswald I did not agree with his statements, but they were thought out and he seemed to be an aware, well read person.
If Oswald was someone aware and concerned with Cuba and communism to actively demonstrate in the streets, it seems odd he missed the speeches and actions of JFK toward peace?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 14, 2012, 08:30:06 PM
I have posted a variety of story lines connected to the JKF assassination to, maybe too quickly, sketch a scenario that comfortably fits the evidence and actions of people that are associated with these events.
Maybe I should have started this thread by asking if it is conceivable that JFK assassination was a conspiracy?

Answer  yes, then I would ask that we first examine that information and evidence that you find that tends to support a conspiracy.


If your answer is no and everything fits perfectly, then any information I may present will just be debated, uh huh, na huh...



 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 14, 2012, 08:41:19 PM
3 shooters and 6 shots
shot 1 - JFK hit in throat from the front - Grassy Knoll
shot 2 - JFK - hit in the back from the rear - Dal-Tex Building or TSBD
shot 3 - JC - hit in the back from the rear - TSBD or Dal-Tex Building
Limo slows or momentarily comes to a stop
shot 1 - JFK hit in temple from the front - Grassy Knoll
shot 2 - miss - hits curb, Teague wounded - Dal-Tex Building or TSBD
shot 3 - miss - hits the dash molding, debris cracks windshield - TSBD or Dal-Tex Building
 - 2 guys in the front seat react and duck.

The order of the shots may not be accurately determined, nor the exact firing positions.

Last 2 shots miss high because the deceleration of the limo
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 14, 2012, 09:11:55 PM
What evidence do you have of that? 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on April 14, 2012, 11:24:12 PM
3 shooters and 6 shots
shot 1 - JFK hit in throat from the front - Grassy Knoll
shot 2 - JFK - hit in the back from the rear - Dal-Tex Building or TSBD

So then shots 1 and 2 should have stayed in the body?  Where are they then?  So far you have made numerous posts but failed to produce a single bit of evidence.  Why the big fail?

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 15, 2012, 01:35:05 AM
Rnab it would be positive to agree on something, can we agree the doctors that were witness to the neck wound at Parkland, were in agreement that the wound appeared to be an entrance wound?

A tracheotomy was performed on JFK at Parkland.

When photos of the neck wound were shown to Parkland doctors they were in agreement that the neck wound visible in the autopsy photographs was not the entrance wound they had experienced. The neck wound seen in the pictures was not the result of the bullet. They said that the neck wound seen in the photographs was significantly more extensive than the wound caused by their procedure.
A Parkland doctor stating that a tracheotomy done as pictured, would most likely cause death.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 15, 2012, 02:12:44 AM
Laurel you are absolutley correct that it was pure speculation on my part concerning Felts motives or knowledge.
Would you agree Nixon chaired the 5412 committe, that an assassination group was created called S-Force, consisting of 5 squads with 3 snipers per squad , that the S-Force project was funded with money funneled thru Manual Ogarrio Daguerre's account at Banco International and the S-Force assassination squads trained at a Ranch owned by Clint Merchison?
The watergate burgular Bernard Barker had a cancelled check in his pocket from Manual Ogarrio Daguerre's account at Banco International. That Nixon ordered the CIA to stop the FBI investigation into Manual Ogarrio Daguerre's account at Banco International, causing the crime of obstruction of justice.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 15, 2012, 03:56:19 AM
As I thought.  Therefore I will merely point out that your identification of the "three tramps" has been falsified when the Dallas Police Department produced their paperwork.  Shockingly, none of them are related to any Oscar nominees at all.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 15, 2012, 05:51:47 AM
Gillianren we may never know for sure one way or the other.
The coincidence is that in Dealey Plaza at that moment in time, 2 men can be found standing next to each other that are dead ringers for the 2 CIA commanders responsible for the failed Bay of Pigs operation, that 2 men can be found escorted by police that look like two CIA leaders in the S-Force assassination squads, accompanied by a third man that looks like a known assassin and one man that looks like Oswald's killer.
Finding a look a like of any one of these men present in Dealey Plaza should be surprising, finding 6 men that are significant should be highly unlikely.
"we are dealing with likelyhoods and probabilities"

The probability of all of these men actually being present in Dealey Plaza must be vastly inhanced by the admission of E Howard Hunt, that he was present in Dealey Plaza during the assassination of JFK, with the stated purpose to back up an assassination team that had the assignment to kill JFK.

This is interesting
The New York Times, October 3, 1963
"The Intra-Administration War in Vietnam"
by Arthur Krock

"according to a high United States source here, twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Herny Cabot Lodge [and] in one instance frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought from Washington because the agency disagreed with it."

The CIA's growth was "LIKENED TO A MALIGNANCY" which the very high offical was not sure even the White House could control "ANY LONGER." "If the United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the Government, it will come from the CIA and not the Pentagon". The Agency "represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone".

 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 15, 2012, 07:15:39 AM
3 shooters and 6 shots
shot 1 - JFK hit in throat from the front - Grassy Knoll
shot 1 - JFK hit in temple from the front - Grassy Knoll

A head shot from the grassy knoll that did not stay in JFK's body would have hit Jackie Kennedy.   Since there were no such bullet in JFK and Jackie was not shot, we can safely eliminate the grassy knoll or the general area as the site of a shooter.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 15, 2012, 07:35:51 AM
I have posted a variety of story lines connected to the JKF assassination to, maybe too quickly, sketch a scenario that comfortably fits the evidence and actions of people that are associated with these events.

I don't see even a sketch of a story line here.  Just a bunch of disjointed claims.

Quote
Maybe I should have started this thread by asking if it is conceivable that JFK assassination was a conspiracy?
  Being "conceivable" is a pretty low standard.  For instance I might ask if it conceivable that you are a bot so that we might discuss how bot like you are.  Practically anything is conceivable to one with a active imagination. 

Quote
Answer  yes, then I would ask that we first examine that information and evidence that you find that tends to support a conspiracy.
  Perhaps plausible is what you meant.  Every conspiracy theory surrounding the assassination has been shown not to be plausible, therefore counterfactual.  We here tend not to have much of an appetite for discussions of how counterfactual conspiracies might have really taken place. 


Quote
If your answer is no and everything fits perfectly, then any information I may present will just be debated, uh huh, na huh...
A typical conspiracy assumption is that either "everything fits perfectly" according to some arbitrary standard or there is some room for a conspiracy.  That is not the case.  As the proponent of an alternate theory of the events, it is your job to provide a full accounting of the events that supports your theory.  No amount of sniping at the Warren Report is going to make your belief in a conspiracy any more plausible. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on April 15, 2012, 09:33:45 AM
Profmunkin, please go off and read the Warren Commission Report; Case Closed by Gerard Posner; and Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi. Then come back and give us your theory. Otherwise you're wasting your time and ours.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 15, 2012, 11:49:18 AM
Echnaton without going into the autopsy evidence, the evidence in support of the fatal head shot coming from the front is overwhelming.
Parkland doctors said JFK died from a head wound that blew out the back right side of his skull.
Doctors said back right portion of JFK brain was missing as a result of the wound.
Whitehouse spokesman announced to the press, fatal shot was to JFK's temple and pointed to the spot of impact.

JFK when hit, the impact drove him back and to his left.

Witnesses that described the shot to JFK said a cloud of wound debris flew back and to the left.
2 patrol officers riding to the left rear were sprayed with blood and brain tissue.
Jackie crawled onto the back left side of the limo's trunk to retrieve a piece of JFK's skull.
Witnesses said JFK wound was a massive hole to the back right side of head.
Witnesses in the area of the fatal head wound said shot came from grassy knoll area.
Numerous people ran up onto the grassy knoll in response to the shots coming from this area.

Chief Curry has stated in an interview that evidence suggested that JFK was stuck from the front, in his neck and the fatal shot to the head. He said the evidence pointed to a shooter from the front right side, BUT since they could not find evidence of an assassin on the grassy knoll all the evidence was dismissed.

They could not find any evidence of the assassin on the grassy knoll, so they ignored all the evidence.
But if you have done any research you know that numerous witnesses saw the sniper on the grassy knoll before, during and after the assassination.
The FBI even had a tip that Jack Ruby was seen dropping off men in Dealey Plaza, and that was before anyone knew Jack Ruby would be involved in the assassination.
Good question on Jackie not being struck, maybe because the bullet exited back right.

To support the shots only coming from the rear, all of this evidence supporting shots coming from the front had to be disregarded and was.
Unless this thread turns into uh huh and na huh can we agree that the evidence I just presented is authentic and corroborated by multiple witnesses?

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 15, 2012, 12:50:21 PM
ka9q
The following may not have any impact on you, but for the sake of anyone with an open mind on this subject, who is willing to examine new evidence, check out Doug Horne's 5 volume book, Inside the ARRB, presenting information gathered while working with the ARRB for 3 years.

While working with the ARRB he was able to view information not available to us.
Some of Doug Horne's conclusions in brief;
1> The reason this case does not come together like a normal homicide case is because of "massive fraud in the evidence"
2> Massive cover-up of medical evidence by the U.S. government
3> Specifically that JFK was killed by a crossfire
4> Evidence of shots from the front were suppressed
5> Only evidence of shots from the rear were admitted into evidence.
6> Skull x-rays of JFK are frauds
7> Autopsy report has been rewritten at least twice
8> Original autopsy report along with all autopsy notes were destroyed by Dr Humes
9> FBI agent present said autopsy photos of JFK brain were fakes
10> Dr Humes was prevented from doing various procedures during the autopsy and when he demanded to know who was in charge, a high ranking Army officer claimed to be the one in charge.

For the na huhers, Doug utilized qualified experts to peer review areas that he was not a qualified expert in, such as X-rays and medical evidence.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 15, 2012, 01:58:58 PM
ka9q I tend to believe people like District Attorney Jim Garrison, that stated in his opinion "there is not a court in the United States that would have found Lee Harvey Oswald guilty of killing anyone."
Jim Garrison was inspried by remarks from Senator Russel Long concerning the Warren Report, that "the Warren Report was not accurate" purchased 3 copies of the 26 volumes of the Warren Report and started studying them.

His aides said Jim Garrison virtually memorized the Warren Report. Garrisons job was to identify crime and know how to prosecute. Garrison stated 1/31/1968 that the conclusion of the "Warren Report was totally false, totally"
 
Garrison built a case against Clay Shaw in conspiracy to kill the President, he presented it to the FBI so that it could be pursued on a Federal level, the FBI response was that Garrison had a case, BUT the FBI wanted no part in it. Garrison did prosecute Shaw in the case of conspiracy against the President, despite interference from the Federal Government and the news media, the jury agreed with Garrison that there was a conpiracy to kill the President. Although found that Shaw could not be connected beyond any reasonable doubt. After the trial photos of Shaw together with Oswald were found, too late to make a difference.

I prefer to believe Jim Garrison's words and deeds versus Gerard Posner or Vincent Bugliosi.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 15, 2012, 02:32:49 PM
Well, Jim Garrison's deeds actually include convincing a bunch of on-the-fence jurors that it wasn't a conspiracy.  You may be surprised to learn that, but it's true.  Oh, that's not what Garrison or Oliver Stone will tell you, but at least one juror said that he'd been leaning toward conspiracy before the Garrison trial, but now that Garrison was through with his case, he knew the whole thing was baloney.  Whereas Vincent Bugliosi had no mob ties and successfully prosecuted the most famous conspiracy of the twentieth century.

Facial recognition software doesn't find your matches "identical."  In fact, it doesn't find them.  And the arrest paperwork is for three other men.  If you're not going to read the Warren report, can you try this website?  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 15, 2012, 04:09:08 PM
http://www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html
Playboy interview of Jim Garrison

Honest men, doing the right thing, why do they even bother to try.

Mark Lane managed the New York City area's campaign for JFK's 1960 presidential bid, started out trying to determine for himself the facts concerning JFK assassination, along the way he was asked by Oswald's mother to represent Oswald before the Warren Commission, he agreed only on the provision that if he found Oswald to be guilty he would actively pursue his guilt.
The Warren Commission refused to allow Lane or anyone to represent Oswald.
The hearings were closed to the media and public, hence secret.
What lawyer could not build a case if they controlled all of the evidence.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on April 15, 2012, 04:28:33 PM
Of course you prefer Jim Garrison's words -- because he believed there was a conspiracy, and you prefer to believe that there was a conspiracy.

Jim Garrison was a nutcase who severely abused the powers of his office and nearly ruined some innocent people.

As for the rest, I have only one word: BULLSHIT.

Once again, please read those references so you can actually know what you're talking about. It's obvious you've been reading nothing but conspiracy literature that ought to be filed in the fiction section of the library.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 15, 2012, 04:36:14 PM
Echnaton without going into the autopsy evidence, the evidence in support of the fatal head shot coming from the front is overwhelming.

From what I can see, if the JFK head shot had come from the grassy knoll or any where near there, the bullet would have hit Jackie or struck the car behind JFK.  Since neither of these happened, we can rule out your interpretation of a front shot.  Or do you can to be more specific about where the shooter was and tell us why you have this knowledge while the professional investigators have all missed this "overwhelming" conclusion.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on April 15, 2012, 04:38:50 PM
Well, Jim Garrison's deeds actually include convincing a bunch of on-the-fence jurors that it wasn't a conspiracy.

A not guilty verdict was returned in, iirc, 45 minutes. 15 minutes of that was the jury using the bathroom before coming back to announce their verdict.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 15, 2012, 04:42:50 PM
http://www.jfklancer.com/Garrison2.html
Playboy interview of Jim Garrison

Honest men, doing the right thing, why do they even bother to try.

Mark Lane managed the New York City area's campaign for JFK's 1960 presidential bid, started out trying to determine for himself the facts concerning JFK assassination, along the way he was asked by Oswald's mother to represent Oswald before the Warren Commission, he agreed only on the provision that if he found Oswald to be guilty he would actively pursue his guilt.
The Warren Commission refused to allow Lane or anyone to represent Oswald.
The hearings were closed to the media and public, hence secret.
What lawyer could not build a case if they controlled all of the evidence.

Oswald was dead so there was no one to represent in front of the Warren Commission.  There was no trial so there was no case to build and no need to provide evidence to a lawyer who had nothing to contribute to the investigation. 

Perhaps you could clarify your meaning.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 15, 2012, 04:50:49 PM
A not guilty verdict was returned in, iirc, 45 minutes. 15 minutes of that was the jury using the bathroom before coming back to announce their verdict.

Oh, yeah.  No, an objective look at what happened at the Garrison trial is actually extremely embarrassing for the conspiracy side of things.  Garrison was so gullible that someone actually once made up a person of interest only to have Garrison announce the guy--who, again, was fictional--as a suspect at a press conference.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on April 15, 2012, 05:11:01 PM
The complete transcripts of the Warren Commission hearings (i.e., the testimony) were published right along with the report; they ran to many volumes (over 20, as I recall). All have long been available for free on the Internet.

Sure doesn't sound like "secret" to me.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on April 15, 2012, 05:30:32 PM
Oswald was dead so there was no one to represent in front of the Warren Commission.  There was no trial so there was no case to build and no need to provide evidence to a lawyer who had nothing to contribute to the investigation. 
That's right. There's simply no provision in our system of justice for a posthumous trial. In our adversarial system, inherited from England, each side presents its best case. Our Constitution provides strong guarantees to a defendant in a criminal trial the right to competent legal counsel of his choice who maintains his confidence and works for his interests; to prepare his case with counsel in private; to confront and question the witnesses against him; to compel evidence and witnesses who can testify in his favor; to testify himself in court in his own defense if he chooses; or to remain silent and not have that silence held against him.

None of these things are possible when the defendant is dead. Oswald did not choose Mark Lane as his counsel. Oswald was not able to confer with Lane in private. Oswald could not provide Lane with a list of friendly witnesses or tell him where to find helpful evidence. Oswald could not help Lane challenge the testimony of the witnesses against him. And of course Oswald could not testify in court in his own defense had he wanted to. So a trial of a dead Oswald in our adversarial system would hardly be fair, now would it?

That's why we don't have posthumous trials, and that's why a commission of inquiry was appointed instead. Although the Warren Commission had subpoena power (granted to them by an act of Congress, subject to the usual Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination) they had no power to convict anybody. They were not a court. Their job was to investigate the facts of the assassination as best they could and to present their findings to the President and to the world. They weren't perfect, but I think they did an outstanding job given finite resources and especially the limited time available to them.

The only failing of the Warren Commission as I see it is that they were sometimes too timid in coming to certain conclusions that seemed obvious. But given the gravity of the subject they were investigating, it was probably best to stay on the conservative side and not arrive at a finding unless the evidence for it was absolutely overwhelming.

Of course, they did find -- because the evidence was absolutely overwhelming -- that JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone. That conclusion has never been seriously challenged. (Note emphasis on the word seriously.)



Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 15, 2012, 09:30:18 PM
Profunkin, you have some questions waiting for you in the Dan Goldin Comment (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=68.0) thread. Please answer them.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 15, 2012, 10:28:06 PM
Ka9q correction Warren Commission, was closed door, not open to the public and not open to the media.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Mr Gorsky on April 16, 2012, 06:59:19 AM
Ka9q correction Warren Commission, was closed door, not open to the public and not open to the media.


Since the outcomes and evidence given have all been released, that would make it private rather than secret. There is quite a big difference.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on April 16, 2012, 07:00:20 AM
Rnab it would be positive to agree on something, can we agree .....

I can only agree to the fact that you have derailed your thread by going off to topics completely unrelated to shooters other than Oswald.  When can we expect you to get back on topic?

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on April 16, 2012, 07:20:57 AM
JFK when hit, the impact drove him back and to his left.

Do you understand that this claim means very little to anyone who knows firearms?  A human head is a fluid filled sphere with a hard shell.  There are other forces at work besides the bullet hitting it.  If I shoot a low speed bullet at a steel pendulum (a gong), it will swing around as much of the energy is expended by fragmentation and changing the direction of those pieces.  If I shoot it with a high speed bullet that pierces the metal, it will not swing at much as less energy was transferred to the gong.

If I shoot a fluid filled object, the action of the fluid inside of the object may have a larger influence on how it moves than the bullet does. 

Here is a video I made of a 50 caliber rifle shooting frozen pumpkins.

This rifle fires a bullet with a high mass and speed giving it more than 7 times the power of the ammunition used in a 6.5mm Carcano.  Watch the video at 32 seconds and 39 seconds.  The pumpkin does not move very far in either case and actually falls toward the shooter the second time. 

People who use the motion of JFK's head to say where the bullet came from are just as ignorant as those who say the recovered bullet was pristine.  In your OP you wanted to talk about shooters, when are you getting back on topic?

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on April 16, 2012, 08:23:04 AM
Common sense would tell you that any sensible conspirator would not have multiple shooters from completely different angles.

The argument, I gather, is that this arrangement would be in case the shooter from the back missed. If one considers the risk of missing, surely that is tripled with three separate shooters. If I want to be sure that the shooting can be ascribed to one shooter from the back, what would happen to all my plans if, say, the shooter from the grassy knoll missed and hit the car from the side? Or hit Jackie? Or was simply spotted by someone who unexpectedly stood close to the shooter's location?

It's a silly theory. You can argue, perhaps, that Oswald was not the shooter from the Depository, or was part of a larger conspiracy. However, multiple assassins in different locations would be an idiotic way of committing an assassination that was to be ascribed to a single person.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gwiz on April 16, 2012, 10:25:18 AM
Common sense would tell you that any sensible conspirator would not have multiple shooters from completely different angles.
Common sense has little to do with conspiracy theories.  Look at the baroque complication of most 9/11 conspiracy theories, involving switching the airliners for missiles or remote-controlled aircraft, occupied buildings rigged for demolition and organisations like ASCE and NIST bribed to comply with some "official" theory.

Surely if the US Government wanted to carry out such an operation and point the finger at Islamic terrorists, the easiest way would be for an agent to pose as a member of Al Qaeda, recruit the required team of jihadis and get them to hijack the aircraft.

Very few people would need to be in the know, much easier to keep it secret.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on April 16, 2012, 10:29:04 AM
Good question on Jackie not being struck, maybe because the bullet exited back right.

Why exactly would a rifle bullet from a front-right trajectory entering a man's skull exit back-right?

Didn't know that you subscribed to your own Magic Bullet Theory!n Did it make a sudden 90 degree turn in the middle of JFK's head?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 16, 2012, 11:58:05 AM
To support the shots only coming from the rear, all of this evidence supporting shots coming from the front had to be disregarded and was.
Unless this thread turns into uh huh and na huh can we agree that the evidence I just presented is authentic and corroborated by multiple witnesses?

To revisit this post.... If you want to claim that the "evidence" you posted is "authentic and corroborated," please tell us why the thorough, professional investigations did not draw the conclusion of a head shot from the right side of the car.   If the "evidence" is available to you, was it not available to them?  This must be answered before anyone will have a reason to believe that your interpretation of the events has even slightest plausibility.

Give us a place for the shooter and a trajectory that can better account for the physical evidence. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 16, 2012, 08:53:33 PM
twik
I have been rereading Mr Garrison's book and started listening to Mr Bugliosi's book at the recommendation from a post that I should do so.
Bugliosi is a very good writer, Garrison has integrity and objectivity, Bugliosi does not seem to to be connected to reality. Bugliosi's opinions glare through every point as he carefully chooses only those pieces of history that support a fine tuned version of the fictional WC JFK story he is recreating.

Everything in the Warren Commission report may be true based on the evidence within the Warren Commission. Based on a carefully crafted set of evidence.
The problem in reality is that just like Mr Bugliosi's book the Warren Commission used the evidence that would support the one desired end.

As it was, The Warren Commission may have done this with the false notion of patriotism or may have done this in ignorance, but knowing it to be a fraud and not admitting to it's shortcomings goes against me and all other citizens of the United Stated of America.

To not try and incorporate all of the evidence ignored or not accepted as evidence as well as the tremendous wealth of information revealed since 1963 is inconsistent with the ideals of justice and
intellectually corrupt.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 16, 2012, 09:09:36 PM
twik
http://dolk.host.sk/dolkpage96/horror/famosos/jfk2.htm
This is a link to JFK autopsy sheet

Is this valid evidence?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 16, 2012, 09:58:07 PM
Echnton your playing a trolls game.
I posted earlier, referencing Doug Horne's research and proof's concerning the falsification of evidence.

The evidence within the WC may have justified their findings, the problem is their findings do not support major portions of the evidence.

If you want to continue to badger me about shooters, why not you take a stab at explaining the evidence I have posted concerning JFK neck wound, that appeared to be an entrance wound.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 16, 2012, 10:00:23 PM
twik
a little levity about the head wound, cute

well lets say if it works for a back wound it should be equally valid for a head wound.
Yes exactly, it was a magic bullet to the head!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 16, 2012, 10:03:18 PM
gwiz
Why would you only have a single shooter?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 16, 2012, 10:14:21 PM
gwiz
please keep your incoherent 911 stories to yourself or start another thread.


Interesting. I thought I was the moderator here, not you. And since you don't seem to mind taking other peoples threads off topic you can't really complain when someone does it with yours.

And there was nothing incoherent about what he said either.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 16, 2012, 10:30:41 PM
Echnaton
I already provided a sketch that covers all of the shots
Shot 4 - hit JFK in the temple, from the front - from the grassy knoll

evidence supported by witnesses that saw the head shot and by Parkland emergency room doctors and staff and witnesses to the autopsy.

Now your turn, explain the neck wound evidence I posted.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 16, 2012, 10:38:13 PM
Echnton your playing a trolls game.
I posted earlier, referencing Doug Horne's research and proof's concerning the falsification of evidence.

The evidence within the WC may have justified their findings, the problem is their findings do not support major portions of the evidence.

If you want to continue to badger me about shooters, why not you take a stab at explaining the evidence I have posted concerning JFK neck wound, that appeared to be an entrance wound.



Your claim=your proof.   I don't have to explain anything.  You do.  Rather you give me the option of accepting the widely read, reviewed and considered investigations or some guy on the internet who won't put forward even the first glimpse of a unified explanation.  Given the situation, which would you choose?  If you disagree with my characterization of the situation, please tell me where I am in error.  Until then your failure to answer questions makes your name calling reminiscent of a nasty tempered pot I once knew.   
 
So let's start again.  Just start by telling us where the shooter was and where the bullet went after exiting JFK's head. And since you bring up the neck wound, tell us where the shooter was and where the bullet entered and went to?  No appeal to errors in the WC report, just a straight forward explanation. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 16, 2012, 10:43:39 PM
Echnaton
I already provided a sketch that covers all of the shots
Shot 4 - hit JFK in the temple, from the front - from the grassy knoll

evidence supported by witnesses that saw the head shot and by Parkland emergency room doctors and staff and witnesses to the autopsy.

Now your turn, explain the neck wound evidence I posted.

As an explanation, profmunkin was responding to a post that I made and quickly deleted. My post following his is a revised version.  Sorry to promunkin for the confusion. 

All you "proof" is meaningless hypothetical that can be ruled out unless you can tell us how the bullet did not hit Jackie or the limo.  She was right behind JFK's head when the bullet hit, from the perspective of the knoll. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 16, 2012, 11:41:29 PM
. . . Garrison has integrity and objectivity . . . .

Wrong.  Garrison manifestly has neither.  Garrison is so far from reality that other conspiracy theorists want nothing to do with him.  There were a lot of conspiracists who were really looking forward to the Oliver Stone JFK who refused to have anything to do with it once it was determined that Garrison's was the version to be told.  Most of what Garrison claims as fact is known to be wrong.  Even if he convinced the jury that there was a conspiracy involved--and again, that's the opposite of what actually happened--but that his side of things wasn't the right one, that still means the jury didn't find his version of events convincing.  Yet somehow, for decades, there's been this Garrison cottage industry which whitewashes the man's lies and mob ties.  Why is that?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on April 16, 2012, 11:55:49 PM
gwiz
Why would you only have a single shooter?

Why on earth would you have more than one, or at most a group firing from a single position? Three shooters from three different angles is a ridiculous way to try to persuade people that there was one shooter, as well as tripling the chances of being discovered by accident.

The trouble with the JFK conspiracy theories in general is that they assume a simulaneous complete control of every variable, and an inability to control anything. If you need three shooters because the odds are that one cannot successfully pull off a fatal shot, your solution should be to select a better vantage point (or shooter), not have people firing from random compass points. If the grassy knoll is a better location, put the shooter there - not also two other places. Heck, its relative concealment would allow the plotters to shoot and kill a "patsy" on the spot, instead of allowing Oswald to wander off the scene completely unnoticed.

The only reason why conspiracy theorists get obsessed about multiple shooters is that it allows them to stare at fuzzy polaroids and play "let's find the anomaly".
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 16, 2012, 11:57:23 PM
All you "proof" is meaningless hypothetical that can be ruled out unless you can tell us how the bullet did not hit Jackie or the limo.  She was right behind JFK's head when the bullet hit, from the perspective of the knoll.

It is easier to visualize a bullet hitting JFK in the temple from the front, and deflecting enough to blow a hole in the back right side of this head, as all the evidence I mentioned supports.

How does a bullet from the rear, cause the back of JFK's head to explode with matter blown back and to the right?
Why does the WC evidence of the head wound not match "any" evidence from witness testimony?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 17, 2012, 12:18:04 AM

Why on earth would you have more than one, or at most a group firing from a single position? Three shooters from three different angles is a ridiculous way to try to persuade people that there was one shooter, as well as tripling the chances of being discovered by accident.

The primary goal of the mission would have been to kill JFK
If JFK had not been killed, there would have been a lot of people put away for a long time as well as some major changes made to our government agencies and polices.
"They" had to assume there would be only a single opportunity. JFK had to be killed.
The only insurance they would have had was multiple shooters.
This is the same team configuration as S-Force squads they created to kill Cuban officials, 3 snipers per team for a kill.

Second goal would be to get away with it.  I would guess that if Oswald lone gunman failed there would have been another secondary story ready to go to cover multiple shooters. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 17, 2012, 12:47:04 AM

Wrong.  Garrison manifestly has neither.  Garrison is so far from reality that other conspiracy theorists want nothing to do with him.  There were a lot of conspiracists who were really looking forward to the Oliver Stone JFK who refused to have anything to do with it once it was determined that Garrison's was the version to be told.  Most of what Garrison claims as fact is known to be wrong.

How many pieces of evidence do you think I could reference from On The Trail Of The Assassins before you could disprove one?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 17, 2012, 01:20:45 AM
How many pieces of evidence do you think I could reference from On The Trail Of The Assassins before you could disprove one?


One.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 17, 2012, 05:29:29 AM
I would guess that if Oswald lone gunman failed there would have been another secondary story ready to go to cover multiple shooters. 

This is another example of your conspiracy theory failing for lack of common sense. If they were going to use multiple shooters anyway why not use the 'secondary' cover story as the primary one?

Either way you look at it, there is no way to reconcile the idea of them using multiple shooters in multiple locations and then trying to use a lone gunman cover story as the action of a halfway competent intelligence agency. Even multiple shooters in the same location would have been a better idea. If a whole bunch of us can see that without even thinking about it, how did an agency supposedly adept at arranging secret assassinations with plenty of preparation time utterly fail to do so and instead come up with such a ludicrous plan?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 17, 2012, 07:26:15 AM
All you "proof" is meaningless hypothetical that can be ruled out unless you can tell us how the bullet did not hit Jackie or the limo.  She was right behind JFK's head when the bullet hit, from the perspective of the knoll.

It is easier to visualize a bullet hitting JFK in the temple from the front, and deflecting enough to blow a hole in the back right side of this head, as all the evidence I mentioned supports.
The bullet hits the temple nearly square on from the right, on a downward trajectory. Yet it makes a sharp left turn and exits up and back and flies completely out of the limo.  Now that is an imaginative visualization.  Do you have any experts that will support this magic bullet flight?  Or is it your personal interpretation?

Quote
How does a bullet from the rear, cause the back of JFK's head to explode with matter blown back and to the right?
Why does the WC evidence of the head wound not match "any" evidence from witness testimony?

Shifting the burden of proof.  Why is it that professional investigators accept the conclusion that the bullet entered from the right rear? No experts seem to be troubled by the subsequent motions of brain matter and damage to the skull.  Neither you nor I are able to make an expert judgement on the question, however my experience and knowledge leads me to accept that the bullet came from the right rear rather than from the side.  Specifically, what have the original investigations and professional observers and reviewers missed all these years?  Or are they simply insufficiently conspiratorially aware?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 17, 2012, 07:32:30 AM

Why on earth would you have more than one, or at most a group firing from a single position? Three shooters from three different angles is a ridiculous way to try to persuade people that there was one shooter, as well as tripling the chances of being discovered by accident.

The primary goal of the mission would have been to kill JFK
If JFK had not been killed, there would have been a lot of people put away for a long time as well as some major changes made to our government agencies and polices.
"They" had to assume there would be only a single opportunity. JFK had to be killed.
The only insurance they would have had was multiple shooters.
This is the same team configuration as S-Force squads they created to kill Cuban officials, 3 snipers per team for a kill.

Second goal would be to get away with it.  I would guess that if Oswald lone gunman failed there would have been another secondary story ready to go to cover multiple shooters. 

A nice plot for a movie.  It is all contingent on there being a conspiracy, which, in this story line, is contingent on there being multiple gunman, a condition for which you have only offered speculation.  Your focus is on how it might be done, rather on whether it was done.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 17, 2012, 08:28:21 AM
I wonder how many examples of things (or even people, as plenty of real film of such exists) being shot and not being blasted backwards by the impact of the bullet one has to provide before JFK conspiracy theorists will finally concede that physics does not support the idea that a head being blown backwards and to the left could be caused by a bullet entering from the front right....
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 17, 2012, 09:16:31 AM
Profmunkin, have you ever stood on the Grassy Knoll?  Have you ever surveyed the area from that spot with the idea of being a gunman at that location?  Where the target would be and how the bullet would travel? What the results would be?

I ask this because your purely "rationalistic" approach of determining what must have happened is at odds with an empirical assessment of looking at what could have happened.   You reason backwards from a conclusion and invent what you need to fit the conclusion.  A rationalistic theory can be used for proposing avenues of inquiry, but it is subservient to  the empirical facts of the situation.  As long as you ignore the topography of location and the demonstrable characteristics of objects in motion, your theory will be rejected as implausible.  No amount of sniping at the WC report will suffice.


edited for spelling
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on April 17, 2012, 10:03:06 AM
I think you're quite wrong about goals. Goal #1 would always be to get away with it. I can't imagine any consequence to the conspirators  of having JKF live would be worse than killing him, and getting caught.

No one (other than idiots) would set up a conspiracy that relied for its success on everone believing the shots only came from one location by firing from multiple other locations. If you needed multiple shooters, at least put them in one location.

(Oh, and I assume that if you believe in "deflection" of bullets, you have no problem with accepting that the path of the bullet through JFK into Connolly was well within possibilities. Certainly more possible than a high-powered rifle shot from the side deflecting inside a cranium and exiting the back of the head.)
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 17, 2012, 09:12:20 PM
How many pieces of evidence do you think I could reference from On The Trail Of The Assassins before you could disprove one?


One.

OK here is One of as many as you want.
page 44
Garrisons is talking about a CIA camp that was near Lake Pontchartrain that had been raided by the FBI.
The camp "was preparing for future CIA-sponsored attacks on Cuba, "  That "the FBI raid came in response to pressure from President Kennedy who wanted the bureau to stop the CIA's undending violations of the Neutrality Act."
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 17, 2012, 09:23:28 PM
(Oh, and I assume that if you believe in "deflection" of bullets, you have no problem with accepting that the path of the bullet through JFK into Connolly was well within possibilities. Certainly more possible than a high-powered rifle shot from the side deflecting inside a cranium and exiting the back of the head.)
http://dolk.host.sk/dolkpage96/horror/famosos/jfk2.htm
this link lead to the autopsy sheet on JFK
once you validate this as evidence, you can explain to me how a bullet traveling at a downward angle, hits JFK's back, deflets upward to exit about 6" higher from his throat, then deflects downward into Connelly, which is another story.
A magic bullet is what you would need, but they ain't real.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 17, 2012, 09:32:00 PM
OK here is One of as many as you want.
page 44
Garrisons is talking about a CIA camp that was near Lake Pontchartrain that had been raided by the FBI.
The camp "was preparing for future CIA-sponsored attacks on Cuba, "  That "the FBI raid came in response to pressure from President Kennedy who wanted the bureau to stop the CIA's undending violations of the Neutrality Act."

Prove it is connected to Kennedy's assassination. Just because someone has a motive to commit murder doesn't necessarily mean they're guilty.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 17, 2012, 09:42:09 PM
I wonder how many examples of things (or even people, as plenty of real film of such exists) being shot and not being blasted backwards by the impact of the bullet one has to provide before JFK conspiracy theorists will finally concede that physics does not support the idea that a head being blown backwards and to the left could be caused by a bullet entering from the front right....

Then show me the phisics that supports JFK being thrown violently backward toward the path from where the bullet came and to the side
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 17, 2012, 10:05:08 PM
Prove it is connected to Kennedy's assassination. Just because someone has a motive to commit murder doesn't necessarily mean they're guilty.

The point is that it has everything to do with the assassination.
The CIA was carrying out attacks against Cuba even after the CIA failed Bay of Pigs operation and the missile crisis, Kennedy promissed Kruschev that America would stop clandestine operations against Cuba. The CIA disobeyed a direct order and carried out an operation against Cuba from Star Island (commanded by Frank Sturgis), Kennedy found out and raided that CIA camp. The CIA then carried out another operation against Cuba from this CIA camp (commanded by E Howard Hunt). This was the second CIA camp Kennedy raided.
CIA also disobeyed the Whitehouse on 2 occasions in Viet Nam.

This is motive, which make the CIA suspect.
Arthur Kroc 1963 article http://www.jfklancer.com/Krock.html
In it The Whitehouse forwarns of a coup coming from the CIA

There is more then enough evidence to know JFK assassination was a conspiracy, this is just one piece.
Daniel Sheehan has an incredible talk on JFK assassination that illustrates how factions became aligned and why they were motivated to do so. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 17, 2012, 10:17:17 PM
This is motive, which make the CIA suspect.

I didn't ask for speculation, I asked for proof. I'm beginning to wonder if you know the meaning of the word.

I'll repeat: just because someone had a motive to commit murder doesn't mean they're guilty. You might as well say that Jackie Kennedy is a suspect because she was upset that her husband cheated on her. Soon your list of suspects will be so long that you can't rule anyone out and you'll be even further from solving the case than you were before you started investigating it.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 17, 2012, 10:37:13 PM
This is motive, which make the CIA suspect.
I didn't ask for speculation, I asked for proof. I'm beginning to wonder if you know the meaning of the word.

I'll repeat: just because someone had a motive to commit murder doesn't mean they're guilty. You might as well say that Jackie Kennedy is a suspect because she was upset that her husband cheated on her. Soon your list of suspects will be so long that you can't rule anyone out and you'll be even further from solving the case than you were before you started investigating it.

If Jackie had been seen to have violent arguements with Jack and Jack had told his friends that if he were to die suddenly to consider Jackie as the prime suspect. YES look at Jackie.


There are connections such as CIA camp was connected to Guy Banister which is connected to Oswald   

Actually there is enough known right now about the conspiracy, the case has been solved.
What is missing is details of the assassination, which may never be known because of all of the manipulation of much of the evidence.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on April 18, 2012, 12:04:27 AM
I wonder how many examples of things (or even people, as plenty of real film of such exists) being shot and not being blasted backwards by the impact of the bullet one has to provide before JFK conspiracy theorists will finally concede that physics does not support the idea that a head being blown backwards and to the left could be caused by a bullet entering from the front right....

Then show me the phisics that supports JFK being thrown violently backward toward the path from where the bullet came and to the side
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on April 18, 2012, 12:39:24 AM
(Oh, and I assume that if you believe in "deflection" of bullets, you have no problem with accepting that the path of the bullet through JFK into Connolly was well within possibilities. Certainly more possible than a high-powered rifle shot from the side deflecting inside a cranium and exiting the back of the head.)
http://dolk.host.sk/dolkpage96/horror/famosos/jfk2.htm
this link lead to the autopsy sheet on JFK
once you validate this as evidence, you can explain to me how a bullet traveling at a downward angle, hits JFK's back, deflets upward to exit about 6" higher from his throat, then deflects downward into Connelly, which is another story.
It didn't. Autopsy face sheets aren't drawn to scale. The autopsy report itself describes the location of the back wound in relation to other anatomical features: http://www.awesomestories.com/media/user/14d3199a9e.pdf third page, second paragraph.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 18, 2012, 03:16:09 AM
Then show me the phisics that supports JFK being thrown violently backward toward the path from where the bullet came and to the side

You really have missed the point entirely, haven't you? Demonstrations of such have been provided, and even cited here in this discussion. The physics is simple: a bullet enters the back of the skull, deforms, creates a pressure wave in the more fluid brian matter, and blows a large hole out the front of the skull. The forceful ejection of bone and brain matter from the exit wound provides the force that causes the head to move back in accordance with Newton's thrid law. This is the same principle on which rockets work. And this still leaves aside the fact that the brain is what drives muscle contraction, and damage to the brain may easily cause muscle spasms such as that required to snap the head back. Combine the two.

The point remains, however, that physics and the way bullets are designed to work categorically refutes the notion that a man shot in the head from in front with a rifle would have his head violently forced back by the impact of the bullet. Bullets are designed to penetrate, not push.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 18, 2012, 03:22:53 AM
OK here is One of as many as you want.
page 44
Garrisons is talking about a CIA camp that was near Lake Pontchartrain that had been raided by the FBI.
The camp "was preparing for future CIA-sponsored attacks on Cuba, "  That "the FBI raid came in response to pressure from President Kennedy who wanted the bureau to stop the CIA's undending violations of the Neutrality Act."


Okay, first off, you really have to understand a few things about motive.  While motive is one of the things considered in an investigation, it isn't sufficient evidence.  Would Jackie have really been a prime suspect if she'd been having violent arguments with her husband?  No.  The prime suspect would have been the person with the means and opportunity, and the situation in which JFK was killed was not one in which Jackie had either, unless you could demonstrate that she had, for example, paid Oswald (or suspect of your choice) to do it.  Jackie physically could not have been the killer, because there was definitive evidence that she wasn't where the shots were fired from unless those shots were fired from inside the car.  Motive comes up a lot in trials because juries like to believe that people do things for a reason, but the prosecution has no legal obligation to show one.

But okay, let's look at your Garrison garbage.  My first question is, does he have a source for that?  Because Kennedy never much stopped the CIA from attacks on Castro.  We know the CIA continued assassination attempts for literally decades after Kennedy's death, so why assume that they were more successful in an attempt on JFK?  You do know that's the longest-running joke on the subject, right?  ("How do we know the CIA didn't kill Kennedy?"  "Well, he's dead, isn't he?")  But more to the point, if Garrison claimed it was a CIA camp, that is untrue.  It was anti-Castro Cubans, and they were raided largely because they were non-citizens training in guerrilla warfare, and that kind of thing makes the government uneasy.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on April 18, 2012, 11:21:26 AM
Kennedy was a Cold Warrior to the bone.

Just smarter then most.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on April 18, 2012, 11:48:08 AM
(Oh, and I assume that if you believe in "deflection" of bullets, you have no problem with accepting that the path of the bullet through JFK into Connolly was well within possibilities. Certainly more possible than a high-powered rifle shot from the side deflecting inside a cranium and exiting the back of the head.)
http://dolk.host.sk/dolkpage96/horror/famosos/jfk2.htm
this link lead to the autopsy sheet on JFK
once you validate this as evidence, you can explain to me how a bullet traveling at a downward angle, hits JFK's back, deflets upward to exit about 6" higher from his throat, then deflects downward into Connelly, which is another story.
It didn't. Autopsy face sheets aren't drawn to scale. The autopsy report itself describes the location of the back wound in relation to other anatomical features: http://www.awesomestories.com/media/user/14d3199a9e.pdf third page, second paragraph.

No one who argues that the "magic bullet" couldn't have made the wounds has ever explained how Kennedy was shot in the back, Connally was shot in the back, they were sitting one in front of the other, and yet two separate bullets managed to hit each of them in such a manner.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 18, 2012, 01:19:32 PM

It didn't. Autopsy face sheets aren't drawn to scale. The autopsy report itself describes the location of the back wound in relation to other anatomical features: http://www.awesomestories.com/media/user/14d3199a9e.pdf third page, second paragraph.

Back wound "Upper right posterior thorax" where exactly is this bullet hole?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 18, 2012, 03:16:44 PM

It didn't. Autopsy face sheets aren't drawn to scale. The autopsy report itself describes the location of the back wound in relation to other anatomical features: http://www.awesomestories.com/media/user/14d3199a9e.pdf third page, second paragraph.

Back wound "Upper right posterior thorax" where exactly is this bullet hole?

Apparently in Kennedy's back, two inches below the crease of his neck.  Just behind the holes in his jacket and shirt.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on April 18, 2012, 03:37:59 PM

It didn't. Autopsy face sheets aren't drawn to scale. The autopsy report itself describes the location of the back wound in relation to other anatomical features: http://www.awesomestories.com/media/user/14d3199a9e.pdf third page, second paragraph.

Back wound "Upper right posterior thorax" where exactly is this bullet hole?

It says where it is in the autopsy report!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 18, 2012, 04:26:01 PM
Back wound "Upper right posterior thorax" where exactly is this bullet hole?

Keep reading and it tells you exactly where that bullet hole is. It's close to the top edge of the scapula, pretty close to the inside 'corner' of that bone. A location, incidentally, that places it slightly above the exit wound in the front of the throat, especially when you consider Kennedy's slightly slouched position in the car as he was sitting in it.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 18, 2012, 05:39:57 PM
[Apparently in Kennedy's back, two inches below the crease of his neck.  Just behind the holes in his jacket and shirt.

Referencing David Lifton book ' Best Evidence' has autopsy photos
Are these photos igitimate evidence?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 18, 2012, 08:14:13 PM
[Apparently in Kennedy's back, two inches below the crease of his neck.  Just behind the holes in his jacket and shirt.

Referencing David Lifton book ' Best Evidence' has autopsy photos
Are these photos igitimate evidence?

Once again, your claim, your proof.  You want to put the book forward as reliable, tell us why you think so.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Kiwi on April 19, 2012, 09:27:49 AM
...the evidence in support of the fatal head shot coming from the front is overwhelming... Witnesses that described the shot to JFK said a cloud of wound debris flew back and to the left.

Warning:  Gory details which some people might prefer to not read.

Going back to this one, Profmunkin, have you examined frames 313 to 316 of the Zapruder film? 

Frame 313 shows a large red cloud forward of JFK's face and obscuring Jackie's face.  Above it and slightly to its rear is a whitish cloud.  In a full-frame version you can see what looks like the trail of something which appears yellow against the green grass and is flying upward and forward in a straight line, about 15 degrees from vertical.  It seems to pulse four to six times in the one frame, indicating it may be of irregular shape and rotating swiftly.  Being visible in only two dimensions, it could be flying parallel to the car, toward the camera, or away from the camera, but it certainly appears to be moving forward.  It is also visible on page 108 of the Warren Report.

In frame 314 the red cloud has subsided substantially, but the white one is still visible although it has dispersed a little, and there is a hint of the yellow object a little higher than in 313, but still travelling in the same upward, straight and forward direction.

Frame 315 shows the white cloud dispersing further and there is a yellowish object higher still, almost in line with the spectator's feet, although this could also be one of the many artifacts on the film.

Frame 316 shows the white cloud dispersed even more.

This sequence, which would have occurred in about four-eighteenths or 0.22 of a second, could indeed be showing the effects of a shot from the rear and not from Zapruder's right, which, as has been pointed out, would possibly have hit Jackie.

The frames can be viewed, numbered and uncropped, in the Medio Multimedia CD-ROM "J.F.K. Assassination - A Visual Investigation" (1993 - made for Windows 3.1).  They can also be seen unnumbered and cropped, so the yellow object isn't shown, in the part-fictional movie JFK, at around 2:34:37, chapter 36, in the 3:01:06 copy of the film, when Costner does his "back and to the left" thing.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Kiwi on April 19, 2012, 10:26:12 AM
Back wound "Upper right posterior thorax" where exactly is this bullet hole?

Is the Warren Report no help at all?  Pages 87 and 88:

Quote
The President's Neck Wounds

During the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital another bullet wound was observed near the base of the back of President Kennedy's neck slightly to the right of his spine which provides further enlightenment as to the source of the shots. The hole was located approximately

Page 88

5 1/2 inches (14 centimeters) from the tip of the right shoulder joint and approximately the same distance below the tip of the right mastoid process, the bony point immediately behind the ear.162 The wound was approximately one-fourth by one-seventh of an inch (7 by 4 millimeters), had clean edges, was sharply delineated, and had margins similar in all respects to those of the entry wound in the skull.163 Commanders Humes and Boswell agreed with Colonel Finck's testimony that this hole--

... is a wound of entrance... The basis for that conclusion is that this wound was relatively small with clean edges. It was not a jagged wound, and that is what we see in wound of entrance at a long range.164

The autopsy examination further disclosed that, after entering the President, the bullet passed between two large muscles, produced a contusion on the upper part of the pleural cavity (without penetrating that cavity), bruised the top portion of the right lung and ripped the windpipe (trachea) in its path through the President's neck.165 The examining surgeons concluded that the wounds were caused by the bullet rather than the tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital. The nature of the bruises indicated that the President's heart and lungs were functioning when the bruises were caused, whereas there was very little circulation in the President's body when incisions on the President's chest were made to insert tubes during the tracheotomy.166 No bone was struck by the bullet which passed through the President's body.167 By projecting from a point of entry on the rear of the neck and proceeding at a slight downward angle through the bruised interior portions, the doctors concluded that the bullet exited from the front portion of the President's neck that had been cut away by the tracheotomy.168
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on April 19, 2012, 12:04:19 PM
Just so we're clear - profmunkin, your position is that there were two separate shots from the rear, one of which hit Kennedy, one which hit Connally?

Can you, then, indicate how the bullet that struck Kennedy complete missed Connally, and vice versa?

It is very well to debate "anomalies", but anomalies don't make a case. You need to provide evidence of two possible bullet paths that are more likely than the official one. It's no good saying that the official path isn't possible, if no other trajectories are more possible.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 19, 2012, 07:16:00 PM
Warning:  Gory details which some people might prefer to not read.

They certainly are and I certainly would have preferred not to read them.  But the dead is done and it was necessary to better understand the evidence.  Just don't ask me to watch Saving Private Ryan again. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 19, 2012, 11:09:44 PM
What do you do with evidence like this from WC testimony Police Officer Joe Marshall Smith
 
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I checked all the cars. I looked into all the cars and checked around the bushes. Of course, I wasn't alone. There was some deputy sheriff with me, and I believe one Secret Service man when I got there.
I got to make this statement, too. I felt awfully silly, but after the shot and this woman, I pulled my pistol from my holster, and I thought, this is silly, I don't know who I am looking for, and I put it back. Just as I did, he showed me that he was a Secret Service agent.

Ask why the majority of Americans know that the assassination was a conspiracy, it is facts like this and hundreds to thousands more that resonate true and are in opposition to the governments official version.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 19, 2012, 11:15:27 PM
This is interesting from Gentlemen Jim Marrs 'Crossfire'

Richard Carr, a steelworker who saw a heavyset man on the sixth-floor of the [Texas School Book] Depository minutes before the shooting [of President Kennedy], saw two men run from either inside or from behind the Texas School Book Depository minutes after the assassination.

He claimed the men got into a Nash Rambler station wagon facing north on the west side of Houston Street by the east side of the Depository.  He said the wagon left in such a hurry one of its doors was still open.  He last saw the station wagon speeding north on Houston.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 19, 2012, 11:29:50 PM
Mark Lane says 2 unknown men came running out of the TSBD, were stopped by police, they showed the police secret service credentials and were released.

The secret service stated the only secret service personell in Dealey Plaza were with the motorcade.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 19, 2012, 11:44:55 PM
President Truman December 22, 1963 (1 month to the day)
http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman%27s%20CIA%20article.html

Says the CIA out of control and has become a danger to the country

Whitehouse had warned of a coup by the CIA thru Arthur Krock Otober 3, 1963
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 20, 2012, 12:23:43 AM
Well, let's see.  The building overlooked the motorcade route, and strong evidence showed that shots were fired from it.  In fact, policemen were inside the building within less than fifteen minutes. 

Immediately after the shots were fired
Over 50 policemen and over one hundred citizens were searching the grassy knoll and railyards where some testified seeing the snipers, some the smoke and others heard the report from the rifle.
And after they had finished searching the railyard and arresting 3 men (never officially identified)  The police turned their attention to the TSBD and the Dal-Tex building.

One Policeman ran immediately into the TSBD (what a coincidence that the
person officier Marrion Baker located was Lee Harvey Oswald, on the second floor, casually strolling in a side room drinking some pop AND this policeman "knows" the shots came from the 6th floor just seconds ago, but he STOPS to identify a person strolling in the lunchroom on the second floor)
Can't shoot a patsy when they are not where they were supposed to be.
No wonder Jack Ruby looks perplexed in the photograph taken later out front of the TSBD.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2012, 03:49:15 AM
Your refusal to address the objective points like bullet trajectories and instead focus on subjectives like who says they saw what from where and what people may or may not have done in the immediate aftermath of the shooting speaks volumes here, prof. What have you to say, for instance, to the questions about how two men in extremely close proximity were hit with two bullets that failed entirely to strike the other man, or the physics of the effect of a bullet blasting a chunk out of someone's head? Nothing?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 20, 2012, 04:36:19 AM
Assuming that all this is accurately reported, you are once again shifting the burden of proof.  Please put these statement in the context of all evidence and tell us why you have put such a high weight on them in your coming to a decision that there was a conspiracy.  And also please explain your weighing of the evidence as compared to other investigations and why yours is better.  That is what a competent investigator would do. 

This "smoking gun" thinking is really getting tedious.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 20, 2012, 04:38:31 AM
No wonder Jack Ruby looks perplexed in the photograph taken later out front of the TSBD.

You have this uncanny knack of reading a vast conspiracy from the look of a man's face in a photo, do you?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on April 20, 2012, 08:15:10 AM
Well, let's see.  The building overlooked the motorcade route, and strong evidence showed that shots were fired from it.  In fact, policemen were inside the building within less than fifteen minutes. 

Immediately after the shots were fired
Over 50 policemen and over one hundred citizens were searching the grassy knoll and railyards where some testified seeing the snipers, some the smoke and others heard the report from the rifle.
And after they had finished searching the railyard and arresting 3 men (never officially identified)  The police turned their attention to the TSBD and the Dal-Tex building.

One Policeman ran immediately into the TSBD (what a coincidence that the
person officier Marrion Baker located was Lee Harvey Oswald, on the second floor, casually strolling in a side room drinking some pop AND this policeman "knows" the shots came from the 6th floor just seconds ago, but he STOPS to identify a person strolling in the lunchroom on the second floor)
Can't shoot a patsy when they are not where they were supposed to be.
No wonder Jack Ruby looks perplexed in the photograph taken later out front of the TSBD.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on April 20, 2012, 08:20:13 AM
They went to the Depository because the majority of witnesses who had any idea where the shots came from identified that as the source. Why on earth should it take more than 15 minutes for some of the police force to go there?

As I'm trying to figure out what your theory is, how could the conspiracy have assumed Oswald, the patsy, was "supposed" to be on the 6th floor? If he had nothing to do with the shooting, he could have been anywhere in the building, just as any other employee could have been with him the entire time.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 20, 2012, 12:14:46 PM
I understand the notion that evidence must be vetted before it should be regarded for consideration, however an impasse is immediately reached in a discussion on JFK assassination if the only evidence deemed admissible is that which has undergone processing through government agencies.
A discussion on conspiracy is not possible if evidences of a conspiracy are inadmissible as evidence.
By its very nature, a discussion on conspiracy must take the form where official evidence is challenged for its sustainability when examined within the field of known facts.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 20, 2012, 01:33:58 PM
Ask why the majority of Americans know that the assassination was a conspiracy, it is facts like this and hundreds to thousands more that resonate true and are in opposition to the governments official version.

No, the majority of Americans believe it was a conspiracy.  But so what?  Just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it right.  What makes it right or wrong is what can be shown, based on the evidence, to be true.  Sure, go ahead and challenge the official evidence.  That's great; that's science.  But do so in a way that shows some understanding of how evidence works.  Learn the weight that should be given to eyewitness testimony.  Learn how to analyze photographs and examine autopsy reports.  Don't just cite conspiracy theorists, because they've never done that, either.  One major CT who claims to was basically laughed out of hearings because of how ignorant he in fact turns out to be, yet the man is still a major figure in Kennedy conspiracy theory circles.  What does that tell you about their reliability?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on April 20, 2012, 03:25:30 PM
Immediately after the shots were fired
Over 50 policemen

Over 50 policemen? Citation needed.


Quote
and over one hundred citizens were searching the grassy knoll

And not one of your alleged +150 saw anything suspicious.


Quote
and railyards where some testified seeing the snipers,

No one ever testified to seeing a sniper, let alone multiple snipers, on the grassy knoll.


Quote
some the smoke and others heard the report from the rifle.

The majority of people thought the shots came from the TSBD. The vast majority of people heard 2 or 3 shots. Only a few people thought they heard 4 or more.

Quote
And after they had finished searching the railyard and arresting 3 men (never officially identified)

Incorrect. The 3 tramps were identified. Their arrest records were lost and found years later.


Quote
  The police turned their attention to the TSBD and the Dal-Tex building.

Yes. Because several eyewitnesses told the police they saw a sniper in a window in the TSBD.


Quote
One Policeman ran immediately into the TSBD (what a coincidence that the
person officier Marrion Baker located was Lee Harvey Oswald, on the second floor, casually strolling in a side room drinking some pop AND this policeman "knows" the shots came from the 6th floor just seconds ago, but he STOPS to identify a person strolling in the lunchroom on the second floor)

What exactly are you insinuating here? Don't be coy. Spell it out. Are accusing Marion Baker of being a part of the conspiracy?


Quote
Can't shoot a patsy when they are not where they were supposed to be.

So you claim you can't shoot a patsy when they are not supposed to be where they are supposed to be, but it's perfectly OK to shoot him in a police station surrounded by police officers, reporters, photographers, and cameramen! Your lack of self-awareness of what you write is stunning. Hopefully some day you'll realize your requirements for a conspiracy are a million times more wacky than the lone gunman theory.

Quote
No wonder Jack Ruby looks perplexed in the photograph taken later out front of the TSBD.

Picture needed.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 20, 2012, 03:34:40 PM
"...the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the one that passed through my back, chest, and wrist, and worked itself loose from my thigh"

WC Exhibit 399 bullet?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 20, 2012, 03:50:21 PM
Okay, enough games.  What, exactly, do you think happened?  Who fired what shots from where?  Why?  How do you explain the physical evidence which contradicts it?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 20, 2012, 04:05:54 PM
I understand the notion that evidence must be vetted before it should be regarded for consideration, however an impasse is immediately reached in a discussion on JFK assassination if the only evidence deemed admissible is that which has undergone processing through government agencies.

That is not the only admissibale evidence. However, it is a large part of the evidence, and you are seemingly quite willing to ignore it. Why?

Quote
A discussion on conspiracy is not possible if evidences of a conspiracy are inadmissible as evidence.

I suggest you familiarise yourself with what constitutes evidence. That a bunch of people say they heard shots from a grassy knoll in an acoustically complex environment such as Dealy Plaza is not immediately evidence that the shots actually came from there. Have you really never been misled by echoes in locating the origin of a sound? Nor is a bunch of people saying they heard shots from the Book Depository, but coupled with a bunch of people also saying they saw a sniper in the window, that strengthens the reports of sounds origniating from there.
 
Quote
By its very nature, a discussion on conspiracy must take the form where official evidence is challenged for its sustainability when examined within the field of known facts.

It is being and has been. The problem is you are not familiar with the known facts required, which is why you still seem to think that a bullet in the head will throw the head back violently. You also don't seem to know what facts actually are. You present facts that you then append all sorts of inferences onto.

So, we still await your response to the explanation for the 'back and to the left' being caused by the exiting bullet. Do you actually plan to adfdress any of the responses or are you just going to keep piling on the inferences?

A debate becomes impossible when one person steadfastly refuses to respond to the answers to his questions.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on April 20, 2012, 05:10:53 PM
Ask why the majority of Americans know that the assassination was a conspiracy,
Believe equals knowledge?

You boldest claim yet.

Do you actually read what you write.
Do you actually think about what you write.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 20, 2012, 08:06:32 PM
I understand the notion that evidence must be vetted before it should be regarded for consideration, however an impasse is immediately reached in a discussion on JFK assassination if the only evidence deemed admissible is that which has undergone processing through government agencies.

No one here has put such a requirement on you to only present government approved evidence. Quite to the contrary, I have consistently asked you only to explain why you think your sources are better than those in the WC report and other investigations.   So stop blaming us if you aren't getting anywhere, you are throwing up you own road blocks.

Quote
A discussion on conspiracy is not possible if evidences of a conspiracy are inadmissible as evidence.
 
A conspiracy is an interpretation from evidence.  To make the case for a conspiracy, you have to provide an alternative course of events and present evidence to explain why the conspiracy better fits all the evidence.  To date, all you have done is post a few links and dodge questions.   So quit your whining and make your case. 

Quote
By its very nature, a discussion on conspiracy must take the form where official evidence is challenged for its sustainability when examined within the field of known facts.
Challenges to what can reasonably be considered accepted facts are made by proposing and defending an alternative scenario.  You have been reticent to provide even the most basic elements of a alternate scenario and run away from defending them. 


You want to talk about evidence of a conspiracy by begging the question that the conspiracy exits.  That just won't work here. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 20, 2012, 08:19:05 PM
Okay, enough games.  What, exactly, do you think happened?  Who fired what shots from where?  Why?  How do you explain the physical evidence which contradicts it?
Daniel Sheehan has an excellent talk that best summarizes the conspiracy.

I believe that there were at least 3 shooters
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: DataCable on April 20, 2012, 08:28:16 PM
Ask why the majority of Americans know that the assassination was a conspiracy...
Then ask why the majority of humans once knew that the sun revolved about the earth.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 20, 2012, 10:38:19 PM
Daniel Sheehan has an excellent talk that best summarizes the conspiracy.

I believe that there were at least 3 shooters

No.  I won't watch a YouTube video.  You are the one presenting the evidence.  I want you to summarize it, including exactly what your expertise is in relevant fields to JFK research which allows you to know more than qualified researchers in every relevant field.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on April 20, 2012, 11:05:44 PM
Okay, enough games.  What, exactly, do you think happened?  Who fired what shots from where?  Why?  How do you explain the physical evidence which contradicts it?
Daniel Sheehan has an excellent talk that best summarizes the conspiracy.

I believe that there were at least 3 shooters

The title of that video is "Daniel Sheehan - Conspiracy Theories and the UFO Phenomenon"

Dude, seriously?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on April 21, 2012, 09:48:08 AM
"...the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the one that passed through my back, chest, and wrist, and worked itself loose from my thigh"

WC Exhibit 399 bullet?

I'd presume,although I am not familiar with the details. Why don't you tell us?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 21, 2012, 12:54:34 PM
"...the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the one that passed through my back, chest, and wrist, and worked itself loose from my thigh"

WC Exhibit 399 bullet?

If you want a discussion, as you claim to, then do something like discuss a topic.  That starts with actually saying something. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 21, 2012, 08:50:07 PM
"...the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher and onto the examining table. A metal object fell to the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the bullet from my body, the one that passed through my back, chest, and wrist, and worked itself loose from my thigh"

WC Exhibit 399 bullet?

I'd presume,although I am not familiar with the details. Why don't you tell us?
The quote is from Governor Connally's book, the bullet dislodged from Connally's leg and fell to the floor, it and other fragments recovered from his body were given to Nurse Audrey Bell, she sealed them in an brown envelope and gave them to the FBI.
If this is the bullet that hit Connally, what is bullet 399 and where did it come from?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 21, 2012, 08:54:14 PM

The title of that video is "Daniel Sheehan - Conspiracy Theories and the UFO Phenomenon"

Dude, seriously?

If you have not seen it, I urge you to do so, Mr Sheehan speaks the truth.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on April 21, 2012, 08:59:34 PM

The title of that video is "Daniel Sheehan - Conspiracy Theories and the UFO Phenomenon"

Dude, seriously?

If you have not seen it, I urge you to do so, Mr Sheehan is speaks the truth.
What? That a UFO shot JFK?

Just what is it about conspiracy fans that never lets them believe in only one conspiracy theory? Why is it that they never see one they don't like, no matter how ridiculous it may be?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 21, 2012, 09:01:28 PM
Watch the video, Daniel Sheehan explains what a conspiracy is.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 21, 2012, 09:04:15 PM
I apologize about the exhibit 399 and the slug that fell out of Connally but I thought you guys would have known there was a conflict with this evidence.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on April 21, 2012, 09:27:56 PM
The quote is from Governor Connally's book, the bullet dislodged from Connally's leg and fell to the floor, it and other fragments recovered from his body were given to Nurse Audrey Bell, she sealed them in an brown envelope and gave them to the FBI.
If this is the bullet that hit Connally, what is bullet 399 and where did it come from?
Connally is factually wrong about the discovery of the bullet that hit him. This is hardly surprising given that he was seriously wounded by it and barely conscious when he reached the hospital. He would have likely died without prompt medical attention.

It was found on a gurney (not the floor) by the building engineer (not a nurse) after it had been returned to a hallway (not as he was moved to the operating table). The engineer gave it to a secret service agent.

So why would you quote a severely injured man's subjective account and ignore all the other evidence surrounding the discovery of the bullet? Could that have something to do with your fervent desire that there be a conspiracy?

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on April 21, 2012, 09:32:20 PM
Watch the video, Daniel Sheehan explains what a conspiracy is.
I'm sorry, but someone who thinks intelligent aliens are regularly visiting earth but somehow consistently managing to avoid creating any credible evidence of their presence is not someone who's likely to teach me what a conspiracy is. Or much of anything, for that matter.

Besides, the definition of a conspiracy can be found in any dictionary. It's an agreement by two or more people to commit a crime, often (but not always) followed by at least one overt act (which itself may be legal) by at least one of them in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Edited to add: that the crime of conspiracy does not always require an overt act beyond the agreement to commit a crime in the future.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 21, 2012, 09:45:57 PM
Connally is factually wrong about the discovery of the bullet that hit him. This is hardly surprising given that he was seriously wounded by it and barely conscious when he reached the hospital. He would have likely died without prompt medical attention.

It was found on a gurney (not the floor) by the building engineer (not a nurse) after it had been returned to a hallway (not as he was moved to the operating table). The engineer gave it to a secret service agent.

Maybe you should check this out because Nurse Bell testified to the HSCA that she placed 4 or 5 bullet fragments into an envelope she gave to the FBI.

Also the pristine bullet was found on a stretcher NOT associated with JFK assassination, per the testimony of orderly Darrell Tomlinson, the man who discovered the bullet.
Also the pristine bullet was clean, it had no trace of blood or tissue on it. It was fired by "Oswald's" Rifle, but had never penetrated flesh, nor penetrated bones.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 21, 2012, 10:20:52 PM
Dallas Morning News 11/21/1993
District attorney Wade: "I also went out to see (Gov. John) Connally, but he was in the operating room, Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was on the gurney that Connally was on"
Q: What did you do with the bullet? Is this the famous pristine bullet people have talked about?
Wade: I told her to give it to the police, which she said she would. I assume that's the pristine bullet."
---
Bill Stinson who is in the operating room with Connally tells Nurse Bell to give the bullet to the Police.
Nurse Audrey Bell gives the bullet and fragments to patrolman Nolan, who gave it to the FBI

Question to Nolan: was it a bullet fragment or a complete bullet - how large was it?

Bobby M. Nolan: I don't know. It was a - they told me that it was a bullet...nurse just said it was a bullet. (Nolan goes on to describe how big it was) "I'd say uh 2 by 3 inches" (Nolan says 2 by 3? note: the envelope is 3 1/2 by 5" according to Nurse Bell - so Nolan is not describing the dimensions of the envelope.)
 
Warren Commission Exhibit 842 (tiny bullet fragments - the bullet is gone)
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 21, 2012, 10:38:37 PM
Nurse Bell drew pictures of the fragments as she remembered them, but ARRB Chief Counsel Jeremy Gunn refused to take her drawing into evidence.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_interviews/audio/ARRB_Bell.htm

you can listen to her testimony
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 21, 2012, 11:39:59 PM
How reliable is the FBI?
Richard Dodd (Witnsess - standing on the overpass) FBI report MArch 17, 1964
"He stated he first realized something was wrong when he saw President Kennedy slump forward and simultaneously heard shots ring out. He stated he did not know how many shots were fired, but that the sounds were very close together. Mr. Dodd advised that his attention remained on President Kennedy; he did not look up and did not know where the shots came from."

----
Richard Dodd interview in 'rush to judgment'
"LANE. Did you see anything which might indicate to you where the shots came from?
DODD. Well, we all four seen about the same thing. The shots, the smoke came from behind the hedge on the north side of the plaza. And a motorcycle policeman dropped his motorcycle in the street with his gun in his hand and run up the embankment to the hedge. And then I went North to look around the corner to see if there is anyone behind the hedge and met special agent of the railroad. And he went down there, and I walked along with him to see if there were any tracks there. In which there were tracks and cigarette butts was laying where someone was stranding on the bumper looking over the fence or something.
LANE. Where you questioned by agents of any government agency on November 22, Mr. Dodd.
DODD. Yes, we were. We were taken over to the court house and questioned by I suppose Secret Service men of some kind. Asked me quite a few questions about the same as I’ve told you here today."



Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 21, 2012, 11:53:49 PM
Over 50 policemen? Citation needed.

'Rush to Judgment" Lee Edward Bowers - railyard tower operator
said police immediately sealed off the railyards "with over 50 police within 3 to 5 minutes"
Just Curious, do you know what he has to say about the shooter at the fence?

It has to make you wonder why 50 police are searching the rail yard in 3 to 5 minutes.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on April 22, 2012, 12:02:54 AM
Over 50 policemen? Citation needed.

'Rush to Judgment" Lee Edward Bowers - railyard tower operator
said police immediately sealed off the railyards "with over 50 police within 3 to 5 minutes"
Just Curious, do you know what he has to say about the shooter at the fence?

Mark Lane, huh? Yeah, he's not a very reliable source. He has been caught misquoting people too many times for me to give him any credibility. He's slightly more credible than Jim Marrs.

Bowers said nothing of value to the Warren Commission about what he saw at the fence.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 22, 2012, 12:27:22 AM
Mark Lane, huh? Yeah, he's not a very reliable source. He has been caught misquoting people too many times for me to give him any credibility. He's slightly more credible than Jim Marrs.

Bowers said nothing of value to the Warren Commission about what he saw at the fence.

Bowers said he was cut off by the commission, "I was there to only to tell them just what they asked"
"When they wanted to cut off the conversation, as far as I was concerned that was the end of that"
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 22, 2012, 12:38:14 AM
Mark Lane, huh? Yeah, he's not a very reliable source. He has been caught misquoting people too many times for me to give him any credibility. He's slightly more credible than Jim Marrs.
Maybe I didn't make it clear, these are filmed or video taped interviews of the witnesses by Mark Lane, he is not quoting anyone, the witnesses speak for themselves.
Don't you know what witnesses actually said or only what in the Warren Commission report?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 22, 2012, 01:57:05 AM
What is the value of eyewitness testimony compared to physical evidence?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on April 22, 2012, 02:10:54 AM
Maybe you should check this out because Nurse Bell testified to the HSCA that she placed 4 or 5 bullet fragments into an envelope she gave to the FBI.
Maybe you should check your facts a little more carefully. CE 399 was the bulk of the bullet that passed through JFK's neck and then through Connally. It was found on his gurney. The bullet fragments in the envelope were tiny bits of lead recovered from Connally's wrist during his surgery. They matched the missing bits of the CE399 bullet squeezed out its base.
Quote
Also the pristine bullet was found on a stretcher NOT associated with JFK assassination, per the testimony of orderly Darrell Tomlinson, the man who discovered the bullet.
Also the pristine bullet was clean, it had no trace of blood or tissue on it. It was fired by "Oswald's" Rifle, but had never penetrated flesh, nor penetrated bones.
Wrong on every count except the name of the guy who found it. (He was the senior building engineer, not an orderly.)

It was far from a "pristine" bullet, though the conspiracists are always extremely careful to never show the end view that reveals just how flattened it was.

This is really getting tiresome. It is so easy to rebut your "facts" with just a little work that it's hard to believe you've done any real research at all outside reading the "conspiracy" literature. Maybe you can get away with this kind of sloppiness with people who don't know anything about the assassination and who, like you, really want to believe there was a conspiracy. But it won't work on anyone who actually checks up on you, and that's most everyone here.

Are you even aware that Oswald used metal-jacketed military ammunition, and the significance of that fact?




Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on April 22, 2012, 02:19:08 AM
What is the value of eyewitness testimony compared to physical evidence?
Eyewitness testimony is of enormous value when the physical evidence won't tell you what you want to hear.

When you have literally a thousand eyewitnesses to an enormously significant crime like the JFK assassination, you can always find a few who will tell you exactly what you want to hear. If you want to prove that 12-foot-tall purple-skinned UFO aliens did it with frickin' laser beams, you could probably find someone in Dealy Plaza to tell you just that.

Just be sure you don't mention what anybody else says. Oh, and be sure to hint darkly at how many enemies you've made in powerful circles through your selfless quest for the truth.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on April 22, 2012, 03:07:45 AM
Mark Lane, huh? Yeah, he's not a very reliable source. He has been caught misquoting people too many times for me to give him any credibility. He's slightly more credible than Jim Marrs.

Bowers said nothing of value to the Warren Commission about what he saw at the fence.

Bowers said he was cut off by the commission, "I was there to only to tell them just what they asked"
"When they wanted to cut off the conversation, as far as I was concerned that was the end of that"

Hogwash. He wasn't about to tell them anything. He didn't see anything that would corroborate a conspiracy.

Quote
Mr. BALL - When you said there was a commotion, what do you mean by that? What did it look like to you when you were looking at the commotion?
Mr. BOWERS - I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify.
Mr. BALL - You couldn't describe it?
Mr. BOWERS - Nothing that I could pinpoint as having happened that---
Mr. BALL - Afterwards did a good many people come up there on this high ground at the tower?
Mr. BOWERS - A large number of people came, more than one direction. One group converged from the corner of Elm and Houston, and came down the extension of Elm and came into the high ground, and another line another large group went across the triangular area between Houston and Elm and then across Elm and then up the incline. Some of them all the way up. Many of them did, as well as, of course, between 50 and a hundred policemen within a maximum of 5 minutes.
...
Mr. BALL - Is there anything that you told me that I haven't asked you about that you think of?
Mr. BOWERS - Nothing that I can recall.
Mr. BALL - You have told me all that you know about this, haven't you?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I believe that I have related everything which I have told the city police, and also told to the FBI.
Mr. BALL - And everything you told me before we started taking the deposition?
Mr. BOWERS - To my knowledge I can remember nothing else.
Mr. BALL - Now, this will be reduced to writing, and you can sign it, look it over and sign it, or waive your signature if you wish. What do you wish?
Mr. BOWERS - I have no reason to sign it unless you want me to.
Mr. BALL - Would you just as leave waive the signature?
Mr. BOWERS - Fine.
Mr. BALL - Then we thank you very much.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on April 22, 2012, 03:57:01 AM
Tell me profmunkin, do you really think it was totally impossible for someone to bring a rifle to work and shoot a victim riding slowly by in an open automobile at a range of less than 100 yards?

The victim was the most politically powerful, famous and instantly recognizable man on the planet. He was accompanied by the most famous and instantly recognizable woman on the planet: his wife.

The shooter, an ex-Marine marksman, owned and frequently practiced with the rifle later found at the site and conclusively linked to the murder.

The shooter, with a history of mental instability, political extremism and irresponsible acts including spousal abuse, had purchased the rifle under an alias earlier that year and used it almost immediately in a carefully planned attempt to murder another (not nearly as) politically famous person.

The shooter, given several days public notice of the victim's planned route, changed his routine significantly in obvious preparation.

The shooter had several hours alone in which to prepare a sniper's nest, assemble his rifle, and wait in what turned out to be an ideal location.

The victim was openly fond of public motorcades and had taken many in the past, often in built-up urban areas passing hundreds of buildings and thousands of windows, far too many to screen in advance.

Not only had those responsible for protecting the victim long been concerned about what became the exact scenario of the murder but the victim himself often recognized the risk, even that very morning. Despite repeated serious expressions of concern for his safety, the victim was philosophical, repeatedly instructing them to stay back and not impair the public's view. Since he was their boss, they could not overrule him.

Immediately after becoming a murderer, the shooter abandoned his weapon, left his place of work, went home, changed his clothes, picked up a revolver, and left again. A few minutes later, when he was stopped and questioned by a police officer, without provocation he emptied his revolver into the police officer and ran away, reloading, before perhaps a dozen witnesses.

He again attempted to shoot the policemen who finally apprehended him.

Yes, it's unsettling to think that a loser like Lee Harvey Oswald could bring down the most powerful and famous person in the world with such seeming ease. Yet, as I said, this was the exact scenario that the Secret Service had long feared, including the nature of the perpetrator as a loner extremely unlikely to conspire with or confide his plans in anyone who could inform on him. It may sound cold, but in retrospect the only really surprising thing about the JFK assassination is that it hadn't happened sooner. (A plot to kill JFK as President-elect using explosives had been thwarted almost by luck.) Fortunately, most people given the opportunity to see an American president in person don't try to kill him even if they strongly disagree with his politics.

As the saying goes, truth is often stranger than fiction. That's because fiction has to make sense; it has to seem plausible, while the truth only needs to be true. And the truth of the case against Oswald for double murder (and the attempted murder of Connally) has been established so far beyond any reasonable doubt as to be one of the few criminal cases in history that approaches proof beyond any doubt whatsoever.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 22, 2012, 08:25:19 AM
Bowers said he was cut off by the commission, "I was there to only to tell them just what they asked"
"When they wanted to cut off the conversation, as far as I was concerned that was the end of that"

Equivocation.  The phrase "cut off" is used two ways here.  You use it to say the conversation was stopped before Bowers was finished, while in the quote Bowers is saying the conversation stopped because it was finished.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 22, 2012, 10:18:21 AM
The shooter, an ex-Marine marksman, owned and frequently practiced with the rifle later found at the site and conclusively linked to the murder.


Marine Marksman - this is the lowest level given to just pass on the rifle range.
Sergeant Nelson Delgado - sherved with Oswald, said Oswald was a terrible shot, so much so he was seen to often miss the target entirely, called "a maggie drawers".

Marksman ... Sharpshooter ... Expert

Note; Oswald just qualified as Sharpshooter
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 22, 2012, 10:49:11 AM
Is it true that the WC had 3 experts try to duplicate the three shots and failed to do so?

more interviews http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Oswald_poor_shot.html
"In addition to Sherman Cooley, Henry Hurt interviewed over fifty other former Marine colleagues of Oswald's. Hurt reported the results of those interviews:

On the subject of Oswald's shooting ability, there was virtually no exception to Delgado's opinion that it was laughable. . . .

Many of the Marines mentioned that Oswald had a certain lack of coordination that, they felt, was responsible for the fact that he had difficulty learning to shoot."
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 22, 2012, 10:55:28 AM

Equivocation.  The phrase "cut off" is used two ways here.  You use it to say the conversation was stopped before Bowers was finished, while in the quote Bowers is saying the conversation stopped because it was finished.

Lee Bowers interview

See for yourself
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 22, 2012, 11:06:47 AM
Despite repeated serious expressions of concern for his safety, the victim was philosophical, repeatedly instructing them to stay back and not impair the public's view. Since he was their boss, they could not overrule him.


If you listen to only WC or the likes of Vincent Bugliosi you will never learn the truth.
JFK ever restricting the SS was a lie created as a deception to hide the failure of the SS to shield the President in Dealey Plaza.

http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/2009/12/jfk-secret-service_26.html
Special Agent In Charge (SAIC) of White House Detail (WHD) Gerald A. “Jerry” Behn:

"I don't remember Kennedy ever saying that he didn't want anybody on the back of his car."

Assistant Special Agent In Charge (ASAIC) Floyd M. Boring:

No, no, no-that's not true...[JFK] was a very easy-going guy...he didn't interfere with our actions at all."
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 22, 2012, 11:43:21 AM
Immediately after becoming a murderer, the shooter abandoned his weapon, left his place of work, went home, changed his clothes, picked up a revolver, and left again. A few minutes later, when he was stopped and questioned by a police officer, without provocation he emptied his revolver into the police officer and ran away, reloading, before perhaps a dozen witnesses.

Immediately?
No! Supposedly, while rushing to get off the 6th floor, Oswald took the time to meticulously wipe the rifle free of all prints.
The Dallas Police could not find a print on the rifle.
Rifle then given to the FBI, they could not find a print on the rifle.
FBI returned rifle to the Dallas Police, Dallas Police then, miraculously, found a palm print on the underside of the gun's barrel when the rifle was disassembled.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 22, 2012, 12:08:42 PM
"Oswald" Rifle found without a clip?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid6.htm
"1985 book Reasonable Doubt, Henry Hurt intones:

Without a clip, the cartridges must be hand-loaded, one by one, making rapid shooting flatly impossible.
There is not a shred of positive evidence that such a clip was found with the Mannlicher-Carcano in the sniper's nest. (p. 103) "
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 22, 2012, 01:04:57 PM
Continuing refusal to address the responses to your direct questions noted. Your 'let's keep throwing mud at the wall and see what sticks' approach is getting tiring to the point of not even being worth reading any more. If you want to discuss this, then for heaven's sake pick a couple of issues and stick with them rather than this scattergun approach that buries us all in crap.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 22, 2012, 01:27:48 PM
Continuing refusal to address the responses to your direct questions noted. Your 'let's keep throwing mud at the wall and see what sticks' approach is getting tiring to the point of not even being worth reading any more. If you want to discuss this, then for heaven's sake pick a couple of issues and stick with them rather than this scattergun approach that buries us all in crap.

What issue do you want to stick with?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 22, 2012, 01:55:20 PM
Frankly I don't care, but go back and review my contributions to this thread and see if you could hazard a guess at which issues I might be interested in discussing. It's not that hard to work out, surely?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 22, 2012, 01:58:20 PM
Is it true that the WC had 3 experts try to duplicate the three shots and failed to do so?

No.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on April 22, 2012, 02:26:56 PM
"Oswald" Rifle found without a clip?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid6.htm
"1985 book Reasonable Doubt, Henry Hurt intones:

Without a clip, the cartridges must be hand-loaded, one by one, making rapid shooting flatly impossible.
There is not a shred of positive evidence that such a clip was found with the Mannlicher-Carcano in the sniper's nest. (p. 103) "


That link has a picture of the rifle with the clip clearly visible!!!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 22, 2012, 02:31:42 PM
That link has a picture of the rifle with the clip clearly visible!!!

And gives detail about how the clip was found.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 22, 2012, 06:42:51 PM
Continuing refusal to address the responses to your direct questions noted. Your 'let's keep throwing mud at the wall and see what sticks' approach is getting tiring to the point of not even being worth reading any more. If you want to discuss this, then for heaven's sake pick a couple of issues and stick with them rather than this scattergun approach that buries us all in crap.

What issue do you want to stick with?

I tell you what I would like for you to stick with.  The single issue you think most undermines the WC report.  State what your point is and stick with supporting it.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Laurel on April 22, 2012, 06:59:56 PM
"Oswald" Rifle found without a clip?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid6.htm
"1985 book Reasonable Doubt, Henry Hurt intones:

Without a clip, the cartridges must be hand-loaded, one by one, making rapid shooting flatly impossible.
There is not a shred of positive evidence that such a clip was found with the Mannlicher-Carcano in the sniper's nest. (p. 103) "


That link has a picture of the rifle with the clip clearly visible!!!
Profmunkin, why did you link to a well-known anti-conspiracy site to make your case for a conspiracy? Were you hoping that none of us were familiar with John McAdams? Did you think we were too lazy to click on the link and read this quote in context?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 22, 2012, 08:51:55 PM
For heaven's sake, I linked to that site earlier!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 22, 2012, 08:55:01 PM

Equivocation.  The phrase "cut off" is used two ways here.  You use it to say the conversation was stopped before Bowers was finished, while in the quote Bowers is saying the conversation stopped because it was finished.

Lee Bowers interview

See for yourself

What I heard is Bowers stating that there were three shots.  Do you still care to use this interview to support your theory of 6 shots from 3 shooters?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 22, 2012, 08:57:16 PM
BTW, Profmunkin, you never answered my question of weather you had actually been to Dealey Plaza.  Have you?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 22, 2012, 10:35:48 PM
BTW, Profmunkin, you never answered my question of weather you had actually been to Dealey Plaza.  Have you?
Yes, I have visited Dealey Plaza and the TSBD museum.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 22, 2012, 10:48:57 PM
Either way you look at it, there is no way to reconcile the idea of them using multiple shooters in multiple locations and then trying to use a lone gunman cover story as the action of a halfway competent intelligence agency. Even multiple shooters in the same location would have been a better idea. If a whole bunch of us can see that without even thinking about it, how did an agency supposedly adept at arranging secret assassinations with plenty of preparation time utterly fail to do so and instead come up with such a ludicrous plan?
If the public can be convinced it was a single gunman, then it is single crazy nut, end of a sad story.
If there were more then one shooter, it is a conspiracy.

Ludicrous plan? What are you talking about, it worked didn't it?

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 23, 2012, 12:31:57 AM
If the public can be convinced it was a single gunman, then it is single crazy nut, end of a sad story.

What the public does or doesn't think is not, in the long run, relevant.  The evidence shows a single shooter from a single location.  The autopsy shows a single shooter from a single location.  That some people are so ridiculously determined to assert a conspiracy despite the fact that most of the claims don't make even a little bit of sense says more about the people making the claims than about the events in question.

Quote
If there were more then one shooter, it is a conspiracy.

Actually, there doesn't even have to be more than one shooter.  Having one shooter would be the most sensible way of doing things even with a conspiracy, as a minute of studying real criminal cases would show.

Quote
Ludicrous plan? What are you talking about, it worked didn't it?

Yes, Lee Harvey Oswald made his shot and killed Kennedy.  We're still waiting for you to show even a little evidence that it was something else.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 23, 2012, 03:14:11 AM
If the public can be convinced it was a single gunman, then it is single crazy nut, end of a sad story.

And the best way to convince them of that is to have multiple shooters spread all over the place, is it?

Quote
If there were more then one shooter, it is a conspiracy.

Which, as I and others have said, is a damn good reason not to use multiple shooters if the planned cover story is that one lone nutter did the job, or to have the lone gunman as a cover story if you are going to use multiple shooters.

Quote
Ludicrous plan? What are you talking about, it worked didn't it?

Nice circular reasoning there.

Are you seriously suggesting that a conspiracy was hatched to convince the world that Kennedy was shot in the back by a lone gunman and that to do this they decided to have a few gunmen dotted around the location? Forensic analysis of bullet trajectories was quite a mature science by that time. Why hatch a plan that runs the risk of discovery if they find that he was hit by two bullets going in opposite directions?

You have yet to prove that there were multiple shooters. If you can manage that I'll be impressed. So far you don't seem to know what evidence is, and your own links to evidence include things that contradict the statements you are trying to support.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 23, 2012, 09:57:48 AM
If the public can be convinced it was a single gunman, then it is single crazy nut, end of a sad story.

This is typical conspiracist thinking, and sadly unrelated to the real world.  The assumption is that some unspecified and unitary "public" will be the only judge of the events and once its mind is made up, nothing will change it.  Much as the Apollo hoax proponents see NASA and its contractors as one unified body that can act in compartmentalized fashion.   Both are a convenient illusion of the conspiracists to gloss over the huge failing in their own need to provide evidence. 

The argument designed is to set the burden of proof at some arbitrary level such that for the conspiracy theory to be proved true, it only has to be argued that the conspiracy was capable of temporarily deceiving some imaginary cohort for a unstated period of time.

Or Profmunkin do you disagree and can specify a the burden of proof you are intending to meet?



Quote
Ludicrous plan? What are you talking about, it worked didn't it?
  Circular reasoning.


edited for clarity
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 23, 2012, 10:05:40 AM
BTW, Profmunkin, you never answered my question of weather you had actually been to Dealey Plaza.  Have you?
Yes, I have visited Dealey Plaza and the TSBD museum.

And did you notice that any shots from the Grassy Knoll would not have Hit JFK front on, but more from up and to the side?  Which still leaves open the question of what happens to the bullet? Since the head shot didn't hit Jackie or the limo, what happened to it.  And please don't try the magic bullet trajectory of making a sharp ricochet and exit at the back of the head without citing a source that provides a detailed, expert analysis.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on April 23, 2012, 11:24:33 AM
If the public can be convinced it was a single gunman, then it is single crazy nut, end of a sad story.
Not at all, because as others have pointed out, even a single shooter could have a conspiracy behind it. That's why the WC looked at Oswald's background in painstaking detail to see if he worked with anyone, was assisted by anyone, or was put up to the assassination by anyone.

Everything they found said not only "no" but "hell no" -- Oswald was simply not the kind of person who took orders from anyone but himself.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on April 23, 2012, 11:37:50 AM
Regarding the clip for the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, Youtube user mag30th owns one and has produced several videos debunking the more common myths about this rifle's supposed poor quality. Here's one:



In this one he rapidly exercises the bolt without firing the weapon to show that it could be operated very quickly and smoothly. He then loads another full clip from the top, and I notice that the empty clip then falls out of the bottom of the magazine. That would indicate that you wouldn't expect to find the clip in the rifle as (or after) it was being fired.



Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 23, 2012, 01:00:23 PM
The autopsy shows a single shooter from a single location.
Do you think you know more then all of these witnesses about the head wound?

And http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Ballistics_and_head_wounds.html
"thanks in part to newly released HSCA interview files, we now know that witness after witness at the autopsy told Committee investigators that the large wound was in back of the head.
I have not read much from the HSCA but this information certainly is in accordance with reports from Douglas Horne.
Note: this page goes into detail about how the head wound could not in all likelyhood be produced by the carcano rifle firing FMJ missiles.

Before we can seriously discuss how the wounds were made, lets establish the FACT that the autopsy report given to the WC is a fabrication.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 23, 2012, 01:06:14 PM
Before we can seriously discuss how the wounds were made, lets establish the FACT that the autopsy report given to the WC is a fabrication.

Yes, why don't you do that.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 23, 2012, 01:26:50 PM
And did you notice that any shots from the Grassy Knoll would not have Hit JFK front on, but more from up and to the side?  Which still leaves open the question of what happens to the bullet? Since the head shot didn't hit Jackie or the limo, what happened to it.  And please don't try the magic bullet trajectory of making a sharp ricochet and exit at the back of the head without citing a source that provides a detailed, expert analysis.
Most likely a frangible missile, it broke up into a score of fragments, it liquefied right half of the Presidents brain as it bore thru exploding out the back side of his head. Every witness to the head shot in motorcade and near the limo testified to this. Witnesses in motorcade and near the limo testified to rifle report coming from grassy knoll area. Every witness at Parkland corroborated this wound in the back of the Presidents head. Witnesses at the Bethesda autopsy corroborated the location of wound.
Even DPD Chief Jesse Curry in 1977 interview, in you tube video I previously posted agreed with this.

I don't understand the ballistics as to angle of attack and results, but there is no doubt that there was massive damage to the back right side of JFK's head.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 23, 2012, 01:31:20 PM
And http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Ballistics_and_head_wounds.html

From your link
Quote
It is interesting to note that although Dr. Olivier fired bullets into 10 skulls, he only cited one skull as having an exit wound that was at all similar in location and size to the large exit wound described by the autopsy doctors.
 
It is interesting to note that the test cited in an attempt to discredit the autopsy confirmed the plausibility of one conclusion of the autopsy report.

Quote
As a matter of fact, most of the resulting exit wounds were in the frontal area--they shattered bones in the forehead area (Menninger 84). Bear in mind, too, that the Commission's exit wound was different from the one later proposed by the HSCA, and from the one described in detail by the Dallas doctors and nurses who treated the President at Parkland Hospital immediately after the shooting. The Parkland doctors and nurses reported seeing a large wound in the right rear part of the head, strongly indicating a shot from the front. And, thanks in part to newly released HSCA interview files, we now know that witness after witness at the autopsy told Committee investigators that the large wound was in back of the head.


I'll assume that this is the most compelling evidence you have and that you plan on defending this, instead of walking way as you have on other occasions.   Without even going into the accuracy of the reporting here. 

Your assignment, Promunkin, whether or not you choose to accept it is to,

(1)tell us why the opinions presented here are sufficiently divergent as to rule out the conclusion that the bullet was fired from the SBD.  Such as why the opinions of  emergency room doctors and nurses should outweigh that of the pathologist.  Include in your analysis how those opinions could have been well formed by a group of people who were focused on providing emergency treatment.  Also please include the opinions of the same people on the locations of the entry and exit wounds of the back shot.  Since that will show if they can be used to support your theory that both shots came from the front. If such opnions are nto available state the extent of your research.

(2)tell us why the conclusions of the HSCA report a decade and a half later should be taken to be of such importance relative to the autopsy report that it shows the autopsy to be fraudulent while drawing the same conclusion as the WC.   Why do you rely on the HSCA report in one regard while dismissing its conclusion?

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 23, 2012, 01:38:40 PM
And did you notice that any shots from the Grassy Knoll would not have Hit JFK front on, but more from up and to the side?  Which still leaves open the question of what happens to the bullet? Since the head shot didn't hit Jackie or the limo, what happened to it.  And please don't try the magic bullet trajectory of making a sharp ricochet and exit at the back of the head without citing a source that provides a detailed, expert analysis.
Most likely a frangible missile, it broke up into a score of fragments, it liquefied right half of the Presidents brain as it bore thru exploding out the back side of his head....I don't understand the ballistics as to angle of attack and results, but there is no doubt that there was massive damage to the back right side of JFK's head.

Your contention about the bullet is nothing more than supposition, and you admit you do not understand the ballistics, but still maintain a conclusion that requires knowledge of both of these items.  Does this appear to be a reasonable and serious contribution to that would lead anyone to reject the analysis that the bullet was fired from the SBD. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 23, 2012, 01:47:24 PM
Before we can seriously discuss how the wounds were made, lets establish the FACT that the autopsy report given to the WC is a fabrication.

Yes, why don't you do that.
Lets see
Testimony from witnesses to the assassination is not persuasive
Testimony from Doctors and Nurses at Parkland is not persuasive
Testimony from witnesses present at Bethesda autopsy is not persuasive
Experts review of the evidence does not have an impact

 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 23, 2012, 01:55:10 PM
Before we can seriously discuss how the wounds were made, lets establish the FACT that the autopsy report given to the WC is a fabrication.

Yes, why don't you do that.
Lets see
Testimony from witnesses to the assassination is not persuasive
Testimony from Doctors and Nurses at Parkland is not persuasive
Testimony from witnesses present at Bethesda autopsy is not persuasive
Experts review of the evidence does not have an impact

 

Your argument is not persuasive.  You really don't understand how presenting evidence works, do you?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 23, 2012, 02:12:45 PM
Before we can seriously discuss how the wounds were made, lets establish the FACT that the autopsy report given to the WC is a fabrication.

Yes, why don't you do that.
Lets see
Testimony from witnesses to the assassination is not persuasive
Testimony from Doctors and Nurses at Parkland is not persuasive
Testimony from witnesses present at Bethesda autopsy is not persuasive
Experts review of the evidence does not have an impact

 

It would be your interpretation of the evidence into a compelling theory of actions that would be a persuasive argument that the autopsy is a fabrication. A argument that should also include professionals with relevant qualifications agreeing the at the report was fabricated.    Including direct statements by at least some of your "witnesses."

One reason for an expert review of evidence is to make sense of the normal contradictions that occur within eye witness testimony. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 23, 2012, 02:35:05 PM
Speaking of normal contradictions.  I'd always assumed the "grassy knoll"  to be the area near the picket fence, which was to the right front, since that is where most CTs seem to place the shooter. Yet the term originated (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/gk_name.htm) from an AP reporter Merriman Smith within 25 minutes after Kennedy was shot.  The wire service release based on Smiths phoned in statement, "Some of the Secret Service agents thought the gunfire was from an automatic weapon fired to the right rear of the president's car, probably from a grassy knoll to which police rushed."

So I suppose it all depends on whose grassy knoll we are referring to. 

Right rear is of completely consistent with Oswald as the gunman.  Interestingly Smiths initial report was dispatched within four minutes of the event, "Three shots were fired at President Kennedy's motorcade today in downtown Dallas."  Not the six Profmunkin claims.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 23, 2012, 02:48:38 PM
Another post on this.

Experts review of the evidence does not have an impact

Compared to say...your conspiratist review of the evidence.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 23, 2012, 05:36:24 PM
In Jesse Curry 'Retired Dallas police chief, Jesse Curry reveals his personal JFK assassination file'

He has a picture of the slug from Gov. Connally, it is about the size of a dime.

You can see it along with other evidence from Jesse Curry's book in you tube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLDC3F3C0BF9D48CC7&v=un2Q3sO7Xbk&feature=player_detailpage

The reason I am jumping back to this issue is Jesse Curry supports the slug found in operating room given to nurse Bell...given to Nolan given to FBI.   

I will address other issues posted as I continue to research.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on April 23, 2012, 08:03:33 PM
Are you ever going to stay on one point and see it through, or are you going to keep playing Gish Gallop?

Does your movement from topic to topic indicate a realization that each previous topic is, in fact, not a very strong one for your case?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on April 23, 2012, 08:11:03 PM
Most likely a frangible missile, it broke up into a score of fragments
Even "frangible missiles" obey the laws of physics. They keep moving in the same direction at constant velocity until acted upon by an external force. When they break up, it's because of an outside force. When they change direction, it's because of an outside force.

Even worse for your theory is that Oswald's ammunition (and the bullet remains found) were all of the full-metal-jacketed military type, exactly the opposite of "frangible ammunition" (which has long been banned from warfare by international treaty).

Had Oswald used even a normal hollow-point lead hunting bullet, the damage to JFK's head would have been even more extensive. This has been shown very convincingly by actual shooting tests on realistic models of the human head, e.g., in the Discovery Channel program "Inside the Target Car". The target completely exploded because all of the bullet energy was released inside it so quickly. Had a "frangible bullet" been used on JFK, exactly the same thing would have happened.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 23, 2012, 08:46:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5ATbhCUZxjQ

Hey I am sorry about this "gish golly" but as I search for information to properly answer some of your questions I run across more interesting information that supports my earlier posts.

The 3 tramps as it turns out were never booked anywhere, no record can be found of who these guys were.
Take a look at the attached video, Col. Fletcher Prouty discusses photos of Dealey Plaza.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 23, 2012, 08:51:01 PM

Your argument is not persuasive.  You really don't understand how presenting evidence works, do you?

Sorry I am not any good at this.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 23, 2012, 09:08:46 PM
Hey I am sorry about this "gish golly" but as I search for information to properly answer some of your questions I run across more interesting information that supports my earlier posts.

You haven't found any information that supports your earlier posts. In fact some of the websites you have linked to actually contradict you.

For example:

Quote
The 3 tramps as it turns out were never booked anywhere, no record can be found of who these guys were.

This site identifies the 3 tramps:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/3tramps.htm

Do you recognize that site? You linked to it in reply #157 of this thread (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=67.msg1237#msg1237). It identifies the 3 tramps and provides their arrest records.

Harold Doyle
View his arrest record. (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hobo1small.gif)
Download high resolution version for printing. (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hobo1.gif)

John Forrester Gedney
View his arrest record. (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hobo2small.gif)
Download high resolution version for printing. (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hobo2.gif)

Gus W. Abrams
View his arrest record. (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hobo3small.gif)
Download high resolution version for printing. (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hobo3.gif)

Now, do you wish to retract your claim that the 3 tramps were never identified?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on April 23, 2012, 09:10:46 PM
By the way, Profmunkin, I'm waiting for an answer to this question (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=68.msg1219#msg1219).
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 23, 2012, 11:09:43 PM

Now, do you wish to retract your claim that the 3 tramps were never identified?
Looks like might have to, I would like to do some digging first.
Thanks for the links.

Check out this Youtube video it you haven't already
Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza Nov 22 1963
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5ATbhCUZxjQ
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on April 24, 2012, 02:06:25 AM

Now, do you wish to retract your claim that the 3 tramps were never identified?
Looks like might have to, I would like to do some digging first.
Thanks for the links.

Check out this Youtube video it you haven't already
Ed Lansdale in Dealey Plaza Nov 22 1963
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5ATbhCUZxjQ

Prouty is a crackpot. He was a colonel when he retired and was awarded a Commendation Medal for his retirement. A colonel being awarded a Commendation Medal for his retirement is a slap in the face. It is the equivalent of saying, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." If he had been any thing other than an office boy who fetched coffee for the general he would have received at least a Meritorious Service Medal.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on April 24, 2012, 04:20:12 AM
profmunkin, please please buy or steal a copy of Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History.

Yes, it's huge at over 1,600 pages...not counting the notes CD-ROM. That's why I only asked you to get a copy, not necessarily to read the whole thing from cover to cover. Just keep and use it as a reference.

Why is it so big? Because it starts with an amazingly detailed moment-by-moment chronology of the assassination and its aftermath. Then it continues with an amazingly detailed biography of Lee Harvey Oswald. And then, having barely gotten warmed up, Bugliosi spends most of his massive book exhaustively documenting, examining and thoroughly debunking every JFK conspiracy theory known to man. Yes, he ridicules them too. Why not? They fully deserve it.

Bugliosi's book is so huge precisely because people like JFK assassination theories. They like them so much that they've invented thousands of 'em, nearly every one in direct contradiction to all the others. So if you're going to keep regurgitating each of these thousands of theories to us the moment you first learn about it, do yourself (and us) a favor. See if Bugliosi has already analyzed and totally demolished it. Chances are that he has.

I mean, this is really getting tedious. Nearly all of the important evidence in the JFK assassination was developed within days of the event. In fact, much of it was known within hours. If not for the importance of the victim, it would have been an open-and-shut case. The evidence has withstood almost 50 years of intense scrutiny, but some people -- like you -- are still either largely ignorant of it or simply don't want to believe it really could be so simple.

After nearly 50 years, it's long past time to just give up and accept the facts.




Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 24, 2012, 07:03:25 AM
I've been doing a little digging around this myself. The large hole in Kennedy's head is on the right hand side towards the rear of his head. In this whole 'back and to the left' business about where his head went when it was shot, have you, prof, made any note of where his head was before he was shot through it? He was leaning, head down and turned towards Jackie's shoulder. That position appears to have put the rear right of his head almost facing slightly forward in relation to the car. Such an explosion of brain and skull as occurred on being shot would therefore definitely have pushed his head to the left, and maybe slightly back too.

I notice also that the report profmunkin cites mentions attempts at shooting 10 skulls and only being able to replicate the kind of wound seen in Kennedy's in one case. Given the huge variability in skulls and the significant effects even a slight change in bullet direction or wind or whatever can have, the fact that he managed a 10% success is pretty impressive in itself. The report suggests that the fact it only happened once shows it could not have been the case in the assassination, but the scientific conclusion from this is that, nonetheless, he was able to produce a wound similar to Kennedy's by shooting a bullet through a skull in the manner suggested by the autopsy report, therefore it is possible to create such a wound with a bullet fired from where oswald was.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 24, 2012, 01:16:08 PM
Sorry I am not any good at this.

Your first step should be to acknowledge responses to your claims.  The best way to do this would be to read what is said and actually think about it, not just link to denials from CT websites.  You might also consider that we have heard all of this before and found it unconvincing.  Not for ideological reasons but simply because nothing the conspiracist side presents meets the burden of evidence in a court of law.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on April 24, 2012, 04:08:25 PM
Not for ideological reasons but simply because nothing the conspiracist side presents meets the burden of evidence in a court of law.

Exactly what is the burden of evidence in a court of law?

Since no one here has most likely been in direct contact with any original evidence, everything is hearsay  (hearsay here meaning; what the WC published), controlling what sources are permissible as evidence, controls the outcome of the conversation and so far the only thing I have seen is that government sources are a prerequisite to be acceptable.

"nothing the conspiracist side presents meets the burden of evidence in a court of law"  this illustrates just high biased this forum is and it indicates how foolish it is to post on this forum any information not in total support of government findings.

It is sad that journalism, historically our societies partner and imperative to our freedom in keeping in check our government, institutions and businesses, seems to be held in utter disdain, disregard and mistrust on this Forum. 

It is a shame that the term 'conspiracy' has turned into a buzz word to prevent any real dialog from taking place, is used as a hammer to prevent questions from being addressed and prevents many to even dare to look at issues.

I am going to be out of communication for a few weeks, so I AM NOT IGNORING posts, I just won't be in a position to monitor, ask or answer posts.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 24, 2012, 05:27:38 PM
"nothing the conspiracist side presents meets the burden of evidence in a court of law"  this illustrates just high biased this forum is and it indicates how foolish it is to post on this forum any information not in total support of government findings.

Complete Bart Sibrel

The first problem is not just the information but the interpretation of the information.  I have asked you over and over again why your interpretation is better than others and you have failed to answer every time.   You just respond by throwing random links and videos at us as if that alone provided sufficient proof.

We ask you again and again to improve your presentation so that we may better understand your claims and why you think your interpretation and conclusion better fit all the evidence than other studies.  It is like pulling teeth to get you to make any actual claim.  If you feel foolish, don't blame us.

Quote
It is sad that journalism, historically our societies partner and imperative to our freedom in keeping in check our government, institutions and businesses, seems to be held in utter disdain, disregard and mistrust on this Forum.


If "journalism" your standard of proof then why do you ignore requests to read Reclaiming History.  It is arguably the finest piece of writing on the topic.  Maybe you can read it while on hiatus.

Quote
It is a shame that the term 'conspiracy' has turned into a buzz word to prevent any real dialog from taking place, is used as a hammer to prevent questions from being addressed and prevents many to even dare to look at issues.

You are the one who touts conspiracy and does not answer question. 


Quote
I am going to be out of communication for a few weeks, so I AM NOT IGNORING posts, I just won't be in a position to monitor, ask or answer posts.
Have a nice break, wherever it takes you. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: JayUtah on April 24, 2012, 05:49:53 PM
Exactly what is the burden of evidence in a court of law?
Here's a good start.  http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

Quote
Since no one here has most likely been in direct contact with any original evidence, everything is hearsay...
Hair-split.  The conspiracy authors consider the available materials suitable to draw their conclusions.  Therefore it's disingenuous to suggest that the critics of those conclusions would be hobbled when working with the same material.

Further, access to the primary evidence is not needed in some cases to refute the conspiracy theorists.  I am a trained, published, and reasonably skilled photographic analyst, as part of my training and profession in forensic engineering.  I can look at the "analysis" put forward by some of the JFK conspiracy theorists regarding the evidentiary photos, and I can see no end of amateur errors and pitfalls in it.  No higher fidelity in the evidence will compensate for their egregiously mistaken methods.  That doesn't affirm the lone gunman hypothesis, but it certainly dooms theirs.

Quote
...this illustrates just high biased this forum is and it indicates how foolish it is to post on this forum any information not in total support of government findings.
You keep making this accusation every time someone says your argument is insufficient.  Has it ever occurred to that we're not brainwashed robots, and that your argument really is insufficient?

Quote
It is sad that journalism...
Conspiracism is not journalism.

Quote
It is a shame that the term 'conspiracy' has turned into a buzz word to prevent any real dialog from taking place
Regurgitating long-debunked claims is not a dialog.  Similarly, simply telling your critics that they're hopelessly biased is not very conducive to dialogue either.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on April 24, 2012, 08:21:54 PM
I would also add that I'm not sure I have yet seen a conspiracist who is capable of the necessary synthesis to see how different disciplines work together to present a single, cohesive narrative that fits all the facts.  Many of them think that all you need to do is show that one thing doesn't fit and the entire thing collapses like a house of cards--and, notably, the only thing left to replace it is their version of events.  However, many of them don't ever present a version of events to take the place of the "official" story.  Journalism at least has to answer the "W" questions, which Profmunkin hasn't bothered doing yet.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on April 25, 2012, 03:20:51 AM
Since no one here has most likely been in direct contact with any original evidence, everything is hearsay

So how does that differ from your arguments? Have you been in direct contact with any original evidence? Why is it fine for you but inadequate for us to use such materials?

Quote
so far the only thing I have seen is that government sources are a prerequisite to be acceptable.

Rubbish. It's a handy screen for you to hide behind, but it is not a true representation of this debate. All you do is dismiss government publications because you already 'know' it was faked. You are as obliged to deal with the material contained therein as anyone when discussing this subject.

Quote
this illustrates just high biased this forum is and it indicates how foolish it is to post on this forum any information not in total support of government findings.

And this illustrates just how blinkered conspiracy theorists are. When it comes to disagreeing with you we can only be doing so out of blind faith in what 'the government' tells us, according to you. You have not actually addressed the substance of any of it. I have already pointed out to you on several occasions the number of times that the notion of a head (or other object) being blown back along the path of the bullet by the force of the ejected material from the exit wound has been duplicated, and explained how it works. You have not so far deigned to respond to that at all.

Quote
It is sad that journalism, historically our societies partner and imperative to our freedom in keeping in check our government, institutions and businesses, seems to be held in utter disdain, disregard and mistrust on this Forum.

They are subject to every check and examination that every other piece of material is subject to. When we find them wanting it is not because of blind faith or mistrust, it is because they objectively fail to be persuasive.
 
Quote
I am going to be out of communication for a few weeks, so I AM NOT IGNORING posts, I just won't be in a position to monitor, ask or answer posts.

Well enjoy whatever it is you are doing.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on April 26, 2012, 11:44:26 AM
What exact sort of journalism does profmunkin claim we have contempt for? I've not noticed, for example, the NYT claiming that a conspiracy is a proven thing, and Americans are living under a coup.

On the other hand, conspiracy claims are often made by the sort of journalists who claim that Elvis is alive, and Batboy is developing a cure for cancer. Putting things in writing does not automatically make you a reliable source.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: JayUtah on April 26, 2012, 01:06:20 PM
Conspiracy theorists often call themselves "investigative journalists" despite that they have no journalist credentials, training, or experience.  Hence conspiracism is often promoted to "journalism."
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Tanalia on April 26, 2012, 07:24:32 PM
Usually with a very loose interpretation of what "investigation" means as well.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on April 27, 2012, 11:55:35 AM
It's unfortunate the good professor had to take a break, because I think we got off track from his thread title - that there were three shooters from different locations, and six shots in total. He never really followed up on that; I was curious as to what proof he had of a third location, and where all those shots went. A diagram of locations and shot angles would have been quite interesting.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on April 27, 2012, 01:16:56 PM
Good reading about the "earwitnesses": http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on April 27, 2012, 03:35:01 PM
It was Mrs. Peacock in the drawing room with a pistol.  Case Closed!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 05, 2012, 02:18:21 PM
Tip ONeill, former Speaker of the House, is documented on film in JFK movie extras, states that Ken O'Donnell (JFK top aid) and Dave Powers (JFK Special Assistant) both candidly claim the shots came from the front, but were persuaded by the FBI to testify that they came from the TSBD.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 05, 2012, 04:00:01 PM
Do they say it, or is this hearsay?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 05, 2012, 04:22:32 PM
So, someone says some other people said something? This is what you call evidence?

Do you actually intend to address any of the responses you've had? Or are you just going to keep popping up with new stuff to throw at the wall in the vain hope that something will stick?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 05, 2012, 05:32:57 PM
One of the cops who interrogated Oswald told his niece who told her boyfriend who told his mother who told a reporter that Oswald confessed to killing JFK and Tippit. Case closed.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Abaddon on May 05, 2012, 05:55:23 PM
One of the cops who interrogated Oswald told his niece who told her boyfriend who told his mother who told a reporter that Oswald confessed to killing JFK and Tippit. Case closed.
Well, I'm convinced.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 05, 2012, 07:08:09 PM
I will address previous posts.

But first...

Tip O'Neill is a respected politician, he obtained the political high level of Speaker of the House.
This is not just anyone who talked to someone, this is a man who considers what to say and how to say it.
Tip O'Neill talked with Dave Powers and Ken O'Donnell who were witnesses in Dealey Plaza and are also men of some stature and he is relaying what they said to him.

Speaker of the House is claiming the FBI agents prejudiced Dave Powers and Ken O'Donnell testimony, this is no small charge.

How can anyone take you guys seriously if the response to substantial evidence is so flaky.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 05, 2012, 07:13:24 PM
I will address previous posts.

But first...

Tip O'Neill is a respected politician, he obtained the political high level of Speaker of the House.

How did he do that? Through hard work and honesty?

You know who else were respected politicians? Earl Warren, Gerald Ford, Hale Boggs, Richard Russell, John J. McCloy, John Cooper, and Allen Dulles. Those names ring a bell?

Quote
This is not just anyone who talked to someone, this is a man who considers what to say and how to say it.
Tip O'Neill talked with Dave Powers and Ken O'Donnell who were witnesses in Dealey Plaza and are also men of some stature and he is relaying what they said to him.

Citation needed.


Quote

Speaker of the House is claiming the FBI prejudiced testimony, this is no small charge.

Dang straight. It is a impeachable offense if it were proven to be false!


Quote

How can anyone take you guys seriously if the response to substantial evidence is so flakey.

Name one court anywhere on this planet that categorizes hearsay evidence as "substantial".
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 05, 2012, 07:52:50 PM

Now, do you wish to retract your claim that the 3 tramps were never identified?

No

The President of the United States had just been assassinated, 3 "tramps" are arrested I am assuming it was because they were potential suspects.

Why are the "tramps" not handcuffed?
When a person is arrested is it not customary to take photos? Where are they?
Why would the photos not have been sent to the FBI for potential identification?
How about finger prints? Where are they?
Were the "tramps" given parafin tests? Where are the results?
How about the questioning?

From the WC - Mr. BELIN. Were all those questioned?

Mr. HARKNESS. Yes, sir; they were taken to the station and questioned.

Where are the transcripts or notes?
Even if LH Oswald was the lone gunman, how could it have been even conceivable for the Dallas Police or anyone to have known this immediately after the shooting?

Mr. BELIN. Any guns of any kind found?

Mr. HARKNESS. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. BELIN. I want to go back to this Amos Euins...

What no gun? End of questioning about the "tramps" this was enough for Mr. Belin, they didn't have a gun.
 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 05, 2012, 08:08:41 PM
Name one court anywhere on this planet that categorizes hearsay evidence as "substantial".

It is not hearsay, Tip O'Neill states he was present (as the witness) and conversed with these two men.

We can go into the integrity of the WC members later.

Citation> please just go watch Tip O'Neill on extras, 19:07 minutes into documentary.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 05, 2012, 08:19:46 PM
Name one court anywhere on this planet that categorizes hearsay evidence as "substantial".

It is not hearsay, Tip O'Neill states he was present (as the witness) and conversed with these two men.

That's what hearsay evidence is, you doofus.


Quote
We can go into the integrity of the WC members later.

We shall go into it now. You brought up the "respectable" politician argument. Finish it. I want to know why your respectable politician is more believable than the 7 members of the Warren Commission who actually investigated the assassination.


Quote

Citation> please just go watch Tip O'Neill on extras, 19:07 minutes into documentary.

You're calling JFK a documentary???
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 05, 2012, 08:22:35 PM
So, someone says some other people said something? This is what you call evidence?

Tip O'Neill carries more then enough weight to be taken seriously.
Yes, this is exactly what I call evidence.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 05, 2012, 08:33:12 PM
That's what hearsay evidence is, you doofus.
Quote

Tip O'Neill has a direct knowledge of the conversation he had between himself Powers and O'Donnell, period. It is not hearsay no matter what you want to call me.

Quote
You're calling JFK a documentary???

Typical slam, yes, there is a JFK documentary on disk 2.

No I will not go into the integrity of the WC members.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 05, 2012, 09:35:47 PM
Tip O'Neill has a direct knowledge of the conversation he had between himself Powers and O'Donnell, period. It is not hearsay no matter what you want to call me.

That is what hearsay evidence is!!!

Dictionary: "unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge"

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 05, 2012, 09:37:16 PM
No I will not go into the integrity of the WC members.

You won't because it destroys your premise that politicians are somehow credible.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 05, 2012, 09:53:52 PM
Tip O'Neill carries more then enough weight to be taken seriously.
Yes, this is exactly what I call evidence.


It's a good thing you aren't a lawyer, then.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 05, 2012, 09:58:04 PM
[Prouty is a crackpot. He was a colonel when he retired and was awarded a Commendation Medal for his retirement. A colonel being awarded a Commendation Medal for his retirement is a slap in the face. It is the equivalent of saying, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." If he had been any thing other than an office boy who fetched coffee for the general he would have received at least a Meritorious Service Medal.

IF they are not on your side they are crackpots, got it.
What is more likely
Prouty gets a inadequate commendation while leaving the military so he fingers his old boss in the JFK assassination as retribution?
Or Prouty believes his oath actually means something "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic" and acts accordingly.

Prouty "the flake" worked for 9 years in the pentagon working closely with the >CIA<


Why flake? Because Prouty fingers Ed Lansdale in a picture taken in Dealey Plaza
Marine Lietenant General Victor Krulak agreed with Prouty "That is indeed a picture of Ed Lansdale"
he goes on to ask "It's Lansdale. What in the world was he doing there?"
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 05, 2012, 10:10:12 PM
Tip O'Neill has a direct knowledge of the conversation he had between himself Powers and O'Donnell, period. It is not hearsay no matter what you want to call me.

That is what hearsay evidence is!!!

Dictionary: "unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge"
Tip O'Neill is stating that he had a conversation with Powers and O"Donnell, that conversation is within his direct knowledge, it is not hearsay.
Tip O'Neill is not saying that he has any first hand knowledge of the assassination or what Powers or O'Donnell knows other then what he was told directly by them during the conversation

Or that he heard from someone that Powers and O'Donnell said this or that, which would be hearsay.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 05, 2012, 10:39:36 PM
Tip O'Neill carries more then enough weight to be taken seriously.
Yes, this is exactly what I call evidence.


It's a good thing you aren't a lawyer, then.

Are you implying conversations are not admissible as evidence in a court of law?
or implying my regard for Tip O'Neill's integrity is misplaced?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 05, 2012, 10:50:37 PM
Tip ONeill, former Speaker of the House, is documented on film in JFK movie extras, states that Ken O'Donnell (JFK top aid) and Dave Powers (JFK Special Assistant) both candidly claim the shots came from the front

Assuming for a second that they actually said what you're claiming they said...

It doesn't matter who they are, their claims about where the shots came from are only their opinion. They are human like all of the other witnesses and are therefore equally prone to the same errors in judgement. They are not experts in ballistics or acoustics, so I don't trust their judgement when it comes to determining where the shots came from.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 05, 2012, 10:51:23 PM
[Prouty is a crackpot. He was a colonel when he retired and was awarded a Commendation Medal for his retirement. A colonel being awarded a Commendation Medal for his retirement is a slap in the face. It is the equivalent of saying, "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." If he had been any thing other than an office boy who fetched coffee for the general he would have received at least a Meritorious Service Medal.

IF they are not on your side they are crackpots, got it.

The implication being, if they are on your side they must be telling the truth.


Quote
What is more likely
Prouty gets a inadequate commendation while leaving the military so he fingers his old boss in the JFK assassination as retribution?
Or Prouty believes his oath actually means something "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic" and acts accordingly.

False dichotomy. Look it up.

There is at least one more option: he is a crackpot.


Quote

Prouty "the flake" worked for 9 years in the pentagon working closely with the >CIA<

In other words, he was passed over for command, shuffled from one pissant job to another; i.e. he was never billeted as a commanding officer. Not something a colonel can be proud of.

When my commodore, a full bird Captain, got orders to the Pentagon I asked him what he was going to do there. "Make coffee for admirals", he said. He was joking, of course, he was to head up some special submarine project. The point being is the Pentagon is not some cherished tour that all military personnel dream of. 25,000+ people work there. It's just another job, but with worse than average parking.


Quote


Why flake? Because Prouty fingers Ed Lansdale in a picture taken in Dealey Plaza
Marine Lietenant General Victor Krulak agreed with Prouty "That is indeed a picture of Ed Lansdale"
he goes on to ask "It's Lansdale. What in the world was he doing there?"

The picture that allegedly showed Lansdale shows him walking past the tramps with his back to the camera. Prouty said, "I'd recognize that back anywhere." Tell me again he isn't a crackpot?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 05, 2012, 10:55:28 PM
Tip O'Neill has a direct knowledge of the conversation he had between himself Powers and O'Donnell, period. It is not hearsay no matter what you want to call me.

That is what hearsay evidence is!!!

Dictionary: "unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge"
Tip O'Neill is stating that he had a conversation with Powers and O"Donnell, that conversation is within his direct knowledge, it is not hearsay.

Until he told someone else, then it became hearsay. He told someone else, right? That's how you know about it, right?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 05, 2012, 11:00:41 PM
Which brings us full circle on Tip O'Neill
If Tip is lying then what he said is not important.
BUT For what reason would he lie about a conversation that could be disproved with phone calls to Powers and O'Donnell and be fully discredited?

Tip is telling the truth about the conversation, you now have direct evidence that in the opinions of both Powers and O'Donnell they were persuaded by the FBI to alter and fabricate their testimonies to the WC so as to be aligned with the official story line.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 05, 2012, 11:07:20 PM
Tip ONeill, former Speaker of the House, is documented on film in JFK movie extras, states that Ken O'Donnell (JFK top aid) and Dave Powers (JFK Special Assistant) both candidly claim the shots came from the front

Assuming for a second that they actually said what you're claiming they said...

It doesn't matter who they are, their claims about where the shots came from are only their opinion. They are human like all of the other witnesses and are therefore equally prone to the same errors in judgement. They are not experts in ballistics or acoustics, so I don't trust their judgement when it comes to determining where the shots came from.
I am not claiming they said anything, Tip O'Neill is making that claim, I am referencing video of Tip stating the content of the conversation.

Not the point.
The point is the FBI agents persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to alter and fabricate their testimony
FBI agents persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to lie before the WC.
FBI agents persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to lie to you and me.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 05, 2012, 11:17:28 PM
Which brings us full circle on Tip O'Neill
If Tip is lying then what he said is not important.
BUT For what reason would he lie about a conversation that could be disproved with phone calls to Powers and O'Donnell and be fully discredited?

Great question. Did any conspiracy authors talk to them?


Quote

Tip is telling the truth about the conversation, you now have direct evidence

Evidence twice removed from the witness is not direct evidence; it is hearsay evidence.


Quote
that in the opinions of both Powers and O'Donnell they were persuaded by the FBI to alter and fabricate their testimonies to the WC so as to be aligned with the official story line.

Well, they didn't do a very persuasive job on Powers:

Quote
My first impression was that the shots came from the right and overhead, but I also had a fleeting impression that the noise appeared to come from the front in the area of the triple overpass. This may have resulted from my feeling, when I looked forward toward the overpass, that we might have ridden into an ambush. Link (http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/powers1.htm)

O'Donnell, however, toed the official line.

Quote
Mr. SPECTER. And what was your reaction as to the source of the shots, if you had one?
Mr. O'DONNELL. My reaction in part is reconstruction---is that they came from the right rear. That would be my best judgment.
Mr. SPECTER. Was there any reaction by any of the other people around in any specific direction?
Mr. O'DONNELL. The agents all turned to the rear. I would think, watching the reaction of the President when the shot--the first shot hit--that it would be automatic it would have to have come from the rear. I think any experienced agent would make that assumption immediately.
Mr. SPECTER. And was the reaction of the agents which you have referred to as coming from the rear, to the right rear or to the left rear?
Mr. O'DONNELL. The reaction I note would be right rear. And, again, looking at the manner of the President's movement, I would think you would have to feel the thrust of the shot was from the right rear.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what was there about the President's movement which leads you to that conclusion?
Mr. O'DONNELL. He was leaning out waving. He may have just been withdrawing his hand. And the shot hit him, and threw him to the left. He slumped on Mrs. Kennedy. Link (http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/odonnell.htm)
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 05, 2012, 11:21:34 PM
Not the point.
The point is the FBI agents persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to alter and fabricate their testimony
FBI agents persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to lie before the WC.
FBI agents persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to lie to you and me.

No, the FBI allegedly persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to change their testimony. Since we're not hearing this directly from the people involved it's just hearsay. Did it really happen? You accept it as fact because you think it supports your beliefs, you don't seem to mind that you're hearing it second or third hand from someone who wasn't in the room when it happened.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 05, 2012, 11:25:46 PM
Until he told someone else, then it became hearsay. He told someone else, right? That's how you know about it, right?

The conversation is in Tip's direct knowledge, period.
It is not hearsay.
The video of Tip relaying the conversation from his direct knowledge, is in my direct knowledge.

If you have not seen the video then it is hearsay, when you see it, it will be in your direct knowledge.
But if you read this, you are in direct knowledge of this exchange of words concerning direct knowledge. If you don't read this and someone tells you what I wrote or think I wrote, that would be hearsay.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 05, 2012, 11:37:54 PM
The conversation is in Tip's direct knowledge, period.
It is not hearsay.
The video of Tip relaying the conversation from his direct knowledge, is in my direct knowledge.

I think your inability to understand what hearsay is plays a big role in why you believe in conspiracy theories so easily. You put too much stock in second or third hand information.

If someone tells you that someone else told them something about an event, that is hearsay. You did not witness the event and neither did the person who told you about it. The information is second hand by the time you hear it. That is hearsay.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 05, 2012, 11:45:39 PM

Evidence twice removed from the witness is not direct evidence; it is hearsay evidence.


It is not Hearsay!
Chew, Tip O'Neill IS the witness here, he has direct evidence ONLY of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell.
Tip's direct knowledge of this conversation has nothing to do the possibility that Powers and O'Donnell where telling the truth.

I hope you can understand this.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 05, 2012, 11:54:18 PM
It is not Hearsay!
Chew, Tip O'Neill IS the witness here, he has direct evidence ONLY of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell.
Tip's direct knowledge of this conversation has nothing to do the possibility that Powers and O'Donnell where telling the truth.

I hope you can understand this.

If we were asking about the colour of the wallpaper in the room where Tip O'Neil had that conversation with O'Donnell and Powers, then yes, he would be a perfect witness. But the subject of the story is what allegedly happened between the FBI, O'Donnell, and Powers. Tip O'Neil did not personally witness that event, he's only repeating what he was told. That makes it second hand knowledge... hearsay.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 05, 2012, 11:56:11 PM

They told Tip the shots came from front right not the rear but were persuaded by the FBI to change their stories.
So what point are you proving, that they lied in testimony to the WC or that Tip O'Neill is a liar?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 06, 2012, 12:06:08 AM
They told Tip the shots came from front right not the rear but were persuaded by the FBI to change their stories.
So what point are you proving, that they lied in testimony to the WC or that Tip O'Neill is a liar?

1. Even if they did tell Tip O'Neil that they believed the shots came from front right, that doesn't mean it's true. They could have been mistaken due to confusion caused by echoes or their lack of understanding about how someone being from the right rear shot ought to move.

2. Tip O'Neil did not witness any of the interactions between the FBI and the other two men, and therefore can't verify their stories.

Also, what does "they were persuaded by the FBI" mean, exactly? It could mean they were threatened at gun point, or that the FBI provided enough evidence that the shots came from the School Book Depository to convince them that their initial beliefs about the source of the shots were wrong.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 12:21:40 AM
It is not Hearsay!
Chew, Tip O'Neill IS the witness here, he has direct evidence ONLY of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell.
Tip's direct knowledge of this conversation has nothing to do the possibility that Powers and O'Donnell where telling the truth.

I hope you can understand this.

If we were asking about the colour of the wallpaper in the room where Tip O'Neil had that conversation with O'Donnell and Powers, then yes, he would be a perfect witness. But the subject of the story is what allegedly happened between the FBI, O'Donnell, and Powers. Tip O'Neil did not personally witness that event, he's only repeating what he was told. That makes it second hand knowledge... hearsay.

Again this only concerns Tip's first hand knowledge of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell. Tip's first hand knowledge of the conversation is not hearsay.
You want to claim Powers and O'Donnell are liars go for it, or that Powers and O'Donnell both misunderstood that the FBI did not intend to influence a fabriacted story.

"Tip O'Neill did not personally witness that event, he's only repeating what he was told. That makes it second hand knowledge... hearsay."
One more time, Tip is not making any claim of knowledge of the assassination, he is relaying first hand knowledge of a conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell.

For instance
If you neighbor says he committed a crime, you would then have direct knowledge of the conversation where the neighbor stated to you that he committed a crime.
You could be called as a witness to this conversation in a court of law because it is in your direct knowledge, you may not know any facts about the crime other then what was relayed in the conversation, that is within your realm of knowledge.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 12:30:52 AM
They told Tip the shots came from front right not the rear but were persuaded by the FBI to change their stories.
So what point are you proving, that they lied in testimony to the WC or that Tip O'Neill is a liar?

1. Even if they did tell Tip O'Neil that they believed the shots came from front right, that doesn't mean it's true. They could have been mistaken due to confusion caused by echoes or their lack of understanding about how someone being from the right rear shot ought to move.

2. Tip O'Neil did not witness any of the interactions between the FBI and the other two men, and therefore can't verify their stories.

Also, what does "they were persuaded by the FBI" mean, exactly? It could mean they were threatened at gun point, or that the FBI provided enough evidence that the shots came from the School Book Depository to convince them that their initial beliefs about the source of the shots were wrong.
Tip said Powers and O'Donnell "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"
Point is in the opinion of Powers and O'Donnell the FBI pressured them to essentially lie.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 06, 2012, 12:55:29 AM

Evidence twice removed from the witness is not direct evidence; it is hearsay evidence.


It is not Hearsay!
Chew, Tip O'Neill IS the witness here, he has direct evidence ONLY of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell.
Tip's direct knowledge of this conversation has nothing to do the possibility that Powers and O'Donnell where telling the truth.

I hope you can understand this.

Yeah.  He has knowledge that he had that conversation.  What he does not have knowledge of is the event itself except as it was described to him.  Telling what you've been told is hearsay.  Telling what you've experienced is not.  That he had a conversation with someone is not hearsay.  What that person said is hearsay.  This is basic legal principle.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 01:17:01 AM
Not the point.
The point is the FBI agents persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to alter and fabricate their testimony
FBI agents persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to lie before the WC.
FBI agents persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to lie to you and me.

No, the FBI allegedly persuaded Powers and O'Donnell to change their testimony. Since we're not hearing this directly from the people involved it's just hearsay. Did it really happen? You accept it as fact because you think it supports your beliefs, you don't seem to mind that you're hearing it second or third hand from someone who wasn't in the room when it happened.

I can except the fact that it happened because 1 credible witness claims the conversation to have taken place.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 02:42:23 AM
'On the trail of the assassins" page 279
Richard Randolf Carr testified at Shaw trail that when he tried to tell the FBI about what he saw as a witness in Dealey Plaza, the FBI told him to keep his mouth shut.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 03:05:42 AM
'Rush to Judgment"
Interview with Mrs. Acquilla Clemmons
She says she was witness to the murder of Tippit, by 2 men neither of which matched the description of Oswald.
She said someone came to see her and get her story, after hearing it he told her "someone might hurt her if she talked about what she saw"
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 06, 2012, 03:20:38 AM
'On the trail of the assassins" page 279
Richard Randolf Carr testified at Shaw trail that when he tried to tell the FBI about what he saw as a witness in Dealey Plaza, the FBI told him to keep his mouth shut.

He also claimed to see a bullet kick up grass in the middle of Dealey Plaza. He was in the Court House at the time. He said based on the direction the grass got kicked up the bullet originated from the Grassy Knoll.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 03:45:07 AM

Evidence twice removed from the witness is not direct evidence; it is hearsay evidence.


It is not Hearsay!
Chew, Tip O'Neill IS the witness here, he has direct evidence ONLY of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell.
Tip's direct knowledge of this conversation has nothing to do the possibility that Powers and O'Donnell where telling the truth.

I hope you can understand this.

Yeah.  He has knowledge that he had that conversation.  What he does not have knowledge of is the event itself except as it was described to him.  Telling what you've been told is hearsay.  Telling what you've experienced is not.  That he had a conversation with someone is not hearsay.  What that person said is hearsay.  This is basic legal principle.

Who claimed Tip O'Neill had any knowledge other then obtained in the conversation?
Why do you feel it essential to repeat exactly what I just said "he has direct evidence ONLY of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell."

Powers and O'Donnell told Tip they fabricated their testimony, FACT in evidence, they said they were persuaded to do so by FBI agents - hearsay, although you have Powers and O'Donnell as witnesses with corroborating  stories. What would the motive be for Powers and O'Donnell to  change their testimony in the first place, if they weren't coerced?

If you choose to ignore the implications of the conversation based on O'Neill and or Powers and or O'Donnell's reliability that is your choice.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 06, 2012, 04:04:12 AM
What would the motive be for Powers and O'Donnell to  change their testimony in the first place, if they weren't coerced?

That on further questioning they realised their impressions may have been wrong?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 10:40:35 AM
That on further questioning they realised their impressions may have been wrong?
They accused the FBI of persuading them to alter their testimony.

"Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred."

You guys are good soldiers, to the very end.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 06, 2012, 11:42:28 AM
Enough of the irrelevancies. Are you claiming that it is impossible that they might have realised that their own impressions of where the shots came from in an acousitcally complex environment such as Dealey Plaza might have been in error, if given further information? Is coercion really the only explanation your narrow mind can accept?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 12:20:46 PM
Enough of the irrelevancies. Are you claiming that it is impossible that they might have realised that their own impressions of where the shots came from in an acousitcally complex environment such as Dealey Plaza might have been in error, if given further information? Is coercion really the only explanation your narrow mind can accept?
Again with the personal attacks "narrow mind"

YES as a matter of fact, I have no reason to doubt the validity of Tip's revelation of this conversation.
The FBI coercion explanation is not mine, it is what Tip said Powers and O'Donnell stated.
Although I introduced the term coercion, where they said persuaded.
I understand that you must twist or discredit this information so as to maintain your steadfast grasp to the WC fiction.
Lets move on there are many more fish to fry.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 06, 2012, 12:37:47 PM
The FBI coercion explanation is not mine, it is what Tip said Powers and O'Donnell stated.
Although I introduced the term coercion, where they said persuaded.

So in fact the term 'coercion' is yours. There is a whole world of difference between the definitions of 'persuade' and 'coerce'. How do you know they were not persuaded simply by the arrival of other information, or during questioning if they found that they could not conclusively state that their initial impressions were in fact correct? For example, the questions 'where do you think the shots came from?' and 'are you certain the shots came from xxx location?' might have very different answers. Coercion was your word, now you defend it.

Quote
I understand that you must twist or discredit this information so as to maintain your steadfast grasp to the WC fiction.

You have yet to prove that it is fiction. All you have is hearsay, conversations, and a demonstrated total ignorance of the knowledge required to tackle the actual evidence. Do you care to address the arguments made regarding the actual evidence on this thread, or are you simply incapable of defending your claims effectively?

Quote
Lets move on there are many more fish to fry.

You brought this conversation to the table. you don't get to drop it when you can't defend it adequately.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 12:59:45 PM
Lets look at the FBI performace when interacting with Oswald

August 9th 1963, Oswald is arrested in New Orleans, he requests to talk with an FBI agent, John Quidley meets with Oswald for over an hour.
John Quidley destroys the evidence of this meeting.

Oswald has a direct connection to 544 Camp Street / Guy Banister ex head of the Chicago office of the FBI.
Yet the FBI can't produce any connections between the two men.

November 1963 Oswald drops off at the Dallas FBI office a note for Jim Hosty, Hosty's boss Shanklin tells him to destroy the evidence.

FBI according to Vincent Bugliosi sat in on Oswald interrogations in Dallas, where are the notes or transcripts from those interrogations?
(Where are the Dallas Police transcripts of the interrogations?)

FBI removes 1 page from Oswald's phone book which allegedly contains information on Jim Hosty then presents the phone book to WC as evidence.

The FBI apparently has no problems in ignoring, destroying or altering evidence, it seems to be the routine, at least when Oswald is involved. It does seem that coercion of witnesses could fall under ignoring, destroying or altering evidence.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 06, 2012, 01:03:46 PM
Enough of the irrelevancies. Are you claiming that it is impossible that they might have realised that their own impressions of where the shots came from in an acousitcally complex environment such as Dealey Plaza might have been in error, if given further information? Is coercion really the only explanation your narrow mind can accept?
Again with the personal attacks "narrow mind"

You are demonstrating a narrow mind. You are altering the words of Tip O'Neil in order to force them to fit your pre-existing beliefs rather than change your beliefs to fit what he said.

Quote
YES as a matter of fact, I have no reason to doubt the validity of Tip's revelation of this conversation.

I don't question whether the conversation between O'Neil, O'Donnell, and Powers took place. If he said it did then I have no reason to doubt him. But whether that conversation happened or not isn't the point. The point is that their use of the word "persuade" doesn't necessarily mean they were coerced, it is only your interpretation.

per·suade   [per-sweyd] (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/persuade)
verb (used with object), per·suad·ed, per·suad·ing.
1. to prevail on (a person) to do something, as by advising or urging: We could not persuade him to wait.
2. to induce to believe by appealing to reason or understanding; convince: to persuade the judge of the prisoner's innocence.

Quote
The FBI coercion explanation is not mine, it is what Tip said Powers and O'Donnell stated.
Although I introduced the term coercion, where they said persuaded.

Perhaps you should learn the difference between persuade and coerce before using those two words interchangeably.

Quote
I understand that you must twist...

The only person twisting Tip O'Neils words is you. You did it when you replaced persuade with coerce in order to make what he said fit with your beliefs.

Quote
Lets move on there are many more fish to fry.

You only want to move on because you've been caught fabricating evidence to support your case.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 01:11:37 PM

The evidence of the video of Tip O'Neill's disclosure of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell stands.

If you get you panties in a wade over coercion then it is a personal problem.
The FBI agents applied enough psychological pressure to both Powers and O'Donnell to get them to lie under oath, this is coercion, you can tip toe and pretend it just persuasion or whatever you want.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 06, 2012, 01:24:49 PM
The evidence of the video of Tip O'Neill's disclosure of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell stands.

It is only evidence that O'Neil had a conversation with O'Donnell and Powers, nothing more. And since he used the word "persuade" and not "coerce" your interpretation of it as such is baseless.

Quote
If you get you panties in a wade over coercion then it is a personal problem.

What coercion? The only person saying there was coercion is you. That is exactly why hearsay isn't reliable... one person says "persuaded" and then next person twists it into "coerced".

Quote
The FBI agents applied enough psychological pressure to both Powers and O'Donnell

What psychological pressure? Inventing claims doesn't help you.

Quote
you can tip toe and pretend it just persuasion or whatever you want.

We don't have to pretend anything... Tip O'Neil said they were persuaded. You're the one who imagines that beatings and water torture must have been involved.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 06, 2012, 01:35:32 PM
The evidence of the video of Tip O'Neill's disclosure of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell stands.

I don't doubt the conversation took place. It is your interpretation that is the issue.

Quote
If you get you panties in a wade over coercion then it is a personal problem.

No, don't go evading your own responsibilities in this discussion. The interview does not use the word 'coerce' does it?

Quote
The FBI agents applied enough psychological pressure to both Powers and O'Donnell to get them to lie under oath, this is coercion, you can tip toe and pretend it just persuasion or whatever you want.

Prove that they lied and were not simply persuaded that their initial impressions of where they thought the shots were from were wrong. As I said, if asked 'where do you think the shots came from?' and 'are you certain the shots came from there?' two different answers are possible. It is not lying under oath to say 'I think the shots came from xxx' and to say 'I cannot be certain that they definitely did come from there.' It is certainly not lying under oath to admit when questioned that it is possible that where you think you hear a sound coming from is not the actual origin of that sound. Everyday experience can show you how hard it is to localise a single sharp sound if you are surrounded by structures the sound can reverberate from.

So, what of this conversation? Well, maybe they did say they were persuaded, but it is you and you alone that is interpreting it to mean psychological pressure and coercion were used. It is possible to persuade someone with reason and evidence, although it would seem to be near impossible in your case.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 01:50:37 PM

We don't have to pretend anything... Tip O'Neil said they were persuaded. You're the one who imagines that beatings and water torture must have been involved.

Powers and O'Donnell were persuaded by the FBI agents to lie under oath, they testified and "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"
So the FBI persuaded them to commit a crime, then knowing they had lied under oath, ignored it.
 
Possible to surmise that the FBI is probably adept at persuasion to get someone to lie under oath, you are right that they probably know better to not to cross the legal line into coercion. Then again the FBI is known to not have any problems with tampering with evidence.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 06, 2012, 01:54:00 PM
Powers and O'Donnell were persuaded by the FBI agents to lie under oath, they testified and "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"
So the FBI persuaded them to commit a crime, then knowing they had lied under oath, ignored it.

You still don't get the fact that you are making a huge leap to 'lied under oath', do you?

Prove that they were persuaded to lie, rather than persuaded they were incorrect about their initial impressions of the origin of the sounds they said they heard, or that they simply could not say with certainty where the shots came from.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 02:03:09 PM
So, what of this conversation? Well, maybe they did say they were persuaded, but it is you and you alone that is interpreting it to mean psychological pressure and coercion were used. It is possible to persuade someone with reason and evidence, although it would seem to be near impossible in your case.

Where, when and how was the FBI granted any authority to persuade a witness of anything?


Specifically to the point: Powers and O'Donnell were persuaded to lie under oath and "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 02:18:32 PM
Powers and O'Donnell were persuaded by the FBI agents to lie under oath, they testified and "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"
So the FBI persuaded them to commit a crime, then knowing they had lied under oath, ignored it.

You still don't get the fact that you are making a huge leap to 'lied under oath', do you?

Prove that they were persuaded to lie, rather than persuaded they were incorrect about their initial impressions of the origin of the sounds they said they heard, or that they simply could not say with certainty where the shots came from.

no leap at all
Tip said Powers and O'Donnell testified and "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"

They gave their testimonies to the FBI, the testimonies did not fit the prearranged story lines so the FBI persuaded them to fabricate the testimony to fit the prearranged story lines and then they lied under oath.

Yes, it is lie under oath, if Powers and O'Donnell fabricated their stories and "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 06, 2012, 02:26:30 PM
Where, when and how was the FBI granted any authority to persuade a witness of anything?

You don't need authority to persuade someone of something. When questioning a witness it is quite possible to persuade them their initial observations may have been flawed simply by discussion and query. You still can't understand this, can you? You simply insist that this 'persuasion' must have taken the form of beating them down until they changed their story.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 06, 2012, 02:31:55 PM
Tip said Powers and O'Donnell testified and "said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"

Speculation, and still hearsay. But even if that is so, that still leaves it possible that what they wanted (as any competent investigation would require them to want) is a reliable witness statement that stands up to scrutiny. If someone heard a shot, I want them to tell me that they heard it, and if they can be certain that it came from where they think it did. Not if they think it might have come from somewhere, but if they can be certain.

Quote
They gave their testimonies to the FBI, the testimonies did not fit the prearranged story lines so the FBI persuaded them to fabricate the testimony to fit the prearranged story lines and then they lied under oath.

Speculation without proof. You are leaping, whether you understand it or not, from a discussion that persuaded the witnesses that they may have been mistaken or simply that they could not state with certainty where the shots came from to forceful coercion to fit a prearranged story.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 02:35:41 PM
[You still don't get the fact that you are making a huge leap to 'lied under oath', do you?

Prove that they were persuaded to lie, rather than persuaded they were incorrect about their initial impressions of the origin of the sounds they said they heard, or that they simply could not say with certainty where the shots came from.
I don't have to prove it, it is within the Tip O'Neill disclosure.
"said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"

For the last time, where is it within the powers of the FBI to influence the testimony of any witness? The FBI should have functioned only to take statements, not persuade witnesses to follow a predetermined concocted story line.

Witness impression is exactly that! Their experience of an event, that is what makes their testimony of any potential value.
If it is not their direct experience then it is just FICTION.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 06, 2012, 02:51:47 PM
Who claimed Tip O'Neill had any knowledge other then obtained in the conversation?
Why do you feel it essential to repeat exactly what I just said "he has direct evidence ONLY of the conversation he had with Powers and O'Donnell."

Because that is the only relevant information.  The only information he has is that he had a conversation.  He has no direct information of what was said to the two men, only what they told him was said.  You say you trust Tip O'Neill; great.  However, he wasn't there.  He wasn't a direct party to whatever happened between the two men and the FBI.  Your conflation of "coerce" and "persuade," and your failure to understand the wide range of possibilities for "persuade," shows that he may have misunderstood what he was told.  Or maybe what they told him wasn't exactly what happened.  We can't know, because all we know is what Tip O'Neill said--and we can't ask him for clarification of the point, because he's long dead.  The only people who know exactly what happened are the two men he's citing and whoever did whatever persuading was done.  Tip O'Neill did not and could not know to a legal certainty what had happened, because he wasn't there.  That is the reason the hearsay rules apply in law; you want your evidence from the closest source possible.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 06, 2012, 02:58:26 PM
I don't have to prove it, it is within the Tip O'Neill disclosure.
"said exactly what the FBI wanted them to say"

No, that's the 'hearsay' part of the evidence. He said they said...

Quote
For the last time, where is it within the powers of the FBI to influence the testimony of any witness? The FBI should have functioned only to take statements, not persuade witnesses to follow a predetermined concocted story line.

For the last time, do you understand the difference between persuasion and coercion? They can influence the witness statement by querying it to clear up ambiguous statements. There is nothing nefarious about checking with a witness while taking the stament to check if that witness is certain about where the shots came from or not. 'I heard a shot that seemed to come from xxx' is NOT the same as 'A shot came from xxx', and since that is a critical element of the case it needs to be clarified.

Quote
Witness impression is exactly that! Their experience of an event, that is what makes their testimony of any potential value.

And that is why it needs to be carefully checked. It is valueless if a witness says 'I saw John kill Jack' but what he actually saw was a couple of people in the distance who might have a passing resemblance to John and Jack doing something that resulted in one of them falling to the ground. It may well have been John killing Jack, but it might also have been a couple of similar looking guys messing about and one of them falling over. If the witness cannot conclusively identify the man who fell to the ground as Jack, and the man who remained standing as John, or that the man who fell was indeed killed, then his statement taken at face value could lead to the incarceration or worse of an innocent man. That is why witnesses in enquires and trials are cross-examined rather than their statements simply taken in uncritically.

Quote
If it is not their direct experience then it is just FICTION.

Prove that what they were persuaded to say was fiction and not a more accurate rendition of their experience, given all I have just said about the difference between saying something definitely occurred and saying something may have occurred but the witness cannot be certain of it.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 03:13:17 PM
That is the reason the hearsay rules apply in law; you want your evidence from the closest source possible.
I agree
Legally Tip's revelation means nothing.

If one comes to understand that JFK died as a result of coup, then 'legally' fails to mean anything other then a farce and the defence against the truth.

In reality Tip's revelation should have rocked our world.
As I said there is no information that can be presented on this forum that will make any impact.

Nor do I suffer from any illusion to the contrary that it may.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 06, 2012, 03:20:12 PM
If one comes to understand that JFK died as a result of coup, then 'legally' fails to mean anything other then a farce and the defence against the truth.

How convenient for you. However, it still leaves you unable to grasp the simple fact that legally or otherwise, your arguments fail on points of logic, not law.

Quote
In reality Tip's revelation should have rocked our world.

Conversations where someone says they were told something by someone else rarely make any impression because they are hearsay. There is a good reason that these legal restrictions on the validity of evidence were placed, and that is because the reliability of evidence is an exercise in logic, not law. Tip's revelation is nothing more than someone saying something to him, and his interpretation of it as he relays that to someone else.

You still have no evidence. Hearsay is NOT evidence no matter how much you wish it was.

Quote
As I said there is no information that can be presented on this forum that will make any impact.

On the contrary, there is plenty of information that would make an impact. We've been asking you for it throughout this discussion. You simply don't have any of it. Hearsay, fabrications and leaps of logic on your part are not evidence. Your refusal to discuss the actual physical evidence that does exist is notable. You'd rather discuss the specualtions and possibilities rather than the physical evidence, which you admit you have no understanding of anyway.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 06, 2012, 03:56:25 PM
You know, I asked at the very beginning of all of this whether there was any point refuting any of the arguments CTs present.  After eighteen pages, it's conclusive.  Nothing we can say will penetrate "but I believe it was a coup!"  Not logic, not law, not ballistics, not forensics.  What matters is belief, and those persuaded more by evidence are not needed.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 06, 2012, 06:03:26 PM
Quote
Excerpt from Tip O’Neill’s 1987, Man of the House:

“It was such a sad day that it seemed like the whole world had come apart.

I was never one of those people who had doubts or suspicions about the Warren Commission’s report on the president’s death. But five years after Jack died, I was having dinner with Kenny O’Donnell and a few other people at Jimmy’s Harborside Restaurant in Boston, and we got to talking about the assassination.

I was surprised to hear O’Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence.

‘That’s not what you told the Warren Commission,’ I said.

‘You’re right,’ he replied. ‘I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn’t have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn’t want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family.’

‘I can’t believe it,’ I said. ‘I wouldn’t have done that in a million years. I would have told the truth.’

‘Tip, you have to understand. The family — everybody wanted this thing behind them.’

Dave Powers was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O’Donnell’s. Kenny O’Donnell is no longer alive, but during the writing of this book I checked with Dave Powers. As they say in the news business, he stands by his story.

And so there will always be some skepticism in my mind about the cause of Jack’s death. I used to think that the only people who doubted the conclusions of the Warren Commission were crackpots. Now, however, I’m not so sure.Link (http://www.thechickenhawk.com/blog1/?p=10037)
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 06, 2012, 06:09:38 PM
So, someone says some other people said something? This is what you call evidence?

Tip O'Neill carries more then enough weight to be taken seriously.
Yes, this is exactly what I call evidence.

So, we are to respect a politician who *knows* that the President was murdered by the Powers That Be, but keeps on working with them, never trying to expose the conspiracy beyond gossiping with filmmakers?

Oh, and if he feels free enough to talk to those same filmmakers, blowing the story, he can't claim he was afraid, or intimidated, or anything.

The other way of looking at it is that an elderly man was cajoled into repeating some half-forgotten gossip in front of a camera, which he had no real belief in, but suited a filmmaker with an agenda.

You're right - if O'Neill believed this, it SHOULD have "rocked the world". Clearly, he didn't believe it. But seriously - a president is assassinated in a coup, and his Democratic Party friends (and Attorney General brother) do nothing, because "the family wants it behind them"? That's farcical.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 06:21:21 PM
You know, I asked at the very beginning of all of this whether there was any point refuting any of the arguments CTs present.  After eighteen pages, it's conclusive.  Nothing we can say will penetrate "but I believe it was a coup!"  Not logic, not law, not ballistics, not forensics.  What matters is belief, and those persuaded more by evidence are not needed.
There are a couple of debates on youtube with Mark Lane

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l0mSVjzKE0s

The primary tactic that is used by the WC members and supporters is personal attacks on Mark Lane. They avoid any debate on the 'evidence' presented by Lane.
It just gets laughable and embarrassing for the few supporters there are for the WC report.

When incongruities are found within the WC report, its termed nitpicking.
When deception and lies are uncovered it generates personal attacks.

That's all you got!
Nitpicking and personal attacks.
I know it to be a conspiracy because of the mountain of evidence showing the assassination of JFK to be a coup at the highest levels topped with the absurdity, lies and deceptions that can be found within the WC report.

Ballistics!!! - two words for you 'magic bullet'
You believe in the magic bullet, logic won't help you, it's trapped you!
Crackpot actually applies to believers in the 'magic bullet'.

Forensics!!! - Police paraffin test shows Oswald did not fire a rifle on November 22 - HSCA performed neutron activation analysis of the paraffin casts and could not find any residue of gun powder on the Oswald's side of the casts. There is no evidence he fired a gun on November 22. But lets not let facts cloud your reasoning.
Also lets just pretend the police did not find a Mauser 7.65 rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD, it is impossible to explain away.
Or that palm prints magically appeared on the Carcano.
Or the ammunition manufactured in 1947 supposedly fired by Oswad was tested and found to be mainly unusable.
Or the fact that the world greatest markman in 1963 said Oswald's assassination feat was impossible. As well as other expert marksman. Not even considering the first shot was almost through the tree blocking the view from the TSBD.
Or the fact that the carcano advertised for mail order was not the same as the one found on the 6th floor.

Autopsy - Back wound never probed for bullet path. Existence of Neck wound unknown at autopsy, which was an entrance wound per Parkland doctors.
Back wound was at 3rd thoracic vertebra, yet artist (who was not allowed to see autopsy photos) produced WC exhibit showing back wound now to be a 'high back wound' that was in reality high on the neck and almost a foot higher so that the 'magic bullet' theory could be contrived to work.

Head wound, hit in the temple from the front, blowing out the back right side of JFK's head, the only dissenting view is from Humes (who destroyed evidence, his notes and the first draft of the autopsy) and his 2 cronies. Witnesses at the scene and at Parkand and Bethesda adamantly deny Humes position of the head wound.
Humes was not even allowed to do the autopsy without a general telling him what he could do and what he was not allowed to do. Besides the FACT he wasn't a qualified forensic pathologist.

FBI sends a warning of potential assassination attempt to all offices a few days prior to Dallas, well we know about the FBI by now.
Despite cancelling the Miami motorcade because of credible evidence of an assassination attempt, the SS does little to nothing to protect the President in Dallas, despite treason leaflets and a full page ad against JFK. An army security support group is told to stand down down as well as extra law enforcement officers.

The SS agent in charge calls off agents that would normally ride on the rear of JFK's limo
They move JFK's limo to the front the motorcade behind the lead car.
The motorcycle escorts are told to stay back, away from the limo
During the shooting Greer slows or stops the limo.
The SS agents do notning but watch JFK get assassinated.

There was no apparent reason for the Dallas Police to to be looking for Oswald, yet that is exactly the direction they immediately proceed.
What was it 30 cop cars surround a theatre because of a person sneaking in to the movies.

JFK body was forcibly and illegally removed from the hospital by the SS.
The limo, which was evidence in the murder was taken by the SS and sanitized before it could be examined for any evidence.

Dallas Police allowed Ruby access to kill Oswald. Despite warnings to the FBI (yea why bother) and Police that Oswald would be killed.
Ruby claims that he was forced to kill Oswald and stated that there was a conspiracy from the highest levels, but he is ignored.

You got nothin but WC lies and deceit to defend.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on May 06, 2012, 07:56:11 PM
I am still waiting for you to discuss evidence of multiple shooters.  18 pages and you still got nothing?

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 06, 2012, 09:54:48 PM
Oh, I'm going to regret this . . . .

There are a couple of debates on youtube with Mark Lane

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=l0mSVjzKE0s

I don't care.  Mark Lane is not the one presenting evidence here, and if he were, I wouldn't care what he'd said elsewhere.  All I care about is what is presented here and now.

Quote
The primary tactic that is used by the WC members and supporters is personal attacks on Mark Lane. They avoid any debate on the 'evidence' presented by Lane.
It just gets laughable and embarrassing for the few supporters there are for the WC report.

Well, when you're too ignorant to know the legal definition of "hearsay," how equipped are you to evaluate any evidence at all?

Quote
When incongruities are found within the WC report, its termed nitpicking.
When deception and lies are uncovered it generates personal attacks.

Deception and lies?  How about the lie that Jim Garrison convinced a jury that a conspiracy killed JFK?  How about the incongruity that it's said, "Well, he convinced them that it was a conspiracy, just not the one he presented, so that means the one he presented is worth listening to"?  No.  You are only interested in incongruities, deception, and lies from one side.  You won't even present a clear story of what happened to be examined.

Quote
That's all you got!
Nitpicking and personal attacks.

Oh, and the testimony of literally thousands of experts in all sorts of relevant fields.  Answer this, please.  When ballistics experts are conspiracy theorists, it's always "Well, the ballistics works, so the evidence of a conspiracy must be in another field."  Or doctors who actually looked at the autopsy reports.  Or photographic experts.  Any expert says it must be some other field which proves a conspiracy.  Why is that?

Quote
I know it to be a conspiracy because of the mountain of evidence showing the assassination of JFK to be a coup at the highest levels topped with the absurdity, lies and deceptions that can be found within the WC report.

No, what you have is supposition.  You have not presented anything which meets any reasonable burden of proof.

Quote
Ballistics!!! - two words for you 'magic bullet'
You believe in the magic bullet, logic won't help you, it's trapped you!
Crackpot actually applies to believers in the 'magic bullet'.

Wrong.  You have been told, repeatedly, that the exact same shot has been duplicated.  On film.  By independent tests that have nothing to do with the US government.  At least one of the tests I know of was carried out in Australia.  And yet every time someone tells you that, you just ignore it.  Was it a lucky shot?  Well, yes, in a lot of ways.  But lucky shots happen, and the head shot was hardly lucky at all.  Just what Oswald's Marine colleagues knew him to be capable of.

Quote
Forensics!!! - Police paraffin test shows Oswald did not fire a rifle on November 22 - HSCA performed neutron activation analysis of the paraffin casts and could not find any residue of gun powder on the Oswald's side of the casts. There is no evidence he fired a gun on November 22. But lets not let facts cloud your reasoning.

Well, no evidence except multiple eyewitnesses to the Tippit shooting, of course.  Oh, and at least one eyewitness to the Kennedy shooting.  And the fact that he was arrested while in possession of the gun that killed Tippit.  And let's not leave aside the fact that the tests were unreliable and known to be unreliable even in 1963.

Quote
Also lets just pretend the police did not find a Mauser 7.65 rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD, it is impossible to explain away.

Except for the explanation that they didn't, and that someone misidentified what kind of rifle it was.  All the photographic evidence shows that it was a Mannlicher-Carcanno.  But yeah, aside from that, it's impossible to explain away.

Quote
Or that palm prints magically appeared on the Carcano.

What's magical about it?  Explain, in your own words, exactly what's surprising.

Quote
Or the ammunition manufactured in 1947 supposedly fired by Oswad was tested and found to be mainly unusable.

Wrong.

Quote
Or the fact that the world greatest markman in 1963 said Oswald's assassination feat was impossible. As well as other expert marksman. Not even considering the first shot was almost through the tree blocking the view from the TSBD.

Yeah, that tree blocks it now.  Because trees grow.  It didn't in 1963.  And, again, the shot has been duplicated.  Repeatedly.  Check out Unsolved History on The Discovery Channel, where they duplicate it several times.  And give me a citation.  Who determines who the greatest marksman in the world is?

Quote
Or the fact that the carcano advertised for mail order was not the same as the one found on the 6th floor.

So you've never gotten something that wasn't quite what you ordered?  Also, cite? 

Quote
Autopsy - Back wound never probed for bullet path. Existence of Neck wound unknown at autopsy, which was an entrance wound per Parkland doctors.

The Parkland doctors weren't forensics experts.  They were very good at being emergency room doctors; it wasn't their fault that Kennedy was beyond saving.  But it is well established that emergency room doctors are lousy at knowing if a wound is an entry wound or an exit wound.

Quote
Back wound was at 3rd thoracic vertebra, yet artist (who was not allowed to see autopsy photos) produced WC exhibit showing back wound now to be a 'high back wound' that was in reality high on the neck and almost a foot higher so that the 'magic bullet' theory could be contrived to work.

Well, except that you're wrong in almost every particular on that.  Do you read anything which isn't conspiracist sites and books?

Quote
Head wound, hit in the temple from the front, blowing out the back right side of JFK's head, the only dissenting view is from Humes (who destroyed evidence, his notes and the first draft of the autopsy) and his 2 cronies. Witnesses at the scene and at Parkand and Bethesda adamantly deny Humes position of the head wound.

Witnesses at the scene?  You mean Dealey Plaza?  Where a vast majority of witnesses agreed that the shots were form behind and to the right?  Honestly, can't you even be a little internally consistent?

Quote
Humes was not even allowed to do the autopsy without a general telling him what he could do and what he was not allowed to do. Besides the FACT he wasn't a qualified forensic pathologist.

"In charge was James J. Humes, M.D., at that time Commander, Medical Corps, United States Navy, and Director of Laboratories, Naval Medical School.  He was certified in 1955 by the American Board of Pathology in Anatomic and Clinical Pathology."  Which is totally the same thing. 

Quote
FBI sends a warning of potential assassination attempt to all offices a few days prior to Dallas, well we know about the FBI by now.

Yes.  They were dramatically understaffed to keep track of all the crazies in Texas and weren't really the ones in charge of Presidential security anyway.  Did you have another point?  Maybe one you could make with evidence instead of innuendo?

Quote
Despite cancelling the Miami motorcade because of credible evidence of an assassination attempt, the SS does little to nothing to protect the President in Dallas, despite treason leaflets and a full page ad against JFK. An army security support group is told to stand down down as well as extra law enforcement officers.

Not true, and besides, the full-page ad against JFK wasn't actually the same thing as credible evidence of an assassination attempt.  Have you looked around lately?  And yet Obama goes out to places where he's theoretically in danger all the time, because a President has to do that.  Especially when he's trying to sway public opinion toward him for an upcoming election campaign.

Quote
The SS agent in charge calls off agents that would normally ride on the rear of JFK's limo

Demonstrably not true by watching the Zapruder film.

Quote
They move JFK's limo to the front the motorcade behind the lead car.
The motorcycle escorts are told to stay back, away from the limo
During the shooting Greer slows or stops the limo.
The SS agents do notning but watch JFK get assassinated.

Seriously, have you ever looked at the Zapruder film at all?  And what do you suggest they do, given how little reaction time they had?

Quote
There was no apparent reason for the Dallas Police to to be looking for Oswald, yet that is exactly the direction they immediately proceed.

I already gave you reasons; you rejected them, because they don't fit your chosen narrative.

Quote
What was it 30 cop cars surround a theatre because of a person sneaking in to the movies.

Oh, and shooting a police officer.  And meeting the description of the person believed to have killed the President and possibly fatally wounded the governor.  But yeah, that's the same thing.

Quote
JFK body was forcibly and illegally removed from the hospital by the SS.

At the insistence of Jackie Kennedy, who wouldn't go back to Washington without him.  What she did that day was wrong but understandable if you know anything about human nature.

Quote
The limo, which was evidence in the murder was taken by the SS and sanitized before it could be examined for any evidence.

Wrong.

Quote
Dallas Police allowed Ruby access to kill Oswald. Despite warnings to the FBI (yea why bother) and Police that Oswald would be killed.

Look into what actually happened that day.  It's hardly as simple as you're claiming.

Quote
Ruby claims that he was forced to kill Oswald and stated that there was a conspiracy from the highest levels, but he is ignored.

Cite?

Quote
You got nothin but WC lies and deceit to defend.

Well, and every qualified expert who's ever looked into the subject.  Some of your misinformation is so easy to prove wrong that I would be embarrassed, if I were you.  But you aren't going to be, because you don't think it's true unless it supports your chosen narrative.

Which, of course, you haven't supplied.  Who were the shooters?  Where were they?  How did they produce the wounds in both Kennedy and Connally?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 10:51:49 PM
Do you guys post on this board as part of a job or do you actually believe the Warren Commission was truthful and factual?
Seriously getting frightened here, that you guys are nuts.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 06, 2012, 11:06:02 PM
That's it?  That's what you have?  You don't have a coherent narrative.  You don't have the evidence to show that anything you cite is actually true, and you don't have the decency to admit when you're wrong.  Even when it's over something so basic as a person's qualifications.  You say that all we engage in is name-calling and nit-picking, but we're nuts?  Seriously.  Can you at least acknowledge that you were wrong that Dr. Hume wasn't qualified as a forensic pathologist?  Can you at least admit that he was more qualified as one, given that he was board-certified, than a bunch of ER doctors who weren't?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 06, 2012, 11:14:08 PM
Do you guys post on this board as part of a job or do you actually believe the Warren Commission was truthful and factual?

Ah, there it is. The old "you guys must be paid to do this" accusation. I was wondering when someone would make it in the new forum.

Quote
Seriously getting frightened here, that you guys are nuts.

Wow. You're progressing through the list pretty quickly. First the accusation of being paid disinfo agents, and now the accusation that we're nuts. And why exactly are we nuts? Because we ask for actual verifiable evidence for your claims and don't just believe all of the rumours, speculation, and fabricated claims found on conspiracy sites like you do? You lack any concept of critical thinking, you're completely gullible and you don't have a grasp of logic. And you think we're nuts?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 11:17:35 PM
You really don't have a clue about the known facts associated with the JFK assassination do you?
You are defending a cover up that has long ago been recognized and exposed as fraudulent.
You need some serious deprogramming. I would recommend meditation for a good start.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 11:27:27 PM
That's it?  That's what you have?  You don't have a coherent narrative.  You don't have the evidence to show that anything you cite is actually true, and you don't have the decency to admit when you're wrong.  Even when it's over something so basic as a person's qualifications.  You say that all we engage in is name-calling and nit-picking, but we're nuts?  Seriously.  Can you at least acknowledge that you were wrong that Dr. Hume wasn't qualified as a forensic pathologist?  Can you at least admit that he was more qualified as one, given that he was board-certified, than a bunch of ER doctors who weren't?
Yep that's it in 1 blast.

Dr Humes was a qualified pathologist
He was not a qualified forensic pathologist.

And yes Humes was less qualified than the Doctors at Parkland who dealt with bullet wounds on a routine basis, Parkland Doctors where fully qualified to make their stated conclusions.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 06, 2012, 11:48:56 PM
It was a serious inquiry
It is sad to realize anyone actually still believes this old era nonsense
Society is way past pretending that conspiracies are not real, they are revealed all the time, 1963 time was no different.

The power structure when threatened protected itself.

Kennedy said that the torch of leadership had passed to the next generation, Kennedy pointed towards a future era for a world without enemies. Kennedy had to be removed for the power structure to be sustained.

The power structure was and still is stuck in the need for enemies and war, it was and is still not cognizant of peace.
It is difficult to stop this insanity, power it seems, too addictive for so many.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 06, 2012, 11:50:12 PM
Do you guys post on this board as part of a job or do you actually believe the Warren Commission was truthful and factual?
Seriously getting frightened here, that you guys are nuts.

I solemnly swear that I am not paid anything for posting on this, or any other, forum. Of course, that will not convince you, but I doubt that there's anything any poster can do that would do so.

And I am still waiting for your proof that there were SIX shooters from THREE locations. So far, you've failed entirely to address that. You cannot make an argument by throwing stuff against the wall, and waiting to see which parts stick. As gillianren points out, you have no narrative, no "this is what happened", just a bunch of "wow, isn't this weird, an anomaly! That must mean that the Official Story didn't happen!"
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 06, 2012, 11:55:00 PM
Do you guys post on this board as part of a job or do you actually believe the Warren Commission was truthful and factual?
Seriously getting frightened here, that you guys are nuts.
1 Stop being an ass.

2 I'd be willing to accept any alternative you care to present in a organized an coherent way,  An alternative that sorted through evidence ans made a better explanation for  all of it. But your gish gallop is not very persuasive.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 06, 2012, 11:56:23 PM
You really don't have a clue about the known facts associated with the JFK assassination do you?

It is you who does not have a clue about the known facts associated with the JFK assassination. You have ignored the known facts because they conflict with your own beliefs, beliefs that are based only on speculation and rumours. You have let other conspiracy theorists fill your head with fabricated "facts" and lies. You don't question any of it because you want to believe it.

Quote
You are defending a cover up that has long ago been recognized and exposed as fraudulent.

Recognized and exposed by who?

Quote
You need some serious deprogramming.

I could say the same about you. But you're way beyond meditation.

Quote
And yes Humes was less qualified than the Doctors at Parkland who dealt with bullet wounds on a routine basis

Emergency room doctors specialize in repairing the damage caused by being shot. Their only goal is to prevent the death of the victim, not to investigate the crime. They have no expertise when it comes to forensics. Maybe you watch too much TV?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 07, 2012, 12:04:05 AM
Do you guys post on this board as part of a job or do you actually believe the Warren Commission was truthful and factual?
Seriously getting frightened here, that you guys are nuts.

Why is it every conspiracy theorist seems to think that if they can only think of two options then no other option exists?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 12:16:34 AM

I solemnly swear that I am not paid anything for posting on this, or any other, forum. Of course, that will not convince you, but I doubt that there's anything any poster can do that would do so.

And I am still waiting for your proof that there were SIX shooters from THREE locations.
Why wouldn't I believe you?

It is really folly to talk about 3 shooters and 6 shots
when there is no recognition that the wounds could not have been created by 2 shots from the rear, including a 'magic bullet' that maintained a near pristine condition after 7 wounds, which would make the pristine bullet also magical or mystical or factually, an impossibility. As long as you dream in fairy tales how can I possibly wake you from the dream.
We might just as well change the subject and argue whether the story of the 3 pigs was real.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 12:30:09 AM
Do you guys post on this board as part of a job or do you actually believe the Warren Commission was truthful and factual?
Seriously getting frightened here, that you guys are nuts.

Why is it every conspiracy theorist seems to think that if they can only think of two options then no other option exists?
I gave you two options, I see my error now, I should have left a space blank so you could fill it in.
or
choice 4 you post as a toadie for the WC guard dogs
or
choice 5 you really don't believe the WC and are pretending you do.
Choice 6 Please clarify_________________________

choice   Just, being, a complete option
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 07, 2012, 12:42:42 AM
Choice 6 - we have chosen to believe the most logical, best supported theory, rather than one that fits in with a paranoid world-view.

(BTW, I agree - it IS folly to talk about 3 shooters and six shots. I'm glad we can at least agree on that. But if so, why did you bring it up in the first place?)
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 07, 2012, 12:45:45 AM

I solemnly swear that I am not paid anything for posting on this, or any other, forum. Of course, that will not convince you, but I doubt that there's anything any poster can do that would do so.

And I am still waiting for your proof that there were SIX shooters from THREE locations.
Why wouldn't I believe you?

It is really folly to talk about 3 shooters and 6 shots
when there is no recognition that the wounds could not have been created by 2 shots from the rear, including a 'magic bullet' that maintained a near pristine condition after 7 wounds, which would make the pristine bullet also magical or mystical or factually, an impossibility. As long as you dream in fairy tales how can I possibly wake you from the dream.
We might just as well change the subject and argue whether the story of the 3 pigs was real.
Yes, the 3 pigs, the 3 shooters would both be stories we have no evidence for. So I guess they both could be classed as fairy tales.

Oddly, we have a bunch of evidence for one shooter, one weapon, and 3 shots fired from the TSBD building. You may not want to accept it, you may not like it, but that's not my problem.

A photograph of the base of CE 399 (the so-called "magic/pristine" bullet)
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif)
Sure doesn't look near pristine to me.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 07, 2012, 03:47:21 AM
It is really folly to talk about 3 shooters and 6 shots

You brought it up, so you need to provide the evidence.

Quote
when there is no recognition that the wounds could not have been created by 2 shots from the rear

How many more times must we say this, prof? I will say it one more time, and if you continue to stick your fingers in your ears and go 'la la la la not listening' then it is clearly you that is susffering an inability to accept known facts.

The

Shots

Have

Been

DUPLICATED!

And not just in experiments that were reported on paper, but ones that were recorded with multiple television cameras. The single bullet, the limited deformation (the 'pristine' bullet is clearly nothing of the kind when viewed from any angle except the one the conspiracy theorists always show), the blowing out of the back right of Kennedy's head, the firing off of multiple shots in the short time, and so on. It has been PROVED beyond all reasonable doubt that it WAS possible for a single man located in the TSBD to inflict all the injuries seen on Kennedy and Connally with two shots. Why are you so insistent on ignoring this fact no matter how many times it is pointed out to you?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 07, 2012, 04:48:10 AM
It is really folly to talk about 3 shooters and 6 shots
when there is no recognition that the wounds could not have been created by 2 shots from the rear

So, once again, please tell us the locations of the gunmen of each shot.  Find a diagram of the plaza and mark the shooters positions with whatever margin of error you believe is justified by you hypothesis.  Then trace the trajectory of the bullets.  It is really the least you can do if you want anyone to take you seriously.  Until you can provide at least a plausible explanation of the locations and trajectories of the bullets, then none of your long critiques of the Warren Commission really matter.   
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 07, 2012, 10:12:53 AM
There was no apparent reason for the Dallas Police to to be looking for Oswald, yet that is exactly the direction they immediately proceed.
What was it 30 cop cars surround a theatre because of a person sneaking in to the movies.


The answer to that is John Brewer.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 11:11:07 AM
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1b.htm
link to page containing artist drawing of JFK back wound

compare artist drawing with autopsy photos - again artist never viewed JFK nor the autopsy photos, he was told what to draw.
http://celebritymorgue.com/jfk/jfk-autopsy.html
The back wound is at the 3rd thoracic vertebra, right of his spinal column.
The location of this wound is well below the neck wound

Even if the bullet that stuck JFK's back exited from his front, it would most likely be low on his chest, well below his throat.

Parkland Doctor that performed tracheotomy on JFK said bubbling blood was seen, which would be an indication of damage to a lung.
The bullet entering JFK's back would most likely have continued at a downward angle and damaged a lung.

Parkland doctor said throat wound appeared to be an entrance wound.
Additional damage to JFK throat has never been explained or addressed, damage was not done during tracheotomy.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/warren.htm
this page has a depiciton of what the path of the bullet would have to have taken
hit back, move upward to throat, exit, move downward and so on.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 07, 2012, 11:25:53 AM
Still waiting for the evidence for 3 shooters and 6 shots.

How can we take your theory seriously if you fail to give us the details of what exactly you are proposing? If it was not your intention to argue the above theory, why did you put it in your thread title?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 12:07:29 PM
Sure doesn't look near pristine to me.
Because you don't realize what you should be looking at.

This bullet is accountable for causing 7 wounds
in so doing also shattered one of Connally's ribs
and also shattered bones in Connally's wrist

It is improbable to traverse thru flesh and maintain it's 'pristine' shape
It is an impossibility to shatter bones and not be seriously flattend, deformed and fractured.

Plus
Connally had more bullet fragments still remaining in his wrist after surgery then can be accounted for.
Connally had bullet fragments removed during his surgery that also can't be accounted for - see Nurse Bell
Even if this bullet miraculously caused the 7 wounds and shattered bones, the extra bullet fragments can not be accounted for, period.

Plus the man who discovered this bullet stated it was not found on Connaly's stretcher - One more fact that was ignored by the WC.

Ce-399 appears to be in a more pristine shape then bullets test fired for ballistic comparison.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 07, 2012, 12:14:53 PM
The back wound is at the 3rd thoracic vertebra, right of his spinal column.
The location of this wound is well below the neck wound

If, and only if, you assume without any justification whatsoever that he is sitting up straight. Kennedy was demonstrably not sitting up straight in the limo, and the third thoracic vertebra is not so far below the throat exit wound that simply slouching cannot place it slightly above.

But again you ignore the fact that the shots and their effects have been duplicated. Why?

Quote
Parkland Doctor that performed tracheotomy on JFK said bubbling blood was seen, which would be an indication of damage to a lung.

No, bubbling blood is to be expected whenever an airway is punctured, since the wound provide an alternate route for air to escape as breathing continues. Air passing through the blood in the wound will cause bubbling. Surely that's obvious?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 07, 2012, 12:16:48 PM
It is improbable to traverse thru flesh and maintain it's 'pristine' shape
It is an impossibility to shatter bones and not be seriously flattend, deformed and fractured.

Even for a bullet designed to do just that?

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/issues_and_evidence/single-bullet_theory/Pristine_bullet/Pristine_bullet.html

Quote
Ce-399 appears to be in a more pristine shape then bullets test fired for ballistic comparison.

No it doesn't. See link above. In fact it's about as distorted as would be expected.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 12:27:14 PM
Still waiting for the evidence for 3 shooters and 6 shots.

How can we take your theory seriously if you fail to give us the details of what exactly you are proposing? If it was not your intention to argue the above theory, why did you put it in your thread title?
What ever I would present, the rebuttal would be that the evidence is invalid and Oswald in the TSBD 6th floor window, so what would be the point?
Lets try to agree on the wounds first, then it would be easier to speculate on the shooters and positions.
If we can't agree on the wounds then it is rather silly to present information on additional shooters from additional postions is it not?

If you are not capable of recognizing the deceptions within the WC report I have doubts that there is anything that I can present to you to help you see.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 07, 2012, 12:31:05 PM
Because you don't realize what you should be looking at.

Then do tell!  What should we be looking at?


This bullet is accountable for causing 7 wounds
in so doing also shattered one of Connally's ribs
and also shattered bones in Connally's wrist

Then provide the locations for a shooter that accounts for the path of a bullet thought Connolly's body and his position in the car?  If you can do that, then we will have someplace to start a discussion because...


It is improbable to traverse thru flesh and maintain it's 'pristine' shape
It is an impossibility to shatter bones and not be seriously flattend, deformed and fractured.
... the rest of your post is question begging. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 07, 2012, 12:43:49 PM
That's it?  That's what you have?  You don't have a coherent narrative.  You don't have the evidence to show that anything you cite is actually true, and you don't have the decency to admit when you're wrong.  Even when it's over something so basic as a person's qualifications.  You say that all we engage in is name-calling and nit-picking, but we're nuts?  Seriously.  Can you at least acknowledge that you were wrong that Dr. Hume wasn't qualified as a forensic pathologist?  Can you at least admit that he was more qualified as one, given that he was board-certified, than a bunch of ER doctors who weren't?
Yep that's it in 1 blast.

Dr Humes was a qualified pathologist
He was not a qualified forensic pathologist.

And yes Humes was less qualified than the Doctors at Parkland who dealt with bullet wounds on a routine basis, Parkland Doctors where fully qualified to make their stated conclusions.

But ER doctors simply aren't.  That isn't a statement of opinion; it's a statement of job description.  The job of an ER doctor is not to determine where a wound came from, and they do no better than chance at figuring that out.  Multiple studies unrelated to JFK have shown just that.  Whereas unless you can show me evidence that Dr. Humes's qualifications, which I posted, were incorrect, that means that he was certified at knowing where bullets came from.  I can provide you evidence that he later went on to be a professor of forensic pathology.  So tell me how you can state that it's a fact that he was unqualified.  He had been a certified pathologist for seven years at the point of the Kennedy assassination, despite your claim that he wasn't qualified at all.  How do you justify your claim?  What evidence do you have for it?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 07, 2012, 12:45:17 PM
What ever I would present, the rebuttal would be that the evidence is invalid and Oswald in the TSBD 6th floor window, so what would be the point?

The rebuttals would be legitimate critiques, as they have been throughout this entire discussion.  We have endeavored to point out your lack of support for what few theories of what happened that you have tried to put forward and rightly questioned your interpretations of what you present. 

Lets try to agree on the wounds first, then it would be easier to speculate on the shooters and positions.
If we can't agree on the wounds then it is rather silly to present information on additional shooters from additional postions is it not?
Your failure to separate speculation from supported theory and fact is what got you into this mess in the first place.  The fact that you don't even have a theory about where the shooters would have to have been to make the case that you initially suggested was true is a primarily example of this failure.   



If you are not capable of recognizing the deceptions within the WC report I have doubts that there is anything that I can present to you to help you see.

Don't blame us four your inability to make your point.   It is you who are not capable of demonstrating the knowledge and experience to make a authoritative critique of the several investigations that all arrived at the same conclusion nor of providing an alternative interpretation of events that calls the conclusions of WC report into question.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 07, 2012, 12:58:11 PM
What ever I would present, the rebuttal would be that the evidence is invalid and Oswald in the TSBD 6th floor window, so what would be the point?
Lets try to agree on the wounds first, then it would be easier to speculate on the shooters and positions.
If we can't agree on the wounds then it is rather silly to present information on additional shooters from additional postions is it not?


Well, why didn't you start a thread on "Discussion of Wounds", instead of a ridiculous three-point team of assassins that you clearly have no intention of defending?

I really doubt that you are going to get people to agree with you on the wounds, so, you're right, you're being rather silly. Particularly as you are not willing to commit to any alternative hypothesis.

That's what happens when you pin your case on "what's wrong with the other fellow's story," rather than taking the risk of assembling evidence to tell your own.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 01:23:39 PM
It is improbable to traverse thru flesh and maintain it's 'pristine' shape
It is an impossibility to shatter bones and not be seriously flattend, deformed and fractured.

Even for a bullet designed to do just that?

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/issues_and_evidence/single-bullet_theory/Pristine_bullet/Pristine_bullet.html

Quote
Ce-399 appears to be in a more pristine shape then bullets test fired for ballistic comparison.

No it doesn't. See link above. In fact it's about as distorted as would be expected.
There is nothing on this page that addresses the issue of deformation of bullets when shattering bones.

Please provide an example of a bullet fired thru both a rib and a wrist that in any way is comparable to the 'pristine' nature of ce-399

Please explain the extra bullet fragments that could not be removed from Connally's wrist that can not be accounted for when compared with the loss of weight from ce-399 bullet?

Please explain the extra bullet fragments that were surgically removed from Connally and given to Nurse Bell who sealed them in an envelope, then passed them on to a State Trooper, that can not be accounted for when compared with the loss of weight from ce-399 bullet?
HSCA had nurse Bell draw a picture of the bullet fragments she had placed in the envelope, because they seemed to have inexplicably disappeared from evidence, the HSCA after viewing her drawing promptly destroyed it. (more destruction of evidence, guess the FBI is not alone in this routine)

State trooper recalled the envelope given to him by Nurse Bell, saying Bell had said it contained a bullet, trooper said, thru the envelope it was maybe 2 by 3 inches. Connaly even said they found the bullet and gave it to nurse Bell to give to a trooper. Please explain this.

The bullet that hit Connaly's wrist deformed and broke apart leaving many fragment behind, a large portion embedded into his leg and was found during surgery, this bullet and other fragments from it that were surgically removed were given to Nurse Bell to give to authorities. They couldn't extract all the fragments from his wrist.  You can view x-rays of his wrist with fragments still present. The bullet and some fragments inexplicably disappeared from evidence. (my guess would be FBI was involved)
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 07, 2012, 01:34:58 PM
Gee, the HCSA seems a very poor conspiratory body.

First, they order someone to make a drawing and admit it into evidence, then they "promptly" (how promptly?) destroy it. Because, goodness knows, the person who drew it the first time couldn't repeat that feat, so destroying the drawing makes it impossible to ever see what it showed.

And then they conclude there was a conspiracy, based on audio evidence (although that has since been disproved). I guess this was just wheels within wheels, was it?

And your story is internally inconsistent. You claim at the same time that the envelop contained bullet fragments, and a full bullet. Which was it? Was Bell lying when she said it was a fragment, or when she said it was a bullet? Or is this just the normal confusion that goes on in a catastrophic situation, when people misspeak, and other people misremember what was properly spoken?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 01:44:40 PM
How do you justify your claim?  What evidence do you have for it?
You continue to argue about non-sense.
Repeat - Humes was not a qualified forensic pathologist(.)
He was a qualified pathologist.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhumes.htm


The doctors at parkland have stated that they dealt with bullet wounds on a routine or on a daily basis.
the doctors that viewed the neck wound at Parkland said it appeared to be an entrance wound. They go into detail why thy considered it to be so.
It is amazing that all the witnesses that were doctors and nurses at parkland stated what the wounds were on JFK, none of them concure with Dr Humes, not one. Witnesses from Bethesda don't even concure with Humes.
Man what in the world would it take to wake you up?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 07, 2012, 01:46:57 PM
Or is this just the normal confusion that goes on in a catastrophic situation, when people misspeak, and other people misremember what was properly spoken?

Which is, of course, one of the reasons hearsay is generally not allowed as testimony.  (There are actually quite a few exceptions, but "I really trust this person" isn't one of them!)  It's important that the person who originally said or did or saw the thing be able to clarify exactly what they meant.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 07, 2012, 01:48:13 PM
How do you justify your claim?  What evidence do you have for it?
You continue to argue about non-sense.
Repeat - Humes was not a qualified forensic pathologist(.)
He was a qualified pathologist.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhumes.htm


The doctors at parkland have stated that they dealt with bullet wounds on a routine or on a daily basis.
the doctors that viewed the neck wound at Parkland said it appeared to be an entrance wound. They go into detail why thy considered it to be so.
It is amazing that all the witnesses that were doctors and nurses at parkland stated what the wounds were on JFK, none of them concure with Dr Humes, not one. Witnesses from Bethesda don't even concure with Humes.
Man what in the world would it take to wake you up?


Do you even know what pathologists do?  Do you know that, to an ER doctor, it literally does not matter where a wound came from, so they receive no special training in determining trajectories?  Why would you trust an ER doctor, who had no training in the subject, over someone whose entire job is based around knowing things like that?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 07, 2012, 01:55:38 PM
There is nothing on this page that addresses the issue of deformation of bullets when shattering bones.

That page referes to shooting bullets through blocks of wood and notes their relative lack of deformation, and refers to shooting cadavers with the bullets. Do you want to suggest that not one shot through a cadaver went through a bone?

The simple fact is, prof, you don't actually understand the physics of bullet impacts at all. You are simply applying your layman's expectation that a bullet hitting a bone must get massively distorted. Bone might feel hard to you when you hit it, but to a piece of metal travelling at great speed it almost might as well not be there. I repeat, these bullets are designed to penetrate flesh and bone.

Quote
Please provide an example of a bullet fired thru both a rib and a wrist that in any way is comparable to the 'pristine' nature of ce-399

I refer you to the episode of Unsolved History where they duplicate the single bullet trajectory and the limited deformation of the bullet. Once again I point out that the shots have been duplicated. Why do you seem intent on ignoring this?

Quote
Please explain the extra bullet fragments that could not be removed from Connally's wrist that can not be accounted for when compared with the loss of weight from ce-399 bullet?

Please explain why this bullet is now no longer 'pristine' but losing fragments. It can't be both.

Again, I don't have a burden of proof here. you do.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 07, 2012, 01:59:04 PM
It is amazing that all the witnesses that were doctors and nurses at parkland stated what the wounds were on JFK, none of them concure with Dr Humes, not one. Witnesses from Bethesda don't even concure with Humes.

I don't care how many people offer their opinions of the state of the wound when none of them are actually properly qualified to make the distinction. An ER doctor's job is to take the wounded patient and fix the wound if they can, not to determine the exact nature and cause of it. A pathologist's job is to conduct a thorough investigation into the nature of the wound and exactly what caused it. This is not a case where numbers make the difference in determining who is more likely to be correct.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 07, 2012, 02:17:18 PM
The simple fact is, prof, you don't actually understand the physics of bullet impacts at all. You are simply applying your layman's expectation that a bullet hitting a bone must get massively distorted. Bone might feel hard to you when you hit it, but to a piece of metal travelling at great speed it almost might as well not be there. I repeat, these bullets are designed to penetrate flesh and bone.
A major reason the CE399 bullet is still mostly in one piece is the large amount of energy it lost in first passing through JFK's neck without hitting any bones. It then yawed in the air between JFK and JBC, hitting JBC almost sideways -- his entrance wound was oval, and rifle bullets simply don't do that over a distance of only 60 or so yards unless they pass through something else first.

So when the bullet broke JBC's rib it was going almost sideways, and that's exactly why it appears flattened as it does.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 02:28:42 PM
Gee, the HCSA seems a very poor conspiratory body.
You feel a compulsion to believe the WC and HSCA, the programing is working well.

Getting silly posting anything if you are unwilling to do the work to determine the validity of what I am presenting.
Ya I know your response, that's my job, no it's not, not really, all I can do is point to the truth, if I present evidence, the only way you will really know, is to investigate the evidence thread yourself and discover if it is validity.
If you are satisfied that you know the WC is complete and unimpeachable, you have made up your mind, your mind is sealed off from any alternatives, maybe you believe that all the research done by the 'CT' since 1963 is some evil plot with the purpose to contaminate your thoughts, fear can be difficult to overcome.

As posted previously: If there is no evidence the conspiracy theorist can present that is valid... ||| stop ||| and think what this really means. You guys are totally closed off, so much so that there is nothing that can penetrate your shields. Nothing.
Is there any reason to continue to post other then having a passtime of arguing, uh huh... na huh?

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 07, 2012, 02:31:23 PM
Please explain the extra bullet fragments that could not be removed from Connally's wrist that can not be accounted for when compared with the loss of weight from ce-399 bullet?

Nothing but speculation.


Quote

Please explain the extra bullet fragments that were surgically removed from Connally and given to Nurse Bell who sealed them in an envelope, then passed them on to a State Trooper, that can not be accounted for when compared with the loss of weight from ce-399 bullet?

Did Nurse Bell weigh the fragments before turning them over? No? No, she didn't.


Quote
HSCA had nurse Bell draw a picture of the bullet fragments she had placed in the envelope,

From memory? 13, 14 years after the fact? And you accuse us of stretching credulity.


Quote
because they seemed to have inexplicably disappeared from evidence, the HSCA after viewing her drawing promptly destroyed it. (more destruction of evidence, guess the FBI is not alone in this routine)

State trooper recalled the envelope given to him by Nurse Bell, saying Bell had said it contained a bullet, trooper said, thru the envelope it was maybe 2 by 3 inches.

Citation needed.


Quote
Connaly even said they found the bullet and gave it to nurse Bell to give to a trooper. Please explain this.

Do you really need to have explained to you that an unconscious man under anesthesia could not possibly have observed that?

Assume this O is a lead bullet fragment and it is half as thick as its diameter. Calculate its mass in grains.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 07, 2012, 02:54:50 PM
Getting silly posting anything if you are unwilling to do the work to determine the validity of what I am presenting.
Ya I know your response, that's my job, no it's not, not really, all I can do is point to the truth, if I present evidence, the only way you will really know, is to investigate the evidence thread yourself and discover if it is validity.
If you are satisfied that you know the WC is complete and unimpeachable, you have made up your mind, your mind is sealed off from any alternatives, maybe you believe that all the research done by the 'CT' since 1963 is some evil plot with the purpose to contaminate your thoughts, fear can be difficult to overcome.

As posted previously: If there is no evidence the conspiracy theorist can present that is valid... ||| stop ||| and think what this really means. You guys are totally closed off, so much so that there is nothing that can penetrate your shields. Nothing.
Is there any reason to continue to post other then having a passtime of arguing, uh huh... na huh?



You really just do not get how any of this works, do you?  The reason it is your responsibility to present this evidence is that we have looked at the evidence.  Several of us have told you repeatedly about having seen the "magic bullet" shot reproduced, unto the appearance of the bullet.  We have told you where to go to see it yourself.  Now, this is not our responsibility.  It really isn't.  You are the one arguing that it's impossible, therefore you are the one who is supposed to do the research to find experts who said it was.  You've said an expert did, but you didn't even provide his name. 

You once made a claim that the site you used to back it up said was fallacious.

You don't understand what "hearsay" means.

You don't understand how presenting evidence in a court of law works.

You don't understand how ballistics works.

You don't understand the jobs of ER doctors.

And you are the one saying we are looking at things blindly?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 07, 2012, 02:56:00 PM
Getting silly posting anything if you are unwilling to do the work to determine the validity of what I am presenting.

It is your job to prove its validity.

Quote
Ya I know your response, that's my job, no it's not, not really,

Yes it is, very much so. It is always your burden to prove yourself right.

Quote
the only way you will really know, is to investigate the evidence thread yourself and discover if it is validity.

Why do you assume that we have not actually done that and reached different conclusions?

Quote
If there is no evidence the conspiracy theorist can present that is valid... ||| stop ||| and think what this really means.

That is your assertion, not ours. We have never said there is nothing that can be presented that is valid. We are simply not convinced by the validity of anything you have presented.

Quote
Is there any reason to continue to post other then having a passtime of arguing, uh huh... na huh?

You tell us.

Oh, and continued refusal to acknowledge the duplication of the two shots noted.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 03:25:38 PM
The back wound is at the 3rd thoracic vertebra, right of his spinal column.
The location of this wound is well below the neck wound

If, and only if, you assume without any justification whatsoever that he is sitting up straight. Kennedy was demonstrably not sitting up straight in the limo, and the third thoracic vertebra is not so far below the throat exit wound that simply slouching cannot place it slightly above.
Jason I can't even imagine how slouched over JFK would have to be to get his neck wound location below the location of the 3rd thoracic vertebra, I think he would have to be almost in a prone position.

Jason, if you view the autopsy photos you will know that the back wound is well below the neck wound, and in no way could it be connected to a bullet traveling at a downward angle then exiting from a higher location in JFK's body.
You will also see that the WC artist's conceptual drawing is completely contrived and in no way resembles the actual location of the wound in JFK's back, someone opinioned that the artist conceptual drawing of the wound was located higher by almost a foot, I have not attempted to measure it but the point is the artist conceptual drawing in no way comes even remotely close to the actual location of the back wound. The back wound location had to be contrived by the WC in order for the single bullet theory to work. pure fiction.

Don't be confused by contrived red herring fiction about coat riding up and JFK slouching. Where did the bullet enter JFK's body? Right of the spine at the third thoracic vertebra. High middle back, adjacent to shoulder blade. Well below the front neck wound by about 6 inches.

If you reach back you may be able to feel your shoulder blade tip near your spine, that is about the location, it is about 5-6 inches below the adams apple (JFK top of tie was nicked) , check it out for yourself.

Also keep in mind the bullet was supposedly also traveling at a downward angle from the 6th floor TSBD.
If bullet had exited it most probably would have come out several inches below the entry wound not above it, somehere lower in the chest or below the rib cage.

Comments about picture will be it is not drawn to scale - ya point conceded.
but it is close, you can see the relative positions of the wounds on this JFK autopsy fact sheet.
Also location of wounds corresponds to the autopsy photos.
Back wound well below the throat wound.

I hope this helps.
 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 07, 2012, 03:41:50 PM
Jason I can't even imagine how slouched over JFK would have to be to get his neck wound location below the location of the 3rd thoracic vertebra, I think he would have to be almost in a prone position.

Well, have you even tried to work this out?

Here's a hint:

(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj292/JasonTT/JFKneckwound.png)

That's about a decent slouching angle, and far from prone. The third thoracic vertebra is highlighted, as are the locations of the entry and exit wounds. The image on the left shows an upright person, and indeed the exit wound is above the entrance wound. The second image shows a slouching person (though still does not account for the compression of the neck and change of angle as is actually seen in a slouch), and suddenly the trajectory is downwards...

Quote
Don't be confused by contrived red herring fiction about coat riding up and JFK slouching.

Contrived red herring fiction? You can see that JFK is not sitting up straight in the limo in every bit of film. He is slouched forward, and his coat is definitely ridden up around his neck as would be expected.

Quote
If you reach back you may be able to feel your shoulder blade tip near your spine, that is about the location, it is about 5-6 inches below the adams apple (JFK top of tie was nicked) , check it out for yourself.

I have. I also happen to be more qualified in the area of anatomy and biology than you are. The third thoracic vertebra is nowhere near six inches below the adam's apple.

And once again your refusal to acknowledge that the path of the single bullet has been DUPLICATED is noted, and an explanation still awaited.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 03:46:15 PM
There is nothing on this page that addresses the issue of deformation of bullets when shattering bones.

That page refers to shooting bullets through blocks of wood and notes their relative lack of deformation, and refers to shooting cadavers with the bullets. Do you want to suggest that not one shot through a cadaver went through a bone?

Jason there is no place on this page or I will venture any page you can find that shows a bullet that has maintained it's 'pristine' shape after traversing through a human bone, it will mushroom and deform.
They give you a red herring by showing you bullets shot "with" the grain of various woods, which has noting in this world to do with impact against a bone. Let's see the bullet that was shot against the grain!

They tell you bullets can pass through multiple people, but show you no examples of how much the bullet would become deformed and fragmented.
The bullet is made of lead, with a thin casing of copper, it deforms on impact, it deforms and can fragment just traversing through gelatin.

Figure this out.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 07, 2012, 03:50:03 PM
Jason I can't even imagine how slouched over JFK would have to be to get his neck wound location below the location of the 3rd thoracic vertebra, I think he would have to be almost in a prone position.
You could save yourself (and us) a lot of trouble if you'd look at the Dale Myers computer model. Everything lines up -- where JBC and JFK were sitting, their body positions, the straight line trajectory between the two (and connecting their wounds) all the way back to Oswald's window. Perfectly.

Of course, this isn't what you want to hear. Myers probably didn't either.  He's a former conspiracy investigator who, once he gathered and understood the facts, realized Oswald did it all along.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 07, 2012, 03:51:19 PM
The bullet is made of lead, with a thin casing of copper, it deforms on impact, it deforms and can fragment just traversing through gelatin.
Do you understand the significance of the part I have emboldened?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 03:52:12 PM
Typical -
Humes was not a qualified forencic pathologist to do the autopsy, you have no argument. now just let it go.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 07, 2012, 03:52:25 PM
The 3rd thoracic vertebra canard comes from RADM Burkley who estimated the location of the bullet wound in JFK's back for a death certificate. The autopsy report said it entered above the scapula. The bullet exited well below the Adam's Apple.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 07, 2012, 04:00:44 PM
Typical -
Humes was not a qualified forencic pathologist to do the autopsy, you have no argument. now just let it go.
Typical. Neither were the emergency room physicians. In fact, they weren't even pathologists.

Humes was not the only doctor working on the autopsy, you know. Does the name Pierre Finck ring a bell? How about J. Thorton Boswell.

LHO shot JFK and JBC, then murdered JD Tippet. He did so alone. It's been almost 50 years, and as Oswald's own brother Robert has said numerous times, it's fine to take a second look at things, but at some point you just have to put it to rest. Or, as you say, just let it go.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 07, 2012, 04:07:57 PM
Jason there is no place on this page or I will venture any page you can find that shows a bullet that has maintained it's 'pristine' shape after traversing through a human bone, it will mushroom and deform.

The 'pristine' bullet hasn't maintained its pristine condition! It hit the bone sidewways, not head on, and deformed as would be expected.

Again, your refusal to acknowledge that the whole thing has been duplicated is noted and an explanation still awaited.

Quote
The bullet is made of lead, with a thin casing of copper, it deforms on impact, it deforms and can fragment just traversing through gelatin.

Yes indeed. And the 'pristine' bullet is also deformed.

Quote
Figure this out.

I don't need to. IT'S BEEN DONE!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 07, 2012, 04:10:43 PM
Humes was not a qualified forencic pathologist to do the autopsy, you have no argument. now just let it go.

You really have no logical faculties at all, do you? Explain why you dismiss him due to a lack of being a forensic pathologist and yet take the word of the ER doctors who were not any kind of pathologist. If you want to argue qualifications, Humes was more qualified to make a judgement about the entry and exit wounds than any of the doctors who operated on JFK in the ER.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 04:14:38 PM
Jason I can't even imagine how slouched over JFK would have to be to get his neck wound location below the location of the 3rd thoracic vertebra, I think he would have to be almost in a prone position.

Well, have you even tried to work this out?
Way cool - thanks for the images.
I can't help myself here...Ya Jason that is exactly how President Kennedy was slouching in that limo, I remember seeing him leaning forward probably picking some lint off of his socks when he was struck.

Are you serious?

Give your self a brake and examine the evidence.
Just compare the artist conceptual drawing the WC had to use to make the angles work, your not even close with your bent over figure... although very cool.
The WC had to place the back shot high on the neck to make the single bullet theory work.

And you brushed right by the FACT that the WC had to have an artist produce a contrived conceptual drawing to even begin to make single bullet theory work.  And that the conceptual drawing in no way represents the actual locations of the wounds.

Does the conceptual drawing show the back wound located at the third thoracic vertebra?
|||Then - Why isn't it correct?|||

stop thinking and see
 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 07, 2012, 04:17:51 PM
If you want to argue qualifications, Humes was more qualified to make a judgement about the entry and exit wounds than any of the doctors who operated on JFK in the ER.
Especially given that Hume had two assistants, both medical doctors and pathologists. And one was also Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch at Walter Reed Medical Center. That tells me the guy knew at least a little about what bullets do in the human body, don't you think?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 07, 2012, 04:20:18 PM
Are you serious?
Yes, we are. And yes, we've examined the evidence. Quite a bit more closely than you have, it would seem.

Seen the Dale Myers stuff yet? I strongly suggest you do, as he directly addresses the geometry of the "single bullet fact" as he calls it. And no, JFK was not prone.

The url is http://www.jfkfiles.com/

Please.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 07, 2012, 04:24:03 PM
I can't help myself here...Ya Jason that is exactly how President Kennedy was slouching in that limo, I remember seeing him leaning forward probably picking some lint off of his socks when he was struck.

Of course it wasn't exactly how Kennedy was slouching. I already said that all I did was tilt a picture. A slouched person would have his head upright of course, but I lack the image manipulation skills necessary to knock that up in five minutes. The fact remains, however, that you don't need to tilt the spine forward too far before the entry and exit wounds line up appropriately.

Quote
Give your self a brake and examine the evidence.

For the last time, I HAVE. My conclusions differ from yours, but that is not because I haven't looked.

Quote
And you brushed right by the FACT that the WC had to have an artist produce a contrived conceptual drawing to even begin to make single bullet theory work.

And you brushed right by the FACT that THE SHOTS HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED. Will you explain that?

Quote
stop thinking and see

When examining evidence it is usually a good idea to actually think, otherwise you end up with the absurd and contradictory claims such as you make.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 04:41:16 PM

 This is not a case where numbers make the difference in determining who is more likely to be correct.
Shot in temple, exit wound in back right side of head vs Humes shot from behind, exit wound right middle
top of head
So all witnesses at the scene and doctors and nurses and x-ray technicians, photographers and FBI agents are just incompetent or so stupid as to mistake the 5 inch hole in back of JFKs head for an exit wound.
What kind of doctors and nurses did parkland have to not be able to differentiate a hole in the temple and a 5 inch exit wound in the back of JFK's head from a hole in the back and exit wound on side.  Get it, no one agreed with the 3 doctors that performed the autopsy at Bethesda, no one.

AARB -  Douglas Horne was able to study the assassination records for 3 years, conclusion autopsy results are a fraud.
JFK exit wound back right.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 07, 2012, 04:47:52 PM
Shot in temple, exit wound in back right side of head vs Humes shot from behind, exit wound right middle
top of head
Let's say a shot had hit JFK in the manner you describe. Where could it have come from? There were no bullet holes in the limousine windshield (though there was a crack after the 3rd shot when it was struck by a bullet fragment from the inside) so you must agree that we can rule out all trajectories requiring the third bullet to pass through that windshield before hitting JFK.

It turns out the only place from which you could make such a shot is about 13 feet above the top of the Triple Underpass, directly over the south curb of Main St.

Have you heard of any reports of an assassin perched on a 13' ladder on top of the Triple Underpass?

This analysis is from Dale Myers. I urge you again to check it out. Geometrically, it is simply impossible for such wounds to have been made in the way you claim. We can completely rule it out.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 07, 2012, 04:51:35 PM
Shot in temple, exit wound in back right side of head vs Humes shot from behind, exit wound right middle
top of head

Hume's exit wound is still at the back right side of the head, just not round the back of his head. His conclusion also has the supprt of physics.

Quote
Get it, no one agreed with the 3 doctors that performed the autopsy at Bethesda, no one.

Actually they did. You're just reading too much into the use of the word 'back'.

Again, the shots have been duplicated. Do you care to acknowledge that fact?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 07, 2012, 04:52:14 PM
Sure doesn't look near pristine to me.
Because you don't realize what you should be looking at.

This bullet is accountable for causing 7 wounds
in so doing also shattered one of Connally's ribs
and also shattered bones in Connally's wrist.

It is improbable to traverse thru flesh and maintain it's 'pristine' shape
It is an impossibility to shatter bones and not be seriously flattend, deformed and fractured.

Plus
Connally had more bullet fragments still remaining in his wrist after surgery then can be accounted for.
Connally had bullet fragments removed during his surgery that also can't be accounted for - see Nurse Bell
Even if this bullet miraculously caused the 7 wounds and shattered bones, the extra bullet fragments can not be accounted for, period.

Plus the man who discovered this bullet stated it was not found on Connaly's stretcher - One more fact that was ignored by the WC.

Ce-399 appears to be in a more pristine shape then bullets test fired for ballistic comparison.
Okay, they go to all this trouble to set up Oswald as a patsy...yet they plant a bullet that's "too pristine"? Why not keep firing slugs until they get something a bit more mangled? Not to mention, at that point they would have had no idea what bullets would be found. One too many bullets and that certainly would have blown a conspiracy wide open.

As far as the damage to the bullet, your incredulity doesn't change the fact that ballistics experts think it's plausible. The round went through JFK, tumbled through Connally's chest, so by the time that bullet hit Connally's wrist it was slowed down to approximately 1000 fps. Dr. Martin Fackler, President of the International Wound Ballistics Association, did a test where he fired a round identical to Oswald's ammo into a human wrist at 1100 fps. Here is a photo of his bullet.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg)
You'll find more info on CE399 and some of the tests here (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm).
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 04:52:49 PM
That page referes to shooting bullets through blocks of wood and notes their relative lack of deformation, and refers to shooting cadavers with the bullets. Do you want to suggest that not one shot through a cadaver went through a bone?


Jason you either produce 1 picture of a bullet that has traversed a rib and a wrist bone or you admit that there isn't one, because no one has ever been able to duplicate anything like the CE-399 bullet.
If nothing else stop supporting the 'pristine bullet' theory it really makes a person appear to be a crackpot.

You haven't addressed the problem of the missing extra bullet and too many fragments from the 'pristine bullet' that traversed Connally.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 07, 2012, 04:58:27 PM
You haven't addressed the fact that the two shots have been duplicated.

Why should my inability to produce an exact replica of the bullet mean there is not one?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 05:02:26 PM
Okay, they go to all this trouble to set up Oswald as a patsy...yet they plant a bullet that's "too pristine"? Why not keep firing slugs until they get something a bit more mangled? Not to mention, at that point they would have had no idea what bullets would be found. One too many bullets and that certainly would have blown a conspiracy wide open.

As far as the damage to the bullet, your incredulity doesn't change the fact that ballistics experts think it's plausible. The round went through JFK, tumbled through Connally's chest, so by the time that bullet hit Connally's wrist it was slowed down to approximately 1000 fps. Dr. Martin Fackler, President of the International Wound Ballistics Association, did a test where he fired a round identical to Oswald's ammo into a human wrist at 1100 fps. Here is a photo of his bullet.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg)
You'll find more info on CE399 and some of the tests here (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm).
[/quote]
Plausable - what is this a guess that it could happen?
Plausable is fiction, what does this mean?

If if happened, then it can be duplicated.
Its not possible, never duplicated and never happened.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 07, 2012, 05:08:12 PM
Plausable - what is this a guess that it could happen?
Plausable is fiction, what does this mean?

You really are clueless, aren't you?

The exact circumstances of a bullet's condition depend on many many variables. The chances of an exact duplication are millions to one against. That doesn't mean we can't assess some probabilities based on data we can obtain. 'Plausible' means that the hypothesis cannot be rejected.

Quote
If if happened, then it can be duplicated.
Its not possible, never duplicated and never happened.

Massive oversimplification of reality noted.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 05:10:03 PM
The bullet is made of lead, with a thin casing of copper, it deforms on impact, it deforms and can fragment just traversing through gelatin.
Do you understand the significance of the part I have emboldened?
Where did all the fragments remaining in Connally's wrist come from?
Where did all the fragments surgically removed from Connally's wrist come from?
Where did the bullet referenced by Connally /  Nurse Bell /  Trooper come from?

The bullet will deform even if shot into gelatin
this bullet went through flesh and bones
And came out without a trace of blood or human tissue to be found on the bullet, which by the way is also not possible.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 05:12:37 PM
Plausable - what is this a guess that it could happen?
Plausable is fiction, what does this mean?

You really are clueless, aren't you?

Just post the picture of test bullet that duplicates the feats of the 'pristine bullet' and end the arguement
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 07, 2012, 05:16:39 PM
Just post the picture of test bullet that duplicates the feats of the 'pristine bullet' and end the arguement

Why should there be any such picture?

Fact: the bullets do not deform as much as you expect them to.

Fact: This is shown conclusively by experiments under controlled conditions.

Fact: exact duplication of one bullet's condition is a million to one chance, which is why we conduct controlled experiments and draw conslusions from those results.

Fact: You still have not addressed the fact that the paths of both bullets and their effects have been duplicated. Why not?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 07, 2012, 05:25:42 PM
Where did all the fragments remaining in Connally's wrist come from?
Where did all the fragments surgically removed from Connally's wrist come from?
Where did the bullet referenced by Connally /  Nurse Bell /  Trooper come from?

You still haven't answered my fragment question. How much would a fragment the size of an O weigh? Assume it is made of lead and it is 2 mm in diameter and 1 mm thick.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 06:35:21 PM
I have. I also happen to be more qualified in the area of anatomy and biology than you are. The third thoracic vertebra is nowhere near six inches below the adam's apple.

Great an expert
So in WC exhibit CE386 http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_386.pdf
Is the back wound depicted in WC exhibit CE386 at the third thoracic vertebra?
Does this picture match location shown on autopsy photos
or autopsy fact sheet?

Third thoracic vertebra so it is less then 6 inch's
is it 5 or 4 or 3 or 2 or 1 or 0
None of the above answers are exceptable, because the bullet has a downward trajectory.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 06:50:45 PM
[Contrived red herring fiction? You can see that JFK is not sitting up straight in the limo in every bit of film. He is slouched forward, and his coat is definitely ridden up around his neck as would be expected.

The position of the coat is irrelevent.
Kennedy wore a back brace, in my opinion he was not slouching forward, he may have slumped after he was shot.
Please post a picture illustrating a forward slouching.
Kennedy was hit lower on his back then the wound on the front, you just posted pictures of how far forward he would have had to slouch to be to accomodate a bullet from even a low angle.
The slouching red herring will not work
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 07, 2012, 06:50:53 PM

Plausable - what is this a guess that it could happen?
Plausable is fiction, what does this mean?

If if happened, then it can be duplicated.
Its not possible, never duplicated and never happened.
The bullet damage wasn't exactly the same, but it is very, very similar. There are simply too many variables to ever get exactly the same damage. I suspect if the test bullets had the exact same damage, your next claim would be they are too perfect, and hence fake.

In any case, it's still up to you to prove CE 399 wasn't the "single bullet". So far all I've seen from you is incredulity and speculation.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 07, 2012, 06:55:08 PM
[Contrived red herring fiction? You can see that JFK is not sitting up straight in the limo in every bit of film. He is slouched forward, and his coat is definitely ridden up around his neck as would be expected.

The position of the coat is irrelevent.
Kennedy wore a back brace, in my opinion he was not slouching forward, he may have slumped after he was shot.
Please post a picture illustrating a forward slouching.
Kennedy was hit lower on his back then the wound on the front, you just posted pictures of how far forward he would have had to slouch to be to accomodate a bullet from even a low angle.
The slouching red herring will not work
Okay, so where did this shot come from? How did go front to back without hitting the limo windshield and/or the person sitting in the front right? And please explain how Connally received his wounds, without the bullet passing through JFK?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 07, 2012, 06:56:08 PM
Is the back wound depicted in WC exhibit CE386 at the third thoracic vertebra?

No, but since that's a drawing based on a verbal description error can be expected. There is a phot of the wound that clearly does place it near there.

Quote
Does this picture match location shown on autopsy photos
or autopsy fact sheet?

Since both the photos and the fact sheet are in circulation, what difference does it make if a drawing doesn't quite match?

Quote
None of the above answers are exceptable, because the bullet has a downward trajectory.

Yes, which is explained by tilting the thorax forward as in a slouching person such as Kennedy was at the time of the shot. If it's only one inch below, it doesn't take much of a forward lean to place it above. A fact I have already demonstrated.

Now, once again, do you ever plan to address the fact that the shots have been duplicated?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 07, 2012, 07:01:04 PM
The position of the coat is irrelevent.

Actually it's not. Several conspiracy theorists point out that the location of the hole in the coat doesn't match the position of the wound, but again they assume a straight posture.

Quote
in my opinion he was not slouching forward

http://joeandover.hubpages.com/hub/presidentkennedywasmurdered

There he is, clearly not sitting straight and upright. He has one arm resting on the side of the limo, placing his right shoulder higher than it would normally be if he was sitting up straight and facing directly forward.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 07, 2012, 07:46:21 PM
You know, until Profmunkin produces a coherent explanation of what did happen, I have decided I no longer care what someone so ill-researched thinks didn't happen.  Who's the one saying, "Nuh uh"?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 08:05:26 PM

Plausible - what is this a guess that it could happen?
Plausible is fiction, what does this mean?

If if happened, then it can be duplicated.
Its not possible, never duplicated and never happened.
The bullet damage wasn't exactly the same, but it is very, very similar. There are simply too many variables to ever get exactly the same damage. I suspect if the test bullets had the exact same damage, your next claim would be they are too perfect, and hence fake.

In any case, it's still up to you to prove CE 399 wasn't the "single bullet". So far all I've seen from you is incredulity and speculation.
You can't possibly provide evidence that any bullet has ever duplicated what CE399 did.


To provide proof that it didn't...I don't believe in fairy tales.

With virtually unlimited resources the government would have found a way, there isn't any.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 08:08:10 PM

Plausable - what is this a guess that it could happen?
Plausable is fiction, what does this mean?

If if happened, then it can be duplicated.
Its not possible, never duplicated and never happened.
The bullet damage wasn't exactly the same, but it is very, very similar. There are simply too many variables to ever get exactly the same damage. I suspect if the test bullets had the exact same damage, your next claim would be they are too perfect, and hence fake.

In any case, it's still up to you to prove CE 399 wasn't the "single bullet". So far all I've seen from you is incredulity and speculation.
post your best example of a bullet that has duplicated CE399
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 08:12:26 PM
[Contrived red herring fiction? You can see that JFK is not sitting up straight in the limo in every bit of film. He is slouched forward, and his coat is definitely ridden up around his neck as would be expected.

The position of the coat is irrelevent.
Kennedy wore a back brace, in my opinion he was not slouching forward, he may have slumped after he was shot.
Please post a picture illustrating a forward slouching.
Kennedy was hit lower on his back then the wound on the front, you just posted pictures of how far forward he would have had to slouch to be to accomodate a bullet from even a low angle.
The slouching red herring will not work
Okay, so where did this shot come from? How did go front to back without hitting the limo windshield and/or the person sitting in the front right? And please explain how Connally received his wounds, without the bullet passing through JFK?
What does it matter where the shots came from if you don't understand that the shot in the back has nothing to do with the shot in the throat.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 08:21:50 PM
Is the back wound depicted in WC exhibit CE386 at the third thoracic vertebra?

No, but since that's a drawing based on a verbal description error can be expected. There is a phot of the wound that clearly does place it near there.


Please post photo - never mind don't bother

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 07, 2012, 08:27:17 PM
You can't possibly provide evidence that any bullet has ever duplicated what CE399 did.

post your best example of a bullet that has duplicated CE399

You keep forgetting where the burden of proof lies.  With you.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 07, 2012, 08:31:18 PM
What does it matter where the shots came from if you don't understand that the shot in the back has nothing to do with the shot in the throat.


So Connally was hit by 5 separate bullets?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 07, 2012, 08:32:24 PM

 This is not a case where numbers make the difference in determining who is more likely to be correct.
Shot in temple, exit wound in back right side of head vs Humes shot from behind, exit wound right middle
top of head
Well we have the Zapruder film, frames 312-313. It's pretty obvious where the exit wound was, isn't it?
WARNING : Very graphic image not for the squeamish.
http://s18.postimage.org/4dry4gmg9/Closeup_312_313.gif
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 07, 2012, 08:35:30 PM
So Connally was hit by 5 separate bullets?
At least 5 ;)

(http://o.onionstatic.com/images/articles/article/10584/11221963_101_Kennedy-Slain_jpg_445x1000_upscale_q85.jpg)
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 08:42:00 PM
You can't possibly provide evidence that any bullet has ever duplicated what CE399 did.

post your best example of a bullet that has duplicated CE399

You keep forgetting where the burden of proof lies.  With you.
In this case the burden of proof has to lie with you
It is not possible to prove a bullet can do what CE399 was supposed to do.
Why would you guys argue this, it has never been duplicated.
Bullets deform when they traverse flesh, they mushroom and fragment when they hit bones.
This includes military grade copper jacketed carcano ammunition

Why don't you figure it out and get back to me when you do. I am not going to waste anymore time on this until you can catch up on some reality.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 07, 2012, 08:59:31 PM
Why don't you figure it out and get back to me when you do. I am not going to waste anymore time on this until you can catch up on some reality.
My word, that was a fine example of CT projection, Prof.

When and if you come back, we'll still be here with the facts and the credible evidence. TTFN!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 07, 2012, 09:04:54 PM
It is not possible to prove a bullet can do what CE399 was supposed to do.
Why would you guys argue this, it has never been duplicated.

If you mean the exact condition of the bullet hasn't been duplicated then no, it hasn't, because (like others have said) there are too many variables. Show me two wrecked cars with identical damage. You can't.

But the shot itself has been duplicated. A fact you continue to ignore and try to sweep under the rug because you can't respond to it.

Quote
Why don't you figure it out and get back to me when you do. I am not going to waste anymore time on this until you can catch up on some reality.

The only one who is out of touch with reality is you. Prove me wrong by telling us where all of the shots came from, if not from the 6th floor of the School Book Depository.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 07, 2012, 09:22:33 PM
Prove me wrong by telling us where all of the shots came from, if not from the 6th floor of the School Book Depository.

Well, according to prof, bullets cannot exit a body once they enter. So, JFK was hit in the back, hit in the neck, hit in the back of the head, hit in the top right of the head, Connally was hit in the back just below the right armpit, hit in the chest just below the right nipple, hit on the top of the left wrist, hit on the bottom of the left wrist, and finally hit in the thigh, all by separate bullets. I count 9 separate shots. The bottom of the wrist shot obviously came from an assassin laying on the floor of the limo between Connally's legs. The thigh shot had to have come from a hovering helicopter directly above the limo.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 09:25:25 PM
Well we have the Zapruder film, frames 312-313. It's pretty obvious where the exit wound was, isn't it?
[/quote]
FBI refused a copy of the z film "Zapruder film is not considered evidence" go figure.

Do some research Douglas P. Horne Inside the ARRB
or Doug Horne - dreamland 02_20_2010
AARB discovered that the chain of custody on Z film was broken by CIA
Z film delv to NPIC / CIA on Sat - thought to be altered and sent out for developing
second Z film delv on Sun from Kodak Hawkeye labs to NPIC / CIA -  this is the version we now have.

The Hollywood Group consisting of Sydney Wilkinson and her husband and others are examining the z film purchased directly from the national achieve, from a special effects experts perspective.
There is no doubt that the film has had special effects tampering.

So no you don't have the z film to rely on, unless the ARRB and The Hollywood Group is also a part of the conspiracy.

a few conclusions by The Hollywood Group, conclusions from 7 out of 7 experts say
> head wounds are not only altered, they are poorly altered
> blood spray effect was not done well
> blood spray dissipated too rapidly
> painted on wound on right front of head
> exit wound in the right rear portion of JFK's head can still be detected.

from Doug Horne - Film does not show
< exit debris known to be thrown back and to the left
< limo not shown to slow or stop

So there you have it, believe it, or
I am sure not.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 07, 2012, 09:28:56 PM
Once again in English?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 09:39:49 PM
If you mean the exact condition of the bullet hasn't been duplicated then no, it hasn't, because (like others have said) there are too many variables. Show me two wrecked cars with identical damage. You can't.


With all due respect, discussing the reality of CE399 feats further is nonsense

What does it matter if someone lines up 2 wounds?
The problem is as I have shown the bullet could not go from the location on the back as shown in the autopsy photo and exit higher from the neck.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 07, 2012, 09:42:03 PM
Prove me wrong by telling us where all of the shots came from, if not from the 6th floor of the School Book Depository.

Well, according to prof, bullets cannot exit a body once they enter. So, JFK was hit in the back, hit in the neck, hit in the back of the head, hit in the top right of the head, Connally was hit in the back just below the right armpit, hit in the chest just below the right nipple, hit on the top of the left wrist, hit on the bottom of the left wrist, and finally hit in the thigh, all by separate bullets. I count 9 separate shots. The bottom of the wrist shot obviously came from an assassin laying on the floor of the limo between Connally's legs. The thigh shot had to have come from a hovering helicopter directly above the limo.
No, that wasn't a helicopter overhead, it was an alien stealth scout ship.

That's what I "love" about a lot of JFK CTists. They claim CE399 did impossible things, but can never come up with an alternative that doesn't require all kinds of shooters in all sorts of implausible or impossible locations, firing what would almost have to be "magic' bullets.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 09:43:27 PM
Once again in English?
do i need to type slowly for you?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 07, 2012, 09:47:21 PM
Once again in English?
do i need to type slowly for you?

No, you need to write in proper English capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 07, 2012, 09:48:19 PM
Still waiting on your fragment weight calculation, btw. Cylinder 2mm diameter, 1 mm thick.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 07, 2012, 09:56:10 PM
With all due respect, discussing the reality of CE399 feats further is nonsense

You say that because you have nothing of substance to say. The "pristine" bullet was not pristine. The "magic" bullet was not magic. The shot has been reproduced both in the real world and using CGI. Your entire argument boils down to "it couldn't happen like that because I don't want to believe it".

Quote
What does it matter if someone lines up 2 wounds?

It matters a lot. Forensic investigators do it all the time, so obviously it means something. But what we all want to know is where the shots came from, if not from the School Book Depository? Why do you keep avoiding that question? If it's so obviously that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't the only gunman then you should have no problem pointing to where the other gunmen were. What are you waiting for?

Quote
The problem is as I have shown the bullet could not go from the location on the back as shown in the autopsy photo and exit higher from the neck.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat that you have proven something, just saying it doesn't make it true.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask for your opinion on something. What do you think of vindictive cowards who cry to service providers (like Proboards... just as a random example) in order to cover up their embarrassing failures? I'm just curious.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 10:04:09 PM
Still waiting on your fragment weight calculation, btw. Cylinder 2mm diameter, 1 mm thick.
Your correct, I was ignoring you
Yes with a length and a known material, I could do the calculations
Experts could give good estimates as the dimensions of the fragments, be simple to do the math.

Why not check out Nurse Bell and the troopers statements about the bullet taken from connally, I think I posted his name earlier.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 07, 2012, 10:08:44 PM
Still waiting on your fragment weight calculation, btw. Cylinder 2mm diameter, 1 mm thick.
Your correct, I was ignoring you
Yes with a length and a known material, I could do the calculations

So do it.


Quote
Experts could give good estimates as the dimensions of the fragments,

Maybe a metrologist could, but a nurse? No, I doubt that. Maybe the number of fragments but not their size, not 13 years after the event. And she couldn't remember if it was 4 or 5 fragments.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 07, 2012, 10:16:10 PM

You say that because you have nothing of substance to say. The "pristine" bullet was not pristine. The "magic" bullet was not magic. The shot has been reproduced both in the real world and using CGI. Your entire argument boils down to "it couldn't happen like that because I don't want to believe it".
'pristine bullet' is not possible because no one has ever duplicated it or anything like it.

Can you show me any published papers on the possibility of a CE399 from qualified experts?
 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 07, 2012, 10:26:40 PM
What does it matter where the shots came from if you don't understand that the shot in the back has nothing to do with the shot in the throat.
We don't "understand" that because it's simply untrue. False. Erroneous. You're not understanding us because you don't want to.

If the wound in the throat has nothing to do with the wound in the back, then where did the two separate bullets go? Conspiracy nuts often ridicule "magic bullets", but it would seem that you have two of them yourself that simply vanished into JFK's body. Had they been in there, they would without question have shown up in the X-rays.

Even worse for you is the simple fact that this particular bullet, at the velocity it had, would not be stopped or even fragmented by passage through JFK's neck since it didn't hit any bone.

Still worse for you is the fact that Connally's entrance wound was oval, proving the bullet had yawed before entry, and rifle bullets simply don't yaw like that on their own at such short range. This proves that the bullet that hit Connally in the back had gone through something else first. That something else was JFK's neck; there are no other candidates. And when you draw a line through the wounds on the two men, guess where it goes?

And yet another seriously inconvenient fact for you that no bullet holes were found in the limo after a careful inspection with a fine-toothed comb. A crack was found in the windshield, having been made from the inside, but nothing made by a bullet with anything like a rifle's muzzle velocity.

This stuff is not a matter of opinion. It's physics and anatomy, repeatedly confirmed by both analysis and experiment. You do understand that the results of an experiment trump your intuitive guesses, do you not? That puts it squarely into the category of physical fact. You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 07, 2012, 10:47:52 PM
No, you need to write in proper English capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.

Coherent sentences would be a plus as well.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 07, 2012, 10:50:07 PM
There is no doubt that the film has had special effects tampering.
Reading fiction again? Who in hell is the "Hollywood Group", and what expertise and credentials do they bring to the problem that hasn't already been provided time and again over nearly 50 years?

You don't even have the history of the Z film correct. That's what happens when you rot your mind with conspiracist garbage while refusing to even look at the actual facts and evidence.

Zapruder immedately put his camera, with exposed film inside, in his office safe while he sought to have it developed. It was Kodachrome II, so TV film departments couldn't process it. When they found a local commercial lab, the film was developed that very afternoon/evening. Immediately, in Zapruder's presence, three copies were made. Zapruder gave two to the Secret Service, not the CIA (always the CIA, huh?). Why the Secret Service? Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that their job is to protect the President of the United States, who had just been murdered.

The next day after selling the print rights to LIFE, he gave the original and the third copy to them.

So when, exactly, in this sequence of events did the "CIA" tamper with Zapruder's film? How did they do it? While it was sitting unprocessed in his safe, perhaps by telekinesis? Or did they go after the four copies after they had been disbursed to the Secret Service and LIFE, ensuring that all four were altered undetectably in exactly the same way? Having just paid a huge sum of money for the film of the century, something many other news organizations badly wanted too, do you really think LIFE magazine wouldn't take steps to protect it?

Oh, and should you (without any evidence, naturally) say the "CIA" simply pulled a fast switch, I might point out that the JFK assassination wasn't the only thing on that spool of film. One half had already been exposed with Zapruder's personal activities. He would presumably have noticed if they were somehow missing or modified from the processed film. How would the CIA have obtained this part of his film so it could be merged into the altered copy so that Zapruder wouldn't suspect anything?

I think you must live on another planet, where supposition is fine as long as it supports the conspiracy you want, but no amount of facts, logic, laws of physics and even common sense is enough when it refutes it.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 07, 2012, 11:30:02 PM
I love when CTs anomaly hunt. They never follow the implications through to their logical conclusion. The implication that CE399 was planted is my favorite. So conspirators plant a "pristine" bullet without knowing who was hit where with what, how many bullets are still in the victims, the conditions of those bullets, how many bullets and/or fragments, if any, are in the limo, and they plant a bullet on a random stretcher in a hallway that could have just come down from the maternity ward.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 07, 2012, 11:49:32 PM
The Hollywood Group consisting of Sydney Wilkinson and her husband and others are examining the z film purchased directly from the national achieve, from a special effects experts perspective.
There is no doubt that the film has had special effects tampering.

I've highlighted this quote. You don't see anything wrong with it? Like, say, claiming to know the conclusions before you start the study?

Profmunkin, if you have any intellectual honesty, you would address the topic you chose for your title, not chase around after every other "anomaly" you can find. Either tell us what you believe was the actual set-up of shooters, and sequence of shots, or admit that you cannot actually come up with anything that fits the facts better than the official story.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 08, 2012, 12:10:07 AM
I love when CTs anomaly hunt.
That's all they ever do. It's always the same game: this doesn't look right to me or that's counterintuitive, ergo it must have been a massive conspiracy.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 08, 2012, 03:13:58 AM
Bullets deform when they traverse flesh, they mushroom and fragment when they hit bones.

They mushroom when they hit bone head on. They flatten if they hit bone sideways. The bullet that hit Connally was tumbling after passing through Kennedy, as is evidenced by the shape of the entry wound. It never struck a bone head on so it never mushroomed.

That's a thing called physics, by the way. Not that I expect you to be familiar with that...

Quote
I am not going to waste anymore time on this until you can catch up on some reality.

And your continued refusal to acknowledge that the two bullet paths and wounds have been duplicated is noted once again. Do you ever plan on addressing that rather massive omission in your arguments?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: DataCable on May 08, 2012, 05:42:54 AM
A photograph of the base of CE 399 (the so-called "magic/pristine" bullet)
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif)
Sure doesn't look near pristine to me.

It is improbable to traverse thru flesh and maintain it's 'pristine' shape
[...]
Ce-399 appears to be in a more pristine shape then bullets test fired for ballistic comparison.

Please provide an example of a bullet fired thru both a rib and a wrist that in any way is comparable to the 'pristine' nature of ce-399

If nothing else stop supporting the 'pristine bullet' theory it really makes a person appear to be a crackpot.
You haven't addressed the problem of the missing extra bullet and too many fragments from the 'pristine bullet' that traversed Connally.

Just post the picture of test bullet that duplicates the feats of the 'pristine bullet' and end the arguement

'pristine bullet' is not possible because no one has ever duplicated it or anything like it.
NOT
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif)
PRISTINE
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 08, 2012, 08:36:43 AM
'pristine bullet' is not possible because no one has ever duplicated it or anything like it.
First of all, that's just factually wrong. See the Discovery Channel program Inside The Target Car for a very close recreation of Oswald's second shot.

Second, many laymen just like you are led astray by their intuitions about probability. Seeming paradoxes, fallacies and misconceptions abound.

Here's an illustration. The chances of any specific person winning the lottery are infinitesmal. However, the chance that someone will win the lottery is typically 100% (depending on how it is designed). So if you're running the lottery, you can't just tell the guy with the winning ticket "Sorry, but your chances were many millions to one. You must have cheated, so we're not paying!"

The assassination didn't have to happen exactly the way it did. It just so happened that JFK was killed instantly and JBC was seriously wounded but survived. JFK could have been killed without anyone else being hurt. Both JFK and JBC could have been killed. Or Oswald might have missed entirely, just as he did with General Walker.

There were perhaps a dozen outcomes, each of which could have been realized in a million different ways: at slightly different times, with slightly different wound locations and a slightly different shape of the spent bullet, and so on. It necessarily follows that each of those million ways had a very small probability of happening -- yet it did happen! So by demanding an exact recreation of the actual shot, you're simply missing the point. Even Oswald himself could not have repeated any of his shots with exactly the same results. Indeed, each of his shots had a very different result. That's how the real world works.

It's perfectly reasonable to ask if each bullet followed all the laws of physics. (Yes, they did). Beyond that, the only reasonable question is this: under the circumstances, did Oswald have a good chance of fatally hitting JFK at least once by firing three shots? Again, the answer is Yes, as has been demonstrated countless times over the years by many marksmen using identical Carcano rifles and target speeds and distances.

And no, they don't have to exactly duplicate the shape of CE399, because that's just one of the many ways it could have turned out. But the aforementioned Discovery Channel program came remarkably close. I recommend that program highly.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 08, 2012, 09:13:43 AM
profmunkin, take a look at bazbear's photo. The bullet is, indeed, damaged, not pristine.

So, in your view, the conspirators knew enough to plant a damaged bullet, but not a bullet that was damaged enough? Why even bother? After all, Connally had, in fact, been shot - you seem to imply that they recovered a second bullet from his body. Why not just leave that?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 08, 2012, 10:43:04 AM
The Hollywood Group consisting of Sydney Wilkinson and her husband and others are examining the z film purchased directly from the national achieve, from a special effects experts perspective.
There is no doubt that the film has had special effects tampering.

I've highlighted this quote. You don't see anything wrong with it? Like, say, claiming to know the conclusions before you start the study?

Profmunkin, if you have any intellectual honesty, you would address the topic you chose for your title, not chase around after every other "anomaly" you can find. Either tell us what you believe was the actual set-up of shooters, and sequence of shots, or admit that you cannot actually come up with anything that fits the facts better than the official story.
You are correct. Although, I know of no way to discuss possible shooters and their locations if we are describing different events. The event, Posters maintain is that which is created within the warren commission report as established by the warren commission and since the warren commission is closed there is no procedure to establish new evidence as valid. Exceptions seems to occur only when new evidence or revised evidence concurs with established story line. By reasoning 26,000 volumes probably would not contain all of the relevant evidence that could be established, after only 26 volumes the chances are that there is much more evidence that could be yet established, evidence that could potentially alter the established story line.

 For instance examples can be presented of witnesses that did not give testimony to the warren commission. Yet the warren commission did not announce that they would persue and accept all witness testimonies, so testimonials were selected, hence any criteria used would inherently be biased and exclusitory. The selection process for evidence other then testimony could also be inherently biased and predisposed. There is also no practical method to insert testimonies or evidence into the record, so they may effectively be disregarded if contrary to established story guidelines.
The questioning of witnesses is also cause for concern because this format gave the warren commission the power to frame the issues and control witness testimony, unimpeded by any defense. Without cross examination a report was synthesized from an exclusive point of view

Selection of testimonies also effectively blocked the insertion into evidence and public record of all unselected witness testimonies.


An unresolvable conflict arises when 'evidence' is attempted to be introduced that is incompatible with the established story line. Since there is no practical method to get an official validation, no new evidence may be accepted that does not concur with established story line. Hence alternative story lines are prohibited from being explored.

Without agreeable guidelines to validate and except new evidence and testimonies, the warren commission report becomes a dead issue, closed to revelations and alternative interpretations.

On this forum not only is warren commission a dead issue, in my opinion, it's content is not open to critical review and has no potential for revision.

Examples posted of FBI destroying documents illustrated a control of evidence.
Examples of FBI influencing witnesses illustrated a control of testimony.
Examples of inaccurate representations of autopsy photo evidence illustrated a willingness on the part of the prosecutors to fabricate evidence.
Examples of prosecutors failure to ask critical questions illustrated a control of testimony
Example of excepting evidence such as 'pristine bullet' on the grounds that it maybe plausable, but unduplicatable, shows a disregard for critical review.
Examples of descenting testimony pertaining to autopsy conclusions shows a disregard for opinions contrary to determined outcome and produces unresolovable conflicts within the report itself.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 08, 2012, 10:55:00 AM
Examples posted of FBI destroying documents illustrated a control of evidence.

You didn't post examples, you posted anecdotes.

Quote
Examples of FBI influencing witnesses illustrated a control of testimony.

You didn't post examples, you posted hearsay, and worse tried to apply your own interpretation to it despite the words you chose having very different meanings from what was actually said.

Quote
Examples of inaccurate representations of autopsy photo evidence illustrated a willingness on the part of the prosecutors to fabricate evidence.

Prove that inaccuracy = fabrication, especially when the photos are also available.

Quote
Examples of prosecutors failure to ask critical questions illustrated a control of testimony

Who decides what a critical question is, and why is your view on the matter better than anyone who was involved?

Quote
Example of excepting evidence such as 'pristine bullet' on the grounds that it maybe plausable, but unduplicatable, shows a disregard for critical review.

No, it shows an acceptance of the reality of science in matters such as these. There is no way to control the variables to the degree necessary to precisely duplicate the result of any given gunshot. The outcome in terms of the distortion of the bullet was the result of a set of circumstances that cannot ever be duplicated, since quite apart from anything else it involved the passage of the bullet through two living humans, and that in itself can never be duplicated. There is no-one on Earth with precisely the same anatomical configuration as Kennedy and Connally, and therefore no way to precisely duplicate what would happen to a bullet passing through those two men. Your failure to understand how science works and draws defensible conclusions is your own problem, not that of anyone else investigating this.

That said, I will once again note your refusal to acknowledge that you have been told already that the shots and their effects have been duplicated to what would be considered an acceptable degree by any competent investigator.

Quote
Examples of descenting testimony pertaining to autopsy conclusions shows a disregard for opinions contrary to determined outcome and produces unresolovable conflicts within the report itself.

You haven't posted examples, you have posted the opinions of less qualified individuals. You have then decided to argue your case based on the qualifications of the man involved in the autopsy, claiming he was unqualified, when he was manifestly more qualified than any of the other people whose testimony you accept without question.

Who here has a problem with critical review?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 08, 2012, 11:17:35 AM
Profmunkin, you say that the bullet is "unduplicatable". What is your statistical analysis of the number of times a bullet can be shot through the proposed path, and achieve an identical result? And how many times have people actually tried?

The bullet in the documentary was not "identical" but it was not smashed or fragmented, as you assume it should be. I'd be much more suspicious if they concluded, "Yes, this bullet is absolutely identical to the first one."
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 08, 2012, 11:32:55 AM
Even Oswald himself could not have repeated any of his shots with exactly the same results. Indeed, each of his shots had a very different result. That's how the real world works.

It drives me nuts when I watch shows trying to recreate the shooting. They all try to get two hits from three shots in 6 seconds. That's not what Oswald was trying to do. Oswald was trying to kill JFK. The recreation should stop as soon as the JFK target is hit in the head. Most experienced shooters would succeed on their first shot, some may require two shots. Do the producers of these shows really think Oswald said to himself, "I think I'll shoot him in the shoulder then I'll shoot him in the head but first I'll miss the limo completely."?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 08, 2012, 12:52:47 PM
Potential to explore a conspiracy, I think not.
Case Closed.

'Treason doth never prosper: what ’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason'

That about sums it up.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 08, 2012, 12:55:31 PM
Personally I prefer haikus.

lone nut sniper's nest
shots fired at the motorcade
back and to the left
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 08, 2012, 01:27:29 PM
Potential to explore a conspiracy, I think not.
Case Closed.

When you bring something sensible to the discussion we'll explore it. Your inability to understand why it is impossible to duplicate the condition of a bullet precisely is indicative of your entire problem, as is your continuing refusal to acknowledge that the shots and their effects have been reasonably well duplicated anyway. The potential for discussion rests with you and what you are willing to provide, prof.

But I guess it makes you feel better to blame us for it and retire than to actually concede your own faults, huh?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 08, 2012, 01:38:04 PM
To be perfectly honest, once I see someone refer to that bullet as "pristine," I know they've turned their critical thinking off.  And it isn't just because the bullet isn't pristine by any reasonable definition.

There is this idea called "loaded language."  That is words which are so full of background or context that they cannot be used without the context behind them being a part of the discussion, even if no one says anything.  And so far as I can tell, that's why the CT community has jumped on the word "pristine" to describe that particular bullet.  And it is only ever described that way in conspiracist literature, and that is the only word they use.  They use it over and over and over again, even though humans don't generally talk about bullets that way.  I mean, think about it.  If you're looking at a box of ammunition, would you describe its contents as "pristine"?  Of course not!  That's ludicrous.

Really, the word conspiracists think they want is "undamaged."  (Again, this is because they've never really looked at the bullet in question, but let it go.)  "Pristine" has a connotation, however, of purity.  Innocence.  A "pristine" bullet is one that, by definition, could not have been used in the commission of a crime.  Not because of any markings or lack thereof, but because, by implication, it could not be anything bad.

Do I think conspiracists think this out?  No.  I think the first person to use it might well have done so, though I'll admit I don't know who that was or when.  But I think the continued use of a word that is both inaccurate and loaded can only be from someone who has surrendered all rational thought to merely parroting the bad research and hyperbolic language of the conspiracist community.  I become certain of that when it's someone who is apparently incapable of even noticing serious rebuttals like, "Seriously.  Watch Unsolved History.  You can see that shot almost perfectly duplicated."
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: DataCable on May 08, 2012, 08:39:48 PM
Example of excepting evidence such as 'pristine bullet' on the grounds that it maybe plausable, but unduplicatable, shows a disregard for critical review.

"Accepting"

Oh, and BTW:
NOT
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif)
PRISTINE
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 08, 2012, 08:43:16 PM
Potential to explore a conspiracy, I think not.
Case Closed.

'Treason doth never prosper: what ’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason'

That about sums it up.

There's certainly no chance to explore it when you play "guess what's in the box" with your evidence.

You sincerely believe, I presume, that there were six shooters in three locations. Why are you afraid to show what led you to that specific conclusion? Why not three shooters in two locations? Five shooters, five locations?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 08, 2012, 10:56:12 PM
Heck, why not a single shooter in a different location?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 09, 2012, 01:30:28 AM
Heck, why not a single shooter in a different location?
Like the extreme northwest corner of the roof of the Dal-Tex building across Houston St from the TSBD. Dale Meyer's computer model shows it as the only place (other than Oswald's window) with the correct geometry for shot #2.

And it can't even see the limousine at shot #3. Blocked by the TSBD. I suppose that means one shot came from each place, huh? And since shot #1 missed entirely and we know almost nothing about its trajectory, it could have been shot from practically anywhere in Dealy Plaza. So that one must have been taken by a third shooter in yet another location...

I swear, if I listen to these conspiracy nuts much longer my brain is going to explode. Remember Johnny Cochran's "Chewbacca Defense" on South Park? He obviously learned it from the JFK conspiracists.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 09, 2012, 07:49:06 AM
Heck, why not a single shooter in a different location?

Heck, why not one shooter in multiple locations.  That would really have confused the investigators and has almost equal plausibility with the Grassy Knoll shot.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Mr Gorsky on May 09, 2012, 11:10:30 AM
I don't generally wade in on the JFK stuff ... interesting as I find it to read the evidence and learn more about it. However, one thing jumps out at me, and there is a parallel here with the "911 Truth" stuff.

If there was a conspiracy, and they wanted to convince the world that the assassination was the work of one man, then there would be inherent risk in having more than one shooter. Imagine if there were two shooters, for example, both hit Kennedy from different angles, and the bullets remained in his body. Now you have clear evidence of two shooters and ballistics evidence showing clearly two different weapons fired from two different positions. Makes it kind of hard to argue a lone gunman.

If the conspiracy wants three shooters in three locations to make sure of the kill, then surely what you do is set up three patsies to take the fall for it. Or am I over-simplifying.

As I say, this just reminds me of the 911 stuff. If you want to convince the world that a jet airliner crashed into the world trade centre towers, why argue for missiles and hologram projections and all the other junk. Surely the conspirators (being powerful people and all) would just have found a way to crash jet airliners into the building.

Just like the airliners themselves are not proof that 911 was not a conspiracy, Oswald as lone assassin of JFK is not proof that there was no conspiracy there either. Surely anyone believing that either of these were conspiracies US government conspiracies has to begin their examination with an assumption that the established method by which the action was carried out is true, but the motivation and persons ultimately responsible are not as reported.

Everything else is just white noise until that can be put to bed.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 09, 2012, 11:24:07 AM
If the conspiracy wants three shooters in three locations to make sure of the kill, then surely what you do is set up three patsies to take the fall for it. Or am I over-simplifying.

No, your mistake is applying logic to the conspiracy theory. Those two never quite meet...
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 09, 2012, 12:04:38 PM
If the conspiracy wants three shooters in three locations to make sure of the kill, then surely what you do is set up three patsies to take the fall for it. Or am I over-simplifying.

Simple. You are insufficiently conspiratorially aware!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 09, 2012, 12:26:17 PM
I agree. I think that conspiratorialists look for overly complicated plots, because that's what would provide them with the "anomalies" they see.

For example, with 9/11, the simplest solution, should the PTB want to bring the towers down, would be to have an agent in bin Ladin's camp to hatch the plan, and make sure that it's implemented. Or, failing that, to create one's own splinter cell. The rest of the plot goes as generally accepted.  The trouble with that is that it's basically unprovable by someone at home with Google as their main investigative tool. So, such people prefer to see controlled demolition, and voice-morphed phone calls, and holographic planes - those things can be spotted (they believe) with the tools they have at hand. It's a little like looking under the streetlight for the keys you lost two blocks away, because the light's better there.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 09, 2012, 12:36:16 PM
For example, with 9/11, the simplest solution, should the PTB want to bring the towers down, would be to have an agent in bin Ladin's camp to hatch the plan, and make sure that it's implemented.

It is interesting that this is what the CIA did in the recently foiled underwear bombing plot, so the news reports say.  They had an agent infiltrate a Yemeni Al Qaeda cell and volunteer to be the suicide bomber, but on leaving the camp, he returned to CIA instead.  If they can infiltrate Al Qaeda now, it stands to reason that they could have in the pre 9/11 days.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 09, 2012, 01:10:20 PM
Oh, yeah.  In my "let's make this conspiracy theory work" thought exercises, I always start with the physical evidence.  (It's one of the reasons Apollo is impossible to make into a working conspiracy theory!)  I never bother with stolen bodies or exploding rebar, though that latter is still my absolute favourite invention of a conspiracist.  It's not that I don't believe the government ever lies; I know better.  It's that I don't think the government is stupid enough for most of the lies these people assume are being told.  If you want JFK to be a conspiracy, the easiest way to do it is to put someone else into the sniper's nest and assume Oswald is what he said he was--a patsy.  Of course, I've never been able to make him innocent of the murder of Tippit, but why assume he had to have killed both, if you insist on a conspiracy?  If you insist on a conspiracy, why assume the two are even related?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 11, 2012, 02:56:01 PM
This is the one CT family I used to believe in. Well, belief might be too strong a word, so maybe I should say I had seen and read enough JFK CT material that it had put doubts about the "official story" in my mind. It was nothing I ever took too seriously, and for years I didn't think about it much nor look into it further.

Sometime in the early 2000s I found some internet forums where it was being debated, and these debates pushed me into researching it further. It didn't take long for me to realize the various CT theories were almost all pure bunk.

I just can't understand how anyone who has really looked at the (credible) evidence could come to any other conclusion than that LHO killed JFK, and then killed Tippit, at least beyond any reasonable doubt. I think the only CT argument that could be made is that Oswald was working for or with someone else; and there is simply no credible evidence of this either, not to mention Lee's biography seems to indicate he wasn't one to play well with others.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 11, 2012, 03:12:10 PM
Yeah, Lee was a character, all right.  He was in a lot of ways a terrible human being.  And yet somehow, we're supposed to believe him when he said he was innocent, as if no one in all of history had ever lied about their guilt in a crime.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 11, 2012, 03:22:18 PM
Yeah, Lee was a character, all right.  He was in a lot of ways a terrible human being.  And yet somehow, we're supposed to believe him when he said he was innocent, as if no one in all of history had ever lied about their guilt in a crime.
Exactly. After all, prisons are full of "innocent" people.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 11, 2012, 08:29:42 PM
And it's not as though Lee Oswald had an impeccable record regarding the truth, either.  He lied about plenty of things.  Things which are matters of public record and undisputed even by most conspiracists.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 12, 2012, 12:03:41 AM
And it's not as though Lee Oswald had an impeccable record regarding the truth, either.  He lied about plenty of things.  Things which are matters of public record and undisputed even by most conspiracists.
Including his answers to just about every relevant question during his 12 hours of interrogation.

I recently had some JFK conspiracist repeatedly demand that I explain why the judge in the Abraham Bolden bribery case took the fifth when the Court of Appeals asked if he had suborned perjury during the trial. He really seemed to feel that this one action by a judge, in a case having nothing to do with the assassination, somehow proved JFK was killed by a massive conspiracy that included the Secret Service. Yet he has absolutely nothing to say about Oswald's long string of provable lies, e.g., telling his "curtain rod" story to Wesley Frazier and then denying to the police that he had done so. Frazier estimated the length of the package at 28", the disassembled rifle was 34", so the package couldn't possibly have contained the rifle and Oswald wasn't the killer despite a mountain of evidence. End of story.

You really wonder if these people are serious, and if so, whether they're sane.



Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 12, 2012, 12:09:24 AM
I am not a religious person, but if I had the usual beliefs I would be convinced that down in hell Lee Harvey Oswald is laughing his head off at how many gullible people he has managed to fool for nearly 50 years now.

"I said I was a patsy and they actually believed me!"

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 12, 2012, 02:59:33 AM
Actually, I'm inclined the other way.  I think conspiracism is Lee's punishment.  After all, he really wanted to be important.  It's what he wanted most of all.  And yet it's generally agreed by an awful lot of people that he simply wasn't important enough to do the one thing he thought would make people pay attention to him.  If Lee is aware of what is happening here on Earth, he's furious.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 12, 2012, 11:19:01 AM
Life on earth was Oswald's hell.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 12, 2012, 11:58:09 AM
Actually, I'm inclined the other way.  I think conspiracism is Lee's punishment.  After all, he really wanted to be important.  It's what he wanted most of all.  And yet it's generally agreed by an awful lot of people that he simply wasn't important enough to do the one thing he thought would make people pay attention to him.  If Lee is aware of what is happening here on Earth, he's furious.

I agree - the "patsy" comment was, I think, his way of setting himself up as a martyr for communism like the Rosenbergs, simultaneously a persecuted innocent and a soldier of the cause. Under the conspiracists, Oswald has effectively disappeared as a human being.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 12, 2012, 12:40:28 PM
Life on earth was Oswald's hell.

Lee's life on Earth was Marina's Hell.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 12, 2012, 02:24:51 PM
Life on earth was Oswald's hell.

Lee's life on Earth was Marina's Hell.
No doubt.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Not Myself on May 12, 2012, 03:23:25 PM
It didn't take long for me to realize the various CT theories were almost all pure bunk.

You just lack the predisposition to believe :)

I just can't understand how anyone who has really looked at the (credible) evidence could come to any other conclusion than that LHO killed JFK, and then killed Tippit, at least beyond any reasonable doubt.

That's certainly my impression.

I think the only CT argument that could be made is that Oswald was working for or with someone else; and there is simply no credible evidence of this either, not to mention Lee's biography seems to indicate he wasn't one to play well with others.

It's going to be impossible to disprove that possibility categorically, but I've got to agree - if you want to kill the president of the United States, I'm not sure Lee Harvey Oswald is someone you'd want on your team.

The non-falsifiability of the hypothesis is a bit of a bugger though.

The mentality that absence of a simple, immediately obvious explanation for something somehow "proves" whatever conclusion one is inclined to reach seems to be behind a lot of the CTs, although this sort of thinking is certainly not limited to CTs.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 13, 2012, 07:04:16 AM
Here's an intriguing question to which we'll never know the answer: Where was Oswald headed when he encountered Officer Tippit?

Somewhere (from Posner's Case Closed?) I heard this halfway plausible hypothesis: if he was headed anywhere at all, it was back to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. Uncle Fidel would finally realize just how important Oswald really was and just how foolish he'd been to reject Oswald's previous offer of his services. He'd be bursting with gratitude for the huge blow Oswald had just struck for his Revolution. Why, he'd get down on his knees and beg Oswald to come to Cuba and take his rightful place by his side.

I think Oswald had enough cash on him for the bus trip.

Had Oswald not shot Tippit and been quickly arrested for it, the police would still have quickly traced his rifle and identified Oswald as their prime suspect. The world would have known it within hours. So can you imagine the look on the faces of the Cuban consular officials had Oswald strolled back in their door a week after the assassination?

Oswald may have been a delusional, self-important nutjob but Castro wasn't suicidal. The Cubans would have reacted like Oswald was made of high-level nuclear waste.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 13, 2012, 10:13:21 AM
That is indeed plausible, since Oswald had romanticized Cuba as his ideal revolutionary spot. Of course, it may be that Oswald really hadn't thought it through to the point of "... and after the shooting, I will ...."
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 13, 2012, 10:30:18 AM
Oswald heard the motorcade would drive by the TSBD on Wednesday. He no doubt knew his odds of making a clean getaway were slim but I think the opportunity to become famous overrode that.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Not Myself on May 13, 2012, 11:30:01 AM
The Cubans would have reacted like Oswald was made of high-level nuclear waste.

That's my guess as well.  But I suppose short of finding a letter from Havana that says, "In the event Lee Harvey Oswald assassinates Kennedy and asks for asylum, turn him down", I guess we'll never know for sure :)
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 13, 2012, 01:19:09 PM
I'm not sure Oswald was really thinking at all by that point.  After all, while he may have had the money (I'm not sure, either!), he certainly wasn't carrying much of anything else.  I think he may have just been having the typical juvenile reaction to doing things wrong--"run away!"  The fact that there wasn't much of anywhere for him to run would have been obvious to a student of history (say, someone who's read about Booth's "escape"), but not necessarily Lee.  But if he had any plans, yes, they probably involved Cuba.  Lee wasn't very good at details.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 13, 2012, 07:51:02 PM
I generally agree that Oswald probably wasn't thinking that far ahead. He had a demonstrated history of doing stupid things without regard to the consequences even with lots of planning. He'd planned his defection to the USSR for years, and his attempt on Walker for at least several months. He even delayed it to a night when a nearby church would be having services so he could escape into the crowd.

Although he anticipated being caught or killed (hence his note to Marina) his escape plan actually worked. Witnesses cited people getting into cars and driving off after the shooting when Oswald was actually on foot and took the bus. The Walker shooting remained unsolved until after the JFK assassination when Marina finally revealed it.

So when Oswald heard that JFK would ride by his place of work in just a few days, he had very little time for planning. Undoubtedly he felt that he just couldn't pass up the opportunity of a lifetime even if he were quickly caught or killed. And if something had gone wrong, say the limousine had the bubble-top or he couldn't set up an assassins' nest and remain hidden until 12:30, he could always call it all off. He could have quietly carried his rifle back home in the bag and no one would ever have known.

Still, a lot of conspiracists correctly point out that every other presidential assassin (and would-be assassin) readily confessed his role immediately after the act, and they do raise the interesting question of why Oswald was the sole exception. They claim this was because he was truly innocent, which is of course just utterly absurd to anyone who knows even a sprinkling of the real facts. For one thing, the other attempts had all used pistols at close range with a crowd of witnesses. Ruby might as well have denied shooting Oswald. JFK is the only president assassinated by a hidden sniper, although there were still quite a few good witnesses to the actual shooting.

Oswald made many obvious attempts, both before and after, to establish alibis and to escape. He bought his guns under an assumed name. He went out of his way to lamely pretend to one of his co-workers several hours before the assassination that he hadn't been aware of the upcoming motorcade that everyone had been buzzing about for days. When he left the Depository about 3 minutes after the shooting, he walked east on Elm Street and got on a bus that would take him right back through Dealy Plaza. After he took the cab to Oak Cliff, he had the cabbie drop him off several blocks past his roominghouse so he could see if the police were already there and to keep the cabbie from knowing where he actually went.

And the biggie, of course, is murdering Officer Tippit. Most of the conspiracy nuts just ignore it because it simply can't be explained as anything but a desperate attempt to escape arrest for a very serious crime. We'll never know what they said to each other, but Tippit almost certainly stopped him because he matched Brennan's description of the assassin that had been broadcast on the radio several times. It's possible that Tippit noticed Oswald's gun, but it seems unlikely given the nonchalant way he was seen to get out of his car. Oswald was also concealing it in his jacket. There's some question about whether Tippit was drawing his own gun when Oswald shot him; it was out of its holster when a witness grabbed it to play vigilante but it could have been knocked out when he fell.

We know that Oswald had an extremely high opinion of himself; he may have actually thought he could fool his interrogators. Certainly many other suspects have thought so only to find out otherwise at trial. Maybe Oswald's confidence was bolstered further by having gotten away with his attempt on Walker. Only once did he became flustered during his twelve hours of interrogation, when he was confronted with the backyard photos of him posing with his guns.

Oswald may have been delusional in thinking he could fool trained and experienced investigators, but he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams in fooling the public. Had he simply confessed, the entire JFK conspiracy industry never would have existed. I think it's an example of the "big lie" principle in action. Most people don't tell huge lies over and over, so when they see Oswald hotly maintaining his innocence against a mountain of incriminating evidence, they begin to wonder if that mountain really exists.

Hey, it worked for OJ Simpson.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 13, 2012, 08:06:35 PM
That's my guess as well.  But I suppose short of finding a letter from Havana that says, "In the event Lee Harvey Oswald assassinates Kennedy and asks for asylum, turn him down", I guess we'll never know for sure :)
Actually, I think we do know. Castro gave an interview saying that it would have been absolutely suicidal for him to even try to assassinate JFK. He said that would have provoked an all-out US military attack on Cuba. He's almost certainly right.

The Cuban consular officials testified that when Oswald showed up in Mexico city demanding a visa, they thought he was an unstable nutcase and turned him away. All the evidence seems to back that up.

We'll never know what went through Oswald's mind, but it certainly seems plausible that his love for Castro was a large part of his motive. He desperately wanted to join their revolution and had been turned away. What better way to impress them with his revolutionary ardour than killing Castro's most powerful and outspoken adversary, JFK?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 13, 2012, 08:26:01 PM
Lee's life on Earth was Marina's Hell.
I suspect her hell has been living for nearly 50 years knowing that she was the only person on earth who could have prevented the assassination but didn't. Had she turned him in for the Walker attempt, JFK (and Tippit) would have lived. So would Oswald himself unless Texas also executes for attempted murder.

I think this is why Marina has more recently sided with the conspiracists. If she can persuade herself that her husband was innocent, then she doesn't have to feel guilty about her inaction.

But her original take was the far more accurate one. Bugliosi makes an excellent point. If you heard that the President had just been shot, is there someone you know whom you'd immediately wonder about? Marina was outside hanging up clothes when she heard that JFK had been shot. She was so worried that she went into Ruth Paine's garage to see if Lee's rifle was still in its blanket. Thinking it was still there (she didn't actually unfold it) she breathed a sigh of relief. When the police arrived later that afternoon and found the blanket empty, she turned white.

Much the same was true for Jack Ruby. Hardly anybody who knew him was particularly surprised at what he'd done.

Oswald and Ruby were polar opposites in some ways; Oswald was an extreme introvert while Ruby was an extreme extrovert. But both had demonstrated a capacity for violence without regard to its consequences. And both their actions were consistent with their personalities as their friends and families knew them. The same people laugh at any suggestion that either was part of any conspiracy.

 

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 14, 2012, 12:00:10 AM
Actually, I think Oswald was likely reasonably sophisticated in his thinking upon his capture. By immediately confessing, he would be seen, by many, as just some poor insane person, and quicly forgotten, in jail or worse, a mental institution.

But denying it? He could play that out for months - years. And he would finally get on center stage with the world, as the Martyr for Communism. It's a paranoid's dream - to have the attention of the whole world, as you proclaim how Everyone Is Out to Get You (even if you did what they say you did).

Actually escaping would probably have left him feeling very unfulfilled. I imagine he would have, somehow, arranged his own capture, even if he wasn't conscious that that was what he was doing.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 14, 2012, 12:29:47 AM
I tend to agree. He could always confess later (or so he thought), but once made a confession would have been impossible to retract. His trial would have been a huge spectacle, but he wouldn't have gotten one by pleading guilty.

He had murdered the most powerful and famous victim imaginable. With overwhelming evidence, there's no way that the prosecutor would have offered any kind of plea bargain. Nor would he have settled for anything less than the death penalty, so Oswald would have had nothing to lose by pleading not guilty and going to trial.
 

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 14, 2012, 12:48:56 AM
I think if he hadn't killed Tippit he would have confessed. Norman Mailer said it best. "But if you shoot a policeman, forget it. You're a punk."

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 14, 2012, 04:04:47 AM
See, this is part of why I'm so much more into JFK than Apollo, as far as conspiracies go.  The psychology of Lee Harvey Oswald is fascinating.  Heck, the psychology of half the people involved in the assassination.  Poor Marina--who almost certainly would have been better off if she'd never met him back in Minsk.  That egomaniac Jack Ruby.  Jackie Kennedy's state of shock and what her grief did to hamper the investigation.  Apollo is all about people at their best, and that's great and inspiring.  However, there's something to watching what people are like at their worst that's more interesting.  Does that make me a bad person?  And if it does, how many people are bad people right along with me?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 14, 2012, 06:52:24 PM
I think if he hadn't killed Tippit he would have confessed. Norman Mailer said it best. "But if you shoot a policeman, forget it. You're a punk."
I was going to quote that, because I've been thinking about it. If he would have confessed had he not shot Tippit, then why did he shoot Tippit? In fact, why did he run?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 14, 2012, 08:26:33 PM
See, this is part of why I'm so much more into JFK than Apollo, as far as conspiracies go.  The psychology of Lee Harvey Oswald is fascinating.  Heck, the psychology of half the people involved in the assassination.  Poor Marina--who almost certainly would have been better off if she'd never met him back in Minsk.  That egomaniac Jack Ruby.  Jackie Kennedy's state of shock and what her grief did to hamper the investigation.  Apollo is all about people at their best, and that's great and inspiring.  However, there's something to watching what people are like at their worst that's more interesting.  Does that make me a bad person?  And if it does, how many people are bad people right along with me?
If you're a bad person, so am I. I don't think we are though  :)
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Not Myself on May 14, 2012, 08:56:48 PM
If you're a bad person, so am I. I don't think we are though  :)

I am!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 15, 2012, 12:27:50 AM
The psychology of Lee Harvey Oswald is fascinating.  Heck, the psychology of half the people involved in the assassination.  Poor Marina--who almost certainly would have been better off if she'd never met him back in Minsk.  That egomaniac Jack Ruby.
You're absolutely right. All this has a very practical use, too. If you can understand what made Oswald tick, you have a much better chance to keep future would-be assassins from suceeding.

Bugliosi puts it very well: the one profile that Oswald matched perfectly was that of a presidential assassin. This is something the conspiracists have almost completely obscured in their quest to "prove" that someone, anyone but Oswald did it.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 15, 2012, 12:49:02 AM
There are a lot of people in history I can feel sorry for, and Lee simply isn't one of them.  Oh, he had to put up with his mother, and that was pretty miserable.  But I don't think Lee would have been a substantially better person even with a better mother.  I mean, Robert turned out okay--and Robert thought his brother had done it, too.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 16, 2012, 09:09:23 PM
Been reading Warren Commission testimonies
You guys should read this stuff
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Laurel on May 16, 2012, 09:26:19 PM
Been reading Warren Commission testimonies
You guys should read this stuff

Who are you addressing this to? More than one poster in this thread has already read them and told you so.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 16, 2012, 09:34:17 PM
We did.

Quote
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between the first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore characterized as the third shot?
Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to say a matter of seconds. I don't know, 10, 12 seconds. It was extremely rapid, so much so that again I thought that whoever was firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots; a very short period of time.

Back up the Zapruder film 10 seconds from the head shot. Zapruder's camera recorded 18.3 frames per second. According to Connally's shortest duration estimate the first shot was at frame 313-18.3*10 = 130. The assassination sequence of the Zapruder doesn't even start until frame 133. According to Connally the first shot was fired before Zapruder started filming.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 16, 2012, 10:58:25 PM
Been reading Warren Commission testimonies
You guys should read this stuff

Glad to hear it. Hopefully, you will be able to eventually provide a concise and well-supported description of what you believe did happen, rather than what you do not believe. Then your ideas can also be subject ot the sort of rigorous examination that can establish their probability.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 16, 2012, 11:57:17 PM
Personally, I will not be holding my breath for it.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 17, 2012, 09:49:23 AM
Been reading Warren Commission testimonies
You guys should read this stuff

So have you discovered the locations of the "3 shooters" who made the "6 shots" yet?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 17, 2012, 08:42:41 PM
Would you believe 1 shooter and 4 shots?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: DataCable on May 17, 2012, 09:29:07 PM
Would you present your evidence so we don't have to rely on mere belief?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 17, 2012, 09:38:56 PM
Sure if you can tell me where the WC got it's evidence that the shots came from the TSBD?
Which witness in Dealey Plaza thought that the TSBD was were the shots came from?

So far I have yet to read any testimonies supporting TSBD as the location for the shots
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: DataCable on May 17, 2012, 09:56:41 PM
So then, you don't actually have any evidence for 1 shooter (presumably not Oswald) firing 4 shots from an as yet unspecified location.  Is that correct?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 17, 2012, 11:02:41 PM
So then, you don't actually have any evidence for 1 shooter (presumably not Oswald) firing 4 shots from an as yet unspecified location.  Is that correct?
4? 3 or 4

Yes I do, if you can tell me if witness's testimonies to the Warren Commission is acceptable evidence?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 17, 2012, 11:36:42 PM
Stop being coy. You come off as disingenuous. Tell us your 3 shooter, 6 shot scenario.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 17, 2012, 11:45:33 PM
prof, how many bullets hit Connally?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 17, 2012, 11:54:26 PM
prof, how many bullets hit Connally?
1
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 17, 2012, 11:55:20 PM
Stop being coy. You come off as disingenuous. Tell us your 3 shooter, 6 shot scenario.
chew there is not 3 shooters and 6 shots
that is conspiracy non-sense
there was only 1 shooter
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 17, 2012, 11:59:45 PM
Stop being coy. You come off as disingenuous. Tell us your 3 shooter, 6 shot scenario.
chew there is not 3 shooters and 6 shots
that is conspiracy non-sense
there was only 1 shooter

Now stop being facetious.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 18, 2012, 12:03:54 AM
Stop being coy. You come off as disingenuous. Tell us your 3 shooter, 6 shot scenario.
chew there is not 3 shooters and 6 shots
that is conspiracy non-sense
there was only 1 shooter

We can agree on that much. But just to refresh your memory, the "3 shooters and 6 shots" nonsense is your nonsense. And now you're trying to distance yourself from it because it's an unsupportable claim.

So who is the shooter, if not Oswald? And where did the shots come from? No more games... if you are going to make a claim just make it now.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 18, 2012, 12:05:02 AM
So far I have yet to read any testimonies supporting TSBD as the location for the shots


Read more.  Since a majority of the people in Dealey Plaza thought that was where the shots came from, and since that's where the ballistic evidence indicates the shots came from, there's bound to be a lot of people stating that it's where the shots came from.  If you haven't found it, it's because you aren't looking.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 18, 2012, 12:12:52 AM
Please tell me, do we afford any weight to a testimony from a WC witness that has several exchanges like the followling;

"Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. BRENNAN. Positively two. I do not recall a second shot--
Mr. BELIN. By a second shot, you mean a middle shot between the time you heard the first noise and the last noise?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes; that is right. I don't know what made me think that there was firecrackers throwed out of the Book Store unless I did hear the second shot, because I positively thought the first shot was a backfire, and subconsciously must have heard a second shot, but I do not recall it. I could not swear to it."

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 18, 2012, 12:26:27 AM
Please tell me, do we afford any weight to a testimony from a WC witness that has several exchanges like the followling;

"Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. BRENNAN. Positively two. I do not recall a second shot--
Mr. BELIN. By a second shot, you mean a middle shot between the time you heard the first noise and the last noise?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes; that is right. I don't know what made me think that there was firecrackers throwed out of the Book Store unless I did hear the second shot, because I positively thought the first shot was a backfire, and subconsciously must have heard a second shot, but I do not recall it. I could not swear to it."

Taken in context that he just previously said he thought the first sound he heard was a motorcycle backfire, a fact that you "conveniently" left out, I would understand his confusion.

You say he had several exchanges like that. Please include the other exchanges like that.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 18, 2012, 01:19:12 AM
We can agree on that much. But just to refresh your memory, the "3 shooters and 6 shots" nonsense is your nonsense. And now you're trying to distance yourself from it because it's an unsupportable claim.

So who is the shooter, if not Oswald? And where did the shots come from? No more games... if you are going to make a claim just make it now.
[/quote]

Using Warren Commission testimonies, virtually every witness testimony I have studied so far overwhelmingly supports a consensus that all of the shots came from the grassy knoll, there may have been 3 or 4 shots, in the following sequence; Bham....Bham.Bham or Bham....Bham.BhamBham. Seems some people had a hard time distinguishing 3 shot or 4
This may have been an individuals hearing ability differences or what is actually possible to sense from the location of a witness in relation to the direction of each shot.
The shots most likely came from on top of the grassy knoll and most probably behind the picket fence. Evidence of smoke corroborated by many witnesses. Evidence of 2 men behind picket fence corroborated by many witnesses.

1 shooter, 1 spotter
Shot 1:JFK front of neck, out his back, bullet hits street and is noticed by witnesses.
Not positive if shot 2 hits JFK or JC, there is significant evidence for either scenario
Anyway.
Limo slows almost to a halt some time in here.
For now I will go with... Shot 2:JFK gets hit on the back right portion of his head, propelling his head back and to the left while disintegrating a round 5 inch portion of his head, splattering Hargis and Martin with body fluids and the exited bullet then burroughed into grass on far side of Elm and is noticed by witnesses and the authorities. This is supported by testimonies and interesting pictures showing authorities had recovered the bullet fragment from the grass.

Shot 3:JC gets hit in the back-wrist-leg
Limo speeds up
Time for 1 last very quick shot

Shot:4 hits the molding around the windscreen and a shard hits the windshield, another hits sidewalk then nicks Tague.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 18, 2012, 06:49:28 AM
Please tell me, do we afford any weight to a testimony from a WC witness that has several exchanges like the followling;

Tell me, prof, have you ever considered how difficult it might be to pin down a number of short sharp 'crack' sounds in a large open space  with buildings on multiple sides, full of people as:

a) rifle shots
b) a precise number of rifle shots
b) a precise number of rifle shots coming from a precise location?

Consider that for a) you must be able to identify a rifle report from a car or motorcycle backfire, or a firecracker, or an impact of some kind, and that for b) you must consider when you realised they were rifle shots (i.e. when you noticed someone had been shot); whether or not all of the sounds you heard were rifle shots; whether you might be hearing sounds reflected from nearby buildings; whether you might in fact also hear the sound of one shot twice: once from the rifle and once from the echo off a nearby building; and so on.

The inability of every witness to say they all heard three shots from the TSBD is not only not anomalous, it is expected. Given the acoustic complexity of the environment it would in fact be more anomalous if every witness did report hearing exactly three shots from the TSBD.

Oh, and your continuing refusal to acknowledge that the shots and their effects have been duplicated is noted yet again.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 18, 2012, 06:55:22 AM
there is not 3 shooters and 6 shots
that is conspiracy non-sense

That 'nonsense' is the claim you presented as the title of this entire discussion.

Quote
Shot 1:JFK front of neck, out his back, bullet hits street and is noticed by witnesses.

Where is the evidence of an exit wound in JFK's back? The back wound is most definitely not the result of a bullet exiting after passing through the tissues of his neck.

Quote
Shot 3:JC gets hit in the back-wrist-leg

Please explain how one shooter on the grassy knoll can have shot JFK in the front of his neck and then, seconds later, hit Connally in the back.

Quote
Shot:4 hits the molding around the windscreen and a shard hits the windshield, another hits sidewalk then nicks Tague.

Please explain how a bullet hitting the surround of the windshield can have possibly resulted in a shard travelling in the correct direction to then impact the windshield itself.

Please provide the physical evidence that supports your notion over:

Shot 1: Missed. Bullet hits street and is noticed by witnesses.

Shot 2: Bullet hits JFK above the scapula, passes through his neck and out his throat, then hits Connally in the back, through his chest, his wrist and finally into his leg.

Shot 3: Bullet hits JFK in back right of head, blowing skull and brain matter out in a spray that forces his head back and to the left, while a skull fragment hits the windshield and cracks it.

Please note, the two human impacts described have been duplicated.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 18, 2012, 08:45:27 AM
1 shooter, 1 spotter
Shot 1:JFK front of neck, out his back,

If the bullet wound was so low in JFK's back, as you've fought to maintain despite the autopsy report proving otherwise, the bullet would have entered the seat JFK was sitting on.


Quote
bullet hits street and is noticed by witnesses.
Not positive if shot 2 hits JFK or JC, there is significant evidence for either scenario
Anyway.
Limo slows almost to a halt some time in here.
For now I will go with... Shot 2:JFK gets hit on the back right portion of his head, propelling his head back and to the left

JFK's head jerked forward 2 inches between frame 312 and 313.


Quote
while disintegrating a round 5 inch portion of his head, splattering Hargis and Martin with body fluids and the exited bullet then burroughed into grass on far side of Elm

Citation needed for where this bullet went.


Quote
and is noticed by witnesses and the authorities. This is supported by testimonies and interesting pictures showing authorities had recovered the bullet fragment from the grass.

The alleged men in black who allegedly recovered a bullet from the grass were photographed down by the triple underpass. In other words they would have been directly in front of limo at the time of the head shot.


Quote

Shot 3:JC gets hit in the back-wrist-leg

Are you seriously suggesting ONE bullet did all that damage to Connally and emerged in "pristine" condition??? Sounds like a magic bullet to me.

If one bullet cold do all that, is it that much of a stretch to say this magic bullet also went through JFK before hitting Connally?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 18, 2012, 09:56:21 AM
Please tell me, do we afford any weight to a testimony from a WC witness that has several exchanges like the followling;

"Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. BRENNAN. Positively two. I do not recall a second shot--
Mr. BELIN. By a second shot, you mean a middle shot between the time you heard the first noise and the last noise?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes; that is right. I don't know what made me think that there was firecrackers throwed out of the Book Store unless I did hear the second shot, because I positively thought the first shot was a backfire, and subconsciously must have heard a second shot, but I do not recall it. I could not swear to it."

Um, yes. It may be fuzzy, but that sounds to me like someone trying hard to be as accurate as possible about something startling that happened in a few seconds.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 18, 2012, 10:05:08 AM
Would you believe 1 shooter and 4 shots?

Well, it's more believable than 6 shots, 3 locations, but that's not saying that much. Why, then, did you start the discussion with that proposal? Surely you didn't intend to start with a straw man, so after it was agreed such a proposal was silly, you could then say, "Well, then, my suggestion about one shooter, 4 shots, looks pretty good comparatively!"?

I suppose I could start a thread saying "JFK was killed by 10 tribal headhunters equipped with blowguns and RPGs", but it wouldn't advance the discussion significantly.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 18, 2012, 11:48:43 AM
there is not 3 shooters and 6 shots
that is conspiracy non-sense

That 'nonsense' is the claim you presented as the title of this entire discussion.
Jason: It is indeed is the claim he started this thread with, but to be fair, in this post he screwed up and deleted the first quote tag from a post by Lunar Orbit.
We can agree on that much. But just to refresh your memory, the "3 shooters and 6 shots" nonsense is your nonsense. And now you're trying to distance yourself from it because it's an unsupportable claim.

So who is the shooter, if not Oswald? And where did the shots come from? No more games... if you are going to make a claim just make it now.
Prof: You might want to proof read better to avoid such confusion.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 18, 2012, 12:00:09 PM
Shot 3:JC gets hit in the back-wrist-leg
JC was seated in front of JFK, but slightly lower and slightly to the left. How could the round that struck JC in the back not have passed through JFK? And if that is the case, why couldn't the fatal head shot have come from the same shooter? There is, after all, solid physical evidence of a shooter in the TSBD building. As for any other possible shooting locations, all you've presented so far is speculation based on cherry picked eye/ear witness testimony.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 18, 2012, 12:23:43 PM
Using Warren Commission testimonies, virtually every witness testimony I have studied so far overwhelmingly supports a consensus that all of the shots came from the grassy knoll....

But you are entirely unable to reconcile this interpretation with any plausible trajectory of a bullet.  A bullet that hit John Connally could simply not have been fired from above on the front right side.  The position of the GK when he was hit.  The head shot to Kennedy could not have been shot from above and to the right without passing through his skull and hitting Jackie or the limo.

Since your conclusions contradict physical possibilities, there is no option but to believe that your interpretation of the testimony you have read is flawed.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 18, 2012, 12:25:21 PM
Would you believe 1 shooter and 4 shots?

That is my limit when drinking alone.  Now when there are two shooters......
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 18, 2012, 12:59:51 PM
Interesting stuff from reading the WC, it's loads of fun

"Mr. SPECTER - Did you tell the police officials at the time you made this statement that there was a Negro gentleman in the window on the southwest corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building which you have marked with a circle "A"--pardon me, southeast?
Mr. ROWLAND - At that time, no. However, the next day on Saturday there were a pair of FBI officers, agents out at my home, and they took another handwritten statement from me which I signed again, and this was basically the same. At that time I told them I did see the Negro man there and they told me it didn't have any bearing or such on the case right then. In fact, they just the same as told me to forget it now.
Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Reporter, will you please repeat that last answer for us?"

Mr Specter accepted this testimony. If not true why would Spectre not have brought in the FBI agents insinuated to be responsible to testify and impeach Rowland.

Interesting isn't it, sees man with high powered rifle, on 6th floor of the TSBD, but on the wrong side of building, surprise. Surprise, he also sees another man hanging out of the the "snipers nest" window at the same time.
He says the FBI told him "it didn't have any bearing or such on the case right then. In fact, they just the same as told me to forget it now"

Oh by the way Rowland also thought that the 3 shots came from the railyard area, or commonly known as the grassy knoll in front of him, not the TSBD on his right. Bham......Bham..Bham, 1 shot followed by 2 more in quick succession.


Should I continue to post these FBI told me to stories, or can we agree that there is testimonies or evidence the FBI tried to manipulate witnesses so their testimonies would conform to a predetermined fictional story line?

Also I posted that Bowers testified that at least 50 police converged on rr yard immediately after the assassination

here is Rowland testimony

"Mr. SPECTER - How many officers were converging on that area, to the best of your ability to recollect and estimate?
Mr. ROWLAND - I think it would be a very good estimation of 50, maybe more."

Can we agree that 50 or more officers immediately converged on the grassy knoll and rail yards, with the known exclusion of only 1, which was Baker and his reason was he had observed pigions flying off the roof.
 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 18, 2012, 01:08:05 PM
Prof: You might want to proof read better to avoid such confusion.


Any proofreading would be a good start.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 18, 2012, 01:15:06 PM

But you are entirely unable to reconcile this interpretation with any plausible trajectory of a bullet.  A bullet that hit John Connally could simply not have been fired from above on the front right side.  The position of the GK when he was hit.  The head shot to Kennedy could not have been shot from above and to the right without passing through his skull and hitting Jackie or the limo.

Since your conclusions contradict physical possibilities, there is no option but to believe that your interpretation of the testimony you have read is flawed.
Possibly...possibly not
I would like to study more WC testimonies before I attempt to clarify 1 shooter 3 or 4 shots.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 18, 2012, 01:16:45 PM
No, we can't agree to that "50 or so police officers" based on one person's testimony. People under stress do not necessarily count carefully, or remember details precisely.

Now, if you could provide a photo with a picture of those 50 policemen gathering in one area, it would help. In such cases, physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony.

(Oh, but I'm sure that the Men In Black managed to make off with all those pictures, I suppose.)

By the way, is it your proposal that (1) the Dallas police were in on it or (2) the Dallas police were not part of the conspiracy. Because you cannot posit both positions at once. If you believe they were honestly trying to catch the shooter on the knoll, you can't then claim that they were simulateously hiding evidence, etc.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 18, 2012, 01:33:17 PM
Can we agree that 50 or more officers immediately converged on the grassy knoll and rail yards, with the known exclusion of only 1, which was Baker and his reason was he had observed pigions flying off the roof.

There weren't even 50 police officers in the motorcade so no. But I will give you 50 people eventually converged on it. It's called sheep following the other sheep.

I know what you are trying to do with the 50 police officers on the knoll but you have to first ask yourself before jumping to the inevitable patented conspiracy-theorist-conclusion-before-thoroughly-thinking-through-the-implications is if there were so many cops on the knoll how did the assassin get away?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 18, 2012, 03:12:50 PM
Mr. ROWLAND - I think it would be a very good estimation of 50, maybe more."

Can we agree that 50 or more officers immediately converged on the grassy knoll and rail yards, with the known exclusion of only 1, which was Baker and his reason was he had observed pigions flying off the roof.
 

Assuming your transcript is accurate, we certainly can agree that Rowland thought that was the case.  That is really all that can be rung out of this passage, without placing it in context of the entire investigation.

Possibly...possibly not
I would like to study more WC testimonies before I attempt to clarify 1 shooter 3 or 4 shots.

All this time and 31 pages of posts proclaiming a conspiracy and you don't have a hypothesis about what actually happened?  Much less a defensible hypothesis that  includes an explanation of where the shooter(s) were.   
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 18, 2012, 03:54:33 PM
All this time and 31 pages of posts proclaiming a conspiracy and you don't have a hypothesis about what actually happened?  Much less a defensible hypothesis that  includes an explanation of where the shooter(s) were.   

Typical conspiracist thinking, alas.  "I don't know what's right, just that the Official Story (TM) is wrong!"  Usually with ridiculously poor research.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 18, 2012, 04:02:15 PM
I would like to study more WC testimonies before I attempt to clarify 1 shooter 3 or 4 shots.

Why do you need to study testimonies to address the issue that one shooter could not possibly have shot Kennedy from in front and Connally in the back?

And again I note your ongoing refusal to address the duplication of the two shots and their effects.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 18, 2012, 05:33:07 PM
Typical conspiracist thinking, alas. 
Alas yes, but it is fun to sometimes write it as is I were surprised.  Or should I say "shocked."
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 18, 2012, 05:59:14 PM
shaw trial
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/carrshaw.htm
Richard Randolf Carr  WW2 - Ranger
"BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: As the result of the conversations with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, what did you do?
A: I done as I was instructed, I shut my mouth.
Q: Were you called to testify before the Warren Commission?
A: No, sir."

He was on top of court house overlooking Dealey Plaza
4 shots
Bham...Bham.Bham.Bham
His opinion, automatic rifle fire
Coming from picket fence on top of grassy knoll
saw bullet "knock up grass", presumably by Mary Moorman
Hearsay - FBI told him to shut his mouth.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 18, 2012, 06:03:32 PM
I would like to study more WC testimonies before I attempt to clarify 1 shooter 3 or 4 shots.

Why do you need to study testimonies to address the issue that one shooter could not possibly have shot Kennedy from in front and Connally in the back?

And again I note your ongoing refusal to address the duplication of the two shots and their effects.
Hey
I am looking at the evidence in testimonies from the WC.
Should what WC says happened in Dealey Plaza be in accord with what can be corroborated by the witnesses?

I think it may well be possible to illustrate how and I intend to prove it when I am ready. This is not a stall it is getting my ducks in a row.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 18, 2012, 06:31:47 PM
shaw trial
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/carrshaw.htm
Richard Randolf Carr  WW2 - Ranger
"BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: As the result of the conversations with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, what did you do?
A: I done as I was instructed, I shut my mouth.
Q: Were you called to testify before the Warren Commission?
A: No, sir."

The Shaw trial was notable for the number of kooks Garrison put on the stand if nothing else. Carr was no exception.

Quote
Q: Mr. Carr, have you ever heard rifle fire before?
A: I have.
Q: Where?
A: I was a member of the Fifth Ranger Battalion in World War II. I qualified as an expert with a bolt-action rifle which is called a thirty aught six, in the Army it is a 30-caliber rifle, since that time I was -- I used a 225 Winchester, I hunted with a 70 millimeter Remington, I have also loaded my own ammunition, which I do until this day.
Q: Were you ever wounded in action?
A: Yes.
Q: How many times?
MR. DYMOND: I object to that as irrelevant.
THE COURT: That is irrelevant. Why don't you tender Mr. Carr over to the Defense as an expert, at least in the field that he knows a rifle shot when he hears it?
MR. GARRISON: One other question.
BY MR. GARRISON:
Q: Have you ever heard rifle fire in combat?
A: Yes, I have heard rifle fire in combat.
Q: On how many occasions?
A: I was in -- I landed in Casablanca, I went through North Africa, I was in two major offensives in Africa, and from there I went to Anzio beachhead and my battalion was annihilated, 13 men left in the Fifth Ranger Battalion.
Q: How many of these places did you hear rifle fire?
A: In all of them I heard rifle fire, sir.
MR. GARRISON: We tender the witness.

The Fifth Ranger Battalion stood up in September of 43 and first saw action at D-Day. Operation Torch, the Allied landings at Casablanca, happened before the Fifth Rangers existed and the Fifth Rangers were not in the order of battle for Operation Shingle, the Allied invasion of Italy.

Quote
He was on top of court house overlooking Dealey Plaza
4 shots
Bham...Bham.Bham.Bham
His opinion, automatic rifle fire

Which absolutely no one else heard.



Quote
Coming from picket fence on top of grassy knoll
saw bullet "knock up grass", presumably by Mary Moorman

From 250 feet away? Are you serious? Maybe you should do a little credibility checking before you blindly post some yahoo's testimony.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 18, 2012, 07:31:57 PM
Yeah, rule one of JFK conspiracism is that, if Garrison said it's true, triple-check it.  Garrison was not the biggest kook in the field, but he was the most high-profile kook.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 18, 2012, 07:39:48 PM
Hey, prof! Do the mysterious deaths next! Then we can talk about how to properly do statistics.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 18, 2012, 08:26:56 PM
Mrs Baker testimony / standing in front of TSBD / shots came from GK / railyard area

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker.htm
Here talking about shot #1 bullet ricocheting off of street behind limo...
"Mr. LIEBELER. Where was the thing that you saw hit the street in relation to the President's car? I mean, was it in front of the car, behind his car, by the side of his car or was it close to the car?
Mrs. BAKER. I thought it was--well--behind it. "

And the FBI report said:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rachley.htm
"looking in that direction after the first shot she saw something bounce from the roadway in front of the Presidential automobile and now presumes it was a bullet bouncing off the pavement"

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
Mr Skelton told the FBI this and testified, disturbance on street after 1st shot behind JFK limo on drivers side.
Mr. BALL. You saw some smoke come off of the cement?
Mr. SKELTON. Yes."


Proposing that this is shot #1 that hit JFK in the throat and exited from his back, then seen ricocheting off of the street behind the limo.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 18, 2012, 08:42:42 PM
Mrs Baker testimony / standing in front of TSBD / shots came from GK / railyard area

Quote
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any idea where they were coming from?
Mrs. BAKER. Well, the way it sounded--it sounded like it was coming from-- there was a railroad track that runs behind the building--there directly behind the building and around, so I guess it would be by the underpass, the triple underpass, and there is a railroad track that runs back out there and there was a train that looked like a circus train as well as I can remember now, back there, and we all ran to the plaza--the little thing there I guess you call it a plaza--back behind there this other girl and I almost ran back over there and looked and we didn't see anything.
Mr. LIEBELER. When you say the plaza, you mean Dealey Plaza, the area that lies between Elm Street and this little street that runs by the Texas School Book Depository Building; is that correct? Is that what you mean?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. After you heard the shots, you ran down the little street that runs in front of the School Book Depository?
Mrs. BAKER. Along the grass.
Mr. LIEBELER. Along the grass--alongside there, running toward the triple underpass where Elm Street goes, but you were actually running down the little street or alongside the street on the grass, alongside the street that runs right in front of the Texas School Book Depository?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you say there are some railroad tracks back in there; is that right?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Immediately behind Dealey Plaza away from Elm Street?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. And is that where you thought the shots came from?
Mrs. BAKER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. And when you went down there and looked, did you see anybody at all?
Mrs. BAKER Just a policeman and several people were down there around the tracks working.
Mr. LIEBELER. But you didn't see anybody you thought might have been the assassin?
Mrs. BAKER. No, sir.

That damn elusive assassin! So many witnesses thought shots came from the railroad yard but when they run to the railroad yard all they see is the people who work there but no assassin!

How many more witnesses are you going to mention who said they went to the area but didn't see anything?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 18, 2012, 09:05:36 PM

How many more witnesses are you going to mention who said they went to the area but didn't see anything?

What do you expect them to have seen?
Ed Hoffman reported watching the 2 assassins, said one was dressed in cops uniform the other was in a railway uniform, one dismantled the gun put in in a tool box and they just both walked away in separate directions.
What are you expecting a shoot out or someone standing there with his hands up.
Professional assassins I am sure also plan their getaway.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 18, 2012, 09:16:59 PM
What do you expect them to have seen?

The assassin, of course!


Quote
Ed Hoffman reported watching the 2 assassins, said one was dressed in cops uniform the other was in a railway uniform, one dismantled the gun put in in a tool box and they just both walked away in separate directions.

Hoffman's account has repeatedly and thoroughly been debunked.


Quote
What are you expecting a shoot out or someone standing there with his hands up.
Professional assassins I am sure also plan their getaway.

Professional assassins also don't plan hits in front of 500 people with cameras, a score of police, and a dozen Secret Service agents.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 18, 2012, 09:29:18 PM

Professional assassins also don't plan hits in front of 500 people with cameras, a score of police, and a dozen Secret Service agents.

Obviously, your wrong.
And who debunked Hoffman?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 18, 2012, 09:48:59 PM

Professional assassins also don't plan hits in front of 500 people with cameras, a score of police, and a dozen Secret Service agents.

Obviously, your wrong.

Am I? Do you have an example of a professional assassin killing someone in front of a large crowd?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 18, 2012, 11:01:49 PM


Am I? Do you have an example of a professional assassin killing someone in front of a large crowd?
Obviously by your question no one has ever been killed by a professional assassin while present in front of a large crowd.
How many people are necessary to qualify as a "large crowd"?

How about LBJ telling a lie, to set scene for murder. He tells the American Public that the United States Navy was attacked while in neutral waters in the bay of Tonkin by North Vietnamese torpedo boats and asks for war. This lie is responsible for over 2,000,000 deaths or people assassinated in front of our eyes, and most people never figured out who was doing the killing in time to stop these deaths. Most people still have no clue to this day...at all.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 18, 2012, 11:23:24 PM


Am I? Do you have an example of a professional assassin killing someone in front of a large crowd?
Obviously by your question no one has ever been killed by a professional assassin while present in front of a large crowd.
How many people are necessary to qualify as a "large crowd"?

Do you have an example of a professional assassin killing somebody in front of a large crowd or not? You said I was wrong. Can you provide a counterexample or not?

Claiming professional assassins killed JFK is an insult to professional assassins. Do professional assassins routinely require 6 shots to kill one man in a slow moving uncovered car? Most conspiracy theorists have a gaggle of assassins pumping lead into the limo and half their shots miss. Conspiracy theorists always harp on and on about what a terrible shot Oswald was yet when they present their theoretical course of fire their hypothetical professional assassins miss JFK multiple times and miss the entire limo at least once.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 18, 2012, 11:50:17 PM
How about LBJ telling a lie, to set scene for murder. He tells the American Public that the United States Navy was attacked while in neutral waters in the bay of Tonkin by North Vietnamese torpedo boats and asks for war. This lie is responsible for over 2,000,000 deaths or people assassinated in front of our eyes, and most people never figured out who was doing the killing in time to stop these deaths. Most people still have no clue to this day...at all.
So did some of your mysterious assassins end up hiding in the Gulf Of Tonkin? Otherwise, I can't see how it relates to the JFK assassination.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 19, 2012, 12:08:38 AM
Long before South Park called it the Chewbacca Defense the Greeks called it Ignoratio elenchi. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi)
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 01:26:46 AM
Map of Dealey Plaza is not mine.
I modified it then added colored dots to represent witnesses locations by testimony that declaired where they believed the origin of shots were.
Note this includes testimony from WC, FBI, SHERIF and SHAW TRIAL.
Blue Grassy Knoll
Red TSBD
Violet - the witnesses actually gave testimony supporting both locations
*There was guesses made as to exact locations of some witnesses.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 19, 2012, 01:31:49 AM
Larger map if you'd like: [gifv]BBjlj[/gifv]
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 19, 2012, 01:37:48 AM
Just to start with, Newman said he thought the shots came from behind him. Here he is indicating where he thought they came from:

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-J-9dQKSBxDg/TiQ8lcoouoI/AAAAAAAAc8A/v9sv1iXhi98/s1600/William-Newman-Map-1986-Mock-Trial.png)
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 19, 2012, 01:45:27 AM
Don't forget Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman on the 5th floor of the TSBD who all said the shots came from above them. Norman even said he heard the bolt cycling and the ejected shells hitting the floor.

Quote
Mr. NORMAN. I believe it was his right arm, and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us."
Well, I couldn't see at all during the time but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle, it sounded as though it was to me.
Mr. BALL. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. NORMAN. Three.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 19, 2012, 02:18:04 AM
Should what WC says happened in Dealey Plaza be in accord with what can be corroborated by the witnesses?

As you have been told numerous times, the fact that there are many contradictory witness accounts is normal in such a confused and crowded situation.

Quote
I think it may well be possible to illustrate how and I intend to prove it when I am ready. This is not a stall it is getting my ducks in a row.

No, it is a stall. It is evident that you have formulated an idea with no supporting evidence and are now desperately trying to find some. The fact that one person shooting JFK from in front and Connally from behind is utterly impossible hasn't even made you pause for thought before presenting that as your working hypothesis, has it?

Ongoing refusal to acknowledge the duplication of the two shots and their effects noted yet again. It is clear that you are simply afraid to actually address this, because it will undermine your whole premise. Fact: the wounds described in the WC report can be caused by two bullets fired from the TSBD.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Kiwi on May 19, 2012, 10:40:03 AM
"Mr. SPECTER - Did you tell the police officials at the time you made this statement that there was a Negro gentleman in the window on the southwest corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building which you have marked with a circle "A"--pardon me, southeast?
Mr. ROWLAND - At that time, no. However, the next day on Saturday there were a pair of FBI officers, agents out at my home, and they took another handwritten statement from me which I signed again, and this was basically the same. At that time I told them I did see the Negro man there...

Interesting isn't it, sees man with high powered rifle, on 6th floor of the TSBD, but on the wrong side of building, surprise. Surprise, he also sees another man hanging out of the the "snipers nest" window at the same time.

I'm a little confused.  Are you referring to one of the two Negro men who are shown on page 66 of the Warren Report, in the enlargement of a photo taken by Thomas C. Dillard, chief photographer of the Dallas Morning News?  Because they are looking out the windows directly underneath the "sniper's nest," not in it, and I believe it is one of them who said he heard shells hitting the floor above him.

There was also another Negro man in the next pair of windows to the left of the two men.

Dillard and Robert H. Jackson, staff photographer of the Dallas Times Herald, sound like fairly good witnesses to me. 

Howard L. Brennan also saw a man with a rifle on the 6th floor (the "sniper's nest") and people watching the motorcade immediately below on the 5th floor.

Perhaps you should read what they said.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 11:50:58 AM

I'm a little confused. 

Yes your are.
Perhaps you should read the transcript.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rowland_a.htm
"Mr. ROWLAND - No; not in that window, and I looked back every few seconds, 30 seconds, maybe twice a minute, occasionally trying to find him so I could point him out to my wife.
Something I would like to note is that the window that I have been told the shots were actually fired from, I did not see that, there was someone hanging out that window at that time.
Representative FORD - At what time was that?
Mr. ROWLAND - At the time I saw the man in the other window, I saw this man hanging out the window first. It was a colored man, I think.
Representative FORD - Is this the same window where you saw the man standing with the rifle?
Mr. ROWLAND - No; this was the one on the east end of the building, the one that they said the shots were fired from.
Representative FORD - I am not clear on this now. The window that you saw the man that you describe was on what end of the building?
Mr. ROWLAND - The west, southwest corner.
Representative FORD - And the man you saw hanging out from the window was at what corner?
Mr. ROWLAND - The east, southeast corner.
Representative FORD - Southeast corner. On the same floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - On the same floor. "

Rolwand saw a man with a high powered rifle, with a high powered scope on SW corner 6th floor,
at about the same time he saw a negro man hanging out the window from the "snipers lair" on the SE corner of the 6th floor.

If you read the transcripts you will know that this was Bonnie Ray Williams eating his lunch until 12:20 or 12:25, before going down to the 5th floor.  In case you are wondering Williams did not see or hear anything from the 6th floor, Oswald or anyone or anything, while on the 6th floor or 5th floor, before, during or after the assassination.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/williams.htm
"Mr. BALL. Did you hear anything upstairs at all?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I didn't hear anything."

During the time of the assasination Williams was hanging out the 5th floor window, just a few feet from the "sniper" on the 6th floor, and he never detected the shots were coming from just above his head, or hear the bolt or expended shells hit the floor.
The shots were spaced: Bham...Bham.Bham the last two "rather close togeher"

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 12:07:21 PM
Don't forget Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman on the 5th floor of the TSBD who all said the shots came from above them. Norman even said he heard the bolt cycling and the ejected shells hitting the floor.

Quote
Mr. NORMAN. I believe it was his right arm, and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us."
Well, I couldn't see at all during the time but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle, it sounded as though it was to me.
Mr. BALL. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. NORMAN. Three.
Read the transcripts.
Bonnie Ray Williams, did not hear anything from the 6th floor. PERIOD.

James Jarmin Jr. claimed the shots came from below and right (grassy knoll), did not hear anything from the 6th floor.PERIOD.

Harold Norman never said he heard any shots coming from the 6th floor. He said "sounded like shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle".

They all said the shots were spaced Bham...Bham.Bham
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 12:27:21 PM
All this time and 31 pages of posts proclaiming a conspiracy and you don't have a hypothesis about what actually happened?  Much less a defensible hypothesis that  includes an explanation of where the shooter(s) were.   

Typical conspiracist thinking, alas.  "I don't know what's right, just that the Official Story (TM) is wrong!"  Usually with ridiculously poor research.
what do you mean by Official Story (TM)
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 19, 2012, 12:32:50 PM
Rolwand saw a man with a high powered rifle, with a high powered scope on SW corner 6th floor,
at about the same time he saw a negro man hanging out the window from the "snipers lair" on the SE corner of the 6th floor.

Bonnie Ray Williams, who you just quoted for the purpose of identifying the direction of the shots, said,
Quote
Mr. BALL. Did you see anyone else up there that day?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, I did not.


Quote
If you read the transcripts you will know that this was Bonnie Ray Williams eating his lunch until 12:20 or 12:25, before going down to the 5th floor.

If you correctly read the transcripts you will know Williams did not eat his lunch at the southeast corner. And by his estimate he finished no later than 12:12 then went down to the 5th floor.

Quote
Mr. McCLOY. What time of day was this, when you were eating your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. About 12.
Mr. McCLOY. Just 12?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, as you looked towards the southeast corner from where you were sitting, could you see the windows in the southeast corner?
Mr. WILLIAMS. In the southeast--that is--the southeast. I really don't remember if I seen anything-- it would be just the top edge of the window, as I remember.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anyone else up there that day?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, I did not.
Mr. BALL. How long did you stay there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I was there from--5, 10, maybe 12 minutes.


Quote
In case you are wondering Williams did not see or hear anything from the 6th floor, Oswald or anyone or anything, while on the 6th floor or 5th floor, before, during or after the assassination.

Absolutely! He did not see the man Rowland claimed to have seen in the SW corner.


Quote

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/williams.htm
"Mr. BALL. Did you hear anything upstairs at all?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I didn't hear anything."

During the time of the assasination Williams was hanging out the 5th floor window, just a few feet from the "sniper" on the 6th floor, and he never detected the shots were coming from just above his head, or hear the bolt or expended shells hit the floor.
The shots were spaced: Bham...Bham.Bham the last two "rather close togeher"

He said he thought the shots came from inside the building.

Quote
Mr. BALL. Did you notice where did you think the shots came from?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, the first shot-I really did not pay any attention to it, because I did not know what was happening. The second shot, it sounded like it was right in the building, the second and third shot. And it sounded-it even shook the building, the side we were on cement fell on my head.
Mr. BALL. You say cement fell on your head?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Cement, gravel, dirt, or something from the old building, because it shook the windows and everything. Harold was sitting next to me, and he said it came right from over our head. If you want to know my exact words, I could tell you.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Kiwi on May 19, 2012, 12:38:14 PM

I'm a little confused. 

Yes your are.


Thank you for your answer.  I appreciate being put right because I'm a pedant who dislikes being wrong.  Pedant is a bad word in some quarters, but I think there's nothing wrong with it -- without pedantry you don't get accuracy.

It was very pleasant to get a prompt reply after asking only once, so thank you again.

A month ago I put a considerable effort into posts 103 and 104 in this thread, and you didn't answer two simple questions about the Zapruder film and Warren Report.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=67.msg1152#msg1152
I wondered why not and was a little disappointed, because those post were about four times harder to produce than normal because I was quite ill.  New meds started five days ago have helped a little and returned things to nearer normal.

Back in October I had to give up on a particularly clownish hoax-believer at the Randi Forum who did the Gish Gallop and regularly did not answer questions that were asked three, four and five times.  To me he was a waste of time.

I feel sorry for Jason Thompson who has repeatedly asked you something about the duplication of two shots.  Why don't you put him out of his misery and answer?  You're not becoming like that other clown are you?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 12:43:06 PM
Just to start with, Newman said he thought the shots came from behind him. Here he is indicating where he thought they came from:
Have no idea what you have posted and it is not evidence of anything.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/newmwsh.htm
From Shaw Trial
"Q: Do you have any impression as to the direction from which the shots came?
A: Yes, sir. From the sound of the shots, the report of the rifle or whatever it was, it sounded like they were coming directly behind from where I was standing."

Newman was standing by the Stemmons freeway sign, as he had indicated the shots were coming from directly behind, he would have to been facing the grassy knoll during the assassination to have the shots originate from the TSBD.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 19, 2012, 12:46:11 PM
Don't forget Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman on the 5th floor of the TSBD who all said the shots came from above them. Norman even said he heard the bolt cycling and the ejected shells hitting the floor.

Quote
Mr. NORMAN. I believe it was his right arm, and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us."
Well, I couldn't see at all during the time but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle, it sounded as though it was to me.
Mr. BALL. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. NORMAN. Three.
Read the transcripts.
Bonnie Ray Williams, did not hear anything from the 6th floor. PERIOD.

Answered above.


Quote
James Jarmin Jr. claimed the shots came from below and right (grassy knoll), did not hear anything from the 6th floor.PERIOD.

Are you being intentionally dishonest?

Quote
Representative FORD - Where did you think the sound of the first shot came from? Do you have a distinct impression of that?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, it sounded, I thought at first it had came from below. That is what I thought.
Representative FORD - As you looked out the window and you were looking at the President's car.
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - Did you have a distinct impression as to whether the sound came from your left or from your right?
Mr. JARMAN - I am sure it came from the left.

Representative FORD - But your first reaction, that is was from below.
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - When the second shot came, do you have any different recollection?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, they all sounded just about the same.


Quote
Harold Norman never said he heard any shots coming from the 6th floor. He said "sounded like shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle".

Norman testified:
Quote
Mr. BALL. And you said you thought it came from where?
Mr. NORMAN. Above where we were, above us.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 19, 2012, 12:51:53 PM
Just to start with, Newman said he thought the shots came from behind him. Here he is indicating where he thought they came from:
Have no idea what you have posted and it is not evidence of anything.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/newmwsh.htm
From Shaw Trial
"Q: Do you have any impression as to the direction from which the shots came?
A: Yes, sir. From the sound of the shots, the report of the rifle or whatever it was, it sounded like they were coming directly behind from where I was standing."

Newman was standing by the Stemmons freeway sign, as he had indicated the shots were coming from directly behind, he would have to been facing the grassy knoll during the assassination to have the shots originate from the TSBD.

I never said nor implied Newman claimed the shots came from the TSBD. I said Newman claimed the shots came from directly behind him, which would put the shooter to at the north end of the pergola. The grassy knoll was directly towards Newman's right.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 19, 2012, 12:58:50 PM
Have no idea what you have posted and it is not evidence of anything.

How can you say it is not evidence of anything if you have no idea what it was?

You could not more clearly illustrate your agenda to simply disprove the official version of events rather than actually try to understand the truth.

I suppose it's not even worth mentioning yet again your ongoing refusal to address the FACT that the shots have been duplicated.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 19, 2012, 01:34:11 PM
what do you mean by Official Story (TM)

This ridiculous assertion that people only say that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin because that's what the Warren Report says.  The idea that Lee's involvement only makes sense if you're a government stooge.  Admittedly it's not quite as ludicrous as the belief that people only accept Apollo because it's what the government says is true, because the evidence in JFK isn't as blindingly obvious.  However, fields like ballistics and photographic analysis are not completely controlled by any entity.  (That's leaving aside that the US government is hardly a single entity and that the various agencies have never exactly been known to get along.)  When Jason and I repeatedly tell you that we've seen those shots duplicated (would you like to respond to that fact?), we're not talking about the US government.  We saw it on TV.  The thing wasn't even exclusively US-produced, much less by a government entity. 

But no, this is what we get.  A refusal to state exactly what the conspiracist thinks happened.  Cherry-picking evidence.  (I'm the one who pointed you to McAdams, remember, and so I have a pretty good idea of what that site says.  It only very seldom says what you claim it does.)  Avoiding replying to direct questions and ignoring anything which doesn't, in your mind, tear down the simple fact that Lee acted alone from the TSBD.  Out of idle curiosity, what do you think happened to Officer Tippit?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 02:11:30 PM

If you correctly read the transcripts you will know Williams did not eat his lunch at the southeast corner. And by his estimate he finished no later than 12:12 then went down to the 5th floor.

Quote
Mr. McCLOY. What time of day was this, when you were eating your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. About 12.
Mr. McCLOY. Just 12?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Now, as you looked towards the southeast corner from where you were sitting, could you see the windows in the southeast corner?
Mr. WILLIAMS. In the Southeast is--the southeast. I really don't remember if I seen anything-- it would be just the top edge of the window, as I remember.
Mr. BALL. Did you see anyone else up there that day?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, I did not.
Mr. BALL. How long did you stay there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I was there from--5, 10, maybe 12 minutes.


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/jarman.htm

Mr. BALL. Where did you eat your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ate my lunch--I am not sure about this, but the third or the fourth set of windows, I believe.
Mr. BALL. Facing on what street?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Facing Elm Street.

"Mr. BALL - The sidewalk in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - How long did you stand there?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25."


Jarmin and Harold did not proceed to the 5th floor until after 12:20-12:25
Williams was not on the 5th floor when they arrived.
Williams said he did not leave the 6th floor until he after he heard noises coming from the 5th floor and took the elevator down to see if it was his friends.

Are you implying Oswald was lurking on the 6th floor in the "snipers lair" for 20-25 minutes, undetected by Williams only a few windows away?

Oswald could not have known when the President would pass the TSBD, but lunch was over at 12:30, workers would normally be returning to work on the 6th floor at that time. Something to think about.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 02:17:35 PM

I never said nor implied Newman claimed the shots came from the TSBD. I said Newman claimed the shots came from directly behind him, which would put the shooter to at the north end of the pergola. The grassy knoll was directly towards Newman's right.

Draw a line from where the limo was in frame Z-189 to the grassy knoll, it passes almost right over the top of the Newmans. Newman would have been facing the limo as it came down the street. The shot would have come from directly behind him.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 02:37:41 PM
Are you being intentionally dishonest?


Sorry, Jarmin: shots came from below and to the left not below and to the right, I stand corrected.

Below...Below.Below

"Representative FORD - But your first reaction, that is was from below.
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Representative FORD - When the second shot came, do you have any different recollection?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, they all sounded just about the same."

Below...Below.Below.


What's answered above?  Jarmin nor Williams heard anything from the 6th floor.
Noman thought he heard shells dropping and action of bolt, never said he heard shots.
He concluded shots must have come from 6th floor from these two sounds ONLY, based on what he said.

Will you tell me what action these 3 men took immediately after the assassination assuming they knew the gunman was on the 6th floor?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 19, 2012, 02:41:26 PM
Mr. BALL. Where did you eat your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ate my lunch--I am not sure about this, but the third or the fourth set of windows, I believe.

Considering there are 7 sets of windows the 3rd or 4th window would put him pretty much in the middle of the building.


Quote
Mr. BALL. Facing on what street?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Facing Elm Street.

"Mr. BALL - The sidewalk in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - How long did you stand there?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, until about 12:20, between 12:20 and 12:25."

Williams gave contradictory estimates for the time. I'll agree with the 12:20-12:25 time frame.


Quote
Jarmin and Harold did not proceed to the 5th floor until after 12:20-12:25
Williams was not on the 5th floor when they arrived.
Williams said he did not leave the 6th floor until he after he heard noises coming from the 5th floor and took the elevator down to see if it was his friends.

Citation needed. His testified he left because it was too quiet and the others had not shown up as they had talked about watching the motorcade from the 6th floor.


Quote
Are you implying Oswald was lurking on the 6th floor in the "snipers lair" for 20-25 minutes, undetected by Williams only a few windows away?

I am not implying that. I am stating it. Does lurking require one to make noise? Williams was asked if he saw anyone at the southeast corner. No said no because there was a big pile of boxes there.


Quote
Oswald could not have known when the President would pass the TSBD, but lunch was over at 12:30, workers would normally be returning to work on the 6th floor at that time. Something to think about.

Except nobody went back to work at 12:30. They all stayed where they were to watch the President drive by. Do you have evidence Truly was going around telling people to get back to work? Maybe it's probable he cut them some slack so they could see the President.

You have ignored my corrections about the men on the 5th floor testimony.
Jarman said he initially thought the shots came from below. When asked from the left or from the right he said from the left.
Williams said he thought they come from inside the building, it shook the building, and saw debris fall.
Norman said the shots came from above him.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 02:54:25 PM
I wondered why not and was a little disappointed, because those post were about four times harder to produce than normal because I was quite ill.  New meds started five days ago have helped a little and returned things to nearer normal.

I feel sorry for Jason Thompson who has repeatedly asked you something about the duplication of two shots.  Why don't you put him out of his misery and answer? 
I hope you are feeling better, not under any circumstances would I wish you ill.
I don't know how to answer post 103 and 104, since you and others appear to be convinced the Z film is the absolute definitive script and has not been modified by special effects.

I am not certain of order of the shots
But if you are referring to:
JFK head shot, I think he was hit on the back portion of his head, it took out a chuck of skull and brain matter, projecting it toward Hargis and Martin. The bullet continued and burroughed in the grass around Brehm Moorman or Hill.
or
Connally was hit from the back as he hunched down in the back seat.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 19, 2012, 02:57:35 PM

I never said nor implied Newman claimed the shots came from the TSBD. I said Newman claimed the shots came from directly behind him, which would put the shooter to at the north end of the pergola. The grassy knoll was directly towards Newman's right.

Draw a line from where the limo was in frame Z-189 to the grassy knoll, it passes almost right over the top of the Newmans. Newman would have been facing the limo as it came down the street. The shot would have come from directly behind him.

So the bullet was shot from the grassy knoll, flew over Newman's head, turned 135° to the right in mid-air, and hit JFK in the head? Another one of your magic bullets? How many magic bullets have you created now? You said one bullet hit Connally in the back, wrist and leg. That's one. Some guy saw a bullet kick up grass from 250 feet away. That's two. What other ones am I missing?

Quote
Q: Just tell us what you observed.
A: Well, I observed his ear flying off, and he turned just real white and then blood red, and the President, when the third shot hit him he just went stiff like a board and fell over to his left in his wife's lap, and I told my wife, "That is it, hit the ground," and that is when we hit the ground because I thought the shots were coming over our heads. And then I looked back and I saw Mrs. Kennedy jumping up on the back end of the car and the Secret Service man or whoever it was into the car, and then they shot on off, took off. Link (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/newmwsh.htm)
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 19, 2012, 03:05:25 PM
I don't know how to answer post 103 and 104, since you and others appear to be convinced the Z film is the absolute definitive script and has not been modified by special effects.

If you want anyone to believe otherwise, you have to explain how it was modified.  And I don't just mean from a technical perspective, though that would be a good place to start.  I mean where in the chronology was it possible to modify the Zapruder film?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 03:31:51 PM

How can you say it is not evidence of anything if you have no idea what it was?

You could not more clearly illustrate your agenda to simply disprove the official version of events rather than actually try to understand the truth.

I suppose it's not even worth mentioning yet again your ongoing refusal to address the FACT that the shots have been duplicated.
What difference does it make what it was, it was not identified as evidence, was it Newman, was he under oath, what was the question and what was the full answer in context?

FACT - In reading testimonies of witnesses, so far, I have found 3 people that thought the shots came from the TSBD area, 23 that said the grassy knoll and 33 who were either never asked by the FBI or WC or didn't have an opinion and Bowers who said it could have been either location.

So where is there any evidence that shots came from the 6th floor of the TSBD, other than potentially "planted" mauser rifle and 3 cartridges?

The back wound was located lower than the throat wound, so how could anyone duplicate an impossible shot?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 19, 2012, 03:40:36 PM
FACT - In reading testimonies of witnesses, so far, I have found 3 people that thought the shots came from the TSBD area, 23 that said the grassy knoll and 33 who were either never asked by the FBI or WC or didn't have an opinion and Bowers who said it could have been either location.

Whenever a conspiracy theorist says he has such a preponderance of shots coming from the grassy knoll compared to the TSBD we know they are lying. Does your list include "honest" mistakes like reversing the direction Jarman stated?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 19, 2012, 04:09:38 PM
What difference does it make what it was, it was not identified as evidence, was it Newman, was he under oath, what was the question and what was the full answer in context?

It came from On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald filmed in 1984. He says where he thought the shots came from starting at 3:35.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 19, 2012, 04:18:42 PM
you and others appear to be convinced the Z film is the absolute definitive script and has not been modified by special effects.

Prove otherw8ise and we'll have a basis for discussion of that. You can start by telling us exactly what sort of special effects manipulation can actually be done on exposed 8mm film (with an area of image measuring only about 5 x 3 mm), how long this might take, and exactly when it was supposed to have occurred. Until then we have no basis for dismissing any assumption of authenticity for the Zapruder film.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 19, 2012, 04:21:15 PM
What difference does it make what it was, it was not identified as evidence, was it Newman, was he under oath, what was the question and what was the full answer in context?

My point is that you said you had no idea what it was, ergo you had no idea what the answers to those questions were, yet you still dismissed it out of hand.

Quote
The back wound was located lower than the throat wound, so how could anyone duplicate an impossible shot?

Maybe if you bothered to actually go and check this out you would have your answer. But no, once again you dismiss it out of hand without checking because it doesn't support your argument.The back wound was ONLY located lower then the throat wound IF you assume he was sitting bolt upright at the time he was shot, which he very clearly was not. He also had his right arm propped on the side of the limo, further elevating his right shoulder.

I will say this clearly again, and your personal disbelief is not a contrary argument: the shots HAVE been duplicated.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 06:49:41 PM


But no, this is what we get.  A refusal to state exactly what the conspiracist thinks happened.  Cherry-picking evidence.  (I'm the one who pointed you to McAdams)

Seriously, how can I begin to open your mind to alternate possibility if you are convinced the Warren Commission is an honest representation of history?

All evidence I provided was rejected.

The way I have chosen, is to show you what evidence is actually within the Warren Commission testimonies that is highly corroborated and is completely contrary to the Warren Commission findings.  If the Warren Commission report and significant evidence discrepancies cannot be successfully arbitrated, then I am suggesting to you that there is something wrong with the conclusions of the report and a reason for doubt.

So far I have not cherry picked any issue, I have taken the most significant issues I have found that are connected with only "The Big Event" 

How can the most fundamental element in this case not be where the shots were fired from?
To that question, I viewed testimonies looking to see what the witnesses experienced that day concerning where they were, impression, shot number, sequence or rhythm and the direction of the shots. This data I have fairly reported to you.
If you choose to ignore this, you are also in effect ignoring findings discovered by the Warren Commission .
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 07:27:18 PM

My point is that you said you had no idea what it was, ergo you had no idea what the answers to those questions were, yet you still dismissed it out of hand.

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.

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.
No TV shows, no Vincent Bugliosi books.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 19, 2012, 07:27:41 PM
Seriously, how can I begin to open your mind to alternate possibility if you are convinced the Warren Commission is an honest representation of history?

By showing us evidence for a conspiracy, not nitpicking for anomalies.


Quote

All evidence I provided was rejected.

Not all of it. But some of it you twisted to support your theory. When you did so you were corrected but you failed to incorporate it into evidence.


Quote
The way I have chosen, is to show you what evidence is actually within the Warren Commission testimonies that is highly corroborated and is completely contrary to the Warren Commission findings.

All the while ignoring and twisting evidence that pointed to a lone gunman. You fail to acknowledge the single bullet theory has been closely duplicated several times.


Quote
  If the Warren Commission report and significant evidence discrepancies cannot be successfully arbitrated, then I am suggesting to you that there is something wrong with the conclusions of the report and a reason for doubt.

They can be arbitrated by looking at all the evidence, not just the evidence for a lone gunman or for a conspiracy, but all of it, and then weighing it fairly and objectively to arrive at the most probable scenario.


Quote

So far I have not cherry picked any issue, I have taken the most significant issues I have found that are connected with only "The Big Event" 

But you have cherry-picked evidence, and what's worse, you have twisted it to support a grassy knoll gunman, like twisting Newman's and the men on the 5th floor testimony to make them support a grassy knoll gunman or refute a gunman on the 6th floor.


Quote
How can the most fundamental element in this case not be where the shots were fired from?

Great question. Given the great disparity amongst the ear-witnesses do you think that is a valid approach to finding out where the shots came from?

How about eyewitnesses? How many saw a man shooting from the southeast corner of the 6th floor? 3?

How many saw a gunman somewhere else? None.


Quote
To that question, I viewed testimonies looking to see what the witnesses experienced that day concerning where they were, impression, shot number, sequence or rhythm and the direction of the shots. This data I have fairly reported to you.

You have not quoted one single witness who said the shot came from the TSBD. That can hardly be called 'fair'. You said you found 3 in the testimonies. But you haven't quoted them to support a lone gunman.


Quote
If you choose to ignore this, you are also in effect ignoring findings discovered by the Warren Commission .

So are you.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 07:31:27 PM

I will say this clearly again, and your personal disbelief is not a contrary argument: the shots HAVE been duplicated.
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 19, 2012, 07:46:26 PM
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.

The City of Dallas tends to frown on shots being fired in the middle of downtown, for some reason.  That's why they'll never replicate the shots of any murder which happened there.  However, all the relevant circumstances were duplicated.  As is stated on that website you keep quoting, complete with links.  As I said, do you really think I don't know what's on it?  Do you really think your cherry-picking from it isn't transparent?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 19, 2012, 08:19:56 PM

I will say this clearly again, and your personal disbelief is not a contrary argument: the shots HAVE been duplicated.
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.

Well, there's the root problem. Most of us believe that it DOES.

I notice you have dodged a couple of questions that would put doubt on your "theory". I put the word in quotation marks, because you have not really put forward a theory; you've nitpicked at someone else's theory.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 08:53:06 PM
It came from On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald filmed in 1984. He says where he thought the shots came from starting at 3:35.
Are you seriously proposing the inclusion of entertainment as official evidence?

Testimonies given under oath is evidence.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 09:11:09 PM

Whenever a conspiracy theorist says he has such a preponderance of shots coming from the grassy knoll compared to the TSBD we know they are lying. Does your list include "honest" mistakes like reversing the direction Jarman stated?

Absolutley, I agree, thanks for the correction
Jarmin said below and left, not below and right.

Either way you loose.

What did they do next is the question?


 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 19, 2012, 09:23:05 PM
It came from On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald filmed in 1984. He says where he thought the shots came from starting at 3:35.
Are you seriously proposing the inclusion of entertainment as official evidence?

Testimonies given under oath is evidence.

It was not entertainment. They did not use actors. All the witnesses were the actual witnesses to the event. It was not scripted. It was not rehearsed. It was presided over by a real practicing Federal judge. All the witnesses were sworn in.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 19, 2012, 09:28:22 PM

Whenever a conspiracy theorist says he has such a preponderance of shots coming from the grassy knoll compared to the TSBD we know they are lying. Does your list include "honest" mistakes like reversing the direction Jarman stated?

Absolutley, I agree, thanks for the correction
Jarmin said below and left, not below and right.

Either way you loose.

I lose? Because one man said below and left, another man said above and heard shells hitting the floor and the bolt being cycled, and another said it sounded like it came from inside the building?


Quote
What did they do next is the question?

You mean why did 3 unarmed men mill around for a few minutes while a maniac with a gun was on the floor above them? What were they expected to do? Confront a man with a gun?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 09:35:45 PM
But you have cherry-picked evidence, and what's worse, you have twisted it to support a grassy knoll gunman, like twisting Newman's and the men on the 5th floor testimony to make them support a grassy knoll gunman or refute a gunman on the 6th floor.

Newman was in the Shaw trial, the point for Garrison bringing Newman in to testify was so he could support the location of the shots being fired from the grassy knoll. A little common sense please.

I don't have to refute a gunman on the 6th floor, the evidence does this.

Mr. NORMAN. I believe it was his right arm, and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us."
Well, I couldn't see at all during the time but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle, it sounded as though it was to me.

Let me rephrase this please.
After the 3rd shot, Norman has a revelation when someone says "I believe someone is shooting at the President" because he now remembers "hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle" and he realizes the shots and shells and the bolt somehow go together.
He then conveys this new belief to his friends, who claim to have been oblivious, "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us."

THEN - this is the best part, you will love this

Mr. BALL. After he made the statement that you mentioned, he thought it came from overhead, and you made some statement, did Jarman say anything?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think Jarman, he I think he moved before any of us. He moved towards us, and he said, "Man, somebody is shooting at the President." And I think I said again, "No bull shit." And then we all kind of got excited, you know, and, as I remember, I don't remember him saying that he thought the shots came from overhead. But we all decided we would run down to the west side of the building.
Mr. BALL. You ran down to the west side of the building?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD.Ran down to the west side? You mean you were still on the fifth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes;

Well maybe Jarmin and Williams didn't really believe Norman, what do you think?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 09:46:14 PM
Jason you can
The City of Dallas tends to frown on shots being fired in the middle of downtown, for some reason.  That's why they'll never replicate the shots of any murder which happened there.  However, all the relevant circumstances were duplicated.  As is stated on that website you keep quoting, complete with links.  As I said, do you really think I don't know what's on it?  Do you really think your cherry-picking from it isn't transparent?

So sorry what I meant this to mean was...
What does it matter if the shots can be duplicated if they where actually fired from the grassy knoll and not the TSBD.
You still have not proved to me how a downward angled shot can hit high on the middle back and come out from a higher position from the throat.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 09:56:26 PM
It was not entertainment. They did not use actors. All the witnesses were the actual witnesses to the event. It was not scripted. It was not rehearsed. It was presided over by a real practicing Federal judge. All the witnesses were sworn in.

In what U.S. Court were the testimonies filed, so I may look them up?
Also since the witnesses could not be subpoenaed /  exradition for a mock trial, why would they go to England on their own expense Or were they paid to be there?
How can you have a court case and a trial without Oswald, he's dead right?
Did Oswald choose his defense, wait hes dead!

Thats Entertainment not evidence.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 19, 2012, 10:06:20 PM
Newman was in the Shaw trial, the point for Garrison bringing Newman in to testify was so he could support the location of the shots being fired from the grassy knoll. A little common sense please.

I know that was Garrison's purpose but it backfired on him.


Quote
THEN - this is the best part, you will love this

Mr. BALL. After he made the statement that you mentioned, he thought it came from overhead, and you made some statement, did Jarman say anything?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think Jarman, he I think he moved before any of us. He moved towards us, and he said, "Man, somebody is shooting at the President." And I think I said again, "No bull shit." And then we all kind of got excited, you know, and, as I remember, I don't remember him saying that he thought the shots came from overhead. But we all decided we would run down to the west side of the building.

By this time in Williams' testimony he had already recounted what Norman said. Now he is saying he can't remember if Jarman said the same thing. Here is his uninterrupted testimony about what the others said,

Quote
Mr. BALL. Did you notice where did you think the shots came from?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, the first shot-I really did not pay any attention to it, because I did not know what was happening. The second shot, it sounded like it was right in the building, the second and third shot. And it sounded-it even shook the building, the side we were on cement fell on my head.
Mr. BALL. You say cement fell on your head?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Cement, gravel, dirt, or something from the old building, because it shook the windows and everything. Harold was sitting next to me, and he said it came right from over our head. If you want to know my exact words, I could tell you.
Mr. BALL. Tell us.
Mr. WILLIAMS. My exact words were, "No bull shit." And we jumped up.
Mr. BALL. Norman said what?
Mr. WILLIAMS. He said it came directly over our heads. "I can even hear the shell being ejected from the gun hitting the floor." But I did not hear the shell being ejected from the gun, probably because I wasn't paying attention.
Mr. BALL. Norman said he could hear it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. He said he could hear it. He was directly under the window that Oswald shot from.
Mr. BALL. He was directly under. He told you as he got up from the window that he could hear the shells ejected from the gun?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; he did.
Mr. BALL. After he made the statement that you mentioned, he thought it came from overhead, and you made some statement, did Jarman say anything?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think Jarman, he I think he moved before any of us. He moved towards us, and he said, "Man, somebody is shooting at the President." And I think I said again, "No bull shit." And then we all kind of got excited, you know, and, as I remember, I don't remember him saying that he thought the shots came from overhead. But we all decided we would run down to the west side of the building.


Quote
Well maybe Jarmin and Williams didn't really believe Norman, what do you think?

How you can draw that conclusion based on Williams' testimony is mind-boggling.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 19, 2012, 10:12:29 PM
It was not entertainment. They did not use actors. All the witnesses were the actual witnesses to the event. It was not scripted. It was not rehearsed. It was presided over by a real practicing Federal judge. All the witnesses were sworn in.

In what U.S. Court were the testimonies filed, so I may look them up?

None. It was a mock trial, remember?


Quote
Also since the witnesses could not be subpoenaed /  exradition for a mock trial, why would they go to England on their own expense Or were they paid to be there?

Real courts are required to pay for travel expenses and lodgings for witnesses. Nothing was out of the ordinary here.


Quote
How can you have a court case and a trial without Oswald, he's dead right?

Hence a mock trial.


Quote
Did Oswald choose his defense, wait hes dead!

That's right. It was a mock trial, remember?

Thats Entertainment not evidence.

No, it's evidence. Their testimony was properly presented, challenged, and recorded by lawyers and a judge using the rules of a court.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: DataCable on May 19, 2012, 11:03:29 PM
...since you and others appear to be convinced the Z film is the absolute definitive script and has not been modified by special effects.
Demonstrate that the Zapruder film has been modified by visual effects.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 19, 2012, 11:06:23 PM
What does it matter if the shots can be duplicated if they where actually fired from the grassy knoll and not the TSBD.

The point, which you can't seem to grasp, is that the shots from the School Book Depository can be duplicated. Your alleged shots from the grassy knoll defy logic (not to mention the laws of physics) because the shooter couldn't possibly have hit John Connally from behind from that position. The grassy knoll can be ruled out simply because there is no possible trajectory from that position that could result in the injuries to the President and Governor Connally. It really doesn't matter if you have 1 or 100 witnesses who claim the shots came from there, they must be mistaken because it's physically impossible. Why can't you understand that? Do you have a problem with imagining the trajectories three dimensionally, or what?

Quote
You still have not proved to me how a downward angled shot can hit high on the middle back and come out from a higher position from the throat.

Are you ignoring what people are telling you, or are you just incapable of understanding? It has been explained to you how it was possible. President Kennedy was leaning forward enough that the entry point in his back was above the exit point in his throat. So again I ask, why don't you understand this? I am beginning to believe that you simply can't grasp the concept of three dimensions.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 19, 2012, 11:11:14 PM
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? I'm not saying there is a conspiracy, but it makes more sense than these crazy theories that Profmunkin keeps coming up with.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 11:16:47 PM

That's right. It was a mock trial, remember?


Yes, I know, it was not a real trial, it had no jurisdiction, it's "findings" are not evidence.

Are saying a British or American court system paid witness expenses so someone could produce a television show, for our entertainment?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 11:24:19 PM

No, it's evidence. Their testimony was properly presented, challenged, and recorded by lawyers and a judge using the rules of a court.


I respectfully disagree, so be forewarned that I reject any evidence presented that is outside of the WC FBI sheriff or Shaw Trial testimonies.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 19, 2012, 11:28:28 PM

No, it's evidence. Their testimony was properly presented, challenged, and recorded by lawyers and a judge using the rules of a court.


I respectfully disagree, so be forewarned that I reject any evidence presented that is outside of the WC FBI sheriff or Shaw Trial testimonies.

Weren't you the one who was posting quotes from Mark Lane's book and videos?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 11:30:45 PM
Demonstrate that the Zapruder film has been modified by visual effects.

I might agree to accept the z-flm as is, if you could detail for me what facts can be derived from the z-film to support the WC findings?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 19, 2012, 11:33:28 PM
Demonstrate that the Zapruder film has been modified by visual effects.

I might agree to accept the z-flm as is, if you could detail for me what facts can be derived from the z-film to support the WC findings?

JFK and Connally simultaneously reacting to getting shot starting at frame 224.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: DataCable on May 19, 2012, 11:41:12 PM
I might agree to accept the z-flm as is...
Your acceptance is not at issue.  You have made a backdoor accusation that the Zapruder film has been tampered with.  Substantiate that accusation.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 19, 2012, 11:54:38 PM


Weren't you the one who was posting quotes from Mark Lane's book and videos?
Yep
And everything I posted was rejected, remember?
This forum demanded to play this game by restricting to the WC evidence, ok, I agreed, as long as we all have the same restrictions.
I am posting official WC evidence.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 20, 2012, 12:03:20 AM


Weren't you the one who was posting quotes from Mark Lane's book and videos?
Yep
And everything I posted was rejected, remember?

It was rejected because Mark Lane has a well documented history of dishonesty.

Quote
This forum demanded to play this game by restricting to the WC evidence, ok, I agreed, as long as we all have the same restrictions.
I am posting official WC evidence.

The forum does not speak for anyone.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 20, 2012, 12:30:38 AM
All evidence I provided was rejected.
And everything I posted was rejected, remember?
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. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 20, 2012, 12:54:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 20, 2012, 12:56:34 AM


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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 20, 2012, 12:58:26 AM

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?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Not Myself on May 20, 2012, 12:59:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 20, 2012, 01:31:21 AM


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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 20, 2012, 01:38:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 20, 2012, 06:37:10 AM
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 20, 2012, 06:40:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 20, 2012, 06:42:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 20, 2012, 07:01:09 AM
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.

Quote
"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?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 20, 2012, 09:18:34 AM

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. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 20, 2012, 09:57:03 AM


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?
 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 20, 2012, 10:05:25 AM
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.

Quote
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.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 20, 2012, 10:06:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 20, 2012, 10:23:15 AM

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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 20, 2012, 10:24:20 AM


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,

Quote
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:

Quote
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.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 20, 2012, 10:25:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 20, 2012, 10:27:43 AM

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.

No, you have ignored tons of evidence of a shooter being on the 6th floor of the TSBD, including three eyewitnesses who saw a shooter there.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 20, 2012, 11:07:29 AM
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.

Quote
"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?
This was no small mistake.
I would have expected the Warren Commission would have demanded adequate testimony and evidence to determine exactly how this mistake could have been made, then perpetrated and then how was the identification properly made, who was the genius that actually LOOKED at the rifle and scope and made a positive identification and how did he do it when no one else seemed to be able to do so and why did it take almost a day to determine this? No one present wondered how a 6.5 cartridge would work in a 7.65 Mauser?

Weitzman's excuse of having just glanced at the weapon and scope was sufficient for the Warren Commission to answer all of these questions.

Weitzman's excuse seems to have been adequate for WC, I am telling you, for me, it does not begin to answer any questions concerning the identification of this weapon, scope or cartridges. Hence leaves the door open to doubt as to what weapon, scope and cartridges were actually found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

I get that information from Weitzman
"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."

In my opinion he is saying that if he had not just glanced at this scope, that he would have realized it could not have possibly been a Weaver scope, it didn't look anything like a Weaver scope. He is saying that a person familiar with rifle scopes would not say that these scopes could be mistaken one for the other. 
Note: there is a conflict within his statement, did he look at it or did he glance at it to make his identification?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 20, 2012, 11:10:59 AM

No, you have ignored tons of evidence of a shooter being on the 6th floor of the TSBD, including three eyewitnesses who saw a shooter there.
Please define or post "tons" of evidence of the shooter actually being on the 6th floor during the assassination. 
Post the names of the eyewitnesses who saw a shooter there, please.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 20, 2012, 11:44:27 AM
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.

Quote
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.




I am. It is a FACT that you said you had no idea what he posted and that it was not evidence. Those two statements are contradictory, no matter how much you try and gloss over what you said.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 20, 2012, 11:45:11 AM
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.

No, that is a fact. There is not one single bit of evidence of JFK reacting to being shot until frame 224. If you have evidence of it then present it.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 20, 2012, 11:47:23 AM
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.

No, you put forward data that showed there was in fact some evidence for it. Some witnesses did indeed report they thought the shots came from there. The issue is that you expect a lot more than there is, but for reasons already explained the inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected gievn the layout of the plaza.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 20, 2012, 11:52:13 AM
This was no small mistake.
I would have expected the Warren Commission would have demanded adequate testimony and evidence to determine exactly how this mistake could have been made, then perpetrated and then how was the identification properly made, who was the genius that actually LOOKED at the rifle and scope and made a positive identification and how did he do it when no one else seemed to be able to do so and why did it take almost a day to determine this? No one present wondered how a 6.5 cartridge would work in a 7.65 Mauser?

You're not taking the slightest bit of notice of anything anyone says here, are you? The two rifles look very similar, and Weitzman has said he did not undertake a detailed investigation of the rifle. Inly a total idiot find a snipers nest and assassination weapon at the scene of a crime and then goes in and disturbs it before bringing in the proper authorities. Weitzman did not examine the rifle up close. He made a simple mistake, and it is a small mistake.

Quote
Weitzman's excuse of having just glanced at the weapon and scope was sufficient for the Warren Commission to answer all of these questions.

Yes, and for everyone else except you, it seems.

Quote
In my opinion he is saying that if he had not just glanced at this scope, that he would have realized it could not have possibly been a Weaver scope, it didn't look anything like a Weaver scope. He is saying that a person familiar with rifle scopes would not say that these scopes could be mistaken one for the other.

That's your interpretation. Please explain why it is more valid than mine, which is that he simply made a mistake in identifying it. Have you looked at the pictures that were provided earlier, which show that indeed the scope on the rifle does look like a Weaver scope, at least superficially.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 20, 2012, 12:13:31 PM

No, you have ignored tons of evidence of a shooter being on the 6th floor of the TSBD, including three eyewitnesses who saw a shooter there.
Please define or post "tons" of evidence of the shooter actually being on the 6th floor during the assassination. 

Shell casings matched to Oswald's rifle found at the sniper's nest.
Oswald's handprints on the boxes around the sniper's nest.


Quote
Post the names of the eyewitnesses who saw a shooter there, please.

After reviewing their testimony I have to reduce the number of eyewitnesses I said saw a shooter down to two. Howard Brennan and Amos Euins saw a shooter in the 6th floor window. Robert Jackson and Malcolm Couch saw a rifle being withdrawn after the shooting.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 20, 2012, 12:16:31 PM
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.

Quote
"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?
This was no small mistake.
I would have expected the Warren Commission would have demanded adequate testimony and evidence to determine exactly how this mistake could have been made, then perpetrated and then how was the identification properly made, who was the genius that actually LOOKED at the rifle and scope and made a positive identification and how did he do it when no one else seemed to be able to do so and why did it take almost a day to determine this? No one present wondered how a 6.5 cartridge would work in a 7.65 Mauser?

Weitzman's excuse of having just glanced at the weapon and scope was sufficient for the Warren Commission to answer all of these questions.

Weitzman's excuse seems to have been adequate for WC, I am telling you, for me, it does not begin to answer any questions concerning the identification of this weapon, scope or cartridges. Hence leaves the door open to doubt as to what weapon, scope and cartridges were actually found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

I get that information from Weitzman
"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."

In my opinion he is saying that if he had not just glanced at this scope, that he would have realized it could not have possibly been a Weaver scope, it didn't look anything like a Weaver scope. He is saying that a person familiar with rifle scopes would not say that these scopes could be mistaken one for the other. 
Note: there is a conflict within his statement, did he look at it or did he glance at it to make his identification?
Looked like an apple and turned out to be a banana? Come on, the two weapons and scopes are not that different, especially at just a glance. It's more like it he thought it looked like a macintosh and it turned out to be courtland.

If your alleged perpetrators wanted to make it appear that one shooter using a 6.5mm Carcano shot Kennedy, do you seriously believe they would plant or leave a 7.65mm Mauser on the 6th floor?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 20, 2012, 01:08:03 PM
In every field of study there are always red flags that let you know your opponent is not dealing with a full deck. The big red flag in the moon hoax debate is LEM instead of LM. The JFK assassination has more than its fair share. The big one is the Mauser - MC canard. What moron is going to use Oswald's rifle to kill the President but then leave a different caliber rifle at the scene? The stretcher bullet is another. You're going to plant a bullet to frame Oswald while the victims are still in surgery and you have no idea what their wounds are and if any bullets are still in the bodies?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 20, 2012, 02:08:09 PM
To me, that's where 99% of JFK conspiracists fall down; their plans require things that can't have been counted on.  For example, let's look at the Grassy Knoll.  Where, as it happens, a lot of people were.  It's true that there is no clear picture of the Grassy Knoll, but why would they assume there wouldn't be?  While it is also certainly true that cameras weren't as ubiquitous in 1963 as they are now, it is also a demonstrable fact that this was exactly the sort of thing that got people to take out their cameras.  Abraham Zapruder was hardly the only person documenting that particular motorcade.  It is, in fact, pure dumb luck that there isn't any good photography of the Grassy Knoll, and anyone with any sense would have known that would be the case.  And if they were planning to fool everyone into thinking the shots, all of them, came from the TSBD, why would you risk the existence of photographs or film clearly showing that you were lying?

No, any conspiracy that involves the shots coming from anywhere other than that window is silly, and any conspiracy that involves the shots coming from anywhere other than that rifle is showing an unawareness of quite a lot of relevant evidence, including that your average emergency room doctor, while not trained in knowing whether a wound is an exit or an entrance, would certainly recognize a bullet if one were left in the body.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 20, 2012, 02:56:38 PM
Ultimately it makes no sense to do anything other than what you plan to use as the cover story. If you're going to try and convince the public that one lone nutter did the job from a particular location, the best way to do that is to get one person to do it from that location. Anything else just overcomplicates things absurdly, to the point where you are almost guaranteed to fail in keeping the story plausible.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: DataCable on May 20, 2012, 07:13:14 PM
...for me, it does not begin to answer any questions concerning the identification of this weapon, scope or cartridges.
Detail for us the obvious physical differences between the weapons, scopes and ammunition in question.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 20, 2012, 09:47:01 PM

Answer these two quesions, please
1) Have you read Reclaiming History- The Assassination Of JFK by Vincent Bugliosi ?

2) Do you believe what he wrote ?

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 20, 2012, 09:48:50 PM


I am. It is a FACT that you said you had no idea what he posted and that it was not evidence. Those two statements are contradictory, no matter how much you try and gloss over what you said.
I was wrong even though I was right, so what ? I was still right.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 20, 2012, 09:52:51 PM
The issue is that you expect a lot more than there is, but for reasons already explained the inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected gievn the layout of the plaza.
Who told you this?
What does it mean?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 20, 2012, 10:07:10 PM
The issue is that you expect a lot more than there is, but for reasons already explained the inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected gievn the layout of the plaza.
Who told you this?
What does it mean?

Maybe the fact that you don't understand what it means is a sign that you're not quite up to the task of "investigating" the JFK assassination.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 20, 2012, 10:25:43 PM
You're not taking the slightest bit of notice of anything anyone says here, are you? The two rifles look very similar, and Weitzman has said he did not undertake a detailed investigation of the rifle. Inly a total idiot find a snipers nest and assassination weapon at the scene of a crime and then goes in and disturbs it before bringing in the proper authorities. Weitzman did not examine the rifle up close. He made a simple mistake, and it is a small mistake.
You have these answers then?
Please share them with me

 :) Was Weitzman the only person allowed to examine this weapon?
 ;) Exactly how this mistake could have been made?
 :D Why did the Dallas Police department release information to the News Media concerning the rifle being a 7.65 Mauser before making sure the identification was certifiably correct.
 ;D How was the identification of the rifle properly made?
 >:( How was the identification of the scope properly made?
 :o Why did it take till the following day to identify it properly?
 8) Who made the identification of the rifle?
 ??? Who made the identification of the scope?
 :-[ Were is there additional testimony that explains these issues?
 :'( If Weitzman was incompetent why was he allowed to identify the rifle and the scope?

Thanks
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 20, 2012, 10:31:42 PM

Maybe the fact that you don't understand what it means is a sign that you're not quite up to the task of "investigating" the JFK assassination.
Inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected given the layout of the plaza.
Please define what localize means?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 20, 2012, 10:40:41 PM
Inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected gievn the layout of the plaza.
Please define what localize means?

It means determining the location of a gunman based on the sound of the gun. It's easy to be confused by the echos coming from nearby buildings... which is why people might have thought the gunman was in one location (such as the grassy knoll) when he was really in a different location (like the Schoolbook Depository).

The echoes are also why witnesses might have thought there were more shots fired than there actually were, or that there was more than one gunman.

This is why witness testimony doesn't carry more weight than things like the film footage or the other evidence.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 20, 2012, 10:56:29 PM
Inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected gievn the layout of the plaza.
Please define what localize means?

It means determining the location of a gunman based on the sound of the gun. It's easy to be confused by the echos coming from nearby buildings... which is why people might have thought the gunman was in one location (such as the grassy knoll) when he was really in a different location (like the Schoolbook Depository).

The echoes are also why witnesses might have thought there were more shots fired than there actually were, or that there was more than one gunman.

This is why witness testimony doesn't carry more weight than things like the film footage or the other evidence.
Were there many witnesses that said they had difficulty determining the direction of the shots? 
Please post them
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 20, 2012, 11:01:28 PM
Inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected gievn the layout of the plaza.
Please define what localize means?

It means determining the location of a gunman based on the sound of the gun. It's easy to be confused by the echos coming from nearby buildings... which is why people might have thought the gunman was in one location (such as the grassy knoll) when he was really in a different location (like the Schoolbook Depository).

The echoes are also why witnesses might have thought there were more shots fired than there actually were, or that there was more than one gunman.

This is why witness testimony doesn't carry more weight than things like the film footage or the other evidence.
Were there many witnesses that said they had difficulty determining the direction of the shots? 
Please post them

They likely didn't realize that they misjudged the location of the gunman. That is what you don't seem to understand... a witness can be 100% certain that they know where a gunshot came from and not realize that they were basing that judgment on an echo.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 20, 2012, 11:50:23 PM

They likely didn't realize that they misjudged the location of the gunman. That is what you don't seem to understand... a witness can be 100% certain that they know where a gunshot came from and not realize that they were basing that judgment on an echo.
So no witness complained that they had difficulty in determining the direction of the rifle reports?

Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 20, 2012, 11:53:33 PM

They likely didn't realize that they misjudged the location of the gunman. That is what you don't seem to understand... a witness can be 100% certain that they know where a gunshot came from and not realize that they were basing that judgment on an echo.
So no witness complained that they had difficulty in determining the direction of the rifle reports?

Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?

How about you actually read what I said. If they believed they knew where the shot came from why would they complain about such difficulty? Are you really this dense, or are you just being a troll?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 20, 2012, 11:56:43 PM


The echoes are also why witnesses might have thought there were more shots fired than there actually were, or that there was more than one gunman.

Which witnesses thought there were more or less then 3 shots?

Then

Why did these witnesses experience this difference?

Can these difference be reconciled with 3 shots?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 20, 2012, 11:58:44 PM

Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?


How about you actually read what I said. If they believed they knew where the shot came from why would they complain about such difficulty? Are you really this dense, or are you just being a troll?
It's a simple, straight forward question.
Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 12:02:23 AM

This is why witness testimony doesn't carry more weight than things like the film footage or the other evidence.
Does it carry less?
Is witness testimony considered at all when "thing like film footage and other evidence is available" is available?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 21, 2012, 03:18:41 AM
Answer these two quesions, please
1) Have you read Reclaiming History- The Assassination Of JFK by Vincent Bugliosi ?

2) Do you believe what he wrote ?



No, I have not read it, therefore question 2 is unanswerable.

I am not trawling through endless piles of documents and evidence here. I am taking issue only with your interpretations and attitudes.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 21, 2012, 03:19:27 AM
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?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 21, 2012, 03:26:47 AM
You have these answers then?
Please share them with me

The thing is not whether I have the answers, it is whether you have them.

Quote
Was Weitzman the only person allowed to examine this weapon?

Unlikely.

Quote
Exactly how this mistake could have been made?

This has already been explained to you. He did not examine thye rifle closely, he said what he thought he could identify based on an obscured view from a distance. Since the 7.5 mauser and the 6.5 carcano are vidually very similar, this is an easy mistake to make. Have you looked at any pictures of the rifles and scopes, such as those already provided on this thread?

Quote
Why did the Dallas Police department release information to the News Media concerning the rifle being a 7.65 Mauser before making sure the identification was certifiably correct.

Who knows. However, it is not uncommon for prelimnary statements to be made and later found to be in error.

Quote
How was the identification of the rifle properly made?
How was the identification of the scope properly made?

I would imagine by being properly examined by the people who came to collect it, wouldn't you?

Quote
Why did it take till the following day to identify it properly?

Who says it did? It might have taken that long for a proper investigation of its status and forensic evidence to have been compiled and released as a report. That doesn't mean the people who collected it were not able to identify it in five minutes flat once they had it in their possession.

Quote
Who made the identification of the rifle?
Who made the identification of the scope?

I have no idea.

Quote
Were is there additional testimony that explains these issues?

Why should there be any? This is normal stuff for an investigation. I suspect the only reason the initial report of a 7.5 mauser was issued too early was because of the high profile nature of the case and the media clamouring for information.

Quote
If Weitzman was incompetent why was he allowed to identify the rifle and the scope?

Who said he was incompetent, and who said he was 'allowed' to identify the rifle and scope? He found it and offered his thought on what it was based on his initial observation of an obscured rifle from a distance. That's all he did. Where is the official testimony, since you seem intent on asking for this stuff, that said Weitzman's identification was in any way official and not just his own unsolicited observation?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 21, 2012, 03:30:51 AM

It's a simple, straight forward question.
Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?

And it's a simple straightforward answer that you seem to be deliberately refusing to grasp.

All the witnesses were sure of where the sound came from. The trouble is that by the time sound reaches your ears it has been reflected off various buildings, and may therefore come to your ear from somewhere other than the original source. Only the other day I was walking past a local fort where they were doing shooting events. On the approach I was certain the sound of the shot was coming from my left. As I drew closer and rounded a corner I heard each shot twice, and as I rounded the corner completely I could see the people shooting on my left and hear the shots clearly coming from there. Echoes and such things deceive the senses.

This is a typical example of conspiracy theory thought process, because you are very familiar with this phenomenon. So much so that you don't even think about it. But when a situation is presented to you where that phenomenon is very significant you pretend it does not exist or apply. Why?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 09:02:25 AM
Answer these two quesions, please
1) Have you read Reclaiming History- The Assassination Of JFK by Vincent Bugliosi ?

2) Do you believe what he wrote ?



No, I have not read it, therefore question 2 is unanswerable.

I am not trawling through endless piles of documents and evidence here. I am taking issue only with your interpretations and attitudes.
Thank you for your answers.

Have you read the Warren Commission testimonies?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 21, 2012, 09:06:35 AM
Quote
Have you read the Warren Commission testimonies?

No, but see my earlier response. I am not arguing with anything but your interpretations, hypotheses and attitudes. I do not need to read Warren Commission testimonies to address the issue of sound localisation and the inherent difficulty of it, for example. I do not need to read Warren Commission testimonies to be able to tell that at a glance a 7.5 mauser and a 6.5 carcano are easily confused, for example. I still await your explanation for JFK being shot in frame 189 of the Zapruder film without apparently reacting to it, for example.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 09:15:37 AM

How about you actually read what I said. If they believed they knew where the shot came from why would they complain about such difficulty? Are you really this dense, or are you just being a troll?
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?

Did your read "Reclaiming History - The Assassination Of JFK" by Vincent Bugliosi ?
Do you believe Vincent Bugliosi ?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 21, 2012, 09:24:19 AM
The question is, how do you know the witnesses had a problem determining the direction of the shots?

Because this is a very well known and understood effect that you are totally neglecting. When witnesses report hearing shots from multiple locations it does NOT mean there were shots coming from all those locations. You have identified witnesses who said the shots came from the book depository, the grassy knoll or both, but all your witnesses, apparently, agree roughly on the number of shots. Since they heard them coming from different places but all heard the same number, then clearly some of them are incorrect. That is when you look for corroborating evidence, such as eyewitnesses saying they saw someone in that window, or saw a rifle being withdrawn, or someone saying they heard sounds that could not be heard from the plaza, such as rifle bolts being operated and shell casings hitting the floor.

To anyone, the sound of a distant gunshot echoing from a building sounds the same as a distant gunshot arriving directly. It will sound as if it comes from the building, though it may have come from somewhere else.

Are you seriously trying to tell us you have never expereinced this in your own everyday life?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 09:27:06 AM

No,

Jason, advice concerning JFK assassination, it comes from Vincent Bugliosi in "Reclaiming History - The Assassination Of JFK"
Vincent Bugliosi said -
If you have not read the Warren Commision 26 volumes, you do not know what happened.

This advice is absolutly true.

 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 21, 2012, 09:32:14 AM
Jason, advice concerning JFK assassination, it comes from Vincent Bugliosi in "Reclaiming History - The Assassination Of JFK"
Vincent Bugliosi said -
If you have not read the Warren Commision 26 volumes, you do not know what happened.

This advice is absolutly true.

I will say this in plain English, prof: I am NOT arguing the evidence, I am arguing your interpretation of it. That does not require reading the testimony itself. I am only examining your interpretations, hypotheses and in some cases outright twisting of the terms used.

This, by the way, is how real peer review is carried out. When science papers are presented the author defends them. The people critiquing them do not have to go out and do their own experiments and research to prove them wrong: it is their responsibility to prove themselves right. I am not arguing anything that is not intended to address flaws in your own work. Such as your inability to understand that acoustic concerns mean that witnesses saying where they heard shots from is NOT enough to say they definitely came from that location.

 
[/quote]
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 09:34:25 AM
To anyone, the sound of a distant gunshot echoing from a building sounds the same as a distant gunshot arriving directly. It will sound as if it comes from the building, though it may have come from somewhere else.

Are you seriously trying to tell us you have never expereinced this in your own everyday life?
Please provide evidence that these concepts applies to Dealey Plaza.
Which witnesses said echos were a problem in determining direction of the shots in Dealey Plaza?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 21, 2012, 09:39:24 AM
Please provide evidence that these concepts applies to Dealey Plaza.

You are joking, right? This is physics. It applies everywhere. Sounds reverberate off large flat surfaces, such as the fronts of buildings. The behaviour of sound is universal at any given location on this planet.

Quote
Which witnesses said echos were a problem in determining direction of the shots in Dealey Plaza?

They didn't, because they didn't realise it at the time. They hear a single sharp sound coming from a particular location, and they cannot tell if that sound arrived directly from that location or if it was simply reflected from it. All they hear is a single 'crack'. They don't hear echoes as in the classic repeating sound fading off in volume so often prtrayed in film and TV. They don't experience difficulty in localising the direction of that sound. They simply lack the knowledge of what path that sound took to their ear from its original source.

Imagine being deaf and blind and standing in the middle of a squash court and getting hit by a ball in the back of the head. All you know is that the ball hit you by approaching you from behind, but you don't know if it arrived there directly or after bouncing off a couple of walls first. When asked, you will say you were hit from behind by a squash ball, because you don't have any more information than that.

I repeat: how could different witnesses report hearing the same number of shots from different locations without this simple echo effect?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 09:47:35 AM
I will say this in plain English, prof: I am NOT arguing the evidence, I am arguing your interpretation of it. That does not require reading the testimony itself. I am only examining your interpretations, hypotheses and in some cases outright twisting of the terms used.

Jason I could not have said this better "I am NOT arguing the evidence", I agree your not.

All I have tried to do is to get you to understand that the myths you think you know are unfounded, that if you do not examine the actual evidence, you are arguing about shadows.

"outright twisting of the terms used" - I am disturbed that you think that I am in some way being untruthful or deceptive, I will try to be more clear in what I post so that this impression is not perpetuated, my apologies.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 09:55:49 AM
Please provide evidence that these concepts applies to Dealey Plaza.

You are joking, right? This is physics. It applies everywhere. Sounds reverberate off large flat surfaces, such as the fronts of buildings. The behaviour of sound is universal at any given location on this planet.
I repeat: how could different witnesses report hearing the same number of shots from different locations without this simple echo effect?
No, I am absolutely serious.
Was echos a concern for the Warren Commission in interpreting the evidence from testimonies of witnesses concerning direction of shots?

If there were discrepancies, did the Warren Commission do any scientific studies on the effects of echos in Dealey Plaza to explain discrepancies of witness testimony?

Please post references.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 21, 2012, 09:58:31 AM
All I have tried to do is to get you to understand that the myths you think you know are unfounded, that if you do not examine the actual evidence, you are arguing about shadows.

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.

Quote
"outright twisting of the terms used" - I am disturbed that you think that I am in some way being untruthful or deceptive, I will try to be more clear in what I post so that this impression is not perpetuated, my apologies.

The specific instances I was thinking of concerned your switching of the word 'persuade' with 'coerce', and your assumption that Weitzman's identification of the rifle was in some way more than a simple 'quick look' error rather than some anomalous detailed investigation. I do not think you are being deceptive, but I do think you are reading far too much into things at times.

[/quote]
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 21, 2012, 10:02:20 AM
No, I am absolutely serious.
Was echos a concern for the Warren Commission in interpreting the evidence from testimonies of witnesses concerning direction of shots?

It would have been a factor they would have had to consider, as in all cases where sound localisation is involved in the testimony.

Quote
If there were discrepancies, did the Warren Commission do any scientific studies on the effects of echos in Dealey Plaza to explain discrepancies of witness testimony?

No, because this effect is so common and well understood that it would be the default conclusion when discrepancies in testimony regarding where a sound like a rifle shot came from arise. It no more needs investigation than does the capability of a 6.5 carcano rifle to kill someone. You don't take the report of where the sound came from in isolation and attach any more weight to it. You add it up with everything else. When people say sounds came from multiple locations, you add the witness testimonies of people who saw things in certain locations, and the ballistic and forensic testing from things like autopsies and film recordings of events.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 21, 2012, 11:26:03 AM
The question is, how do you know the witnesses had a problem determining the direction of the shots?



The vast majority of people in the plaza that day were not witnesses to a gun shot, they were witnesses to hearing a sound  and to a far lesser extent seeing the effects of the shots on the victims.  That is all.   Converting the individual perceptions into a cogent proposal of where the shot was fired is a mater of interpretation, and one that must reconciled with all empirical evidence.    Your rationalizations of reports and testimony to fit a predetermined conclusion reveal the absence of any empirical verification in your "analysis."
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 21, 2012, 01:44:01 PM

Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?


How about you actually read what I said. If they believed they knew where the shot came from why would they complain about such difficulty? Are you really this dense, or are you just being a troll?
It's a simple, straight forward question.
Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?


Do you have a problem understanding English? If a witness believed the shots were coming from the grassy knoll because that's where the sound seemed to come from then they were not "unsure". Being unsure would mean they had doubts. But they can be 100% sure the sound came from the grassy knoll and be 100% wrong.

There is no way a gunman near the grassy knoll could have shot JFK and Governor Connally in the way that we know they were shot. You can't shoot someone in the back when you're standing in front of them. That is undeniable so it doesn't matter if witnesses say that is where they heard the gunshots coming from.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 21, 2012, 02:13:44 PM
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 21, 2012, 02:35:11 PM
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 . . . .
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 04:42:32 PM
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  :D
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 05:05:55 PM

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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 21, 2012, 05:18:38 PM

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?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 21, 2012, 05:20:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 05:21:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 21, 2012, 05:26:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 05:42:43 PM
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
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 06:28:50 PM
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)




Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 21, 2012, 06:46:31 PM
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 21, 2012, 06:49:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 07:31:47 PM
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.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 07:33:23 PM
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?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 07:56:26 PM
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.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 21, 2012, 08:00:36 PM
Wow. It's like arguing with an idiot. And I mean that in the archaic sense of someone with an IQ below 25.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 08:07:19 PM

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.
Your arrogance is funny.
Just for you I am going to research the law enforcement officials and determine how many converged on the grassy knoll and why they did.

You made me giggle, I can just see all of the Dallas police running the wrong way because they could not detect the direction of report...report.report.
At least we can marvel at them for all running in the same direction.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 08:08:40 PM
Wow. It's like arguing with an idiot. And I mean that in the archaic sense of someone with an IQ below 25.
Ya exactly, I know the feeling
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 21, 2012, 08:09:49 PM
Wow. It's like arguing with an idiot. And I mean that in the archaic sense of someone with an IQ below 25.
Ya exactly, I know the feeling

No, you don't.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 21, 2012, 08:12:52 PM
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.


Why is your interpretation of events better than that done by the professional investigators who have accepted the statement as a ms-identification.   

According to Bugliosi, Deputy Sheriff Boone and Deputy Constable Weitzman stated they only saw it at a glance and did not touch it.  Weitzman was formerly in the sporting goods business and apparently familial with the Mauser.  In fact the Carcano was in a class of rifles know as "Mauser Action" rifles because it uses the same bolt action.  Weitzman, himself, has stated that he has no doubts that the Carcano is the same rifle he saw.   Weitzman was not part of Dallas PD so your earlier stated that "Dallas Police discovered and identified a 7.65 Mauser with a Weaver scope on the 6th floor TSBD," is in error about everything it says and implies. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 21, 2012, 08:21:48 PM
Apparently profmunkin thinks it's first come, first serve in the field of firearms identification.

Boone and Weitzman found the weapon, Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker each photographed the rifle in place, Captain Fritz picked up the weapon, Lieutenant Day held the weapon and inspected the bolt to see if there were any fingerprints on it and after determining he could not see any liftable fingerprints on it, Captain Fritz operated the bolt and ejected a live round. Lieutenant Day took possession of the weapon and brought it back to his office for processing.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 21, 2012, 08:29:50 PM
Apparently profmunkin thinks it's first come, first serve in the field of firearms identification.
His interpretation must be backed up by reference to someone with an extensive knowledge of Dallas police procedures in effect at the time, surely.  I await the posting of his sources.  Now where is that smiley for turning blue in the face. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 08:44:59 PM
According to Bugliosi, Deputy Sheriff Boone and Deputy Constable Weitzman stated they only saw it at a glance and did not touch it.  Weitzman was formerly in the sporting goods business and apparently familial with the Mauser.  In fact the Carcano was in a class of rifles know as "Mauser Action" rifles because it uses the same bolt action.  Weitzman, himself, has stated that he has no doubts that the Carcano is the same rifle he saw.   Weitzman was not part of Dallas PD so your earlier stated that "Dallas Police discovered and identified a 7.65 Mauser with a Weaver scope on the 6th floor TSBD," is in error about everything it says and implies.

Dah, No one touched it except Fritz.
Yes you are correct Weitzman was Deputy Constable, I knew that but carelessly included him in "Dallas Police", a painful error, so sorry.

Which is another reason to question why the Dallas Police did not do an identification on the rifle and the scope themselves.  Why would the Dallas Police accept the word of a Deputy Constable to identify the rifle and except it into evidence?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 21, 2012, 08:51:22 PM
According to Bugliosi, Deputy Sheriff Boone and Deputy Constable Weitzman stated they only saw it at a glance and did not touch it.  Weitzman was formerly in the sporting goods business and apparently familial with the Mauser.  In fact the Carcano was in a class of rifles know as "Mauser Action" rifles because it uses the same bolt action.  Weitzman, himself, has stated that he has no doubts that the Carcano is the same rifle he saw.   Weitzman was not part of Dallas PD so your earlier stated that "Dallas Police discovered and identified a 7.65 Mauser with a Weaver scope on the 6th floor TSBD," is in error about everything it says and implies.

Dah, No one touched it except Fritz.
Yes you are correct Weitzman was Deputy Constable, I knew that but carelessly included him in "Dallas Police", a painful error, so sorry.

Which is another reason to question why the Dallas Police did not do an identification on the rifle and the scope themselves.

They did do an identification of it! LT Day brought it back to his office and dictated his identification of it to his secretary!


Quote
  Why would the Dallas Police accept the word of a Deputy Constable to identify the rifle and except it into evidence?

They didn't! Weitzman left the TSBD and filed an affidavit of what he did and saw. That is all Weitzman did!

Jesus Fucking Christ you're stupid!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 08:52:02 PM
Apparently profmunkin thinks it's first come, first serve in the field of firearms identification.

Captain Fritz operated the bolt and ejected a live round.
I don't know what you mean to say?
Are you implying that it was not possible for Deputy Constable Weitzman or Dallas Police to read 7.65 Mauser on the barrel or Weaver on the scope. Please explain.

After the last shell is ejected on a Carcano doesn't the clip fall out?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 08:58:51 PM
Weitzman left the TSBD and filed an affidavit of what he did and saw. That is all Weitzman did!

They didn't! Jesus Fucking Christ you're stupid!

And then the Dallas Police department announced to the news media that they found a 7.65 Mauser rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Be nice or I won't play with you!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 21, 2012, 08:59:37 PM
Why would the Dallas Police accept the word of a Deputy Constable to identify the rifle and except it into evidence?  Why would the Dallas Police accept the word of a Deputy Constable to identify the rifle and except it into evidence?

I don't know why they would have or would not have or if they did. You must have a source to share that details the handling of the rifle from its discovery by Boone and Weitzman until it was property identified. For instance, did Weitzman in fact make the identification that was used when the rifle was taken into evidence. 

Nevertheless, would the guy who cataloged it into evidence simply not accepted it?  Or would he have accepted it with a notation of the identification he was given so the police could establish a chain of custody until a through and professional determination could by made when the proper personnel were on hand?

Again,  why is your interpretation preferred to those of the professional investigators? What makes your scenario more likely than the one I have offered?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 21, 2012, 09:06:55 PM
Apparently profmunkin thinks it's first come, first serve in the field of firearms identification.

Captain Fritz operated the bolt and ejected a live round.
Are you implying that it was not possible for Deputy Constable Weitzman or Dallas Police to read 7.65 Mauser on the barrel or Weaver on the scope. Please explain.

For god's sake, Weitzman did not examine the rifle.  He saw stuffed between two rows of boxes.  Secondly the caliber stamp on the rifle was obscured by the scope, and only visible by close examination. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 21, 2012, 09:13:19 PM
Let me add to others in stating the complete stupidity of claim, by noting that the brass found in the same room were for a 6.5 MM caliber rifle, matching the bullets that caused the wounds.  Profmunklin, you must have some factually plausible explanation as to why the conspirators would have planted rifle that differed from the brass?  Don't you?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 09:21:49 PM
]

For god's sake, Weitzman did not examine the rifle.  He saw stuffed between two rows of boxes.  Secondly the caliber stamp on the rifle was obscured by the scope, and only visible by close examination.
Where is the Mauser stamped and what do you suppose the Dallas Police thought of Argentino 1909 stamp.
They both end in an o
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 21, 2012, 10:34:35 PM
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?

No, I said exactly what I meant to say. The fact that all of the witnesses didn't point to one location as the source of the gunshots, and the fact that one of the locations that they pointed to couldn't possibly have been the source of the shots, means that at least some of the witnesses identified the wrong location as the source of the shots. In other words, they were confused by the echoes.

Quote
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?

I'm sure the witnesses closest to the assassin would have had the best chance of identifying the source of the gunshots.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 21, 2012, 10:37:18 PM
Standing across the street from the TSBD looking towards the TSBD, 57 feet above him is the snipers nest window.  Right before the motorcade, Edwards claims to have seen someone in the window on the 6th floor...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/edwards.htm
"Mr. BELIN - If you said four, you mean the affidavit-maybe we'd better introduce it into the record as Edward's Deposition Exhibit A. Where do you think the shots came from?
Mr. EDWARDS - I have no idea. "

Also thought there were 4 shots fired
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 21, 2012, 11:04:38 PM
"Oswald" Rifle found without a clip?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid6.htm
"1985 book Reasonable Doubt, Henry Hurt intones:

Without a clip, the cartridges must be hand-loaded, one by one, making rapid shooting flatly impossible.
There is not a shred of positive evidence that such a clip was found with the Mannlicher-Carcano in the sniper's nest. (p. 103) "

After the last shell is ejected on a Carcano doesn't the clip fall out?

Wow. You can't even keep your own claims straight. Was there a clip or not?

Why should we take you seriously?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 22, 2012, 12:52:27 AM
And I'm sorry, but that's a cite from the McAdams site, which makes it quite clear that Henry Hurt is wrong, a fact never acknowledged.  That's also the site which lists exactly where all those witnesses stated they believed the shots to come from, which, yes, shows that you're wrong that "virtually all" of the witnesses believed the shots came from the Grassy Knoll.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 22, 2012, 01:06:28 AM
And I'm sorry, but that's a cite from the McAdams site, which makes it quite clear that Henry Hurt is wrong, a fact never acknowledged. 

Right. The very next sentence says, "Yet a little research would have turned up plenty of evidence that the clip was found with the rifle."

Talk about bias.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 22, 2012, 01:11:01 AM
After the last shell is ejected on a Carcano doesn't the clip fall out?
No, it falls out after the last round is stripped off of it by the bolt and loaded into the chamber (I own one).
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 22, 2012, 04:03:38 AM
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.

Rubbish.

Fact: witnesses reported hearing the same number of shots from different locations. This means they cannot all be correct in their identification of the location. That is a fact so self-evident that writing it into official testimony is utterly pointless.

Quote
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?

Did those re-enactments include firing guns out of windows at moving cars? Having people down on the ground listening for where the shots came from? Or was it just to see the viability of a sniper from the sixth floor window being able to shoot someone in the car from that distance? You're the one reading the commission report, so you tell us what data there is.

Quote
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.

Because it does not agree with other FACTS. This is normal in an investigation. It doesn't matter how many people say they heard shots from there if there is no other corroborating evidence to say that there was anyone there in a position to have fired on the motorcade in the way that the bullets were known to have struck Kennedy and Connally. Incidentally, we still await your explanation of how Kennedy was shot from in front and Connally from behind while the limo was pretty much level with the knoll.

Quote
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.

Unfortunately, talking about physics until I am blue in the face is something I do often with conspiracy theorists who have not the first inclination about any aspect of it and expect reality to conform to their limited understanding.

You are basing your entire dismissal of the physics here on your own expectation of what should be, and you are doing nothing at all to examine your own expectations. Fortunately physics does not care what you think, and the limited use of 'earwitness' testimony is a very well known limitation on any such investigation.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 22, 2012, 04:06:16 AM
You made me giggle, I can just see all of the Dallas police running the wrong way because they could not detect the direction of report...report.report.
At least we can marvel at them for all running in the same direction.

You just don't understand plain English, do you? The police are human and they would have the same limitations on their ability to pinpoint a sound as any other witness. A limitation that most people are not aware of in the moment. If a large number of people thought the sound came from the knoll they may well look or run there, but that does NOT mean their identification of the sound as originating there is any more correct. Simple sharp short sounds like rifle reports are often difficult to localise. That is a FACT, and your refusing to understand it won't actually change that.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 22, 2012, 06:54:03 AM
]

For god's sake, Weitzman did not examine the rifle.  He saw stuffed between two rows of boxes.  Secondly the caliber stamp on the rifle was obscured by the scope, and only visible by close examination.
Where is the Mauser stamped and what do you suppose the Dallas Police thought of Argentino 1909 stamp.
They both end in an o
  What part of "Weitzman did not examine the rifle" do you not understand?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 22, 2012, 07:59:14 AM
Oh, and just for my own curiosity I looked into the testimony of some of the witnesses, and following profmunkin's question about witnesses saying they had trouble working out where the shots came from, or saying echoes were an issue:

Quote
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you form any opinion about the direction from which the shots came by the sound, or were you just upset by the thing you had seen?

Mr. ZAPRUDER. No, there was too much reverberation. There was an echo which gave me a sound all over. In other words that square is kind of--it had a sound all over.

Quote
Mr. STERN - Just a minute. Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the source of the shots?

Mr. HARGIS - Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from

Finding that took me about five minutes with Google, so why someone who is supposedly reading the commission report in detail couldn't identify it remains to be explained...
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 22, 2012, 09:03:14 AM
No, it falls out after the last round is stripped off of it by the bolt and loaded into the chamber (I own one).
I would like to understand this.
If the clip is supposed to drop out when the last cartridge is chambered, why is the clip still depicted in the rifle when there is no longer a cartridge on the clip or in the chamber ?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on May 22, 2012, 09:18:40 AM
The Carcano ciip is intended to falll out after the last round is fed into the chamber.  But if the clip is bent, very dirty, rifle held sideways or other issues exist, then the clip stays in the rifle. 

I own a Carcano with a 4x scope on it.  It is a real piece of crap as the barrel is black and pitted but the bolt cycles smoothly.  I am an experienced shooter, but I cannot say I was as good a marksman as Oswald was as he was a Marine.  It is a simple matter to pull the trigger three times cycle the bolt twice in six seconds and put each bullet into a man sized target at 80 yards even with my crappy rifle.  The fact that the limo was moving slowly away at a small angle only made the feat a bit harder.

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 22, 2012, 10:27:30 AM
Again, could you explain why these dedicated conspirators, who (you admit) were desperate to ensure their ruse of a single gunman worked, planted the wrong type of rifle?

And please assess the probability of that versus people making a simple mistake in the heat of the moment.

Apparently, in your world, there are two groups - those who tell the truth, and those who lie. There's no room for people who make mistakes, who forget details, or who otherwise try to tell the truth, but don't quite do so.

I'm reminded of the Paul Bernardo investigation in Canada, where police spent months fruitlessly searching for a black Trans Am, reported by two witnesses as being involved in one of the kidnappings. Now, it turns out Bernardo didn't own a black Trans Am - he owned a black Nissan which very similar in appearance to a Trans Am. Do you plan to protest his conviction, because if witnesses SAID it was a Trans Am, it MUST have been a Trans Am, and no other type of car is possible?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 22, 2012, 10:54:49 AM
It is standard conspiracy thinking: the scenario whereby mistakes are made and then rectified or dismissed as mistakes does not exist. Anything that changes a story from the first statement is some sort of coverup or distortion of facts.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ApolloGnomon on May 22, 2012, 12:25:08 PM
A quick glance across this thread leads me to wonder if profmunchkin knows the difference between a clip and a magazine.


{edit to add after doing some research on the weapon type}

Ah. I didn't know the clip for that rifle exits via the bottom of the ammo well. I'm only familiar with the ones that exit via the top, sproinging out on the last round.

Anyway, here's a video of a guy operating one. The en bloc clip stays in the receiver until the bolt is closed.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 22, 2012, 01:41:18 PM
The Carcano ciip is intended to falll out after the last round is fed into the chamber.  But if the clip is bent, very dirty, rifle held sideways or other issues exist, then the clip stays in the rifle. 
what is this protruding from the bottom of this rifle, is it the clip or the magazine?
and if it is the magazine, by comparing photos, this does not appear to be the magazine design I have seen on other photos of the Carcano.

What is going on in this photo?
Does the clip fall out the bottom of the rifle or ejected out the top when the last shell is ejected?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 22, 2012, 02:01:19 PM
What part of "Weitzman did not examine the rifle" do you not understand?
I can say the same:
What part of "Weitzman signed an affidavit swearing it was a 7.65 Mauser" do you not get?
Weitzman just glanced at the murder weapon of a sitting president, guessed at the identificaton of the rifle and the identificaton scope then testified to these FACTS in an affidavit to be FACTS.

Why did the Dallas Police announce to the news media that it was a 7.65 Mauser?
Why did the Dallas Police not make a correction till the next day?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 22, 2012, 02:05:41 PM
Wow. You can't even keep your own claims straight. Was there a clip or not?

Why should we take you seriously?

Because, I don't know, was there a clip or not?

You haven't taken me seriously yet, so I doubt if I will be concerned that you ever will.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 22, 2012, 02:13:39 PM
That's also the site which lists exactly where all those witnesses stated they believed the shots to come from, which, yes, shows that you're wrong that "virtually all" of the witnesses believed the shots came from the Grassy Knoll.

If you read my posts, I said that I am reading the testimonies of witnesses, starting with all of them listed as witnesses to the assassination,
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
 over 70 read so far, the data for these witnesses is as posted.

Why don't you start reading WC testimonies yourself and quit relying on other people to tell you what you should think?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 22, 2012, 02:21:44 PM
What part of "Weitzman signed an affidavit swearing it was a 7.65 Mauser" do you not get?

Show us this affidavit. Specifically the part where he states this identification was based on an inspection of the rifle and not simply a cursory glance. Then tell us in detail exactly how you prove that it was not simply a mistake.

Quote
Weitzman just glanced at the murder weapon of a sitting president, guessed at the identificaton of the rifle and the identificaton scope then testified to these FACTS in an affidavit to be FACTS.

An affidavit swears only to the belief or memory of the person writing it. If he believed on cursory examination that the weapon was a Mauser, of course he would put that in a signed affidavit. That doesn't mean he can't have been wrong.

Quote
Why did the Dallas Police announce to the news media that it was a 7.65 Mauser?

Show us the police statement and the precise timing of events that means this statement could not have been issued before the proper identification was made.

Quote
Why did the Dallas Police not make a correction till the next day?

Show us the correction, and then explain why they should immediately rush out to the media and correct it, rather than following normal procedures for reporting and fact gathering. Their obligation is to find the truth, not to report it to the papers as and when every fact comes in.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 22, 2012, 02:23:37 PM
Why don't you start reading WC testimonies yourself and quit relying on other people to tell you what you should think?

Why don't you stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you hasn't actually done the research themselves already? How do you know that she has not already done the reading and therefore is advancing a perfectly sound conclusion? It is typical of you as a conspiracy theorist to assume the only reason anyone disagrees with you is closed-mindedness or something along those lines.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 22, 2012, 02:34:01 PM
Why would a conspiracy to murder a president, that depended on split-second timing and immense coordination, fail to use a throw-down weapon of the type they wanted people to believe was used?

Even supposing they did, was the Dallas Police Department part of this conspiracy? If so, why did they give the "wrong" rifle identification? If they weren't, what does that do to the parts of your theory that rely on the DPD to be in on it?

Seriously, the misidentification of the rifle is a silly argument. But, I suppose it's the way profmunkin sees the case. Any evidence of "anomalies" must be unvarnished truth - mistakes, bad memory, confabulation, all are impossible. Of course, any evidence that contradicts that testimony is a bald-faced lie by paid or inimidated stooges.

Again, profmunkin - do you think that the witnesses who told Ontario police that Kristen French had been kidnapped by a couple in a black Trans Am were telling the truth? I mean, they made an official police report about it. So it must be true, right?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 22, 2012, 02:50:14 PM
The Carcano ciip is intended to falll out after the last round is fed into the chamber.  But if the clip is bent, very dirty, rifle held sideways or other issues exist, then the clip stays in the rifle. 

I own a Carcano with a 4x scope on it.  It is a real piece of crap as the barrel is black and pitted but the bolt cycles smoothly.  I am an experienced shooter, but I cannot say I was as good a marksman as Oswald was as he was a Marine.  It is a simple matter to pull the trigger three times cycle the bolt twice in six seconds and put each bullet into a man sized target at 80 yards even with my crappy rifle.  The fact that the limo was moving slowly away at a small angle only made the feat a bit harder.



Ranb
I've never had one fail to fall out, but I certainly can see how it could happen. I'll also have to admit I'm not sure what we are seeing in the McAdams photo of Day carrying out the rifle. If it is the clip, it must have slid part way out and stuck. Since Day's note doesn't say where he found the clip, it's possible McAdams may simply be mistaken about the photo.

ETA-Apparently Day removed it later that day at the DPD crime lab (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/firearms_hsca.htm), so it must have stuck.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 22, 2012, 03:30:53 PM
Profmunkin, you have two choices as of this moment.  Explain, in precise detail and with supporting citations, exactly what you think happened or inaugurate my ignore list.  I'm tired of playing games with you.  You quibble and bicker and cherry-pick evidence and refused to be pinned down on details.  I've had enough of that, because the very first question I asked you in this thread was intended to prevent it from happening.  I asked you then if you were capable of learning, and you assured me you were.  Very rude of you to lie to me.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 22, 2012, 04:46:35 PM
Why don't you stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you hasn't actually done the research themselves already? .
Because it makes the difference, if you read the WC, Shaw and HSC you will know what happened, what didn't happen.
I am not here to argue with you, I am doing this to clarify my thinking on this subject and to bounce facts at you guys in the hope one of you may start to question what you believe you know.
Don't believe me, you have to find out for yourself, check out what I am saying.

Why in the world do you think Warren said we may never really know the truth. Wake up, don't sleep the rest of your life away.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 22, 2012, 05:16:54 PM
I suspect Warren said that we may never know the truth, because that is the nature of historical study. Trying to recreate an event after it's over is never completely, 100%, possible. There are always, yes, anomalies, times when you say, "that piece of evidence contradicts this piece, and yet we don't have grounds for saying one is the 'truth' more than the other".

Not all the jigsaw pieces are going to fit. Some are missing, and we'll never find them, because the cat ate them. Some got accidentally put in the box from another puzzle. And we've got one jammed in where we think it fits, but it actually should be put in the opposite corner, and we won't realize it until we get there. That doesn't mean The Puzzle Is a Lie.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 22, 2012, 05:45:16 PM
Because it makes the difference, if you read the WC, Shaw and HSC you will know what happened, what didn't happen.

That makes no sense whatsoever. You haven't yet read the reports and testimonies. You're in the process of doing so, so you tell us. I am asking you why you assume that everyone who disagrees with you does so because they haven't read the things they are directing you to.

Quote
I am not here to argue with you, I am doing this to clarify my thinking on this subject and to bounce facts at you guys in the hope one of you may start to question what you believe you know.

That there says it all. you are not interested in learning, you are interested in changing our minds. I can assure you that my mind on the matter of things like the way Kennedy's head moves when he is shot, the way human hearing works (and the inherent limitations of it in terms of localising gunshot sounds), and the like will not be changed by reading reports and testimonies, because it is based on YEARS of study of the underlying science. Study that my current profession as a scientist suggests I comprehended very well, thank you very much.

Quote
Don't believe me, you have to find out for yourself, check out what I am saying.

And you still won't accept that that is just what some of us have done, either after you mentioned it or before, and yet you still assume we only disagree with you because we have not done so, and you presume to sit there dismissing hard facts and science. How arrogant can you get?

Quote
Why in the world do you think Warren said we may never really know the truth.

Because that is the nature of trying to reconstruct past events. Eyewitness testimonies can be contradictory, pieces of evidence that would be useful are missing simply because no-one was in a position to get them at the time, and some people simply will not accept actual science. Furthermore, the only person who can tell us exactly why Oswald shot JFK is Oswald, and he's dead. That doesn't mean what he had to say would have blown a conspiracy open, it just means we will never truly know why he did it. What we get to from investigations is as close to reality as we can get, but it will never be 100% correct.
 
Quote
Wake up, don't sleep the rest of your life away.

I am awake, and I am thinking. If you want to change my mind you'll have to do better than you are.

You could start by telling us exactly how one person from in front inflicted all the wounds on JFK and Connally...
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 22, 2012, 06:56:44 PM
I would like to study more WC testimonies...
Hey, I think you're finally on to something.

Why not go all the way and study all of the Warren Commission testimony before you formulate such definite conclusions? Wouldn't that be more productive than randomly leafing around for a few cherry-picked witnesses that you can quote selectively and out of context to support your predetermined conclusion?

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 22, 2012, 07:34:25 PM
Profmunkin, you have two choices as of this moment.  Explain, in precise detail and with supporting citations, exactly what you think happened or inaugurate my ignore list.  I'm tired of playing games with you.  You quibble and bicker and cherry-pick evidence and refused to be pinned down on details.  I've had enough of that, because the very first question I asked you in this thread was intended to prevent it from happening.  I asked you then if you were capable of learning, and you assured me you were.  Very rude of you to lie to me.

This forum so far has been incapable of examining the evidence provided, then forming opinions based on this evidence.  gillianren as I have explained, it would be folly to propose an alternate story if the set of evidences your believing is true blocks your perception to what I might propose. 

quibble and bicker - lol

cherry-pick evidence?  - so far the evidence I have been presenting has strictly been taken from WC and has centered on witness corroboration for few specific issues. How can you miss true this to mean cherry-picking?

It is interesting to me that you guys argued against everything I prestented from researchers on the assassination because it wasn't from the Warren Commission and now you guys continue to argue as vehemently against everything I am now prestenting and this has come directly from within the Warren Commission, do you find this at all odd?
This is a science forum, but no one thinks in terms of examining the data.

I do not lie, I do make mistakes, believe as you will.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 22, 2012, 07:39:59 PM
This forum so far has been incapable of examining the evidence provided, then forming opinions based on this evidence.

Wrong. That is exactly what I have done.

Quote
gillianren as I have explained, it would be folly to propose an alternate story if the set of evidences your believing is true blocks your perception to what I might propose.

Stop making excuses. If you have an alternate theory then present it. if not, quit dancing around and say so.
 
Quote
cherry-pick evidence?  - so far the evidence I have been presenting has strictly been taken from WC and has centered on witness corroboration for few specific issues. How can you miss true this to mean cherry-picking?

Because you have yet to concede that evidence from the same source that contradicts yours actually exists, or does contradict it.

Quote
It is interesting to me that you guys argued against everything I prestented from researchers on the assassination because it wasn't from the Warren Commission

Please show me where I did that. You are dealing with individuals here.

Quote
This is a science forum, but no one thinks in terms of examining the data.

Bull. The only person here who has dismissed science and data is YOU. You already told me that talking about physics is pointless, so don't you try to use the 'this is a sceince forum' crap here when it is you who is refusing to listen to any actual science.

Quote
I do not lie, I do make mistakes, believe as you will.

You may not lie, but you are intellectually dishonest. You have been caught out time and again making contradictory arguments yet you refuse to acknowledge the fact.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 22, 2012, 07:52:40 PM
Hey, I think you're finally on to something.

Why not go all the way and study all of the Warren Commission testimony before you formulate such definite conclusions? Wouldn't that be more productive than randomly leafing around for a few cherry-picked witnesses that you can quote selectively and out of context to support your predetermined conclusion?
No.
I wanted to see what witnesses experiecned in Dealey Plaza as recounted in sworn testimony. I wanted to determine if these testimonies could be corroborated in ways that I might understand what was experienced that afternoon.

I started with the "Witness at the assassination scene" catagory and read every testimony there
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
I then started and just completed the TSBD
I will next take Parkland Hospital.

"a few cherry-picked witnesses..." review the data.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 22, 2012, 07:53:42 PM
The fact that all of the witnesses didn't point to one location as the source of the gunshots, and the fact that one of the locations that they pointed to couldn't possibly have been the source of the shots, means that at least some of the witnesses identified the wrong location as the source of the shots. In other words, they were confused by the echoes.
Not only were they confused by the echoes in Dealy Plaza, most of the earwitnesses were unfamiliar with the sounds of rifle fire. Many first thought a motorcycle had backfired or even that some kids had tossed firecrackers into the street. Only experienced hunters like Governor Connally and Officer Baker immediately recognized the shots for what they were.

Even without echoes, each rifle shot creates at least three distinct sounds from three different directions: the shock wave from the supersonic bullet; the muzzle blast from the rifle; and the bullet hitting its target. Only the muzzle blast seems to come from the position of the gun.

The shock wave from the bullet appears to come from an entirely different direction, namely the position of the bullet at the moment it created the shock wave that you hear. People in different locations will perceive it as coming from different points along the bullet's path, and some will even be off by 180 degrees. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the bullet shock is usually louder than the muzzle blast and arrives before it.

I speculate, but have not verified, that the 'crack' of the bullet will seem to come from the position of the bullet when its velocity relative to the observer (not its actual speed) drops to the speed of sound.

Those who are highly familiar with rifles learn to ignore the bullet shock wave and associate the muzzle blast with the location of the gun. Connally and Baker both correctly identified the direction from which the shots were fired.

Quote
I'm sure the witnesses closest to the assassin would have had the best chance of identifying the source of the gunshots.
Indeed. In that category we have Oswald's coworkers on the floor below him, who even heard the ejected shells hitting the floor. And we also have Howard Brennan across the street who actually saw Oswald firing the shots. Isn't it curious how the conspiracists invariably ignore or dismiss these witnesses, relying instead on a few hand-picked distant earwitnesses who were confused by the physics and the acoustics into giving the direction the conspiracist prefers?

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 22, 2012, 07:55:17 PM
Not all the jigsaw pieces are going to fit. .
This is not a jigsaw, this is life,

YES...everything fits, when you see the right way.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on May 22, 2012, 08:44:52 PM
what is this protruding from the bottom of this rifle, is it the clip or the magazine?
and if it is the magazine, by comparing photos, this does not appear to be the magazine design I have seen on other photos of the Carcano.

What is going on in this photo?
Does the clip fall out the bottom of the rifle or ejected out the top when the last shell is ejected?

The Carcano that Oswald allegedly used matches what is seen in that photo.  That model uses a fixed magazine and is loaded with an enbloc clip containing cartridges.  The magazine is much larger than the small clip that holds the cartridges together.  One can not be mistaken for the other when seen by anyone familiar with this rifle.

(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/ranb40/carcanomag.jpg)

What your arrow is pointing to could be part of the shadow that is on the ground in front of the person holding the rifle.  If it is a gun part, then it is the clip stuck slightly ejected from the magazine.

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on May 22, 2012, 08:52:32 PM
Quote
what is this protruding from the bottom of this rifle, is it the clip or the magazine?

Does the clip fall out the bottom of the rifle or ejected out the top when the last shell is ejected?

I think these two questions display an extreme amount of ignorance from any person who has an opinion on the how JFK was killed.  This information is easy to dig up.  Carcano rifles are very common and cheap for anyone who wants to find out for themselves how they operate and how easy it is to shoot quickly and somewhat accurately.

I used to be surprised at how ignorant most people are about guns when they made various claims about how it was impossible for JFK to have been shot from the TSBD.  But now I understand that many CTer's use ignorance and prejudice instead of simple evidence to come to a conclusion.  The trouble is that they have to expect that those who listen to them are just was willfully ignorant, and many times this is not the case.

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 22, 2012, 08:55:39 PM
What part of "Weitzman did not examine the rifle" do you not understand?
I can say the same:
What part of "Weitzman signed an affidavit swearing it was a 7.65 Mauser" do you not get?
Weitzman just glanced at the murder weapon of a sitting president, guessed at the identificaton of the rifle and the identificaton scope then testified to these FACTS in an affidavit to be FACTS.


I question the weight you put in the Weitzman affidavit.  It is quite possible that the statement was a recounting of his actions and thoughts when he discovered the weapon.  In that case it would seem to be appropriate to include the identification information even if it was not correct.  Other investigations have accepted a mis-identification as the right reading of the situation, so why is your interpretation better? 

Why should we have accepted Weitzman as the definitive identification anyway.   He personally says he has no doubt about the later identification. 



Quote
Why did the Dallas Police announce to the news media that it was a 7.65 Mauser?
Why did the Dallas Police not make a correction till the next day?


Assuming this to be accurate, why does it override all other information on the situation?  Who from the Dallas PD made this announcement? Was it official or was it something a reporter hanging around the Dallas PD overheard and printed?  Remember that at the time reporters (and hangers-on like Ruby) had a pretty much free run of police stations, including the ability to just just go into the file rooms and open drawers.  So in this context tell us why your interpretation is better than those of the professional investigators?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on May 22, 2012, 08:57:22 PM
ETA-Apparently Day removed it later that day at the DPD crime lab (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/firearms_hsca.htm), so it must have stuck.

I think that a clip is very unlikely to stick out part way.  A well lubricated rifle or one that is completely dry will eject a clip that is not bent out of shape.  A magazine with lots of grease in it will make a clip stay in, but if a clip starts moving out, then it will most likely keep going.  As far as I know there was not lots of grease in the rifle magazine nor was the clip bent out of shape.

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 22, 2012, 08:58:45 PM
Why don't you start reading WC testimonies yourself and quit relying on other people to tell you what you should think?

Insulting members of this forum will get you banned quicker than anything else you can do.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 22, 2012, 08:59:52 PM
Not all the jigsaw pieces are going to fit. .
This is not a jigsaw, this is life,

YES...everything fits, when you see the right way.

Yes... puzzle pieces always fit if you force them to. And that is exactly what you're doing. You're taking bits and pieces of information and forcing them to conform to your pre-existing beliefs even though it results in a theory that doesn't make any sense. You didn't read the Warren Commission reports and THEN reach the conclusion that there was a conspiracy, you reached the conclusion that there was a conspiracy first and now you're trying to use the WC to support that. It doesn't work that way.

Here are some questions that you need to answer:

1) How can someone standing in front of JFK and Governor Connally shoot them in the back?

2) Why would the conspirators use multiple assassins if they want people to believe there was only one? Why position assassins in any position besides the one they want their patsy  to be caught in? If the trajectories of the bullets lead investigators anywhere besides that one position then the conspiracy would be discovered.

3) Why would the conspirators plant any make of rifle besides the same one their patsy used?

4) Why would the conspirators plant pristine bullets? Or any bullets at all? What do they accomplish by planting the bullets? Aren't the wounds proof enough that the victims were shot?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 22, 2012, 09:10:43 PM
This forum so far has been incapable of examining the evidence provided, then forming opinions based on this evidence.  gillianren as I have explained, it would be folly to propose an alternate story if the set of evidences your believing is true blocks your perception to what I might propose. 

You have this completely  backwards.  We have examined your post and found them to be lacking in a great many things.  You could solve much of your lack of acceptance by simply stating what your believed happened and stating what evidence supports that theory and why your interpretations are better than those of other investigations. 

But we all know that will never happen because you don't have the knowledge and haven't done the work.   
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 22, 2012, 09:28:13 PM
Some notions debunk themselves. profmunkin's proof of a grassy knoll gunman is based on the assumption that the human ear can accurately locate the source of a sound. Anybody older than 1 year old with at least one partially functioning ear knows this is not true. But if it were true and that is the way the world actually worked then the grassy knoll gunman would know it, too, and therefore would not have selected a shooting position on the opposite side of the conspiracy's patsy.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 22, 2012, 09:30:34 PM
I think that a clip is very unlikely to stick out part way.  A well lubricated rifle or one that is completely dry will eject a clip that is not bent out of shape.  A magazine with lots of grease in it will make a clip stay in, but if a clip starts moving out, then it will most likely keep going.  As far as I know there was not lots of grease in the rifle magazine nor was the clip bent out of shape.

Ranb
Yes makes sense.
I wonder why after the last shell was ejected and the clip dropped part way out of the bottom of the rifle that Fritz didn't slide it the rest of the way out so that it could not be dislodged during transport ? The way he is carring it, if this is a clip, the clip looks like it could have easily tumbled out of the rifle.
It raises the question how the clip was be loaded if it was bent.
Is there any evidence that the clip was bent or rusted?
Did anyone mention any problems of removing the clip?

Is it true that the clip must contain 6 rounds to load or is this a myth?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 22, 2012, 09:46:38 PM

Yes... puzzle pieces always fit if you force them to.
The closer one gets to the truth the more things begin to connect and make sense.
Quote
Here are some questions that you need to answer:

1) How can someone standing in front of JFK and Governor Connally shoot them in the back?
With a different focus on the evidence it is done.

Quote
2) Why would the conspirators use multiple assassins if they want people to believe there was only one? Why position assassins in any position besides the one they want their patsy  to be caught in? If the trajectories of the bullets lead investigators anywhere besides that one position then the conspiracy would be discovered.
There was only 1 shooter
But if the evidence of the trajectories can be controlled, you can also control the position of the assassin.

Quote
3) Why would the conspirators plant any make of rifle besides the same one their patsy used?
I have not put any attention on this yet

Quote
4) Why would the conspirators plant pristine bullets? Or any bullets at all? What do they accomplish by planting the bullets? Aren't the wounds proof enough that the victims were shot?
Quote
The bullet ballistics result in a perfect match to "Oswald's" rifle. Perfect frame up.
The wounds are proof they were shot, yes. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 22, 2012, 09:53:39 PM
Well.  That solves that.  Time to test the ignore list!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 22, 2012, 10:06:44 PM
There was only 1 shooter
But if the evidence of the trajectories can be controlled, you can also control the position of the assassin.

But according to you the source of sounds can be accurately identified. This contradicts your premise that the evidence of trajectories can be controlled.


Quote

Quote
3) Why would the conspirators plant any make of rifle besides the same one their patsy used?
I have not put any attention on this yet

Well, then get on it, because it destroys your theory that a conspiracy set up Oswald as a patsy.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 22, 2012, 10:36:21 PM

Yes... puzzle pieces always fit if you force them to.
The closer one gets to the truth the more things begin to connect and make sense.

You're about as far from the truth as you could get.

Quote
Quote
1) How can someone standing in front of JFK and Governor Connally shoot them in the back?
With a different focus on the evidence it is done.

If you don't know the answer just say so.

Quote
Quote
2) Why would the conspirators use multiple assassins if they want people to believe there was only one? Why position assassins in any position besides the one they want their patsy  to be caught in? If the trajectories of the bullets lead investigators anywhere besides that one position then the conspiracy would be discovered.
There was only 1 shooter
But if the evidence of the trajectories can be controlled, you can also control the position of the assassin.

The evidence of the trajectories hasn't been controlled. We know JFK and Governor Connally were shot in the back. So again I ask you to explain how someone standing in front of the victims could have shot them in the back. Magic bullets?

Quote
Quote
3) Why would the conspirators plant any make of rifle besides the same one their patsy used?
I have not put any attention on this yet

You seemed pretty certain that the rifle that was recovered was not Oswalds. How did you reach that conclusion if you hadn't "put any attention on it yet"? Are you in the habit of reaching conclusions before thinking about it? Doesn't that seem a bit backwards to you?

Quote
Quote
4) Why would the conspirators plant pristine bullets? Or any bullets at all? What do they accomplish by planting the bullets? Aren't the wounds proof enough that the victims were shot?
The bullet ballistics result in a perfect match to "Oswald's" rifle. Perfect frame up.
The wounds are proof they were shot, yes. 

Partial answer. But why pristine bullets? Are the conspirators total morons?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 22, 2012, 10:38:09 PM

Insulting members of this forum will get you banned quicker than anything else you can do.
I have been posting testimony, data and questions
Forum has replied with hearsay, excuses and compliance to conformity.

If this gets me banned, so be it.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on May 22, 2012, 11:12:31 PM
It raises the question how the clip was be loaded if it was bent.
Is there any evidence that the clip was bent or rusted?
Did anyone mention any problems of removing the clip?

Is it true that the clip must contain 6 rounds to load or is this a myth?
One of my clips had the lips bent out, this made it wider so that it was a bit sticky in the magazine.  I am not aware of any evidence that the clip Oswald used was damaged in any way at all nor have I ever heard of any issues about the clip.  The clip can be properly inserted into the magazine with any number of cartridges inserted into it.

So how is it that you have arrived at any opinions concerning this rifle without knowing the basics of its construction and operation?  Shouldn't you be learning about the Carcano before coming to any conclusions?

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 22, 2012, 11:14:35 PM
Forum has replied with hearsay, excuses and compliance to conformity.

Conformity, huh? Has it ever occurred to you that I, and I'm assuming a lot of the members on this forum, used to believe the assassination was a conspiracy?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 22, 2012, 11:23:32 PM
I have been posting testimony, data and questions

You have been posting nothing but cherry-picked testimony and your own twisted interpretation of the data. You have ignored anything that contradicts your beliefs (things like science and logic).

Quote
Forum has replied with hearsay, excuses and compliance to conformity.

You've shown that you don't even understand the meaning of the word hearsay. What you have dismissed as "excuses" have been valid arguments based on sound reasoning. And what you see as "compliance to conformity" has been intelligent people recognizing that your arguments have absolutely no merit. You are completely out of touch with reality.

Quote
If this gets me banned, so be it.

Technically speaking you're already banned, I've just been generous enough to allow you to post anyway. You were banned on the old forum, and then you justified it even further by having Proboards delete all of your posts. The only question is why I still allow you to post here. I don't have an answer to that.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 22, 2012, 11:25:31 PM
Forum has replied with hearsay, excuses and compliance to conformity.

Conformity, huh? Has it ever occurred to you that I, and I'm assuming a lot of the members on this forum, used to believe the assassination was a conspiracy?

Heck, I'm still willing to entertain the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald was encouraged or assisted. There's just no evidence to support that. And I don't see any scenario in which Oswald was not involved at all in the assassination.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 22, 2012, 11:29:29 PM
Partial answer. But why pristine bullets? Are the conspirators total morons?

Apparently. I mean, they drop a weapon to implicate Oswald, and don't even ensure it's the type of rifle Oswald owns. So, apparently, they have to then running around pressuring people to change their stories after the fact. But, it's a perfect frame-up, to plant an undamaged bullet from a different make of gun than what they dropped in the TSBD.

I can imagine the conversation, "Yeah, we left the Mauser there like you wanted ... what? You wanted us to leave a Carcano? Sheesh, details, details...."
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 22, 2012, 11:30:34 PM
Heck, I'm still willing to entertain the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald was encouraged or assisted. There's just no evidence to support that. And I don't see any scenario in which Oswald was not involved at all in the assassination.

It would be out of keeping with what I've learned about Lee's character, but it's possible he could have been nudged into doing it.  It might have been easy to taunt him into doing it--"you think you're so tough" and all that.  But again, I've never seen any persuasive evidence.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 23, 2012, 12:25:24 AM
It would be out of keeping with what I've learned about Lee's character, but it's possible he could have been nudged into doing it.  It might have been easy to taunt him into doing it--"you think you're so tough" and all that.  But again, I've never seen any persuasive evidence
Agreed. I used to consider it possible that the Cubans somehow prompted or encouraged Oswald to kill JFK, perhaps unintentionally, during his visit to their consulate in Mexico City. Maybe they said something like "So you want to be a hero of our Revolution, huh? Go take care of that warmonger JFK and then we'll talk", never dreaming that Oswald could or would actually do it.

But even this just doesn't work. Neither Oswald nor the Cubans yet knew that JFK would ride right past the Depository in an open convertible a few months later. Oswald didn't even get his job at the Depository until after he returned from Mexico City and struck out at several other places, and then only by chance word of mouth.

Given the enormous hostility between the US and Cuba, much of which still remains, I am somewhat surprised that the Cubans helped our investigation as much as they did. Regardless of their role, they must have known how bad it looked for the man who killed the President of the United States to have visited their consulate in Mexico City only a few months previously. Even if they had only sarcastically suggested to Oswald that he assassinate JFK, I certainly wouldn't expect them to volunteer such information after the fact; to do so would have been probable suicide. I'd expect them to flatly deny that he had ever been there. I certainly wouldn't expect them to make Oswald's original visa applications available or to allow their consular workers to be interviewed.

All said, I still think it possible that Oswald had some sort of vague plan to return to Mexico City in triumph after the assassination, but that was purely the product of Oswald's deluded brain and not anyone in the Cuban consulate.



Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 23, 2012, 02:57:28 AM
Oh, yes; my idea limits it to someone approaching him after the motorcade route was published.  After all, Lee wasn't exactly averse to publicity.  I don't think it would take much to tip the scales there.  Theoretical conspirators would have been extremely lucky--luckier, in many ways, than the actual conspirators in the death of Lincoln!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 23, 2012, 03:15:59 AM
Question re: the clip:

Do we know it was empty? On the video posted in this thread the clip contains six rounds. Assuming Oswald had a full clip, he fired three bullets, and a fourth was ejected when the rifle was discovered. That still leaves two bullets in the clip, doesn't it?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 23, 2012, 04:20:22 AM
I have been posting testimony, data and questions
Forum has replied with hearsay, excuses and compliance to conformity.

Absolute horse manure. Physics and science and details of experiments is not 'hearsay' or 'excuses'. FACT: bullets do NOT throw their targets around as they transfer very little momentum to the target as they penetrate it, as proved by countless experiments. FACT: serious sudden damage to, or destruction of, the brain causes muscular spasms, as proved by countless experiments. FACT: Localising a sound like a gunshot is very difficult due to echoes, reflection and refraction of sound, as proved by countless experiments and everyday experience. This is nothing but science based on centuries of study. Do you understand that? Centuries.

How arrogant of you to dismiss it just because it doesn't agree with your layman's understanding of the world.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 23, 2012, 07:45:29 AM
When it comes to special pleading, I haven't seen anything to top the suggestion that the bullet entered JFK's head from a position from the front right side (because the grassy knoll is not directly ahead of the motorcade), and yet somehow veered so it didn't hit Jackie, who would have been directly in line. That's the real "magic bullet" right there.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 23, 2012, 07:56:42 AM

Insulting members of this forum will get you banned quicker than anything else you can do.
I have been posting testimony, data and questions
Forum has replied with hearsay, excuses and compliance to conformity.

If this gets me banned, so be it.

Nonsense, you stated with a claim of "3 shooters 6 shots" and have been backtracking since then. You now claim to be investigating certain aspects and are unwilling to present any cogent theory of what happened until we accept your interpretations of evidence or to explain why your interpretations should be preferred over those of others.


In addition, excusing your own rudeness using a straw man characterization to criticize your opponents is chicken.  You simply owe gillianren an apology.  That is really all that is required.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on May 23, 2012, 08:14:13 AM
Do we know it was empty? On the video posted in this thread the clip contains six rounds. Assuming Oswald had a full clip, he fired three bullets, and a fourth was ejected when the rifle was discovered. That still leaves two bullets in the clip, doesn't it?
I may be wrong, but from what I read, Oswald was so unprepared to use his rifle that he only had 4 cartridges left when he got ready to kill JFK.  While it is hard for me to load a less than full Garand clip in a rifle, it is easy to load any number of 1 to 6 cartridges into the Carcano.

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 23, 2012, 08:31:08 AM
Do we know it was empty? On the video posted in this thread the clip contains six rounds. Assuming Oswald had a full clip, he fired three bullets, and a fourth was ejected when the rifle was discovered. That still leaves two bullets in the clip, doesn't it?
I may be wrong, but from what I read, Oswald was so unprepared to use his rifle that he only had 4 cartridges left when he got ready to kill JFK.  While it is hard for me to load a less than full Garand clip in a rifle, it is easy to load any number of 1 to 6 cartridges into the Carcano.

Ranb
Yes, I agree; it's easier if it's full but not really hard if it isn't.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 23, 2012, 09:25:35 AM
Forum has replied with hearsay, excuses and compliance to conformity.

If that were the case, it would have been easy for you to point out the problems with our criticisms and rebut them with factual and reasoned explanations.  So far this has not occurred.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 23, 2012, 10:17:46 AM
Thanks for the answers regarding the clip and the rifle. One other question that occurs: how does the use of a clip that is not full affect its ejection? Assuming you had bullets in positions 1-4, and empty space where rounds 5 & 6 would be, would the ejection still occur smoothly once round 4 was chambered, or would the fact that the clip is not in the usual 'final' position at that point have any effect such as causing it to jam or requiring more cycling of the bolt to the equivalent position of chambering round 6 before it fell out? I have no idea how the mechanics inside the rifle work, so I am genuinely curious on this point.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 23, 2012, 01:52:05 PM
In addition, excusing your own rudeness using a straw man characterization to criticize your opponents is chicken.  You simply owe gillianren an apology.  That is really all that is required.

Yeah, well, I'm not holding my breath.  But if, by some miracle, it happens, would someone let me know?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on May 23, 2012, 02:51:49 PM
One other question that occurs: how does the use of a clip that is not full affect its ejection?

The clip is simply a flat piece of steel that was formed in a press.  If you look at the photo I posted you will notice a indentation on the left side (back end) of the clip that starts at the bottom and goes nearly (hidden in that photo) all the way to the top.  The clip is loaded by pushing a cartidge back first into the clip then sliding it down so that the indentation grabs the extraction groove cut into the rimless cartridge case.  If six cartridges are loaded, then they are all held somewhat firmly in place and do not slide around.  If fewer cartridges are loaded into the clip, then they will slide around  but stay attached.  Loading few cartridges in the clip does not make it harder to load into the magazine unlike with the M-1 Garand.

In the portion of the photo labeled (1), you can see what looks like a lever.  This is spring loaded and ensures that the cartridges loaded into the clip stay at the top where the bolt can push them into the chamber when it is moved forward.  When the top cartridge is loaded, the spring loaded lever pushs the rest of the cartridges up so the next one is in position when the bolt is cycled again.  The clip stays in place until the last cartridge is moved into the chamber by the bolt, then it slides out as long as the rifle is held near horizontal and right side up.

Unlike the M-1 Garand which flings the empty clip out with a loud "sprong" noise when the last cartridge is fired, the Carcano clip merely slides nearly noislessly out the bottom when the last cartridge is loaded.  But until the last cartridge is fired or loaded, the clip does the same thing in both firearms, it holds the ammo in position so that the bolt can feed it into the chamber.

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 23, 2012, 05:11:48 PM
Thank you, very thorough and informative.

So, assuming Oswald had four bullets in his clip, then the reports from the commission suggest that he fired the third shot, then cycled the bolt to chamber the fourth before abandoning the rifle and fleeing. Upon the rifle being found the last round was ejected. The clip should have dropped from the gun when Oswald cycled the bolt after the head shot. However, no report of the clip being found on the floor was made, suggesting it was still in the gun.

Are the following scenarios possible?

1: The spent shell from the last shot was ejected, but Oswald noticed his shot had blown the President's brains out and did not chamber the fourth round. The rifle was found with the bolt in the 'pulled back' position (I don't know the correct terminology) and the police officer cycled the bolt to chamber and then eject the last round. This should also have caused the clip to drop out of the gun, but again no mention of the clip doing so was made.

2: Oswald tried to chamber a fourth round and take another shot, but the 'jam-prone' Carcano jammed, and the jam resulted in the clip being loosely stuck in the rifle.

3: At the time of chambering the last round the gun was not being held horizontally, and hence the clip did not slide smoothly out, getting hung up on the way and staying in the rifle.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on May 23, 2012, 06:48:49 PM
I have read that Captain Fritz emptied the rifle by opening the bolt and ejecting a live cartridge.  Assuming that Oswald loaded the fourth load after firing the third, the clip should have been under the window in the room he was firing from.  I have never read anything about finding an empty clip.

1.  It is possible that this was done.  But what I have read is that Fritz ejected one live round from the chamber, so this means the clip should have not been in the magazine at the time they found the rifle.

2.  I have never heard any Carcano owner complain about their rifle being jam prone.  It is based on the Mauser action which is very reliable as most bolt action rifles are.  The clip typically does an excellent job of lining up the next cartridge to feed into the chamber.  But if the clip is bent, the cartridge may misfeed.

3.  Who knows, it is possible. 

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 23, 2012, 07:16:12 PM
2.  I have never heard any Carcano owner complain about their rifle being jam prone.  It is based on the Mauser action which is very reliable as most bolt action rifles are.  The clip typically does an excellent job of lining up the next cartridge to feed into the chamber.  But if the clip is bent, the cartridge may misfeed.

One of the spent shells found in the sniper's nest had a damaged neck so that is a possibility.

LT Day says he removed the clip while processing the rifle.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on May 23, 2012, 09:17:14 PM
Empty brass necks tend to be dented upon ejection, but this is much more common with semi-auto rifles than bolt action.  A live cartridge with a dented neck/bullet is unlikely to chamber at all.

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on May 23, 2012, 09:19:16 PM
LT Day says he removed the clip while processing the rifle.

Thanks, I did not know that.

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 23, 2012, 10:52:45 PM

LT Day says he removed the clip while processing the rifle.
I mentioned this in post 652  :)
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on May 23, 2012, 10:56:48 PM
I have read that Captain Fritz emptied the rifle by opening the bolt and ejecting a live cartridge.  Assuming that Oswald loaded the fourth load after firing the third, the clip should have been under the window in the room he was firing from.  I have never read anything about finding an empty clip.

1.  It is possible that this was done.  But what I have read is that Fritz ejected one live round from the chamber, so this means the clip should have not been in the magazine at the time they found the rifle.

2.  I have never heard any Carcano owner complain about their rifle being jam prone.  It is based on the Mauser action which is very reliable as most bolt action rifles are.  The clip typically does an excellent job of lining up the next cartridge to feed into the chamber.  But if the clip is bent, the cartridge may misfeed.

3.  Who knows, it is possible. 

Ranb
My Carcano has never given me a problem. The only thing I really dislike is the safety is a bear to engage and disengage, but I don't know if that's a common complaint.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 24, 2012, 12:42:39 AM
6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, 6 shots in 5.1 seconds.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 24, 2012, 05:04:30 AM
Youtube user mag30th is a real gem. He owns a Carcano rifle just like LHO's, and he has produced numerous videos that solidly debunk the many myths about this rifle from would-be conspiracy advocates.

Some of his stuff is so good that when I recently cited it in another debate with some die-hard JFK conspiracists, they didn't discuss or even acknowledge it. Rather they quietly filed a "harassment" complaint with Youtube and had it removed.

I'd be hard pressed to find a better illustration of the intellectual dishonesty of the average JFK conspiracy nut. If there are any honest ones still left (it has been almost 50 years!) they ought to take a good, long hard look at the people around them and decide if they really want to be associated with them.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on May 24, 2012, 07:25:42 AM
It was alleged that mag30th harassed people with his video?  How was YouTube convinced of that?

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 24, 2012, 12:36:05 PM
That's a very good question. The video that got pulled was titled "Reply to Jesse Ventura - JFK 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano rifle myths". It contains no other mention of any other living person. The commentary around it is highly critical of Ventura's claim that he could not reproduce the three shots of the assassination, but I saw nothing that wasn't typical of open American debate involving controversial public figures like Ventura.

So Youtube apparently responds to complaints of harassment just as they do to complaints of copyright violations: by presuming the complaint is valid and yanking the video in question, sight unseen. And it would seem that conspiracy nuts take full advantage of this loophole to censor their opponents.

I kept a copy of the video in question and would be happy to provide it on request. It really is an excellent refutation of the top 10 myths about the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle by someone who owns and shoots one.



Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 24, 2012, 01:19:49 PM
Please post it! I saw it a while ago and it is very good.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 24, 2012, 02:32:31 PM
Here you go:

http://www.ka9q.net/Reply%20to%20Jesse%20Ventura_%20JFK%206.5%20Mannlicher%20Carcano%20rifle%20myths%20-%20YouTube.mp4

If you have trouble with this URL, try

http://www.ka9q.net/mag30th.mp4

It's a link to the other one.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 24, 2012, 03:09:58 PM
Thanks.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 25, 2012, 06:26:38 PM
This is how it's done.
We are told Oswald claimed he ate lunch in the Domino Room with Jarmin and Norman.
But Jarmin and Norman say they did not eat with Oswald or talk with Oswald during lunch.
But
Jarmin is never asked if he saw Oswald in the lunch room, during lunch.
Norman is never asked if during lunch he saw Oswald in the Domino room.

So the only conclusion you can draw from this goo is that Oswald wasn't there, truth be told you can't really know for sure.
If Oswald claimed this to be his defence, why were Jarmin and Norman not specifically asked if they saw Oswald in the Domino Room?
Wonder why they didn't ask ? .. Now You can never know.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 25, 2012, 07:01:04 PM
Here you go:
Myth#1 stiff bolt, check out the video, bolt sticks on third cartridge.
Myth#2 can't fire faster than 1.8 sec, not important unless your speed shooting. It is fire, recycle, aim then fire, recycle, aim then fire, all the time firing at a crossing, dropping, receding target.
Myth#3 Inaccurate, no no no, it was the scope that was not accurate per WC expert.
Myth#4 Could not fit rifle into bag, no again, it was that an unassembled rifle could not fit between Oswald's palm and his armpit.
Myth#5 who cares
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 25, 2012, 07:41:56 PM
Here you go:
Myth#1 stiff bolt, check out the video, bolt sticks on third cartridge.

Yeah, you pick out 1 out of 12 and ignore the other 11 that cycled flawlessly. It stuck for about a tenth of a second.


Quote
Myth#2 can't fire faster than 1.8 sec, not important unless your speed shooting. It is fire, recycle, aim then fire, recycle, aim then fire, all the time firing at a crossing, dropping, receding target.

Yep. But given how fast the bolt has been shown to be operable the recycle is the least of the problem.


Quote
Myth#3 Inaccurate, no no no, it was the scope that was not accurate per WC expert.

By what? 4 inches at 75 yards?

And you're being disingenuous again. The alleged inaccuracy of the MC is a HUGE claim of the CT crowd, so much so they invent stories about Italian soldiers abandoning the MC on the battlefield.

Quote
Myth#4 Could not fit rifle into bag, no again, it was that an unassembled rifle could not fit between Oswald's palm and his armpit.

Frazier said he wasn't sure how Oswald was caring it. He said he didn't pay attention.


Quote
Myth#5 who cares

You do, because it is part of the timing problem of getting Oswald from the first floor at the start of lunch to the sixth floor in time to assemble the rifle.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 25, 2012, 08:31:19 PM
By what? 4 inches at 75 yards?


You do, because it is part of the timing problem of getting Oswald from the first floor at the start of lunch to the sixth floor in time to assemble the rifle.
"Mr. LUTZ. The accuracy is fairly undependable, as far as once getting the rifle sighted in and it is very cheaply made, the scope itself has a crosshair reticle that is subject to movement or being capable of being dislodged from dropping, from impact, or a very sharp recoil. So the accuracy would be somewhat questionable for this particular type of a scope."

Williams leaves the 6th floor about 12:20 and takes East elevator to 5th floor.
At 12:20 Oswald runs up the stairs, gets the gun from somewhere and is ready to shoot by 12:30

You do understand the "timing problem" then.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 25, 2012, 08:37:00 PM
Myth#4 Could not fit rifle into bag, no again, it was that an unassembled rifle could not fit between Oswald's palm and his armpit.

Frazier said he wasn't sure how Oswald was caring it. He said he didn't pay attention.

Sound like Frazier remembered exactly how Oswald was carring the "curtain rods".

"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.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. "

This could not be done with a disassembled Carcano rifle.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 25, 2012, 08:47:58 PM
By what? 4 inches at 75 yards?


You do, because it is part of the timing problem of getting Oswald from the first floor at the start of lunch to the sixth floor in time to assemble the rifle.
"Mr. LUTZ. The accuracy is fairly undependable, as far as once getting the rifle sighted in and it is very cheaply made, the scope itself has a crosshair reticle that is subject to movement or being capable of being dislodged from dropping, from impact, or a very sharp recoil. So the accuracy would be somewhat questionable for this particular type of a scope."

Why quote someone speculating when you have the testimony of FBI firearms expert Frazier who actually fired the weapon and measured the dispersion?


Quote
Williams leaves the 6th floor about 12:20 and takes East elevator to 5th floor.
At 12:20 Oswald runs up the stairs, gets the gun from somewhere and is ready to shoot by 12:30

He had to be ready to shoot by 12:25 actually. That is the time the motorcade was expected to pass by the TSBD. Oswald had no idea the motorcade was running 5 minutes late.


Quote

You do understand the "timing problem" then.

I understand there is no problem. Long before lunch Oswald was seen moving boxes in the southeast corner of the 6th floor. He constructed the sniper's nest before he broke for lunch.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 25, 2012, 09:06:00 PM
Myth#4 Could not fit rifle into bag, no again, it was that an unassembled rifle could not fit between Oswald's palm and his armpit.

Frazier said he wasn't sure how Oswald was caring it. He said he didn't pay attention.

Sound like Frazier remembered exactly how Oswald was carring the "curtain rods".

Sure, if you stop reading there.

Quote
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.
Quote

This could not be done with a disassembled Carcano rifle.

It also couldn't be done with curtain rods. And he didn't need curtain rods because his room already had them. And he told the police he didn't bring curtain rods to work; he told them he brought a paper bag with his lunch to work.

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/grant6.jpg)
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 25, 2012, 11:22:51 PM
Sure, if you stop reading there.

Quote
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.

This means nothing.
He already testified unequivocally he saw Oswald carry this package under his arm in the palm of this hand.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 25, 2012, 11:45:20 PM
Sure, if you stop reading there.

Quote
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.

This means nothing.
He already testified unequivocally he saw Oswald carry this package under his arm in the palm of this hand.

Again, only if you read what you quoted. Later on in his testimony he stated it a second time that he wasn't paying attention.

Quote
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.

Are you going to address the fact that Oswald's boarding room already had curtain rods? Or that he lied to the police about what he brought to work that day? Or that the curtain rods Oswald claimed he brought to work that day were never found in the TSBD?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 26, 2012, 06:08:54 AM
This is why it's so frustrating to debate a conspiracy theorist. They seem to forget that we can easily get the full transcripts ourselves so we can easily see when it's being cherry-picked and critical caveats are being left out.

Frazier repeatedly said that he wasn't paying much attention to Oswald's "curtain rod" package. And he said that while in the past he and Oswald had always walked into the building together, Friday morning Oswald walked quickly with the package ahead of Frazier into the TSBD -- an obvious attempt to keep Frazier from seeing it too closely.

I really get the impression that the conspiracy theorists take full advantage of our natural human tendency to give others the benefit of the doubt. When they quote the testimony, it is natural (and simply easier) to assume they have quoted it accurately and in context. But I've been burned enough times to realize that we cannot take anything a conspiracy theorist says for granted. Everything must be verified.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 26, 2012, 06:44:38 AM
Now You can never know.
This is the ultimate tactic of conspiracy theorist.  Just raise enough doubt to make the conspiracy seem possible.  Then move directly to declare the conspiracy as proven. 

Your dodge won't work here.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 26, 2012, 03:48:14 PM
Now You can never know.
This is the ultimate tactic of conspiracy theorist.  Just raise enough doubt to make the conspiracy seem possible.  Then move directly to declare the conspiracy as proven. 

Your dodge won't work here.
Dodge?  Pointing out the obvious is hardly a dodge.
It is the most obvious question that should have been asked to Jarmin and Norman, did you see Oswald in the lunch room?
You are comfortable not knowing, you are comfortable that the most obvious question was not asked, you are comfortable with how ever they contrive the truth to be.
Deception is also in what is not said as well as asked.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 26, 2012, 04:00:00 PM
It is the most obvious question that should have been asked to Jarmin and Norman....

In your opinion.  But you won't tell us why that opinion deserves any weight beyond that of a typical conspiracy crank on the internet. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 26, 2012, 04:08:02 PM
Dodge?  Pointing out the obvious is hardly a dodge.
It is the most obvious question that should have been asked to Jarmin and Norman, did you see Oswald in the lunch room?

Norman was asked the question; Jarman didn't need to be asked the question.

Jarman testified he left Oswald on the first floor, went into the lunchroom, retrieved his lunch, bought a soda, and left. So there was no need to ask if Oswald was in the lunchroom because he couldn't have gotten there ahead of Jarman. He ate his lunch while walking around on the first floor then he went out front. He was specifically asked if he saw Oswald while he ate his lunch and he said no.

Norman testified he ate his lunch in the domino room. He was asked if anybody else was in there and he said he couldn't remember.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 26, 2012, 05:48:11 PM
So, as usual, unable to properly address the things already on the table you throw something else at us, prof.

Is there any danger of you actually presenting your idea of what really happened, or are we to conclude that all you are really interested in is desperately clinging on the the idea that the official version of events must not be true at any cost?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 26, 2012, 07:13:46 PM
You are comfortable not knowing, you are comfortable that the most obvious question was not asked, you are comfortable with how ever they contrive the truth to be.

I am certainly no less comfortable in my views on the assassination than I was 49 pages ago.  On the contrary, I have learned a few new things that have made me more certain that LHO was the lone shooter.  Your FUD mongering has failed to find any customers here.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 26, 2012, 08:19:57 PM
Yes, as time goes on I also become more confident that LHO killed JFK without any help.

Not that I've ever seriously believed otherwise. But as I learn more of the details and see that they all confirm the same story, the notion that it could still have happened totally differently becomes even more remote and downright absurd.

Also, as I become more familiar with the tactics of the conspiracy theorists I see ever more clearly how:

1. they never present their own consistent, coherent picture of what they think happened; they are content to chip away at tiny parts of the case, apparently assuming that they should then win by default.

2. they cherrypick evidence that favors their case, typically a few eyewitnesses that tell them what they want to hear, while carefully ignoring the many more who don't. They invariably ignore nearly all the physical evidence because that tends to be a lot less ambiguous and supportive of what they want to believe.

3. even cherrypicked testimony is often quoted completely out of context. I've seen them quote one sentence of a witness's statement and omit the very next one that completely changes the meaning of what they just said.

4. they never give up, even when a claim has been soundly refuted, thus giving the impression to those less familiar with the case that their claims are still valid or at least unanswered.

All in all, I see more clearly all the time just how intellectually dishonest the conspiracists often are, and that doesn't make me very sympathetic to their case.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on May 26, 2012, 10:55:54 PM
This could not be done with a disassembled Carcano rifle.

Maybe it was carried like this?

(http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u320/ranb40/firearms/holdingcarcano.jpg)

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 26, 2012, 11:03:36 PM
Current data for the direction of shots
28 Witnesses say Grassy Knoll
3   Witnesses say TSBD and Grassy Knoll
2   Witnesses say Triple underpass
2   Witnesses say Rail road yard
2   Witnesses say Below
3   Witnesses asked had no idea
44 Witnesses were never asked
8   Witnesses say TSBD

summation
8   Witnesses say TSBD
43 Witnesses say someplace other then the TSBD
44 Witnesses were never asked

The acoustics didn't fool 43 people situated at all directions from the grassy knoll, from ground level to 7 floor elevation, even inside the TSBD with windows closed or with witnesses watching from opened windows.
It fooled 8 people, when the sound bounced off the TSBD some people at street level where engulfed by the sound coming from in front and bouncing back at them from above, a few heard more of the above.
The majority of people within the TSBD thought the shots came from outside the building, the others can be explained by application of acoustics.





 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 26, 2012, 11:07:31 PM
Ranb
Never thought about it but a package with curtain rods should be a whole lot smaller.

Frazier said Oswald palmed it on one end and the other was wedged under his armpit.
Frazier was very specific.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 26, 2012, 11:30:39 PM
Current data for the direction of shots
28 Witnesses say Grassy Knoll
3   Witnesses say TSBD and Grassy Knoll
2   Witnesses say Triple underpass
2   Witnesses say Rail road yard
2   Witnesses say Below
3   Witnesses asked had no idea
44 Witnesses were never asked
8   Witnesses say TSBD

summation
8   Witnesses say TSBD
43 Witnesses say someplace other then the TSBD
44 Witnesses were never asked

The acoustics didn't fool 43 people situated at all directions from the grassy knoll, from ground level to 7 floor elevation, even inside the TSBD with windows closed or with witnesses watching from opened windows.
It fooled 8 people, when the sound bounced off the TSBD some people at street level where engulfed by the sound coming from in front and bouncing back at them from above, a few heard more of the above.
The majority of people within the TSBD thought the shots came from outside the building, the others can be explained by application of acoustics.

Not that I take your count as an accurate portrayal of the testimony, but for the sake of argument... 

It is simply impossible for the shots to have come from the GK.  Anyone who thought that was the location of a shooter was mistaken.  So we can simply disregard 31 of your 43 witnesses.  In fact the speculation by all the witnesses matter less than the physical evidence.  And numerous investigations have concluded that shots being fired from the TSBD is the best explanation for the physical evidence.  Are you prepared yet to tell us your hypothesis of locations and number of shots and to defend that hypothesis?  Untill you do that you are no different that any random conspiracy crank.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 26, 2012, 11:35:29 PM
More data to come

What maybe interesting is all you conspiricied people have is Euins and Brennan claiming they saw the sniper in 6th floor window. Two half wits, who together wouldn't even make a nit wit.

What were all of the police looking at?
What were all of the Secret Service men looking at?

If the TSBD was the location where the shots came from and there were only a few open windows to see but not one trained professional saw anything. Anything, why?

I will help you, maybe Oswald shot from the shadows and could not be seen.

The police and the Secret Service should have looked toward the picket fence where twice as many people saw smoke and twice as many people saw the sniper.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 26, 2012, 11:40:19 PM
Current data for the direction of shots
28 Witnesses say Grassy Knoll

Please provide the names of the people you claim heard shots from the grassy knoll.


Quote
The acoustics didn't fool 43 people situated at all directions from the grassy knoll, from ground level to 7 floor elevation, even inside the TSBD with windows closed or with witnesses watching from opened windows.

You are making an a priori assumption that the shots came from the grassy knoll when you claim the acoustics didn't fool 43 people. The various investigations have always tabulated a greater number of shots originating from the TSBD than from the grassy knoll.

Where are you claiming Harold Norman heard the shots come from?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 26, 2012, 11:44:30 PM
It is simply impossible for the shots to have come from the GK.
What do you base this on?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 26, 2012, 11:47:13 PM
28 Witnesses say Grassy Knoll

Irrelevant. How does someone standing at or near the grassy knoll shoot JFK and Gov. Connally in the back? It can't be done. It is physically impossible. Therefore those 28 witnesses must be mistaken.

Quote
3   Witnesses say TSBD and Grassy Knoll
8   Witnesses say TSBD

Quote
summation
8   Witnesses say TSBD

That's funny. My math says 11 people said TSBD.

Quote
43 Witnesses say someplace other then the TSBD

28 Witnesses say Grassy Knoll
2   Witnesses say Triple underpass
2   Witnesses say Rail road yard
2   Witnesses say Below

Hmmm. That totals 34. Where did you get the 43 from? Dyslexic?

2   Witnesses say Triple underpass
2   Witnesses say Rail road yard
2   Witnesses say Below
3   Witnesses asked had no idea
44 Witnesses were never asked
8   Witnesses say TSBD

That is 61 people who did NOT say the shots came from the grassy knoll.

Quote
The acoustics didn't fool 43 people

Why not? Everyone there was human and therefore they were all prone to the same difficulty in localizing the source of the gunshots acoustically. It doesn't matter who they were or what their profession was, it is a limitation that affects everyone. So I don't find it at all unusual that more people pointed to locations besides the School Book Depository if all they were basing it on was the sound.

I also suspect that the reason so many people pointed to the areas around the grassy knoll and the general direction ahead of the motorcade was because that is where a gunshot fired from TSBD would have echoed from the most. I imagine the sound would have travelled in the same direction as the bullet (spreading outwards like a wake behind a boat) and then echoed off of the hard surfaces ahead of the motorcade, bouncing back towards TSBD.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 26, 2012, 11:51:05 PM
Are you prepared yet to tell us your hypothesis of locations and number of shots and to defend that hypothesis?  Untill you do that you are no different that any random conspiracy crank.
Can we agree that the depiction shown in attached image has the bullet entering the back above the throat wound whereas it should be about 5 inches lower then the neck wound. Close to where the arrow is pointing.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 26, 2012, 11:54:49 PM
More data to come

You have more than enough unanswered direct requests for answers to get you banned without dragging up more red herrings.


Quote
What maybe interesting is all you conspiricied people have is Euins and Brennan claiming they saw the sniper in 6th floor window. Two half wits, who together wouldn't even make a nit wit.

Sure. But they, and Robert Jackson, were the only people in Dealey Plaza to see a person shooting a rifle.


Quote
What were all of the police looking at?
What were all of the Secret Service men looking at?

Good question. Why don't you ask the two agents on the right-hand running board of the Secret Service car?

(http://www.johnkennedy.it/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Altgens.jpg)

Quote
If the TSBD was the location where the shots came from and there were only a few open windows to see but not one trained professional saw anything. Anything, why?

We could ask the same thing of your theory and ask why didn't these trained professionals see a gun man on the grassy knoll. The rules of logic and evidence apply equally to all participants in a debate. Remember that the next time you think the rules of logic doesn't apply to you. What's good for the lone gunman is good for the conspiracy theorist.


Quote
I will help you, maybe Oswald shot from the shadows and could not be seen.

The police and the Secret Service should have looked toward the picket fence where twice as many people saw smoke and twice as many people saw the sniper.

One person saw smoke and he immediately ran there and didn't see anybody. Nobody saw a gunman on the grassy knoll.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 26, 2012, 11:57:49 PM
What maybe interesting is all you conspiricied people have is Euins and Brennan claiming they saw the sniper in 6th floor window.

So you are willing to believe ear-witnesses who were almost certainly fooled by echoes, but you ignore people who actually saw the guy with the gun. Don't you see how deluded that is?

Besides, we don't just have those two guys. We have the gun at the scene of the crime. We know who owned that gun, and we know that he had reason to be in that building on that day. We know he was a little bit nutty (and violent), and that he had even attempted to murder someone previously. That all adds up to him being the assassin. You have provided no alternative. Who killed Kennedy, if it wasn't Lee Oswald? Come on... give us a name. Give us one reason to believe it wasn't Oswald.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 26, 2012, 11:58:40 PM
Are you prepared yet to tell us your hypothesis of locations and number of shots and to defend that hypothesis?  Untill you do that you are no different that any random conspiracy crank.
Can we agree that the depiction shown in attached image has the bullet entering the back above the throat wound whereas it should be about 5 inches lower then the neck wound. Close to where the arrow is pointing.

No we cannot because it is inconsistent with the autopsy report. How many times do you have to be told that? Besides if it was 5 inches lower than the neck wound then that means the shot had to go through the trunk and JFK's seat before it would hit him in the back.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 27, 2012, 12:06:03 AM
Ranb
Never thought about it but a package with curtain rods should be a whole lot smaller.

No, they should be a lot bigger. Oswald's boarding room had double windows and double length curtain rods.

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/grant6.jpg)


Quote
Frazier said Oswald palmed it on one end and the other was wedged under his armpit.
Frazier was very specific.

The only thing Frazier was specific about was that he didn't pay any attention the package. He was so specific about not paying attention to it, in fact, that he said so twice in his WC testimony.

You have several pending requests for direct answers:
Why were no curtain rods found in the TSBD?
Why did Oswald say he needed curtain rods when his room already had curtain rods?
Why did Oswald lie to the police that all he brought to work was his paper sack lunch?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 12:27:24 AM

You are making an a priori assumption that the shots came from the grassy knoll when you claim the acoustics didn't fool 43 people. The various investigations have always tabulated a greater number of shots originating from the TSBD than from the grassy knoll.

Where are you claiming Harold Norman heard the shots come from?
Do you mean Norman, the guy who ran down to look out the window on the West side of the building so he could see all the activity in the rail yards immediately after the last shot? Reluctantly.
I also included that Jarmin claimed the shots came from below and left, or not in the building.
I also included Williams who was asked "Did you hear anything upstairs at all? and William's answered "no, sir, I didn't hear anything". Williams never heard anything from the 6th floor?  Reluctantly.  If a rifle was fired 12 feet away from Williams and he couldn't notice it was there, ?, it just goes beyond even the realm of twilight zone. Actually none of them noticed it, did they?

What investigations?

I still have all the people in the motorcade to tabulate and most of the Dallas law enforcement officials have not been done. Maybe they will dramatically alter my data to more closely reflect the other investigations.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 12:51:19 AM
I also suspect that the reason so many people pointed to the areas around the grassy knoll and the general direction ahead of the motorcade was because that is where a gunshot fired from TSBD would have echoed from the most. I imagine the sound would have travelled in the same direction as the bullet (spreading outwards like a wake behind a boat) and then echoed off of the hard surfaces ahead of the motorcade, bouncing back towards TSBD.
Really
Again please list those witnesses that claimed they heard echos?

What evidence do you have, that discerning the direction of shots in Dealey Plaza would cause the majority of a given population to have a distorted but unified experience all recognizing the direction to be from the exact same location. You must be reading science fiction.

About 10% of this population had a vague general direction of the shots.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on May 27, 2012, 01:01:38 AM
Never thought about it but a package with curtain rods should be a whole lot smaller.

Frazier said Oswald palmed it on one end and the other was wedged under his armpit.
Frazier was very specific.
Show us a link where Fraizer said Oswald palmed the package he was carrying.  That word is not in your post I replied to. 

I do not know what size curtain rods you are used to seeing, but they come in all sorts of sizes.  What curtain rods were found anywhere that were supposed to have belonged to Oswald?

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 01:04:15 AM
You have more than enough unanswered direct requests for answers to get you banned without dragging up more red herrings.

Nobody saw a gunman on the grassy knoll.
I try not to ignore anything worth answering.

Ed Hoffman saw the gunman
Gordon Arnold saw the gunman
J.C. Price saw the gunman
Lee Bowers saw the gunman
Jean Hill saw the gunman
that's 5 nobodies, do you want more?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 27, 2012, 01:04:25 AM
Your counts would be irrelevant even if they were accurate, which they are not; many conspiracy nuts have produced lists that are highly skewed toward the grassy knoll and away from the TSBD.

Why do you put so much weight on subjective earwitness reports when we already have such overwhelming physical evidence showing exactly where the shots came from? And why do you ignore the witnesses with qualitatively superior testimony, such as the three guys in the window directly below Oswald, and the people on the street (such as Howard Brennan) who actually saw the rifle being fired from that window?

I know the answer -- none of that evidence goes in the direction you would like, so you simply ignore it. No other reason.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 27, 2012, 01:04:34 AM

You are making an a priori assumption that the shots came from the grassy knoll when you claim the acoustics didn't fool 43 people. The various investigations have always tabulated a greater number of shots originating from the TSBD than from the grassy knoll.

Where are you claiming Harold Norman heard the shots come from?
Do you mean Norman, the guy who ran down to look out the window on the West side of the building so he could see all the activity in the rail yards immediately after the last shot? Reluctantly.

Why reluctantly? He testified why they ran down that way:
Quote
Mr. BALL. Why did you run down to that window?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, it seems as though everyone else was running towards the railroad tracks, and we ran over there. Curious to see why everybody was running that way for. I thought maybe--


Quote
I also included that Jarmin claimed the shots came from below and left, or not in the building.
I also included Williams who was asked "Did you hear anything upstairs at all? and William's answered "no, sir, I didn't hear anything". Williams never heard anything from the 6th floor?  Reluctantly.  If a rifle was fired 12 feet away from Williams and he couldn't notice it was there, ?, it just goes beyond even the realm of twilight zone.

Williams said he thought the shots came from inside the building; the concussion of the muzzle blast shook the building and cement particles fell into his hair. Do you mean to imply that since he could not exactly locate the location of the shots that there was no one shooting from the TSBD?

Quote
Actually none of them noticed it, did they?

You left out Norman again. Intentionally, I must assume.


Quote
What investigations?

Warren Commission and the HSCA.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 27, 2012, 01:08:28 AM
Ed Hoffman saw the gunman
Gordon Arnold saw the gunman
J.C. Price saw the gunman
Lee Bowers saw the gunman
Jean Hill saw the gunman
that's 5 nobodies, do you want more?
If you said this as an attorney in court, you'd get cited for contempt for misstating the evidence.

This is really tiresome. We've learned not to trust your characterizations of any of the evidence in this case. Not even direct quotations from witnesses, which you cherry-pick and use out of context even when you get the words right.

Why do you bother to continue to make arguments that are so easily refuted by anyone who takes the time to look it up?




Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 27, 2012, 01:15:30 AM
You have more than enough unanswered direct requests for answers to get you banned without dragging up more red herrings.

Nobody saw a gunman on the grassy knoll.
I try not to ignore anything worth answering.

Ed Hoffman saw the gunman

Hoffman has been debunked by his own family.

Quote
Gordon Arnold saw the gunman

Arnold was never in Dealey Plaza.


Quote
J.C. Price saw the gunman

Price saw a man running in the railroad yard. He also thought the president was shot as the limo passed under the triple underpass! His original statement includes no gun man.


Quote
Lee Bowers saw the gunman

Bowers said he thinks he saw people milling about by the fence long before the assassination but he never said he saw a gun man.


Quote
Jean Hill saw the gunman

Hill was interviewed the day of the assassination and she was directly asked if she saw a gun man and she said no. Only years later did she add a gun man to her story.


Quote
that's 5 nobodies, do you want more?

You have yet to supply one, let alone five.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 01:33:22 AM
Show us a link where Fraizer said Oswald palmed the package he was carrying.  That word is not in your post I replied to. 

I do not know what size curtain rods you are used to seeing, but they come in all sorts of sizes.  What curtain rods were found anywhere that were supposed to have belonged to Oswald?

Ranb
"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.
Representative FORD - Under his right arm?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
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.
Mr. BALL - Did it appear to you there was some, more than just paper he was carrying, some kind of a weight he was carrying?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, yes, sir; I say, because one reason I know that because I worked in a department store before and I had uncrated curtain rods when they come in, and I know if you have seen when they come straight from the factory you know how they can bundle them up and put them in there pretty compact, so he told me it was curtain rods so I didn't think any more about the package whatsoever"

Palm it is what he did " the other part with his hand" also "straight up and down"

"you know how they can bundle them up and put them in there pretty compact" he is saying this was a small package.

Frazier was asked if the package was heavy, he replied that he didn't pay any attention to how heavy it was, because the packaged looked like it was curtain rods not a 10 pound rifle wrapped in shipping paper, Frazier thinks he would have known, he had uncrated curtain rods at a previous job, he hadn't noticed anything out of the ordinary concerning the package of curtain rods Oswald carried.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 27, 2012, 01:37:28 AM
Again please list those witnesses that claimed they heard echos?

Are you really this stupid? If they were fooled by the echoes they wouldn't claim to have heard them. And since it was impossible to shoot JFK and Gov. Connally in the back from the grassy knoll we know the witnesses who claimed the shots came from there were mistaken. It doesn't matter one bit if more people claimed the shots came from the grassy knoll than the school book depository because it is impossible. Sometimes the majority is wrong. This isn't a case where the theory with the most votes wins.

Quote
What evidence do you have, that discerning the direction of shots in Dealey Plaza would cause the majority of a given population to have a distorted but unified experience all recognizing the direction to be from the exact same location.

I want you to try to grasp this very simple concept: President Kennedy and Governor Connally were shot in the back. The grassy knoll was in front and to the right of them. You can't shoot someone in the back when you are in front of them. Do you understand this? Yes or no?

If witnesses are saying the shots came from a position that is impossible then we know those witnesses are wrong. Now, they were either lying or they were fooled by the echoes. I have no reason to believe they were lying.

Quote
You must be reading science fiction.

That's pretty funny coming from someone who believes the victims were shot in the back by an assassin who was positioned in front of them.

Quote
About 10% of this population had a vague general direction of the shots.

Which only proves that witness testimony that is based on the sound of the gunshots is unreliable. Why do you ignore the witnesses who actually saw the gunman in the school book depository?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 27, 2012, 01:40:29 AM
Sigh. Profmunkin, do you even read the testimony that you do quote? Like when Frazier repeatedly says he didn't pay close attention to the package Oswald was carrying?

You might also have quoted (and paid attention to) the part of his testimony when he says Oswald hurried ahead of him into the building, when in the past they had always entered the building together.

And you might explain to us why Oswald repeatedly lied to the police when he denied telling Frazier that he went to Irving to get curtain rods, when he denied telling Frazier that he had curtain rods in the package, indeed when he denied even carrying anything to work but his usual bag lunch -- which Frazier was quite sure Oswald did not have that day. And while you're at it, explain why Oswald would need curtain rods for a fully furnished room when he had never discussed it with his landlady. Or why no curtain rods were ever found in the Depository. Or why there were still some curtain rods in the Paine garage after the assassination.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 27, 2012, 02:15:29 AM
And why Oswald lied about owning a rifle? And why Marina almost fainted when a cop picked up the blanket where the rifle was supposed to be and the rifle wasn't there? 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 27, 2012, 02:47:29 AM
If witnesses are saying the shots came from a position that is impossible then we know those witnesses are wrong. Now, they were either lying or they were fooled by the echoes.

They could easily have been fooled by something other than the echoes, namely the shock wave from the bullet traveling at about Mach 2. For many if not most observers this is the first and loudest sound they hear, followed by the expanding spent gases from the muzzle as the bullet leaves (the muzzle blast) and possibly the sound of the bullet impacting its target. These sounds all come from different directions at different times. I'd only expect people who are already familiar with rifles to even recognize them as rifle fire.

And that's exactly what happened; John Connally and Officer Baker, both avid hunters, immediately recognized the first shot as rifle fire while most witnesses thought it was a motorcycle backfire or kids throwing firecrackers into the street. Agent Greer, driving the Presidential limo, thought he might have had a blowout, so he tapped the brakes. That turned out to have been a bad idea, and by all accounts it bothered Greer very greatly.

You might expect Secret Service agents would also recognize the sounds of rifle fire, but I point out that they're generally armed (and practice) with handguns that shoot subsonic bullets. They don't produce the crack of a supersonic rifle bullet.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 27, 2012, 03:06:52 AM
And why Oswald lied about owning a rifle? And why Marina almost fainted when a cop picked up the blanket where the rifle was supposed to be and the rifle wasn't there?
Or why Marina, who was outside at Ruth Paine's hanging up clothes to dry when she first heard that the President had been shot, was sufficiently concerned about Lee being involved that she went into the garage to look for the rifle. She saw the blanket on the floor, apparently undisturbed, but didn't look inside. Only later, when the police arrived and picked up the blanket did she realize the rifle had actually been missing.

Her contemporary actions and statements make it crystal clear that Marina knew that her husband was guilty. So how did she come to later side with the conspiracists? Only she really knows the answer, but I can make a good guess. If any one individual on the earth would have reason to feel guilty for not having prevented the assassination (other than Lee Harvey Oswald himself, of course) it is Marina Oswald. She was fully aware that her husband had already attempted one politically-motivated murder and was actually sorry that he had failed. I'm sure she quickly realized after the assassination that if she had turned Lee in for the Walker shooting, JFK would have survived Dallas.

That must have weighed heavily on her for many years, and the only way out would be proof that Lee had not actually murdered JFK. So when the conspiracists began to come out of the woodwork and she became a logical target of their 'research', I'm sure she was more than a little sympathetic to their viewpoint.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 27, 2012, 03:49:18 AM
Again please list those witnesses that claimed they heard echos?

Firstly, I have already given you one.

Secondly, perhaps you can tell us exactly how you expect the sound of a gunshot echo to differ from the sound of a gunshot?

Thirdly, perhaps you'd care to explain my own personal experience, already recounted, of hearing the shots from a single location coming from various directions depending on where I was relative to the shooter?

Fourthly, perhaps you could explain how Connally and Kennedy were shot in the back by someone in front of them?

Fifthly, perhaps you would care to explain your contention that Kennedy was shot in frame 189 of the Zapruder film, despite his total lack of reaction to it.

Quote
What evidence do you have, that discerning the direction of shots in Dealey Plaza would cause the majority of a given population to have a distorted but unified experience all recognizing the direction to be from the exact same location.

That's physics, but I don't expect you to actually understand that, despite your profession to having multiple science degrees in your previous incarnation on the old board.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 27, 2012, 03:54:14 AM
Can we agree that the depiction shown in attached image has the bullet entering the back above the throat wound whereas it should be about 5 inches lower then the neck wound. Close to where the arrow is pointing.

We can agree that the depiction is inaccurate, but we cannot agree that the arrow is pointing anywhere close to 5 inches below the throat wound. You have some seriously distorted ideas about physiology if you think the third thoracic vertebra is anywhere close to 5 inches below the larynx.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 10:19:57 AM
We can agree that the depiction is inaccurate, but we cannot agree that the arrow is pointing anywhere close to 5 inches below the throat wound. You have some seriously distorted ideas about physiology if you think the third thoracic vertebra is anywhere close to 5 inches below the larynx.
5 -1/2 inches below the collar of the shirt.
Picture attached, Specter is illustrating the bullet path, the chalk mark on the back of the jacket is well below the neck wound.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 10:22:35 AM
Location of bullet hole in jacket matched position of bullet hole on shirt, per JFK Lancer
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 10:25:41 AM
This depiction shows the third thoracic vertebra about where I depicted it, maybe even lower.
Certainly well below the location of the adams apple.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 27, 2012, 10:55:37 AM
As I already told you:

The 3rd thoracic vertebra canard comes from RADM Burkley who estimated the location of the bullet wound in JFK's back for a death certificate. The autopsy report said it entered above the scapula. The bullet exited well below the Adam's Apple.

His jacket was bunched.
Was Kennedy's Jacket Bunched When He Was Hit in the Back?  (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched2.htm)
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 11:03:23 AM
The amazing thing to me is "they" didn't hide the evidence, it is right in front of you.
"They" just ignored evidence so that an alternate reality could be contrived.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 11:16:35 AM
His jacket was bunched.
LoL

The jacket was bunched.
The shirt was bunched.
JFK was hunched.
JFK was leaning forward
Connally moved over a foot
JFK seat was at the highest position

"Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question in response to your statement that the back seat was in its lowest position at the time of the assassination? How do you know that?
Mr. KELLEY. That is a result of questioning of the people who took the car, the driver who took the car from the hospital to the plane. This was one of the drivers of the Presidential car. There was nobody who touched the car until it got back to the White House garage. It was in his custody all the time. And he did not move it." myth busted


JFK was hit in his back, not his neck, no matter how bunched and hunched you can imagine JFK was, it was not possible for a bullet to exit the throat.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 27, 2012, 11:52:27 AM
The jacket was bunched.
The shirt was bunched.
JFK was hunched.
JFK was leaning forward
Connally moved over a foot

Which is all far more plausible than your grassy knoll gunman.

Quote
JFK seat was at the highest position

"Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question in response to your statement that the back seat was in its lowest position at the time of the assassination? How do you know that?
Mr. KELLEY. That is a result of questioning of the people who took the car, the driver who took the car from the hospital to the plane. This was one of the drivers of the Presidential car. There was nobody who touched the car until it got back to the White House garage. It was in his custody all the time. And he did not move it." myth busted

How does this help your argument? If Kennedy was lower than the WC says then any shot that hit him in the back (whether it was from TSBD or the grassy knoll) would have to go through the back of the car. So it doesn't help you much at all, does it? Or are you next going to claim that the assassin was inside the trunk of the car?

Quote
JFK was hit in his back, not his neck, no matter how bunched and hunched you can imagine JFK was, it was not possible for a bullet to exit the throat.

Yes, he was hit in his back. So explain how that is possible if the shooter was in front of the victims on the grassy knoll. It can't be done. I'll keep repeating it until it sinks into your thick skull.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 27, 2012, 11:56:22 AM
Does that rod point to the grassy knoll, Profmunkin?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 27, 2012, 12:11:03 PM
His jacket was bunched.
LoL

The jacket was bunched.

If you cannot see the bunching for yourself in the photos then I'm afraid you are so deluded you are beyond help.


Quote
The shirt was bunched.
JFK was hunched.
JFK was leaning forward

Don't forgot that Elm street sloped down at about a 3° angle.


Quote
Connally moved over a foot

No, it was 6 inches, as Kelley, the Secret Service inspector you just quoted said in his testimony. Yet another example of your cherry-picking your quotes instead of considering all of the information and then weighing it.

Plus there are pictures: http://www.pinkpillbox.com/images/interiorjfklimo.jpg


Quote
JFK seat was at the highest position

Do you have a citation for who exactly claimed the seat was in its highest position?

Do you even know what the highest position looks like? Only an idiot would claim it was raised to its highest position. This is what it looks like in its highest position:

http://home.comcast.net/~the_puzzle_palace/KN-C18066.jpg

Quote

"Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question in response to your statement that the back seat was in its lowest position at the time of the assassination? How do you know that?
Mr. KELLEY. That is a result of questioning of the people who took the car, the driver who took the car from the hospital to the plane. This was one of the drivers of the Presidential car. There was nobody who touched the car until it got back to the White House garage. It was in his custody all the time. And he did not move it." myth busted


JFK was hit in his back, not his neck, no matter how bunched and hunched you can imagine JFK was, it was not possible for a bullet to exit the throat.

You are basing your back wound position on a death certificate, not on the autopsy report and certainly not on the autopsy photos.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 12:16:00 PM
Does that rod point to the grassy knoll, Profmunkin?
It does not point to the location of back wound, this we can know without doubt .
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 27, 2012, 12:20:27 PM
Does that rod point to the grassy knoll, Profmunkin?
It does not point to the location of back wound, this we can know without doubt .

Any back wound wouldn't be possible at all from the grassy knoll. But I disagree with your interpretation of the position of the wound because you're basing it on a drawing rather than the photos. Is it your intention to try to deceive us, or are you just too stupid to understand that the photograph is more accurate?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 27, 2012, 02:44:25 PM
Well, the photos give information that he doesn't want to be true, so they cannot be true.  Just as Marina's actions cannot be awareness of Lee's guilt, because Marina later said Lee didn't do it, and he wants that to be true.  Just as much as Marina didn't want to think Lee could have done it, in fact, though (hopefully!) for different reasons.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 03:12:03 PM
Any back wound wouldn't be possible at all from the grassy knoll. But I disagree with your interpretation of the position of the wound because you're basing it on a drawing rather than the photos. Is it your intention to try to deceive us, or are you just too stupid to understand that the photograph is more accurate?
Please post photo of the back wound so I know what you are referring to
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 27, 2012, 03:16:48 PM
It is simply impossible for the shots to have come from the GK.
What do you base this on?

How many times have we been through this single point, yet you still keep not understanding it.  Is that on purpose or do you simply not understand what I am saying?

At the time of the head shot, the GK was to the right and a bit forward of JFK.  With JFK in a slumped position following the first shot, the path of a bullet striking from that location would have been mostly along the cross axis of the head.  Whereas the evident path of the bullet that made the actual wound was more along the long axis of the head.  A cross axis shot from the GK would have caused a wound on the left side of JFK's head, of which there was none, and likely struck Jackie. If not her then at least the car. 

To put the shooter on the GK, you need to overcome this objection, provide a plausible explanation of the events and show where other investigations were wrong.  Until you do that, no rational discussion is even possible. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 27, 2012, 03:18:35 PM
Are you prepared yet to tell us your hypothesis of locations and number of shots and to defend that hypothesis?  Untill you do that you are no different that any random conspiracy crank.
Can we agree that the depiction shown in attached image has the bullet entering the back above the throat wound whereas it should be about 5 inches lower then the neck wound. Close to where the arrow is pointing.

Evasion noted.  Providing confirming evidence that you are just another internet conspiracy crank.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 27, 2012, 10:35:49 PM
Any back wound wouldn't be possible at all from the grassy knoll. But I disagree with your interpretation of the position of the wound because you're basing it on a drawing rather than the photos. Is it your intention to try to deceive us, or are you just too stupid to understand that the photograph is more accurate?
Please post photo of the back wound so I know what you are referring to

Do you mean to tell me you've made this judgement about the position of the back wound and you've never even seen the photographs? ::)

The autopsy photographs are online. Use Google. I'd prefer to keep such gruesome photographs involving death or serious injuries off of the forum.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 10:38:54 PM

Do you mean to tell me you've made this judgement about the position of the back wound and you've never even seen the photographs? ::)

The autopsy photographs are online. Use Google. I'd prefer to keep such gruesome photographs involving death or serious injuries off of the forum.

Which photograph are you referring to, please post it, or a link to a specific photo.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 10:49:23 PM
Who are you going to believe?

Bennett "At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder."
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 11:06:18 PM
Reading thru Bennett's report I am conflicted as whether or not he recognized the direction of the shots. What do you think?

" At this point I heard what_sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head. I immediately hollered "he's hit'' and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-I5. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area.

He hears a "firecracker" and looked to his right and forward (toward the knoll) towards the President, he did not look at the President according to this statement.
Then he hears a "shot and he then "peered towards the rear...right side)"
He really had no idea where the sniper was did he?
Should I classify Bennett as he (had no idea) of the direction of the shots?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 27, 2012, 11:09:41 PM

Do you mean to tell me you've made this judgement about the position of the back wound and you've never even seen the photographs? ::)

The autopsy photographs are online. Use Google. I'd prefer to keep such gruesome photographs involving death or serious injuries off of the forum.

Which photograph are you referring to, please post it, or a link to a specific photo.

Search for "JFK back wound" using Google Images. It's there. You should have already been familiar with the autopsy photographs before making judgements about the position of the wounds. Do your homework.

You still haven't explained how the back wounds JFK and Connally suffered would even be possible from the grassy knoll. Until you do it is unnecessary for us to debate the precise positions of the wounds.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 11:15:00 PM
Search for "JFK back wound" using Google Images. It's there. You should have already been familiar with the autopsy photographs before making judgements about the position of the wounds. Do your homework.
Please post or link to the exact photo you are referring to
thanks in advance
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 27, 2012, 11:17:38 PM
Search for "JFK back wound" using Google Images. It's there. You should have already been familiar with the autopsy photographs before making judgements about the position of the wounds. Do your homework.
Please post or link to the exact photo you are referring to
thanks in advance


Do your own research. The images are online. Find them. They are not being posted in this forum because they are too gruesome.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 11:30:26 PM
Do your own research. The images are online. Find them. They are not being posted in this forum because they are too gruesome.
They are too gruesome to post a link to?
Is there a reason you are refusing to post a link to the specific photo you are referring to?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 11:39:59 PM
Some more help please
"Mr. SPECTER. And what was your reaction as to the source of the shots, if you had one?
Mr. O'DONNELL. My reaction in part is reconstruction---is that they came from the right rear. That would be my best judgment."

Is O'Donnell saying that at the time of the shots he had no idea where they came from, afterwards as information became available it was possible to piece it together, that they came from the right rear?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 11:46:45 PM
Can you see?

"Mr. SPECTER. Was there any reaction by any of the other people around in any specific direction?
Mr. O'DONNELL. The agents all turned to the rear. I would think, watching the reaction of the President when the shot--the first shot hit--that it would be automatic it would have to have come from the rear. I think any experienced agent would make that assumption immediately."

Can you see?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 27, 2012, 11:50:55 PM
Do your own research. The images are online. Find them. They are not being posted in this forum because they are too gruesome.
They are too gruesome to post a link to?

Yes.

Quote
Is there a reason you are refusing to post a link to the specific photo you are referring to?

See above. Is there a reason why you're too lazy to do your own research? You should have already been familiar with the autopsy photos before making judgements about them. The fact that you're apparently only hearing about them for the first time from me is astounding. But I guess I shouldn't be that surprised since you have shown us before that you make your conclusions before doing any research (for example: you only started reading the WC testimony AFTER reaching the conclusion that there was a conspiracy).
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 11:53:28 PM
I am confused about his testimony can you guys address this

"Mr. O'DONNELL. The reaction I note would be right rear. And, again, looking at the manner of the President's movement, I would think you would have to feel the thrust of the shot was from the right rear.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what was there about the President's movement which leads you to that conclusion?
Mr. O'DONNELL. He was leaning out waving. He may have just been withdrawing his hand. And the shot hit him, and threw him to the left. He slumped on Mrs. Kennedy. "

The bullet threw him to the left, is this possible?

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 27, 2012, 11:57:35 PM

See above. Is there a reason why you're too lazy to do your own research? You should have already been familiar with the autopsy photos before making judgements about them. The fact that you're apparently only hearing about them for the first time from me is astounding. But I guess I shouldn't be that surprised since you have shown us before that you make your conclusions before doing any research (for example: you only started reading the WC testimony AFTER reaching the conclusion that there was a conspiracy).
Yep reading it after I reached the conclusion that it was a conspiracy.
When are you going to read it?

Your making this picture up, if not you would post it or link to it.

I have no idea as to which picture you may be referring to.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 28, 2012, 12:41:20 AM
Did you know:
Greer did not know where the shots came from.
Kellerman did not know where the shots came from.
McIntyre did not know where the shots came from.
Hill heard a noise from his right rear (these guys do turn to look behind them in their normal duties correct? So which way was he facing when he heard the noise?)
Ready did not know where the shots came from.
Landis thought the shots came from the knoll.
Kinney did not know where the shots came from.
Bennet did not know where the shots came from.
Powers thought the shots came from the knoll.
O'Donnel did not know where the shots came from
Hickey did not know where the shots came from.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on May 28, 2012, 12:53:03 AM
Frazier was asked if the package was heavy, he replied that he didn't pay any attention to how heavy it was, because the packaged looked like it was curtain rods not a 10 pound rifle wrapped in shipping paper, Frazier thinks he would have known, he had uncrated curtain rods at a previous job, he hadn't noticed anything out of the ordinary concerning the package of curtain rods Oswald carried.

No where in your post does anyone say that Oswald was palming the package, except for you.  The Carcano actually weighs about 8.5 pounds.  Any chance you could post facts instead of making stuff up?

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 28, 2012, 03:53:00 AM
The bullet threw him to the left, is this possible?

You have had the physics of the head shot explained to you over and over and over and over again. Is there some reason you won't let actual physics and demonstrations penetrate your thick skull?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 28, 2012, 03:56:47 AM
Your making this picture up, if not you would post it or link to it.

I have no idea as to which picture you may be referring to.

Google it. Just put 'JFK autopsy photos' into Google and see what you come up with. I did that and got a whole slew of pictures of a dead president with half his head shot off in less than one minute. And I suspect you know this and are just playing games.

No-one here is obliged to post images or links to images of dead people on a public forum, and as the owner of this particular forum Lunar Orbit has every right to refuse to do so. You have been told those images exist, and you have been told how to find them. Get on with it.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 28, 2012, 04:23:35 AM
Did you know:
Greer did not know where the shots came from.
Kellerman did not know where the shots came from.
McIntyre did not know where the shots came from.
Hill heard a noise from his right rear (these guys do turn to look behind them in their normal duties correct? So which way was he facing when he heard the noise?)
Ready did not know where the shots came from.
Landis thought the shots came from the knoll.
Kinney did not know where the shots came from.
Bennet did not know where the shots came from.
Powers thought the shots came from the knoll.
O'Donnel did not know where the shots came from
Hickey did not know where the shots came from.


What??? Almost all of these men said the noise came from the rear or the right rear. Only a few said they didn't know.

Landis said the first shot came from over his right shoulder and "I still was not certain from which direction the second shot came, but my reaction at this time was that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, right-hand side of the road."

I guess when the facts don't support profmunkin's theory he just starts lying.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 28, 2012, 07:50:39 AM
Your making this picture up, if not you would post it or link to it.

A simple Google search proves otherwise. Thanks for proving once again that your research is selective. You actively avoid doing any research that might expose you to information that contradicts your beliefs.

You seem to believe that if you don't see those pictures with your own eyes then they don't exist and you're free to believe what you want. It doesn't work like that. The facts exist whether you are aware of them or not. You live in denial.

Quote
I have no idea as to which picture you may be referring to.

Of course not, because you don't do research. I don't know what you think you're gaining from this little game of yours... I have a good reason for not wanting those photographs in my forum, but you have given no justification for why you haven't done the basic effort to discover the photos for yourself. It makes you look lazy and scared of the truth.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 28, 2012, 08:57:55 AM
There are only a few autopsy photos so it's not like one has to comb through hundreds of em.

It amazes me that someone could reach the conclusion it was a conspiracy without having known about the autopsy photos. And he accuses us of being biased.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: DataCable on May 28, 2012, 10:00:33 AM
Bennett "At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder."
Please show or link to photographs of the exact ruler Bennett used to measure the distance from Kennedy's shoulder to the bullet wound at the time.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 28, 2012, 10:41:37 PM
Reading thru Bennett's report I am conflicted as whether or not he recognized the direction of the shots. What do you think?
Do you really care what we think? You haven't given that impression.

What I think is that while a majority of the witnesses identified the TSBD as the source of the shots, as evidenced by the Altgens photograph as well as subjective testimony, we've already established that humans are very poor at determining the direction of rifle shots, particularly when they're unexpected and especially when they occur in an echo chamber like Dealy Plaza. Since we have other forms of evidence proving that the shots came from the TSBD and nowhere else, why are you still beating this dead horse? Your desperation is really showing.

Quote
He hears a "firecracker" and looked to his right and forward (toward the knoll) towards the President, he did not look at the President according to this statement.
That's not how I read it, and I thought it was quite clear. Bennett looks "toward the President", sees him hit near the shoulder. How the hell could he have seen this if he wasn't looking at the President??

But even though Bennett thought (correctly) the shots came from behind and to the right, it simply doesn't matter what he thought because we already know from other evidence that they came from the TSBD!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 28, 2012, 11:33:59 PM
Did you know:
...
Did you know (or even care):

That human hearing is notoriously inaccurate at determining the location of a fired rifle?

That we have abundant and reliable evidence exclusive of earwitness perceptions of direction, consistently showing beyond any doubt that the shots came from the easternmost window on the south side of the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 28, 2012, 11:42:16 PM
Yep reading it after I reached the conclusion that it was a conspiracy.
Well, at least you're honest about it. The Warren Commission report and the accompanying appendices contain the single most complete and accessible collection of evidence that exists anywhere regarding the JFK assassination. One must study the evidence in any case to draw informed conclusions. So you are admitting that you drew your conclusion that there must be a conspiracy without reference to the facts. And you defend this?
Quote
When are you going to read it?
I dare say that I have read far more of the Warren Commission report than you have. I think that most of the participants in this discussion have also read far more of the Warren Commission report than you have, judging by their accurate knowledge of the evidence, the conclusions reached and the rationale for each one.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 29, 2012, 01:27:34 AM
To be perfectly honest, I've never thought it was a conspiracy, and that was before I'd done any research on the subject.  As a child, I just took it for granted that what was in my history books was accurate.  (Yeah, I know.  I was young!)  I discovered the idea of conspiracism as an adult, though I remember the hoo-ha when JFK came out, so I knew of it as it related to JFK before then.  I just didn't think much about it.  However, as I've gotten older, I've actually done quite a bit of reading on the subject, and I have never come across anything which has changed my childhood view.  I don't know how important a factor this is, but all the smartest people I know--including a beloved history teacher--believe Oswald acted alone.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 29, 2012, 08:34:46 AM
There are only a few autopsy photos so it's not like one has to comb through hundreds of em.

It amazes me that someone could reach the conclusion it was a conspiracy without having known about the autopsy photos. And he accuses us of being biased.
please post link to exact photo being referenced
thank you
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 29, 2012, 08:37:49 AM
I dare say that I have read far more of the Warren Commission report than you have. I think that most of the participants in this discussion have also read far more of the Warren Commission report than you have, judging by their accurate knowledge of the evidence, the conclusions reached and the rationale for each one.
Warren Report is just an interpretation an opinion of some specific parts of the evidence.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 29, 2012, 08:43:32 AM
please post link to exact photo being referenced

You have already been told that will not happen, so stop asking for it. You have also been told how to find them, without us having to post links here. There are only a handful of autopsy pictures, each showing a different aspect. There is, for example, only one showing the back wound.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 29, 2012, 08:53:40 AM
please post link to exact photo being referenced

You have already been told that will not happen, so stop asking for it. You have also been told how to find them, without us having to post links here. There are only a handful of autopsy pictures, each showing a different aspect. There is, for example, only one showing the back wound.
I know it won't happen.
You can't post evidence that impeaches your postions.
Because when it finally comes down to it, you all know where the back wound was, about right where I said it was.
Significantly lower on JFK's body then his throat wound, which makes the wounds supposedly caused "magic bullet"  impossible.

You disagree with this conclusion - post the autopsy picture and lets discuss it.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 29, 2012, 09:23:32 AM

That human hearing is notoriously inaccurate at determining the location of a fired rifle?

That we have abundant and reliable evidence exclusive of earwitness perceptions of direction, consistently showing beyond any doubt that the shots came from the easternmost window on the south side of the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository?

May be your correct concerning human hearing, because even Norman and Williams who were within 12 feet from the rifle could not determine the direction from which the shots were fired.

Would Norman and Williams testimony be considered abundant and reliable evidence?
How about Jarmin, who had been in the Army for 8 years, he was also 12 feet away but testified the shots did not come from TSBD, would any of this be considered abundant and reliable evidence?

Please post your abundant and reliable evidence.
And while your at it give my you best wild ass guess as to why Norman and Williams could not determine the direction from which the reports came and how could Jarmin's guess be so "incorrect".
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 29, 2012, 10:35:30 AM
I dare say that I have read far more of the Warren Commission report than you have. I think that most of the participants in this discussion have also read far more of the Warren Commission report than you have, judging by their accurate knowledge of the evidence, the conclusions reached and the rationale for each one.
Warren Report is just an interpretation an opinion of some specific parts of the evidence.



As are all investigations, including yours.  That is why I have been asking you to show why your reasoning, interpretation and opinions are better than those of the multiple professional investigations that have come to the same conclusion.  So far you have refused to tell us why your claim of a conspiracy is preferred.    This tells me that you don't have any evidence in your favor, but are desperately hoping that your bluffing will get some traction.  But you have an enormous hill to climb to get yourself up to the level of the others and using this lame comparison to elevate your work has failed.  As all can see, you have been slipping downhill since you got here.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 29, 2012, 10:39:57 AM
Please post your abundant and reliable evidence.
And while your at it give my you best wild ass guess as to why Norman and Williams could not determine the direction from which the reports came and how could Jarmin's guess be so "incorrect".

You conveniently keep forgetting that the burden of proof is yours.  So quit bluffing and provide a analysis of how the WC used the testimony, what they missed or misinterpreted and what your interpretation is and why it is better.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Abaddon on May 29, 2012, 01:48:51 PM
please post link to exact photo being referenced

You have already been told that will not happen, so stop asking for it. You have also been told how to find them, without us having to post links here. There are only a handful of autopsy pictures, each showing a different aspect. There is, for example, only one showing the back wound.
I know it won't happen.
You can't post evidence that impeaches your postions.
Because when it finally comes down to it, you all know where the back wound was, about right where I said it was.
Significantly lower on JFK's body then his throat wound, which makes the wounds supposedly caused "magic bullet"  impossible.

You disagree with this conclusion - post the autopsy picture and lets discuss it.


Good grief. The forum owner has explained that he does not want those images posted, or linked, and has explained why.

A quick google will get you those images, yet you are somehow unable to google them, but prefer to spend far more time moaning here that nobody will do your research for you.

Get over yourself.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 29, 2012, 02:25:09 PM
I know it won't happen.
You can't post evidence that impeaches your postions.

I will not post pictures or links to pictures of dead people on a public forum, and the forum owner has taken the same position. That has nothing to do with hiding anything and everything to do with common decency. however, I have told you (and anyone else who cares to read this forum) exactly where to find those images. Your complaint is rather like saying I am hiding a book at your local library because I will not go and hire it out myself and hand it to you in your own house. Get over yourself.

Quote
Because when it finally comes down to it, you all know where the back wound was, about right where I said it was.

Can you find any evidence, anywhere at all, that anyone has disagreed with the location of the back wound as described in that photograph? I have never once disagreed that the back wound was located near the top inner corner of the scapula, about six inches below the mastoid process and four inches left of the acromion process, around the level of the third thoracic vertebra. In fact pretty much where the autopsy report and the photograph say it was.

The only one being inconsistent is you, and your earlier suggestion of the back wound being 'six inches lower than the Adam's apple' was patently absurd, even for you.

Quote
Significantly lower on JFK's body then his throat wound,

No, a little lower (as I showed on an earlier post in fact), and only if you assume he was sitting bolt upright when the bullet struck. How many more times must the same things be said to you?

Quote
which makes the wounds supposedly caused "magic bullet"  impossible.

Only if you assume he was bolt upright at the time. He clearly was not and in fact he also had his right arm propped up on the side of the limo, elevating his right shoulder.

Quote
You disagree with this conclusion - post the autopsy picture and lets discuss it.

The location of the wound in the photo is NOT the issue, as you well know. You want to discuss it, post a photo showing that Kennedy was sitting bolt upright with his arms down.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 29, 2012, 08:38:30 PM
So far I have uncovered 62 people that stated within their testimony that they were aware of a rhythm to the reports.

44 said it was Bham...Bham-Bham they claimed the last two reports were "simultaneous" or "like automic rifle fire" or "quick" or "rapid". 4 others stated there were 4 shots Bham...Bham-Bham-Bham and another 4 had the order reversed Bham-Bham...Bham

Only 6 people thought the reports had been evenly spaced Bham...Bham...Bham
 




Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 29, 2012, 08:54:43 PM
Would Norman and Williams testimony be considered abundant and reliable evidence?
How about Jarmin, who had been in the Army for 8 years, he was also 12 feet away but testified the shots did not come from TSBD, would any of this be considered abundant and reliable evidence?
*SIGH*

Profmunkin, why do you keep misstating the evidence? No, scratch that. Why do you keep LYING about the evidence? At this point I'm hard pressed to see how you're not doing it deliberately. Norman, Williams and Jarman all agreed among themselves that the shots came from above them in the building -- the Texas School Book Depository Building. How did they quickly come to that conclusion? Not only were the shots very loud, but Williams had cement dust in his hair and Norman had heard the sound of the bolt being operated and the ejected shells hitting the floor above them. Jarman's exact words to the others: "That shot probably did come from upstairs, up over us."

After running to the west side of the building to see what had happened to the motorcade, Norman and Jarmin ran out of the building and quickly reported what they'd seen and heard to a policeman who was already talking to Howard Brennan, the witness who saw (and later identified) Oswald as he actually fired the shots. That's three witnesses (and there were more) telling the police about a rifle being fired at least a half hour before the rifle itself was even found.

Norman's ability to hear these sounds was verified in an experiment where he took the position he had during the motorcade while a Secret Service agent at the 6th floor sniper window operated the bolt of a rifle and dropped spent shells on the floor. The experiment was later repeated for the Commissioners. All seven clearly heard the shells drop too.

What do you really hope to accomplish here? As I said before, if you deliberately misstated the evidence like this as an attorney in court, the judge would toss your ass in jail for contempt. Trying to convince others of your opinion or interpretation of the facts is one thing. That's what a debate is all about. But you step way over the line when you repeatedly and undoubtedly deliberately misstate established facts while doing it. It is obvious that you aren't the least interested in determining the truth, so there is little point in continuing to have a proper debate with you under these conditions.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 29, 2012, 09:09:02 PM
So far I have uncovered 62 people that stated within their testimony that they were aware of a rhythm to the reports.
And this is relevant....how, exactly?

I suppose it might be interesting as a study of how people perceive the sounds of unexpected gunshots in an urban environment. But as for changing the established conclusions of the many investigations of the JFK assassination...sorry, but no. Just no.



Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 29, 2012, 09:35:05 PM
http://dolk.host.sk/dolkpage96/horror/famosos/jfk2.htm
This is a link to JFK autopsy sheet

Do you believe that is an accurate representation of the location of the bullet wound, Profmunkin? Yes or no?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 29, 2012, 09:56:45 PM
http://dolk.host.sk/dolkpage96/horror/famosos/jfk2.htm
This is a link to JFK autopsy sheet

Do you believe that is an accurate representation of the location of the bullet wound, Profmunkin? Yes or no?
Let us use the autopsy photos as you suggested, instead of relying on a depiction?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 29, 2012, 10:06:22 PM
http://dolk.host.sk/dolkpage96/horror/famosos/jfk2.htm
This is a link to JFK autopsy sheet

Do you believe that is an accurate representation of the location of the bullet wound, Profmunkin? Yes or no?
Let us use the autopsy photos as you suggested, instead of relying on a depiction?

You based your conclusion that the wound wasn't possible from TSBD on that autopsy diagram, apparently without having ever seen the actual autopsy photographs. Are you now saying that you no longer believe the diagram is good enough? Are you now saying that without having seen the photographs, you can't rule out TSBD as the location of the assassin?

Is that diagram an accurate depiction of the location of the wound. Yes or no? Feel free to consult Google if you want.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 29, 2012, 10:52:37 PM
Is that diagram an accurate depiction of the location of the wound. Yes or no? Feel free to consult Google if you want.
I realized your suggestion is the best, to go to the source.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 29, 2012, 11:44:49 PM
Of the 10 men in follow up car that were the closest witnesses of the assassination.
Emory Roberts - did not testify under oath to the WC
George Hickey - did not testify under oath to the WC
David Powers - did not testify under oath to the WC
Glen Bennett - did not testify under oath to the WC
Samual Kinney - did not testify under oath to the WC
Paul Landis - did not testify under oath to the WC
John Ready - did not testify under oath to the WC
William McIntyre - did not testify under oath to the WC
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 30, 2012, 12:14:43 AM
Of the 10 men in follow up car that were the closest witnesses of the assassination.
So what? The Commission directly interviewed only the most important witnesses. That included both agents in the limo (driver Greer and agent in charge Kellerman), one from the followup car (Clint Hill, who ran to Jackie's aid) and one from Vice President Johnson's car (Youngblood).

Most Commission witnesses gave depositions in which a staff lawyer asks questions and produces a written transcript for the record. Depositions are a very important part of the preparation of most US legal cases. In some cases, the Commission decided to bring in and interview a witness who had already given a deposition. A few witnesses gave affidavits, which are written statements. In addition, nearly every Secret Service agent involved in the Dallas trip, including those in the followup car, made a written report soon after the assassination while their memories were still fresh.

What more do you want? Exactly what additional useful information would be gained by having the Commission directly interview every single person in the followup car or anywhere in Dealy Plaza? Or are you just throwing darts randomly at the Warren Commission, hoping against hope to get lucky?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 30, 2012, 12:18:30 AM
So far I have uncovered 62 people that stated within their testimony that they were aware of a rhythm to the reports.

44 said it was Bham...Bham-Bham they claimed the last two reports were "simultaneous" or "like automic rifle fire" or "quick" or "rapid". 4 others stated there were 4 shots Bham...Bham-Bham-Bham and another 4 had the order reversed Bham-Bham...Bham

Only 6 people thought the reports had been evenly spaced Bham...Bham...Bham

I'm not sure how you think this helps your position. It clearly indicates that people were confused by the acoustics, and were having a hard time remembering the exact details.

In other words, whatever happened left "anomalies" simply because that is human nature.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 30, 2012, 12:37:10 AM
Of the 10 men in follow up car that were the closest witnesses of the assassination.
Emory Roberts - did not testify under oath to the WC
George Hickey - did not testify under oath to the WC
David Powers - did not testify under oath to the WC
Glen Bennett - did not testify under oath to the WC
Samual Kinney - did not testify under oath to the WC
Paul Landis - did not testify under oath to the WC
John Ready - did not testify under oath to the WC
William McIntyre - did not testify under oath to the WC


Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said most of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on May 30, 2012, 12:38:22 AM
Of the 10 men in follow up car that were the closest witnesses of the assassination.
Emory Roberts - did not testify under oath to the WC
George Hickey - did not testify under oath to the WC
David Powers - did not testify under oath to the WC
Glen Bennett - did not testify under oath to the WC
Samual Kinney - did not testify under oath to the WC
Paul Landis - did not testify under oath to the WC
John Ready - did not testify under oath to the WC
William McIntyre - did not testify under oath to the WC


Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said almost all of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 30, 2012, 12:39:27 AM
But as for changing the established conclusions of the many investigations of the JFK assassination...sorry, but no. Just no.
Of the 12 SS and aids in the first 2 cars
7 reported a spacing of the shots
6 of these men stated Bham...Bham.Bham
1 had it reversed, stated Bham.Bham...Bham (dyslexia is my guess)

Then again trained proffessionals could not as McIntyre said "none of us could determine the origin of the shots" (They "all" supposidly looked toward the TSBD, NONE of them saw anything unusual, my personal opinion is they were looking the wrong direction)
Also interesting because there were a few nit wits that claimed to see the gun protruding as much as "3 feet" out the 6th floor window.

Why do you suppose John Ready was called back when he started to go to JFK's aid, did anyone ask Emory Roberts why he recalled Ready?

Wouldn't it have been interesting to get these guys under oath and grill them to find out why none of them moved to protect the president and why Greer took an extremly wide left turn onto Elm, then slowed the limo down almost to a stop right after the first shot was fired.

Kellerman claims right after the first shot, he heard JFK say he was hit, 5 - 6 second later JFK is dead the limo is still proding down Elm and Kellerman who should have jumped over the seats to protect the president is in the front seat ducking down and yelling go go go or whatever.

Martin, limo speed down Elm estimated at "4 to 5 miles per hour"
"after the third shot it had almost come to a stop, it was going very slow"
Evidence in Z film as motorcycle overtakes the limo Z-333

Interesting note from Kinney, driver of followup car "At  this time I glanced from the taillights of the Presidents car, that I use for gauging distances for driving" probably innocent, but interesting that it is mentioned, the conspiracy side says Greer applied the brakes, hence the lights came on and Kinney looked up to see why Greer was applying the brakes, goes with Hargis and Martin riding up unexpectedly overtaking the back of the limo.

You guys need to at least try and incorporate some facts into your fantasy story, it would make it more believable if you used any facts at all.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 30, 2012, 12:56:12 AM
You guys need to at least try and incorporate some facts into your fantasy story, it would make it more believable if you used any facts at all.
For you of all people to say this to us is really offensive. Try not lying about the evidence for a change.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 30, 2012, 01:01:16 AM
What more do you want? Exactly what additional useful information would be gained by having the Commission directly interview every single person in the followup car or anywhere in Dealy Plaza? Or are you just throwing darts randomly at the Warren Commission, hoping against hope to get lucky?
The WC found it necessary to have James Romack and George Rackley testify to the WC concerning pigeons, even though they were a block north of the TSBD on Houston, never saw the motorcade but just saw pigeons flying off the roof after the reports, no one mentions pigeons probably flew off every building around Dealey Plaza and the RR yards at the reports.

Side note, here is the deception, McAdams reports that these two witnesses claimed the shots came from the TSBD and account them in this category. The TSBD was a block south of their position and the knoll was south of that, of course the sound of the reports would be toward the TSBD that is the only place the sound would come from, this is just asinine.

So the WC had time for these pigeon witnesses, but not for SS men 20 feet away.
YES sworn in, testimonies of every one in the car as well as everyone known to be a witness in the Plaza

YES without exception and cross examined by Oswald's defense.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 30, 2012, 01:05:26 AM
Why do you suppose John Ready was called back when he started to go to JFK's aid, did anyone ask Emory Roberts why he recalled Ready?
No one had to ask Roberts because he explained exactly why in his report soon after the assassination:

Quote
12:30 pm. First of three shots fired, at which time I saw the President lean toward Mrs. Kennedy. I do not know if it was the next shot or third shot that hit the President in the head, but I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President's head, saw blood, at which time the President fell further to his left. Mrs. Kennedy was leaning toward the President, however, she immediately raised up in the seat and appeared to be getting up on back of same. About this time I saw SA Clinton Hill trying to get on left rear step of the President's car. He got aboard and climbed up over the back of the car and placed himself over the President and Mrs. Kennedy. After SA Hill got on rear step of the President's car it appeared that SA John Ready was about to follow and go for the right rear step, however, I told him not to jump, as we had picked up speed, and I was afraid he could not make it.

So there you have it. JFK had already been mortally shot, Clint Hill had already reached the back of the limousine -- too late -- and they were picking up speed for their race to the hospital. What exactly could Ready have done at this point to justify the very real risk of his being run over by the followup car? Would you be happier if a few of the agents had immediately committed suicide to atone for not having protected JFK?

Of course I expect this simple recitation of facts and logic to have little or no effect on you.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 30, 2012, 01:08:48 AM

I'm not sure how you think this helps your position. It clearly indicates that people were confused by the acoustics, and were having a hard time remembering the exact details.

In other words, whatever happened left "anomalies" simply because that is human nature.
Not at all, what this shows is that whatever a person has their attention on, that becomes part of their experience, some people are more visual some are audio.
The problem is you have to discount the majority opinion in every category I have posted to maintain your position. 
The witnesses testimonies do not support the WC report.
Not surprising since they made it up.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 30, 2012, 01:21:56 AM
The WC found it necessary to have James Romack and George Rackley testify to the WC concerning pigeons, even though they were a block north of the TSBD on Houston
Like many witnesses, Romack and Rackley were deposed. They did not testify directly to the Commission.

I looked at part of Romack's testimony. It is obvious he was interviewed for his observations of what happened at the rear of the building immediately after the assassination: who came out, who went in, when the police sealed it off, etc. It had to do with far more than just pigeons. These are very relevant issues even if you can't or won't see them.

So once again you misstate the testimony.
Quote
YES sworn in, testimonies of every one in the car as well as everyone known to be a witness in the Plaza
Maybe this is because the Warren Commission had a large staff of trained and experienced investigators who knew what information was especially important, while you're a biased, ideological, untrained and inexperienced layman desperately trying to find something, anything with which to deny the results of that and other investigations. Whether or not it's true.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 30, 2012, 01:50:13 AM
You know, the Warren Commission was based out of Washington, DC.  The assassination took place in Dallas.  That means one of two things would have been necessary.  Either huge sums of money would have been expended bringing witnesses to Washington so they could testify despite affidavits being perfectly legally binding and conducted by lawyers who doubtless asked the same range of questions the Commission members would have or else the commission would have had to travel to Dallas and spend a considerable length of time there despite having obligations in Washington which would not permit in-depth questioning of every witness.  It strikes me that getting affidavits from most witnesses and only directly examining a handful of them is a lot more sensible than either of those.  But since when did sense enter into conspiracism?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 30, 2012, 04:52:56 AM
Let us use the autopsy photos as you suggested, instead of relying on a depiction?

Are you suggesting that we are somehow obstructing you from doing so? Good grief, get off your proverbial backside and do your own research. You have been told why the links and pictures will not be posted here, and how to find them yourself. Get on with it and stop wasting time trying to make out we're not playing fair.

And by the way, most of us have already been using the photos in our discussions. Just because we haven't posted them here doesn't mean we haven't looked at them.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 30, 2012, 04:53:48 AM
I realized your suggestion is the best, to go to the source.

A realisation that any halfway competent researcher would have come to before drawing any conclusions whatsovever.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 30, 2012, 05:01:21 AM
Then again trained proffessionals could not as McIntyre said "none of us could determine the origin of the shots"

The fact that they were trained professionals doesn't make their ears any more capable of discerning direction of shots than anyone else's. The fact that tye did not see Oswald when they looked towards the TSBD does not mean he wasn't there. Have you seen how many windows that building has? Are they supposed to have been able to zero in on the right one immediately somehow?

Quote
Why do you suppose John Ready was called back when he started to go to JFK's aid, did anyone ask Emory Roberts why he recalled Ready?

Because once the President's head had been shot open what more is there to do than drive him, in the car he is already in, to the hospital?
 
Quote
then slowed the limo down almost to a stop right after the first shot was fired.

In other words, you think that a driver hearing a loud bang wouldn't ordinarily slow or stop? Do you drive? Do you know any driver that would immediately accelerate on hearing a loud bang rather than stopping or slowing ti check the bang wasn't their car breaking?

Quote
Kellerman who should have jumped over the seats to protect the president

Who says he should have jumped over the seats to protect him? Is that just your assumption that that's what agents do? Please do feel free to tell us exactly what that would have achieved in that time.

Quote
is in the front seat ducking down and yelling go go go or whatever.

The best way to protect a man in a vehicle being shot at is to urge the driver to take him away from the scene as quickly as possible. Not leap over the seats and make a bad situation worse.

Quote
You guys need to at least try and incorporate some facts into your fantasy story, it would make it more believable if you used any facts at all.

I hardly think you are in a position to say that, given the outright lying, lack of research and general refusal to accept reality you have demonstrated.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 30, 2012, 05:35:07 AM
The problem is you have to discount the majority opinion in every category I have posted to maintain your position.

No, the problem is that you refuse to understand that reality is not determined by majority consensus. And you discount other evidence, like the fact that someone in the building testified hearing a rifle bolt and spent shells hitting the floor above him, or that others testify seeing a sniper in the window.

Where is the corroborating evidence of a sniper on the knoll? How does a sniper on the knoll inflict the wounds seen on JFK and Connally?
 
Quote
The witnesses testimonies do not support the WC report.

Witness testimonies make up a small portion of the evidence on which the findings of the commission are based. They are not expected to all say the same thing, and they are not given more weight than physical evidence.

Why don't you tell us exactly what happened and provide your evidence for it? Start by telling us exactly how JFK and Connally sustained the wounds they did from a sniper positioned on the knoll, explaining why you discount the FACT that it has been shown that a rifle from the TSBD could have inflicted those wounds.

I suspect you can't, because you don't actually have an alternative. Your only objective is to show that the WC report is somehow wrong or false. Sorry, but that is simply insufficient.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 30, 2012, 08:21:26 AM

I'm not sure how you think this helps your position. It clearly indicates that people were confused by the acoustics, and were having a hard time remembering the exact details.

In other words, whatever happened left "anomalies" simply because that is human nature.
Not at all, what this shows is that whatever a person has their attention on, that becomes part of their experience, some people are more visual some are audio.
The problem is you have to discount the majority opinion in every category I have posted to maintain your position. 
The witnesses testimonies do not support the WC report.
Not surprising since they made it up.

I still don't get your point - "whatever a person has their attention on, that becomes part of their experience" is obvious, but I cannot figure out why you think this helps your case. Multiple witnesses recalled multiple "patterns" in the shots. Since we will assume, in the real world, there was only one "true" pattern, a large number of them must be testifying to something that is not correct.

Do you consider them lying, or simply mistaken? And if they are mistaken, could that not explain the vast majority of your other discrepancies? That people are not digital recorders, and *any* testimony must be considered as coming "through a glass, darkly"?

Here's a test for you. Watch, say, ten minutes of a movie or tv show. Then, an hour later, sit down and write out *everything* you saw and heard - all movements of actors and objects, all the background, and all the dialogue. Then go back and watch the same clip. Unless you are possessed of a photographic memory, I think you will find that you have missed many things, and distorted many more.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 30, 2012, 02:20:12 PM
William McIntyre - did not testify under oath to the WC

Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said almost all of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
McIntyre 51 line report, 6 lines described the assassination.
"The Presidential vehicle was approximately 200 feet from the underpass when the first shot was fired, followed in quick succession by two more. I would estimate that all three shots were fired within 5 seconds. After the second shot, I looked at the President and witnessed his being struck in the head by the third and last shot. By that time, Mr. Roberts had used the radio in our car to direct the vehicles to a hospital. Most, if not all the agents in the follow-up car had drawn their weapons and agent Hickey was handling the AR-15. None of us could determine the origin of the shots, and no shots were fired by any agent."

1 /12 Not one of the majority

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 30, 2012, 02:24:42 PM
John Ready - did not testify under oath to the WC

Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said almost all of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
Ready : 38 lines in report, about 5 devoted to assassination.

"I was about 25-30 feet from President Kennedy who was located in the right rear seat. I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position. I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but was not able to determine the exact location.

At this time the U.S. Secret Service follow-up car seemed to slow and I heard someone from inside this car say: ''he's shot". I left the follow-up car in the direction of the President's car but was recalled by ATSAIC Emory Roberts (Secret Service) as the cars increased their speeds. I got back on the car and seated myself beside Mr. Roberts in the right front seat. "

I hate to be pickey but where does he say the shots came from?
He doesn't say
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 30, 2012, 02:28:52 PM
Paul Landis - did not testify under oath to the WC

Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said almost all of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
Landis about 200 line report, 32 lines to assassination.
"I immediately returned my gaze, over my right shoulder"
" I still was not certain from which direction the second shot came, but my reaction at this time was that the shot came from somewhere towards the front, right-hand side of the road."

looked back first shot - confusion - also may be echo off the TSBD
second shot front right.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 30, 2012, 02:31:34 PM
Samual Kinney - did not testify under oath to the WC

Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said almost all of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
Kinney 60 line report, 10 line to assassination.

"As we completed the left turn and on a short distance, there was a shot. At this time I glanced from the taillights of the President's car, that I use for gauging distances for driving. I saw the President lean toward the left and appeared to have grabbed his chest with his right hand. There was a second of pause and then two more shots were heard. Agent Clinton Hill jumped from the follow-up car and dashed to the aid of the President and First Lady in the President's car. I saw one shot strike the President in the right side of the head. The President then fell to the seat to the left toward Mrs. Kennedy. At this time I stepped on the siren and gas pedal at the same time."

Direction - not mentioned
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 30, 2012, 02:35:19 PM
Glen Bennett - did not testify under oath to the WC

Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said almost all of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
Bennet 23 line report, 7 lines to assassination.
"At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head. I immediately hollered "he's hit'' and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-I5. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw S/A Hickey had the AR15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shots. The President's car immediately kicked into high gear and the follow-up car followed."

"particularly the right side of the area" - this is the knoll area.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 30, 2012, 02:38:28 PM
David Powers - did not testify under oath to the WC

Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said almost all of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
Powers 62 line report, 9 line to assassination.

"President moved quite far to his left after the shot from the extreme right hand side where he had been sitting"
"My first impression was that the shots came from the right and overhead, but I also had a fleeting impression that the noise appeared to come from the front in the area of the triple overpass."

Knoll
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 30, 2012, 02:42:43 PM
George Hickey - did not testify under oath to the WC

Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said almost all of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
Hickey 75 line report, 13 lines to assassination.

"appeared to come from the right and rear "

hate to be pickey again but he never says where he thought the shots came from.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 30, 2012, 02:45:46 PM
Emory Roberts - did not testify under oath to the WC

Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said almost all of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?
Roberts 150 line report, 3-6  lines to the assassination

"--12:30 p.m. First of three shots fired, at which time I saw the President lean toward Mrs. Kennedy. I do not know if it was the next shot or third shot that hit the President in the head, but I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right_ side of the President's head, saw blood, at which time the President fell further to his left. Mrs. Kennedy was leaning toward the President, however, she immediately raised up in the seat and appeared to be getting up on back of same. About this time I saw SA Clinton Hill trying to get on left rear step of the President's car."

no mention of direction of shots
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 30, 2012, 02:51:16 PM

Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said most of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?

ODonnell "Mr. O'DONNELL. My reaction in part is reconstruction---is that they came from the right rear. That would be my best judgment."

He had no opinion of where the shots came at the time.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 30, 2012, 02:54:09 PM
Profmunkin, none of these posts seem to advance your proposition of a conspiracy.  This has been a long tedious thread, please  give us a theory that would incorporate your belief or go away and bother some other forum. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 30, 2012, 02:55:10 PM
Nine posts in rapid succession, and I bet not one would be worth reading.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 30, 2012, 02:58:08 PM

Is this the reason you felt justified about lying when you said most of them did not know where the shots came from when in fact the vast majority said they came from the rear or right rear?

Hill "And I heard a noise from my right rear, which to me seemed to be a firecracker. I immediately looked to my right"

He hears a noise to the rear
This again must be that echo thing you guys are talking about.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 30, 2012, 02:59:08 PM
Profmunkin, none of these posts seem to advance your proposition of a conspiracy.  This has been a long tedious thread, please  give us a theory that would incorporate your belief or go away and bother some other forum.
You are right
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 30, 2012, 03:07:41 PM
Profmunkin, this is really getting tedious. Now you're mischaracterizing even the testimony you selectively quote:
Quote
We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area....
"particularly the right side of the area" - this is the knoll area.
Are you blind? The phrase right before the phrase you highlighted says towards the rear. No, that's not the knoll area. Right and to the rear is the TSBD!!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 30, 2012, 03:14:20 PM
None of us could determine the origin of the shots, and no shots were fired by any agent."
That's a quote completely out of context, and you know it. He meant that none of the agents could determine the precise origin of the shots by actually seeing someone shoot a gun. However, nearly all of them thought the shots came from somewhere behind and to the right of them, i.e., from the direction of the TSBD. This is supported by the famous Altgens photograph taken between shot 2 (the JFK neck shot) and shot 3 (the JFK head shot) showing several agents on the followup car turned sharply around and looking behind them.

Profmunkin, just what do you hope to accomplish here? It is past obvious to everyone that you're simply not interested in the truth, and your lame attempts at misquoting and mischaracterizing the testimony are invariably caught by everyone else here.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 30, 2012, 09:23:00 PM
Fact is of the 12 service men in the limo and followup car;
3 - thought right rear - none said the TSBD - none of them saw anything unusual, none of them commented on the direction of subsequent reports. There was only a dozen TSBD windows open, not one person detected movement in a window, a man with a rifle, rapidly moving the rifle to eject a shell, re-aiming, firing, flash, puff of smoke, rapidly moving the rifle to eject a shell, aiming, firing, flash, puff of smoke, then moving to escape?
Could they not see all the witnesses looking up and pointing toward the 6th floor window?
Oh wait, there wasn't any! Not even Norman, Jarmin or Williams said they looked up.

1 - said at first he thought behind, but on second and third shot he was sure it was from the right or right front.

3  - said knoll, also where people were falling to the ground to escape the rifle fire.

5 - had no comment as far as any direction for the rifle reports, including "none of us could determine the source of the shots"

Now explain why Greer said last shots "may have gotten a little concussion that made me think there was something different to it" and Connally said last shot was like someone clapping their hands real hard, interesting that Kellerman likened the last double bang to a plane breaking the sound barrier.

Why did the report change from the vague firecracker sound we had been hearing from so many witnesses to causing "a little concussion" and a very loud clap, maybe even a sonic boom?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 30, 2012, 09:29:57 PM
Interesting questions from the WC about the assassination.

Mr. McCLOY. Have you ever had any difficulty with the law? Have you ever been convicted of a crime?
Mr. NORMAN. No, sir.

Representative FORD - Have. you ever been in any trouble with the police or
did you ever have any disciplinary troubles in the Army?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.

Representative FORD.Have you ever had any trouble with the law at all?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir.
Representative FORD.No difficulty as far as the law is concerned?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have never been inside of a courthouse before.

These 3 men are the only witnesses I have found in about 100 testimonies, that were asked any question about past legal troubles.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 30, 2012, 09:40:31 PM
Profmunkin, this is really getting tedious. Now you're mischaracterizing even the testimony you selectively quote:
Quote
We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area....
"particularly the right side of the area" - this is the knoll area.
Are you blind? The phrase right before the phrase you highlighted says towards the rear. No, that's not the knoll area. Right and to the rear is the TSBD!!
If you read the transcipt you would know that Bennett is referering to his actions after the 3rd shot, by then the knoll will be to his right and rear as they sped out of Dealey Plaza.
" A second (third shot total) shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head. I immediately hollered "he's hit'' and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-I5. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area."
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 31, 2012, 04:47:31 AM
There was only a dozen TSBD windows open, not one person detected movement in a window, a man with a rifle, rapidly moving the rifle to eject a shell, re-aiming, firing, flash, puff of smoke, rapidly moving the rifle to eject a shell, aiming, firing, flash, puff of smoke, then moving to escape?

And how long does it take to look at the face of a building with 49 windows, notice which are open, which ones have people in them (Oswald was not the only person looking out a window) and which of those men has a rifle, or is moving to escape rather than just ducking out of the way in response to hearing the shots, from that distance, and all while being shot at?

Quote
Not even Norman, Jarmin or Williams said they looked up.

Why would they look up at the ceiling of the room they were in?

Quote
5 - had no comment as far as any direction for the rifle reports, including "none of us could determine the source of the shots"

I suppose it's not even worth pointing out that only a few days ago you were demanding we provide examples of witnesses who were not able to say where the shots came from due to acoustics, nor that you have gone from not even remotely considering the echo business plausible to using it to explain why some witnesses did think the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. I suppose it would be equally pointless asking you to explain why they are more likely to be in error than those who said the shots came from the knoll....

Quote
Why did the report change from the vague firecracker sound we had been hearing from so many witnesses to causing "a little concussion" and a very loud clap, maybe even a sonic boom?

Leaving aside the fact that rifle bullets are supersonic and therefore do in fact create a sonic boom, and that where you are standing in relation to a passing bullet will make a difference, do you have any idea how much noise an exploding skull makes?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on May 31, 2012, 07:32:36 AM
If you read the transcipt you would know that Bennett is referering to his actions after the 3rd shot, by then the knoll will be to his right and rear as they sped out of Dealey Plaza.
Give me a break. Their statements are perfectly clear and consistent with the Altgens photograph taken just after the second shot. Several follow-up car agents are looking to their right and almost completely behind them, directly at the southeast corner of the TSBD. This includes Hickey in the rear seat and both agents on the right running board (Ready and Landis). McIntyre on the left running board is turning to his right. Bennet is not visible, as Altgens' view of him was obstructed by Dave Powers.

Several spectators have their heads turned back toward the Depository too. Doesn't it seem odd that people who had gathered and waited for hours to see the President would turn away from him just as he passed? They would need a very good reason to do that, something very unusual and attention-getting. A gun fired repeatedly from a window in the TSBD would fit the bill nicely, don't you think?

And I see no one looking at the Grassy Knoll.

I ask again, just what do you think you can accomplish here?

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 31, 2012, 08:21:01 AM
Interesting questions from the WC about the assassination.

Mr. McCLOY. Have you ever had any difficulty with the law? Have you ever been convicted of a crime?
Mr. NORMAN. No, sir.

Representative FORD - Have. you ever been in any trouble with the police or
did you ever have any disciplinary troubles in the Army?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir.

Representative FORD.Have you ever had any trouble with the law at all?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir.
Representative FORD.No difficulty as far as the law is concerned?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have never been inside of a courthouse before.

These 3 men are the only witnesses I have found in about 100 testimonies, that were asked any question about past legal troubles.

And why do you think this is relevant to anything?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 31, 2012, 09:16:16 AM
These 3 men are the only witnesses I have found in about 100 testimonies, that were asked any question about past legal troubles.

Again it is your interpretation and weighing of evidence that is in question.  Things like this that are thrown out, without context or reference to supporting a theory, enforce the idea that you are just just a internet crank engaging in FUD mongering.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 31, 2012, 10:55:36 AM

I suppose it's not even worth pointing out that only a few days ago you were demanding we provide examples of witnesses who were not able to say where the shots came from due to acoustics, nor that you have gone from not even remotely considering the echo business plausible to using it to explain why some witnesses did think the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. I suppose it would be equally pointless asking you to explain why they are more likely to be in error than those who said the shots came from the knoll....

Leaving aside the fact that rifle bullets are supersonic and therefore do in fact create a sonic boom, and that where you are standing in relation to a passing bullet will make a difference, do you have any idea how much noise an exploding skull makes?
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.

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.

JFK head wound is described by a few witnesses, none of them described it as loud. More like a sickening thud.

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 far I have found 14 witnesses that were located between the knoll and the street, Elm, that were not called to testify to the WC. Two that did testify, Hudson testified to shot originating from the Knoll and Zapruder with conflicted testimony "I also thought it came from behind me"

But they did call to testify under oath, 2 pigeon watchers located a block to the North of the TSBD on Houston street, that never even had a glimpse of the motorcade.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on May 31, 2012, 11:12:52 AM
Do you think that JFK actually called out he was hit? Please answer, yes or no.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 31, 2012, 11:48:44 AM
These 3 men are the only witnesses I have found in about 100 testimonies, that were asked any question about past legal troubles.

Again it is your interpretation and weighing of evidence that is in question.  Things like this that are thrown out, without context or reference to supporting a theory, enforce the idea that you are just just a internet crank engaging in FUD mongering.
Yes it is my interpretation of it.
"internet crank" that is actually evaluating the evidence.
You don't like my interpretation, you need to blame the WC for allowing the vast maority of testimony, FBI, Sheriff and SS reports to exist as vague descriptions and statements, open to wide intrepretation.

The insinuation of trouble with the law is additional circumstantial evidence against TSBD story, in this case showing that the key witnesses may have been coerced into testimonies compliant with WC story, but even with this pressure, Jarmin refused to yield to it, Williams emphatically said he heard "nothing" from the 6th floor. Norman caved and said he heard the bolt and hulls, but did not say he heard shots coming from the 6th floor. None of them said they heard anyone on the 6th floor.

What you refuse to acknowledge is that the evidence in favor of the TSBD is lacking.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 31, 2012, 11:53:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 31, 2012, 12:13:42 PM

Profmunkin, just what do you hope to accomplish here?
To learn more about the assassination based on what the witnesses experienced.

I have no illusions that you guys are capable of deviating from the official story line, but 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.

Finally, if this forum ever gets a new member, the posts are there to view and maybe they will be curious enough to want to uncover what the truth is.

As long as I can post, I will post what I believe is the truth.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik 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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton 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? 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin 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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew 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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton 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."
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik 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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin 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!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin 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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson 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?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson 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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 31, 2012, 05:48:26 PM
Yes, parts of the Z film were altered.

Evidence?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson 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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson 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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q 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.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Mr Gorsky 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?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Grashtel on May 31, 2012, 07:06:32 PM
I do have a specific narrative.
Then either stop dancing around and actually present it or go bother some other forum.  If you are so convinced that people here are too brainwashed or paid off to accept your stuff why are you bothering to dance around the actual point rather than just posting the actual meat of what you have so you have a chance of convincing the lurking masses  or just going somewhere more receptive to your ideas rather than just dancing around and changing your story for 600 posts.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 31, 2012, 07:10:14 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?
Clip
laundry list
/clip

My Expertise and Training IS Irrelevant!

Thank you for finally admitting that you have no expertise or ability to make good judgements or interpretations of evidence on the JFK issue.  My question is why do you continue to make judgements and interpretations when you know you have no ability to do so?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on May 31, 2012, 07:22:23 PM
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.

I don't find that boring; I find it reasonable.  Why aren't any of the conspiracy theories so easy and obvious? 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 31, 2012, 09:09:56 PM
I look for corroborating testimony that will contribute towards a cohesive and logical narrative.

Translation: you cherry-pick pieces of testimony that you can use to support your predetermined conclusion that there was a conspiracy... and then discard the rest.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 31, 2012, 10:10:55 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.
This is nothing more than propagation of a filthy stinking lie.
Vince Palamara has done extensive interviews and correspondence with SS agents that worked with JFK and to a man they have stated that JFK NEVER interfered with their jobs in any way.
JFK NEVER told anyone not to ride on the rear of the limo.
Don't you ever even think about repeating this outrageous lie again.

The stinking ss agents stood down and watched him get assassinated and the bastards blame JFK for not allowing them to protect him, damn them to hell!

Vince Palamara

about 3 minutes into this video as 2 agents are about to mount the limo, Roberts calls them off and they are left behind at the airport, one of the agent shrugging his shoulders 3 times in astonishment.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 31, 2012, 10:24:37 PM
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?
What is this non-sense that some evidence had to be recovered from the knoll.
The sniper had to leave the rifle or spent shells to have existed?
At least 5 witnesses saw the sniper and the spotter, 4 witnesses saw a puff of smoke and dozens heard the sound of the report.

There is probably more witnesses, we will never know because the WC never allowed people around the knoll to testify.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 31, 2012, 10:36:08 PM
Quote
FACT: Miami motorcade had recently been cancelled because of known threats.
Wrong. Miami motorcade went ahead as scheduled.
November 18th 1963
http://www.jfkflorida.blogspot.com/
"There would be no motorcade in Miami, however, a decision based on several death threats intercepted by the FBI. Instead, JFK helicoptered to the Americana Hotel in Bal Harbour, a guest of the Inter American Press Association. In the hotel ballroom JFK dined on roast beef in periguex sauce and sipped burgundy before addressing the group.

It was to be JFK's last major speech"

You have different information post it.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 31, 2012, 11:05:25 PM
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.
Not true, again.

Mark Lane approached the WC on behalf of Oswald's mother and asked to be appointed the defence for Oswald, the commission consented.
Shortly thereafter they recended the offer to allow Lane to participate.
There was a small uproar over this move by the commission so they requested Walter E. Craig, president of the American Bar Association, to participate. Mr. Craig and his associates were given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

According to Lane they never cross-examined one witness.
Lane said Craig made a statement saying even though he was appointed council, he would not participate.

All the illusion of a real trial, but not more then a fraud.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on May 31, 2012, 11:20:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on May 31, 2012, 11:54:36 PM
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?
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
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 01, 2012, 12:06:51 AM
This is nothing more than propagation of a filthy stinking lie.
Vince Palamara has done extensive interviews and correspondence with SS agents that worked with JFK and to a man they have stated that JFK NEVER interfered with their jobs in any way.
JFK NEVER told anyone not to ride on the rear of the limo.
Don't you ever even think about repeating this outrageous lie again.
Excuse me, sir, but you were not a Secret Service agent on the White House detail. Vince Palamara was not a Secret Service agent on the White House detail.

But Gerald Blaine and Clint Hill were both Secret Service agents on the White House detail, and they wrote the book The Kennedy Detail. They describe the events of the Tampa motorcade on November 18, 1963, including how two agents had ridden the back steps of the limousine and how JFK had objected, humorously calling them "Ivy League charlatans".
Quote
about 3 minutes into this video as 2 agents are about to mount the limo, Roberts calls them off and they are left behind at the airport, one of the agent shrugging his shoulders 3 times in astonishment.
Count the agents in the followup car. Note particularly that the right-hand running board, behind Rybka, already has two agents. In fact, when we see the followup car later in the motorcade, we can see that it is completely full: four agents on the running boards, the driver and Roberts in the front seats, two JFK aides in the jump seats, and two agents in the back seat. Where, exactly, would agent Rybka have stood when the motorcade was going too fast for him to safely cling to the limo's rear step?

The fact of the matter was explained by Blaine and Hill: Rybka was never even assigned to ride in the motorcade; he was supposed to stay at the airport and wait for its return. He was joking with his co-workers. And since Blaine and Hill know far more about this than you do, I'll go with their report, thank you very much.
 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 01, 2012, 12:07:56 AM
Quote
FACT: Miami motorcade had recently been cancelled because of known threats.
Wrong. Miami motorcade went ahead as scheduled.
November 18th 1963
http://www.jfkflorida.blogspot.com/
"There would be no motorcade in Miami, however, a decision based on several death threats intercepted by the FBI. Instead, JFK helicoptered to the Americana Hotel in Bal Harbour, a guest of the Inter American Press Association. In the hotel ballroom JFK dined on roast beef in periguex sauce and sipped burgundy before addressing the group.
My mistake; I was thinking of the Tampa motorcade, which did happen. I mixed up Tampa and Miami.

See, when I make a mistake I concede it as soon as I'm aware of it. Can you?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on June 01, 2012, 12:17:45 AM
Yes, parts of the Z film were altered.

Evidence?

It shows something different than what he believes must have happened. Thaat is his evidence.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 01, 2012, 12:27:50 AM
Then either stop dancing around and actually present it or go bother some other forum.  If you are so convinced that people here are too brainwashed or paid off to accept your stuff why are you bothering to dance around the actual point rather than just posting the actual meat of what you have so you have a chance of convincing the lurking masses  or just going somewhere more receptive to your ideas rather than just dancing around and changing your story for 600 posts.
Posting, not dancing around anything.
Posts have been presenting data mined from the Warren Commission testimonies. 

Honestly shocked because the belief was that the testimonies would sustain the Warren Commission Report, believed the whole thing was a fraud. Not true, the WC did take actual testimonies but framed the issues as best they could, people being unpredictable, still got the truth in.
Not trying to convince you of anything, since I truly believe that the purpose of this board is to maintain the official narrative, unblemished. I am really using you as a sounding board and amusement.
As a matter of fact if your waiting for my narrative, I apologize, but I don't envision posting it on this forum.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 01, 2012, 12:39:34 AM
I look for corroborating testimony that will contribute towards a cohesive and logical narrative.

Translation: you cherry-pick pieces of testimony that you can use to support your predetermined conclusion that there was a conspiracy... and then discard the rest.
Actually only discarded the pigeon watchers Romack and Rackley, it was just to absurd to think that anyone could attribute their testimonies to support TSBD for a source of the reports.
All the testimonies and reports I have reviewed are entered into the data base, to be fair I have reexamined many testimonies many times and before I am finished I will probably read them all one more time, then compare my findings with McAdams and a few others and see where the conclusions differ and why.
"Cherry-pick" conspiricied cry baby words.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 01, 2012, 12:52:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 01, 2012, 01:08:23 AM
Count the agents in the followup car. Note particularly that the right-hand running board, behind Rybka, already has two agents. In fact, when we see the followup car later in the motorcade, we can see that it is completely full: four agents on the running boards, the driver and Roberts in the front seats, two JFK aides in the jump seats, and two agents in the back seat. Where, exactly, would agent Rybka have stood when the motorcade was going too fast for him to safely cling to the limo's rear step?

The fact of the matter was explained by Blaine and Hill: Rybka was never even assigned to ride in the motorcade; he was supposed to stay at the airport and wait for its return. He was joking with his co-workers. And since Blaine and Hill know far more about this than you do, I'll go with their report, thank you very much.
 
Rybka and the other agent should stand on the back of the limo where there is the provision for 2 agents to stand?
Are you saying agents could stand on the running boards at higher speeds, but they couldn't hang on if the limo drove at high speeds?
Why would they not have designed the footholds and hand holds on the limo to support agents when traveling at higher speeds?

Oh wait a minute, you were kidding, right...lol
"He was joking with his co-workers"...rofl
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 01, 2012, 01:10:52 AM
Not true, again.

Mark Lane approached the WC on behalf of Oswald's mother and asked to be appointed the defence for Oswald, the commission consented.
Shortly thereafter they recended the offer to allow Lane to participate.
Sorry, but the publicity-hungry Mark Lane was never Oswald's defense attorney. Oswald never hired him as his attorney. He never consented to Lane being appointed as his attorney. While he was in custody, Oswald mentioned only the name of attorney John Abt; never the name Mark Lane. And in this country the Constitution guarantees a criminal suspect the right to legal representation of his choice. A dead person cannot exercise choice unless he does it before he dies, as in writing a will.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 01, 2012, 01:21:37 AM
Rybka and the other agent should stand on the back of the limo where there is the provision for 2 agents to stand?
Are you saying agents could stand on the running boards at higher speeds, but they couldn't hang on if the limo drove at high speeds?
Why would they not have designed the footholds and hand holds on the limo to support agents when traveling at higher speeds?
As I explained, it was unsafe for agents to ride on the rear of the limousine at high speeds. Since the motorcade began and ended with freeway stretches, any agents riding on the rear of the limousine would have to fall back to the running boards of the followup car (the "Queen Mary"). And those running boards already had two agents each.
Quote
Oh wait a minute, you were kidding, right...lol
"He was joking with his co-workers"...rofl
That's exactly what Blaine and Hill said. And since they knew Lawton and were actually on the Kennedy Detail themselves, I trust their take far more than yours or anyone else who wasn't there and didn't know them.

Oh, by the way, the name of the agent who stops and shrugs his shoulders at the airport is Don Lawton, not Rybka. I got the name Rybka from that video you cited. I should have known better than to trust a conspiracist video to get even the most basic and verifiable facts right.

So, once again, I ask you: where would Lawton have ridden when the motorcade was at high speed?



Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 01, 2012, 01:26:58 AM
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
I know you can't seem to understand this, but the Warren Commission was not a criminal court of law. It could not find Oswald legally guilty of anything because Oswald was dead and we have no provision in this country to try dead people. Nor was it a grand jury, so it could not issue an 'indictment'. The Warren Commission was a fact-finding body, with subpoena powers. And finding and exhaustively analyzing facts and generating conclusions based on those facts is exactly what they did.

The conspiracy nuts have never been able to seriously challenge those conclusions, although they certainly claim to have.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 01, 2012, 01:32:12 AM
Here is the excerpt from The Kennedy Detail regarding Lawton at the airport:
Quote
Finally, Clint Hill dropped back into position on the left running board of the follow-up car as Bill Greer picked up the speed. Don Lawton was still jogging alongside. Emory Roberts stood up and motioned him back with a Lawton! What in the Sam Hill are you doing? kind of look. The motorcade was just starting and the last thing Roberts wanted was the president getting upset over an agent blocking the view for the people who had come to see Jackie and him. Lawton turned to the follow-up car with a big grin and put up his arms in mocking protest as he dropped back to the sidelines.

"Okay, I've done my job, guys," Lawton said. "It's all yours now. Now go on and get out of here so I can have some lunch."

This was typical Don Lawton. He was joking, but the other agents could tell he'd rather be working the follow-up car than staying at Love Field with Rybka advancing the departure.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 01, 2012, 01:47:29 AM
Sorry, but the publicity-hungry Mark Lane was never Oswald's defense attorney. Oswald never hired him as his attorney. He never consented to Lane being appointed as his attorney. While he was in custody, Oswald mentioned only the name of attorney John Abt; never the name Mark Lane. And in this country the Constitution guarantees a criminal suspect the right to legal representation of his choice. A dead person cannot exercise choice unless he does it before he dies, as in writing a will.
So what's your point.
That just because Oswald is dead he no longer deserves a defense?
Since he couldn't pick a defense he can't have one?
Since Lane wasn't among Oswalds known choices it disqualifies him?
That his family had no right to seek a fair hearing on the behalf of a member of their family murdered while in police custody?
That the family didn't have the right to try to clear the Oswald name of the associatin now and forever with assassination of JFK?
What is your point?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 01, 2012, 01:48:17 AM
Actually only discarded the pigeon watchers Romack and Rackley, it was just to absurd to think that anyone could attribute their testimonies to support TSBD for a source of the reports.
But they were not used to determine the source of the shots. There was already abundant evidence showing exactly where they had come from: the Texas School Book Depository. Since that had been established, Romack and Rackley, who were behind the TSBD, were asked to testify about the activity they witnessed at the rear of the TSBD immediately after the assassination.

Is that so hard to understand? Or are you literally blind to any words that do not tell you exactly what you want to hear, ie, that the JFK assassination was some sort of massive conspiracy?

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on June 01, 2012, 02:25:59 AM
Oh, I've been waiting for Mark Lane's name to come up, because I read a piece of information about him this week that's too good not to share.

Did you know that Mark Lane is a Jonestown survivor?  It's true!  He was never Lee Harvey Oswald's lawyer, but he was hired by Jim Jones.  And he fed Jim Jones the same kind of paranoid conspiracy baloney that he's been spouting about Kennedy for nearly fifty years now, claiming that all kinds of people who defected from the People's Temple or who wrote pieces calling the practices thereof into question were "obviously" CIA plants trying to discredit the great Jim Jones.  It's entirely possible, in fact, that telling that kind of stuff to a man who was at very least paranoid already because of amphetamine addiction, if not actually a schizophrenic, was one of the things which led to what happened.  Which of course has not stopped Mark Lane from making plenty of money lecturing about the subject.  The Temple's other lawyer felt horribly, horribly guilty and instead devoted himself to doing good works until the day he died.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 01, 2012, 02:26:22 AM
So what's your point.
That just because Oswald is dead he no longer deserves a defense?
That's correct. Being dead, Oswald could not be the defendant in a criminal case, therefore the Sixth Amendment guarantee of assistance of counsel did not apply.

Note the phrase: assistance of counsel. That implies an active collaboration between the attorney and his client. How can a dead person actively assist his attorney in his defense?
Quote
Since he couldn't pick a defense he can't have one?
Since Lane wasn't among Oswalds known choices it disqualifies him?
Irrelevant because Oswald was dead and therefore neither subject to criminal proceedings nor entitled to a lawyer.
Quote
That his family had no right to seek a fair hearing on the behalf of a member of their family murdered while in police custody?
That the family didn't have the right to try to clear the Oswald name of the associatin now and forever with assassination of JFK?
That's an entirely different point. The surviving members of the Oswald family, like every other American, had every right to choose and hire attorneys to represent their own interests.  Indeed, Mark Lane represented Lee's mother Marguerite Oswald for a short time. But I don't think Lane helped her cause much when it became apparent that he was severely distorting and even manufacturing evidence. His telephone call with Helen Markham, one of the witnesses to the Tippit murder, would probably have gotten him indicted for perjury and witness tampering if there had been an actual trial.

The surviving Oswalds were certainly entitled to defend the family name if they wished, by finding and presenting any evidence that they thought helpful. Not only did four members of Oswald's immediate family (Marguerite, his mother; Robert, his brother; Marina, his widow; and John Pic, his half brother) testify or give depositions to the Warren Commission, the press eagerly gave them all an outlet.

Oswald family friends, such as Ruth and Michael Paine and George De Mohrenschildt, also testified. Although not family, they were certainly close enough to be personally tarred by association with someone so utterly infamous. So they too had a personal interest in proving Oswald innocent -- had that been possible. But nearly all the evidence that was actually given by Oswald's friends and family only heavily incriminated him. Especially Marina, the person who was by far the closest to him. Because of her we know that Lee had been responsible for the previously unsolved attempt on General Walker's life, and that demonstrated his ability and willingness to kill for political reasons.

Robert Oswald, Lee's brother, has repeatedly said that if he had evidence his brother was innocent he'd be shouting it from the rooftops. But he was convinced of his brother's guilt as soon as he met him in police custody, and he has never found any reason to change that view. He feels that it's often good to take a fresh look at things, but when you've looked at something several dozen times and you keep getting the same answer, it's time to just let it go. But I don't think the conspiracists will ever grant his wish.

So, your point?

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 01, 2012, 02:31:05 AM
Did you know that Mark Lane is a Jonestown survivor?  It's true!
I just happened to learn that right before you said so.
Quote
It's entirely possible, in fact, that telling that kind of stuff to a man who was at very least paranoid already because of amphetamine addiction, if not actually a schizophrenic, was one of the things which led to what happened.
What an excellent insight! If this is what actually happened in Jonestown, it should serve as a very strong warning that paranoid conspiracy nonsense is not just innocent fun; it can sometimes cause a lot of real harm to a lot of real people.

While even the most paranoid conspiracists are fully entitled to First Amendment protection, I just wish they'd think really hard about what they're saying and doing and the effect it might conceivably have on the more unhinged around us.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on June 01, 2012, 03:08:20 AM
I just happened to learn that right before you said so.

I learned it a few days ago and was waiting for his name to come up in this discussion.  I knew it would, sooner or later, because one of the other things Mark Lane has been doing for fifty years is insinuating himself into the Kennedy mythos until his name basically has to come up eventually.

Quote
What an excellent insight! If this is what actually happened in Jonestown, it should serve as a very strong warning that paranoid conspiracy nonsense is not just innocent fun; it can sometimes cause a lot of real harm to a lot of real people.

I really recommend the book I read.  It's called A Thousand Lives: The Untold Story of Hope, Deception, and Survival at Jonestown, by Julia Scheeres.  The story is really heartrending.  I hadn't realized how many survivors there were--or how much responsibility conspiracists turn out to bear all the way around.  Jim Jones was admittedly on a lot of drugs, but I think there was already something wrong with him, given just how willing he was to jump on the "huge conspiracy of everyone is out to get me" bandwagon.

Quote
While even the most paranoid conspiracists are fully entitled to First Amendment protection, I just wish they'd think really hard about what they're saying and doing and the effect it might conceivably have on the more unhinged around us.

And what effect those people can have on others who are not so unhinged, it turns out.  By the last days of Jonestown, very few of the people there still believed much of what Jim Jones was telling them.  And unfortunately for everyone, Mark Lane was one of them, but he lived.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 01, 2012, 03:17:48 AM
What is this non-sense that some evidence had to be recovered from the knoll.
The sniper had to leave the rifle or spent shells to have existed?

No, but there has to be more evidence than people hearing shots, which could have come from elsewhere.

Quote
At least 5 witnesses saw the sniper and the spotter,

Provide the testimony of these witnesses that conclusively identifies a sniper and a spotter.

Quote
4 witnesses saw a puff of smoke

One puff of smoke from three (or more, according to you) shots? Can you think of anything else that might have caused a puff of smoke? Smoke does not equal a rifle shot.

Quote
and dozens heard the sound of the report.

And several said it came from somewhere else entirely.

Witnesses also saw a sniper in the TSBD. Witnesses inside the TSBD also reported hearing the action of the bolt and the sound of spent shells hitting the floor above them. Now tell me why that carries less weight than some distant observations of a couple of guys and a puff of smoke.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 01, 2012, 03:21:04 AM
Are you saying agents could stand on the running boards at higher speeds, but they couldn't hang on if the limo drove at high speeds?

Yes, because there is a big difference between hanging onto the side and hanging on to the rear of a moving car. But again, that's physics, so I don't envision you actually taking the slightest bit of notice of that.

Quote
Why would they not have designed the footholds and hand holds on the limo to support agents when traveling at higher speeds?

They did: the running boards. Your contention that every possible place for an agent to stand and hang on should be safe at every possible speed the vehicle is moving at is no more than assumption and speculation on your part. Again, there is a big difference in the physics of hanging on to the side of a moving vehicle and hanging on to the rear.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 01, 2012, 04:21:56 AM
If you read the transcipt you would know that Bennett is referering to his actions after the 3rd shot, by then the knoll will be to his right and rear as they sped out of Dealey Plaza.

So, does the TSBD suddenly stop being right and rear of him as the car moves forward? You're really grasping at straws now if you have to wait until the knoll comes into an area relative to him that still encompasses the TSBD and use that as evidence of a shot from the knoll.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 01, 2012, 04:23:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Mr Gorsky on June 01, 2012, 04:33:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 01, 2012, 04:49:07 AM
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?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 01, 2012, 06:34:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 01, 2012, 08:03:22 AM
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. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 01, 2012, 08:36:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on June 01, 2012, 09:36:49 AM
profmunkin - how much smoke would a rifle shot create in 1963? We can assume that your sniper was not using a muzzle-loader.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 01, 2012, 12:18:29 PM
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?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on June 01, 2012, 01:57:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 01, 2012, 04:00:09 PM
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.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 01, 2012, 04:13:42 PM
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.

 



Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 01, 2012, 04:23:20 PM
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.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 01, 2012, 04:42:48 PM
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?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on June 01, 2012, 05:09:23 PM
'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."
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 01, 2012, 06:02:22 PM
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.


 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 01, 2012, 06:04:52 PM
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.
If you believe the Bethesda autopsy, you are partially correct.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 01, 2012, 06:52:18 PM

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?
Nope
I was saying that if a rifle was fired from the TSBD, along with all the other stuff I listed there seems to have been a possibility to also have seen some smoke.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 01, 2012, 08:00:36 PM
Concerning smoke from rifles, here is expert witness from the WC

Mr. EDGAR. Do rifles or handguns emit smoke that is discernable to the human eye?
Mr. LUTZ. Yes, sir; they do.
Lutz is correct; as I said, even modern "smokeless" powder (nitrocellulose) can generate a very small amount of smoke.

See http://www.ka9q.net/mag30th.mp4 at 01:15. Note that the smoke cloud is seen against a bright background by a camera very close to the gun. Still, it is very thin and rapidly dissipates after each shot. That such a cloud would show up in Moorman's poor-quality Polaroid photo looking into a shaded area from a much greater distance seems extremely unlikely.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 01, 2012, 08:05:30 PM
Nope
I was saying that if a rifle was fired from the TSBD, along with all the other stuff I listed there seems to have been a possibility to also have seen some smoke.
What? Are you saying that it's not enough that several witnesses saw a person aiming a rifle out of a window directly at JFK's limousine; that they heard several loud bangs emanate from said rifle; and they presumably noticed the rifle recoil a little each time?

Are you saying that couldn't have been the murder weapon unless the witnesses also saw smoke come from it each time it was fired?

Wow, what a strangely warped world you live in.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 01, 2012, 08:24:25 PM
If you believe the Bethesda autopsy, you are partially correct.
I prefer the word "accept". "Belief" implies taking something on faith, without proof. No faith is required here. There is plenty of forensic proof that JFK was hit by two bullets from the rear and only from the rear. That was the formal conclusion of the autopsy report.

This report was hardly the unfounded personal speculation of the three pathologists who conducted the autopsy; I don't have to point out that they examined the body and you didn't.

Their conclusions are fully supported by the photographs and X-rays taken during the autopsy. These photographs and X-rays have been repeatedly certified by medical imaging experts as genuine images of John F. Kennedy. They are fully consistent with images of Kennedy's wounds taken during the assassination, particularly in the Zapruder film.

The procedures used to arrive at the pathologists' conclusions were witnessed by the many observers and assistants at the autopsy. Others certify that the body was never left unattended during the entire trip from Parkland Hospital to Bethesda Naval Hospital.  Several official review panels of experienced pathologists, as well as independent medical experts such as Dr. John K. Lattimer, have repeatedly examined all the records of the autopsy and have come to the very same conclusions.

So there is simply no rational reason to reject the autopsy findings that two and only two bullets hit JFK, and only from behind and slightly above.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 01, 2012, 08:57:43 PM

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?
Nope
I was saying that if a rifle was fired from the TSBD, along with all the other stuff I listed there seems to have been a possibility to also have seen some smoke.

"Seems to have been a possibility?" 

Not that there was visible smoke or not that it was likely to have been visible under the circumstances of the situation.    So, like I said a generalization. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on June 01, 2012, 11:32:41 PM
So there is simply no rational reason to reject the autopsy findings that two and only two bullets hit JFK, and only from behind and slightly above.

The important word there is "rational," of course!  While Kennedy conspiracism is not inherently irrational, I think we've reached the place where it's obvious that this is not rational argument.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 02, 2012, 12:52:24 AM
The important word there is "rational," of course!  While Kennedy conspiracism is not inherently irrational
Interesting choice of words. When is it not inherently irrational?

I suppose JFK conspiracism could also be driven by simple ignorance of the facts. That would not necessarily be irrational. That what you mean?


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 02, 2012, 01:21:54 AM

Are you saying that couldn't have been the murder weapon unless the witnesses also saw smoke come from it each time it was fired?

Wow, what a strangely warped world you live in.
No
Remember I was talking about the ss agents and their failures including their inability to locate the sniper.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 02, 2012, 02:17:03 AM
No
Remember I was talking about the ss agents and their failures including their inability to locate the sniper.
What about their inability to locate the sniper? Do you really think these agents were superhuman? They had a lot to look at. They were surrounded by tall buildings with many windows and dense crowds of people, any one of which could instantly turn into a deadly threat. They only had a few seconds to do all this, while also keeping a close eye on the people they were supposed to protect.

Oswald was not so stupid as to not understand the importance of hiding from the agents until the last possible moment. He certainly would have known they were armed, and could and probably would shoot at him if they could find him. The longer he could keep them confused, the better. This could be why he waited until after the limo made the turn onto Elm Street, when the agents would turn away from him. It would take precious milliseconds to turn their heads to look for him, and in the process they would have to turn away from the people they were protecting.

After all, it is easier to shoot someone in the back. That's why it's become a cliche of cowardice in so many westerns.

It would have been unreasonable to expect Oswald to stay totally hidden, of course. But he did pretty well; of the hundreds of witnesses in Dealy Plaza only a few  actually saw him shoot. (But they were enough, along with all the other evidence, to tell us he did it.) They just happened to be in the right spot looking in the right direction at the right time. But they were not armed and they could not possibly have stopped Oswald. Only the agents counted, and Oswald did everything he could to hide himself from them for just a few more seconds. (Note that when you look down the barrel of a gun, it appears a little smaller than when you're looking at it in profile.)

As agent Clint Hill finally said, after many years of blaming himself into an alcoholic haze for not having prevented the assassination, on that day in Dallas all the advantages went to the shooter. There was simply nothing they could have done under the circumstances. And I think he was absolutely right. You will note that since that day, no American president has ever taken another open-air motorcade ride through a crowded city. Dallas demonstrated that it is simply not humanly possible to protect a president under those conditions.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 02, 2012, 08:10:30 AM
Remember I was talking about the ss agents and their failures including their inability to locate the sniper.
And on what basis do you claim the ability to judge the actions of the SS a failure?  Let me remind the readers; there is no basis, because profmunkin has no experience in these matters, nor does he think any is required.
My Expertise and Training IS Irrelevant!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 02, 2012, 08:54:21 AM
Anticipating the obvious response to that question, yes, the SS agents failed to protect Kennedy from an assassin, and he died as a result of that failure.

The question is, however, was that failure a reasonable outcome given the circumstances?

According to the man who thinks training and expertise is irrelevant, no, because it seems he has an expectation that their special training ahould have endowed them with superhuman abilities and relfexes, and that human limitations and the circumstances of the situation should not in any way have impeded them from carrying out this duty.

It is worth considering that many of those involved have driven themselves into alcoholism, depression and other psychological traumas over that question: could they have done more and maybe saved his life?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 02, 2012, 11:02:26 AM
In a quick review of testimony of the SS agents in limo and followup car it is interesting that I was not able to find that, not one of them indicates shots may have come from a building, to reinforce this point not one of them mentions the TSBD as potential source for the shots.
The only mention of a building is from Landis as stated that he looked over his right shoulder "toward a modernistic building" which would be the cement structure adjacent to the knoll.
Check it out I and let me know if I am correct in this quick assessment.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 02, 2012, 11:10:02 AM
I ran across this yesterday and found it curious.
From AARB
Dr. Jones "...When I completed my testimony Arlen Specter followed me out in the hall and he said, I want to tell you something that I don't want you to say anything about. He said, We have people who will testify at the [that they] saw the President shot from the front. He said : You can always get people to testify about something..."

Interesting, makes me wonder who these people are and why they did not have the opportunity to testify, it should make you wonder too.
Also the last phrase is very interesting, isn't he saying a good lawyer can build any narrative he wants if unchecked?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 02, 2012, 11:31:15 AM
Profmunkin, I'd really like to see you draw a simple diagram of Dealy Plaza showing the following:

- the position of JFK's limo at the times of the two shots that hit him, as well as the positions of the Secret Service cars
- the position of the School Book Depository
- the location of the alleged grassy knoll gunman

The reason I say this is because you say things like "the agent looked back over his right shoulder towards the grassy knoll" and that the shots came from the grassy knoll, which tells me you have no understanding of the layout of the area. Either that or you believe the agents were standing backwards on the car and the assassins bullet performed 180 degree turn in midair.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 02, 2012, 01:30:42 PM
Profmunkin, I'd really like to see you draw a simple diagram of Dealy Plaza showing the following:

- the position of JFK's limo at the times of the two shots that hit him, as well as the positions of the Secret Service cars
- the position of the School Book Depository
- the location of the alleged grassy knoll gunman

The reason I say this is because you say things like "the agent looked back over his right shoulder towards the grassy knoll" and that the shots came from the grassy knoll, which tells me you have no understanding of the layout of the area. Either that or you believe the agents were standing backwards on the car and the assassins bullet performed 180 degree turn in midair.

Profmunkin has had ample opportunity to make his case.  We should enforce this simple requirement on him to back up his statements before he is allowed to carry on further. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 02, 2012, 04:22:10 PM
As expected, despite a number of questions, he just comes back with more and more muck to fling at the wall.

Evidence of Zapruder film being altered? None.

Explanation for how the wounds were inflicted from the knoll? None.

Do you actually know what 'evidence' is, prof?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 02, 2012, 06:43:23 PM
I presented evidence outside of the WC investigation and all of it was rejected.

Most recently I have been presenting data, trends and corroborated evidence extracted directly from WC testimonies and you guys are whining that I am cherry-picking or taking testimony out of context or claiming various phenomenas identified by science in every instance negates all the data that does not support the WC report.

For a "science forum" this is hilarious.

Yes, I will continue to post testimony that is contrary to the WC report because testimonies do not support the WC Report.

It does not matter what I think happened in Dealey Plaza, what is important is, will what you have been told continue to hold your belief.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 02, 2012, 06:49:00 PM
As expected, despite a number of questions, he just comes back with more and more muck to fling at the wall.

Evidence of Zapruder film being altered? None.

Explanation for how the wounds were inflicted from the knoll? None.

Do you actually know what 'evidence' is, prof?
None.
Don't care enough to share.
If you ask directly, Not sure, maybe you can enlighten me as to what evidence actually is. I have asked this question many times on this forum without a response.
What is acceptable evidence. Exactly.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 02, 2012, 06:59:45 PM
Profmunkin has had ample opportunity to make his case.  We should enforce this simple requirement on him to back up his statements before he is allowed to carry on further.
I would welcome the challenge to back up any claim I have made concerning testimony.
I thought I had been quoting and documenting as posted, but obviously it has been insufficient.

Please let me know what points I need to document and elaborate on.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 02, 2012, 07:03:42 PM
Profmunkin, I'd really like to see you draw a simple diagram of Dealy Plaza showing the following:

- the position of JFK's limo at the times of the two shots that hit him, as well as the positions of the Secret Service cars
- the position of the School Book Depository
- the location of the alleged grassy knoll gunman

The reason I say this is because you say things like "the agent looked back over his right shoulder towards the grassy knoll" and that the shots came from the grassy knoll, which tells me you have no understanding of the layout of the area. Either that or you believe the agents were standing backwards on the car and the assassins bullet performed 180 degree turn in midair.
You may be correct on my miss interpretations, after all, almost all of the information in the SS reports concerning the assassination are only a few lines long and most of the reports are very vague.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 02, 2012, 07:37:27 PM
I presented evidence outside of the WC investigation and all of it was rejected.

And the reasons were given. It was not rejected because it was outside the Warren Commission investigation.

Quote
Most recently I have been presenting data, trends and corroborated evidence extracted directly from WC testimonies

No, you have presented data but consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented it.

Quote
and you guys are whining that I am cherry-picking or taking testimony out of context or claiming various phenomenas identified by science in every instance negates all the data that does not support the WC report.

What a shame that science doesn't conform to your layman's expectations then. If you can't be bothered to cultivate the relevant understanding then that's your problem.

Quote
For a "science forum" this is hilarious.

It always is to people who don't know the first thing about science. Your disbelief and lack of understanding makes no odds to the reality of science, however.

Quote
It does not matter what I think happened in Dealey Plaza, what is important is, will what you have been told continue to hold your belief.

No, what is important is that you demonstrate you actually have some form of integrity. You have claimed to have an alternative scenario. Present it or clear off. You're getting very tiresome now.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 02, 2012, 07:38:45 PM
Please let me know what points I need to document and elaborate on.

Don't ask that question as if it's the first time. You have been told over and over and over again what you need to elaborate on. You have been asked over and over again what your alternaitve is, and how you support that with evidence. Just answer the questions that have been posed instead of playing games.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 02, 2012, 08:41:32 PM
He said : You can always get people to testify about something..."

Interesting, makes me wonder who these people are and why they did not have the opportunity to testify, it should make you wonder too.
Also the last phrase is very interesting, isn't he saying a good lawyer can build any narrative he wants if unchecked?
Yes, indeed it is interesting. And yes indeed, a good lawyer -- anyone, for that matter -- can build almost any narrative if unchecked. That's precisely why courts have rules of evidence designed to exclude unreliable, irrelevant and prejudicial evidence, unqualified 'experts', junk science, and the like. That's why witnesses can be prosecuted if they deliberately lie. That's why attorneys can be sanctioned or even held in contempt by the judge for misstating the evidence. That's why each side's witnesses can be cross-examined by the other. That's why it's perfectly reasonable, proper and routine for attorneys to try to 'impeach' the credibility of an adverse witness by citing a past history of deceit or criminality. That's why the trier of fact (the jury, or the judge without a jury) is entitled to consider the credibility and integrity of each witness as they weigh their testimony. That's why juries are routinely admonished not to form premature conclusions but to wait until they have heard all of the evidence.

And that's why every single formal inquiry into the JFK assassination has come to the same conclusions: that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy and Officer JD Tippit and injured Governor Connally, and that he did so alone and without a conspiracy. Although none of these inquiries was an actual criminal trial of Oswald (because he was dead), they nonetheless followed many (though certainly not all) of the rules and procedures that would have been used in such a trial.

But when it comes to informal examinations of the case by private individuals producing books, magazine articles, movies, radio talk shows, interviews, documentaries, Internet blogs, etc, none of these rules apply. Thanks to our First Amendment freedoms of the press and speech (and I wouldn't have it any other way) almost anything goes short of direct threats, incitement to imminent violence or libel. And in the United States (but not in many other countries, notably the UK) a plaintiff who is also a public figure must work very hard to win a libel case.

So when you write your book alleging that JFK was killed by a massive conspiracy involving the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, the Dallas Police Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Mafia, Vice President Johnson, Cuban Intelligence, General Motors, the Soviet KGB, and local Boy Scout Troop 340, you don't have to give both sides of the story. It's your book; say whatever you want. Pick and choose the witnesses that support your case and ignore the rest. Quote only that which helps you and ignore the rest, like the bits that completely change the meaning of what you quoted or reveal the witness to be as nutty as a fruitcake. When discussing the flood of information that came out so haphazardly soon after the assassination, with much of it being 'corrected' later, insist that conspiracies never make 'mistakes'. They only cover things up.

Go ahead and completely make up stuff; the more outrageous and sensational, the better your book will sell. Just be careful about the people who are still alive, as some could sue and maybe even win for libel and that might cut into your profits. Whenever you're at a loss for evidence to back up an allegation, and you can't make up anything sufficiently juicy, blame the all-powerful conspiracy for its utter ruthlessness in suppressing and covering up the evidence that you know must have existed.

Say that writing this book has been a labor of love for you, and that you simply must get the word out and you no longer care what they will do to you. Audiences just eat up that sort of thing. So go nuts. Insane paranoia is The American Way.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on June 02, 2012, 09:10:56 PM
Explanation for how the wounds were inflicted from the knoll? None.
Don't care enough to share.

Don't care enough to share?

Look, you want us to be persuaded of the rightness of your case, right? Well, this is one of the most important things in convincing us. And you don't care enough to share?

You've "just asked questions" for over 50 pages, so you clearly care. But the above seems to be an admission that you do not have any actual narrative of what did happen, if your grand conspiracy theory is true.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 02, 2012, 09:14:41 PM
What a shame that science doesn't conform to your layman's expectations then. If you can't be bothered to cultivate the relevant understanding then that's your problem.

It always is to people who don't know the first thing about science. Your disbelief and lack of understanding makes no odds to the reality of science, however.

I am willing to learn.
Please explain how the science of acoustics accounts for 10 out of 11 people on the grassy knoll who's testimony included direction of the shots stating the reports came from directly behind them, if the shots came from the 6th floor TSBD window say 100-200 feet away?

Then explain to me why there was not testimony that claimed shots coming from Dal-Tex, the Police, the Court or the Terminal Annex building to the south.

Or how Williams, Norman or Jarmin with warehouse windows open, could not tell that the shots came from the next floor up, 12 feet away or why Victoria Adams /&/Sandra Styles (No testimony) /&/ Elsie Dorman (No testimony) /&/ May Garner (No testimony) on the 4th floor, 3rd set of windows over said the shots came from the knoll.

How did the acoustics fool the "50" police that rushed to the knoll and rail yards where as no police went to the TSBD except Baker who went there only because of Pigeons flying off the roof.

Get a little tired of this scientific rhetoric being used as a shield against every measure of reasonable sense.





Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 02, 2012, 09:30:31 PM
Don't ask that question as if it's the first time. You have been told over and over and over again what you need to elaborate on. You have been asked over and over again what your alternaitve is, and how you support that with evidence. Just answer the questions that have been posed instead of playing games.
Since no one has given a definitive answer as to what evidence actually is, apparently none can be acceptable.
There can be no evidence to support my theories, then why would I share a narrative, by your own definition, it can never have acceptable evidence in support ...just to accumulate additional ridicule from WC Report believers?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on June 02, 2012, 09:37:48 PM
The important word there is "rational," of course!  While Kennedy conspiracism is not inherently irrational
Interesting choice of words. When is it not inherently irrational?

I suppose JFK conspiracism could also be driven by simple ignorance of the facts. That would not necessarily be irrational. That what you mean?

That is pretty much exactly what I mean.  I don't think it's ever accurate, but the idea that the death of JFK must have been caused by a conspiracy is not an inherently irrational one; while the majority of both assassinations and assassination attempts in the US have been of the lone-nut variety, there have been a few conspiracies.  (Oddly, hardly anyone seems aware that John Wilkes Booth didn't act alone!)  I think the choices, however, are ignorant and irrational, and the majority are simply ignorant.  They've heard a few "facts" that they think indicate that it has to have been a conspiracy, claims that the Warren Commission has failed in some way, and they simply don't know that those claims are not based on evidence.  It's not irrational, because it's not denying evidence.  It is ignorant, because it's unaware of evidence.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 02, 2012, 10:11:41 PM
Profmunkin has had ample opportunity to make his case.  We should enforce this simple requirement on him to back up his statements before he is allowed to carry on further.
I would welcome the challenge to back up any claim I have made concerning testimony.
I thought I had been quoting and documenting as posted, but obviously it has been insufficient.

Please let me know what points I need to document and elaborate on.

On top of several instances that have been documented as selective quoting, the major problem with your presentation is your refusal to tell us, or even acknowledge, that what you say is an interpretation of the testimony and other information that you have brought forward.   It is this interpretation that is in question and your acknowledged lack of relevant experience to make the interpretation and draw conclusions that is the problem.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 02, 2012, 11:41:19 PM
It always is to people who don't know the first thing about science. Your disbelief and lack of understanding makes no odds to the reality of science, however.
I am willing to learn.

I don't believe you. I've seen you reject evidence, such as witnesses who saw Lee Oswald with his gun, simply because it conflicts with your beliefs. That doesn't show a willingness to learn. I've seen you reject the laws of physics that make the grassy knoll an impossible source of the gunshots the killed JFK and wounded Governor Connally. You are not willing to learn.

Quote
Please explain how the science of acoustics accounts for 10 out of 11 people on the grassy knoll who's testimony included direction of the shots stating the reports came from directly behind them, if the shots came from the 6th floor TSBD window say 100-200 feet away?

I'll try to make this as simple as possible. All of the witnesses were human, and all humans (regardless of their professional training) are prone to the same difficulty in locating the source of loud quick sounds like gunshots, especially in locations that produce echoes. So why is it strange to you that so many witnesses were fooled by echoes?

Why are you relying on ear-witness testimony when there were eye-witnesses who saw Lee Oswald with the gun in the 6th floor window of the School Book Depository? Why do you reject reliable eye-witness testimony in favour of far less reliable ear-witness testimony?

Quote
Then explain to me why there was not testimony that claimed shots coming from Dal-Tex, the Police, the Court or the Terminal Annex building to the south.

I'm not an expert on acoustics, but I suspect that the strongest echoes would have come from the area where the gun was pointed. So it makes sense to me that if the gunman was in TSBD and aiming up Elm St., then the echoes would have come from that area... which just happened to be in the general direction of the grassy knoll. Weaker echoes would have come from other directions, but the strongest and earliest echoes would have come from there. Anyone who localized the source of the gunshot based on the sound alone could have been fooled into believing the shots were coming from the grassy knoll instead of TSBD. Likewise, I think if the gunman had been at the grassy knoll, there would have been more people saying the shots were coming from TSBD because the echoes would have been coming from the buildings at that end of Elm St.

Quote
How did the acoustics fool the "50" police that rushed to the knoll and rail yards where as no police went to the TSBD except Baker who went there only because of Pigeons flying off the roof.

The difficulty in localizing sounds is caused by human anatomy, it doesn't matter if the witnesses were automobile mechanics, nurses, police officers, or secret service agents, they would all be subject to the same difficulty in localizing sounds. It is not something that training can overcome.

Quote
Get a little tired of this scientific rhetoric being used as a shield against every measure of reasonable sense.

You and DAKDAK should form a club or something. Your anti-science, anti-education bias is something you both have in common.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 03, 2012, 12:16:19 AM
Yes, indeed it is interesting. And yes indeed, a good lawyer -- anyone, for that matter -- can
Brilliant sketch of the court system.
I have not finished your post, I will read the rest..

Three things
1) Official inquiries followed "many" of the rules, agreed, but "they" didn't follow all of the rules and that is the difference.

2) The FACT that logical, believable cases have been built with alternate narratives should be a cause for doubt.

3) The FACT that the WC Report can be "cherry-picked" into infinitum by testimony from it's own proceedings should be the ultimate cause for concern and patriotic doubt in the WC report conclusions.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 03, 2012, 12:33:13 AM
But when it comes to informal examinations of the case by private individuals producing books, magazine articles, movies, radio talk shows, interviews, documentaries, Internet blogs, etc, none of these rules apply. Thanks to our First Amendment freedoms of the press and speech (and I wouldn't have it any other way) almost anything goes short of direct threats, incitement to imminent violence or libel. And in the United States (but not in many other countries, notably the UK) a plaintiff who is also a public figure must work very hard to win a libel case.

So when you write your book alleging that JFK was killed by a massive conspiracy involving the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, the Dallas Police Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Mafia, Vice President Johnson, Cuban Intelligence, General Motors, the Soviet KGB, and local Boy Scout Troop 340, you don't have to give both sides of the story. It's your book; say whatever you want. Pick and choose the witnesses that support your case and ignore the rest. Quote only that which helps you and ignore the rest, like the bits that completely change the meaning of what you quoted or reveal the witness to be as nutty as a fruitcake. When discussing the flood of information that came out so haphazardly soon after the assassination, with much of it being 'corrected' later, insist that conspiracies never make 'mistakes'. They only cover things up.

Very nicely done, BRAVO

The government must be answerable to the people.
A government can not decide when this case is closed, nor a President a Chief Justice a committee or the media has the power or authority to tell the American Public when this case is closed.
This is a case of conspiracy of the highest sort.

If every question concerning the WC Report is answered with hocus pocus, smoke and mirrors, plausibles, impossibles, would you believes and they just made an error, you had better start doubting this fiction youself.

The way this coup succeeded was with general support from all of the power structures.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 03, 2012, 12:39:59 AM
That is pretty much exactly what I mean.  I don't think it's ever accurate, but the idea that the death of JFK must have been caused by a conspiracy is not an inherently irrational one; while the majority of both assassinations and assassination attempts in the US have been of the lone-nut variety, there have been a few conspiracies.  (Oddly, hardly anyone seems aware that John Wilkes Booth didn't act alone!)  I think the choices, however, are ignorant and irrational, and the majority are simply ignorant.  They've heard a few "facts" that they think indicate that it has to have been a conspiracy, claims that the Warren Commission has failed in some way, and they simply don't know that those claims are not based on evidence.  It's not irrational, because it's not denying evidence.  It is ignorant, because it's unaware of evidence.
Lone nuts, really?

Why is it the people that are attempting to actively change the system the ones that get killed by the lone nut?

When does the lone nut, kill the guy that is entrenced in the system?

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 03, 2012, 12:45:15 AM
Very nicely done, BRAVO
You do realize I was being sarcastic, do you not?
Quote
This is a case of conspiracy of the highest sort.
This is a simple murder case with overwhelming evidence of the single perpertrator. It would have been open and shut if not for all the opportunists who came along looking for fame and fortune by shouting "conspiracy", and all the nutcases who give them an audience and money.
Quote
If every question concerning the WC Report is answered with hocus pocus, smoke and mirrors, plausibles, impossibles, would you believes and they just made an error, you had better start doubting this fiction youself.
If you really think it's hocus pocus to demand that any alternative theory of the assassination be a better explanation of all the evidence, not just your tiny, cherry-picked subset, then you had better start doubting your own sanity. Or at least your own rationality.

If you really think it was impossible for a severely malajusted crackpot with a history of violence to take his rifle to work and shoot an easily identifiable man slowly riding by in an open car, then you really need to adjust your concept of what's possible.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 03, 2012, 12:52:58 AM
1) Official inquiries followed "many" of the rules, agreed, but "they" didn't follow all of the rules and that is the difference.
They couldn't follow all of the rules because a criminal proceeding requires the presence of a live, mentally competent defendant working with legal counsel in his own defense. And there was no live criminal defendant in the JFK/Tippit case after November 24, 1963.
Quote
2) The FACT that logical, believable cases have been built with alternate narratives should be a cause for doubt.
WHAT "logical, believable cases"? What "alternate narrative"? We keep asking you to provide one, and you never do! All we get from you is a hodge-podge of attacks on the Warren Commission report based on your own personal incredulity plus various bits of cherry-picked evidence. And sometimes even your selective quotes aren't correct, much less in their proper context.
Quote
3) The FACT that the WC Report can be "cherry-picked" into infinitum by testimony from it's own proceedings should be the ultimate cause for concern and patriotic doubt in the WC report conclusions.
What? Do you even understand what "cherry picking" means? It appears not.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on June 03, 2012, 01:00:13 AM
Yes, indeed it is interesting. And yes indeed, a good lawyer -- anyone, for that matter -- can
Brilliant sketch of the court system.
I have not finished your post, I will read the rest..

Three things
1) Official inquiries followed "many" of the rules, agreed, but "they" didn't follow all of the rules and that is the difference.

2) The FACT that logical, believable cases have been built with alternate narratives should be a cause for doubt.

3) The FACT that the WC Report can be "cherry-picked" into infinitum by testimony from it's own proceedings should be the ultimate cause for concern and patriotic doubt in the WC report conclusions.
Actually the troubling part is those who can't see theforest through the trees. I also find it hard to believe patriotism has anything to do with your BS and ignorance of FACTS.





Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 03, 2012, 01:08:21 AM

You do realize I was being sarcastic, do you not?

If you really think it was impossible for a severely malajusted crackpot with a history of violence to take his rifle to work and shoot an easily identifiable man slowly riding by in an open car, then you really need to adjust your concept of what's possible.
I thought it was done very well, Bravo!

I think that none of that is true when it comes to Oswald.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 03, 2012, 01:21:43 AM

They couldn't follow all of the rules because a criminal proceeding requires the presence of a live, mentally competent defendant working with legal counsel in his own defense. And there was no live criminal defendant in the JFK/Tippit case after November 24, 1963.
Quote
2) The FACT that logical, believable cases have been built with alternate narratives should be a cause for doubt.

What? Do you even understand what "cherry picking" means? It appears not.
We dont need a criminal proceeding, what gave you that idea?
This needs to be a proceeding to determine if a coup occurred or not!
And certainly the government has the previlige of presenting its case and narrative, but at the same time an elected independent defense team must have equal input to secure adequate checks and balance to the evidence and conclusions.

The American people still can demand this to be so.

What is cherry picking?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 03, 2012, 01:32:07 AM
WHAT "logical, believable cases"? What "alternate narrative"? We keep asking you to provide one, and you never do! All we get from you is a hodge-podge of attacks on the Warren Commission report based on your own personal incredulity plus various bits of cherry-picked evidence. And sometimes even your selective quotes aren't correct, much less in their proper context.3) The FACT that the WC Report can be "cherry-picked" into infinitum by testimony from it's own proceedings should be the ultimate cause for concern and patriotic doubt in the WC report conclusions.
Try Daniel Sheehan narrative, he brings in all the elements.
I would concede that it may have been plausible that JFK may have been shot from the tsbd if you agree it was a conspiracy, because ultimately it only matters that they assassinated the President.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 03, 2012, 01:46:57 AM
Actually the troubling part is those who can't see theforest through the trees. I also find it hard to believe patriotism has anything to do with your BS and ignorance of FACTS.
Just arrogance.

Why do you think the state of Texas started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the congress started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the senate started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the warren commisssion started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the city of new orleans started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the Hsc started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the Arrb started an inquiry into the assignation?

Because we never believed and still do not believe Oswald did it or did it alone.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 03, 2012, 03:32:56 AM
Let me put it this way
Dan Rather looked America in the face, told us he had seen the Z film and stated the Presidents head was thrown violently forward from a shot hitting him from the rear, in the back of the head. This statement was not disputed. We trusted the news, we trusted Time Life,  we trusted Walter and we trusted Dan.
 
Essential evidence for the wounds, the Z film was hidden from the view of America.

Americans find out only through the Shaw Trial that the Z film actually shows that the Presidents head moved violently to the left and back, revealing the official story that JFK's head moved violently forward a blatant lie.
To patch this official lie, the Government and media then presented a "scientific" case that it is normal to move in this manner when struck in the head with a bullet.
But the question remained, then why did the government and media lie to us about JFK's head moving violently forward in the first place, when "they" knew the Z film showed JFK's head moving violently left and back?

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 03, 2012, 04:19:36 AM
I am willing to learn.

No you are not. You have repeatedly failed to demonstrate any willingness to learn. Or, more precisely, you have failed to demonstrate any willingness to set aside your own preconceptions as to how the world and people work and admit to the possibility of other factors existing. Page after page after page you were told that the wounds on Kennedy and Connally had been duplicated using a Carcano at the same distance and elevation as the sixth floor window of the TSBD, and you refused to even acknowledge it. When you finally did you dismissed it as an irrelevance. That is not willing to learn, that is stubbornly refusing to accept reality.

Quote
Please explain how the science of acoustics accounts for 10 out of 11 people on the grassy knoll who's testimony included direction of the shots stating the reports came from directly behind them, if the shots came from the 6th floor TSBD window say 100-200 feet away?

It doesn't matter if the majority heard it from the knoll if they were all capable of being deceived by the echoes, and they were. Majority consensus does not provide a pointer to truth in all cases.

Quote
Then explain to me why there was not testimony that claimed shots coming from Dal-Tex, the Police, the Court or the Terminal Annex building to the south.

Explain why there should be.

I do not know the precise details of the acoustic charcter of Dealye Plaza, nor a detailed plan of exactly what sound waves went where. I do know from personal experience, however, that localising the sound of something like a rifle report is very difficult in a built up area. That is why I discount the people saying they heard the shot from the knoll as being reliable evidence: not because of prejudice, not because of a blind faith in the reality of the Warren Commission's findings, not because of anything other than the knowledge from my own experience that such reports ARE unreliable, and that therefore there needs to be more than just a number of people saying they heard something from there.
 
Quote
Or how Williams, Norman or Jarmin with warehouse windows open, could not tell that the shots came from the next floor up, 12 feet away or why Victoria Adams /&/Sandra Styles (No testimony) /&/ Elsie Dorman (No testimony) /&/ May Garner (No testimony) on the 4th floor, 3rd set of windows over said the shots came from the knoll.

Really? you can't conceive of how a sound would have an easier path to travel unobstructed from the window and back to another open window than to travel through the structure of the building one or two floors? People in the depository would have heard the sound of the shot from inside and from the echo outside, and that would have confused them as to its origin. Again, I have personal experience of being in a building looking out the window and hearing sounds that appeared to come from outside when they actually came from another window in the same building.

However, quieter sounds that were not so likely to echo clearly around the plaza, such as the action of the rifle bolt and the sound of spent shells hitting the floor, would have been clearly heard and localised as coming from within the building. There is testimony to that effect. Why do you disregard it?

Quote
How did the acoustics fool the "50" police that rushed to the knoll and rail yards where as no police went to the TSBD except Baker who went there only because of Pigeons flying off the roof.

Why should police be any less likely to be fooled by the echo than spectators? Do you think they have super-sensitive hearing or something?

Quote
Get a little tired of this scientific rhetoric being used as a shield against every measure of reasonable sense.

Naturally. You don't understand the science, so you dismiss it as rhetoric.. Perosnally, I am getting a little tired of your continued refusal to address little details like the corroborating evidence of there being a sniper in the building, such as the sound of a rifle bolt and of spent shells hitting the floor, and the fact that several witnesses saw a sniper in the sixth floor window.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 03, 2012, 04:22:19 AM
I would concede that it may have been plausible that JFK may have been shot from the tsbd if you agree it was a conspiracy,

Why should anyone agree it was a conspiracy, and why should anyone agreeing to that be grounds for you conceding it was possible he was shot from the TSBD? You have been given reams of evidence to the plausibility of that scenario.

You're not interested in the truth, only in perpetuating your belief.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 03, 2012, 06:12:19 AM
Dan Rather looked America in the face, told us he had seen the Z film and stated the Presidents head was thrown violently forward from a shot hitting him from the rear, in the back of the head. This statement was not disputed.
Did he say that? Because if he did, he was absolutely correct! JFK's head was thrown violently forward by a shot hitting him in the back of the head. You can see it very easily by flipping between frames Z312 (just prior to the third bullet impact) and Z313 (just after). JFK's head moves forward several inches in just one frame, just the amount he should have moved.
Quote
Essential evidence for the wounds, the Z film was hidden from the view of America.
On the contrary, the Z film is one of the best and clearest demonstrations that both shots came from behind. Anyone who says otherwise is simply ignorant.

In fact, some of the conspiracy nuts who used to claim that the Z film absolutely proved a "grassy knoll" shot, once they understood what it really showed, turned 180 degrees and began to claim that the Z film had been tampered with to "prove" shots from the rear! They had absolutely no evidence of tampering, of course, but for the fact that the film demolished their pet conspiracy theory so it had to be bogus. They think just like you do.
Quote
Americans find out only through the Shaw Trial that the Z film actually shows that the Presidents head moved violently to the left and back, revealing the official story that JFK's head moved violently forward a blatant lie.
No, after Z313 Americans see a much slower left-and-back effect that was caused not by a bullet hitting from the front, but from a massive neuromuscular spasm in JFK's body when his brain was destroyed. This effect has been duplicated in the laboratory by shooting goats.

This is what happens when incompetent know-it-alls like you pretend they don't need to listen to the scientists who actually know something about physics and physiology through training and experience.
Quote
To patch this official lie, the Government and media then presented a "scientific" case that it is normal to move in this manner when struck in the head with a bullet.
And that case is indeed scientific and correct, whether you believe it or not.
Quote
But the question remained, then why did the government and media lie to us about JFK's head moving violently forward in the first place, when "they" knew the Z film showed JFK's head moving violently left and back?
Because, they didn't lie. As I explained above, JFK's head does move violently forward before it moves left and back. In fact, this forward motion is much quicker and far more violent, as it all happens in just one frame. After Z313, the bullet was long gone before the back-and-to-the-left motion even starts. So how could it possibly have pushed his head in that direction even if it had enough momentum to do so, which it didn't?

Don't forget that Connally was also hit by a bullet. Did you see him violently thrown around the limousine as JFK was? Think about that.

Whether you like it or not, profmunkin, these are not mere personal opinions. They are scientific facts, backed up with both solid theory and actual laboratory tests. If you aren't willing to understand what's actually happening here, then you have absolutely no business being here. The world works the way it works, and it doesn't give a rat's ass for how you think it ought to work. Either you understand it correctly or you don't. And right now, you don't.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 03, 2012, 06:22:26 AM
Why do you think the state of Texas started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the congress started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the senate started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the warren commisssion started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the city of new orleans started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the Hsc started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the Arrb started an inquiry into the assignation?

Because we never believed and still do not believe Oswald did it or did it alone.
That may indeed be the reason all those entities started their inquiries. Conspiracy theories have a powerful appeal to the simple minded and paranoids among us. They persist like zombies even when there's no evidence whatsoever to support them. When someone comes up with a so-called "anomaly" that is fully explained, they simply ignore the explanation and continue to tout the "anomaly" as though it were still unanswered. The "anomalies" and conspiracy theories just won't die as they should have, long ago.

And since democratic governments are designed to respond to the will of the people, even when the people are totally wrong, they opened up these additional inquiries. Yet when they're done properly, they keep coming to the very same basic conclusions that the Warren Commission did. Just how many more inquiries will it take to convince you of this? Or will logic, reason and facts ever convince you? I'm beginning to doubt it.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 03, 2012, 06:32:22 AM
Let me put it this way
No, let me put it this way.

Have you, profmunkin, ever seen a live human (other than JFK) being shot through the head with a rifle? If so, what happened? How did he move?

You say you haven't been so unfortunate as to witness such a horrible thing? Good for you; I wouldn't wish it on anybody.

So what makes you so sure of what would happen if you've never seen it yourself? What makes your ignorant speculation more reliable than a scientific analysis by the physicists, doctors and biologists who have actually studied human shooting victims (e.g., casualties of war) and conducted laboratory experiments with animals? What makes you right and them wrong?

I'm really curious to know the basis of your arrogance.
 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 03, 2012, 09:41:57 AM
No you are not. You have repeatedly failed to demonstrate any willingness to learn. Or, more precisely, you have failed to demonstrate any willingness to set aside your own preconceptions as to how the world and people work and admit to the possibility of other factors existing. Page after page after page you were told that the wounds on Kennedy and Connally had been duplicated using a Carcano at the same distance and elevation as the sixth floor window of the TSBD, and you refused to even acknowledge it. When you finally did you dismissed it as an irrelevance. That is not willing to learn, that is stubbornly refusing to accept reality.

You must of misinterpreted a post.
I don't recall agreeing with anyone on the forum about the nature of the wounds or how they were caused. But If I somehow inadvertently did, I formally retract it now.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 03, 2012, 10:19:22 AM
I do not know the precise details of the acoustic charcter of Dealye Plaza, nor a detailed plan of exactly what sound waves went where. I do know from personal experience, however, that localising the sound of something like a rifle report is very difficult in a built up area. That is why I discount the people saying they heard the shot from the knoll as being reliable evidence: not because of prejudice, not because of a blind faith in the reality of the Warren Commission's findings, not because of anything other than the knowledge from my own experience that such reports ARE unreliable, and that therefore there needs to be more than just a number of people saying they heard something from there.
 
Localizing, what does this mean?

If it means determining the exact location for a sound, I can agree with you, if you are insinuating that most people can't determine the general direction, front back left right up down from their position, is utter non-sense.

You need to try and connect this "scientific" rhetoric with some reality.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: BazBear on June 03, 2012, 01:47:23 PM
Actually the troubling part is those who can't see theforest through the trees. I also find it hard to believe patriotism has anything to do with your BS and ignorance of FACTS.
Just arrogance.

Why do you think the state of Texas started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the congress started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the senate started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the warren commisssion started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the city of new orleans started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the Hsc started an inquiry into the assignation?
Why do you think the Arrb started an inquiry into the assignation?

Because we never believed and still do not believe Oswald did it or did it alone.
WTF is an assignation?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on June 03, 2012, 03:05:05 PM
WTF is an assignation?

An affair.  But you know, I've always thought that what happens between two consenting adults is their business . . . .
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on June 03, 2012, 03:14:16 PM
It appears profmunkin thinks that the main concern of the Warren Committee and subsequent investigations was whom the President was sleeping with.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 03, 2012, 03:24:33 PM
You must of misinterpreted a post.

No, you were asked for page after page to acknowledge the fact that the wounds as described in the autopsy report had been duplicated and you refused to do so, finally saying it didn't matter because the shots came from somewhere else anyway. All you had to do was acknowledge that this simple experiment had been carried out, and you refused for page on page on page.

If you think the wounds were caused by a sniper on the knoll, explain how. We've done the bit where we explain how they can be caused from the TSBD. Your turn.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 03, 2012, 03:26:55 PM
You need to try and connect this "scientific" rhetoric with some reality.

It IS connected with reality. What part of the experience I have recounted twice now was not clear to you?

Let me say it again: a local fort ran a shooting exercise a few weeks ago. Depending on where I was standing, the shots seemed to be coming from a variety of locations, even at times when I could clearly see the person holding the gun. The sound of the shots did NOT always match up with the direction of the shooter, due to the effects of the buildings and trees and other things around me.

That is a FACT. Not rhetoric, not smokescreen, but FACT, born of an understanding of how sound travels and PERSONAL experience. Do you wish to accuse me of lying about that?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 03, 2012, 03:31:14 PM
Localizing, what does this mean?

If it means determining the exact location for a sound, I can agree with you, if you are insinuating that most people can't determine the general direction, front back left right up down from their position, is utter non-sense.

You need to try and connect this "scientific" rhetoric with some reality.

There is a significant difference between locating the general direction of a sound and the location of the source of the sound.  This is what you fail to admit to. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: DataCable on June 03, 2012, 06:02:54 PM
3) The FACT that the WC Report can be "cherry-picked" into infinitum by testimony from it's own proceedings should be the ultimate cause for concern and patriotic doubt in the WC report conclusions.
You are claiming that absolutely every piece of testimony given must be 100% in agreement with every other piece, that there is no room for human error in reporting the details of such a sudden, chaotic and traumatic event.  You are claiming that humans are perfect observers and the human memory a perfect record of events which it has experienced.

A government can not decide when this case is closed, nor a President a Chief Justice a committee or the media has the power or authority to tell the American Public when this case is closed.
Who or what does have the authority to make this decision?

And certainly the government has the previlige of presenting its case and narrative, but at the same time an elected independent defense team must have equal input to secure adequate checks and balance to the evidence and conclusions.
Elected by whom?  Independent of what?  Defending who or what?

Quote
What is cherry picking?
Presenting only evidence which supports your case, ignoring evidence which doesn't, even to the point of claiming it doesn't exist.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 03, 2012, 08:52:37 PM
A government can not decide when this case is closed, nor a President a Chief Justice a committee or the media has the power or authority to tell the American Public when this case is closed.
Meaningless babel because you use the word "case" in a meaningless way.  The government can only decide when its inquiry is complete and that is all it has ever decided.  On the other hand, historical scholarship is never finished.  If you would try to apply methods appropriate to historical scholarship you might get somewhere.
Quote
This is a case of conspiracy of the highest sort.
Prove it. If you had any theory of a conspiracy, you would have brought it forward my now yet you can't even tell us where you think the shooters were. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on June 03, 2012, 11:13:35 PM
It appears profmunkin thinks that the main concern of the Warren Committee and subsequent investigations was whom the President was sleeping with.

Shockingly, it turns out that we have more evidence that Profmunkin doesn't know the definitions of many of the words he uses. 

Actually, in this case, it could well be a stupid autocorrect problem.  It wouldn't be the first time and it wouldn't be the last, but no matter who made the error, Profmunkin didn't catch it despite its appearing seven times in the section you quoted.  I can't be the only person who reads over their posts before submitting them!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 04, 2012, 04:46:15 PM
Localizing, what does this mean?

If it means determining the exact location for a sound, I can agree with you, if you are insinuating that most people can't determine the general direction, front back left right up down from their position, is utter non-sense.
Yes, it means determining the location (position) of the source of a sound.

It's a fact -- hardly nonsense -- that humans are easily fooled in determining the direction of a sound. In particular, it is quite common for a sharp sound like a gunshot to seem to come from the exact opposite direction than it really did. It depends on things like the exact position of your head at the moment the sound arrives.

Humans have two ears to help them to sense the direction of a sound. The brain compares the signals from the two ears and looks for several cues to determine direction:

One is the relative loudness in each ear; the ear toward the source tends to hear a louder sound.

Another is the frequency spectrum; the ear toward the source tends to hear a broader range of its frequencies, especially higher frequency sounds.

And a third is time of arrival; the ear toward the source hears the sound before the ear that's farther away.

Not all of these mechanisms are fully operative in the case of a sharp explosive sound like a gunshot. Time of arrival is probably the most important cue, but think about what happens when you're facing either directly toward or away from the source, or even if it's directly over you; in these cases the sound arrives at both ears simultaneously. You can't tell these directions apart. And that's why it's quite possible for a sound in front of you to seem like it's behind you, or vice versa.

But to point out what others have pointed out, in the context of the JFK assassination this is all totally moot because we have plenty of other evidence that JFK was shot from behind and only from behind, and we have plenty of independent evidence of the source and type of the shots: witnesses who saw the rifle in the window (and Oswald firing it), witnesses directly under it who heard the bolt being operated and the spent shells hitting the floor, and of course the discovery of the rifle on the 6th floor of the depository and the ironclad linking of it to Oswald as the purchaser and possessor.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 04, 2012, 04:54:39 PM
Let me say it again: a local fort ran a shooting exercise a few weeks ago. Depending on where I was standing, the shots seemed to be coming from a variety of locations, even at times when I could clearly see the person holding the gun. The sound of the shots did NOT always match up with the direction of the shooter, due to the effects of the buildings and trees and other things around me.
I'm curious about something. I used to shoot rifles and shotguns a lot when I was younger, but I haven't done it in some time so the experience isn't fresh in my memory.

While you were watching these exercises, did you notice separate sounds from the bullet shock, muzzle blast and target impact (assuming these were supersonic rifle bullets)? I read that soldiers are trained to locate a sniper by ignoring the loud, sharp shock wave of the bullet and listening for the softer "thump" of the muzzle blast that usually arrives some time after the bullet shock (especially if you're being shot at). The bullet crack can seem to come from anywhere, while the muzzle "thump" will usually seem to come from the true direction of the shooter.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 04, 2012, 05:08:09 PM
Profmunkin, I would really like an answer to my question.

Assuming you have not been unlucky enough to actually witness a live human being shot through the head with a rifle, how do you know what should happen? Why do you consider your expectations to be more reliable than the doctors, physicists, forensic technicians and other researchers who actually study this sort of thing as a profession?

I really want you to answer this question. Thank you.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 04, 2012, 05:12:06 PM
Profmunkin, I would really like an answer to my question.

Assuming you have not been unlucky enough to actually witness a live human being shot through the head with a rifle, how do you know what should happen? Why do you consider your expectations to be more reliable than the doctors, physicists, forensic technicians and other researchers who actually study this sort of thing as a profession?

I really want you to answer this question. Thank you.
How much force is there in a bullet?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 04, 2012, 05:25:16 PM
While you were watching these exercises, did you notice separate sounds from the bullet shock, muzzle blast and target impact (assuming these were supersonic rifle bullets)?

I wasn't watching the exercise as such, and I am not sure even if they were firing live or blank rounds, or what the target was. The fort is not an operational military installation but a local tourist attraction, but they do still run military exhibitions. This was almost certainly members of the public being invited to shoot rifles under close supervision. I was walking past the fort, which entails walking around two sides of the grounds. One side is walking down on a level below the fort (approximately equivalent in my estimation to six floors of a building, coincidentally), the other side walks up the hill to the level of the fort shooting exercise. There are a number of buildings on the lower level interposed between me and the fort, and a number of buildings on the other side of the road as I walked up the hill. I didn't take too much note of the exact character of the sound, and there were a number of minor echoes, but I do remember it seeming to come from different places depending on where I was in relation to the shooter and other buildings, and even when i had a direct line of sight (and hearing) to the person I could see firing the rifle, I could sometimes hear the sound coming from somewhere other than directly in front of me.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 04, 2012, 05:26:18 PM
How much force is there in a bullet?

That would be physics. Are we to assume you will ignore it anyway?

You believe a bullet will throw someone or something back on impact. We have already told you ad infinitum that that is NOT what bullets do, but you just will not accept it, will you?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 04, 2012, 05:33:36 PM
Back to the WC

Always wondered about this, but I have not located an answer, that is James Tague, is nicked by flying cement that was gouged away from the curb by one of the snipers bullets.
Law enforcement was informed about this event within minutes after the assassination.

It was accepted that Tague had been effected by 1 of the 3 sniper bullets (one that missed).
Where is this documented by police?
Where is the laboratory report on the bullet residue on the cement, tests would assure this bullet was similar to the bullets found on the gurney and in the rifle?
Where are the official pictures of the mark the bullet had made in the cement?
Is there a direction to the mark, is so, what is the direction?
Why wasn't this portion of the curb preserved?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 04, 2012, 05:33:52 PM
How much force is there in a bullet?
That's not an answer to my question.

Your question doesn't even make sense. The following measurements of a bullet at an instant in flight, using SI units, do make sense. Note that "force" is not one of them:

0. The position of the bullet in three dimensions.

1. The mass of the bullet, measured in kilograms;

2. The velocity of the bullet. This is a vector indicating the bullet's direction of travel, with a magnitude (also known as the
speed) measured in meters per second;

3. The angular momentum vector of the bullet, i.e., the bullet's spin, measured in kilogram-meter2/sec;

4. The orientation of the bullet, i.e., whether it's flying straight, sideways or backwards, measured as three angles in degrees or radians.

An important value that can be computed from the above is the bullet's momentum. This is a 3-dimensional vector with units of mass times velocity, e.g., kilogram-meter/sec, parallel to the velocity vector of course.

One half the mass of the bullet times its speed squared gives the bullet's energy: E = 1/2 m v2. This is a scalar quantity (i.e., it is not a vector and does not have a direction). Energy is measured in joules, also known as watt-seconds.

A bullet in flight exerts only a tiny drag force on the air in front of it. That's why it doesn't slow down much. When it hits a target, it rapidly slows down and exerts a force that depends on the mass of the bullet and the rate at which it is decelerated according to Newton's second law of motion: F=ma. This in turn depends on the bullet's velocity and the composition of the target. If the force exceeds the compressive strength of the bullet, it will begin to deform and possibly break apart. Otherwise it will remain intact.

So your question "what is the force of a bullet" has no meaning unless you give all those other numbers and tell us something about the target it is hitting.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 04, 2012, 05:35:21 PM
How much force is there in a bullet?

That would be physics. Are we to assume you will ignore it anyway?

You believe a bullet will throw someone or something back on impact. We have already told you ad infinitum that that is NOT what bullets do, but you just will not accept it, will you?
How much force is there in a similar 6.5 mm bullet fired from this rifle?
please put it in some easy laymans terms for me - thanks
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 04, 2012, 05:51:11 PM
from Wiki
10.5 g (162 gr) RN 700 m/s (2,300 ft/s) 2,572 J (1,897 ft·lbf)
10.5 g (162 gr) RN 661 m/s (2,170 ft/s) 2,293 J (1,691 ft·lbf)

Or if you pressed the rifle stock up to the side of your head, and pulled the trigger, the recoil would most likely render you unconscious as your head was being propelled away from the rifle.

Yes most certainly your body or head moves in proportion to how much energy is absorbed or transferred from the bullet.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 04, 2012, 06:10:17 PM
How much force is there in a bullet?
If you are asking about a bullet's ability to "shove" its target, then you are interested in its momentum. I just described what momentum is: mass times velocity. The Carcano fired a 160 grain (10.37 gram) bullet at a muzzle velocity of about 2,000 feet/sec (610 meters/sec). Its muzzle momentum is therefore 6.32 kg m/s, and a little less when it reached JFK.

The importance of momentum is that it is always conserved in any interaction (like a collision). So when a bullet hits a target, the combined momentum of the bullet and target must be the same as their combined momentum before impact.

A human head weighs about 5 kg. For the moment let's ignore the fact that it's attached to the body by a neck; this is valid for small movements of the head when the neck muscles are not tensed. Assume a Carcano bullet embeds itself in a stationary 5 kg head; no bullet fragments exit. The momentum of the incoming bullet was 6.32 kg m/s, so the combined momentum of the bullet and head after impact must also be 6.32 kg m/s. The velocity of the head, moving by itself without any restoring force from the neck, will then be 6.32 kg m/sec / (5 + .01) kg = 1.26 m/sec.

That's not very fast at all, about the speed of a vigorous nod. And that's just the head alone, not the whole body.

If any fragments of the bullet do emerge, as they did from JFK's head, they will carry out some of the bullet's original momentum instead of transferring it to the head, so the head will move even more slowly. The effect of the neck muscles will also act to reduce the head motion. Indeed, we see that JFK's head does jerk forward a few inches between Z312 and Z313. This is exactly the motion we would expect to see as the bullet hits him from behind.

Now let's consider the effect of a bullet on the body as a whole. If the entire body has a mass of 75 kg, then shooting it (anywhere, not necessarily the head) with a Carcano will impart a velocity to the whole body of only 6.32 / 75 = .084 m/sec (84 mm/sec).

Again this very slow velocity is an absolute maximum that assumes the bullet comes to rest inside the body, transferring all its momentum. If any bullet fragments emerge, their momentum will not have been transferred to the body and it will move even more slowly. We're also ignoring any other external forces on the body; if the victim is sitting in a limousine seat, friction from the seat and arm rests will also tend to keep the body from moving.

You can see from all this that a bullet simply cannot blow its victim's entire body violently backward, as seen so often in Hollywood movies (where it is in fact faked). The back-and-to-the-left motion of JFK's body seen in the Zapruder film could not possibly have been caused by a bullet pushing on his head from the front. His motion had an entirely different cause, namely the sudden contraction of every muscle in his body when the bullet (from behind) destroyed his brain and sent massive neural impulses down his spinal cord. The stronger back and leg muscles dominated, resulting in the motion we see.



Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 04, 2012, 06:12:56 PM
Yes most certainly your body or head moves in proportion to how much energy is absorbed or transferred from the bullet.

Yes, it does. The question is how much of that energy is absorbed or transferred, and how much is transferred to moving the target rather than simply breaking through it? Bullets are designed to penetrate.

Another bit of physics you won't believe, I'm sure, but you can be hit with a large slow moving object or a small fast moving object, and both can have the same kinetic energy or momentum, and both can have VERY different effects when they hit you due to their size and shape. Hold your hand flat on a wooden surface and hit it with a hammer and it will hurt. Try it with a nail between the hammer and your hand and you'll nail your hand to the wood, despite the same momentum and energy being involved in hitting it with the hammer.

Yes, if you put the stock of the rifle against your head and fired it, the force of the recoil would propel your head, but the stock is a large, flat, wooden area pressed against your head and moving at a significantly lower speed than the bullet, not a small, pointed metal object at extreme speed.

And again I will point out that there are countless experiments involving the effect of bullets hitting various things, not to mention reams of film from wars and the like showing people being shot, and one thing they all have in common is that the bullets do NOT shove their targets on impact to any singificant degree. They punch right through them. That is, after all, what a bullet is supposed to do.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 04, 2012, 06:19:01 PM
Yes most certainly your body or head moves in proportion to how much energy is absorbed or transferred from the bullet.
Not energy, but momentum. They're two different things.

Energy and momentum are both conserved quantities; they cannot be created or destroyed. But energy can also be converted into different forms, notably heat. When a bullet hits a target, much of its kinetic energy (energy of motion) is spent deforming the bullet and disrupting the target. All this energy eventually ends up as heat.

Momentum, unlike energy, cannot be converted to another form. It can only be transferred from one object to another. No matter what happens in the collision between a bullet and its target, the total momentum of bullet and target will be exactly the same, before and after.

So if you are interested in how much a target will move when hit by a bullet, you need to know the bullet's mass and momentum and the mass of the target. (Since the bullet usually has a much smaller mass than the target, you can disregard the bullet's mass in most cases.) Most of the bullet's kinetic energy is converted to heat, but a little kinetic energy remains in the (slow) residual motion of the target (and bullet fragments) necessary to conserve momentum.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on June 04, 2012, 06:32:39 PM
from Wiki
10.5 g (162 gr) RN 700 m/s (2,300 ft/s) 2,572 J (1,897 ft·lbf)
10.5 g (162 gr) RN 661 m/s (2,170 ft/s) 2,293 J (1,691 ft·lbf)

Or if you pressed the rifle stock up to the side of your head, and pulled the trigger, the recoil would most likely render you unconscious as your head was being propelled away from the rifle.

You are neglecting the contribution of the powder to the recoil. The MC used 30 grains of powder that was expelled at ~4600 ft/sec. This means the momentum applied to the shooter by the recoil is always greater than that applied to the target by the bullet.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 04, 2012, 06:33:10 PM
And again I will point out that there are countless experiments involving the effect of bullets hitting various things, not to mention reams of film from wars and the like showing people being shot, and one thing they all have in common is that the bullets do NOT shove their targets on impact to any singificant degree. They punch right through them. That is, after all, what a bullet is supposed to do.
As demonstrated by the Mythbusters numerous times. Even a large .50 caliber sniper rifle barely moved its target.

Different bullets are designed to do different things. Metal-jacketed military bullets (required by international treaties) often do punch through their targets, though they will still disintegrate when they hit bone at sufficiently high velocity. We saw both effects in the JFK assassination; Oswald's second bullet (CE399) did not disintegrate because it first punched through JFK's neck, losing energy without hitting any bone. Then it hit Connally in the back, doing considerable damage to his thorax and breaking a rib but not shattering the bullet because it had already lost too much energy. It then continued through his wrist, again breaking a bone (the radius) while only flattening the bullet. Oswald's third bullet, however, hit JFK's skull at full velocity. The hard bone impact decelerated the bullet quickly enough to immediately deform and fragment it.

Hunters prefer non-jacketed soft lead bullets designed to deform very easily even when they only hit soft tissue, fragmenting and releasing their energy much more quickly than a jacketed bullet. This greatly increases lethality, lessening the risk that the animal will linger and suffer, and it also reduces the risk to other hunters from a bullet that punches through its target with much of its original energy left.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Philthy on June 04, 2012, 06:37:51 PM
I've gone deer hunting using a 12 gauge shotgun, with slugs as the ammunition. I could hear the "THUMP" of the slug hitting the deer. By the time the slug hits the deer, the sound of the shot is dissipated.

If you press a rifle to to your forehead, it's highly unlikely it would "knock you out." The recoil would shove your head back. This is why, when firing, you hold the weapon snugly to your shoulder, so it doesn't come back and pound the hell out of your shoulder. Also, never, ever brace your shoulder between aimmovablele object and then shoot. severelylbruiseded or broken shoulder will be the outcome.

Phil
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 04, 2012, 11:51:09 PM
Yes most certainly your body or head moves in proportion to how much energy is absorbed or transferred from the bullet.

Yes, it does. The question is how much of that energy is absorbed or transferred, and how much is transferred to moving the target rather than simply breaking through it? Bullets are designed to penetrate.

Another bit of physics you won't believe, I'm sure, but you can be hit with a large slow moving object or a small fast moving object, and both can have the same kinetic energy or momentum, and both can have VERY different effects when they hit you due to their size and shape. Hold your hand flat on a wooden surface and hit it with a hammer and it will hurt. Try it with a nail between the hammer and your hand and you'll nail your hand to the wood, despite the same momentum and energy being involved in hitting it with the hammer.

Yes, if you put the stock of the rifle against your head and fired it, the force of the recoil would propel your head, but the stock is a large, flat, wooden area pressed against your head and moving at a significantly lower speed than the bullet, not a small, pointed metal object at extreme speed.

And again I will point out that there are countless experiments involving the effect of bullets hitting various things, not to mention reams of film from wars and the like showing people being shot, and one thing they all have in common is that the bullets do NOT shove their targets on impact to any singificant degree. They punch right through them. That is, after all, what a bullet is supposed to do.
The answer should be equal effect, if all of the bullets momentum is transferred to the head.

Were did you see the videos of unconcious people with their heads hanging free getting shot in the head with a high powered rifle?
Please post the url.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 04, 2012, 11:55:14 PM
I've gone deer hunting using a 12 gauge shotgun, with slugs as the ammunition. I could hear the "THUMP" of the slug hitting the deer. By the time the slug hits the deer, the sound of the shot is dissipated.

If you press a rifle to to your forehead, it's highly unlikely it would "knock you out." The recoil would shove your head back. This is why, when firing, you hold the weapon snugly to your shoulder, so it doesn't come back and pound the hell out of your shoulder. Also, never, ever brace your shoulder between aimmovablele object and then shoot. severelylbruiseded or broken shoulder will be the outcome.

Phil
Your probably correct, so for this experiment lets hold the gun an inch or so away from your head, lets let it get a little momentum built up before it knocks you sensless.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 05, 2012, 12:16:15 AM
The answer should be equal effect, if all of the bullets momentum is transferred to the head.
The only effect that will be equal for a given bullet momentum and target mass is the momentum of the entire target+bullet after the bullet hits and embeds itself in it. The effect of the bullet on the target can vary quite a bit depending on the size, velocity and makeup of the bullet and the nature of the target. That's because the damage to the target is done by the bullet's energy, not its momentum. That energy ultimately ends up as heat.

Quote
Were did you see the videos of unconcious people with their heads hanging free getting shot in the head with a high powered rifle? Please post the url.
I was talking only about those things that absolutely must happen according to the laws of physics, whether the target is a human head or a block of wood. Conservation of momentum doesn't care.

However, in the 2005 book "The JFK Myths" by Larry Sturdivan, page 169 shows a famous picture of a man being shot through the head during the Spanish Civil War in 1936.  When hit the man had been squatting on the ground, but in the picture he almost appears to be sitting on an invisible chair, with his rear end off the ground, his legs almost straight and his arms outstretched. Sturdivan explains that this was due to a massive neuromuscular spasm similar to the one that happened to JFK when he was hit in the head.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 05, 2012, 12:27:52 AM
The answer should be equal effect, if all of the bullets momentum is transferred to the head.

What does 'equal effect' even mean?

This is your problem: you can't talk about the technical aspects in appropriate language.

Now, since all the bullet's momentum clearly was not transferred to the head, what exactly is your point?

Quote
Were did you see the videos of unconcious people with their heads hanging free getting shot in the head with a high powered rifle?

Ah, the typical complaint of the layman: you haven't seen it exactly duplicated, therefore your conclusions are invalid. Bull. Science doesn't care if you use a head, a melon, a human or a goat. The physics applies equally well in all cases.

What I have seen: film from the two world wars including people being shot in various parts of the body; experiments involving shooting live animals; experiments involving shooting other objects, including human skulls with ballistics gel material to represent skin and brain tissue; experiments involving shooting objects with various weapons to determine how much momentum gets transferred from the bullet to the target. Now explain to me why the conclusions drawn from those are invalid.

Quote
Please post the url.

Ah, the typical complaint of the internet troll.

Would it really surprise you to learn that I didn't actually see these things online, but on television shows, DVDs, or published books and papers describing the effects? I don't happen to have an url to give you. Explain to me why that invalidates the argument.

Also, exlpain to me why you have suddenly gone very quiet about the ability of a human to localise sounds like rifle shots now you have been given personal experiences and proper explanations. Did you think we wouldn't notice your change of horse?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 05, 2012, 12:29:50 AM
Your probably correct, so for this experiment lets hold the gun an inch or so away from your head, lets let it get a little momentum built up before it knocks you sensless.

And you still don't understand why this is irrelevant, do you? The stock is a large flat surface travelling at relatively low speed, the bullet is a small, pointed object designed to penetrate flesh and bone travelling at extremely high (as in supersonic) speed. One will knock you senseless, one will blow a hole through your head.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Mr Gorsky on June 05, 2012, 05:52:16 AM
profmunkin, read this from Intuitor's Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics page (http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/) ...

Quote
It's Not Newton's 3rd Law

Contrary to the explanations given in some venues, the fact that shooting victims are not thrown violently backwards by bullet impact forces cannot be explained using Newton's 3rd law. These explanations usually claim that the recoil force on the shooter is an action/reaction pair with the bullet impact force on the victim—simply not true.

Action/reaction pairs of forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. They occur simultaneously. While the recoil and bullet impact forces are opposite in direction they do not occur simultaneously. The recoil force begins before the bullet strikes the target. It is generally lower in magnitude than the bullet impact force but lasts for a longer time.

This doesn't necessarily address the point you are making directly, but it serves to emphasise, in conjunction with the other answers you have received, and mostly ignored, here, that there is a lot of physics involved with the behaviour of gun, bullet, shooter and victim that cannot be simply described in a soundbite as you seem to expect.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Abaddon on June 05, 2012, 04:51:52 PM
Here ya go prof.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Sniperatwork.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/05/Sniperatwork.jpg)
Yes, that is a real road sign. "sniper at work".
Yes, it really happened.
Yes, snipers can do extreme damage.
Barret 50 was the weapon of choice. That will take a leg off at about  2 km.
I do not need to imagine whatever you invent, I have seen the reality.
Google the "south armagh sniper".
Here, have a wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Armagh_Sniper_(1990%E2%80%931997) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Armagh_Sniper_(1990%E2%80%931997))
Yup, I know a lot more than you about sniping.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 05, 2012, 06:42:08 PM
Which bullet hit Tague?

Any one know where I may find an FBI or Police photo of the cement that shows the gouge and it's direction?

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 05, 2012, 06:50:19 PM
Has anyone viewed the Warren Commission Report to see how many breaks in rational actions and plausible projections it contains?

If you see many, let us talk

If you can't see any, seriously dude you need help.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Abaddon on June 05, 2012, 07:05:31 PM
Which bullet hit Tague?

Any one know where I may find an FBI or Police photo of the cement that shows the gouge and it's direction?


Clearly, you do not comprehend the concept of fragmentation.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Abaddon on June 05, 2012, 07:10:47 PM
Has anyone viewed the Warren Commission Report to see how many breaks in rational actions and plausible projections it contains?
Yup.

If you see many, let us talk
Nope, but you are unwilling to discuss same in any meaningful way.

If you can't see any, seriously dude you need help.
Physician, heal thyself.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on June 05, 2012, 07:16:34 PM
The answer should be equal effect, if all of the bullets momentum is transferred to the head.

IF.

A bullet is not like a weight in a Newton's Cradle. It doesn't hit the skull, transfer all its momentum to the head, and drop to the ground. It penetrates, and continues, with most of its momentum preserved.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 05, 2012, 08:19:06 PM
Which bullet hit Tague?
It was most likely a fragment of Oswald's third shot, the one that hit JFK in the back of the head and destroyed his brain. Having traveled less than 100 m, the bullet still had most of its original energy and was flying very stably. When it hit JFK's skull, it decelerated so quickly that the resulting force exceeded the compressive strength of the bullet and it began to disintegrate. The fragments moved through JFK's brain, leaving small bits of metal along the track that were seen in X-ray during autopsy. I think, but would have to check, that several of these fragments were recovered during the autopsy.

Two large fragments were found in the front of the limousine. Their total mass was much less than the mass of the original bullet so there were obviously many others. These two fragments were definitively matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons, and neutron activation analysis later showed them to be part of the same bullet. They apparently exited JFK's head near the right frontal sinus. At least one hit the inside of the windshield, cracking it but not puncturing it as an intact, full-energy bullet would have done.

One bullet fragment from JFK's head, apparently consisting entirely of lead from the bullet's core, continued downrange. It grazed the corner of a curb on Main St and left a streak of lead without actually chipping the concrete. It apparently continued until it struck James Tague in the face, wounding him slightly.

The object that struck the curb could only have been a bullet fragment. An intact bullet would have broken the concrete and left traces of jacket metal (copper/zinc), not just lead. Had an intact bullet hit Tague, even one that had ricocheted off the curb, he would have been wounded far more seriously than he was.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 05, 2012, 08:38:44 PM
One bullet fragment from JFK's head, apparently consisting entirely of lead from the bullet's core, continued downrange. It grazed the corner of a curb on Main St and left a streak of lead without actually chipping the concrete. It apparently continued until it struck James Tague in the face, wounding him slightly.

Is all this conjecture or is there any proof?

There is or is or is there ain't official pictures available?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 05, 2012, 08:43:36 PM
It penetrates, and continues, with most of its momentum preserved.
one possible scenario, another is, bullet strikes a bone and transfers completely all of its momentum to the bone and surrounding tissue.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 05, 2012, 08:47:26 PM
Clearly, you do not comprehend the concept of fragmentation.
Yea yea I get it
I thought a concrete fragment nicked Tague.
How is it you know that a piece of lead that hit Teague, and where is the official evidence of the mark on the curb?
Is there a laboratory report on the analysis of the nick on Teague's cheek?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Ranb on June 05, 2012, 08:59:04 PM
profmunkin,

You really need to educate yourself just a little bit about firearms and ballistics.  There is no way you are going to be able to determine how much a body will move when hit by a bullet unless you know how much energy is transferred to it upon impact.  You will need to know the change in mass and velocity as it passes through.

Bullet kinetic energy is calculated by multiplying half the weight (in slugs or grams) by the square of the speed (in feet per second or meters per second)  A 162 grain (10.4 grams) bullet moving 2200 fps gives us about 1741 ft-lbs of energy.

Determining how much a rifle kicks is more difficult.  Look here; http://kwk.us/recoil.html

Fill in the values for the Carcano and we get a recoil velocity of about 9 fps and energy of 9 ft-lbs.

Ranb
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: DataCable on June 05, 2012, 09:06:14 PM
one possible scenario, another is, bullet strikes a bone and transfers completely all of its momentum to the bone and surrounding tissue.
So you're saying that bullets do not penetrate bone.

[Edit to emphasize relevant portion of quote.]
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 05, 2012, 09:29:43 PM
Acoustics?
"Mr. LIEBELER. There was in fact a considerable echo in that area? Mr. TAGUE. There was no echo from where I stood. I was asked this question before, and there was no echo. It was just a loud, oh, not a cannon, but definitely louder and more solid than a rifleshot."

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 05, 2012, 09:36:04 PM
"Mr. TAGUE. I believe they came from up in here.
Mr. LIEBELER. Back in the area"C"?
Mr. TAGUE. Right.
Mr. LIEBELER. Behind the concrete monument here between Nos. 5 and 7, toward the general area of "C"?
Mr. TAGUE. Yes. "
picket fence <-

"Mr. TAGUE. Right. When we got within about 20 feet, the deputy sheriff spotted the place about 12 to 15 feet out from the embankment on the curb, and turned around, and we looked up here where the policeman originally ran up on the grass here.
Mr. LIEBELER. There is an area circled here with the letter "C" in it. Is that where the policeman ran toward the grassy area; included in that circle, is that right? "

direction of the mark is "the grassy knoll"?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: DataCable on June 05, 2012, 09:36:38 PM
Ballistics?

one possible scenario, another is, bullet strikes a bone and transfers completely all of its momentum to the bone and surrounding tissue.
So you're saying that bullets do not penetrate bone.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on June 05, 2012, 10:16:29 PM
It penetrates, and continues, with most of its momentum preserved.
one possible scenario, another is, bullet strikes a bone and transfers completely all of its momentum to the bone and surrounding tissue.

You believe that the head shot bullet didn't penetrate JFK's head?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 05, 2012, 11:12:24 PM
So you're saying that bullets do not penetrate bone.
Did not say that.
The bullet could do lots of things
Bullet may lodge in bone
Bullet may penetrate.
Bullet may penetrate and disintegrate
Bullet may richochet off bone.
Bullet may richochet and disintegrate
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 05, 2012, 11:43:30 PM
Acoustics?
"Mr. LIEBELER. There was in fact a considerable echo in that area? Mr. TAGUE. There was no echo from where I stood. I was asked this question before, and there was no echo. It was just a loud, oh, not a cannon, but definitely louder and more solid than a rifleshot."



How many more times do you need telling that an echo is not necessarily detectable as an echo? You will hear a short sharp sound whether it comes directly to your ears or if it comes via a reflection off a structure first. If the sound happenes to reach both your ears at the same time you have no way of telling which direction it came from.

Again, personal experience. In my shooting exercise example I did not hear anything that cued me in to the fact I was hearing an echo. I only knew I must be because I knew exactly where the shots had to be coming from.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 05, 2012, 11:44:19 PM
direction of the mark is "the grassy knoll"?

Still irrelevant, as Tague is no less likely to be deceived by an echo than any other person in that plaza.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 05, 2012, 11:46:54 PM
So you're saying that bullets do not penetrate bone.
Did not say that.
The bullet could do lots of things
Bullet may lodge in bone
Bullet may penetrate.
Bullet may penetrate and disintegrate
Bullet may richochet off bone.
Bullet may richochet and disintegrate


Well then, to use your own method of debating, provide evidence that a high powered rifle bullet does any of those things on impacting a human skull.

We know full well that all the bullet's momentum was not tranferred to the head, because there was a large shower of bone and brain matter. The only souce for the momentum of that material was the bullet.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 06, 2012, 12:16:38 AM

Well then, to use your own method of debating, provide evidence that a high powered rifle bullet does any of those things on impacting a human skull.

We know full well that all the bullet's momentum was not transferred to the head, because there was a large shower of bone and brain matter. The only souce for the momentum of that material was the bullet.
In wc doctors from parkland say a bullets behavior and path can be unpredictable.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 06, 2012, 12:20:37 AM
And yet earlier on this thread you were demanding proof of duplication of the precise condition of the so-called 'pristine' bullet, and dismissing our efforts to explain to you that the number of variables (and the resulting unpredictablilty of the bullet's path and effects) makes that impossible.

So either a bullet's path and condition can be duplicated or a bullet's path and condition can be unpredictable. Apparently it depends on what you need to be true to make your argument, doesn't it?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: DataCable on June 06, 2012, 12:34:36 AM
So you're saying that bullets do not penetrate bone.
Did not say that.
Yes, you did:

bullet strikes a bone and transfers completely all of its momentum to the bone and surrounding tissue.
That means:
Bullet comes to a complete stop
Bone and surrounding tissue continues with momentum transferred from the bullet.
Ergo, the bullet does not penetrate the bone.

Quote
The bullet could do lots of things
Bullet may lodge in bone
Transferring how much momentum in the process?

Quote
Bullet may penetrate.
Transferring how much momentum in the process?

Quote
Bullet may penetrate and disintegrate
Transferring how much momentum in the process?

Quote
Bullet may richochet off bone.
Transferring how much momentum in the process?

Quote
Bullet may richochet and disintegrate
Transferring how much momentum in the process?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 06, 2012, 04:11:31 AM
Mr. LIEBELER. There is an area circled here with the letter "C" in it. Is that where the policeman ran toward the grassy area; included in that circle, is that right? "

direction of the mark is "the grassy knoll"?
As people keep trying to explain to you, repeatedly but to no avail, it doesn't matter where Tague thought the shot came from! We already know, from abundant evidence, exactly where it came from: the easternmost window on the south side of the 6th floor of the TSBD. Why can't you understand this? Why are you still so desperately anxious to fool yourself into thinking it came from someplace else?

Draw a line from Oswald's window in the southeast corner of the TSBD through the "X" on Elm St where JFK was hit by the head shot. Continue that line to the southwest until it crosses the south curb of Main St. It does so very close to the lead mark on the curb just east of where Tague was standing at the time. This is completely consistent with Tague having been hit by a fragment of Oswald's third bullet that exited the front of JFK's head, continued downrange to that point on the curb and then ricocheted into Tague's face. Or Tague could have been hit by a separate fragment from the one that hit the curb, with the two taking almost the same trajectories; there's no way to know for sure. We do know that the bullet that hit JFK in the head fragmented extensively and the total mass of the recovered fragments in the limo was considerably less than that of an intact bullet. Obviously much of the bullet went elsewhere.

When seen from above, Oswald's rifle, JFK's head and the curb mark (or Tague) are close to collinear (form a straight line). But they do not have to be exactly so because the fragment(s) were certainly deflected as they passed through JFK. In fact, an upward deflection was necessary just to clear the windshield. Fragments of the third shot are known to have struck the inside of the windshield and a modest upward deflection (16 degrees according to Dale Myers) was also necessary for them to reach this spot.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 06, 2012, 04:28:49 AM
In wc doctors from parkland say a bullets behavior and path can be unpredictable.
Yes, bullets can indeed be unpredictable. Why? Because you can't exactly control or even precisely measure all the conditions of every shot. As hard as you try, there will always be some slightly different initial condition that may lead to a different outcome. The wind might pick up a little, or change direction. The cartridge might have slightly more or less powder than the last, or be at a slightly different temperature. The rifle barrel will warm up with each shot and change its shape ever so slightly. The air density along the bullet's path may fluctuate slightly as warm air convects off the ground. And so on and on.

This principle is the foundation of what's now known as chaos theory.

All that said, every bullet will still follow all the laws of physics, without exception. Even if the initial energy given to the bullet varies a little from shot to shot, that energy will always be conserved. Even if the bullet fragments in a slightly different way when it hits the target, the total momentum of all those fragments plus that of the target will always be conserved. And so on.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 06, 2012, 12:01:40 PM

When seen from above, Oswald's rifle, JFK's head and the curb mark (or Tague) are close to collinear (form a straight line). But they do not have to be exactly so because the fragment(s) were certainly deflected as they passed through JFK. In fact, an upward deflection was necessary just to clear the windshield. Fragments of the third shot are known to have struck the inside of the windshield and a modest upward deflection (16 degrees according to Dale Myers) was also necessary for them to reach this spot.
Where did you get the evidence that the mark was collinear with the TSBD

Where are the official FBI or Dallas Police photos of this evidence?
Where is the official FBI or Dallas Police reports concerning this evidence?
Did they search for the bullet fragment that caused this mark, did they locate it?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on June 06, 2012, 02:55:16 PM
And certainly the bullets will tend to go in a straight line until something happens to prevent it--like hitting someone or something, for example.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 06, 2012, 04:31:09 PM
Tague is certainly a lot more colinear with the TSBD and Kennedy than he is with the knoll and Kennedy. His injury and Kennedy's head wound are certainly more consistent with the known behaviour of bullets than some fanciful notion of a near 90 degree deflection required for Kennedy's head wound and Tague's injury to be caused by someone shooting from the knoll.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on June 06, 2012, 04:50:11 PM
Oh, sure.  I don't think the mystery of exactly which shot, first or third, he was struck by a fragment of will ever be resolved.  I'm just saying that any changes in trajectory for a TSBD shot involve known physics.  Changes in trajectory required for a Grassy Knoll shot do not.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 06, 2012, 07:23:41 PM
Where did you get the evidence that the mark was collinear with the TSBD
I used Google Earth; you can too.

I used Tague's WC testimony to locate him. During the shooting he was standing between Commerce St and Main St just east of the bridge abutment of the triple underpass, about 3-4 feet in front of the embankment. He marked this location as "6" on Warren Commission exhibit CE354, an aerial photo of Dealy Plaza.

After the shooting a deputy sheriff noticed blood on Tague's cheek. They walked back to Tague's location during the shooting and found a fresh mark on the south curb of Main St about 12-15 feet east of where Tague had been standing. Tague was not sure when he was hit; it was either the second or third shot.

Although at the time Tague thought the shots came somewhere from "area C" (the grassy knoll) he was specifically asked if he thought the shots could actually have come from the 6th floor of the TSBD. He said yes. Note that from Tague's position the shooter's true location (6th floor TSBD) was only about 10 degrees right of the grassy knoll area. Not much.

Using Google Earth I drew a line from Oswald's window on the 6th floor of the TSBD through the "X" in the street where JFK was struck in the head from behind at Z313. This was the flight path of Oswald's third bullet. It has an azimuth of 210.4 degrees clockwise from true north.

I continued that line southwest to represent the flight path of a fragment leaving JFK's head without any horizontal deflection. It intersects the south curb of Main St about 50 feet east of the bullet mark.

I then drew a second line from the "X" on the street to the bullet mark on the curb. Its azimuth is 218 degrees. In other words, a mere 8 degrees of deflection would cause a fragment leaving JFK's head to hit the mark on the curb.

We know that Oswald's third bullet produced many fragments. Only two large ones were found, on the floor of the limo, and their combined weight was much less than a complete bullet. If Tague and the curb were hit by separate fragments, then the one that hit Tague directly would have had an azimuth of 218.8 degrees. That's still only 8.4 degrees of deflection.
Quote
Where are the official FBI or Dallas Police photos of this evidence?
A picture of the bullet mark on the curb is Tague Exhibit 1 in the Warren Commission collection.
Quote
Where is the official FBI or Dallas Police reports concerning this evidence?
Did they search for the bullet fragment that caused this mark, did they locate it?
At this point I think you can search for that information yourself.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 06, 2012, 08:17:34 PM
Tague is certainly a lot more colinear with the TSBD and Kennedy than he is with the knoll and Kennedy. His injury and Kennedy's head wound are certainly more consistent with the known behaviour of bullets than some fanciful notion of a near 90 degree deflection required for Kennedy's head wound and Tague's injury to be caused by someone shooting from the knoll.
Maybe it was the acoustics, since Tague imagined that the sound came from the picket fence / grassy knoll area, Tague was able to telekineticly alter the bullets path or the way the bullet marked on the concrete to appear as so it was coming from the knoll, when in reality it was coming from the TSBD. This is plausible, don't you think?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 06, 2012, 08:33:47 PM
Oh, sure.  I don't think the mystery of exactly which shot, first or third, he was struck by a fragment of will ever be resolved.
The Warren Commission concluded that a fragment from the third (head) shot most likely hit Tague. Sturdivan, in The JFK Myths (which I recommend), agrees. Tague himself thought it was either the second or third shot, and we know for certain it couldn't have been the second. But most importantly, Tague, JFK and Oswald were closest to collinear (forming a straight line) at the time of the third shot, and we know that this bullet fragmented quite extensively when it hit JFK's skull. So I agree with both the WC and Sturdivan.

It's now pretty much agreed that Oswald's first shot completely missed the limousine. But it still could not possibly have hit Tague or the curb near him. The curb mark was pure lead, meaning it had to have been made by the core of a bullet after separation from its jacket. Whatever hit the curb also lacked the energy to even damage the concrete, only leaving a smear of lead.

Problem is, we still don't know exactly when the first shot was fired because the only indicators in the Z film are the startled reactions of the bystanders. That makes it hard to tell exactly what did happen to the first bullet.  Sturdivan says that Oswald's first shot could have been as early as Z152. His view was not yet obstructed by the oak tree, but he would have had to fire more sharply downward from a different and less ideal shooting position than his later two shots. Even though the car was very close, its rapid angular motion past Oswald could have caused him to miss. Or he might have fired accidentally, or he might simply have been nervous.  The one man who could tell us is long dead, so who knows?

A witness, Virgie Rachley, saw the first shot hit the street but she was inconsistent about whether it was behind or in front of the limousine. Sturdivan says that even if the first bullet hit the street intact, i.e., without deflection by the oak tree, it hit at such a steep angle that it would necessarily have fragmented and buried itself. It could not possibly have been deflected downrange toward Tague.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 06, 2012, 08:40:45 PM
Tague was able to telekineticly alter the bullets path[...]This is plausible, don't you think?
Ordinarily I would assume that no one could say this without their tongue firmly planted in cheek, but with you I am unwilling to make such an assumption.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 06, 2012, 08:40:49 PM
I think you can search for that information yourself.
Why you wasting your time google searching? Why would you want to guess where Mr. LIEBELER asked Tague to pinpoint the locations.

Just pull up Commission Exhibit No. 354 it has all the locations, area (c) and number (7) already marked on the map, exhibit 354.
It indicates the exact spot Tague was indicating as the location for the shots and the direction of the mark, coincidentally or not, both are at the corner of the picket fence on the grassy knoll.

Where is this key piece of evidence, the mark on the concrete?

Ya you betcha, I could spend my life searching for information that 1 is not there or 2 it is classified because it indicates the grassy knoll as the direction of the shot.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 06, 2012, 09:02:35 PM
"Mr. LIEBELER. Immediately to your left, or toward the back? Of course, now we have other evidence that would indicate that the shots did come from the Texas School Book Depository, but see if we can disregard that and determine just what you heard when the shots were fired in the first place. "

Ya, lets.just.disregard.this, Mr Liebler now ask Tague again if the shots could have come from the TSBD, after he just told you multiple times he thought the shots came from the picket fence.

Not only leading the witness, Liebler is asking for an opinion, if it would be feasible based on
Tague just having been told the shots came from the TSBD, this is why they required a judge and a active defence lawyer.

But wait he holds out
"Mr. TAGUE. To recall everything is almost impossible. Just an impression is all I recall, is the fact that my first impression was that up by the, whatever you call the monument, or whatever it was---- "

Leading the witness is the exact offence they claimed Mark Lane was doing with witnesses, Marks rebuttal was that is exactly what a lawyer for the defence does, not the prosecution.

Wait Liebler is not giving up so easily. Not again, damn it!
"Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think that it is consistent with what you heard and saw that day, that the shots could have come from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. TAGUE. Yes."
 
Just remember this, he did not say he thought the shots came from the TSBD, he said they came from picket fence.
Twist it however you will, because you will.

Interesting there was 1 or 2 other police officers with Tague, where are their testimonies?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 06, 2012, 09:28:08 PM
Why you wasting your time google searching? Why would you want to guess where Mr. LIEBELER asked Tague to pinpoint the locations.
You're making even less sense than usual.

I would be wasting my time looking for all this information if were I doing it just for you. You already know what you want to believe, and you damn well aren't about to let mere facts and logic get in your way.

I'm looking to satisfy my own curiosity, and also to help ensure that your nonsense doesn't go unrefuted.
Quote
Just pull up Commission Exhibit No. 354 it has all the locations, area (c) and number (7) already marked on the map, exhibit 354.
Didn't I just cite that exact exhibit for you?
Quote
It indicates the exact spot Tague was indicating as the location for the shots and the direction of the mark, coincidentally or not, both are at the corner of the picket fence on the grassy knoll.
What?! You haven't even looked at CE354, have you?

If you'd actually looked at CE354 and actually read what Tague said, you'd know that (7) is merely where Tague saw a policeman park his motorcycle and talk to some witnesses. Tague approached this policeman to tell him what he'd seen. (Tague said one of the witnesses saw the President's head explode. This was almost certainly Abraham Zapruder; his filming spot was close to point (7), and he gave very similar statements several times that day, including in his live TV interview.)

If you'd actually looked at CE354, you'd know that it does not show the lead mark on the curb at all, much less its direction. Tague only located the mark in his verbal testimony. He said nothing about its direction.

And finally, if you'd actually read and understood Tague's testimony you'd know that he described his subjective impression of the source of the shots as "Behind the concrete monument here between Nos. 5 and 7, toward the general area of "C". And then he agreed that the shots could easily have come from the TSBD, their actual location.
Quote
Where is this key piece of evidence, the mark on the concrete?
I told you it was photographed in Tague Exhibit 1. Why is it 'key'?
Quote
Ya you betcha, I could spend my life searching for information that 1 is not there or 2 it is classified because it indicates the grassy knoll as the direction of the shot.
Yeah, you probably could spend your life searching for information indicating the grassy knoll as the source of the shot. That's because such information does not exist and never did exist.

It really isn't that hard to learn where the shots actually came from. You just have to set aside your fervent wish that they came from the grassy knoll and look at the actual evidence, and that seems to be completely impossible for you.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on June 06, 2012, 09:28:27 PM
What Liebeler did was the exact opposite of leading the witness. Did you miss the part where he said to ignore the TSBD?

Your constant lying is getting old. Tague said he thought the shots came from the monument, not the picket fence.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on June 06, 2012, 09:54:28 PM
One important detail to know about Tague is that he was hit on the right cheek. In another odd coincidence in a case where very little appears to be what it is Tague cut his left cheek a week before the assassination and the photo of him taken the day after has lead many to believe he was hit on the left cheek.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 06, 2012, 10:17:13 PM
Leading the witness is the exact offence they claimed Mark Lane was doing with witnesses, Marks rebuttal was that is exactly what a lawyer for the defence does, not the prosecution.
Since Lane is a lawyer, albeit a dishonest one, I'll presume that he actually knows the rules regarding leading questions and so you're simply misquoting him -- just as you misquote so many others.

The allowability of leading questions has nothing to do with being a defense or prosecuting attorney. Leading questions are disallowed in direct examination, that is, questioning a witness you called for your own side, because it can seem too much like "coaching" the witness to give you the answers you want.

But leading questions are perfectly acceptable during cross examination, i.e., when you're examining a witness already called and questioned by the other side. He is presumed to be hostile or antagonistic to your case and therefore unlikely to allow himself to be "coached" to the answers you want.

Both the prosecution and the defense can call witnesses, forcing them to appear (having the judge issue subpoenas) if necessary. Both sides are entitled to cross examine the other side's witnesses, using leading questions if they wish.

Most witnesses are willing to help the side that calls them, but not always. For example, a prosecutor might call a friend or relative of the defendant who, for obvious reasons, would prefer not to testify against the defendant.  But unless the witness qualifies for one of several specific privileges (spousal, attorney/client, doctor/patient, priest/penitent, etc) or invokes his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, he must testify. The court can even toss him in jail temporarily for contempt until he does. (Even if he invokes the Fifth, he can still be compelled to testify if he is granted immunity from prosecution for his compelled testimony.)

Since few witnesses are willing to go to jail to avoid testifying, it's more likely that they'll simply drag their feet on the witness stand. If the attorney who called them is unhappy about it, he can ask the judge to declare the witness "hostile", meaning that he can conduct his direct examination of the witness as though it were a cross examination -- including the use of leading questions.

10 years ago, a San Diego man named David Westerfield was accused of kidnapping and murdering a 7 year old girl. One of the major prosecution witnesses was Westerfield's son, who was obviously quite unhappy with the idea of testifying against his own father. But there is no parent/child privilege, so he had no choice but to help convict his dad who was in fact sentenced to death. I don't remember if the prosecution actually asked to have the son declared a hostile witness, but it seems likely.

Note that leading questions are not loaded questions.  A leading question is one that merely suggests the answer: "On November 22, 1963 at 11AM you were in the Texas School Book Depository Building, were you not?" A loaded question is one based on an invalid or improper premise. The all-time classic example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Leading questions are okay in examining a hostile witness; loaded questions are never OK in any type of examination.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 06, 2012, 10:24:05 PM
One important detail to know about Tague is that he was hit on the right cheek.
Thank you, I was wondering about that, as I didn't see him asked that question. It makes perfect sense if he was struck by the same fragment that first hit the Main St curb to his right as he faced the motorcade.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 06, 2012, 10:55:48 PM
Speaking of compelled testimony and privilege, several authors have made the very good point that we probably know much more, not less, about Oswald's role in the JFK assassination because he was murdered before he could stand trial.

So much of what we know, including the critical fact that he shot at General Walker in April 1963, comes from Marina, his widow. No one else was at all close to him or knew as many of his secrets. Because of the spousal privilege, Marina could not have been compelled to testify against Lee Oswald, and it's quite likely we wouldn't have learned nearly as much as we did.

What I don't know is whether the law in Texas in 1963 would have allowed Oswald to keep his wife from testifying even if she had wanted to. Times were different, and wives didn't always have the same rights as their husbands. Today, of course, the spousal privilege can be waived and many wives and husbands do testify against their spouses with devastating effect. Anybody know more about this?

It should go without saying that if Oswald had lived, he could not have been compelled to testify against himself at his trial. Since most Americans are aware of our absolute Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination, it's even more puzzling to me that so many people see Oswald's death as a barrier to discovering the truth. Perhaps people think he would have confessed eventually. Maybe he would have, but that was not the opinion of Capt. Fritz and everyone else who interrogated him that weekend. They all agreed that he would never confess.

Now Oswald certainly helped implicate himself by telling many provable lies during interrogation. We know Oswald thought a great deal of himself. He may well have deluded himself into thinking he really could outsmart an entire army of trained and experienced criminal investigators working on the biggest case of their careers. Certainly many other people suspected of much lesser crimes foolishly give up their right to remain silent and speak to the police, only to regret it.

 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on June 06, 2012, 11:10:21 PM
Tague is certainly a lot more colinear with the TSBD and Kennedy than he is with the knoll and Kennedy. His injury and Kennedy's head wound are certainly more consistent with the known behaviour of bullets than some fanciful notion of a near 90 degree deflection required for Kennedy's head wound and Tague's injury to be caused by someone shooting from the knoll.
Maybe it was the acoustics, since Tague imagined that the sound came from the picket fence / grassy knoll area, Tague was able to telekineticly alter the bullets path or the way the bullet marked on the concrete to appear as so it was coming from the knoll, when in reality it was coming from the TSBD. This is plausible, don't you think?

Actually, that's just about as logical as your suggestion that a bullet from right-front of JFK would have hit his head and, instead of proceeding to kill him AND Jackie, somehow disappeared or made a 90 degree turn inside the brain tissue. Or that a bullet hitting a skull would transfer ALL its momentum (meaning its velocity would drop to zero, and the bullet itself would drop to the ground).

So, hey, if those sorts of fantasies float your boat, go ahead.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 06, 2012, 11:32:30 PM
Or that a bullet hitting a skull would transfer ALL its momentum (meaning its velocity would drop to zero, and the bullet itself would drop to the ground).
A bullet could transfer all of its momentum to a skull if it embedded itself inside, never emerging, creating an exit wound or ejecting any matter at all.

But that's certainly not what happened when Oswald's third bullet hit JFK in the back of the head. It transferred enough momentum to his head to move it noticeably forward during just one film frame time. Much of that momentum (and probably more) then departed through the skull defect, helping move his head in the opposite direction (i.e., toward the shooter) though most of that motion was probably caused by a massive neuromuscular spasm.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 07, 2012, 12:51:22 AM
"Mr. LIEBELER. Do you think that it is consistent with what you heard and saw that day, that the shots could have come from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. TAGUE. Yes."


"We have people who will testify at the saw the President shot from the front. He said : You can always get people to testify about something" and say about anything.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 07, 2012, 03:07:52 AM
Right, which is exactly why it's so utterly pointless for you to keep looking for witnesses who thought the shots came from someplace other than the TSBD, their actual source. It's exactly why the physical evidence is so important. Evidence that you go far out of your way to ignore.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 07, 2012, 03:53:48 AM
Maybe it was the acoustics, since Tague imagined that the sound came from the picket fence / grassy knoll area

You really are desperate to avoid learning anything about real science, aren't you? Tague did not 'imagine' the sound came from there, the sound that reached his ears quite probably did come from there. You seem stubbornly unable to understand the difference between the direction of a sound and the direction of the source of that sound. Yes, they can be different, just as a squash ball can smack you in the face from any given direction, even if the person who sent it to you is standing behind you, depending on which, if any, walls it bounced off on its way between the person who hit it and your face. You still get hit from the direction of the last surface it bounced off.

Quote
Tague was able to telekineticly alter the bullets path or the way the bullet marked on the concrete to appear as so it was coming from the knoll, when in reality it was coming from the TSBD. This is plausible, don't you think?

Why is it people who don't understand science think that any old fairytale is just as plausible as the counterintuitive (but readily demonstrated and understood for centuries) situations that occur in reality?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: SolusLupus on June 07, 2012, 11:37:57 AM
Wow, 70 pages of this.  Was an... interesting read.  I got about halfway before giving up, so I zoomed ahead to page 70, and it really seems like nothing really new was brought up.

Prof, I want to ask you honestly -- is it really so impossible for there to have been one shooter from the book depository building?  Can't the evidence all point to Oswell?  You really don't even have to give up the possibility of a conspiracy for that.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 07, 2012, 01:50:28 PM
Wow, 70 pages of this.  Was an... interesting read.  I got about halfway before giving up, so I zoomed ahead to page 70, and it really seems like nothing really new was brought up.

Prof, I want to ask you honestly -- is it really so impossible for there to have been one shooter from the book depository building?  Can't the evidence all point to Oswell?  You really don't even have to give up the possibility of a conspiracy for that.
Half way through, that is above and beyond the call of due diligence on this thread.  As you say, profmunkin never really got past the first few pages before he ran out of things to contribute.  There after it has been an exercise in evading his responsibility to prove his theory.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 08, 2012, 12:05:42 AM
"Mr. LIEBELER. I have another picture here that purports to be a picture of a curb with a bullet mark on it. I ask you if that looks like what you saw that day.
Mr. TAGUE. It looks similar, but I can't say whether this is the actual one or not, because you can see it appears to be a bullet mark.
Mr. LIEBELER. I have initialed this picture, having marked it Tague Exhibit No. 1, and I would like to have you initial it for the purpose of identification.

(Mr. Tague initials.)

Mr. LIEBELER. You indicate that the mark on the curb----
Mr. TAGUE. I can't tell too much which angle of the curb this is or what here. "

Liebeler asked Tague to identify a photo that purports (To have or present the often false appearance of being or intending)to be "of a curb with a bullet mark on it"
What curb, what bullet mark?
Tague can't positively identify the photo, but Liebeler asks Tague to initial the photo as if he had positively identified it.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 08, 2012, 12:18:18 AM
Gary Aguilar: "Gerald Posner, the author of the book Case Closed reported to the Congress Committee that he had interviewed both Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell at apparently the same time they were interviewed by the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1992...Dr. Boswell told me that had never spoken with Mr. Posner"
"Mr. Posner says, and I quote again: I would be happy, Mr. Chairman, to ask Drs. Humes and Boswell if they would agree for their notes to be released to the National Archives.

This occurred on November 17th. I called Dr. Boswell on March 30th, four-and-a-half months later, and at that time he had not yet spoken to him for the first time"

Aguilar gave the ARRB tapes of these conversations.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 08, 2012, 12:25:30 AM
Tague is certainly a lot more colinear with the TSBD and Kennedy than he is with the knoll and Kennedy. His injury and Kennedy's head wound are certainly more consistent with the known behaviour of bullets than some fanciful notion of a near 90 degree deflection required for Kennedy's head wound and Tague's injury to be caused by someone shooting from the knoll.
Why couldn't Tague determine if it was shot 2 or 3 or 4?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 08, 2012, 03:15:53 AM
Why couldn't Tague determine if it was shot 2 or 3 or 4?

I don't know. Maybe because he wasn't himself sure how many shots there were, and just maybe being hit in the face by something during a confused and chaotic and traumatic event like that might just have left his memory less than photographic.

This is the whole problem with eyewitness testimony that you are still unable to accept for some reason: human memory is unreliable. In traumatic events like being present when the President is unexpectedly shot to death and being hit by a fragment of bullet or bone the memory is even less reliable. Add to that the fact that every witness in the enquiry would have heard a lot of stories about the assassination simply because the media were all over it for obvious reasons and you have additional factors that can become confused with actual memories. Your whole argument is based on the premise that every witness should tell exactly the same story and be absolutely able to tell how many shots there were and where each one came from. That's just so absurdly flawed that you would never succeed in prosecuting a case in any court of law.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 08, 2012, 03:20:48 AM
Tague can't positively identify the photo, but Liebeler asks Tague to initial the photo as if he had positively identified it.

No, he asks Tague if it looks like what he saw. Nowhere in that exchange does he ask if that is definitely the curb with the bullet mark, and the testimony reflects that. Nor is there any inference in that snippet of dialogue that the initials are confirmation that Tague has positively identified that mark as the one resulting from the fragment that struck him. That's all your own doing.

As to your definition of the word 'purport', as expected you highlighted the word 'false' but glossed over the word 'often'. It does not mean that it is always false or suspect.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 08, 2012, 11:23:24 AM
Oh, and one more thing:

"Mr. LIEBELER. Immediately to your left, or toward the back? Of course, now we have other evidence that would indicate that the shots did come from the Texas School Book Depository, but see if we can disregard that and determine just what you heard when the shots were fired in the first place. "

Ya, lets.just.disregard.this, Mr Liebler now ask Tague again if the shots could have come from the TSBD, after he just told you multiple times he thought the shots came from the picket fence.

We will disregard this indeed, because Liebeler is referring to the fact that Tague has already said that he thought that the book depository was a possible source of the shots, based on his looking around after the shooting was done and noticing something in a window. It turned out not to be the window Oswald was at, but he immediately spotted the possibility that a shooter could have been up there and he might have been hit by something from there.

Later he was asked where he had the impression the sounds came from and he pointed to the grassy area as his impression of where the sound came from, but he had already mentioned the depository. Libeler is not being in any way 'leading'.

In fact Tague's testimony flies right in the face of your entire argument, because he says, both independently and when asked about it, that he found nothing inconsistent in the notion that his impression of where the shots came from and his spotting of a possible location of the shooter were not one and the same. In other words, he recognises quite well that there can be a discrepancy between those two things and that this is not unusual or grounds for suspicion.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 09, 2012, 01:17:41 AM
As to your definition of the word 'purport', as expected you highlighted the word 'false' but glossed over the word 'often'. It does not mean that it is always false or suspect.
In this case we know exactly what is meant by purport.
Since the photo is never defined by a source or which agency took the photo in addition it is not defined as how this photo is relevant or should be considered evidence. It's entered into testimony as "an unrelated by the way doesn't this sound familiar" and by the way just to prove you gave testimony concerning this photo, lets just both sign it...OK? This way it may appear that the photo has some evidentiary significance.

Purport in this case can only be considered as false or suspect.
The irony is that is exactly what he is telling you, do you get this?

This photo supposedly shows a bullet mark on a curb. If this is in Dealey Plaza, where is the FBI analysis of the bullet mark?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on June 09, 2012, 01:46:55 AM
I am constantly amused how CTists see evil intent in everything, even when it would be against the interests of the person doing it, assuming they had evil intent. The bad guys make bizarre admissions, when it would be clearly idiotic for them to do so.

Why would the Commission use the word "purported" to mean "false" when they were putting something on the record? It is clear from context that they were using the word simply to mean "assumed", or "not yet fully established". That is a legal term, and quite ordinary in its context.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 09, 2012, 05:09:14 AM
In this case we know exactly what is meant by purport.
Since the photo is never defined by a source or which agency took the photo in addition it is not defined as how this photo is relevant or should be considered evidence.

Absolute rubbish. You conveniently (as you always do) overlook the fact that another definition of 'purport' is 'intend'. It is relevant because the photo is intended to show a bullet mark on a curb such as was seen in Dealey plaza. It was probably taken in Dealey Plaza, but there was insufficient information to explcitly state that it was that same mark.

But no, you insist as you always do that there must be some nefarious intent behind the use of the words.

Quote
If this is in Dealey Plaza, where is the FBI analysis of the bullet mark?

Perhaps you'll enlighten us as to what analysis precisely is supposed to have been done on a smear of lead on a curb? Wow us with your technical expertise....

There are times when just seeing the evidence is quite adequate. What additional information will be obtained from 'analysing' the curb mark?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 09, 2012, 10:51:09 AM
I am constantly amused how CTists see evil intent in everything, even when it would be against the interests of the person doing it, assuming they had evil intent. The bad guys make bizarre admissions, when it would be clearly idiotic for them to do so.

Why would the Commission use the word "purported" to mean "false" when they were putting something on the record? It is clear from context that they were using the word simply to mean "assumed", or "not yet fully established". That is a legal term, and quite ordinary in its context.
Because what Liebeler inserted into the record had no evidentiary value to the assassination.
The Tague exhibit 1 was never defined as even being a mark on a curb in Dealey Plaza or specifically the mark on the curb that Tague could confirm as being "the mark on the curb" after the assassination.

Where is the testimony of Walthers or policeman (unidentified) as to corroborating the mark and the direction of the mark?
The FBI analysis?

This is nothing but fraud and deception, to understand that this "purported (false) evidence" is not fact and should NEVER have been allowed to be entered into the record without proper identification is necessary to understand how the WC framed the issues. This is one of the methods used through out the WC investigation, used to introduce non-sense into the record while giving the appearance that all of the issues were addressed.

Same as Liebeler asked Tague where the shots came from, Tague stated the picket fence
Same as Liebeler asked Tague direction of the mark, Tague stated the picket fence

Same as Liebeler asked Tague to conjecture if shots could have come from TSBD. When is this line of questioning allowed for a prosecution?




Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on June 09, 2012, 11:07:16 AM
prof, when you stop lying to everybody about where Tague said the shots came from then maybe you'll stop lying to yourself. Lying to other people is bad enough but lying to yourself is just pathetic.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 09, 2012, 11:10:07 AM
The Tague exhibit 1 was never defined as even being a mark on a curb in Dealey Plaza or specifically the mark on the curb that Tague could confirm as being "the mark on the curb" after the assassination.

So what? Tague was asked if it looked like what he saw, and he answered accordingly. The testimony clearly records the fact that neither Liebeler nor Tague can confirm that it was the actual mark. In fact neither of them can make too much sense of the image. Tague is not asked to initial it to confirm that it is the mark on the Dealey Plaza curb, but simply to indicate that he saw it and to confirm that the picture was the one used in the course of the interview.

Quote
The FBI analysis?

What analysis? Come on, we're all waiting for you to tell us exactly what analysis the FBI could and should have performed on that lead smear.

Quote
This is nothing but fraud and deception, to understand that this "purported (false) evidence" is not fact and should NEVER have been allowed to be entered into the record without proper identification is necessary to understand how the WC framed the issues.

No, what is necessary is to understand that the fact the image was not conclusively identified WAS RECORDED IN THE TESTIMONY. There is no deception there. The nature of the picture is very very clear.

Quote
Same as Liebeler asked Tague where the shots came from, Tague stated the picket fence
Same as Liebeler asked Tague direction of the mark, Tague stated the picket fence

Quote
Same as Liebeler asked Tague to conjecture if shots could have come from TSBD.

Yes, BECAUSE TAGUE HAD ALREADY DONE SO earlier in his statement. Tague was the first person in that testimony to mention the depository as a possible source of the shots. Liebeler did not lead him into that at all. As usual you rip one pice of testimony bleeding from its context and expect us to assess it on its own merits, but you have to discard a very significant piece of the testimony in order to do that.

Quote
When is this line of questioning allowed for a prosecution?

Is Tague's testimony part of a prosecution? As the commission is not a trial there can be no prosecution anyway. And in any case, Tague's testimony was a witness interview and not part of the commission proceedings.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 09, 2012, 11:50:27 AM

Perhaps you'll enlighten us as to what analysis precisely is supposed to have been done on a smear of lead on a curb? Wow us with your technical expertise....

There are times when just seeing the evidence is quite adequate. What additional information will be obtained from 'analysing' the curb mark?
I do not know what evidence they could have attained from the mark on the curb, do you?
BUT
Tague stated that he was able to discern the mark was directed toward the picket fence.
Tague testified that it was his impression that D.S. Walthers was able to discern the mark was directed toward the picket fence.
Tague testified that it was his impression that the "unidentified" policeman was able to discern the mark was directed toward the picket fence.

We can't know what the FBI could have determined or did determine.
Fact is, there is no report available for consideration.
Fact is, there is not even photo evidence available for consideration.
Fact is, the WC did not even ask Tague what it was about the mark that caused him to believe shot came from the picket fence, or Walters or policeman, so we don't have anything worthy of consideration.
That's how we get conspiricied loonies attempting to introduce concepts like co-linear, when they have no f-----g concept of the nature of the mark.

The greatest crime investigation in the history of the world, neglected to determine how Tague and the ricochet bullet as evidence was significant.
The goal the WC was after was for Tague to put on record the opinion it was plausible that the shots could have come from the TSBD, "case closed".


It is not always just what they said, it is also just as important to understand what they didn't say.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 09, 2012, 12:22:05 PM
I do not know....

That is the whole problem, isn't it.  From your admitted ignorance of investigative procedures and lack of interpretive skills, you want to cast doubt on the WC report.  Your entire approach is nothing more than FUD mongering. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 09, 2012, 01:40:49 PM
I do not know what evidence they could have attained from the mark on the curb, do you?

No, but I'm not the one insisting that there should have been some kind of analysis.

Quote
BUT
Tague stated that he was able to discern the mark was directed toward the picket fence.
Tague testified that it was his impression that D.S. Walthers was able to discern the mark was directed toward the picket fence.

Where exactly did he say that?

Quote
Fact is, the WC did not even ask Tague what it was about the mark that caused him to believe shot came from the picket fence, or Walters or policeman, so we don't have anything worthy of consideration.

No, what we have is his impression that the shots came from the picket fence and his suggestion that the book depository was a possible location he thought of at the time as a place the shots may have come from.

Quote
That's how we get conspiricied loonies attempting to introduce concepts like co-linear, when they have no f-----g concept of the nature of the mark.

The nature of the mark makes no differnce to the 'concept of colinear'. The only things we have described as roughly colinear are Oswald's location, the limo, the mark on the curb and Tague. They are all far more colinear than Tague, the limo, the mark and the knoll.

But no, true physics means nothing to you, does it?
Quote
The goal the WC was after was for Tague to put on record the opinion it was plausible that the shots could have come from the TSBD, "case closed".

Tague VOLUNTEERED that opinion early on in his testimony. he was NOT led to it, he was NOT co-erced to it, he was NOT misrepresented.

Quote
It is not always just what they said, it is also just as important to understand what they didn't say.

But it's a pretty good idea to start out by understanding what they did say, and so far you haven't actually demonstrated any ability to do that. In fact you have intentionally left bits of what was said out of your arguments. Why?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on June 09, 2012, 02:22:38 PM
You know, it wouldn't surprise me if the bits are getting left out because they simply don't appear in the source Profmunkin is using.  Because I don't really believe he's using the actual Warren Report.  I think he's using the pre-digested version which comes on some conspiracist site or another.  He seems awfully surprised every time information is given which shows that he's missing an important fact, and he digs in against it.  I take this to mean that someone he trusts is spoonfeeding him errors, and to question them would mean to question the person he trusts.  And since he has come to believe that you're either right about everything or a dirty, dirty liar, he cannot let himself disbelieve people he likes.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 09, 2012, 02:59:34 PM
You know, it wouldn't surprise me if the bits are getting left out because they simply don't appear in the source Profmunkin is using.  Because I don't really believe he's using the actual Warren Report. 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm

Good question, I have been using the above site to draw quotes from.

Maybe the mcadams site should not be used to draw evidence from.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 09, 2012, 04:00:57 PM
You know, it wouldn't surprise me if the bits are getting left out because they simply don't appear in the source Profmunkin is using.  Because I don't really believe he's using the actual Warren Report. 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm

Good question, I have been using the above site to draw quotes from.

Maybe the mcadams site should not be used to draw evidence from.

It is not evidence, it is testimony.  There is a difference. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 09, 2012, 04:08:19 PM
Good question, I have been using the above site to draw quotes from.

Maybe the mcadams site should not be used to draw evidence from.

Or maybe you should learn to read, or develop some kind of intellectual honesty when presenting your 'evidence'. That is the SAME place I looked at, and the SAME source for my statement that Tague is the first to mention the depository as a possible location for the shots, BEFORE Liebeler asks him if it is possible they came from there.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on June 09, 2012, 04:27:23 PM
For heaven's sake, that site is pro-Warren ReportI am the one who pointed Profmunkin to it, and every single time he's cited it, it has been shown that he's taking things out of context and is ignoring evidence presented later on the page.  I know we're all supposed to be pretending that we don't think Profmunkin is a sock, but isn't this level of intellectual dishonesty itself cause for censure from LO?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 09, 2012, 06:46:25 PM
You know, it wouldn't surprise me if the bits are getting left out because they simply don't appear in the source Profmunkin is using.  Because I don't really believe he's using the actual Warren Report. 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm

Good question, I have been using the above site to draw quotes from.

Maybe the mcadams site should not be used to draw evidence from.

It is not evidence, it is testimony.  There is a difference. 

I am retracting this, because while there is a difference, testimony is one form of evidence, so profmunkin's statement of drawing evidence from the web site is correct. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: SolusLupus on June 11, 2012, 10:49:30 PM
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm

Good question, I have been using the above site to draw quotes from.

Maybe the mcadams site should not be used to draw evidence from.

Prof, I'm going to give a shot at this here.  Do you know what cherry picking is?

It's where you start with a conclusion and work backwards, trying to fit every piece of data you can find to support the conclusion, ignoring everything else that doesn't seem to support it.

This is a very easy trap to fall into, especially when you're more concerned with "winning" an argument than finding a satisfactory conclusion involving the data.  The problem with conspiracy theories is that they almost invariably involve an extreme form of this kind of thinking, often presenting things far from the truth, to the point of just being a complete fabrication at points  (just see this for an example:  http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html).

You're looking into things to try to draw testimony into supporting your ideas, can't you see that?  You're not reading the testimony, you're reading snippets of the testimony and stopping when you see something that, when out of context (since you aren't reading for context), sounds suspicious.  You interpret every word to mean the most insidious possible definition of that word, every sentence to mean the most insidious meaning it can bear.

All the while, you aren't contributing anything.  You're saying, "Look at the suspicious things these people are saying", while not actually putting anything together.  Pointing out perceived discrepancies doesn't actually paint a convincing narrative.  In fact, the narrative you're going with, several shooters (even just two), seems highly unlikely, as it's extremely high risk for very little reward, by a party that you have yet to identify.

I really hope you someday learn to realize the problems with this.  It probably won't be in the lifespan of this thread, but I do hope you can take something away from this to make you think later on in your life.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Mr Gorsky on June 12, 2012, 06:43:49 AM
In many ways, what is going on in this thread is very similar to the stuff we see in the Apollo threads.

HB: Hey look at the anomaly in this picture.
AH: That isn't an anomaly, it is [scientific explanation]
HB: That's ridiculous, you are parroting the official story. Besides what about this anomaly in this other picture.
AH: *Facepalm*
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 12, 2012, 08:04:58 AM
HB: That's ridiculous, you are parroting the official story.

This is one I have never been able to extract a decent answer from any conspiracy theorist for: exactly how do they distinguish between parroting a story and actually repeating the truth? For example, it doesn't matter how many times you ask me, I'm going to tell you 2+2 = 4 because it does. That's the official line and one supported by reality. So am I just parroting the official line that 2+2 = 4 then?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 12, 2012, 08:07:03 AM
It's more like this:

while(1){
   HB: Hey look at the anomaly in this (randomly chosen) picture.
   AH: That isn't an anomaly, it is [scientific explanation]
   HB: That's ridiculous, you are parroting the official story.
   AH: *Facepalm*
}
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: SolusLupus on June 12, 2012, 04:41:45 PM
Prof, I know you're likely to get lost in all the people posting responses, and get back to pointing out perceived "inconsistencies".

I really do want to know if you read and thought about my post, #1063, though.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 12, 2012, 09:50:36 PM

Prof, I'm going to give a shot at this here.  Do you know what cherry picking is?

It's where you start with a conclusion and work backwards, trying to fit every piece of data you can find to support the conclusion, ignoring everything else that doesn't seem to support it.
Yes I agree with this definition.

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. The first report would have scared the hell out of Jarmin and Williams and Norman.

Have you ever worked in an old, open, wooden floored warehouse?
You can hear every step from people walking on the floor above you, peek thru the cracks, even pick-up conversations. A rifle report in an open warehouse would have a tremendous reverberation, there would be no mistaking it was directly above you.
Jarmin said the report came from below and left.
Jarmin and Williams said all three reports sounded like backfire from a motorcycle. (this means the sounds were like motorcycles in the motorcade back-firing in case you can't put this together)
(((Jarmin 8 years in the Army)))
ONLY Norman figured it out and ONLY after all three shots had been fired and ONLY after Jarmin had voiced an opinion that he thought someone maybe shooting at the President and ONLY after Norman remembered hearing a bolt and hulls hitting the floor, "that it may have come from above us"
Jarmin, Williams and Norman all said they did not hear anyone on the 6th floor
Williams said he did not hear ANYTHING from the 6th floor.
Jarmin, Williams and Norman all said the shots were not evenly spaced but like Bham....Bham.Bham, a few second pause between shot 1 and 2 the shot 2 followed immediately by shot 3. How can you ignore this information? These guys are 12 feet away, they should be able to discern the rhythm of the shots.
Williams was on the 6th floor eating lunch by the pair of windows adjacent to the nest, till just a few minutes before the motorcade came by, Why would Oswald not have just walked up to the 7th floor or do you believe he just took his chances and waited for Williams to leave?
Was Oswald hiding on the sixth floor or in the stairwell or on the 7th floor waiting to come down?
After the shooting, did Jarmin, Williams and Norman run downstairs to inform everyone? no they ran down to the West window to watch all of the activity on the grassy knoll and rail yard.
How did Oswald run by Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles on the stairwell without Victoria or Sandra seeing or hearing him on the steps?

Do you really believe Jarmin and Williams and Norman are that stupid, really, really, really, really?
If they are THAT stupid, why would you even consider any of Normans testimony including that he heard a bolt and hulls hitting the floor?

Cherry-picking-- me ? I think not
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: SolusLupus on June 12, 2012, 10:05:15 PM
First of all, you have terms mixed around.  Things that are not possible are never plausible.

Were any shooters spotted in the grassy knoll?  No, not a single one.  Did they leave behind shell casings or any trace they were there?  No, they did not.  Would it have been wise to carry an assassination with more than one shooter, then pretend it was only one?  No, it would not have.

Have I fired a gun before?  Yes.  Have I been in a large empty warehouse before?  Yes.

A gunshot in close quarters, especially with little in the way of the acoustics, does have a tendency to be so loud that it's not easy to directly pinpoint.  Echo is always a concern with loud noises, too.

Do I "really believe Jarmin and Williams and Norman are that stupid, really, really, really, really?"  No, I do not "really, really, really, really" believe they were stupid.

But you're still picking at small cherries here, and insisting they make a pie.  They don't.

We have video evidence of the shooting.

We have forensic evidence of the shooting.

We have a vast preponderance of testimony, not just a handful of people.

We have the gun.  We have the bullets.  Oswald shot a police officer before ducking into a theater.

You're accusing us of "cherry picking", but all of us can recognize this vast wealth of information.  You, however, pick out three people and say "That's the evidence!  What they said sounds fishy to me!  SO THERE MUST HAVE BEEN MORE THAN ONE SHOOTER".
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 12, 2012, 10:34:21 PM
Victoria Adams gave testimony to WC, she was on the 4th floor at an open window in the TSBD.
3 set of windows from the east, or 1 widow to the West of were Jarmin was.
She stated the shots came from "right below" dah dah dah dah...grassy knoll.
Adams was with Sandra Styles (she was not asked to testify to the WC), Elsie Dorman (she was not asked to testify to the WC) and Dorothy Garner (she was not asked to testify to the WC)

cherry-picking, you got to be kidding

Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles were running down the steps after the shooting, the WC recognized this as a problem in timing, but never resolved it, they refused to do a time study on Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles even after Victoria requested one, the FBI or WC told her that she couldn't have been on the steps then because Oswald was on them, she was told she was mistaken. Victoria Adams asked to have Sandra Styles give testimony to the WC, Victoria as told that they had her story, they didn't need Styles.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 12, 2012, 10:58:10 PM
First of all, you have terms mixed around.  Things that are not possible are never plausible.
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!



Were any shooters spotted in the grassy knoll?  No, not a single one.

> YES 5 witnesses saw gunmen
> YES 4 saw puff of smoke
 
 Did they leave behind shell casings or any trace they were there?  No, they did not.  Would it have been wise to carry an assassination with more than one shooter, then pretend it was only one?  No, it would not have.
> Why would they leave shells behind?
> Don't know, but appearantly you do


Have I fired a gun before?  Yes.  Have I been in a large empty warehouse before?  Yes.
> And <
A gunshot in close quarters, especially with little in the way of the acoustics, does have a tendency to be so loud that it's not easy to directly pinpoint.  Echo is always a concern with loud noises, too.
>please address the issue, can you detect the direction of gun firing from 12 feet away from an open space not?  Remember Jarmin, Williams, Norman, Styles, Adams, Dorman and Garner were close to this distance, hanging out open windows.
>If you dodge the obvious you just come off looking like a toadie.


Do I "really believe Jarmin and Williams and Norman are that stupid, really, really, really, really?"  No, I do not "really, really, really, really" believe they were stupid.
>Well then explain their testimony and actions

But you're still picking at small cherries here, and insisting they make a pie.  They don't.
>I got a bowl of cherries you got nothin!

We have video evidence of the shooting.
>Really?
We have forensic evidence of the shooting.
>Really?
We have a vast preponderance of testimony, not just a handful of people.
>Not True, at least as far as witnesses in Dealey Plaza.
We have the gun.  We have the bullets.  Oswald shot a police officer before ducking into a theater.
>Really?

You're accusing us of "cherry picking", but all of us can recognize this vast wealth of information.  You, however, pick out three people and say "That's the evidence!  What they said sounds fishy to me!  SO THERE MUST HAVE BEEN MORE THAN ONE SHOOTER".
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 12, 2012, 10:59:56 PM
I am getting so sick of promunkin's repetitious nonsense.  He goes away to recharg and each time he comes back with a slightly greater air of desperation and need to cherry pick and ignore all the criticism that has been given for these 72 pages.  I propose that he be given a warning to address his critics on this board or if he fails to do that, he will be banned.

It is really a simple question,  who made the shots and where were they.  Give us this and the support for the accusation.  Failing a complete answer to this, profmunkin should be banned. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 12, 2012, 11:17:51 PM
It is really a simple question,  who made the shots and where were they.  Give us this and the support for the accusation.  Failing a complete answer to this, profmunkin should be banned.

I'm going to make it official.

Profmunkin, you have until the end of the day Friday (June 15, 2012) to provide us with the answers to our questions. Who fired the shots that hit President Kennedy and Governor Connally, and what was the location of the assassin (or assassins)? Explain to us why your scenario makes more sense than Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone gunman.

If you do not provide these answers in the time I have allotted you will be permanently banned. I believe I have been extremely generous in allowing you to make over 400 posts despite what you did to the Proboards forum, but it's time for you to prove you're not just a troll.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 12, 2012, 11:22:12 PM
I propose that he be given a warning to address his critics on this board or if he fails to do that, he will be banned.
It is really a simple question,  who made the shots and where were they.  Give us this and the support for the accusation.  Failing a complete answer to this, profmunkin should be banned.
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: SolusLupus on June 12, 2012, 11:32:01 PM
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!

Ad hominem.  Strawman.

The gunshot has been replicated.  It has been replicated several times.  The bullet was damaged.  Images of it have been shown in this thread several times, and each time you've ignored them.


Quote
Did they leave behind shell casings or any trace they were there?  No, they did not.  Would it have been wise to carry an assassination with more than one shooter, then pretend it was only one?  No, it would not have.
> Why would they leave shells behind?
> Don't know, but appearantly you do

Apparently, they were really good at keeping themselves hidden, keeping their weapons hidden, not leaving a single trace of evidence they were there, and being a place that could easily have been exposed... kind of ballsy.

>please address the issue, can you detect the direction of gun firing from 12 feet away from an open space not?  Remember Jarmin, Williams, Norman, Styles, Adams, Dorman and Garner were close to this distance, hanging out open windows.

Echo.  Acoustics.  People misidentify the direction of sounds all the time.

Quote
>If you dodge the obvious you just come off looking like a toadie.
  Oh, you'd consider me a "toadie"!  Well, that would be terrible.  I'd not be able to sleep at night for that!

Quote
Do I "really believe Jarmin and Williams and Norman are that stupid, really, really, really, really?"  No, I do not "really, really, really, really" believe they were stupid.
>Well then explain their testimony and actions

So people are perfect or stupid.  Nice logic there.

Quote
But you're still picking at small cherries here, and insisting they make a pie.  They don't.
>I got a bowl of cherries you got nothin!

Let's see the "nothing" I have here:

Quote
We have video evidence of the shooting.
>Really?

Zapruder Film.

Quote
We have forensic evidence of the shooting.
>Really?

Yes, a forensics report.  The one you keep citing as evidence of conspiracy, and then ignoring any counters to your claim?

Quote
We have the gun.  We have the bullets.  Oswald shot a police officer before ducking into a theater.
>Really?

Yes.  On all three counts.  Actually look at the websites you pull quotes from, why don't you?

And you're saying Oswald did NOT shoot a police officer?

You're saying I look like a toadie, but your saying "really?" to what's been vastly known, and brought up *in this thread itself* just points to your being... well, rather ignorant of the subject, don't you think?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: SolusLupus on June 12, 2012, 11:45:11 PM
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?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: LunarOrbit on June 12, 2012, 11:48:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 13, 2012, 12:10:02 AM
Let's see the "nothing" I have here:

Zapruder Film.

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?
Do you know if special effects can be easily detected?
Do you know for certain the chain of custody of the Z-film?
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

Would it be plausible if the CIA had this film and in a timely manner was able to add special effects to the film,
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.
and
Better adjust the background timing, because it sucks to have to answer why the limo came to almost a complete stop.
Could they have accomplished this?
It would make for a significant piece of evidence in support for "the" shooter from the rear.
Especially good, because they didn't even have to show the film, just some carefully selected stills.
Easier to build fiction around pictures verses a movie, I imagine.
Besides the fact, NO ONE would have believed JFK was hit from the rear after viewing the Z-Film

They sequestered the film at Time Life, probably thinking it would NEVER be shown to the public.
Problem is we got it and now know it, back and to the left, no matter what anyone says, back and to the left.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: SolusLupus on June 13, 2012, 12:15:36 AM
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?

With that tech?  Even the best "special effects" weren't that great, especially if you were just video editing.

What special effects were added, and how can you tell?

Quote
Do you know if special effects can be easily detected?

If they're going to entirely rewrite what happened, then yes, yes they would be.

Quote
Do you know for certain the chain of custody of the Z-film?

There was not the time needed to take it and edit, no.

Quote
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

--Abraham Zapruder took the film to be processed right away.  He made three copies.
--One went to the Warren Commission.
--One went to Life Magazine.
--(EDITED)One went to the Secret Service -- not the CIA.

The one that went to life went there in a day.  What technology is available that can edit video in a day?  Please answer.  Detail me exactly the kind of video tech, or even just an example of it.

Quote
Besides the fact, NO ONE would have believed JFK was hit from the rear after viewing the Z-Film
And you are wrong here.

By the way, check out Reply #373.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on June 13, 2012, 12:19:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 13, 2012, 03:32:05 AM
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.
 

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: SolusLupus on June 13, 2012, 03:38:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 13, 2012, 03:39:33 AM
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.

Quote
Do you know if special effects can be easily detected?

Yes they can.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
Could they have accomplished this?

No.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 13, 2012, 03:43:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: SolusLupus on June 13, 2012, 03:44:24 AM
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?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 13, 2012, 06:05:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 13, 2012, 06:14:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 13, 2012, 06:22:10 AM
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.   
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Mr Gorsky on June 13, 2012, 06:40:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on June 13, 2012, 07:37:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 13, 2012, 11:22:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 13, 2012, 02:11:04 PM
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?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on June 13, 2012, 03:02:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on June 13, 2012, 07:13:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on June 13, 2012, 07:18:11 PM
With regards to special effects, the prof's question is really not appropriate. Sure, all sorts of people *could* have added special effects. The question is, how many of them could add believable special effects, that cannot be easily detected after 50 years?

I suspect that the answer to that is "none". If profmunkin can provide evidence of someone who could take a live-shot 8 mm film, doctor it in a day or two, and do it so seamlessly that it cannot be easily identified a generation later, I would be very impressed.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 13, 2012, 09:07:18 PM
I don't think undetectable special effects could be added to the Z film. Not even now.

The Z-film is often described as the most scrutinized and studied piece of celluloid on the planet, and this is not an exaggeration. Almost any person with a knowledge of physics and optics can quickly spot literally dozens of giveaways even in a "big budget" science fiction film like "2001: A Space Odyssey". Yet no one has ever found one in the Z film despite nearly 50 years of constant study.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 14, 2012, 03:36:48 AM
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.
Yes, it certainly is conclusive. So much so that if the conspiracists were to ever correctly acknowledge even a fraction of the known facts and evidence of the assassination, their game would be over. Even they would have to agree that Oswald did it, alone, not just beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond practically any doubt.

So the conspiracists stay in business only by blatantly and repeatedly mischaracterizing the evidence: i.e., lying. They correctly assume that most people won't bother to check them on it. The few who do are simply ignored until they eventually give up from the utter frustration of trying to talk to a brick wall. The conspiracists then claim victory by default.

It's a battle of attrition based on a kind of magical thinking: anything you say, no matter how self-contradictory, illogical, bizarre or just plain false, can become true fact if you merely repeat enough to outlast those who contradict you.

One of profmunkin's many examples is his feigned disbelief that Norman, Williams and Jarmin could not detect Oswald's shots from directly over their heads. Not only did they most certainly detect Oswald's three very loud rifle shots, Norman also heard Oswald operate the bolt three times, each time ejecting a shell that Norman heard hit the floor. All three quickly and correctly concluded that the shots were fired from almost directly above them. Not only do we have their consistent testimony on this point, but we have pictures of them taken from ground level showing them right where they said they were. And the Warren Commission verified by direct experiment that Norman could easily have heard the sounds he said he heard.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on June 14, 2012, 02:16:05 PM
The Warren Commission was the first time so many eyewitnesses to a series of crimes were interviewed and I have not read any two whose testimony matched even superficially. Just when you think you've found an eyewitness to support one scenario, be it a conspiracy or a lone gunman, they say something that makes you say, "WTF?" Hudson, the groundskeeper for Dealey Plaza and who was closest to the picket fence than anybody, said he heard 3 shots come from behind the motorcade at a high elevation and then goes on to say there was another shot after the head shot. Clint Hill and a few other law enforcement personnel said they heard 2 shots. Newman, the closest person to JFK when he was shot in the head, said JFK stood up when he was first hit. Almost every eyewitness said something that was contradicted by every other eyewitness or by photo or video evidence.

Eyewitnesses are useless. About all they are good for is establishing that a crime did in fact happen, and even then they are often mistaken. I was watching one of those forensics shows a few years ago and a cop said, "It makes my job easier if there aren't any eyewitnesses to a crime." At least that's what I remember him saying.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 15, 2012, 07:12:15 AM
I wouldn't say eyewitnesses are completely useless. But when you have a large number of them and most say the same thing, chances are they're close to correct.

That still doesn't mean you don't need physical evidence to confirm it.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: SolusLupus on June 15, 2012, 02:03:34 PM
Hm, seems like prof has left.  Not too surprising, since he did seem to realize we didn't want to continue the debate (and would have him banned, for that matter) if he weren't to provide his own narrative of events.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 15, 2012, 02:20:40 PM
I would have been happy simply to see him address some of our points and stop blatantly mischaracterizing the evidence -- even if he never gave us his own complete narrative of events.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on June 15, 2012, 02:34:35 PM
I maintain that he didn't have one.  He just had a gut feeling that the Warren Commission was wrong, and he didn't understand rules of evidence or anything else which would have been necessary to put together a competing hypothesis.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on June 15, 2012, 03:54:00 PM
I would have been pleasantly surprised to see anything resembling a defensible statement.  Practically anything would have been better than his "can't we all agree that what the WC said happened, didn't happen" approach.  But if a defensible assertion has not been put forward by now, it never will be. Yet, I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast, so maybe....
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on June 15, 2012, 05:45:13 PM
I find it strange that someone who clearly does believe that there was a conspiracy, and wishes to persuade other people of that, would not at least attempt to define what they think *did* happen. If a shot from the knoll makes sense to them, why not provide a diagram of it? If profmunkin does believe (or did, at the start of the thread), that there were 3 shooters, why could he not clarify where the third one was, and explain why he thinks there were six shots?

If he believes its pointless because he won't convince anyone, why contineue a thread for dozens of pages? If he does think he can win converts, why not explain what he wants to convert us to?

This seems very similar to HBs - they seem to like playing that they have some sort of overwhelming evidence just behind that curtain over there. But they never draw the curtain. I don't know if this is because, deep down, they know their pet theory cannot stand up to scrutiny, or if they just like the constant tease.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 15, 2012, 06:56:19 PM
I think they mainly crave the indignant attention (i.e., they like to troll).

The elitism factor is also very significant in conspiracy theorists. They like to think of themselves as so clever as to have figured out something that has long escaped the notice of the ordinary 'sheeple'. In fact, they're so extremely clever as to trigger a visceral resentment among the 'sheeple'. That (and CIA brainwashing) are the only reasons their theories are not universally accepted and their cleverness universally acclaimed.

There are countless ironies in this point of view, including the fact that one of the signs of true genius is a knack not only for solving complicated problems, but explaining their solutions to ordinary people in ways that seem almost simple and obvious. The classic example was Richard Feynmann.

It's practically a cliche in technical circles that the most brilliant breakthroughs always seem trivial in hindsight.

Most JFK assassination 'theories' are the exact opposite: taking what was actually a very simple and straightforward (albeit huge) crime and complicating it far beyond fantasy.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: SolusLupus on June 16, 2012, 01:13:25 AM
Most JFK assassination 'theories' are the exact opposite: taking what was actually a very simple and straightforward (albeit huge) crime and complicating it far beyond fantasy.

That's what happens when you work backwards.  Similar to ideas about the orbit of the planets; if you start with the assumption their orbits must be perfect circles, things get all complicated when explaining their orbits.

Same with almost any idea, really.  If you want to arrange facts to match a design you really want to be true, things get overly complicated.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on June 16, 2012, 02:17:32 PM
Unless by coincidence you're right.  I mean, someone with little information but a grudge against Lee Harvey Oswald probably would have had a very easy time proving his guilt.  People trying to prove it was the CIA, LBJ (there's a very large book blaming him in new books at the library), Castro, anti-Castro Cubans, the mob, et al., have a considerably harder time.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: SolusLupus on June 16, 2012, 04:12:03 PM
By coincidence, or only if you're willing to admit that you were wrong.

If you assume but test your assumption, it's no different than coming up with a hypothesis and then testing it.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on June 16, 2012, 09:47:32 PM
True enough.  I'm just saying.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: DataCable on June 16, 2012, 11:30:42 PM
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?
No, it wouldn't, because it's impossible to add special effects to a film after it's been shot.  You don't even know the correct terminology, therefore you don't have even the faintest clue if it were possible, much less be able to detect if it actually was.

Quote
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
My understanding is that John Fitzgerald Kennedy never actually existed, that he was entirely a holographic projection controlled by Adolf Hitler using alien technology captured by the Illuminati Society.  Can you refute this?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 17, 2012, 12:54:35 AM
No, it wouldn't, because it's impossible to add special effects to a film after it's been shot.  You don't even know the correct terminology,
I assume you mean optical effects? I suppose they're now more properly called digital effects, because that's how they're now done. Special effects include things like blood squibs on the actual actors and controlled fires and explosions on the actual set. Am I right?
Quote
My understanding is that John Fitzgerald Kennedy never actually existed, that he was entirely a holographic projection controlled by Adolf Hitler using alien technology captured by the Illuminati Society.  Can you refute this?
Good one!

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: DataCable on June 17, 2012, 06:32:04 AM
I assume you mean optical effects?
"Visual effects" is the term I'm familiar with, the catch-all for anything done in post-production to alter the appearance of footage shot on the practical stage.

Quote
Special effects include things like blood squibs on the actual actors and controlled fires and explosions on the actual set. Am I right?
You are correct, sir.  I see that virtually everyone else responding to this claim also repeated his error, but I am far less prone to cut Bluster Boy any slack.

Quote
Quote
My understanding is that John Fitzgerald Kennedy never actually existed, that he was entirely a holographic projection controlled by Adolf Hitler using alien technology captured by the Illuminati Society.  Can you refute this?
Good one!
Danke.  Prof has crossed the boundary, for me, from "his claims require a rational rebuttal" to "point and laugh."
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 22, 2012, 05:06:32 AM
I know this thread pretty much ended with profmunkin's departure, but there are some more interesting tidbits about the JFK assassination.

A while ago we speculated on where LHO may have been headed when he encountered Officer Tippit. I still think he had some sort of vague idea of finding his way back to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City and making a grand re-entrance as a triumphant Hero of the Cuban Revolution. But he couldn't have planned the assassination itself more than a couple days in advance when he first learned of JFK's route, so he certainly couldn't have spent much (if any) time on an escape plan. But he knew he'd be picked up in a matter if minutes at either his rooming house or the Paines', so he probably figured he had nothing to lose by staying on the move.

I recently came across another intriguing theory: Oswald, now on a roll, was returning to General Walker's house to finish the job he'd failed to do in April. That, not just evading the police, was the reason he fetched his pistol.

Personally I don't think this is very likely. Walker's house was well north of downtown Dallas, on the other side of town exactly opposite from Oak Cliff to the south. Oswald might have been seeking a bus that would take him there, just as he had used the bus (and his own feet) during his April murder attempt. But Oswald had been headed mostly south from his rooming house when he encountered Tippit.

A bigger problem is that Walker was not in Dallas on November 22, though Oswald may not have known this. Walker was flying from New Orleans to Shreveport LA when JFK's assassination was announced.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on June 22, 2012, 02:54:25 PM
And I strongly suspect he'd stopped following Walker's movements once the motorcade route was announced, if not well before.  Lee wasn't a guy who took defeat well.

I was talking to my boyfriend about this last night (he smiled at your joke, which is a pretty good reaction from him), and he said he's never for a minute doubted that Oswald did it, because in the right circumstances, it's still possible.  The only prevention they have for it is to keep the President from making public appearances in open areas with tall buildings around.  That's not a thing that they're completely able to stop.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 22, 2012, 05:52:59 PM
That seems like a simple enough argument, but I never seem to get anywhere with it. I'll ask a conspiracy fan to explain exactly why it was so impossible for some loser to take his rifle to work and shoot the President of the United States as he rides past the building in an open car.

They just stare blankly and insist "but...but... the government always lies!"

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on June 22, 2012, 07:53:21 PM
And of course, before Kennedy, two out of three successful Presidential assassinations in the US were of the lone-nut variety.  They tried to pin McKinley on the anarchists, but even the anarchists agreed that Leon Czolgosz was crazy.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on June 22, 2012, 09:37:10 PM
The conspiracists point out that all three prior presidential assassins readily admitted it. Not even the crazy ones thought that they could plausibly deny it, since they used pistols at close range with plenty of witnesses. Jack Ruby would have had an easier time denying that he shot Oswald.

Only Oswald used a rifle from a distance, only Oswald denied his action, and only one eyewitness could actually identify him as the shooter.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: SolusLupus on June 22, 2012, 09:58:32 PM
Well, I certainly know that John Wilkes Booth had an incredibly theatrical flair, and purposefully set things up so that he could say something dramatic to the audience at large.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on June 23, 2012, 01:58:14 AM
Breaking his ankle in the process, the git.  The thing is, though, one of the people who was hanged for the conspiracy to kill Lincoln didn't admit it, and her guilt is debated to this day.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on July 17, 2012, 08:41:14 PM
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.
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/22nd_Issue/sbt.html
"He had three wounds, a perforating wound of the chest which had shattered 10 cm of rib and damaged the pleural sac covering his right lung, a perforating wound of the right wrist which had shattered his radius and a penetrating wound of the left thigh."

Humes talking about Exhibit CE399 and the wounds of JFK and JC
"I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in the wrist"
"I think it highly unlikely" that CE399 could have been the missle

Boswell said Humes spoke for him as well.

Dr Shaw testified that the bullet that caused the wounds would not be intact or could not possibly be CE399

"hit side on in Connally's wrist" ...Rolling on floor laughing...
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on July 18, 2012, 07:04:25 AM
So nothing new to report then, prof? No actual answers to the questions that have been put to you? You've had all that time off to answer them, and yet you come back with this?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: profmunkin on July 18, 2012, 09:15:48 AM
So nothing new to report then, prof? No actual answers to the questions that have been put to you? You've had all that time off to answer them, and yet you come back with this?
Just want to show what the actual evidence is.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on July 18, 2012, 09:30:35 AM
Do you have a diagram yet of how the shots were made? If there are no more convincing configurations, surely the official version will have to stand, as unlikely as you may find it.

I wonder what Dr. Shaw might have to say about your idea of a bullet hitting JFK from the front right, and then completely disintegrating, so that no trace of it could be found, and without anything hitting Jackie.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on July 18, 2012, 02:49:47 PM
By the way, prof, were you hoping we'd all have forgotten this, posted by Lunar Orbit in post #1073 on this thread?

Profmunkin, you have until the end of the day Friday (June 15, 2012) to provide us with the answers to our questions. Who fired the shots that hit President Kennedy and Governor Connally, and what was the location of the assassin (or assassins)? Explain to us why your scenario makes more sense than Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone gunman.

If you do not provide these answers in the time I have allotted you will be permanently banned. I believe I have been extremely generous in allowing you to make over 400 posts despite what you did to the Proboards forum, but it's time for you to prove you're not just a troll.

Your convenient disappearance on that day, followed by your reappearance a month later was presumably in the hope that none of us would remember that you are still being held to this requirement to present the answers to those questions.

You're not fooling anyone. Put up, shut up, or get banned. Up to you.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Andromeda on July 18, 2012, 02:52:10 PM
By the way, prof, were you hoping we'd all have forgotten this, posted by Lunar Orbit in post #1073 on this thread?

Profmunkin, you have until the end of the day Friday (June 15, 2012) to provide us with the answers to our questions. Who fired the shots that hit President Kennedy and Governor Connally, and what was the location of the assassin (or assassins)? Explain to us why your scenario makes more sense than Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone gunman.

If you do not provide these answers in the time I have allotted you will be permanently banned. I believe I have been extremely generous in allowing you to make over 400 posts despite what you did to the Proboards forum, but it's time for you to prove you're not just a troll.

Your convenient disappearance on that day, followed by your reappearance a month later was presumably in the hope that none of us would remember that you are still being held to this requirement to present the answers to those questions.

You're not fooling anyone. Put up, shut up, or get banned. Up to you.

I agree with this.

Frankly I am ASTOUNDED at your gall showing up here after what you did to the old forum.  I am shaking my head in disbelief as I type.  You have some ?!#!$* nerve.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on July 18, 2012, 03:21:12 PM
Dang. I guess it's too late to make a JFK assassination Bingo card for prof. Maybe for the next CT to visit?
CE399 couldn't make all those wounds in JFK and Connally and emerge barely deformed yet the CT ignores the simple fact it must have at least caused all the wounds to Connally. (Too long to fit?)
"Pristine Bullet" should be the center square.
Uses Ed Hoffman as a Grassy Knoll gunman eyewitness.
Uses Jean Hill as a Grassy Knoll gunman eyewitness.
Mauser found in TSBD.
Claims CE399 was planted on stretcher.
Face sheet or Death Certificate used to place JFK's neck wound while ignoring the Autopsy Report.
"Back and to the left."
Eyewitnesses used to claim back of the head blown out.
Greer with a handgun in the driver's seat.
Claims backyard photos were faked.
Claims Z-film was faked.
References any Jack White "photoanalysis".
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Donnie B. on July 18, 2012, 04:41:25 PM
Pretty good, if a bit verbose.

I might go with "Magic Bullet" in the center square, since that covers more ground and (IMO) is the more common concept.  Of course, pristine-ness is part of the magic.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on July 18, 2012, 05:03:26 PM
Pretty good, if a bit verbose.

I might go with "Magic Bullet" in the center square, since that covers more ground and (IMO) is the more common concept.  Of course, pristine-ness is part of the magic.

Good point.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on July 18, 2012, 08:06:03 PM
But couldn't the magic bullet also cover a shot from the grassy knoll that somehow dispersed into thin air. 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Donnie B. on July 18, 2012, 09:42:15 PM
In JFK conspiracy circles, the "magic bullet" refers specifically to the second shot from the TSBD, which caused injuries to JFK's neck and Connolly's chest, wrist, and thigh with minimal damage to the bullet, and ended up on a gurney at Parkland Hospital.  To the conspiracists that seems flatly impossible, so they sneeringly say it could only have happened by magic.

I have never heard the term used in any other context, including the one you suggest.  I suppose, though, that if the official story did include a shot from the GK that seemingly vanished, it would probably have received the same sarcastic appellation.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on July 18, 2012, 11:32:40 PM
In JFK conspiracy circles, the "magic bullet" refers specifically to the second shot from the TSBD, which caused injuries to JFK's neck and Connolly's chest, wrist, and thigh with minimal damage to the bullet, and ended up on a gurney at Parkland Hospital.  To the conspiracists that seems flatly impossible, so they sneeringly say it could only have happened by magic.
A classic example of an appeal to personal incredulity. People (even Americans) think they know much more about guns and bullets than they really do. Many don't even know that military rifles like Oswald's fire a different kind of bullet than those normally used in civilian hunting. Military rifles fire full metal jacketed bullets while hunters usually use soft or hollow-point lead bullets. I strongly suspect that most of the CTs who think CE399 couldn't have done what it did and come out "pristine" don't realize a) CE399 is actually severely flattened and b) it took a lot of force to do that to a jacketed bullet.

Had JFK been shot in the back with the more familiar plain lead hunting bullet, the bullet would probably have fragmented on impact with soft tissue and released most of its energy. If any fragments emerged at all, they probably would not have severely injured JBC in the way he was hurt. And Oswald wouldn't have needed a third shot.

On the other hand, Oswald's rifle and ammunition could fire a bullet through 4 feet of solid pine and come out almost undamaged.

As gruesome as the JFK head shot was, it could have been worse. The Discovery Channel program "Inside the Target Car" demonstrated what would have happened had he been shot in the head with a conventional soft point lead .30-30 bullet from the grassy knoll. The target was a simulated human head, complete with simulated brain matter, made by an Australian company that produces them for military tests. They behave just like the real thing when hit with a bullet. The head just exploded. Nothing was left above the neck. While Oswald's bullet certainly did enough damage, it certainly didn't do that.


Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Mr Gorsky on July 19, 2012, 06:33:40 AM
Aaaarrrgh!

Note to self ... don't read this thread when eating next time.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on July 19, 2012, 08:23:13 AM
ka9q, that's an interesting point, and one that I think tells against the conspiracy theory in more than one way. We must assume that the presumed conspirators would know how bullets work. If getting rid of JFK was imperative, why didn't they use ammunition that would be more likely to be immediately lethal? Not to mention, something that a civilian would be more likely to have on hand? Lots of hunters in Texas. Whereas the Marine-trained Oswald would naturally gravitate towards using a military weapon.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Noldi400 on July 19, 2012, 10:51:36 AM
My own incredulity comes into play when I hear this described as a "professional" or "military-style" ambush. It just seems so haphazard that I can't help but believe LHO got lucky in making the kill.

Not particularly lethal ammunition, an awkward angle, and (having semi-missed his first shot) anything could have happened - JFK could easily have fallen or been pulled down out of sight before the third shot.

Knowing that JFK was going to be spending a lot of the next year out campaigning, surely there would have been better opportunities for competent, well-backed assassins  along the way.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on July 19, 2012, 08:37:20 PM
ka9q, that's an interesting point, and one that I think tells against the conspiracy theory in more than one way. We must assume that the presumed conspirators would know how bullets work. If getting rid of JFK was imperative, why didn't they use ammunition that would be more likely to be immediately lethal? Not to mention, something that a civilian would be more likely to have on hand? Lots of hunters in Texas. Whereas the Marine-trained Oswald would naturally gravitate towards using a military weapon.
The Discovery Channel program made that exact point. If there was a second gunman, we don't know what weapon he used because no second weapon, spent shells or bullets were ever found. But it's reasonable to assume that if it were a well-organized conspiracy they'd pick an effective one. So to test the conspiracy claims they hired an expert marksman and let him choose an appropriate weapon and ammunition: a .30 Winchester hunting rifle with soft-point ammunition and a good scope. Then he showed that several supposed shooting locations didn't even have a clear shot of the target at the time. When they did simulate a shot from behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll, the results were totally different from what actually happened. That's the test where nothing was left of the target. It was obviously a much more capable weapon than the Carcano -- not that the Carcano wasn't sufficient.

They also tried a shot from the same location using Oswald's type of rifle. Instead of obliterating the target, the FMJ bullet passed completely through and out the left side of JFK's head -- and right through Jackie. Since Jackie was alive 31 years after the assassination, and since we know there was no damage to the left side of JFK's head, we can reasonably rule out that possibility too.

An interesting bit of trivia from the JFK case is that not long before the assassination, Oswald saw some of his co-workers bring in and show off several new hunting rifles. (After all, this was Texas.) Now if a well-organized conspiracy wanted to frame someone in that building, wouldn't it make sense to use a rifle just like one of those openly shown by those other workers? Better yet, wouldn't they have stolen one of those specific rifles, used it and then left it in the building?

Probably the most common attribute of conspiracy theorists is a complete unwillingness to follow the logical implications of their pet theories. Any real scientist spends very little time theorizing and almost all of his time seeing where they lead, and if they lead to contradictions or make predictions known to be false, the theories have to be modified or discarded.

PS. Did anyone else who saw that show get nervous when the shooter pointed his rifle at the actors in the limousine? I know he removed the bolt as a safety precaution, but as a kid I was so heavily conditioned to never point a weapon at anyone under any circumstances that it still bothers me to see it done on TV or in the movies. (The Brandon Lee tragedy didn't help.) If I were that shooter, or one of the producers, I would have gone further and physically handed the bolt to one of the actors.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Chew on July 19, 2012, 08:56:47 PM
Right. The "Mauser" myth falls into that "didn't follow through to the conclusion". So you frame your guy with a Carcano, shoot the President with a Mauser, then leave the Mauser in the building knowing full well it will be found???
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on July 19, 2012, 09:09:15 PM
Right. The "Mauser" myth falls into that "didn't follow through to the conclusion". So you frame your guy with a Carcano, shoot the President with a Mauser, then leave the Mauser in the building knowing full well it will be found???
This is another common element of conspiracy thinking: the conspirators are at once so extraordinarily competent that they pulled off "the crime of the century" (that's what it always is) and got away with it for years or decades, yet also so incompetent as to make dozens of simple mistakes that left absolute proof of their culpability for the conspiracists to find.

I suppose that you could resolve that paradox if you think of yourself as so brilliant that you could find mistakes even by conspirators as powerful and capable as those who killed JFK or faked Apollo...
 
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Donnie B. on July 20, 2012, 04:19:07 PM
I just had a weird thought.

Has anybody ever suggested that the target of the assassination wasn't Kennedy, but rather Oswald?  Because, you know, if so it was quite effective, in a roundabout way.


*ducks*
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Echnaton on July 20, 2012, 05:19:21 PM
*ducks*

That's a real quacker of a theory.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on July 20, 2012, 06:45:11 PM
Yes, it was quite effective in getting Oswald killed, but the guy who did it was Oswald. He was pretty self-destructive. Lots of people are; what made him unusual is the unusually high degree of collateral damage.

Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: RedneckR0nin on July 21, 2012, 09:46:09 AM
Ok even if it does prove out to be how many shooters....what difference will it make at this stage?

It happened in 63 didn't it? So other shooters if at that time were 21 makes them 70 right now...chances are these.."button" men would be established agents of doom....so say around 30 so chances are they are all dead...what difference in anyone's life would finding this out establish?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on July 21, 2012, 09:56:16 AM
Right. The "Mauser" myth falls into that "didn't follow through to the conclusion". So you frame your guy with a Carcano, shoot the President with a Mauser, then leave the Mauser in the building knowing full well it will be found???
This is another common element of conspiracy thinking: the conspirators are at once so extraordinarily competent that they pulled off "the crime of the century" (that's what it always is) and got away with it for years or decades, yet also so incompetent as to make dozens of simple mistakes that left absolute proof of their culpability for the conspiracists to find.

I suppose that you could resolve that paradox if you think of yourself as so brilliant that you could find mistakes even by conspirators as powerful and capable as those who killed JFK or faked Apollo...

Well, it's very similar to the 9/11 CTists, who believe that the damage was caused by anything other than 4 hijacked aircraft, and then the government black ops dropped in some plane wreckage to make the sites look believable. But, you see, they didn't use wreckage from the right type of planes. So, if the CTists can only get serial numbers from the parts recovered, it'll all unravel. Because if you're running an operation like that, why not just throw in some parts from a Piper Cub  or a water bomber or something? It's not as if it's an important part of your plan.

A CTist often believes that the Dark Side will make stupid slipups like this, because otherwise, their "anomalies" don't mean anything.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Noldi400 on July 21, 2012, 11:51:11 AM
Quote
A CTist often believes that the Dark Side will make stupid slipups like this, because otherwise, their "anomalies" don't mean anything.
Or, or, or... some honest soul coerced into participating deliberately left "clues" for anyone with the intelligence to correctly interpret them.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on July 21, 2012, 02:08:42 PM
Ok even if it does prove out to be how many shooters....what difference will it make at this stage?

It happened in 63 didn't it? So other shooters if at that time were 21 makes them 70 right now...chances are these.."button" men would be established agents of doom....so say around 30 so chances are they are all dead...what difference in anyone's life would finding this out establish?


Actually, there are several differences it would make, and that's not just taking Lee's family into consideration.  Leaving them aside, however, I think there is a moral good to society in learning the truth about history.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on July 22, 2012, 11:22:10 PM
It happened in 63 didn't it? So other shooters if at that time were 21 makes them 70 right now...chances are these.."button" men would be established agents of doom....so say around 30 so chances are they are all dead...what difference in anyone's life would finding this out establish
Try saying something like that to the Nazi hunters. Some are still pursuing escaped Nazis who by now are in their 90s if even still alive. Now maybe that's justified because the Nazis were uniquely extreme in their evil, but assassinating the President of the United States also ranks up there somewhere.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: bobdude11 on August 20, 2012, 03:34:04 PM
gwiz
Why would you only have a single shooter?

Why on earth would you have more than one, or at most a group firing from a single position? Three shooters from three different angles is a ridiculous way to try to persuade people that there was one shooter, as well as tripling the chances of being discovered by accident.

The trouble with the JFK conspiracy theories in general is that they assume a simulaneous complete control of every variable, and an inability to control anything. If you need three shooters because the odds are that one cannot successfully pull off a fatal shot, your solution should be to select a better vantage point (or shooter), not have people firing from random compass points. If the grassy knoll is a better location, put the shooter there - not also two other places. Heck, its relative concealment would allow the plotters to shoot and kill a "patsy" on the spot, instead of allowing Oswald to wander off the scene completely unnoticed.

The only reason why conspiracy theorists get obsessed about multiple shooters is that it allows them to stare at fuzzy polaroids and play "let's find the anomaly".

 I really hate coming into these things so very late, but I had to respod to this one item. I have always wondered why Oswald would wait until the limo was moving away from him to shoot - I believe that has been covered, but I can't be sure until I research it.

That is not what I wanted to say - I once had the idea that the real shooter was directly across the street from the TSBD which means the shooter would not be able to see down Houston (? I think that's the street right in front of the fountain - may be confusing it with the one that ties into Stemmons) and as such, would not be able to pull the trigger until they were moving away - the only problem I have in proving this is I think that would put shots 2 and 3 way off to the wrong side. It WAS a theory - I have seen to much evidence to prove it wrong over time and the JFK Revisited game actually had someone prove that the shots could be made when where and how it has been recorded into evidence - complete disproving all other theories (Oincluding mine about the shooter being across the street).
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: Jason Thompson on August 20, 2012, 04:53:33 PM
I have always wondered why Oswald would wait until the limo was moving away from him to shoot - I believe that has been covered, but I can't be sure until I research it.

Off the top of my head:

1: Kennedy was in the back of the limo, therefore a shot from behind gives a better target than a shot from the front. Whatever else you may say about Oswald, he wasn't firing indiscriminately: he intended to kill Kennedy and ONLY Kennedy.

2: With the limo moving mostly away it was hardly moving from Oswald's viewpoint, and so made an easier target to line up on and shoot (and he still missed once).

3: With the limo facing away from him so were all the secret service agents, meaning it would take longer for them to find him than if they had been roughly facing his location.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: bobdude11 on August 20, 2012, 10:42:16 PM
I have always wondered why Oswald would wait until the limo was moving away from him to shoot - I believe that has been covered, but I can't be sure until I research it.

Off the top of my head:

1: Kennedy was in the back of the limo, therefore a shot from behind gives a better target than a shot from the front. Whatever else you may say about Oswald, he wasn't firing indiscriminately: he intended to kill Kennedy and ONLY Kennedy.

2: With the limo moving mostly away it was hardly moving from Oswald's viewpoint, and so made an easier target to line up on and shoot (and he still missed once).

3: With the limo facing away from him so were all the secret service agents, meaning it would take longer for them to find him than if they had been roughly facing his location.

All points, as you may surmise, that I had not considered - especially of note is point 2: I had not considered that the limo would actually be moving slow enough that it would almost seem to stand still.

To my original point, I thought about it further and realized some things:

1. The windows do not quite line up with the windows on the TSBD
2. Even if they did, the evidence is clear that the shots came from the 6th floor window of the TSBD (eye witnesses reporting the gun, sounds, trajectories, etc.)
3. I have not proved it, thus this is only a theory, but I believe that if the shots came from the building across the street, the trajectories would have been to flat and the angles wrong. Further, I believe that the distance is too far and would have caused the bullet to drop too much - even with the 1100 FPS or so it travelled at.

Just sayin ... :)
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on August 21, 2012, 02:37:22 AM
No, it isn't a theory.  It doesn't have anywhere near enough evidence to qualify as a theory.
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: bobdude11 on August 21, 2012, 02:02:49 PM
That's a very good question. The video that got pulled was titled "Reply to Jesse Ventura - JFK 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano rifle myths". It contains no other mention of any other living person. The commentary around it is highly critical of Ventura's claim that he could not reproduce the three shots of the assassination, but I saw nothing that wasn't typical of open American debate involving controversial public figures like Ventura.

So Youtube apparently responds to complaints of harassment just as they do to complaints of copyright violations: by presuming the complaint is valid and yanking the video in question, sight unseen. And it would seem that conspiracy nuts take full advantage of this loophole to censor their opponents.

I kept a copy of the video in question and would be happy to provide it on request. It really is an excellent refutation of the top 10 myths about the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle by someone who owns and shoots one.

I would love to get a copy of this if that is possible. Do you need an email address?
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on August 23, 2012, 12:40:28 PM
Just go to http://www.ka9q.net/mag30th.mp4
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: bobdude11 on August 23, 2012, 01:58:08 PM
Just go to http://www.ka9q.net/mag30th.mp4

awesome! Thanks!!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: ka9q on August 23, 2012, 01:59:46 PM
But the conspiracy fans still insist the Carcano couldn't do what Oswald did with it...
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: gillianren on August 23, 2012, 02:01:58 PM
Of course!  If it could, they'd have to change their minds!
Title: Re: JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots
Post by: twik on August 23, 2012, 10:54:52 PM
I wonder if it would therefore be possible to remove HB videos by arguing that they defame or harass astronauts and other members of NASA?