|
|
 August 25, 2010, 07:51:35 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2895
|
In the last couple of days we have seen more of the usual. The Nuts trying to twist everthing, while trying to make this look like a conspiracy.
Zapruder is a strong witness for the LN side, but one of the nuts has tried to twist this in the last couple of days.
Zapruder said he heard 2 or 3 shots. The LN side said there were 3 shots.
Zapruder said they was so much reverberation and echos to tell where the shots came from. The LN side has always said alot of people couldn't tell because of these factors.
And Zapruder also testfied and said right on TV on 11/22 that the right wide of JFK's head opened up. Exactly like the autopsy photos and the Zfilm shot.
This is when they become nuts and nothing but. When they are so obsessed with trying to make it look like a conspiracy that facts no longer matter. Its like a religious belief to many of the nuts. The truth no loger matters, its all about trying to back up their fantasy.
And oh yeah there was the case this week of the nuts once again taking a vague statement from Rub try and show he admitted to a conspiracy. Which of course is a lie, but they try it about once a month.
I don't understand how anyone can be s obsessed with a theory that they are wlling to lie to try and back it. Can anyone of the LN who used to be a CT explain how it gets to this.
-------------------------
-------------------------
What is silly is thinking that two turns that reduced the speed of the car to 8-11 m.p.h. is no big deal when motorcades are suppose to keep a 44 m.p.h. speed..R Caprio
LHO had poor hand-eye coordination and proof of this is seen in the fact he couldn't drive an automobile-- R Caprio
|
|
|
 Reply |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 02, 2010, 06:51:47 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2895
|
What I very clearly have said, however, is that the white decorative pergola (and maybe the area behind the stockade fence) is what was behind Zapruder. Also, the area behind the stockade fence is not the "grassy knoll"....unless you can show me grass (or even a knoll of some sort) in that parking lot.
You are 100% correct, Bill. What was behind Zapruder's back, actually changed as he filmed the motorcade. Looking at these photographs shows how his back position changed as he was panning. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginDuncan I do not wish to get into a personal argument with Bill and Rob But was Zapruder filming from the Knoll?. I believed the word Knoll meant Hill If I am mistaken I am sure somebody will point it out .Zapruder stood on a concrete abutment. In front of him was a piece of grass on an incline where the Newmans were . this incline ran up to and beyond the railway bridge and levelled out at the Stemmons freeway intersection. So am I now to assume that the Grassy Knoll does not include the incline upto and including the stockade fence and concrete wall.IOW the steps leading down to Elm is the border between The Knoll and what ?.I could think of a name for it but I would rather it came from somebody who had actually been there and knows. Ian Bill and Lee have both been there. Being there is not the answer I was looking for! Let's say theoretically they are correct, at this stage of the case (nearly 47 years out) the terminology is what wins out! IOW, if the local natives don't consider this part to be the GK, but the researchers, the WC and every one else does, we have to go with that as that is what everyone is referring to! The point is this, the evidence shows us shots came from the stockade fence/concrete wall section of DP and that is BEHIND Zapruder! Bill believes LHO acted alone (at least that is my impression of what he thinks based on all of his posts) and there is ONLY one location for that belief and that was NEVER BEHIND Zapruder. That was my point. Bill, like many others who share his beliefs never address the POINT, but instead play games making other things the focal point! To sum up: THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN CLAIM THE TSBD WAS BEHIND ZAPRUDER! The rest is just semantics to distract. - Rob Caprio Really?  Care to show this "evidence"? The point is this, the evidence shows us shots came from the stockade fence/concrete wall section of DP and that is BEHIND Zapruder! - Rob Caprio Good. At least you finally acknowledge that the grassy knoll was not behind Zapruder, as you falsely claimed earlier. Caprio Error #14 or CE14, as I like to call it: "(Zapruder) was left with the impression the shots came from BEHIND him which would have meant the Grassy Knoll area"THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN CLAIM THE TSBD WAS BEHIND ZAPRUDER! - Rob Caprio I agree. In fact, I have never disagreed with this statement. The evidence is in the statements (withheld of course for many years) of almost everyone who worked on him and did an autopsy on him! His RIGHT-REAR PORTION OF HIS HEAD WAS BLOWN OUT! He had an entry wound in the throat and right temple! He had NO wound at the base of the neck! What evidence do YOU have to show he was shot in the back of the head and base of the neck? I asked Robbie yesterday to name the Doctors who said there was an eentry wound in the right temple. So far nothing.. Just Robbie making stuff up again. So Malcolm Kilduff, White House Assistant Press Secretary, JUST MADE IT UP? Too bad he was filmed pointing to the right temple, HUH? I mean you folks have tried to say this never happened! Simple denial is your best tactic most of the time! What a surprise a conspiracy nut uses something very vague to try and back a rediculous claim. You guys do this over and over and over again. So now Malcolm Kilduff pointing to his right temple means it was an extrance wound. Its like you are joking. You have no waying od knowing if Kidduff was just pointing there because thats where a whole was blown out. But that doesn't matter, its more desperation to try and back a rediculous theory. Waiting for the names of the doctors who saw an extrance wound on the right temple.. You have zero credibility left. You said the other day more witnsses said they heard shots from the GK then the TSBD. That was a lie. You go on and on about Zapruder saying the shots came from behind, but ignore the fact that he said he didn't know where the shots came from, but because the right wide of the head opened up like the Zfilm and autopsy show, he thought it might have some from behind him. You are too simple to even understand that. Waiting for the names Robbie.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 02, 2010, 08:01:15 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 6860
|
What I very clearly have said, however, is that the white decorative pergola (and maybe the area behind the stockade fence) is what was behind Zapruder. Also, the area behind the stockade fence is not the "grassy knoll"....unless you can show me grass (or even a knoll of some sort) in that parking lot.
You are 100% correct, Bill. What was behind Zapruder's back, actually changed as he filmed the motorcade. Looking at these photographs shows how his back position changed as he was panning. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginDuncan I do not wish to get into a personal argument with Bill and Rob But was Zapruder filming from the Knoll?. I believed the word Knoll meant Hill If I am mistaken I am sure somebody will point it out .Zapruder stood on a concrete abutment. In front of him was a piece of grass on an incline where the Newmans were . this incline ran up to and beyond the railway bridge and levelled out at the Stemmons freeway intersection. So am I now to assume that the Grassy Knoll does not include the incline upto and including the stockade fence and concrete wall.IOW the steps leading down to Elm is the border between The Knoll and what ?.I could think of a name for it but I would rather it came from somebody who had actually been there and knows. Ian Bill and Lee have both been there. Being there is not the answer I was looking for! Let's say theoretically they are correct, at this stage of the case (nearly 47 years out) the terminology is what wins out! IOW, if the local natives don't consider this part to be the GK, but the researchers, the WC and every one else does, we have to go with that as that is what everyone is referring to! The point is this, the evidence shows us shots came from the stockade fence/concrete wall section of DP and that is BEHIND Zapruder! Bill believes LHO acted alone (at least that is my impression of what he thinks based on all of his posts) and there is ONLY one location for that belief and that was NEVER BEHIND Zapruder. That was my point. Bill, like many others who share his beliefs never address the POINT, but instead play games making other things the focal point! To sum up: THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN CLAIM THE TSBD WAS BEHIND ZAPRUDER! The rest is just semantics to distract. - Rob Caprio Really? Care to show this "evidence"? The point is this, the evidence shows us shots came from the stockade fence/concrete wall section of DP and that is BEHIND Zapruder! - Rob Caprio Good. At least you finally acknowledge that the grassy knoll was not behind Zapruder, as you falsely claimed earlier. Caprio Error #14 or CE14, as I like to call it: "(Zapruder) was left with the impression the shots came from BEHIND him which would have meant the Grassy Knoll area"THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN CLAIM THE TSBD WAS BEHIND ZAPRUDER! - Rob Caprio I agree. In fact, I have never disagreed with this statement. The evidence is in the statements (withheld of course for many years) of almost everyone who worked on him and did an autopsy on him! His RIGHT-REAR PORTION OF HIS HEAD WAS BLOWN OUT! He had an entry wound in the throat and right temple! He had NO wound at the base of the neck! What evidence do YOU have to show he was shot in the back of the head and base of the neck? I asked Robbie yesterday to name the Doctors who said there was an eentry wound in the right temple. So far nothing.. Just Robbie making stuff up again. So Malcolm Kilduff, White House Assistant Press Secretary, JUST MADE IT UP? Too bad he was filmed pointing to the right temple, HUH? I mean you folks have tried to say this never happened! Simple denial is your best tactic most of the time! What a surprise a conspiracy nut uses something very vague to try and back a rediculous claim. You guys do this over and over and over again. So now Malcolm Kilduff pointing to his right temple means it was an extrance wound. Its like you are joking. You have no waying od knowing if Kidduff was just pointing there because thats where a whole was blown out. But that doesn't matter, its more desperation to try and back a rediculous theory. Waiting for the names of the doctors who saw an extrance wound on the right temple.. You have zero credibility left. You said the other day more witnsses said they heard shots from the GK then the TSBD. That was a lie. You go on and on about Zapruder saying the shots came from behind, but ignore the fact that he said he didn't know where the shots came from, but because the right wide of the head opened up like the Zfilm and autopsy show, he thought it might have some from behind him. You are too simple to even understand that. Waiting for the names Robbie. LOL! So Brianie thinks a small wound could be an exit wound! If you want the doctor's names so bad let me give you some advice I got from Bill when I asked for a cite -- USE GOOGLE! Ah, I have NO credibility left says the man who NEVER HAD ANY TO START WITH! Why would I want credibility from a man like you in the first place? We see Brianie can't cite anything!
-------------------------
-------------------------
A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
"Benavides- Saw Oswald kill Tippit, picked him out of a lineup." - Brian Walker
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
 leefarley |
September 02, 2010, 08:30:23 PM
|
Group: Guest
|
Brian Walker
You are not worth the bandwidth responding to. Your lack of knowledge in the JFK assassination is hilarious. As far as answering whether Edwin Walker said that Oswald didn't shoot at him, I've already answered it but you're too thick to realise it. I asked you to read between the lines you imbecile. I now realise the nuance inherent in posts glide way over your head.
I'm assuming the "nonsense" that you're referring to in my post is the series of questions I posed? The questions that you have no answer to because what you know about this case you would struggle to write on the blank side of a postage stamp. I'd suggest a new hobby because you suck big time at this one.
I appreciate you need things explained to you like a five year old so let's get clear here? General Walker never "said" that Oswald didn't shoot at him. His testimony made it clear that Oswald didn't shoot at him with the MC rifle using W C ammo. Clear enough for you now? Is that black and White enough for you?
Now, would you like to answer any of the questions I posed? Someone with such an incredible knowledge of these events should find them easy to tackle? How about just attempting one of them? Let us know your thoughts on the Ken Rahn debacle concerning the NAA?
Oh and if you're going to be calling people idiots, at least learn to bloody spell.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 02, 2010, 08:31:24 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 4753
|
Lee
It has become quite apparent to me that Mr. Walker does not have the capacity to debate the case or facts Known or unknown to him (but available)
and his unwillingness to peruse the relevant facts or counters to such facts just displays an ignorance I have rarely seen .And having spent most of my life in the construction industry on site I have met some truly ignorant people.I would have to deal with this daily .I am a stonemason I rely on drawings and specifications to carry out my job without the aforesaid specs I would be working blindly.Mr Walker reminds me of a Bricklayer who could not read drawings and tried to hide the fact with anger and threats .I do make allowances for people who do not know but are willing to learn but I feel Mr. Walker is either beyond his capacity to understand or he is just throwing a tantrum because of his own ignorance .
Ian
Addendum....My Apologies to Miles who started a topic Brian Walker Clueless! at the time I thought this unjust and said so in a reply to Mr.Walker It would appear the Miles was correct and I will adjust my thinking in the future.
Ian you spout your ignorance dailey, and the write something like this. Classic. This  goes around believing just about every conspiracy hoax ever in this case, and then insults someone who sees through the nonesense. Still waiting for you to find a mistake on the Mcadms site. 3 months now. . Brian If you cannot see the mistakes at McAdams then take Lee's advice and learn something about the subject you are discussing they along with the omissions in the evidence there will become apparent. And try signing off with your Name not your profession .somewhere in England is a village minus an perhaps you could apply for the job. Ian
-------------------------
-------------------------
Some things we know we know,the rest we have to find out for ourselves
One of the first things we found out was that the Warren Commission never pursued a conspiracy investigation.
Louis Stokes
“History is a set of lies agreed upon.”
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 02, 2010, 09:09:46 PM
|
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
If you cannot see the mistakes at McAdams then take Lee's advice and learn something about the subject you are discussing they along with the omissions in the evidence there will become apparent. And try signing off with your Name not your profession .somewhere in England is a village minus an perhaps you could apply for the job. Ian What about someone that wants to learn something about the subject by seeing the mistakes at McAdams site? If I remember right, after 13 pages of messages there had been 3-4 McA website pages referenced as having mistakes, with 2 of those being written about by fence sitters. I like to research historians as I read their works (H.G. Wells Outline of History at the moment), I find bias on the part of researchers/writers/historians very interesting and informative, often more so than the supposed historical record they are relaying. Yet the CTs didn't make much of an effort at all when requested to participate in an unraveling of McA's site. Disappointing. K, I've railed on that one enough. 
-------------------------
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 09:11:16 PM by Rob Stewart »
|
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 02, 2010, 09:34:10 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 4753
|
If you cannot see the mistakes at McAdams then take Lee's advice and learn something about the subject you are discussing they along with the omissions in the evidence there will become apparent. And try signing off with your Name not your profession .somewhere in England is a village minus an perhaps you could apply for the job. Ian What about someone that wants to learn something about the subject by seeing the mistakes at McAdams site? If I remember right, after 13 pages of messages there had been 3-4 McA website pages referenced as having mistakes, with 2 of those being written about by fence sitters. I like to research historians as I read their works (H.G. Wells Outline of History at the moment), I find bias on the part of researchers/writers/historians very interesting and informative, often more so than the supposed historical record they are relaying. Yet the CTs didn't make much of an effort at all when requested to participate in an unraveling of McA's site. Disappointing. K, I've railed on that one enough. Rob I would not attempt to discredit Einstein,Newton or any of the great scientists as their theories became the "Laws of Physics" but just believing it is no good for education,That is why WE read about how they discover the evidence .Darwins theories were initiated by his fathers work .But I do not expect a scientist to add bias to a theory because another scientist will question and debunk it.IOW To read and UNDERSTAND the evidence or lack of it is a place to start before arguing with people .If some body came to me and asked I would send them to DVP lalaland and IF they had the gumption and wit to see through the same opinions at McAdams then it is worth spending time debating with them. Ian
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 02, 2010, 10:11:40 PM
|
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
If you cannot see the mistakes at McAdams then take Lee's advice and learn something about the subject you are discussing they along with the omissions in the evidence there will become apparent. And try signing off with your Name not your profession .somewhere in England is a village minus an perhaps you could apply for the job. Ian What about someone that wants to learn something about the subject by seeing the mistakes at McAdams site? If I remember right, after 13 pages of messages there had been 3-4 McA website pages referenced as having mistakes, with 2 of those being written about by fence sitters. I like to research historians as I read their works (H.G. Wells Outline of History at the moment), I find bias on the part of researchers/writers/historians very interesting and informative, often more so than the supposed historical record they are relaying. Yet the CTs didn't make much of an effort at all when requested to participate in an unraveling of McA's site. Disappointing. K, I've railed on that one enough. Rob I would not attempt to discredit Einstein,Newton or any of the great scientists as their theories became the "Laws of Physics" but just believing it is no good for education,That is why WE read about how they discover the evidence .Darwins theories were initiated by his fathers work .But I do not expect a scientist to add bias to a theory because another scientist will question and debunk it.IOW To read and UNDERSTAND the evidence or lack of it is a place to start before arguing with people .If some body came to me and asked I would send them to DVP lalaland and IF they had the gumption and wit to see through the same opinions at McAdams then it is worth spending time debating with them. Ian Well science is one thing, the act of relaying historical events can be quite different. While scientific proofs can be read through and even verified as fully proven, especially in an abstract science such as mathematics, history is rife with interpretation. You can pick any historical event or time period, and there are conflicting reports. Sources have to be judged for their biases and then their writings considered in that light. Eventually a somewhat accurate picture emerges but it is a long process. Now as far as this attitude that you 'got to earn your spurs' (hopefully you get the american expression) before earning the right to debate with people, no. That's silly. If you have good strong arguments it will stand up to the scrutiny of a lay person. If you have massive insight into someone's bias, it is easy to provide an example. Myself I am well read on certain aspects of the assassination and sorely lacking in others. I don't see why I have to be well versed in everything to discuss the case. I don't have room for that much knowledge in my head! A lot of room is already taken up by ancient history, my greatest passion. So I'm not accusing you of anything just to be clear but I think your views are a little warped. But maybe I'm wrong or I've misunderstood. Cheers.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 03, 2010, 02:19:30 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 4753
|
If you cannot see the mistakes at McAdams then take Lee's advice and learn something about the subject you are discussing they along with the omissions in the evidence there will become apparent. And try signing off with your Name not your profession .somewhere in England is a village minus an perhaps you could apply for the job. Ian What about someone that wants to learn something about the subject by seeing the mistakes at McAdams site? If I remember right, after 13 pages of messages there had been 3-4 McA website pages referenced as having mistakes, with 2 of those being written about by fence sitters. I like to research historians as I read their works (H.G. Wells Outline of History at the moment), I find bias on the part of researchers/writers/historians very interesting and informative, often more so than the supposed historical record they are relaying. Yet the CTs didn't make much of an effort at all when requested to participate in an unraveling of McA's site. Disappointing. K, I've railed on that one enough. Rob I would not attempt to discredit Einstein,Newton or any of the great scientists as their theories became the "Laws of Physics" but just believing it is no good for education,That is why WE read about how they discover the evidence .Darwins theories were initiated by his fathers work .But I do not expect a scientist to add bias to a theory because another scientist will question and debunk it.IOW To read and UNDERSTAND the evidence or lack of it is a place to start before arguing with people .If some body came to me and asked I would send them to DVP lalaland and IF they had the gumption and wit to see through the same opinions at McAdams then it is worth spending time debating with them. Ian Well science is one thing, the act of relaying historical events can be quite different. While scientific proofs can be read through and even verified as fully proven, especially in an abstract science such as mathematics, history is rife with interpretation. You can pick any historical event or time period, and there are conflicting reports. Sources have to be judged for their biases and then their writings considered in that light. Eventually a somewhat accurate picture emerges but it is a long process. Now as far as this attitude that you 'got to earn your spurs' (hopefully you get the american expression) before earning the right to debate with people, no. That's silly. If you have good strong arguments it will stand up to the scrutiny of a lay person. If you have massive insight into someone's bias, it is easy to provide an example. Myself I am well read on certain aspects of the assassination and sorely lacking in others. I don't see why I have to be well versed in everything to discuss the case. I don't have room for that much knowledge in my head! A lot of room is already taken up by ancient history, my greatest passion. So I'm not accusing you of anything just to be clear but I think your views are a little warped. But maybe I'm wrong or I've misunderstood. Cheers. Rob It has taken time to arrive at this juncture with Mr. Walker .If you had taken the time to look through some of my old posts to him you would see that I have tried being helpful and have discussed other topics with him.But I find his style abrasive and arrogant which is fine if you are sure of your footing on the topic in debate.So after reading both sides on and between the lines there is some contention to the fact that Oswald shot at Walker. So in my position I do not believe it to be Fact nor do I believe that "Oswald did it alone" as a fact. you tell me you are interested in ancient history a subject with very little "evidence" to its accuracy but there are ways to determine facts as in the case of Aboriginals from all continents who carry on traditions like Dance and art and of course the passing of knowledge of relatives .I personally find the study of DNA immensely interesting ,But I am always 6 months behind because it is an evolving science constantly changing new discoveries daily. I try and stay in step with the JFK assasination but there is just so much to study and so much crap posted so I tend to rely on people who I trust L/N,C/T or fence sitter .IOW some people are genuine in their argument others spout what they believe to be facts without checking thier validity and as you know this is time consuming and a deflection from what I am trying to do.My views will not be the same as yours so "warped" is not a problem I would never attempt to distort or twist a situation to suit my grasp on what occured because as we know "there is always somebody smarter" . Best to you Ian
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 03, 2010, 02:44:12 PM
|
Full Member
Posts: 123
|
Rob
It has taken time to arrive at this juncture with Mr. Walker .If you had taken the time to look through some of my old posts to him you would see that I have tried being helpful and have discussed other topics with him.But I find his style abrasive and arrogant which is fine if you are sure of your footing on the topic in debate.So after reading both sides on and between the lines there is some contention to the fact that Oswald shot at Walker.
So in my position I do not believe it to be Fact nor do I believe that "Oswald did it alone" as a fact. you tell me you are interested in ancient history
a subject with very little "evidence" to its accuracy but there are ways to determine facts as in the case of Aboriginals from all continents who carry on traditions like Dance and art and of course the passing of knowledge of relatives .I personally find the study of DNA immensely interesting ,But I am always 6 months behind because it is an evolving science constantly changing new discoveries daily. I try and stay in step with the JFK assasination
but there is just so much to study and so much crap posted so I tend to rely on people who I trust L/N,C/T or fence sitter .IOW some people are genuine in their argument others spout what they believe to be facts without checking thier validity and as you know this is time consuming and a deflection from what I am trying to do.My views will not be the same as yours so "warped" is not a problem I would never attempt to distort or twist a
situation to suit my grasp on what occured because as we know "there is always somebody smarter" .
Best to you
Ian
I shouldn't have said 'warped' that was a bit harsh. I appreciate the civil discussion. You know, I just took issue with that gatekeeper sort of attitude you were taking, that one needs a certain level of knowledge of the case before they can enter into discussions. The assassination is history, but it also is science. So we both made valid points. I'm more interested in the historical aspects. It's a buffet really, something for everyone. Forensics, physics, image and video analysis, politics, bureaucracy, medicine... no wonder the case still attracts a good level of interest.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 03, 2010, 03:04:15 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 4753
|
Rob
It has taken time to arrive at this juncture with Mr. Walker .If you had taken the time to look through some of my old posts to him you would see that I have tried being helpful and have discussed other topics with him.But I find his style abrasive and arrogant which is fine if you are sure of your footing on the topic in debate.So after reading both sides on and between the lines there is some contention to the fact that Oswald shot at Walker.
So in my position I do not believe it to be Fact nor do I believe that "Oswald did it alone" as a fact. you tell me you are interested in ancient history
a subject with very little "evidence" to its accuracy but there are ways to determine facts as in the case of Aboriginals from all continents who carry on traditions like Dance and art and of course the passing of knowledge of relatives .I personally find the study of DNA immensely interesting ,But I am always 6 months behind because it is an evolving science constantly changing new discoveries daily. I try and stay in step with the JFK assasination
but there is just so much to study and so much crap posted so I tend to rely on people who I trust L/N,C/T or fence sitter .IOW some people are genuine in their argument others spout what they believe to be facts without checking thier validity and as you know this is time consuming and a deflection from what I am trying to do.My views will not be the same as yours so "warped" is not a problem I would never attempt to distort or twist a
situation to suit my grasp on what occured because as we know "there is always somebody smarter" .
Best to you
Ian
I shouldn't have said 'warped' that was a bit harsh. I appreciate the civil discussion. You know, I just took issue with that gatekeeper sort of attitude you were taking, that one needs a certain level of knowledge of the case before they can enter into discussions. The assassination is history, but it also is science. So we both made valid points. I'm more interested in the historical aspects. It's a buffet really, something for everyone. Forensics, physics, image and video analysis, politics, bureaucracy, medicine... no wonder the case still attracts a good level of interest. Rob No problem. I would not attempt to defend an accused man in a court of Law as I do not possess the mental capacity .But outside of court I would to the best of my ability attempt to help anybody including Mr. Walker. As Harry Callaghan once professed " A mans gotta know his limitations" I am not interested what side of the fence people are on .Only what they say or what they can teach me .Its a bit selfish but has served Me well over the years. Ian
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
|
|
September 05, 2010, 03:37:09 PM
|
Super Member
Posts: 2895
|
What I very clearly have said, however, is that the white decorative pergola (and maybe the area behind the stockade fence) is what was behind Zapruder. Also, the area behind the stockade fence is not the "grassy knoll"....unless you can show me grass (or even a knoll of some sort) in that parking lot.
You are 100% correct, Bill. What was behind Zapruder's back, actually changed as he filmed the motorcade. Looking at these photographs shows how his back position changed as he was panning. As a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginAs a guest, you are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginDuncan I do not wish to get into a personal argument with Bill and Rob But was Zapruder filming from the Knoll?. I believed the word Knoll meant Hill If I am mistaken I am sure somebody will point it out .Zapruder stood on a concrete abutment. In front of him was a piece of grass on an incline where the Newmans were . this incline ran up to and beyond the railway bridge and levelled out at the Stemmons freeway intersection. So am I now to assume that the Grassy Knoll does not include the incline upto and including the stockade fence and concrete wall.IOW the steps leading down to Elm is the border between The Knoll and what ?.I could think of a name for it but I would rather it came from somebody who had actually been there and knows. Ian Bill and Lee have both been there. Being there is not the answer I was looking for! Let's say theoretically they are correct, at this stage of the case (nearly 47 years out) the terminology is what wins out! IOW, if the local natives don't consider this part to be the GK, but the researchers, the WC and every one else does, we have to go with that as that is what everyone is referring to! The point is this, the evidence shows us shots came from the stockade fence/concrete wall section of DP and that is BEHIND Zapruder! Bill believes LHO acted alone (at least that is my impression of what he thinks based on all of his posts) and there is ONLY one location for that belief and that was NEVER BEHIND Zapruder. That was my point. Bill, like many others who share his beliefs never address the POINT, but instead play games making other things the focal point! To sum up: THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN CLAIM THE TSBD WAS BEHIND ZAPRUDER! The rest is just semantics to distract. - Rob Caprio Really? Care to show this "evidence"? The point is this, the evidence shows us shots came from the stockade fence/concrete wall section of DP and that is BEHIND Zapruder! - Rob Caprio Good. At least you finally acknowledge that the grassy knoll was not behind Zapruder, as you falsely claimed earlier. Caprio Error #14 or CE14, as I like to call it: "(Zapruder) was left with the impression the shots came from BEHIND him which would have meant the Grassy Knoll area"THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN CLAIM THE TSBD WAS BEHIND ZAPRUDER! - Rob Caprio I agree. In fact, I have never disagreed with this statement. The evidence is in the statements (withheld of course for many years) of almost everyone who worked on him and did an autopsy on him! His RIGHT-REAR PORTION OF HIS HEAD WAS BLOWN OUT! He had an entry wound in the throat and right temple! He had NO wound at the base of the neck! What evidence do YOU have to show he was shot in the back of the head and base of the neck? I asked Robbie yesterday to name the Doctors who said there was an eentry wound in the right temple. So far nothing.. Just Robbie making stuff up again. So Malcolm Kilduff, White House Assistant Press Secretary, JUST MADE IT UP? Too bad he was filmed pointing to the right temple, HUH? I mean you folks have tried to say this never happened! Simple denial is your best tactic most of the time! What a surprise a conspiracy nut uses something very vague to try and back a rediculous claim. You guys do this over and over and over again. So now Malcolm Kilduff pointing to his right temple means it was an extrance wound. Its like you are joking. You have no waying od knowing if Kidduff was just pointing there because thats where a whole was blown out. But that doesn't matter, its more desperation to try and back a rediculous theory. Waiting for the names of the doctors who saw an extrance wound on the right temple.. You have zero credibility left. You said the other day more witnsses said they heard shots from the GK then the TSBD. That was a lie. You go on and on about Zapruder saying the shots came from behind, but ignore the fact that he said he didn't know where the shots came from, but because the right wide of the head opened up like the Zfilm and autopsy show, he thought it might have some from behind him. You are too simple to even understand that. Waiting for the names Robbie. LOL! So Brianie thinks a small wound could be an exit wound! If you want the doctor's names so bad let me give you some advice I got from Bill when I asked for a cite -- USE GOOGLE! Ah, I have NO credibility left says the man who NEVER HAD ANY TO START WITH! Why would I want credibility from a man like you in the first place? We see Brianie can't cite anything! Usu Google..Translation..You have nothing and you know it.
-------------------------
|
|
|
Reply |
|
|
| 0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
|
