JFK Assassination Forum 
Logo
Home Support The Forum The Robin Unger JFK Assassination GalleryYoutube JFK Assassination Video ChannelSearchNotepadLoginRegister

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2017, 06:52:56 PM
News: Posts and threads containing swear words, personal insults or crudities, content considered by Admin to be spamming, when reported or observed, may be edited or deleted.
The perpetrator of any offense may receive a posting suspension of a period to be determined by Admin in relation to the considered severity of the offense.
Questions relating to deletions or edits will not be answered by Admin via any communication method here or elsewhere.

Pages: 1 ... 92 93 94 95 96 [97] 98 99 100 101 102 ... 108
Powell vs Dillard  (Read 39964 times)

Super Member
*****

Posts: 7906


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you recreated the same experiment as the "Lost Bullet" recreation you could never get the shells to eject in exactly the same place - but they will go into the two distinct areas, if the recreation follows the scenario put forward by the Warren Commission - a missed first shot as the car passes close by the shooter who must stand to take this shot, then a second shot at about the point the car has reached the sign, with the shooter now crouching, a third head shot at frame 313 Zapruder, with the shooter still crouching.

There are several problems with your argument.  How do you know that there was a shot as the car passed close by the shooter?  How do you know that the shooter stood as he took this shot?  How do you know he was crouching as he took the second shot?  How do you know that there was a shot at about the point the car had reached the sign?  You don't know any of this, so your argument is circular.  You're assuming that the shooting happened the way the WC guessed it did in order to show that the shooting happened the way the WC guessed it did.  And no, the "two distinct areas" aren't impressive when you consider that you're talking about 3 shells in a tight area and a guy who said "looks about right".

Quote
If you do NOT accept (and I do accept) that the shooter man pointing a rifle at the passing motorcade seen by Brennan, whose gun is also seen by Jackson, is shooting, then he's play-acting at being an assassin for a day. What else can he be doing?

This is an argument from ignorance.  You can guess what he was doing, but that doesn't change the fact that Brennan didn't claim to see anybody shooting.  Euins did, however.

Quote
Then it follows that somebody has placed the shells into position in the snipers nest afterwards. A conspiracy. (and placed them into the two distinct areas in an amazing feat of foresight!).

No, that's not the amazing feat of foresight that you like to pretend it is.  This is a perfect example of making the evidence fit the theory instead of the other way around.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 1022


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There are several problems with your argument.  How do you know that there was a shot as the car passed close by the shooter?  How do you know that the shooter stood as he took this shot?  How do you know he was crouching as he took the second shot?  How do you know that there was a shot at about the point the car had reached the sign?  You don't know any of this, so your argument is circular.  You're assuming that the shooting happened the way the WC guessed it did in order to show that the shooting happened the way the WC guessed it did.  And no, the "two distinct areas" aren't impressive when you consider that you're talking about 3 shells in a tight area and a guy who said "looks about right".

This is an argument from ignorance.  You can guess what he was doing, but that doesn't change the fact that Brennan didn't claim to see anybody shooting.  Euins did, however.

No, that's not the amazing feat of foresight that you like to pretend it is.  This is a perfect example of making the evidence fit the theory instead of the other way around.

You ask very valid questions - in fact I could not ask better questions. Especially If I was standing in the sniper's nest on the 22nd, as Mooney was, looking at the shells that have landed in the two distinct areas. These are your questions, they bear repeating:

How do you know that there was a shot as the car passed close by the shooter? 
How do you know that the shooter stood as he took this shot? 
How do you know he was crouching as he took the second shot? 
How do you know that there was a shot at about the point the car had reached the sign?


These are the precisely the questions that a conspirator has to face in any attempt to place shells into positions that will match the physical evidence and film footage of the murder. Your very questions argue that the shell placement is no easy task if you are going to succeed in being convincing with a pattern that will stand up to future comparisons with laser angles and Zapruder frame analysis and such forth. So it becomes extremely unlikely that a conspirator could plant bullets, before the Zapruder film has been developed, in a pattern of two distinct areas consistent with a moments of trauma in the movie. Your questions underline that.

Comparing the Studebaker photo with the "Lost Bullet" results shows a good match. And to achieve that match - which they cannot know they will achieve before they do the experiment - the documentary makers had to use the Zapruder frames showing moments of trauma in the car:

Head shot at frame 313 (obvious)
A probable shot as car reaches sign or emerges from sign, when much distress starts in the in car around the moment the car reaches/passes the sign.


Clearly, these are plausible, sensible-to-argue key moments from the Zapruder film that show clues that shots have been fired at the motorcade and have hit their mark. The resulting shell pattern is a match with those key moments of trauma. The pattern of the two closer bullets matches the pattern seen in the Studebaker photo - two shells flung closer together at the wall. Yet there is a third shell flung further away. Mooney says this:

...I do know there was--one was further away, and these other two were relatively close together--on this particular area."

Since there were three shots, it's reasonable to argue that a shot missed. So the documentary makers have researched and know that there are proponents who claim a shot around the time the car is passing close by the shooters' window as it starts down Elm St. Reasonably, then, they test this hypothesis - and the result is a bullet shell that is flung into the far area which we see in the Studebaker photo and which Mooney described in the above quote. For that shot, their marine marksman is standing so he can aim downwards to get a good angle on Kennedy.

The later two shots, fired after this one in the recreation experiment show that the Marine is crouching. Now, Brennan, who witnessed the man brandishing a rifle, says this in his WC testimony:

Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot.

So it appears that the shooter was standing. But moments later Brennan also says this:

Mr. BELIN. I believe you said you thought the man was standing. What do you believe was the position of the people on the fifth floor that you saw--standing or sitting?
Mr. BRENNAN. I thought they were standing with their elbows on the window sill leaning out.


Now we know that the workmen were not standing on the lower floor, so Brennan has been misled by perspective. In all likelihood then, the shooter was crouching.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 7906


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
These are the precisely the questions that a conspirator has to face in any attempt to place shells into positions that will match the physical evidence and film footage of the murder. Your very questions argue that the shell placement is no easy task

You're trying so hard to shift the burden of proof, but I'm not falling for it.  You have done nothing to show that the shell placement which you have argued is "about right" (with no definition of what that even means) is no easy task.  The conclusions from an invalid experiment are likewise invalid.  You've already conceded that the shells were planted (by Fritz) before the photos were taken, so Mooney's "about right" is meaningless without knowing what other placements he would have said were "about right".  And Mooney's "one was further away, and these other two were relatively close together" is too vague to match it to any experimental data.  Particularly when you have no way of even knowing which shell corresponded to which shot.

Quote
Comparing the Studebaker photo with the "Lost Bullet" results shows a good match. And to achieve that match - which they cannot know they will achieve before they do the experiment - the documentary makers had to use the Zapruder frames showing moments of trauma in the car:

Really?  Your "two distinct areas" claim absolutely depends on your "first, standing, close to the limo" shot.  What "trauma in the car" matches this hypothetical shot?

Quote
Since there were three shots, it's reasonable to argue that a shot missed.

Only if you a prioi assume that the single bullet scenario is correct and that the bullets from all three shells were actually fired.  It's just as reasonable to argue that there was an empty shell that was ejected before firing started, which is why I say that your shell placement is being made to fit your pre-assumption about what happened.

Quote
For that shot, their marine marksman is standing so he can aim downwards to get a good angle on Kennedy.

Sorry, a marine doing something in a recreation tells you nothing about what actually happened.  Brennan being confused about whether the guy he saw was standing or not is also irrelevant because Brennan didn't see any shots fired.

You're still left with a pile of assumptions matching another pile of assumptions.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 1022


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You're trying so hard to shift the burden of proof, but I'm not falling for it.  You have done nothing to show that the shell placement which you have argued is "about right" (with no definition of what that even means) is no easy task.  The conclusions from an invalid experiment are likewise invalid.  You've already conceded that the shells were planted (by Fritz) before the photos were taken, so Mooney's "about right" is meaningless without knowing what other placements he would have said were "about right".  And Mooney's "one was further away, and these other two were relatively close together" is too vague to match it to any experimental data.  Particularly when you have no way of even knowing which shell corresponded to which shot.

Really?  Your "two distinct areas" claim absolutely depends on your "first, standing, close to the limo" shot.  What "trauma in the car" matches this hypothetical shot?

Only if you a prioi assume that the single bullet scenario is correct and that the bullets from all three shells were actually fired.  It's just as reasonable to argue that there was an empty shell that was ejected before firing started, which is why I say that your shell placement is being made to fit your pre-assumption about what happened.

Sorry, a marine doing something in a recreation tells you nothing about what actually happened.  Brennan being confused about whether the guy he saw was standing or not is also irrelevant because Brennan didn't see any shots fired.

You're still left with a pile of assumptions matching another pile of assumptions.


You use the phrases:  "..a marine doing something in a recreation tells you nothing ..." and "invalid". Well, let's see what "doing something" involves.

First - they use a Marine marksman - Oswald was a trained Marine and he is accused of taking the shots. If they had not used a Marine you'd say "invalid!". They do. You say "invalid!".
Next - they accurately recreate the snipers nest. If they had not you'd say "invalid!". They do. You say "invalid!".
Next - they use a Mannlicher Carcano - same make and model. Valid since the shells they found were of a type used by Carcano's. If they had not used an MC - same model & make -  you'd say "invalid!". They do. You say "invalid!".
Next - they use surveyors and high tech equipment to accurately plot frames. If they had not attempted to get to this level of accuracy you'd say "invalid!". They do. You say "invalid!".
Next - they refer to the Zapruder film for shooter posture / angle analysis. Clearly valid. If they had not used the Z film you'd say "invalid!". They do. You say "invalid!".
Next - they use Frame 313 as a "Trauma Frame". Definately valid and determins posture / gun angle quite clearly. If they had not used this frame you would say "invalid!". They do. You say "invalid!".

(I assume you would have walked onto the set when they were doing "something" and told them it was all "invalid", and how they should be doing the "something" correctly according to you).

Once they have the accuracy for frame 313, then it does not really matter if they pick the absolutely correct frame (at the moment the car reaches the sign)  for the shot just prior to this - they can choose the moment when the car is about to go behind the sign (they do opt for this). Or they could move that green X up a little closer to the third (313) X for the moment when Connally / Kennedy show much distress. The shooter posture won't change and the rifle angle hardly changes, due to the car receding in perspective. So, the shell ejection falling place won't alter much. Here are the three X's with the two X's of shots 2 and 3 just mentioned - you can see they are close to each other, so pushing the second X upwards makes little difference to the shell ejection placement in terms of landing in a particular area.



Now because Brennan likely saw a man crouching (if the gunman stands to shoot, it looks as though he'd have to shoot through the window panes, becase the infamous window was open at half its full amount), so the marine marksman also crouches. The marksman takes aim, his gun angled for frame 313 Zapruder and fires, with several attempts using the same angle of posture and rifle angle for 313 / earlier shot.

The result is that the Carcano shells eject into a distinct area closer to him than the shell seen in Studebaker's photo at the far right corner area (as we look at the photo). The shells from this shot don't always get to the "skirting board" area, that's the nature of physics - yet they stay in the distinct area. At times the match to Studebaker is striking. So, an angle that is locked in time and space by the Zapruder film - 313 - produces the resulting pattern of shells always landing in one particular area. Likewise with the earlier shot - the one just prior to 313. Same area. Not the far-flung area.

The two chosen frames, then show that Carcano shells will fall into the area closer to Studebaker's camera. That leaves the far flung one. They tried the "missed shot" hypothesis and that posture / angle flings the spent cartidge across the nest area resulting in the match for the Studebaker photo. In fact, Mooney only has issue with one of the shells (shell B), he thinks it could be moved a little further forwards closer to C He says this:

Mr. MOONEY - The one cartridge here, by the wall facing, is right. And this one and this one, they were further away from this one.
Mr. BALL - Well--
Mr. MOONEY - But as to being positive of the exact distance
Mr. BALL - You think that the cartridges are in the same position as when you saw them in this picture 510?
Mr. MOONEY - As far as my knowledge, they are; pretty close to right.
Mr. BALL - Well, we will label these cartridges, the empty shells as "A", "B", and "C."
Now, I didn't quite understand---did you say it was your memory that "A" and "B" were not that close together?
Mr. MOONEY - Just from my memory, it seems that this cartridge ought to have been over this way a little further.
Mr. BALL - You mean the "B" cartridge should be closer to the "C?
Mr. MOONEY - Closer to the "C"; yes, sir.

("C" is the far-flung shell).

*You've just posted that I had said the shells were planted by Fritz:    "You've already conceded that the shells were planted (by Fritz) before the photos were taken"  I did not use the word "planted" which implies deception.  I'll assume that was a genuine mistake on your part and you did not mean to suggest that I had said Fritz "planted" the shells.

Edit: I've slighly modified a sentence regarding the amount the snipers window was open)


-------------------------
« Last Edit: March 21, 2017, 11:12:35 PM by Stuart Hill »

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 1022


Here is the Studebaker photo with the shells noted as A / B / C, using the same letter identity for each shell as the WC exhibit shown to Mooney.





-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 7906


I'm not sure why you keep posting these verbose restatements of your argument without actually addressing any of the objections to it.

- The Zapruder film doesn't tell you when the shots were actually fired.

- Mooney looked at an existing photo and said "pretty close to right", with no indication what "pretty close" means.  And you're cherry picking that.  You yourself quoted the part of his testimony where he said that the picture was not accurate:

Mr. BALL - Well, we will label these cartridges, the empty shells as "A", "B", and "C."
Now, I didn't quite understand---did you say it was your memory that "A" and "B" were not that close together?
Mr. MOONEY - Just from my memory, it seems that this cartridge ought to have been over this way a little further.
Mr. BALL - You mean the "B" cartridge should be closer to the "C?"
Mr. MOONEY - Closer to the "C"; yes, sir.

How much closer?  He didn't say, and they didn't ask.  But you somehow know that the "Lost Bullet" shells landed in spots that were "strikingly" close.  How you know this is anyone's guess.

- The test only tested one particular prebiased way of getting the shells into a small area and you claim that it's strikingly close without even trying to define what your margin of error is.

And why would you claim that Fritz picking up the shells and then replacing them for the photo is not deception?  It most certainly is.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 10453


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here is the Studebaker photo with the shells noted as A / B / C, using the same letter identity for each shell as the WC exhibit shown to Mooney.





This is NOT an original photo



If a person has to use a fake photo to make a point...Is that point true?


-------------------------

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 10453


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You're trying so hard to shift the burden of proof, but I'm not falling for it.  You have done nothing to show that the shell placement which you have argued is "about right" (with no definition of what that even means) is no easy task.  The conclusions from an invalid experiment are likewise invalid.  You've already conceded that the shells were planted (by Fritz) before the photos were taken, so Mooney's "about right" is meaningless without knowing what other placements he would have said were "about right".  And Mooney's "one was further away, and these other two were relatively close together" is too vague to match it to any experimental data.  Particularly when you have no way of even knowing which shell corresponded to which shot.

Really?  Your "two distinct areas" claim absolutely depends on your "first, standing, close to the limo" shot.  What "trauma in the car" matches this hypothetical shot?

Only if you a prioi assume that the single bullet scenario is correct and that the bullets from all three shells were actually fired.  It's just as reasonable to argue that there was an empty shell that was ejected before firing started, which is why I say that your shell placement is being made to fit your pre-assumption about what happened.

Sorry, a marine doing something in a recreation tells you nothing about what actually happened.  Brennan being confused about whether the guy he saw was standing or not is also irrelevant because Brennan didn't see any shots fired.

You're still left with a pile of assumptions matching another pile of assumptions.

Brennan being confused about whether the guy he saw was standing or not is also irrelevant because Brennan didn't see any shots fired.

I then saw this man I have described ( early thirties, 165 to 175 pounds, wearing light colored clothing but definitely not  suit) in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered ( hunting ) rifle.      I could see all of the man from about his belt up, then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped back out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry.......   H.L. Brennan    11/22/ 63

I could see all of the man from about his belt up, 

 Please explain how this could be possible if the man was in any posture but STANDING.....


-------------------------

   ReplyReply
Nicholas Cupo, Stuart Hill and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 92 93 94 95 96 [97] 98 99 100 101 102 ... 108


Jump to:  

JFK Assassination Forum Assassination of JFK discussion and debate surrounding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy In Dealey Plaza Texas on November 22nd 1963

JFK Assassination Photographs Gallery

JFK Assassination Forum Assassination of JFK discussion and debate surrounding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy In Dealey Plaza Texas on November 22nd 1963
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines