Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory  (Read 42160 times)

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #28 on: January 06, 2023, 07:56:39 PM »
This is your answer to all the points I presented to you in my two previous replies? No, Canning did not get the pre-Z190 shot from the acoustical evidence. He got it from his own analysis and from most of the HSCA photographic experts. You still have not read his analysis, have you?

You seem to be making the bizarre argument that we can reconstruct the shooting solely from the eyewitness accounts. You're the first person I've seen propose such a bogus approach. Again, the witnesses were situated all over the plaza and many of them did not notice one or more of the shots, which is only natural. You cannot seriously believe that you can establish the shooting events just by using the witness accounts.

Again, I notice you ignored the point that Willis 5 must have been snapped in reaction to a shot fired before Z190, which means you have to believe that your sixth-floor gunman fired at JFK while his view of JFK was obstructed by the oak tree. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.

Did you look at Z200-207 in slow motion yet? If you do, you can't help but see that starting in Z200, JFK suddenly freezes his waving motion, starts to bring his right hand toward his throat, and starts to rapidly turn his head to the left. You will also see that during this same time frame, Jackie suddenly starts to turn her head from left to right to look at JFK. Even most of the HSCA experts who analyzed the Zapruder film acknowledged that these movements mean that JFK must have been shot before Z190.

The HSCA experts also noted that there is a strong blur episode from Z189-197, which of course indicates a shot was fired a few frames earlier (6 HSCA 27).

I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning said the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. If you doubt that he said this, go read his analysis/testimony. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.

I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning found it necessary to ignore the HSCA medical panel's placement of the back wound to get his SBT trajectory to work, which was a damning and revealing admission.

Have you looked at Canning's diagrams? Go look at his diagram that shows his placement of JBC in the limo, and then, again, find me one photo or frame that shows Connally as far left as Canning shows him to be. Let's see it. Z224 destroys, utterly destroys, the fiction that Connally was that far to the left.

I further notice that you are still ignoring JFK's dramatic reactions that start in Z226, when he is jolted forward and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. These actions show that JFK was hit in the back a frame or two earlier, clearly after he had begun to react to the Z186 shot in Z200-207. WC apologists are caught between a rock and a hard place by these Z226-232 reactions and the Z200-207 reactions, because they obviously could not have been caused by the same bullet. That's why you guys either ignore one or both of these reaction sequences.

And, yes, I most certainly believe in the HSCA acoustical evidence Are you aware that Dr. Thompson arranged for new testing to be done on the acoustical evidence by BBN scientists and that this testing confirmed the HSCA experts' findings? Here's my own humble article on the acoustical evidence:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view

Looks to be clearly stated. The frame was chosen by the accoustics panel.

 

Mr. GOLDSMITH, Thank you.
Why was this specific frame used to determine the trajectory of the back neck shot?
Mr. CANNING. During the investigation several weeks ago, there were indications that suggested this would be a proper time to consider for a first wound, in particular the investigations of the acoustics panel led to selection of this for our study at that time.

 

=========================

You seem to be making the bizarre argument that we can reconstruct the shooting solely from the eyewitness accounts. You're the first person I've seen propose such a bogus approach. Again, the witnesses were situated all over the plaza and many of them did not notice one or more of the shots, which is only natural. You cannot seriously believe that you can establish the shooting events just by using the witness accounts.
 
Again, I notice you ignored the point that Willis 5 must have been snapped in reaction to a shot fired before Z190, which means you have to believe that your sixth-floor gunman fired at JFK while his view of JFK was obstructed by the oak tree. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.
 
Did you look at Z200-207 in slow motion yet? If you do, you can't help but see that starting in Z200, JFK suddenly freezes his waving motion, starts to bring his right hand toward his throat, and starts to rapidly turn his head to the left. You will also see that during this same time frame, Jackie suddenly starts to turn her head from left to right to look at JFK. Even most of the HSCA experts who analyzed the Zapruder film acknowledged that these movements mean that JFK must have been shot before Z190.
 

HUH. Everything you post is based on your personal interpretation of people’s reactions based on the Zapruder film. Now you are questioning the Eyewitnesses explaining what they saw and heard. Is there any doubt why so little importance is placed on your opinion?

 
==========================

 
You were asked to post Canning’s explanation of the fragment and the windshield. It appears you cannot.


===============

JFK’s reaction at Z226 is the result of the first shot. Exactly what the eyewitnesses described.

==================================


And, yes, I most certainly believe in the HSCA acoustical evidence Are you aware that Dr. Thompson arranged for new testing to be done on the acoustical evidence by BBN scientists and that this testing confirmed the HSCA experts' findings? Here's my own humble article on the acoustical evidence:

 
There is the problem. Believing in the dictabelt as having value.

============================

You have the right answer with there just having been two shots. It answers all the questions. Why embellish the answer with useless nonsense.

Online Zeon Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1191
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #29 on: January 10, 2023, 03:25:16 AM »
It’s easy to see the effects of angular momentum caused by a bullet hitting Connelly off center of his torso and shoulders as he turns counter clockwise within about another 1/18 sec frame after the lapel flap frame.

So I agree with Jerry on the point of the lapel flap being a sign of a bullet exiting rather than a wind gust.

However I’m not convinced that Jerry’s model of Connelly is accurate at the moment Connelly is hit. Imo, for the trajectory line to work, Connallys legs and his torso would be rotated clockwise towards the right side door .

I think that Connelly being rather tall and having long legs would have found it uncomfortable to have his legs in parallel with the side door and his knees being pushed onto the back of Kellermans seat.

Also from the angle of Connallys shoulder line in Jerry’s posted frames just a fraction of a sec before the lapel flap, Connallys torso is likely in the same angle as his shoulders and his head which appears to be facing the right front side of the limo. ( Connally may have been noticing umbrella man and DC man actions as were the SS agents looking that same direction).

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2109
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #30 on: January 10, 2023, 05:17:52 AM »

Have you looked at Canning's diagrams? Go look at his diagram that shows his placement of JBC in the limo, and then, again, find me one photo or frame that shows Connally as far left as Canning shows him to be. Let's see it. Z224 destroys, utterly destroys, the fiction that Connally was that far to the left.

I'm sure that you're aware of the Photographic and film analysis done of the Kennedy assassination by the ITEK Corporation in 1976. People with training and experience in the following disciplines participated in the program: physics, photographic science, special photographic processing, photo interpretation, image analysis, coherent optical image processing, photogrammetry, and digital image processing.  From the Zapruder film, they determined that Connally was as much as 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy.

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #31 on: January 10, 2023, 02:10:56 PM »
I'm sure that you're aware of the Photographic and film analysis done of the Kennedy assassination by the ITEK Corporation in 1976. People with training and experience in the following disciplines participated in the program: physics, photographic science, special photographic processing, photo interpretation, image analysis, coherent optical image processing, photogrammetry, and digital image processing.  From the Zapruder film, they determined that Connally was as much as 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy.

He knows Z224 is not proof of anything, that is why he chose it. JFK is not in the photo and JBC is sitting there looking to his right, beginning to react to having been shot. JBC stated he was looking at men, women, and children when he heard the first shot. The only children there to his right were the Chism's and Newman's immediately to his right.

The best photo of the orientation of the men is the photo looking down from the Adolphus Hotel or Dave Power's photo of the two men from behind.

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1845
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #32 on: January 11, 2023, 10:05:58 PM »

I'm sure that you're aware of the Photographic and film analysis done of the Kennedy assassination by the ITEK Corporation in 1976. People with training and experience in the following disciplines participated in the program: physics, photographic science, special photographic processing, photo interpretation, image analysis, coherent optical image processing, photogrammetry, and digital image processing.  From the Zapruder film, they determined that Connally was as much as 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy.

And if, like myself, you are not an expert on film analysis, you can always look at the David Powers film, showing a view from directly behind the limousine, that clearly show Connally sitting well inboard of Kennedy. One can generally see almost all of Connally's head, sometimes all of it, showing Connally was at least six to eight inches inboard of Kennedy.

And there is no reason to think that either changed positions during the five minutes Powers had the camera turned off before reaching Dealey Plaza. Connally would stay in the same position, sitting in a bucket seat. And Kennedy would stay in the same position, to keep his right elbow resting on the side of the limousine, something we see in both the Powers and Zapruder films.

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1529
    • JFK Assassination Website
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #33 on: January 12, 2023, 01:15:59 PM »
Another obvious fact that refutes the lone-gunman theory is the self-evident contradiction between the largest fragment that was supposedly removed from the frontal area of JFK's head and the appearance of that fragment on the autopsy skull x-rays.

The fragment can be seen in CE 843. It is the largest of the fragments in the exhibit. The large fragment in CE 843 is supposed to be the 7 x 2 mm fragment described in the autopsy report and seen on the skull x-rays, but the two fragments look nothing like each other.

The large fragment in CE 843 is roundish in shape and weighs 107 mg. In contrast, the 7 x 2 mm fragment seen on the skull x-rays looks nothing like that: it is a mostly straight and narrow object that bends moderately to the left in the top fourth of its body. Some might refer to it as being shaped like a club.

The FBI only removed about 1 mg of the fragment's substance to perform spectrographic and NAA testing; the removal of such a tiny amount of the fragment's mass would not have drastically altered its shape.

Dr. Mantik discuses this contradiction in his article "The JFK Autopsy Materials: Twenty-Nine Conclusions After Nine Visits":

Quote
This is one of the most shocking contradictions in the entire case. The shape of the larger piece of metal is nothing like the supposedly identical piece seen on the X-rays. No measurements taken on this piece can explain its bizarre transformation in shape. Most likely, it is not the piece taken from the skull. Its origin is unknown.

John Hunt has much better quality images, obtained from NARA. Incidentally, I saw only two, not three, fragments at NARA. The largest, however, bears no resemblance to the corresponding image on the X-rays. The larger piece shown here is pancake shaped and was 107 mg. On the other hand, the X-rays show a club shaped object on both X-ray views (see Figures 2 and 6 above). The studies done by the FBI on this object (spectrographic analysis and neutron activation analysis) required only a tiny amount at most, about 1 mg, according to one of the FBI experts. No one has ever offered an explanation for this flagrant discrepancy in the shape of the largest piece. ("The JFK Autopsy Materials: Twenty-Nine Conclusions After Nine Visits," pp. 14-15, http://themantikview.org/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_Materials.pdf)
« Last Edit: January 13, 2023, 12:39:06 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1327
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #34 on: January 12, 2023, 02:05:56 PM »
Another obvious fact that refutes the lone-gunman theory is the self-evident contradiction between the largest fragment that was supposedly removed from the frontal area of JFK's head and the appearance of that fragment on the autopsy skull x-rays.

The fragment can be seen in CE 843. It is the largest of the fragments in the exhibit. The large fragment in CE 843 is supposed to be the 7 x 2 mm fragment described in the autopsy report and seen on the skull x-rays, but the two fragments look nothing like each other.

The large fragment in CE 843 is roundish in shape and weighs 107 mg. In contrast, the 7 x 2 mm fragment seen on the skull x-rays looks nothing like that: it is a mostly straight and narrow object that bends moderately to the left in the top fourth of its body. Some might refer to it as being shaped like a club.

The FBI only removed about 1 mg of the fragment's substance to perform spectrographic and NAA testing; the removal of such a tiny amount of the fragment's mass would not have drastically altered it shape.

Dr. Mantik discuses this contradiction in his article "The JFK Autopsy Materials: Twenty-Nine Conclusions After Nine Visits":

Wrong thread. This fragments subject is being discussed in the thread:

: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments

In this thread you were explaining how there were two other shots having been fired by an unknown assassin in addition to the two shots that were fired by LHO.