Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: When Was JBC Hit?  (Read 159349 times)

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3822
Re: When Was JBC Hit?
« Reply #413 on: Today at 12:05:27 AM »
I'm not surprised that the concept of drawing conclusions from evidence is foreign to you. You prefer to pull your conclusions out of your ass.

 :D :D
So, please tell the forum how the "wealth of evidence" you have presented demonstrates that the sound of the shots was loud enough to cause a startle reaction at Zapruder's location. Do you even understand the difference between someone reacting to something and a startle reaction? Do you even understand that witnesses in different locations heard things differently?

What I think about this issue is informed by the only witness evidence relevant to this subject - Sitzman's statements. This evidence demonstrates that Jiggle Analysis is a non-starter as far as the Z-film is concerned.
Your sad attempt to counter this evidence is now on the record for all to see.

Do yourself a favour and have a read through "The First Shot" thread.

Online John Corbett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1446
Re: When Was JBC Hit?
« Reply #414 on: Today at 12:20:29 AM »
:D :D
So, please tell the forum how the "wealth of evidence" you have presented demonstrates that the sound of the shots was loud enough to cause a startle reaction at Zapruder's location. Do you even understand the difference between someone reacting to something and a startle reaction? Do you even understand that witnesses in different locations heard things differently?

What I think about this issue is informed by the only witness evidence relevant to this subject - Sitzman's statements. This evidence demonstrates that Jiggle Analysis is a non-starter as far as the Z-film is concerned.

A silly approach given how unreliable eye and ear witness testimony is. I'm amazed by how many people on this forum think witness accounts are the end all, be all when it comes to evidence. No matter what someone wants to believe about the JFKA, they can probably find and a witness to support it. If we are to believe witnesses, the JFKA happened dozens of different ways.
Quote

Your sad attempt to counter this evidence is now on the record for all to see.

Do yourself a favour and have a read through "The First Shot" thread.

Just what I need. A recommendation from a guy who doesn't think Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK.

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3822
Re: When Was JBC Hit?
« Reply #415 on: Today at 12:36:24 AM »
A silly approach given how unreliable eye and ear witness testimony is. I'm amazed by how many people on this forum think witness accounts are the end all, be all when it comes to evidence. No matter what someone wants to believe about the JFKA, they can probably find and a witness to support it. If we are to believe witnesses, the JFKA happened dozens of different ways.

Try again - how does the "wealth of evidence" you presented demonstrate that the sound of the shots could have caused a startle reaction at Zapruder's location.
That's the issue at hand.

Quote
Just what I need. A recommendation from a guy who doesn't think Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK.

There is zero evidence that Oswald actually took the shots and lots of evidence suggesting he didn't.
You believe that because Oswald's rifle was found at the scene, that is evidence he actually took the shots. As much as this is going to blow your mind, it is not evidence Oswald actually took the shots.
Because you're not too bright you cannot understand how this can be true.
Like all true Nutters, you don't realise that what you think about this case is actually a THEORY. Your delusion convinces you that it is a FACT Oswald took the shots.
It is not a fact, its just a theory.


Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3822
Re: When Was JBC Hit?
« Reply #416 on: Today at 12:48:23 AM »
Question: Zapruder said he heard only two shots. Not three. Why didn't (or wouldn't) he remember hearing the first shot that caused him to "jiggle" the camera?

Wouldn't he have remembered a shot or sound that startled or shook him enough to jiggle the camera for that third (in your scenario, the first) shot? It's loud enough to cause him to "jiggle" but not loud enough for him to remember?

This is a really good point.
Both Zapruder and Sitzman are unsure as to how many shots there were. They both seem to favour two shots but sometimes mention three.
If, as you say, the shots were loud enough to cause a startle reaction wouldn't it be easily remembered how many there were?