JFK Assassination Computer Analysis Video!

[Dan O'meara]

What does my belief in what happened have to do with my question? A conspiracy theorist could ask the same question. It doesn't matter which side you are on. My view on what happened doesn't make the question invalid.

Again: Why are there so many widely different theories after 60 plus years?

And FWIW, I'm not closed to a conspiracy involving Oswald. Oswald plus someone else. But a small one.

"What does my belief in what happened have to do with my question? A conspiracy theorist could ask the same question. It doesn't matter which side you are on. My view on what happened doesn't make the question invalid."

As someone who has accepted a particular JFK theory, you are in a perfect position to answer this question.
It appears to me that the proliferation of theories reflects differing character traits. Various sources will create a theory that reflects how they look at things and then followers come along and choose whichever theory reflects who they are and how they look at the world.

"Conspiracy believers simply start with their conspiracy belief ("Oswald couldn't have done this!!") and then select that information that supports their theory. This is, they reverse engineer a theory. Theory first and then fit the facts to support that theory. The assassination, then, is really a mirror, a Rohrschach test that reveals who the conspiracy believer disfavors."

When you posted this I got the impression that you didn't realise this description applies to LNers more than anyone. The Warren Commission has done their thinking for them, their opinions have been provided for them and they will defend this theory to the bitter end. They literally start with their belief that Oswald-Did-It [ODI] and work the evidence from there.

"And FWIW, I'm not closed to a conspiracy involving Oswald...But a small one."

Agreed.
My own theory, which is the result of my best interpretation of the evidence wherever it leads, points to a small conspiracy involving a handful of people.
As a theory it will always have holes in it that have to be filled with speculation, but there isn't a single JFK theory, including the ODI theory, that doesn't suffer from the same limitation.

[Patrick Davies]

Only with an open, scientific mind, recognising theories need to be modified or rejected subject to empirical evidence will one get closer to an understanding.
If we adhere to entrenched beliefs we will still think that the Earth is at the centre of the the solar system (a reasonable model until overtaken by further observation) or that the sun would not rise without its daily worship.

[Royell Storing]

Only with an open, scientific mind, recognising theories need to be modified or rejected subject to empirical evidence will one get closer to an understanding.
If we adhere to entrenched beliefs we will still think that the Earth is at the centre of the the solar system (a reasonable model until overtaken by further observation) or that the sun would not rise without its daily worship.

   Knott Lab Forensic SCIENCE has found the SBT, "Is IMPOSSIBLE". There are those here seeking to deny SCIENCE. I would encourage them to seek membership in the "Flat Earth Society". They will be most comfortable there.   

[Dan O'meara]

   Knott Lab Forensic SCIENCE has found the SBT, "Is IMPOSSIBLE". There are those here seeking to deny SCIENCE. I would encourage them to seek membership in the "Flat Earth Society". They will be most comfortable there.   

The Knott Lab cartoon found the bullet still hit JBC in the back, just in a different place than where the bullet hole actually was.



This is from Z225 (the actual shot was Z222/Z223, but it's close enough).
The green line shows the trajectory of the bullet through JFK's throat and hitting JBC's back.
However, no bullet hole was found in that part of JBC's back.

It was never explained how this stupidity came to pass but the answer was pretty clear.
The Knott Lab cartoon did an excellent job of recreating Dealey Plaza and the presidential limo, but they hired a blind 10 year old child to animate the people actually in the limo. The biggest mistake the little kid made was shown earlier in the animation and it was a classic error:

picture uploader

He'd only put JBC sat directly in front of JFK and not to further in the limo [D'oh!] but that's what happens when you hire blind children for an animated cartoon.
If this mistake was corrected the green line hitting JBC's back would line up with the bullet hole actually found in his back.

Royell's usual tactic after being shown this evidence is to go quiet for a few weeks and then come back shouting about how Science has proven that it is impossible for two men to be shot with one bullet.

[Dan O'meara]

Only with an open, scientific mind, recognising theories need to be modified or rejected subject to empirical evidence will one get closer to an understanding.
If we adhere to entrenched beliefs we will still think that the Earth is at the centre of the the solar system (a reasonable model until overtaken by further observation) or that the sun would not rise without its daily worship.

Only with an open, scientific mind, recognising theories need to be modified or rejected subject to empirical evidence will one get closer to an understanding.

Every single JFK theory, no matter how bizarre, kicks off with a statement very similar to this one.
Things go downhill very shortly after this.

One question - how do you differentiate between a cover up and profound incompetence?

[Patrick Davies]

   Knott Lab Forensic SCIENCE has found the SBT, "Is IMPOSSIBLE". There are those here seeking to deny SCIENCE. I would encourage them to seek membership in the "Flat Earth Society". They will be most comfortable there.   

Quite. They might conclude 'improbable' or highly 'improbable' depending on their evidence, but to say 'impossible' for such a scenario is highly unscientific.

Even if it were an improbable shot, and there were no evidence of more than 3 bullets, one would have to conclude luck was on his side and the shot was made.

Over the years, investigations have tended more towards the conclusion that the single bullet theory is more plausible. With the positioning of the seats and the angle of Connelly's body seen in the Zapruder film, it seems that what appeared to be implausible was in fact quite possible.

Firing at a complex, dynamic target, there is a very large number of possible outcomes - miss left, miss right, hit this or that, etc., etc. Even though each outcome is individually very unlikely, one will occur. Say one million people buy a lottery ticket; one person wins. It is unreasonable to say to that person, 'you could not have won', because the odds of winning are so low.

I can only suggest that the Knott Lab was working with poor evidence, or there was something improper going on.

The single bullet theory was proposed very quickly as a way to explain just 3 shots. It's easy to think, therefore, that it was contrived, especially as it is seemingly elaborate, so it is understandable that people would be sceptical of it. And some people find it difficult to change their opinion. (That's how someone like Galileo was persecuted for his discoveries.) It seems, even if the the SBT appeared to be made up on the spot, it may have been quite accurate, perhaps unlike much of the rest of the Warren Commission's affairs.

[Steve Barber]

This was the primary source from the National Academies...



Either way, it seems the acoustic evidence should be discarded.

How did you see it during the ad?

   I couldn't agree more. 
I saw the Acoustics section s as crap.