JFK Assassination Forum

lol when did i claim that Frazier was involved in a plot to frame Oswald for the assassination ? . it is typical of LN to dream up nonsense and then to claim SO CALLED CT made the claims . LN and rationality are two things that in my experience rarely if ever go together .

Of course you did by implication.  You simply are displaying the skills that allow you to be a CTer.  Avoid context and discuss evidence as though it has no association to any other facts or evidence.  Don't accept the implications of your claim having any validity or even attempt to explain them.   End the discussion with testimony taken in a vacuum.  That's called trying to eat your cake and have it too.  We know from the evidence that either Frazier was lying about the bag or Oswald was lying.  There is no middle ground.  Frazier testified that Oswald carried a long bag that morning around two feet or so long.  Oswald denied carrying any bag of that length.  Frazier indicated that he asked Oswald about the bag and Oswald told him it contained curtain rods.  Oswald denied that he carried any curtain rods.  Frazier testified that he asked Oswald about his lunch and Oswald told him that he was not carrying it that day.  Oswald told the police that he carried his lunch to work that day.  All of these statements are completely contradictory.  What is the explanation?  One option is that Frazier lied about Oswald carrying a long bag, the curtain rods, and no lunch bag.  Why would he do all of this?  The only plausible explanation is that he was part of a conspiracy to frame Oswald.  This isn't the type of testimony where someone is mistaken - like characterizing a color or estimating a length.   Frazier says that Oswald told him that he was carrying curtain rods in the bag.  And where is the two-foot long bag that Frazier saw if not the bag found on the 6th floor.? No such bag matching that length was ever found or ever accounted for.  How do we square that fact with his testimony?  The bag he saw was the one found on the 6th floor.   That bag had Oswald's prints further confirming that fact.  That bag is longer than two feet. 

If that was the case then the SBT would be correct.  But if that were the case why are they so many witnesses who recalled that JFK reacted immediately to the first shot by doing things we don’t see him doing until after he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign? why are there so many witnesses who said the last two shots were in rapid succession? why are witnesses consistent with the first shot being after z186 (Betzner) after the VP car had completed the turn and going downhill? An instant before z202 (Philip Willis)? etc?

“We” don’t know that. John Connally said he knew that was not the case. Nellie C. as well. At least three members of the WC didn’t believe it and none of those that did said they thought it was the second shot.
There are at least 8 jiggles. Besides, there would have to be 2 frames between the bullet strike and the sound arriving at Zapruder’s ears and then a frame or two to react.
And Mary Woodward said that she shouted at the President as he approached and he and Jackie turned to their right and the President acknowledged them as the car passed by. She was certain they were the last people he acknowledged before that first horrible ear-shattering noise.

The Warren Commission said that they were unable to conclude which one of the three shots missed. The HSCA concluded that the first shot missed. I tend to agree with the first shot missed theory, and have found numerous items that suggest that this theory is correct. However, I have not been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

 I have not yet given the idea of the third shot missing very much consideration. This is mostly due to my opinion that it does not make any sense for someone to shoot again, after seeing JFK’s head explode. But I do consider that it is possible that there was a third shot that missed. Charles Brehm indicated that he thought that the third shot missed everything. In my imagination, I suppose that if LHO was firing and cycling the bolt as fast as he could, that he might automatically cycle the bolt after the head shot. Then after seeing JFK had gone down and Jackie was crawling on the trunk lid, he might have instinctively not wanted to shoot Jackie and moved his aim away from her. And if he had his finger on the trigger, it is feasible that he inadvertently fired the third shot over the limo. These are just some ideas that I have had. Perhaps a closer look at a possible third shot miss is in order?

it was relevant , but you chose and choose not to see the relevance . alas i cannot help you see what you clearly do not want to see .

for anyone that will read these comments . the knotts lad animation was brought up , however NOT BY ME . i never said a thing about it , so i never claimed it was either accurate or not accurate . meaning i simply allowed the person who brought it up to be the one who discusses it OR NOT . their choice . HOWEVER there was criticism of the animation (be it warranted or not , that is for the readers here to judge ) as one expects from those on the LN side of the fence . IE if something atleast tends to contradict their lone nut scenario or stance they criticize , attack or dismiss it . again i neither said it was accurate or inaccurate , in fact i said nothing about that animation , as i said the readers here will judge for them selves its reliability or lack there of .ALL I DID was to note a hypocrisy of LN , which was that they stand firmly behind , push and support an LN animation that has been shown to have problems of its own  . so my comment was merely to highlight an LN hypocrisy (just one of many really ) in no way did i endorse or have i endorsed the knotts lab animation . thus far i have not commented on it and at this point i dont plan too . but i will of course read with interest any thoughts , views , comments etc in regard that animation .

  One of the three shots missed the target.  We know that both men were struck where the film shows them being struck. Energing from behind the stemmons sign, and the fatal shot.
This leaves only one other shot, and that shot had to have been fired early, like around Zapruder frame 155/156. 

 A. Zapruder's camera jiggle proves that a shot was fired there.
 B. The sudden head turns of both JFK and Governor Connally-both of whom were looking to their left. And one thing most people do not notice is that Connally was looking to his right
when Zapruder first began filming, turned to his left, then suddenlly jerked his head back to the right, where his head remained turned during the entire travel down Elm Street until he comes out from behind the sign, which is the first motion he made-other than taking his right hand off the top of the side rail of the car. 

   This is exactly what the Zapruder film shows.  Three sudden reactions to three rifle shot sounds.

The physical evidence does not support three shots. The FBI only noted two of the three shells found in the SN exhibited the “chambering mark” from the rifle. CE 543 did not have the indentation. Even the unfired cartridge exhibited the chambering mark along with the next thirty shells, as was noted by Josiah Thompson, that had been fired in the rifle.

Zapruder--Reactions and Jiggle Analysis? Zapruder is a two shot witness.

i have never been one to bawl , while and snivel , i leave such things to LN such as yourself .and after all as we can see here in that respect you have achieved success , so congratulations .

and once again i can only suggest that you do that which you clearly did not do and READ what i actually said . or do not , the choice is yours , either way it makes no difference to me . have a good day bawling and snivelling .

You have done nothing but bawl, whine, and snivel. This post is a perfect example, LN this and LN that. Always the same nonsense, endless drivel about LNer, and in the end never address the real subject at hand, in this case the Knotts Lab animation. Instead, you took the opportunity to post some bizarre drivel about Dale Myers and in some odd fashion pretend it was relevant.