Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The top Cuban counter intelligence officer Fabian Escalante reported in his book "The Cuban Files: The Untold Story of the Plot to Kill Kennedy" that Cuban intelligence investigated the allegations that Lee Oswald visited their Embassy and Consulate in Mexico City. In the course of their investigation they traced every person who was working at the Consulate at that time. They found two additional eyewitnesses, in addition to the three previously known (Duran, Azcue and Mirabal) who were at the Consulate and who said they saw Oswald during his visit. Their conclusion? It was indeed Oswald.

So we have the Cubans saying it was the real Oswald; the Soviets saying it was the real Oswald; and the Americans saying it was the real Oswald. And the conspiracy response to this is? They all lied? Or what?

From the Escalanate book:





2
"Where is your comparison of Meyers SBT and Knotts Lab SBT, but I guess we already saw it in the original post. Knotts Lab animation side mouth post was the exact opposite of the Meyers critique? They were both animations of the exact same event. Exactly what was the difference in your mind? "

oh dear still not grasping a very simple thing . do i really have to say it again ? , i do believe my dog would have grasped this by now . so here we are one more time

" i made zero comment about knotts lab either in favor or against it . neither pushing it as accurate nor questioning its accuracy . that is the beginning ,middle and end "

there are 27 words thee and over half of them are only 4 letters long or less . i dont know how i can make it much more simplified so that you can understand it .
3
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: When Was JBC Hit?
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Today at 07:44:12 PM »
What I should have said, just so you would not be confused, is that it is not just up to Connally to put that much time between the shots.

Connally is not consistent in his estimate of the time between shots. That’s not surprising. He was thinking about other things than counting the seconds.

 I have previously pointed out that JBC said the first two were 2 seconds apart and NOT literally a split second apart.  He also said on yet another occasion that all three took 10 to 12 seconds. He always said that heard the first shot and, after turning around to check on JFK, decided to turn back to the left.  How long does that take? 4 seconds. I don’t know. Maybe.

So we look at other witnesses who are consistent.

But your point, if I understand your theory correctly, is that there was no time between the shot he heard and the shot that hit him in the back ie. they were the same shot.  But JBC never said anything close to that. He always insisted they were separate shots.  You cannot use an argument to change his evidence to mean the opposite of what he meant.

just so you would not be confused

I'm not confused in any way.
I've highlighted your desperate attempts to twist the evidence to fit your "theory" with great clarity.
You were caught out being untruthful about Connally's evidence and are now back-tracking. Nothing confusing about that.
I have presented evidence that someone recalling a massively traumatic event suffers "temporal distortions" - time slowing down etc. - and have pointed out your refusal to acknowledge this evidence. Nothing confusing about that either.
I have pointed out the way you cherry-pick from Connally's statements to uphold your "theory", while ignoring the majority of what he said. Nothing confusing about that.

Charles has pointed out that Connally is fully aware of the difference between a bolt action rifle and an automatic rifle. An automatic rifle can fire multiple rounds per second. Connally is fully aware of this. His first impression is that the gap between what he thought were two shots is a fraction of a second. His first impression was that there were two or three shooters, this also indicates a gap of a fraction of a second. He actually describes it as a "split second". Your desperate attempts to suggest he is somehow describing a gap of more than four seconds is truly laughable.
The arguments I have put forward encompass this impression of a "split second" and the apparently contradictory lengths of time Connally attributes to these events. You simply think he was wrong to describe it as a "split second" as if you know better.

Another area of Connally's testimony that you know better than him is his choice of z234 as the frame he is hit. In his WC testimony Connally puts it within the range of z231 to z234. For the Life article he settles on z234. In the interview you posted he reiterates z234. This is 2 seconds before your own proposed hit. Yet another fail.
That said, it is about half a second after my proposed shot at z223. However, I can account for this discrepancy in a way that doesn't have me saying Connally doesn't know what he's talking about. Unlike you.
I believe I know why Connally chooses z234 as the frame when he was shot. In his various statements he is insistent that he felt the impact of the bullet as he was turning to his left:

"I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."

There are only two times in the Z-film when Connally turns to his left. One time is in the z160's and is caught in the Croft photo, the other is between z231 and z234 and :



JBC is clear as to when he is hit:

In this extreme close up we see JBC turning left until he is facing " a little bit to the left of center" : 

The reason he chooses the range of z231 to z234 is because this is the only time in the film he is looking " a little bit to the left of center"



The point is this - when he picks z231 - z234 he is picking the moment he BECOMES AWARE that he has been shot. The importance of this is that there is a small time gap between an event actually happening and a persons awareness of that event:


"Human thought takes time to form, and so the “right now” that we’re experiencing inside our skulls is always a little later than what’s going on in the outside world. It takes 500 milliseconds, or half a second, for sensory information from the outside world to be incorporated into conscious experience."

[ https://nymag.com/speed/2016/12/what-is-the-speed-of-thought.html#:~:text=Human%20thought%20takes%20time%20to,be%20incorporated%20into%20conscious%20experience. ]

500 milliseconds is the equivalent of 9 Z-frames, therefore Connally's range of z231 to z234 as to when he became aware of being shot, is the range of z222 - z225 as to when he was actually shot. Exactly encompassing the z222 to z223 I propose for when JBC was shot. The sound of the shots reached him about 100 milliseconds after he was actually shot, another 400 milliseconds later he actually becomes aware of being shot. This "split second" of 400 milliseconds is distorted and stretched in Connally's mind, separating the single event of hearing the shot and feeling the impact into two different shots. This is why he doesn't hear the second shot - because there was no second shot to hear, he heard the shot that hit him.





4
If they're framing him on a visit to the Cuban consulate they would simply say he admitted to going there during his interrogation. He's dead; they can say he admitted to it. Why would they say he denied it if they are trying to frame him for it? Just say he said he did. Again, he can't deny it since, y'know, he's dead.

As to Hoover: He was, as the record shows, a ruthless and powerful man but the idea that he would/could know everything about what his people did in the investigation, could control what they found and limit it, is conspiracy silliness at its finest. Conspiracists really believe that "the CIA" and "the FBI" and these bureaucracies can be completely controlled, and were. They can't. A Hitler or a Stalin couldn't control all of their people, their bureaucracies, their factions and personality conflicts. Read any history of their rule. Do you folks read anything other than conspiracy books?

As in: the FBI agents James Hosty and his superior Gordon Shanklin destroyed a note that Oswald left complaining about the FBI's treatment of his wife. Hoover knew nothing about it. If he had such control then how could that have happened? And after the assassination Hoover punished about a dozen agents (I think it was 17) for their failures to adequately monitor Oswald. He couldn't control everything his people did or didn't do. He was one person.

For a better and greater example read about Hoover and the FBI and the Hiss/Chambers investigation. Hoover was left out of the loop from his own people. He didn't know what was happening. He couldn't control all of it; hell, he couldn't control just about any of it.

"As in: the FBI agents James Hosty and his superior Gordon Shanklin destroyed a note that Oswald left complaining about the FBI's treatment of his wife. Hoover knew nothing about it. If he had such control then how could that have happened? And after the assassination Hoover punished about a dozen agents (I think it was 17) for their failures to adequately monitor Oswald. He couldn't control everything his people did or didn't do. He was one person."

lets be clear here yes Hoover was a human and not super human , he cant know every single little thing . he certainly cant know about that which is intentionally kept from him . if he never knew about the Hosty note so far as i am aware , well at a later date yes im sure he did . Shanklyn and Hosty kept that information from him , what was so devastating to Shanklyn about a note from Oswald saying not to speak to his wife when he was not there ?. and why would Hoover who was aware of Oswald care about such a note ? . by the way certain LN but not all have tried to use that note to say Oswald  wrote a threat on it to blow up the building . leading to the question why would they not keep that note as evidence against him ? .they  base this claim on a woman (whos name eludes my memory now ) , Hosty was questioned about the note and her story . he replied and reiterated it merely was about Marina as above . he went further saying she gave 3 different stories about that note WHICH ONE WOULD YOU LIKE ?. but FBI agents did not go along with the official line at times , they did not necessarily go out of their way to dispute it but they shall we say stuck by what they said / reported even if it disputed the official narrative .

"If they're framing him on a visit to the Cuban consulate they would simply say he admitted to going there during his interrogation. He's dead; they can say he admitted to it. Why would they say he denied it if they are trying to frame him for it? Just say he said he did. Again, he can't deny it since, y'know, he's dead. "

the DPD had the case taken from them very quickly .it would seem if we can accept the late Jim leavelles word for it that the DPD did not care a lot about jfk and viewed getting Oswald for the Tippit killing as more important . i wont quote Jim here as he used racial terms . so i dont know just how much import if any at all they would have in Oswald visiting mexico or not .or to what if any extent that they would want to frame him using mexico  . but if we look at the arrest for example of duran we see that others did have an interest in mexico .

lets face it hoover would not need to know everything about everything , even about the assassination , just certain important aspects of it . many things were never questioned really . once the people were told Oswald who had been to russia went to mexico they would have believed and not questioned it . only in light of evidence that an imposter or imposters seem to have been active , and in light of the statements of Odio would people later question such things .and most people did not have that sort of info in 63 and 64 .

in regards mexico we are being asked it seems to believe that 3 people all saw the same WRONG THINGS , all made the same mistake , or well they all decided to invent the same BS . all 3 said the man was a short man , so short that one who was 5 feet 6 had to look down on the man .atleast two of them independently said the man they saw was blonde .

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt_2003/html/LopezRpt_0200a.htm

it is proposed that Oswald entered both consulates in mexico some 5 times each . so that means there were atleast 10 opportunities at each location (going in and going out ) to capture him on camera . yet we dont have a single photo . that baffles belief .
5
   Personal attack? It's All Over.


 :'(
6

Like I said earlier, you continue to show us just how clueless you are.

   Personal attack? It's All Over.
7
     Nobody Knows with certainty when the Back Shot entered JFK. Yet you ask for "simple geometry"?  Knott Lab Laser SCIENCE declared the SBT "Is Impossible". It's all over whether LN's want to admit it or not. Multiple Shooters has now been proven by SCIENCE.


Like I said earlier, you continue to show us just how clueless you are.
8

It’s simple geometry. You do some math and show us using the math when and where you think the follow-up agents were in the line of fire from the sniper’s nest.  🧐

     Nobody Knows with certainty when the Back Shot entered JFK. Yet you ask for "simple geometry"?  Knott Lab Laser SCIENCE declared the SBT "Is Impossible". It's all over whether LN's want to admit it or not. Multiple Shooters has now been proven by SCIENCE.
9
   Come on Charles. You do Not know that the Back Shot was fired at the moment we are seeing the cross hairs on that STILL FRAME. The image you posted is actually 1 Film Frame removed from a Motion Picture. And again, Elm St was on a Downgrade. That puts the SS Agents on that (R) running board at a Higher Elevation/Above the JFK Limo/JFK.


It’s simple geometry. You do some math and show us using the math when and where you think the follow-up agents were in the line of fire from the sniper’s nest.  🧐
10

The queen mary was behind the JFK limo. From the angle of the photo from the sniper’s nest we can clearly see the oak tree has just been cleared from the sniper’s view. In order for your ridiculous idea to be true, the running board agents would have to be taller than the branches of the oak tree. That clearly is not the case. You have shown once again that you are clueless.

   Come on Charles. You do Not know that the Back Shot was fired at the moment we are seeing the cross hairs on that STILL FRAME. The image you posted is actually 1 Film Frame removed from a Motion Picture. And again, Elm St was on a Downgrade. That puts the SS Agents on that (R) running board at a Higher Elevation/Above the JFK Limo/JFK.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10