Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: T.F. Bowley, A Wind-Up Wristwatch & 1:17
« Last post by Zeon Mason on Today at 09:48:51 PM »
Just want to clarify that I was NOT suggesting some conspirator got on the bus pretending to be Oswald. That certainly would be an unnecessary thing to be done by conspirators

What I was suggesting was to discard THIS PART of the WC scenario for  Oswald’s route from leaving TSBD to getting to Whaleys taxi.

Bledsoe account of seeing Oswald on the bus wearing a brown shirt with hole in the sleeve cannot be accepted as valid if Oswald was not wearing that brown shirt yet. Therefore her ID of Oswald must be doubted.

McWatters never did actually ID Oswald as the man he gave a ticket too. Therefore more reasonable  doubt that Oswald was ever on that bus.

If the premise is that Oswald’s intent after leaving TSBD as early as 12:34 was to get back to the boarding house asap, the most logical thing would be to get a taxi directly and it would cost him just a mere 90 cents of that 13 dollars he was carrying.

So for we know there was just some man who banged on the bus door, sat down for a few minutes ,  got a transfer ticket from McWatters about 12:43  , then that man left the bus and know telling where he went from there.

Bill Brown was trying to work out this time line anomaly in a more complicated way (imo) and my suggestion was to simply eliminate the bus ride account as “unconfirmed” and in doing so, Oswald going directly to the taxi  being a logical  route if his intent was to return to the boarding house ASAP would have Oswald entering Whaleys taxi as early as 12:40.
2
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Fast Could Lee Harvey Oswalds Rifle Be Fired An Interesting 1960's Analysis
« Last post by Jerry Organ on Today at 09:32:33 PM »
Legal Fixer Mason mischaracterizes everything that goes against his silly theory. This particular off-the-rails rant was inspired by yesterday's performance by Trump's defense attorney.
3
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Fast Could Lee Harvey Oswalds Rifle Be Fired An Interesting 1960's Analysis
« Last post by Andrew Mason on Today at 08:51:17 PM »
Quote from: Joe Elliott on Today at 08:18:48 PM
Actually, Walter Cronkite was mistaken on a detail. He said the Warren Commission concluded that the first shot was fired at frame 210. And the last shot at frame 313.

While their were some involved in the investigation that thought the first shot occurred at, or shortly after frame 210, some disagreed. While their may have been a small majority (I think) of the investigators who thought the shots were confined between z210 to z313, there was enough doubt to give no definite scenario in the final report. They said there was a shot around z210 and z313 but the other shot could have been before z210 or between z210-z313. This was a wise decision.

In the sixty years since then, with more analysis of the Zapruder film, there is now a general consensus among LNers that the:

* first shot: hardest to pin down, but may have been around z152 (my view). In any case, well before z221.
* second shot: universal consensus that the second shot was at z221-z225.
* third shot: universal consensus that the third shot was at z312-z313.
That consensus seems to be that the 40+ witnesses who distinctly recalled that the last two shots were closer together and "in rapid succession" or "followed rapidly by another shot” or “The second two shots were immediate --- it was almost as if one were an echo of the other -- they came so quickly. The sound of one did not cease until the second shot.” … “and then the third shot came very, very quickly, on top of the second one” were all mistaken.

That consensus also seems to be that photographers Hugh Betzner, Phil Willis and Ike Altgens were completely wrong in when their photos were taken relative to the first shot.

And the consensus also is that Nellie Connally (along with about 20 others) was hallucinating about seeing JFK react to the first shot before the second shot, and that JBC never turned his neck to see JFK after the first shot and before he was hit in the back.

The SBT is the biggest reason conspiracies abound.  There is abundant evidence that conflicts with it, not just the shot pattern. It is not just the witness evidence that strains belief.  It is the position of JBC, his wounds and CE399.  I do not understand why LNs refuse to consider the plausible alternative to the SBT that fits all the evidence and is still consistent with the overwhelming evidence that Oswald fired all three shots.

Quote
However, the general consensus among CTers is, well, there is no general consensus among CTers. No CTer has ever come up with a compelling scenario, even among just their fellow CTers.
No argument there.
4
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Fast Could Lee Harvey Oswalds Rifle Be Fired An Interesting 1960's Analysis
« Last post by Joe Elliott on Today at 08:18:48 PM »

Actually, Walter Cronkite was mistaken on a detail. He said the Warren Commission concluded that the first shot was fired at frame 210. And the last shot at frame 313.

While their were some involved in the investigation that thought the first shot occurred at, or shortly after frame 210, some disagreed. While their may have been a small majority (I think) of the investigators who thought the shots were confined between z210 to z313, there was enough doubt to give no definite scenario in the final report. They said there was a shot around z210 and z313 but the other shot could have been before z210 or between z210-z313. This was a wise decision.

In the sixty years since then, with more analysis of the Zapruder film, there is now a general consensus among LNers that the:

* first shot: hardest to pin down, but may have been around z152 (my view). In any case, well before z221.
* second shot: universal consensus that the second shot was at z221-z225.
* third shot: universal consensus that the third shot was at z312-z313.

However, the general consensus among CTers is, well, there is no general consensus among CTers. No CTer has ever come up with a compelling scenario, even among just their fellow CTers.
5
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: T.F. Bowley, A Wind-Up Wristwatch & 1:17
« Last post by Richard Smith on Today at 08:06:06 PM »
Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on Today at 06:10:23 PM
Always happens. We cite the conspiracy claims, point out the illogic of it, how it doesn't make sense, how there's no evidence for it and then the response it "You just made that up, it's a strawman!!"

This is the same poster who says Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City and then Hoover, who knew about the double, blabs about it on a call to LBJ. Then they publish the call where Hoover exposes the impersonation. Right, Hoover knew who the person was, that it was part of a plan to incriminate Cuba, and then Hoover reveals the plan! He doesn't keep it quiet. But I made that all up?

Yes, it's the old blow smoke and imply there is a fire technique.  Never pausing to explain the consequences of their own claims having validity.  Why fake Oswald's presence on the bus or in Mexico City if he was never in those places?  Think of the risk and complexity to get everyone involved to go along with these efforts including random folks on a bus or employees of the Russian and Cuban embassies.  The CTer mind has to conjure some anomaly in the case which might lend itself to suspicion but then ignore everything else that runs counter to the claim including logic, common sense, and the evidence.
6
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: T.F. Bowley, A Wind-Up Wristwatch & 1:17
« Last post by Steve M. Galbraith on Today at 06:10:23 PM »
Quote from: Richard Smith on Today at 06:03:16 PM
Not following.  I didn't make up anything.  Another poster suggested that Oswald was never on the bus even though he had a transfer from the bus driver in his pocket.  I just pointed out that faking Oswald's presence on the bus would be pointless and risky since it does not advance any apparent objective.  The bus doesn't go anywhere, and he quickly gets off.  If you disagree, maybe form your response in terms of a complete thought.  Let me help get you started.  "I believe Oswald was/was not on the bus because..."
Always happens. We cite the conspiracy claims, point out the illogic of it, how it doesn't make sense, how there's no evidence for it and then the response it "You just made that up, it's a strawman!!"

This is the same poster who says Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City and then Hoover, who knew about the double, blabs about it on a call to LBJ. Then they publish the call where Hoover exposes the impersonation. Right, Hoover knew who the person was, that it was part of a plan to incriminate Cuba, and then Hoover reveals the plan! He doesn't keep it quiet. But I made that all up?
7
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: T.F. Bowley, A Wind-Up Wristwatch & 1:17
« Last post by Richard Smith on Today at 06:03:16 PM »
Quote from: Michael Capasse on Today at 04:11:40 PM
you just made up an entire "fantasy plan" and then crossed it all out because it would never work. Thumb1:

Not following.  I didn't make up anything.  Another poster suggested that Oswald was never on the bus even though he had a transfer from the bus driver in his pocket.  I just pointed out that faking Oswald's presence on the bus would be pointless and risky since it does not advance any apparent objective.  The bus doesn't go anywhere, and he quickly gets off.  If you disagree, maybe form your response in terms of a complete thought.  Let me help get you started.  "I believe Oswald was/was not on the bus because..."
8
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Cuba's Investigation into Mexico City: "It Was Oswald"
« Last post by Steve M. Galbraith on Today at 05:12:26 PM »
The "Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City" allegation has been promoted for decades by conspiracy believers - NOT lone assassin believers - who say that an Oswald double was sent by the real assassins of JFK, usually it's claimed it was the CIA, to connect Oswald and the assassination to Cuba or the Soviet Union. It was all part of the plan to kill JFK and blame others for some benefit. For something or other; to remove Castro, to stop the investigation, to...well, who knows. They still make the claims today even after all of these revelations indicating it was Oswald and not an impostor.

The claim that this has been a lone assassin issue to use against Oswald is simply wrong from beginning to end. The middle too. It's the conspiracists who have been promoting it. Lone assassin believers have been knocking it down not promoting it.

As for Oswald: This event, his visit, shows that he was willing to completely abandon his pregnant wife and young child, leave them on their own with nothing, defect to a communist country (again) leaving a hated America behind (again), and then behaving like - according to the Cubans and Soviets - an erratic, unstable, paranoid man, a man who said he was being hunted by the US government and that, after pulling out a revolver, saying that if "they don't leave me alone, I'm going to defend myself!"

Swell. This is a not well man. If you think this person was normal, not a danger, then you're making another nonsensical argument.

But again this has been a side argument not a main one: it's been the conspiracists who have obsessed over the event not lone assassin believers.
9
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: When Was JBC Hit?
« Last post by Andrew Mason on Today at 04:22:39 PM »
Quote from: Jerry Organ on Today at 03:28:35 PM
"the lanes were 12 feet wide"

Where do you get this? The lanes have equal width. On a 40' wide street with 6" wide stripes, they are 13 feet wide.
Standard lane widths in North America are 12 feet. I think you will find that the 40' width figure includes the sidewalk and curbs.

Quote
My plotting says JFK arrived opposite the lamppost at Z190. This is way closer to the Cutler and Roberdeau placements than Z186. I used the line-of-travel at the center of the street. If more to the south, he would arrive later than Z190.
So show us your plotting!

Quote
As explained to you countless times, you're using a dissolved-foreground frame capture that allows the lightness of the white car to bleed through. It's a camera effect that I wonder if the human eye could duplicate. I don't think the SS intentionally wanted the foreground to dissolve; it just happened. From the SN window, Kennedy was dark-on-dark in his limousine and pictures of the foliage taken through the still cameras on Nov. 22 and during the SS reenactment show the foliage obscured the car in the Z190s.
And show us why JFK was not visible between the lamp post and Thornton sign!  You can't use the FBI May 1964 recreation because it uses he wrong car and with the tree looking very much fuller than it was in late fall 1963.

10
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: T.F. Bowley, A Wind-Up Wristwatch & 1:17
« Last post by Michael Capasse on Today at 04:11:40 PM »
Quote from: Richard Smith on Today at 02:36:25 PM
Why would anyone fake Oswald's presence on the bus?  Think of the effort and risk to do so.  The fantasy conspirators would have to figure out which bus was in the vicinity.  Convince the passengers to either confirm Oswald's presence or at least not deny that he got on the bus.  They would have to somehow get a bus transfer from the driver.  They would then have to make sure Oswald was not in the presence of anyone else during this timeframe.  So many variables to handle on the fly in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.  And for what purpose?  The bus takes him nowhere.  He gets off and takes a cab.  It's ridiculous to suggest the bus to nowhere was the product of any conspiracy plan.  In a plan, everything has purpose.  You don't stage things to unnecessarily complicate what is already a complex and risky operation for no apparent reason.

you just made up an entire "fantasy plan" and then crossed it all out because it would never work. Thumb1:
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10