It's a blessing-of-sorts that critics boycott the Sixth Floor Museum. Imagine those obnoxious know-it-all blowhards condescendingly "correcting" every display with their web-fueled armchair "expertise", cheap rhetoric and witch-hunt implicating innocents. Would ruin it for the openminded visitors interested in real history, who support the Museum and hold it to the high standards achieved through the diligent work of the staff.
It's a blessing-of-sorts that critics boycott the Sixth Floor Museum. Imagine those obnoxious know-it-all blowhards condescendingly "correcting" every display with their web-fueled armchair "expertise", cheap rhetoric and witch-hunt implicating innocents. Would ruin it for the openminded visitors interested in real history, who support the Museum and hold it to the high standards achieved through the diligent work of the staff.
“No new information has been revealed or exposed that really alter the course of our understanding of what happened,” says Nicola Longford, CEO of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, a museum all about the JFK assassination located in the building where Oswald shot JFK.
you are citing the say so of an employee of the 6th floor museum ? who only support the warren commissions oswald did it alone official version of events ? . a museum is supposed to be about history , history should be the search for truth to in essence confirm that history to be truth or to be inaccurate or false history .in the case of jfks death that museum seeks no such truth . just as the major us media be that time , cbs or nbc etc seek no such truth . the official version of events is the truth they decided upon .
why dont you quote from the work of
harold weisberg
sylvia meagher
mary ferrell
robert groden
jim marrs
penn jones
josiah thompson
fletcher prouty
jim garrison
joesph mcbride
mark lane
jim di eugenio
peter dale scott
james douglas
and the great researchers on this site , the ed forum and others that have long and very intelligently and very articulately disputed the official version of events . it is a complete nonsense to say we have learned nothing since november 22 1963 or since the warren commission in 1964 that would change or alter our understanding of the assassination or what went on behind closed doors in these so called investigations .
It's a blessing-of-sorts that critics boycott the Sixth Floor Museum. Imagine those obnoxious know-it-all blowhards condescendingly "correcting" every display with their web-fueled armchair "expertise", cheap rhetoric and witch-hunt implicating innocents. Would ruin it for the openminded visitors interested in real history, who support the Museum and hold it to the high standards achieved through the diligent work of the staff.
My 2-cents worth is that I think most of the visitors to the Sixth Floor Museum know relatively little about the details of the assassination, etc when they begin their experience with the SFM. Contrary to the “opinions” ignorants who Pooh-pooh the museum without exploring it for themselves, the SFM tries to remain neutral. It is a treasure of information that I am very happy exists.
I learned something new just this week. While loitering near the Zapruder pedestal a professional tour guide bellowed a solo “New York, New York” in the west shelter, thinking he was in a shower. He then approached the Z-pedestal from the other side of the wall then slapped his hand on the “rock”. He explained to his flock of 10 or so paying customers, as I paraphrase:
“This is the rock that Mr. Zapruder stood on to take his famous film. But he did not bring his camera to film the motorcade. He was a dress maker working at that brown building (pointing to the DalTex). His plan was to make lots of money by filming, and poaching, Mrs. Kennedy's dress!”
He wasn't joking as far as his followers understood. Did I learn something new? Of course not, but with so many visitors to the plaza and the museum getting this kind of pre-schooling will another 60 years make much difference? Very sad. I too am very thankful for the Sixth Floor Museum.
You need to include the SCIENCE that was used by Knott Labs in order for them to declare that the, "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE". And this SCIENTIFIC FINDING was only the 1st step in the Knott Labs Laser 360 SCIENTIFIC fact Finding mission. Next comes the location(s) of other shooter(s). It's taken 60 yrs for SCIENCE to cancel a Theory. The dam is finally breaking.
Re: It's a blessing-of-sorts that critics boycott the Sixth Floor Museum. Imagine those obnoxious know-it-all blowhards condescendingly "correcting" every display with their web-fueled armchair "expertise", cheap rhetoric and witch-hunt implicating innocents.
Exhibit A:
Imagine that goose-stepping around the sixth floor. And Fergus denigrating a beloved member of the Museum. And they demand respect. :D
why dont you quote from the work of
harold weisberg
sylvia meagher
mary ferrell
robert groden
jim marrs
penn jones
josiah thompson
fletcher prouty
jim garrison
joesph mcbride
mark lane
jim di eugenio
peter dale scott
james douglas
Uh, heard of the ARRB? Yes, we know a great deal more about the assassination now than we did 60 years ago. The problem is that most of that knowledge refutes the lone-gunman theory, and so WC apologists ignore or deny it.
Re: It's a blessing-of-sorts that critics boycott the Sixth Floor Museum. Imagine those obnoxious know-it-all blowhards condescendingly "correcting" every display with their web-fueled armchair "expertise", cheap rhetoric and witch-hunt implicating innocents.
Exhibit A:
Imagine that goose-stepping around the sixth floor. And Fergus denigrating a beloved member of the Museum. And they demand respect. :D
Really? Interesting. Be specific and lose your renowned bias. What in the ARRB refutes the WC conclusion? Specificity, not conspiracy BS.
Re: It's a blessing-of-sorts that critics boycott the Sixth Floor Museum. Imagine those obnoxious know-it-all blowhards condescendingly "correcting" every display with their web-fueled armchair "expertise", cheap rhetoric and witch-hunt implicating innocents.
Exhibit A:
Imagine that goose-stepping around the sixth floor. And Fergus denigrating a beloved member of the Museum. And they demand respect. :D
There are large excerpts online from the June 1997 interview with Gordon, the fruitcake who was never in Dallas that day.
I don't know if that's one of the interviews you're referring because, like a few other CTs here who lazily rattle off from memory, you avoid specifics.
Found the interviews at the Sixth Floor website, as well as the camera ( Link (https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/32554/wollensak-73-8mm-magazine-turret-camera-and-box) ). Gordon was also lengthly interviewed on-camera fot the 1988 "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Not sure what you're hoping but Grodon had lots of opportunity to indulge in his fantasy.
"Lazy" is you being unable to find the interviews and not addressing the gross mismatches in the Don Knotts Lab "science". ::)
Found the interviews at the Sixth Floor website, as well as the camera ( Link (https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/32554/wollensak-73-8mm-magazine-turret-camera-and-box) ). Gordon was also lengthly interviewed on-camera fot the 1988 "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Not sure what you're hoping but Grodon had lots of opportunity to indulge in his fantasy.Seven days after the assassination Arnold writes a letter to his wife and nowhere mentions anything about this incident. Nothing about being in Dallas, nothing about watching the assassination, nothing about the encounter with these men. Not a thing. He mentions the camera but nothing about what supposedly happened.
"Lazy" is you being unable to find the interviews and not addressing the gross mismatches in the Don Knotts Lab "science". ::)
Seven days after the assassination Arnold writes a letter to his wife and nowhere mentions anything about this incident. Nothing about being in Dallas, nothing about watching the assassination, nothing about the encounter with these men. Not a thing. He mentions the camera but nothing about what supposedly happened.
He says right after the confrontation he left, got into his car and drove away (Bowers doesn't mention seeing any of this). He didn't stay around to see what happened to JFK. No interest at all. He says all of the shots came from behind him, from his left, over his shoulder. So how did JFK and JBC get shot in the back?
Zapruder is standing some 20 feet away from where Arnold said he was. On a pedestal. Filming everything. These men confront Arnold and take the film but let Zapruder alone? Zapruder arrives early, is walking around the Plaza trying to find a place to film. The men let him do this? They stop Arnold but Zapruder, 20 feet away on a pedestal, is left alone? After the assassination Zapruder has the in camera film developed and three copies made. But the government - Forrest Sorrels - asks for and is given two copies and lets him keep the original and a copy? Why would they do this if they are covering it up?
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera....
His letter: https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/32576/correspondence-between-gordon-arnold-and-mary-seymore--one
Seven days after the assassination Arnold writes a letter to his wife and nowhere mentions anything about this incident. Nothing about being in Dallas, nothing about watching the assassination, nothing about the encounter with these men. Not a thing. He mentions the camera but nothing about what supposedly happened.
He says right after the confrontation he left, got into his car and drove away (Bowers doesn't mention seeing any of this). He didn't stay around to see what happened to JFK. No interest at all. He says all of the shots came from behind him, from his left, over his shoulder. So how did JFK and JBC get shot in the back?
Zapruder is standing some 20 feet away from where Arnold said he was. On a pedestal. Filming everything. These men confront Arnold and take the film but let Zapruder alone? Zapruder arrives early, is walking around the Plaza trying to find a place to film. The men let him do this? They stop Arnold but Zapruder, 20 feet away on a pedestal, is left alone? After the assassination Zapruder has the in camera film developed and three copies made. But the government - Forrest Sorrels - asks for and is given two copies and lets him keep the original and a copy? Why would they do this if they are covering it up?
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera....
His letter: https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/32576/correspondence-between-gordon-arnold-and-mary-seymore--one
Well Gary Mack & Sixth Floor Museum were very keen to gobble up Gordon's camera and 'any paperwork' he may have left. It's on record during the interview with Gordon Arnold's wife the Sixth Floor museum wanted them items. You might think it's all horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns, but Gary Mack certainly didn't think so!
@ Royell, Gordon Arnold's wife kindly offered the sixth floor Gordon's camera *correct me if I am wrong* and they weren't satisfied with that, no, they greedily wanted any paperwork etc the family had to do with Gordon and his assassination experience. So what is it that the sixth floor knows about Gordon Arnold. We are also curious to learn. We are in good company!
@ Royell, Gordon Arnold's wife kindly offered the sixth floor Gordon's camera *correct me if I am wrong* and they weren't satisfied with that, no, they greedily wanted any paperwork etc the family had to do with Gordon and his assassination experience. So what is it that the sixth floor knows about Gordon Arnold. We are also curious to learn. We are in good company!
Listen to Arnold's own words.
Gordon Arnold claims a man with a massive weapon came out and confiscated his film! But obviously left the wide open Zapruder completely alone, as if. And the fact that a man would expose himself to the place where Arnold said he was standing while carrying a huge weapon is just crazy!
Gordon Arnold says where he was, had a bunch of bullets firing over his head, but how many eyewitnesses said there was more than three shots fired? And don't forget we know for a fact that that bothy Kennedy and Connally were shot in the back so there's also that shot/shots to add to the amount of shots fired. And another important piece of information that must be considered is that 94% of eyewitnesses didn't report hearing crossfire therefore all the shots came from one location and logically since we know both Kennedy and Connally were definitely shot in the back by definition all shots came from the top end of Elm street.
Gordon Arnold also says, which to me sounds like he's trying to convince himself, "There's no doubt in my mind I was there...and it did occur" If he was truly there why would he feel the need to introduce the concept of doubt? A normal person who was really there would say "I was there, and it did occur" simple as that.
And the way he gets emotional when he sees himself as a blob in Moorman's photo, next to the well known blob known by deluded fantasist's as badgeman, paints a picture of a deranged old man seeking his unwarranted 15 minutes of Fame! Very Sad!
JohnM
You're obviously unfamiliar with the entire Gordon Arnold story. You're basing ALL of your opinions on ONLY this "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" segment. Arnold did Not seek attention/fame. You're maligning Arnold without knowing ALL the FACTS. And you wonder why the No Hat Cop did Not accost Zapruder? Think about 1 man and the route required for him to travel from the picket fence to Zapruder AND SITZMAN vs the route required to go from the picket fence to only Gordon Arnold. Your current conclusions are half-baked due to NOT KNOWING ALL THE FACTS.
And you wonder why the No Hat Cop did Not accost Zapruder? Think about 1 man and the route required for him to travel from the picket fence to Zapruder AND SITZMAN vs the route required to go from the picket fence to only Gordon Arnold.
How do you know what facts I know? Besides the film I presented of Gordan where I illustrated all the problems with his recollections you just ignore all my revelations in favour of your own bonkers interpretation.
Huh? You can't be as crazy as Gordon, according to Gordon the guy who wanted the film threatened him, so obviously this guy thought any film was very very important but you're saying that traveling those extra yards to acquire Zapruder's evidence was too far? Zapruder hung around after the event and any film could be easily acquired but they not only ignored confiscating the film, they helped him develop the film!!
Please Royell, you used to use your brain in trying to figure out your conspiracy because lately you grab hold of any rancid morsel and like a rabid dog just won't let go, even though you must know that devouring your latest "prize" will destroy you.
JohnM
Just admit that you have never heard the Sixth Floor Interview of Gordon Arnold. You popped off and now are in way over your head and look foolish. Once again, we have a "researcher" that is unfamiliar with with the story of an alleged eyewitness to the assassination. It's easy to look at pictures and film. It takes time to find/digest the entire story that an eyewitness has to tell.
Stop playing your juvenile games because just like Gordon Arnold, Beverly Oliver, Ed Hoffman, etc, etc you're just looking for your 15 minutes of fame.
And the interview I posted tells me ALL I need to know about Gordon and now you infer that he was lying, well doesn't that take the cake.
Anyway good luck with your "eyewitness" because you gonna need it!
JohnM
(https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/dispatcher/73403/preview) (https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/dispatcher/7858/preview) (https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/filedispatcher/73577/thumbnail)
Found the interviews at the Sixth Floor website, as well as the camera ( Link (https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/32554/wollensak-73-8mm-magazine-turret-camera-and-box) ). Gordon was also interviewed on-camera for the 1988 "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Not sure what you're hoping for but Gordon had lots of opportunity to indulge in his fantasy.
"Lazy" is you being unable to find the interviews and not addressing the gross mismatches in the Don Knotts* Lab "science". ::)
John Mytton (* also JohnM)
Listen to Arnold's own words.
Gordon Arnold claims a man with a massive weapon came out and confiscated his film! But obviously left the wide open Zapruder completely alone, as if. And the fact that a man would expose himself to the place where Arnold said he was standing while carrying a huge weapon is just crazy!
Gordon Arnold says where he was, had a bunch of bullets firing over his head, but how many eyewitnesses said there was more than three shots fired? And don't forget we know for a fact that that bothy Kennedy and Connally were shot in the back so there's also that shot/shots to add to the amount of shots fired. And another important piece of information that must be considered is that 94% of eyewitnesses didn't report hearing crossfire therefore all the shots came from one location and logically since we know both Kennedy and Connally were definitely shot in the back by definition all shots came from the top end of Elm street.
Gordon Arnold also says, which to me sounds like he's trying to convince himself, "There's no doubt in my mind I was there...and it did occur" If he was truly there why would he feel the need to introduce the concept of doubt? A normal person who was really there would say "I was there, and it did occur" simple as that.
And the way he gets emotional when he sees himself as a blob in Moorman's photo, next to the well known blob known by deluded fantasist's as badgeman, paints a picture of a deranged old man seeking his unwarranted 15 minutes of Fame! Very Sad!
JohnM
Now I have a stalker. He's even stalking the late Gary Mack. Or, rather, in his mind, he's meekly asking innocent questions. :D
Imagine, a guy who thinks the the sun shines out of the asses of the likes of Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Robert (six shots struck and three misses) Groden, Jim (up to nine shots fired) Marrs, Penn Jones and Jim Garrison questioning the bona fides and legacy of Gary Mack.
Sure, some "LNers" have CT views. Robert Blakey once said there couldn't be a shot fired from the Badge Man location because the acoustic evidence "proved" a knoll came from elsewhere. I think it likely both Mack and Blakey figured Oswald fired shots at the President and killed Officer Tippit.
The Ricky White fiasco, I think, convinced Mack to be more cynical about conspiracy claims. Tink Thompson worked with Mack on the Moorman Photo (to demonstrate she was standing on the grass and not the street). I bet Mack was taken aback by the 2004 BadgeMan analysis by Dale K. Myers ( Link ). Interesting that "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" documentary claimed that Geoffrey Crawley "verified and duplicated" the Badge Man figure. According to Myers ...
"In November 2001, British photographic expert Geoffrey CRAWLEY was
contacted in London, England. Through a series of interviews, it was learned
that CRAWLEY did not support MACK and WHITE’s theory, as claimed in
The Men Who Killed Kennedy program, but came to the same conclusion
I had 13 years later. In a two-page written report submitted to Nigel TURNER
in 1988, CRAWLEY concluded that if in fact the Badge Man figure were a
human being of average height and build he was standing 12 to 18 feet
behind the fence line and elevated 3 to 4 feet off the ground. CRAWLEY also
believed that the fatal head shot wasn’t feasible from that position and
line-of-sight. It was CRAWLEY's belief that MACK and WHITE had
misinterpreted background elements that were inherent in the original
photograph. According to CRAWLEY, Nigel TURNER ignored his report
because he "seemed to think that anything that could cast a doubt on
the official view of the assassination would help toward getting the whole
thing reopened and reappraised."
About all Mack was claiming about Badge Man in later years was that he could have been a human, not an assassin.
Now I have a stalker. He's even stalking the late Gary Mack. Or, rather, in his mind, he's meekly asking innocent questions. :D
Imagine, a guy who thinks the the sun shines out of the asses of the likes of Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Robert (six shots struck and three misses) Groden, Jim (up to nine shots fired) Marrs, Penn Jones and Jim Garrison questioning the bona fides and legacy of Gary Mack.
Sure, some "LNers" have CT views. Robert Blakey once said there couldn't be a shot fired from the Badge Man location because the acoustic evidence "proved" a knoll came from elsewhere. I think it likely both Mack and Blakey figured Oswald fired shots at the President and killed Officer Tippit.
The Ricky White fiasco, I think, convinced Mack to be more cynical about conspiracy claims. Tink Thompson worked with Mack on the Moorman Photo (to demonstrate she was standing on the grass and not the street). I bet Mack was taken aback by the 2004 BadgeMan analysis by Dale K. Myers ( Link ). Interesting that "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" documentary claimed that Geoffrey Crawley "verified and duplicated" the Badge Man figure. According to Myers ...
"In November 2001, British photographic expert Geoffrey CRAWLEY was
contacted in London, England. Through a series of interviews, it was learned
that CRAWLEY did not support MACK and WHITE’s theory, as claimed in
The Men Who Killed Kennedy program, but came to the same conclusion
I had 13 years later. In a two-page written report submitted to Nigel TURNER
in 1988, CRAWLEY concluded that if in fact the Badge Man figure were a
human being of average height and build he was standing 12 to 18 feet
behind the fence line and elevated 3 to 4 feet off the ground. CRAWLEY also
believed that the fatal head shot wasn’t feasible from that position and
line-of-sight. It was CRAWLEY's belief that MACK and WHITE had
misinterpreted background elements that were inherent in the original
photograph. According to CRAWLEY, Nigel TURNER ignored his report
because he "seemed to think that anything that could cast a doubt on
the official view of the assassination would help toward getting the whole
thing reopened and reappraised."
About all Mack was claiming about Badge Man in later years was that he could have been a human, not an assassin.
For one "getting at the truth", you sure are silent on the "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"'s misrepresentation of Geoffrey Crawley and the Myers 3D study disproving Badge Man claims.
Mack didn't say Badge Man was verified by Crawley in "The Men Who Shot Kennedy". Mack did say so in 2000, but only months later he said:
"I'm not locked into Badge Man being the man who killed Kennedy,
although that is what [Nigel Turner] claimed. Having spent far
more time than anyone on the image, and reviewed photographic
evidence few researchers have even heard of, much less seen,
I cannot find an object that could be mistaken for the Badge Man
image. In short, it has to be a person. Whether he is firing or not
is a separate issue."
Then came the Myers study and Mack, as far as I can tell, stopped promoting Badge Man. In 2013, Mack said: 'It’s either some sort of anomaly or they really are people." I thought you admired open-mindedness.
This reminds me of the character assassination by "open-minded", "truth-seeking" CTs of Tink Thompson, when he challenged the film alterationists. He was restored to grace when "Last Second in Dallas" was published two years ago.
There's only a handful of prominent CTs worthy of honor like Tink and Mack. But critcs will tear them down if they entertain the merest LN thought. Classic cult behavior.
Jerry - This is a forum and as such issues and positions are Discussed/Challenged. Anyone doing such is therefore Not a "Stalker". Branding someone a "Stalker" is an attempt to intimidate/bully then into silence. There's nothing :D about branding someone a "stalker". Sinking to this level is indicative of your position strength with regard to Gordon Arnold & Gary Mack. It's sad to see you sink to this level, but there are now several of you that have been on TILT since the Knott Labs Laser 360 SCIENCE proved, "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE". Attempting to intimidate others around here will Not reverse SCIENCE.
For one "getting at the truth", you sure are silent on the "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"'s misrepresentation of Geoffrey Crawley and the Myers 3D study disproving Badge Man claims.
Mack didn't say Badge Man was verified by Crawley in "The Men Who Shot Kennedy". Mack did say so in 2000, but only months later he said:
"I'm not locked into Badge Man being the man who killed Kennedy,
although that is what [Nigel Turner] claimed. Having spent far
more time than anyone on the image, and reviewed photographic
evidence few researchers have even heard of, much less seen,
I cannot find an object that could be mistaken for the Badge Man
image. In short, it has to be a person. Whether he is firing or not
is a separate issue."
Then came the Myers study and Mack, as far as I can tell, stopped promoting Badge Man. In 2013, Mack said: 'It’s either some sort of anomaly or they really are people." I thought you admired open-mindedness.
Gary Mack was even deceptive during the interview he did with Gordon Arnold's widow and son. Mack apologizes for never having talked with Gordon Arnold eyeball-to-eyeball, (paraphrasing). Mack did this to trick the audience into believing that Mack NEVER Talked with Arnold. This is WRONG. In fact, Mack did Talk on the PHONE with Gordon Arnold in "80" and "81". Did Mack lie? NO. But his intention was to mislead the audience. Why? Because on "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" Mack and Jack White were claiming they INDEPENDENTLY found their "Badge Man" when examining the Moorman photo. Mack well knew the Gordon Arnold story along with Arnold's "No Hat Cop". Mack knew Arnold had claimed that a bullet came flying over his left shoulder. And what was behind Gordon Arnold's left shoulder? The Picket Fence. That "Badge Man" was not "discovered". It was "tailored" to fit into the Gordon Arnold story which Gary Mack knew chapter and verse. A total Flim-Flam by Mack dating from "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" (1988), right up to his attempting to hide his "80"/"81" conversations with Gordon Arnold during the Arnold widow/son interview in 2006. These are the continuous acts of a Charlatan.
Give it up Royell, Gordon Arnold was a massive fraudster who like Beverly Oliver, Ed Hoffman and etc was just looking for his 15 minutes of fame!
For a start no Conspirator would place a sniper in front of the Limo when your Patsy was behind! Doh!
Arnold said a guy with a massive weapon came and took his film while leaving the not far away Zapruder completely alone?
Hudson who was not far away from Arnold's position said the shots came from above and behind and agreed that the shots came from behind the Limo!
Gordon Arnold wasn't captured by a single camera.
The guy near Hudson runs back to where the shots came from and if the earlier shots came from the fence, these guys lack of reaction doesn't indicate that.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7Zkjphq5/Muchmore2d.gif)
JohnM
What images are there of that Black Couple that is supposed to have been sitting on the bench, jumping up and busting pop bottles, and then racing up The Steps? NONE! Nobody, Repeat NOBODY has ever said they saw Hudson standing on The Steps. Well, nobody other than Hudson himself. Yet the Black Couple and Hudson are accepted as having been inside Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. But, as we ALL know now, Knott Labs Laser 360 SCIENCE has proven you ALL were Wrong. "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE"
You're obviously unfamiliar with Dealey Plaza, Gordon Arnold wasn't hidden but was standing way out in the open and don't forget, this is where Arnold was when someone with a huge weapon came and confiscated his film, an event that nobody else could miss or forget but only Arnold "remembers" this confrontation! Hahaha!
(https://i.postimg.cc/y8b7CVZd/gordon-arnold-standing-location.jpg)
Talk about pointless details, to supposedly add credibility, in the video Arnold tells us, "he had dirty hands"!?
And according to Gordon Arnold this is the size of the weapon, was it a cannon?
(https://i.postimg.cc/GpjnKG1Z/gordon-arnold-that-big-around.jpg)
Perhaps Arnold's description of the weapon was correct because an antique blunderbuss would explain the massive plume of smoke?
(https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-40f51859d3a10886c0c76f5ed7b35953-lq)
But the Arnold comment I like best "There's no doubt in my mind I was there...and it did occur" Hilarious!
JohnM
Once again, you reveal that you are unfamiliar with the Sixth Floor Interview of Gordon Arnold (6/6/1989). Arnold did this interview roughly 10 months after his, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" segment. Arnold supplied DETAILS to his story during the 45 minute Sixth Floor Q/A. The interview covered his position, what/who he saw around him, description of attacker(s), accents, nationalities, description of weapon, duration of event, etc, etc, etc. You have been circling the drain ever since The Knott Labs Laser 360 SCIENCE determined that the, "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE". Pull yourself together, do the research, and get yourself back on your feet.
The interview covered his position
description of weapon
The interview covered his position, what/who he saw around him, description of attacker(s), accents, nationalities, description of weapon, duration of event, etc, etc, etc.
You have been circling the drain ever since The Knott Labs Laser 360 SCIENCE determined that the, "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE". Pull yourself together, do the research, and get yourself back on your feet.
Even though you inadvertently have supplied further Proof of the Current Z Film being Bogus,
Ralph Cinque would fit nicely into that list. :D
If you want to make conclusions without having ALL the Facts, that's your call. Remember when viewing any JFK Assassination Special that contains various eyewitnesses telling their 11/22/63 story, that the overwhelming majority of the time a portion of their tale ends up on the cutting room floor. Time constraints do prevail. Your NOT having listened to the Gordon Arnold Sixth Floor Q/A makes you ignorant of Arnold detailing this same thing happening to him in his segment of, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy".
Never gonna happen, but I would like to view the "cutting room floor" walk-through material that Arnold did in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Same goes for the entire "walk-through" material that Dave Wiegman did with Gary Mack on "JFK, Death In Dealey Plaza". It would be helpful to know the path that Wiegman took UP the Knoll, across, and then down the Knoll to Elm St. And he and Gary Mack did a walk-through, though it is Not entirely on that JFK Special starring Gary Mack. On that same JFK Special, Wiegman DETAILED feeling the "compression" of a bullet whizzing passed his face. Strange, but that would be at least a 4th shot. It also would be indicative of a shot being fired "on the horizontal" which was DETAILED in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy".
Based on the overwhelming evidence, I am not interested in wasting further time researching a man I know is lying. Obviously you are too embarrassed to post any more Gordon Arnold evidence but if you want to present his evidence here, I may decide to take a look and spot more flaws in this well known charlatan's "memories".
And besides, I have clear visual evidence from the man himself of where he was standing while filming and the size of the cannon that nobody else saw.
(https://i.postimg.cc/y8b7CVZd/gordon-arnold-standing-location.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/GpjnKG1Z/gordon-arnold-that-big-around.jpg)
Nuff said!
JohnM
The holier than holy Sixth Floor Museum holds a 45 minute Q/A with Gordon Arnold and you are not interested in listening to it? Your "overwhelming evidence" claim is a cover for your now being absolutely floored. The Knott Labs 360 Laser SCIENCE PROVING the "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE" has Disproved your decades long LN belief. You were duped, as were millions of other people. Time to stand up and move forward. The TRUTH has set you free.
The holier than holy Sixth Floor Museum holds a 45 minute Q/A with Gordon Arnold and you are not interested in listening to it?
Your "overwhelming evidence" claim is a cover for your now being absolutely floored.
The Knott Labs 360 Laser SCIENCE PROVING the "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE" has Disproved your decades long LN belief.
JOHN - SCIENCE is TRUTH. There's no running away from that. LN's are now on the Wrong Side of Science. "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE"
I just replied to Steve M. Galbraith and I think you will find value in what was said!
I also find Royell's latest stance on "SCIENCE" absolutely astonishing, because the amount of science that is integral to this case comes from the LNer side which incidentally is beyond compare but Royell has so far ignored the Medical Experts, Forensic Specialists, Photographic Experts, Ballistics Experts, Handwriting Experts and etc etc all in favour of the scraps of pseudo science he collects from the gutter!
JohnM
This is about SCIENCE. Trashing me will Not change what SCIENCE has Declared: "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE". LN's are now on the wrong side of SCIENCE. And it's only gonna get worse as the Knott Labs Laser 360 SCIENCE now locates the shooter(s). Just as they do inside court rooms across this country day-in, day-out.
in junction with computer evaluated still frames and photographs taken on 11/22/63.
Even though you inadvertently have supplied further Proof of the Current Z Film being Bogus,
Vast majority (2/3rds ) witness heard the sequence of 3 shots as 1…..2..3 .
If the latest experiment has the SBT trajectory implausible, then there would have to have been either another shooter or the single shooter had a semi auto rifle.
Either way though, the shot sequence would be different would it not ? Since now there had to be a shot hitting JC causing his abrupt shoulder turn very close to JFKs reactions. Therefore shots 1 and 2 would be only probably 1 sec apart.
That would be then a sequence 1..2…..3 which is the reverse of what majority witnesses seemed to have heard.
The only solution , if the the SBT is not viable, to preserve the majority witness perception, would require 2 shooters, one of whom had a silenced rifle that fired the shot at JC about 0.5 sec after JFK is hit at Z-222-223 giving the impression both JFK and JC are simultaneously responding to the same bullet.
But then you still need a 4th shot that’s from a loud rifle shot to have 3 loud shots heard and so when would that 4th shot occur so as to preserve the 1…..2..3 sequence?
Imo it would have to either be between the silenced shot at JC and the Z313 hit on JFK
Or.. it would have to be a 4th shot about 1-1.5 secs AFTER Z313.
Don Knotts Lab worked from this map Royell sent them
(https://images2.imgbox.com/6d/ed/eorCAMY4_o.gif)
"How many times have I got to tell you, I couldn't care less about Gordon Arnold. And you say the interview lasts FORTY FIVE minutes? WOW! So Gordon Arnold got his fifteen minutes of fame times three!" john mytton
It appears that you take an approach to this case where by you pick and choose the witnesses you like , while you choose to ignore those that you do not . I could not call that the work of a dedicated , open minded and honest researcher . From your own words about you seem to make it clear that you have never seen the interview , i myself have sat and watched a lot of BS in regard this case , but none the less i watched it , weighed up the evidence regarding what they may have claimed and considered its validity or lack there of . If you are unwilling to do that , and to be honest many LN are not (but not all ) well then your opinions here could hardly be labelled fair , open minded and unbiased . But then two things have already confirmed to me what your mentality is in regard this case , one that i have read many of your posts and i can see your stance form them . But also the mere fact that you chose as an avatar a picture of Bugliosi speaks a lot to me . This is a discussion and debate forum , people have views on this case in which they differ , in that sense both sides should always be willing to be open minded , honest and unbiased in their approach , that is if we all truly value the truth in this matter .
It appears that you take an approach to this case where by you pick and choose the witnesses you like , while you choose to ignore those that you do not . I could not call that the work of a dedicated , open minded and honest researcher .
From your own words about you seem to make it clear that you have never seen the interview ,
i myself have sat and watched a lot of BS in regard this case , but none the less i watched it , weighed up the evidence regarding what they may have claimed and considered its validity or lack there of .
If you are unwilling to do that , and to be honest many LN are not (but not all ) well then your opinions here could hardly be labelled fair , open minded and unbiased .
But then two things have already confirmed to me what your mentality is in regard this case , one that i have read many of your posts and i can see your stance form them .
But also the mere fact that you chose as an avatar a picture of Bugliosi speaks a lot to me .
This is a discussion and debate forum , people have views on this case in which they differ , in that sense both sides should always be willing to be open minded , honest and unbiased in their approach , that is if we all truly value the truth in this matter .
How about 2 Autopsies? Even Gunn bought into that.
Like every piece of crap you post, utter science fiction. Frightening ignorant.
Even Sitzman mentioned the possibility of a silencer being used. I believe this was the case with the rifle that Gordon Arnold had shoved in his face. A silencer on the end of the rifle made the barrel appear huge with respect to circumference.
Here is Arnold in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" (seen in the still frame above): "And as I was panning down in this direction, just as I got to about this position, a shot came right past my left ear, and that meant it would have had to have come from this direction. And that’s when I fell down, and to me it seemed like a second shot was at least fired over my head. There was a bunch of report [sic] going on in this particular area at that time."
If they used a silencer then how did he hear "a shot" and then a "second shot" and then a "bunch of report"? Us lone nutters can be so cynical sometimes.....
Since I've been disqualified as a commentator I just want to say that I'm asking this for a friend.
There was that coincidence of Braden, the mafia guy , Just happened to be in the Daltex building carrying a briefcase of some sort, just about during the time the JFK motorcade was entering Dealey plaza.
Wonder what happened to that guy? Did he die of sudden cancer while in jail awaiting an appeal like Ruby did?
Even Sitzman mentioned the possibility of a silencer being used. I believe this was the case with the rifle that Gordon Arnold had shoved in his face. A silencer on the end of the rifle made the barrel appear huge with respect to circumference.
In retrospect, it is amazing how much of this case was resolved within the first few hours. The basic evidence and circumstances that linked Oswald to these crimes beyond all doubt were discovered by the DPD within a few hours. There is no credible evidence of the involvement of any person other than Oswald. There is no credible evidence that Oswald was involved in any conspiracy. The DPD and FBI did excellent work in that context. They made some misstatements early on in an effort to be transparent and bungled the security for Oswald (which was a huge mistake) that provided some fodder for the CTers over the years but in terms of solving the crime, they did an outstanding job.
Since the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, the government has been declassifying documents related to JFK’s assassination. But according to experts on the JFK assassination that TIME talked to, no major revelations have been found in these document dumps in the 60 years since the President was killed.
“No new information has been revealed or exposed that really alter the course of our understanding of what happened,” says Nicola Longford, CEO of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, a museum all about the JFK assassination located in the building where Oswald shot JFK.
Whatcha think?
In retrospect, it is amazing how much of this case was resolved within the first few hours. The basic evidence and circumstances that linked Oswald to these crimes beyond all doubt were discovered by the DPD within a few hours. There is no credible evidence of the involvement of any person other than Oswald. There is no credible evidence that Oswald was involved in any conspiracy. The DPD and FBI did excellent work in that context. They made some misstatements early on in an effort to be transparent and bungled the security for Oswald (which was a huge mistake) that provided some fodder for the CTers over the years but in terms of solving the crime, they did an outstanding job.
"There is no credible evidence of the involvement of any person other than Oswald. There is no credible evidence that Oswald was involved in any conspiracy"
you say no "credible " evidence , you dont say there was NO EVIDENCE . because the two are not the same are they ? .so who decides what constitutes "CREDIBLE " evidence ?. in my experience lone nut advocates usually feel they are the only ones entitled to decided what is "credible " evidence or not , who is a reliable witness or not . in fact some LN that i have known in my time will at one time cite a witness to prove some thing and help them win an argument , while in another instance question the reliability , honesty or even sanity of the same witness . really so far as i have seen they apply much the same logic to evidence .
"There is no credible evidence of the involvement of any person other than Oswald. There is no credible evidence that Oswald was involved in any conspiracy"
you say no "credible " evidence , you dont say there was NO EVIDENCE . because the two are not the same are they ? .so who decides what constitutes "CREDIBLE " evidence ?. in my experience lone nut advocates usually feel they are the only ones entitled to decided what is "credible " evidence or not , who is a reliable witness or not . in fact some LN that i have known in my time will at one time cite a witness to prove some thing and help them win an argument , while in another instance question the reliability , honesty or even sanity of the same witness . really so far as i have seen they apply much the same logic to evidence .
There is no requirement that a witness account HAS to be judged either credible or not credible in its entirety. It is quite common that a witness remembers some aspects of an event correctly but other aspects incorrectly. Here is a typical instruction to a jury that spells this out.
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES
I remind you that it is your job to decide whether the government has proved the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. In doing so, you must consider all of the evidence. This does not mean, however, that you must accept all of the evidence as true or accurate.
You are the sole judges of the credibility or “believ- ability” of each witness and the weight to be given to the witness's testimony. An important part of your job will be making judgments about the testimony of the witnesses [including the defendant] who testified in this case. You should decide whether you believe all, some part, or none of what each person had to say, and how important that testimony was. In making that decision I suggest that you ask yourself a few questions: Did the witness impress you as honest? Did the witness have any particular reason not to tell the truth? Did the witness have a personal interest in the outcome of the case? Did the witness have any relationship with either the government or the defense? Did the witness seem to have a good memory? Did the witness clearly see or hear the things about which he testified? Did the witness have the opportunity and ability to understand the questions clearly and answer them directly? Did the witness's testimony differ from the testimony of other witnesses? These are a few of the considerations that will help you determine the accuracy of what each witness said.
[The testimony of the defendant should be weighed and his credibility evaluated in the same way as that of any other witness.]
Your job is to think about the testimony of each witness you have heard and decide how much you
believe of what each witness had to say. In making up your mind and reaching a verdict, do not make any decisions simply because there were more witnesses on one side than on the other. Do not reach a conclusion on a particular point just because there were more wit- nesses testifying for one side on that point. You will always bear in mind that the law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence.
https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf (https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf)
i understand where you are coming from here Charles and what you say is not unreasonable at all , that is in the sense that you offered it IE in a court room setting .
however i was talking about in a forum setting such as this forum or other places where people discuss the assassination online . in that sense we are dealing with specific mentalities .
for example lets take Mr brown who posts on this site . im talking about Bill now as ive seen another Mr brown also . i wouldnt want to cause any confusion .
he has long stated for example that in essence he only accepts statements from witnesses made very close to the events in question . i mean statements made in the hours or just a few days after the event .i once saw him in a discussion , and his logic above came up . in that instance he was discussing Earlene roberts . as we know in the days after the event she would say that she heard a police car outside and the driver tooted the horn . this was some thing that i do not believe she had any reason at all at the time to associate with Mr oswald , but 5 or 6 days later she mentioned it . Bill took exception to that , i cant recall the exact wording of the post now but in essence he said that as she only said what she said near to a week after the tragic events in dallas that he didnt believe her . remember now this is just days after the event . later Bill would pop up and say Domingo Benavides positively identified Oswald as the killer . i knew that benavides certainly never IDed oswald on the day , at the time or even months later when testifying . so i enquired just for pig iron (just for fun ) exactly when Benavides made the statement now being attributed to him , well he made the statement several years AFTER THE EVENT . can you see what i am saying here ? , very simply an LN on one hand says that a statement made just days after the assassination is not acceptable but a statement made years after the assassination was because the person said what Bill liked . remember LN cite Earlene as a reliable witness who saw oswald come home , change and leave wearing a jacket , but now she is unreliable when she says something an LN doesnt like .
now this is in no way an attack on Bill at all , im just using this as a method to highlight LN logic .
another case is Wes frazier . obviously LN cite him to say Oswald had a long sack . but again when he talks about the sack being some 12 inches shorter than the 36 inch or more long sack in evidence LN suddenly question his reliability and even his IQ level . again it was Bill (not verbatim now ) if i recall correctly who in reference to Frazier said in essence that Frazier probably did not realize that 24 inches equals two feet . so another example of where a witness is credible and reliable when it suits LN , but then decidedly unreliable and lacking credibility when what they say does not suit LN .
how often do LN cite the word of Marina ? yet we know the many problems with her statements , not just that we have the redlich memo that tells is that she has been untruthful , and extremely contradictory in her statements . but LN still hang on her every word , that us until she starts saying oswald did not do it .
i could go on with examples . now as i said i am not attacking anyone here , not at all , i only mention Bill because i knew from here and on bob harris old forum . i am just giving examples of the LN logic .
Attempting to "lift" only favorable portions of a individual's testimony or their story as told, is a blatant attempt to deceive the audience. An act such as this is the work of a Charlatan. Some of us know which shell the pea is under, but many do not. This being the case, those attempting such hoodwinking merit being publicly tarred and feathered on this Forum.
As can be seen in the typical jury instructions I posted earlier, the jury is the judge of what they think is believable and what they think is not believable. Present the witness accounts and apply reasoning for how much of it to believe. However, the most important aspect is:
It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the evidence, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took before being accepted by the parties as jurors, and they have the right to expect nothing less.
https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf (https://www.lb5.uscourts.gov/juryinstructions/fifth/crim2015.pdf)
Judging the character of a witness is not solely based on "evidence". Know it or not, "Life experience" plays a major part in every decision we make. This is where "spidey senses" kick in.
The character of a witness is but one item to consider when deciding whether or not to believe any one aspect of his account.
I have seen a plethora of lame excuses for why people refuse to believe the evidence. I suppose we can now add “spidey senses” to the list. ::)
However, if I ever want to get dismissed from jury duty I will be sure to use the “spidey senses” routine. I am sure that one will do the trick..
We are talking about witness credibility. Whether to believe a witness or not, ultimately comes down to your "life experience". This is why people are judged by their "peers", and not a computer or somebody with an IQ of 180.
And I will repeat the point I made to Fergus O’Brien:
There is no requirement that a witness account HAS to be judged either credible or not credible in its entirety. It is quite common that a witness remembers some aspects of an event correctly but other aspects incorrectly.
I believe You are referring to a witness simply being "mistaken", vs a witness with "Character" issues. There is a big difference between "Fallible" vs "Credible".
A witness can have character issues and still be credible. There are many factors involved in deciding whether or not to believe certain aspects of a witness’ account. Character is only one of the factors that should be considered.
Perhaps the reasons why someone (either LN or CT or whatever, it doesn’t matter) would believe part of a witness’ account, but not believe another part of the same witness’ account, were not fully explained to you. Maybe you didn’t ask for their reasons. Or you are simply ignoring those reasons and trying to imply that they are using faulty logic. Remember that a jury is instructed that they must consider all of the evidence. While I agree that a forum isn’t the same as an online court room, I think that the application of some courtroom practices makes sense in our judgements as to what we think happened. After all, those practices are in place to help insure a fair trial takes place.
i am not implying faulty logic on the part of LN .now i have spoken with LN who were reasonable enough in their approach , that is to say they were willing to debate , and do so in a friendly manner. but in my experience that is a rarity , i can probably count these LN cases on one hand . and as i believe it was Royell who pointed out there is a difference between fallible and credible . all humans err , its part of being human .a person simply shown to have been in error does not lack credibility . However if a person embellishes , deceives or lies they at best lack credibility and at worse lose any credibility they might have had . i am talking about witnesses now , not anyone on this site .
but we must have good and valid reasons for dismissing any witness . LN are far too quick to dismiss any witness who is problematic to their stance .of course some witnesses do have credibility issues , some have been discussed recently here such as Jean Hill , and i understand the reasons why . so my point is that LN seem to feel that they are the ones who decide what witness is credible OR NOT and whether evidence is credible or not . when an LN says there is no credible evidence that differs greatly from there being NO EVIDENCE . and yes a witness MAY be accurate and truthful and also simply err . and a witness may be truthful in the majority of what they say , but then embellish or even lie . and if so whether it be here or in a court of law i believe the same question should be asked . IF THEY EMBELLISHED OR LIED ABOUT EVEN ONE THING CAN /SHOULD WE TRUST ANYTHING THEY SAID ? . and if we whether CT or LN are applying levels and standards to decide credibility of witnesses , well we MUST apply those same standards equally across the board . meaning if an LN says for example that a witness lied once so they are not credible , that that same logic applies to their witnesses .
Even a Serial Killer does Not kill every single person they meet. Bearing this in mind, would you choose to chum around with a Serial Killer even though they do not Kill everyone they come into contact with? To a far lesser degree and with the "character" issue in mind, would you trust the testimony of a "Jailhouse snitch"?
I wouldn’t automatically dismiss testimony of a jailhouse snitch simply because he was a jailhouse snitch. I would consider it along with the rest of the evidence.
I believe it is now time to discuss "naivette".
What we need is a real person who is the same height and body mass to JC with legs of the same length , to sit in the actual jump seat of the JFK limo and determine the most probable angle of JCs legs in relation to his upper torso and shoulders which appear imo to be at an angle NOT parallel exactly with the side door, per as in the Z-224-225 frames
( Maybe Mr.Collins can do another actual empirical test like he has done before , when he demonstrated how a shooter in the 6th floor SN window could have sat on the box next to the pipes and be out if sight during the Hughes film)
The Knotts laboratory experiment (judging from their video graphic ) has what appears to me to be both of JCs legs basically parallel to the side door , such that his Knees would be pressing into the back of Kellerman seat.
But if JCs upper torso and shoulder line was turned somewhat towards viewing umbrella man and DC man as it seems to appear to my own human eyeballs viewing the individual frames of Z223 -Z225 then it seems to me that JC trying to keep his legs parallel , while his upper torso is having to twist slightly , would have been an uncomfortable position for JC, especially if he was holding the hat upside down with the well of the hat hanging off the outer (left) side of his left thigh , with his right hand holding the rim of the hat pressed against the upper part of his left leg.
And if that’s the position the laboratory guys were using then that explains why they cannot align the exit wound from JCs right side of his chest with the wrist wound in his right hand and with the left thigh wound.
I think theres probably only one way the SBT trajectory alignment is possible, and that requires both of JCs legs to be turned at some diagonal angle towards the right side door to the same degree his upper torso and chest and shoulder line seem to be in Z223-225. I have to speculate that would probably have been a more comfortable position for JCs legs having a bit more room due to that diagonal angle.
However, if there’s some follow up by other scientific methodologists whom can absolutely determine which way JCs legs were oriented relative to his upper torso and shoulder angle , which winds up matching the leg position the Knotts lab graphics show, then it would be a refutation of the Myers computer trajectory line and thus would prove the SBT is improbable.
The actual experiment in the 2003 Beyond Conspiracy to attempt to prove Myers computer model trajectory FAILED to prove the trajectory because the bullet that exited from the JFK replica , exited from the right side chest , in effect would have gone thru JFKs right lung rather than the throat.
Also Dr. Wecht, has NOT been refuted regarding his opinion on the slight deformation of CE 399 being highly improbable for a bullet that traversed thru thru 2 human body and ribs bones plus having entered thru the wrist bone of JCs hand BACKWARDs!.
i understand where you are coming from here Charles and what you say is not unreasonable at all , that is in the sense that you offered it IE in a court room setting .
however i was talking about in a forum setting such as this forum or other places where people discuss the assassination online . in that sense we are dealing with specific mentalities .
for example lets take Mr brown who posts on this site . im talking about Bill now as ive seen another Mr brown also . i wouldnt want to cause any confusion .
he has long stated for example that in essence he only accepts statements from witnesses made very close to the events in question . i mean statements made in the hours or just a few days after the event .i once saw him in a discussion , and his logic above came up . in that instance he was discussing Earlene roberts . as we know in the days after the event she would say that she heard a police car outside and the driver tooted the horn . this was some thing that i do not believe she had any reason at all at the time to associate with Mr oswald , but 5 or 6 days later she mentioned it . Bill took exception to that , i cant recall the exact wording of the post now but in essence he said that as she only said what she said near to a week after the tragic events in dallas that he didnt believe her . remember now this is just days after the event . later Bill would pop up and say Domingo Benavides positively identified Oswald as the killer . i knew that benavides certainly never IDed oswald on the day , at the time or even months later when testifying . so i enquired just for pig iron (just for fun ) exactly when Benavides made the statement now being attributed to him , well he made the statement several years AFTER THE EVENT . can you see what i am saying here ? , very simply an LN on one hand says that a statement made just days after the assassination is not acceptable but a statement made years after the assassination was because the person said what Bill liked . remember LN cite Earlene as a reliable witness who saw oswald come home , change and leave wearing a jacket , but now she is unreliable when she says something an LN doesnt like .
now this is in no way an attack on Bill at all , im just using this as a method to highlight LN logic .
another case is Wes frazier . obviously LN cite him to say Oswald had a long sack . but again when he talks about the sack being some 12 inches shorter than the 36 inch or more long sack in evidence LN suddenly question his reliability and even his IQ level . again it was Bill (not verbatim now ) if i recall correctly who in reference to Frazier said in essence that Frazier probably did not realize that 24 inches equals two feet . so another example of where a witness is credible and reliable when it suits LN , but then decidedly unreliable and lacking credibility when what they say does not suit LN .
how often do LN cite the word of Marina ? yet we know the many problems with her statements , not just that we have the redlich memo that tells is that she has been untruthful , and extremely contradictory in her statements . but LN still hang on her every word , that us until she starts saying oswald did not do it .
i could go on with examples . now as i said i am not attacking anyone here , not at all , i only mention Bill because i knew from here and on bob harris old forum . i am just giving examples of the LN logic .
later Bill would pop up and say Domingo Benavides positively identified Oswald as the killer . i knew that benavides certainly never IDed oswald on the day , at the time or even months later when testifying . so i enquired just for pig iron (just for fun ) exactly when Benavides made the statement now being attributed to him , well he made the statement several years AFTER THE EVENT . can you see what i am saying here ?
You're not being fair. For the record, I do not rely on Domingo Benavides when listing eyewitnesses who said the killer was Oswald. In fact, this forum is littered with my posts naming the eyewitnesses who said the killer was Oswald and I never include Benavides.
However, for what it's worth, Benavides did indeed use the name Oswald in 1964 during his testimony to the Warren Commission:
"...and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the other side of the car."
I don't include Benavides though since he did not attend a lineup and/or positively identify Oswald as the cop-killer to the FBI a month or two later like other witnesses did. For the same reason, I don't include Jack Tatum either even though he says that the man he saw was undoubtedly Oswald but not until the mid 70's to HSCA investigators.
hi Royell , by the way merry christmas to you and yours .
youtube really does have a wealth of very useful jfk assassination related content . there are several versions of the Zapruder film . i mean that you can see close up etc . the more we can see , the better we can see it the better our understanding gets . so youtube can be an invaluable tool for anyone researching or those just starting out looking at this case .of course people will get both CT and LN sides of the story .
the up close and or clearer versions of the Zapruder film do let us see things a bit more clearer . for example over the years ive had many people say the words JFK grabbed / clutched his throat , the media uses this wording also . i guess the mentality is if a bullet exited his throat as in via the SBT that that would cause him to grab his throat . but he never did that . both arms / hands did raise up to about chin height , with both fists balled . then Jackie sees there is a problem as he is leaned towards her . and she has a look . but at no point do we see a throat grab .
but you mentioned Connally and he is important also as you know . his position , his actions , where his right hand is etc . so i agree with you people , certainly people new to this case should study these copies of the Zapruder film .but even those of us that have looked at this case a long time can still learn a lot or learn something new . Helmer reenberg has a wealth of videos , film from that day and beyond , practically covering every thing jfk wise . but i will certainly do as you say and check out the JFK theorist .
Another guy on Tilt? You used to be far better than this. That's the 1 major issue that Gunn and Horne agreed on. You need to brush up on the ARRB. Especially the "autopsy".
When asked about Horne’s writings Gunn responded “I don’t read anything written by Doug Horne”.