JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Dillon Rankine on January 23, 2019, 07:28:39 PM

Title: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 23, 2019, 07:28:39 PM
It seems clear to me that at the heart of the disagreements between CTs and LNers isn?t evidence per se, but differential appraisal of different types of evidence. For what it?s worth, on the average, LNers tend to put more emphasis on that which can be subjected to scientific analysis and prefer the word of experts over witnesses, though this is often abdicated where a witness confirms their case. Conversely, CTs oftentimes put more weight on witnesses than on physical evidence and show a tendency to distrust or be skeptical or experts (often with inverted commas) and their analyses, and often show an element of cognitive inflexibility or rigidity (e.g. ?I/they know what I/they see/saw?).           

Neither epistemology is bulletproof, though the LNer runs into a lot less issues, with the most notable failure of their approach being the infamous pseudosciences perpetrated by Thomas Canning and Vincent Guin.

The CT oftentimes shows only a facile understanding of the facts of the case; Major arguments are commonly glib repetitions of what the ?talking heads? (e.g. Marrs, Fetzer, Mantik etc) have written or said. While showing excessive scepticism toward LNer ideas, CTs are often highly suggestible to other CT claims (traits also but less frequently observed in LNers). 

The cognitive distortions of each side is most evident when looking at the gunshot recollections. LNers don?t show any questioning of the shot number (3) heard by most, but origin and sequence are disputed?which the CTs thrive on. (The majority opinion on shot origin is disputed). A psychoacoustic field experiment seemed to dispute echo chamber, though the participants were all experts who were expecting gunfire, though it?s worth pointing out that the majority of the small subsection of earwitnesses familiar with firearms (e.g. Willis, Yaraborough, JBC) provided; accounts consistent with 3 well spaced gunshots all striking occupants of the limousine (see Thompson, 1967, ch 3-5).

There is a strong and totally unneeded focus on legality among CTs, particularly with respect to whether a price of evidence would be admissible in a courtroom trail. There is a failure to grasp that something being dismissed on technicality doesn?t mean the evidence is logistically faulty or fabricated, it?s just that the conduct of the DPD showed a marked disparity from the stringent bureaucracy that attempts to regulate criminal proceedings more generally. 

TL;DR: some or much of the dispute between CTs and LNers has got more to do with group differences in deciding what type of evidence is most important, than it has to do with most other variables
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 23, 2019, 07:54:25 PM


     Regarding the alleged LN's preferring "Experts" and "Evidence", it is impossible to accept that and then manage to somehow get around the JFK Back Wound as notated by an "expert" and "Evidenced" on the (1) Autopsy Face Sheet and (2) Autopsy Photos. That Back entrance wound fired at a downward angle exiting via the throat flies in the face of the alleged Expert/Evidence LN Bar.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 23, 2019, 08:39:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  Regarding the alleged LN's preferring "Experts" and "Evidence", it is impossible to accept that and then manage to somehow get around the JFK Back Wound as notated by an "expert" and "Evidenced" on the (1) Autopsy Face Sheet and (2) Autopsy Photos. That Back entrance wound fired at a downward angle exiting via the throat flies in the face of the alleged Expert/Evidence LN Bar.

In regards Dillon's "The CT oftentimes shows only a facile understanding of the facts of the case":

To wit: It's been long apparent that you lot don't realize that 'face sheet' drawings are preprinted and generic. That amounts to a visual shorthand, not meant to reflect the exact measurements taken from the body itself* A measurement, by the way, found on said face sheet... and remaining at the 14x14cm location to this day.

*Kennedy had square shoulders, while the face sheet in question clearly shows sloped shoulders.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tom Scully on January 23, 2019, 08:50:31 PM
Dillon, this is not meant as a specific criticism of your choice. It is natural to observe what
others are doing and simply do what seems to have worked for others, but....
IF EVERYBODY DOES IT..... (bTW, you have the ability to edit your title, to some degree,
via modify option of your OP.)

If you don't appreciate click bait titles like this thread's and the thread titled, Theory-In-Progress,
stop rewarding the selfish (manipulative) title choices the authors of baiting titles make,
by taking their bait by viewing or worse, replying to such threads.

I am not gonna read the opening post. If you want a crappy forum, keep taking the bait
and encouraging this practice.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 23, 2019, 09:12:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's been long apparent that you lot don't realize that 'face sheet' drawings are preprinted and generic. That amounts to a visual shorthand, not meant to reflect the exact measurements taken from the body itself*

A measurement, by the way, found on said face sheet... and remaining at the 14x14cm location to this day.

*Kennedy had square shoulders, while the face sheet in question clearly shows sloped shoulders.

      The JFK Autopsy Face Sheet shows the JFK Back Wound in the same location as: (1) Autopsy Photo(s), (2) JFK Dress Jacket, (3) JFK Dress Shirt. This Multiple Corroboration disproves your contention that there was no attention to detail regarding the JFK Autopsy Face Sheet.  The JFK Back Wound as notated on the Autopsy Face Sheet was as Mona Lisa Vito would say, "Dead on balls accurate".
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 23, 2019, 09:36:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
      The JFK Autopsy Face Sheet shows the JFK Back Wound in the same location as: (1) Autopsy Photo(s), (2) JFK Dress Jacket, (3) JFK Dress Shirt. This Multiple Corroboration disproves your contention that there was no attention to detail regarding the JFK Autopsy Face Sheet.  The JFK Back Wound as notated on the Autopsy Face Sheet was as Mona Lisa Vito would say, "Dead on balls accurate".

14cm x 14cm location measured on the actual body
Yet you jump on the (generic) drawing itself. Again.

Kennedy's haberdashery, post shots: A bunch of problems for CTers unable to do the math.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 23, 2019, 09:59:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It seems clear to me that at the heart of the disagreements between CTs and LNers isn?t evidence per se, but differential appraisal of different types of evidence. For what it?s worth, on the average, LNers tend to put more emphasis on that which can be subjected to scientific analysis and prefer the word of experts over witnesses, though this is often abdicated where a witness confirms their case. Conversely, CTs oftentimes put more weight on witnesses than on physical evidence and show a tendency to distrust or be skeptical or experts (often with inverted commas) and their analyses, and often show an element of cognitive inflexibility or rigidity (e.g. ?I/they know what I/they see/saw?).           

Neither epistemology is bulletproof, though the LNer runs into a lot less issues, with the most notable failure of their approach being the infamous pseudosciences perpetrated by Thomas Canning and Vincent Guin.

The CT oftentimes shows only a facile understanding of the facts of the case; Major arguments are commonly glib repetitions of what the ?talking heads? (e.g. Marrs, Fetzer, Mantik etc) have written or said. While showing excessive scepticism toward LNer ideas, CTs are often highly suggestible to other CT claims (traits also but less frequently observed in LNers). 

The cognitive distortions of each side is most evident when looking at the gunshot recollections. LNers don?t show any questioning of the shot number (3) heard by most, but origin and sequence are disputed?which the CTs thrive on. (The majority opinion on shot origin is disputed). A psychoacoustic field experiment seemed to dispute echo chamber, though the participants were all experts who were expecting gunfire, though it?s worth pointing out that the majority of the small subsection of earwitnesses familiar with firearms (e.g. Willis, Yaraborough, JBC) provided; accounts consistent with 3 well spaced gunshots all striking occupants of the limousine (see Thompson, 1967, ch 3-5).

There is a strong and totally unneeded focus on legality among CTs, particularly with respect to whether a price of evidence would be admissible in a courtroom trail. There is a failure to grasp that something being dismissed on technicality doesn?t mean the evidence is logistically faulty or fabricated, it?s just that the conduct of the DPD showed a marked disparity from the stringent bureaucracy that attempts to regulate criminal proceedings more generally. 

TL;DR: some or much of the dispute between CTs and LNers has got more to do with group differences in deciding what type of evidence is most important, than it has to do with most other variables

Dillon,

A rather decent post overall. Though, I do take issue with one of your assertions. You refer to "the infamous pseudosciences perpetrated by Thomas Canning and Vincent Guin." I have no idea as to what Canning's pseudoscience might be but I suspect with Guinn that you are alluding to Neutron Activation Analysis. NAA is not a pseudoscience. Guinn's use of it is questionable but the science itself is not. At least, not that I'm aware of. 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 23, 2019, 10:01:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It seems clear to me that at the heart of the disagreements between CTs and LNers isn?t evidence per se, but differential appraisal of different types of evidence. For what it?s worth, on the average, LNers tend to put more emphasis on that which can be subjected to scientific analysis and prefer the word of experts over witnesses, though this is often abdicated where a witness confirms their case. Conversely, CTs oftentimes put more weight on witnesses than on physical evidence and show a tendency to distrust or be skeptical or experts (often with inverted commas) and their analyses, and often show an element of cognitive inflexibility or rigidity (e.g. ?I/they know what I/they see/saw?).           

Neither epistemology is bulletproof, though the LNer runs into a lot less issues, with the most notable failure of their approach being the infamous pseudosciences perpetrated by Thomas Canning and Vincent Guin.

The CT oftentimes shows only a facile understanding of the facts of the case; Major arguments are commonly glib repetitions of what the ?talking heads? (e.g. Marrs, Fetzer, Mantik etc) have written or said. While showing excessive scepticism toward LNer ideas, CTs are often highly suggestible to other CT claims (traits also but less frequently observed in LNers). 

The cognitive distortions of each side is most evident when looking at the gunshot recollections. LNers don?t show any questioning of the shot number (3) heard by most, but origin and sequence are disputed?which the CTs thrive on. (The majority opinion on shot origin is disputed). A psychoacoustic field experiment seemed to dispute echo chamber, though the participants were all experts who were expecting gunfire, though it?s worth pointing out that the majority of the small subsection of earwitnesses familiar with firearms (e.g. Willis, Yaraborough, JBC) provided; accounts consistent with 3 well spaced gunshots all striking occupants of the limousine (see Thompson, 1967, ch 3-5).

There is a strong and totally unneeded focus on legality among CTs, particularly with respect to whether a price of evidence would be admissible in a courtroom trail. There is a failure to grasp that something being dismissed on technicality doesn?t mean the evidence is logistically faulty or fabricated, it?s just that the conduct of the DPD showed a marked disparity from the stringent bureaucracy that attempts to regulate criminal proceedings more generally. 

TL;DR: some or much of the dispute between CTs and LNers has got more to do with group differences in deciding what type of evidence is most important, than it has to do with most other variables

You've either got the wrong forum or you have a very skewed way of looking at it. In a nutshell, CTs hold the WC's feet to the fire while LNers merely deny everything that hints at conspiracy. CTs are AOK with Oswald taking token shots at JFK, but he was not a lone nut, simple as that.

LNers are actually Conspiracy Deniers, Coincidence Theorists and WC shills. Painting LHO as a LN is a WC conspiracy. To what degree LHO was involved is still up for debate but the LN hypothesis is effectively dead. Only the Chapmans remain to troll the forum. :)
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 23, 2019, 10:02:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
14cm x 14cm location measured on the actual body
Yet you jump on the (generic) drawing itself. Again.

Kennedy's haberdashery, post shots: A bunch of problems for CTers unable to do the math.

     Try as you might, you are Not going to get away from the corroborated Location of the JFK BACK WOUND.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 23, 2019, 10:06:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
14cm x 14cm location measured on the actual body
Yet you jump on the (generic) drawing itself. Again.

Kennedy's haberdashery, post shots: A bunch of problems for CTers unable to do the math.

How about you do some math for a change. For starters, what vertebrae does the back wound correspond to?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 23, 2019, 10:08:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
      The JFK Autopsy Face Sheet shows the JFK Back Wound in the same location as: (1) Autopsy Photo(s), (2) JFK Dress Jacket, (3) JFK Dress Shirt. This Multiple Corroboration disproves your contention that there was no attention to detail regarding the JFK Autopsy Face Sheet.  The JFK Back Wound as notated on the Autopsy Face Sheet was as Mona Lisa Vito would say, "Dead on balls accurate".

"Examination of photographs of anterior and posterior views of thorax, and anterior, posterior and lateral views of neck (Photographs 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 39, 40, 41). There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body. A well defined zone of discoloration of the edge of the back wound, most pronounced on its upper and outer margins, identifies it as having the characteristics of the entrance wound of a bullet. The wound with its marginal abrasion measures approximately 7 mm. in width by 10 mm. in length. The dimensions of this cutaneous wound are consistent with those of a wound produced by a bullet similar to that which constitutes exhibit CE 399. At the site of and above the tracheotomy incision in the front of the neck, there can be identified the upper half of the circumference of a circular cutaneous wound the appearance of which is characteristic of that of the exit wound of a bullet. The lower half of this circular wound is obscured by the surgically produced tracheotomy incision which transects it. The center of the circular wound is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in Its passage through the body."

http://www.jfklancer.com/ClarkPanel.html

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/bunch/necktransitbunch.gif)
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 23, 2019, 10:11:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
     Try as you might, you are Not going to get away from the corroborated Location of the JFK BACK WOUND.

Corroborated by whom? You lot? LOL

14x14cm 'balls on' the junction where the neck meets the back
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 23, 2019, 11:02:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
      The JFK Autopsy Face Sheet shows the JFK Back Wound in the same location as: (1) Autopsy Photo(s), (2) JFK Dress Jacket, (3) JFK Dress Shirt. This Multiple Corroboration disproves your contention that there was no attention to detail regarding the JFK Autopsy Face Sheet.  The JFK Back Wound as notated on the Autopsy Face Sheet was as Mona Lisa Vito would say, "Dead on balls accurate".

None of that is specific enough to make inferences regarding its relation to a particular vertebra. The measurements are the most important?T1 is the most consistent (see Pat Speer?s replication using a man of JFK?s measurements). 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 23, 2019, 11:04:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How about you do some math for a change. For starters, what vertebrae does the back wound correspond to?

14x14cm
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 24, 2019, 12:50:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Dillon,

A rather decent post overall. Though, I do take issue with one of your assertions. You refer to "the infamous pseudosciences perpetrated by Thomas Canning and Vincent Guin." I have no idea as to what Canning's pseudoscience might be but I suspect with Guinn that you are alluding to Neutron Activation Analysis. NAA is not a pseudoscience. Guinn's use of it is questionable but the science itself is not. At least, not that I'm aware of.

The language is admittedly dramatic. NAA as a method isn?t pseudoscience, but Guin?s usage of it in the JFK and other cases seems to fit the citeria?mainly overblown statements of certainty/accuracy and erroneously stating the extent to which the results were sknficant and specific to individual samples. Canning?s trajectory analysis was based two big faulty premises: bullets travel in straight lines and the SBT happened at Z190?he also overstated the significance of his tests.   
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 24, 2019, 01:00:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You've either got the wrong forum or you have a very skewed way of looking at it. In a nutshell, CTs hold the WC's feet to the fire while LNers merely deny everything that hints at conspiracy. CTs are AOK with Oswald taking token shots at JFK, but he was not a lone nut, simple as that.

LNers are actually Conspiracy Deniers, Coincidence Theorists and WC shills. Painting LHO as a LN is a WC conspiracy. To what degree LHO was involved is still up for debate but the LN hypothesis is effectively dead. Only the Chapmans remain to troll the forum. :)

All I did here was talk about the general epistemologies held by each of the debate. For instance, give me an argument favouring the CT side that doesn?t follow the basic rules I outlined (I know there are some).

Your sense of certainty seems to be decidedly inflated; what makes you quite so sure that the LN theory is dead in the water, and only CT explanations?   
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 24, 2019, 01:34:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
None of that is specific enough to make inferences regarding its relation to a particular vertebra. The measurements are the most important?T1 is the most consistent (see Pat Speer?s replication using a man of JFK?s measurements).

              As much as some of you would like to complicate/muddle the issue, it really is Very Simple. (1) The Autopsy Face Sheet has a dot on JFK's Back to show the location of the Back Wound. (2) The Autopsy Photo(s) display the JFK Back Wound/Where the wound is located. (3) The Back of JFK's Dress Coat has a bullet hole in it. (4) The Back of JFK's Dress Shirt has a bullet hole in it. All 4 of these pieces of evidence corroborate each other by displaying the JFK Back Wound in the Same Location on his back.  These 4 independent pieces of corroborating physical evidence leave no question as to the location of the JFK Back Wound.   
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 24, 2019, 01:39:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
              As much as some of you would like to complicate/muddle the issue, it really is Very Simple. (1) The Autopsy Face Sheet has a dot on JFK's Back to show the location of the Back Wound. (2) The Autopsy Photo(s) display the JFK Back Wound/Where the wound is located. (3) The Back of JFK's Dress Coat has a bullet hole in it. (4) The Back of JFK's Dress Shirt has a bullet hole in it. All 4 of these pieces of evidence corroborate each other by having the JFK Back Wound in the Same Location on his back.  These 4 independent pieces of corroborating physical evidence leave no question as to the location of the JFK Back Wound.   

Excellent Post, Royell.... It's impossible to present a plausible rebuttal to the points you make in your post .... 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 24, 2019, 01:44:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The language is admittedly dramatic. NAA as a method isn?t pseudoscience, but Guin?s usage of it in the JFK and other cases seems to fit the citeria?mainly overblown statements of certainty/accuracy and erroneously stating the extent to which the results were sknficant and specific to individual samples. Canning?s trajectory analysis was based two big faulty premises: bullets travel in straight lines and the SBT happened at Z190?he also overstated the significance of his tests.   

I agree with you about the Single bullet strike not occurring at Z190 but since when do bullets not travel in straight lines through air?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 24, 2019, 01:54:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree with you about the Single bullet strike not occurring at Z190 but since when do bullets not travel in straight lines through air?

since when do bullets not travel in straight lines through air?

Since Some genius discovered that an apple falling from a tree falls due to the effect of gravity......  Bullets have NEVER traveled in a straight line.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Jerry Freeman on January 24, 2019, 05:26:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  a tendency to distrust or be skeptical 
What's wrong with being skeptical? If there were no liars, there would be no lies.
Oct 2, 1964 issue of Life magazine. ..."The Warren Report-Piecing Together the Evidence"
If the pieces didn't quite fit, that was OK. Just trim a little here and there. I just re-discovered another perplexing item. This was submitted as evidence in the Report...Why?

 (https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/ctka/public/2014-Josephs/fig3.gif)

Marina was still a citizen of the USSR. She would not need a visa to return to the Soviet Union. She would need a visa to return to the USA if she did not obtain what is called 'advanced parole'. What about the daughter? The daughter would get to go. The daughter was a citizen of the Soviet Union...she was born in the USSR. There was an obvious charade going on there.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 24, 2019, 05:28:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree with you about the Single bullet strike not occurring at Z190 but since when do bullets not travel in straight lines through air?

       Obviously you were Never employed by the military as a sniper. Good thing.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 24, 2019, 01:39:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
              As much as some of you would like to complicate/muddle the issue, it really is Very Simple. (1) The Autopsy Face Sheet has a dot on JFK's Back to show the location of the Back Wound. (2) The Autopsy Photo(s) display the JFK Back Wound/Where the wound is located. (3) The Back of JFK's Dress Coat has a bullet hole in it. (4) The Back of JFK's Dress Shirt has a bullet hole in it. All 4 of these pieces of evidence corroborate each other by displaying the JFK Back Wound in the Same Location on his back.  These 4 independent pieces of corroborating physical evidence leave no question as to the location of the JFK Back Wound.   

All those four data suggest is that JFK had a bullet in his back?nobody is disputing that. They aren?t specific to where. Exactly why you ignore the measurements and Speer?s experiment which indicate a wound closer to T1.   
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 24, 2019, 01:45:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What's wrong with being skeptical?

Nothing inherently. Though I?m referring to an excessive and unhealthy variant directed solely at one?s opposition. The question of conspiracy is interesting to debate, though it is absolutely the case most CT claims are nonsense (e.g. the shallow back wound isn?t even physically possible).     
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 24, 2019, 03:06:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nothing inherently. Though I?m referring to an excessive and unhealthy variant directed solely at one?s opposition. The question of conspiracy is interesting to debate, though it is absolutely the case most CT claims are nonsense (e.g. the shallow back wound isn?t even physically possible).     

Hear, hear!! Thumb1: I would say 99% of the CTers claims are nonsense. The two that deserve some scrutiny are James T. Tague and Silvia Odio, with Tague being the most worthy of serious debate. I just can't figure out how in the heck Tague received a wound to his cheek from so far away.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 24, 2019, 03:31:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nothing inherently. Though I?m referring to an excessive and unhealthy variant directed solely at one?s opposition. The question of conspiracy is interesting to debate, though it is absolutely the case most CT claims are nonsense (e.g. the shallow back wound isn?t even physically possible).     

     How did you arrive at "the shallow back wound isn't even physically possible"?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 24, 2019, 03:44:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nothing inherently. Though I?m referring to an excessive and unhealthy variant directed solely at one?s opposition. The question of conspiracy is interesting to debate, though it is absolutely the case most CT claims are nonsense (e.g. the shallow back wound isn?t even physically possible).     

most CT claims are nonsense (e.g. the shallow back wound isn?t even physically possible). 

IOW...Mr Dillon you believe a 6.5mm diameter bullet traveling at the velocity of around 2000 feet per second  would not be arrested and stopped completely by a mere two inches of flesh.    If that's what you intended to say you are absolutely right....   They idea  that JFK was struck in the back by a 6.5mm bullet   flying at 2000 fps but the bullet was arrested after just a couple of inches  is simply insane......
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 24, 2019, 04:01:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
     How did you arrive at "the shallow back wound isn't even physically possible"?

To answer both you and Walt, impact velocity is inversely related to chance of perforation (so lower velocity is associated with increased chance of going straight through). This is because the higher the velocity at which a missile travels, the greater chance it has of fragmenting (it?s kinetic energy surpasses what its own mass can take). The lower the velocity, the lower this likelihood. Even at half impact velocity, the 6.5 bullet would?ve still gone clean through Kennedy?s torso.

Walt?s suggestion that some alternative missile resulted the injury doesn?t stack up as we?d need to find something weak enough to only go through less than finger?s length of relatively soft muscle tissue, but somehow strong enough to leave ordinary bullet holes (in the back and clothing) and not be taken out by the wind.     
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 24, 2019, 04:06:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hear, hear!! Thumb1: I would say 99% of the CTers claims are nonsense. The two that deserve some scrutiny are James T. Tague and Silvia Odio, with Tague being the most worthy of serious debate. I just can't figure out how in the heck Tague received a wound to his cheek from so far away.

For what it?s worth I think the most plausible explanation for the Tague hit is a fragment from the headshot.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 24, 2019, 04:22:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To answer both you and Walt, impact velocity is inversely related to chance of perforation (so lower velocity is associated with increased chance of going straight through). This is because the higher the velocity at which a missile travels, the greater chance it has of fragmenting (it?s kinetic energy surpasses what its own mass can take). The lower the velocity, the lower this likelihood. Even at half impact velocity, the 6.5 bullet would?ve still gone clean through Kennedy?s torso.

Walt?s suggestion that some alternative missile resulted the injury doesn?t stack up as we?d need to find something weak enough to only go through less than finger?s length of relatively soft muscle tissue, but somehow strong enough to leave ordinary bullet holes (in the back and clothing) and not be taken out by the wind.   

       Your assumption being the wound was caused by an intact 6.5 bullet.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 24, 2019, 04:26:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
For what it?s worth I think the most plausible explanation for the Tague hit is a fragment from the headshot.

     Please think it through and thoroughly explain. A "Fragment" of what?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 24, 2019, 04:43:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
       Your assumption being the wound was caused by an intact 6.5 bullet.

The above argument applies to other types of ammunition. Again, what sort of ammo could survive a fight with the wind, clothing and tissue but only go through a kunckle?s length?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 24, 2019, 04:45:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To answer both you and Walt, impact velocity is inversely related to chance of perforation (so lower velocity is associated with increased chance of going straight through). This is because the higher the velocity at which a missile travels, the greater chance it has of fragmenting (it?s kinetic energy surpasses what its own mass can take). The lower the velocity, the lower this likelihood. Even at half impact velocity, the 6.5 bullet would?ve still gone clean through Kennedy?s torso.

Walt?s suggestion that some alternative missile resulted the injury doesn?t stack up as we?d need to find something weak enough to only go through less than finger?s length of relatively soft muscle tissue, but somehow strong enough to leave ordinary bullet holes (in the back and clothing) and not be taken out by the wind.   

Mr Rankin...Why don't you stop attempting to dazzle me with brilliance ....I know bull stuff when I smell it....

It is a fact that JFK was not stuck in the back by a 160 grain 6.5mm bullet that stopped almost immediately.......Any bullet that was traveling so slow that it didn't carry the energy to penetrate more than a couple of inches would not have had the energy to  fly true and hit the target....

A bullet with so little energy would probably have fell short of it's intended target.... Unless it was fired from close range....

Bottom Line....  IF there was a shallow non exiting wound in JFK's back....it was not caused by a 6.5mm ( 1/4 " ) bullet that was fired from a mannlicher carcano.

IF there was a shollow wound that was probed with a mans finger.....It was caused by a projectile a hell of a lot bigger than 6.5mm......
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 24, 2019, 04:48:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The above argument applies to other types of ammunition. Again, what sort of ammo could survive a fight with the wind, clothing and tissue but only go through a kunckle?s length?

      Try to avoid the Evelyn Wood approach to reading. You failed to process "Intact".
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 24, 2019, 04:55:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A "Fragment" of what?

A bullet.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Please think it through and thoroughly explain.

A bullet strikes Kennedy in the back or top of the head, the force of which causes it to fragment. One such shard is strikes the pavement near Tague resulting in the superficial injury.   
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 24, 2019, 05:02:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
      Try to avoid the Evelyn Wood approach to reading. You failed to process "Intact".

I didn?t because that doesn?t change anything (note my reference to normal inshoot wounds on the clothes and back). Try to avoid an arrogant and contemptuous argumentative style, it deflates the impact of everything you say.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 24, 2019, 05:07:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr Rankin...Why don't you stop attempting to dazzle me with brilliance ....I know bull stuff when I smell it....

It is a fact that JFK was not stuck in the back by a 160 grain 6.5mm bullet that stopped almost immediately.......Any bullet that was traveling so slow that it didn't carry the energy to penetrate more than a couple of inches would not have had the energy to  fly true and hit the target....

A bullet with so little energy would probably have fell short of it's intended target.... Unless it was fired from close range....

Bottom Line....  IF there was a shallow non exiting wound in JFK's back....it was not caused by a 6.5mm ( 1/4 " ) bullet that was fired from a mannlicher carcano.

IF there was a shollow wound that was probed with a mans finger.....It was caused by a projectile a hell of a lot bigger than 6.5mm......

I don?t know where your confidence comes from (you ?know? an awful lot ?for a fact?). I?m not attempting to dazzle anybody, but I?ll take that as a compliment. Simply put, some basic physics discards of a shallow wound, though I?m interested by your implying that it was more close range?care to eloborate?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 24, 2019, 05:24:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don?t know where your confidence comes from (you ?know? an awful lot ?for a fact?). I?m not attempting to dazzle anybody, but I?ll take that as a compliment. Simply put, some basic physics discards of a shallow wound, though I?m interested by your implying that it was more close range?care to eloborate?

some basic physics discards of a shallow wound,.....

Yes , you're right simple basic physics, and common sense, are enough to refute the idea that a 6.5mm bullet fired from a carcano caused a shallow wound in JFK's back.

 I?m interested by your implying that it was more close range?care to eloborate?

Really...You want me to spell it out for you??    Any bullet traveling so slow with barely enough energy to penetrate a couple of inches of flesh would have to be fired from close range .....   Let's say a gun was fired behind JFK at his head.....But the cartridge had been under loaded with the wrong gunpowder.   So instead of the projectile emerging from the barrel at 950 fps it was only flying at 700fps.....  Naturally the bullet would not have the energy to hit the target (JFK's head) and would drop to a lower impact point....and it would not penetrate very deep into the muscle of his back .....
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 24, 2019, 05:44:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A bullet.

A bullet strikes Kennedy in the back or top of the head, the force of which causes it to fragment. One such shard is strikes the pavement near Tague resulting in the superficial injury.

    Let's try this again.  1st you say a Bullet fragment hit Teague, and then you claim it was Pavement near Teague. Was it a Bullet Fragment striking the face of Teague or Pavement?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 24, 2019, 06:30:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    Let's try this again.  1st you say a Bullet fragment hit Teague, and then you claim it was Pavement near Teague. Was it a Bullet Fragment striking the face of Teague or Pavement?

Ain?t taking your foot off the gas with that arrogance and contempt I see.

My explanations don?t differ at all?I thought I was safe in assuming that all get the basic gist that the curb near Tague was damaged, and a fragment of said curb injured him that I wouldn?t have to spell it out.

This hypothesis is also fairly common: the FBI, WC, Tink Thompson, Flip de Mey, the Haags, Dale Myers and a bunch of others have all made it before me.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 24, 2019, 06:42:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Really...You want me to spell it out for you??    Any bullet traveling so slow with barely enough energy to penetrate a couple of inches of flesh would have to be fired from close range .....   Let's say a gun was fired behind JFK at his head.....But the cartridge had been under loaded with the wrong gunpowder.   So instead of the projectile emerging from the barrel at 950 fps it was only flying at 700fps.....  Naturally the bullet would not have the energy to hit the target (JFK's head) and would drop to a lower impact point....and it would not penetrate very deep into the muscle of his back .....

I was interested in where the shot came from when you thought it was close range.

None of your conclusions follow from your arguments; you?re just rambling a load of ?bull stuff?: ?according to me, if he didn?t load the gun properly it would drop to 700 ft/sec which wouldn?t penetrate the back very far because I said so and I?m me which means I?m right.? Making claims at this level of specificity requires some empiricism, actually prove what you?re saying. How do you expect anyone but yourself to believe this?

Give me an approx wound depth, rough details on the bullet (just to calculate KE), and a distance and some simple maths can tell whether or not you?re wrong.   
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 24, 2019, 06:58:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I was interested in where the shot came from when you thought it was close range.

None of your conclusions follow from your arguments; you?re just rambling a load of ?bull stuff?: ?according to me, if he didn?t load the gun properly it would drop to 700 ft/sec which wouldn?t penetrate the back very far because I said so and I?m me which means I?m right.? Making claims at this level of specificity requires some empiricism, actually prove what you?re saying. How do you expect anyone but yourself to believe this?

Give me an approx wound depth, rough details on the bullet (just to calculate KE), and a distance and some simple maths can tell whether or not you?re wrong.

Making claims at this level of specificity requires some empiricism, actually prove what you?re saying. How do you expect anyone but yourself to believe this?

A person of average intelligence, with an ounce of commonsense, can understand that a weak load will not fire accurately....
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 24, 2019, 07:07:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Making claims at this level of specificity requires some empiricism, actually prove what you?re saying. How do you expect anyone but yourself to believe this?

A person of average intelligence, with an ounce of commonsense, can understand that a weak load will not fire accurately....

Surely such a person would also figure out that such a round would hardly hit straight on (it?d yaw). Average IQ and common sense hardly give you a close range gunman with faulty gunpowder firing a special bullet creating a shallow wound at a subnormal velcoity.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 24, 2019, 07:18:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
14x14cm

What vertebrae is that? T1?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 24, 2019, 07:18:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Surely such a person would also figure out that such a round would hardly hit straight on (it?d yaw). Average IQ and common sense hardly give you a close range gunman with faulty gunpowder firing a special bullet creating a shallow wound at a subnormal velcoity.

such a round would hardly hit straight on (it?d yaw)

Mr Rankin, I'm sorry....IMO You lack the intelligence to debate this subject.....You seem to be stuck in the 6.5mm bullet groove....And think that a wound made by a tiny 1/4 inch bullet could be probed by an adult man's finger....  WAKE UP!

The bullet that would create a hole large enough to be probed by a man sure as hell would be a lot larger than 1/4 inch.... And a large bullet could be fired from a smooth bore gun and still fly fairly true at close range...."yaw" is something that happens to high velocity bullets fired from a rifled barrel....
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 24, 2019, 07:28:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
such a round would hardly hit straight on (it?d yaw)

Mr Rankin, I'm sorry....IMO You lack the intelligence to debate this subject.....

 :-[

Quote
You seem to be suck in the 6.5mm bullet groove....And think that a wound made by a tiny 1/4 inch bullet could be probed by an adult man's finger....  WAKE UP!

The thing is........ Mr Walter....... I never actually....... said....any of that!

Quote
The bullet that would create a hole large enough to be probed by a man sure as hell would be a lot larger than 1/4 inch.... And a large bullet could be fired from a smoth bore gun and still fly fairly true at close range...."yaw" is something that happens to high velocity bullets fired fro a rifled barrel....

A claim so self-evident that we don?t need proof  :D howsoever could I be so dense?  ::)
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Jerry Freeman on January 24, 2019, 07:33:58 PM
From what I understand....
Quote
In the mid 1960?s, Humes confided to a personal friend that, as a once-secret, internal Columbia  Broadcasting System memo put it, ?Although initially in the autopsy procedure the back wound could only be penetrated to finger length, a probe later was made ? when no FBI men were present ? that traced the path of the bullet from the back going downwards, then upwards slightly, then downwards again exiting at the throat. One X-ray photo taken, Humes said, clearly shows the above, as it was apparently taken with a mental probe stick of some kind that was left in the body to show the wound?s path.?
  https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Jerry Freeman on January 24, 2019, 07:39:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  I would say 99% of the CTers claims are nonsense. 
Oscar <<<<< paints 4 inch wide boards with a 16 inch wide brush. Probably..maybe...could be 50%? But my claims [not theories] are correct ...I think  (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
P.S. I forgot to add that this lone assassin claim is 100% nonsense.
 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 24, 2019, 07:48:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
From what I understand....  https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1a.htm

I'm no forensic pathologist....But I find it hard to believe that a bullet path that was not straight could be probed through completely from entrance to exit.....

However....I do believe the bullet that caused the back wound ENTERED at JFK's throat...and dod not expand in the soft tissue. It started expanding when it hit the heavy back muscle and thus when the back wound was probed it could only be probed a short distance......
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 24, 2019, 08:18:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ain?t taking your foot off the gas with that arrogance and contempt I see.

My explanations don?t differ at all?I thought I was safe in assuming that all get the basic gist that the curb near Tague was damaged, and a fragment of said curb injured him that I wouldn?t have to spell it out.

This hypothesis is also fairly common: the FBI, WC, Tink Thompson, Flip de Mey, the Haags, Dale Myers and a bunch of others have all made it before me.

      My issue with that theory is the distance from the Kill Shot all the way over to Industrial St/Triple Underpass. I have never actually measured it off but that has got to be at least 170-180 feet apart. Better than half a football field. There are reports of Matter being blown forward and onto the hood/front of the JFK Limo, and a disputed frontal location for the Harper Fragment. But even if the Harper Fragment was blown forward it was nowhere near as far forward as the curb/Teague standing at Industrial St/The Triple Underpass. Plus, you are talking about a bullet fragment going Over & Above/Completely Clearing the South Elm St grass section, going Over & Above/Completely Clearing everyone standing on that South grass section, and then going Over & Above/Completely Clearing Main St. Think about that photo that shows Teague in the background standing at Industrial St/The Triple Underpass. He is shown on that photo to be a Long way away. Even with the curb being a smidge closer, this is an extremely long way for a bullet fragment to travel. Also, to my knowledge absolutely No Bullet Fragments were retrieved outside of the JFK Limo. This would make the alleged Teague Kill Shot Bullet Fragment to be 1 of a Kind. To me, a missed shot would be far more probable than a one of a kind Kill Shot Bullet Fragment traveling that distance.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 24, 2019, 08:35:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
      My issue with that theory is the distance from the Kill Shot all the way over to Industrial St/Triple Underpass. I have never actually measured it off but that has got to be at least 170-180 feet apart. Better than half a football field. There are reports of Matter being blown forward and onto the hood/front of the JFK Limo, and a disputed frontal location for the Harper Fragment. But even if the Harper Fragment was blown forward it was nowhere near as far forward as the curb/Teague standing at Industrial St/The Triple Underpass. Plus, you are talking about a bullet fragment going Over & Above/Completely Clearing the South Elm St grass section, going Over & Above/Completely Clearing everyone standing on that South grass section, and then going Over & Above/Completely Clearing Main St. Think about that photo that shows Teague in the background standing at Industrial St/The Triple Underpass. He is shown on that photo to be a Long way away. Even with the curb being a smidge closer, this is an extremely long way for a bullet fragment to travel. Also, to my knowledge absolutely No Bullet Fragments were retrieved outside of the JFK Limo. This would make the alleged Teague Kill Shot Bullet Fragment to be 1 of a Kind. To me, a missed shot would be far more probable than a one of a kind Kill Shot Bullet Fragment traveling that distance.

I definitely get your reasoning here, but finding a stop closer where a missed bullet could?ve fragmented (the curb wasn?t hit by a hole bullet) is hard. I don?t remember the exact details, but Flip de Mey?s study of this matter (2013, Cold Case Kennedy) explained this (including mathematical details of such a fragment?s path), and further argued that the damage at the manhole (south elm) was caused by another such fragment.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Jerry Freeman on January 24, 2019, 08:40:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm no forensic pathologist....But I find it hard to believe that a bullet path that was not straight could be probed through completely from entrance to exit.....
But not only that, Dr Humes waits until the FBI guys are gone and then proceeds to confirm what the magic bullet supposes...exit out the neck? You would think the Feds would be invited in to do some cartwheels.

 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 24, 2019, 09:00:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I definitely get your reasoning here, but finding a stop closer where a missed bullet could?ve fragmented (the curb wasn?t hit by a hole bullet) is hard. I don?t remember the exact details, but Flip de Mey?s study of this matter (2013, Cold Case Kennedy) explained this (including mathematical details of such a fragment?s path), and further argued that the damage at the manhole (south elm) was caused by another such fragment.

       Again, absolutely No Bullet Fragments PERIOD were found outside the JFK Limo. NONE. Yet, we are to believe that the Only bullet fragment to exit the Limo traveled better than half a football field and then was Never Found? This is just more WC tooth fairy stuff that was concocted to fit 3 Shots being fired from 1 Location. 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 24, 2019, 09:15:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
All I did here was talk about the general epistemologies held by each of the debate. For instance, give me an argument favouring the CT side that doesn?t follow the basic rules I outlined (I know there are some).

Your sense of certainty seems to be decidedly inflated; what makes you quite so sure that the LN theory is dead in the water, and only CT explanations?

Let's take the magic bullet as an example. Not a single LNer will address whether the bullet's trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD entering JFK's back at T1 and exiting at C7 was even possible. They refuse to do the simple geometry to test this. The bullet supposedly missed JFK's spine yet exited with yaw at half the initial velocity after traversing a few inches of JFK's back/neck flesh. Not sure how it could have missed bone, but if we are to believe JFK's x-ray, then it appears to have smashed thru his C7 vertebrae and exited at his throat wound.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/x-ray_mb.gif)

After exiting JFK, the MB proceeded to yaw and changed direction (supposedly while it transitioned from flesh to air) and smashed thru Connally's rib and wrist bones creating at least 7 wounds then turning up on the wrong gurney without a trace of blood, flesh or bone on it looking like it had been fired into a swimming pool. CTs just want to know why this bullet isn't considered magic. The LNers just shrug it off and change the subject.

Unless JFK was leaning forward, there isn't a straight line trajectory from the SN thru JFK from the back wound to the throat wound. If you think there is, then show us with a simple re-enactment. Point 2 lasers at each other at -17 deg and sit in between them so that they align with JFK's wounds. Then post a photo that proves the MB was possible to knock the wind out of the CTs sails.

Good luck!


PS There were just too many suspicious shenanigans done by the SS/CIA/FBI/DPD that suggest LHO was NOT a lone nut. Otherwise, you have to make up endless excuses for their irrational behavior or suspicious evidence they introduced, such as..


There were more than enough suspicious anomalies in the JFK assassination that in 1976 the HSCA concluded that the assassination was most likely a conspiracy. Oswald's actions made perfect sense if he was a patsy, not so much if he was a lone nut. He could still have been heavily involved but not as a lone nut assassin. The LNers are actually WC Defenders. They're conspiracy deniers that can't afford to give an inch because it only takes 1 fact to destroy their world view and they will have wasted decades shilling for the conspirators. How embarrassing!  ???
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 24, 2019, 10:10:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Let's take the magic bullet as an example. Not a single LNer will address whether the bullet's trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD entering JFK's back at T1 and exiting at C7 was even possible. They refuse to do the simple geometry to test this. The bullet supposedly missed JFK's spine yet exited with yaw at half the initial velocity after traversing a few inches of JFK's back/neck flesh. Not sure how it could have missed bone, but if we are to believe JFK's x-ray, then it appears to have smashed thru his C7 vertebrae and exited at his throat wound.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/x-ray_mb.gif)

The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel made repeated reference to disruption evident on the x-rays, namely fracture and displacement of the right transverse process of T1 and possible tiny fragments of bullet or bone. The exact location of the exit wound isn?t known. Don Thomas offered the following explanation,

?What might be supposed is that crushed muscle tissues, compressed by cavitation during passage of the bullet caused fracture and displacement of the vertebral processes allowing the bullet to pass through them.?

Quote
After exiting JFK, the MB proceeded to yaw and changed direction (supposedly while it transitioned from flesh to air)

It didn?t change direction, as JBC wasn?t sat directly in front of JDL and neither man was sitting bolt upright.

Quote
and smashed thru Connally's rib and wrist bones creating at least 7 wounds then turning up on the wrong gurney without a trace of blood, flesh or bone


It?s disputed what stretcher it was found on, and there isn?t a ?wrong? answer, it?s JBC?s or the kid?s.   

Quote
on it looking like it had been fired into a swimming pool. CTs just want to know why this bullet isn't considered magic. The LNers just shrug it off and change the subject.

?For every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, clear and wrong.? - H. L. Mencken.

The bullet was by no means undamaged, and the physics (equations used to determine whether it could survive) give different answers depending on data you plug in (frame of shot, impact velocity at JFK and JBC, etc) which differs from sources. Some data (particularly that found in the WC volumes and FBI tests) shows that SBT shot circa Z222-224 could produce a 399 bullet.

Quote
Unless JFK was leaning forward, there isn't a straight line trajectory from the SN thru JFK from the back wound to the throat wound. If you think there is, then show us with a simple re-enactment. Point 2 lasers at each other at -17 deg and sit in between them so that they align with JFK's wounds. Then post a photo that proves the MB was possible to knock the wind out of the CTs sails.

Good luck!

Bullets don?t travel in straight lines. Especially after hitting a target. A problem exacerbated by rifling. Also bullet wounds in bodies are rarely paths?more often convoluted cavities of destroyed tissue (clinicians can actually fail to identify or distinguish inshoot and outshoot wounds, the determination of which is aided by associated morphological features).   

Quote
PS There were just too many suspicious shenanigans done by the SS/CIA/FBI/DPD that suggest LHO was NOT a lone nut. Otherwise, you have to make up endless excuses for their irrational behavior or suspicious evidence they introduced, such as..

  • The improbable magic bullet

Not improbable (see above).

Quote
  • Greer slowing the limo down to a near stop AFTER he heard shots fired

Not a near stop (see adjusted Z-film). I don?t know if Greer had been drinking the previous night, which could have affected his behaviour, but who knows why he slowed down.
 
Quote
  • The FBI scrubbing the limo of evidence and replacing the windshield

People aren?t callous lawyers?believe or not, people can have emotional reactions after a tragedy that result in maladaptive behaviour. The CT expectation that everybody turn into Sherlock Holmes and wish to preserve everything for the precious trail is ludicrous. Why did the FBI replace the windshield? Maybe because it big cracks in it. Not good for a future driver.

Quote
  • The DPD's involvement in staging the crime scene, the BYPs, rush to judgment and delivery of Oswald to Ruby

Staging the crime scene? Sure, the irresponsibly moved it around for the cameras but staged implies wicked intent you can?t substantiate, same with their ?delivery? of Oswald to Ruby. There?s nothing actually wrong with the backyard photos.     

Quote
  • Medical staff's description of JFK's head wounds

Also not significant.

Quote
  • Post mortem surgery, Humes burned his notes

I?ll give you 1 point for Humes? brining his notes. But unfortunately you lose it for believing in surgery.

Quote
  • The entire autopsy: photos, x-rays, examination and description/analysis of the bullet wounds

More incompetent than suspicious. There should?ve been better pathologists there though. Half a point.

Quote
There were more than enough suspicious anomalies in the JFK assassination that in 1976 the HSCA concluded that the assassination was most likely a conspiracy.

Their entire basis for that claim was the acoustics.

Quote
Oswald's actions made perfect sense if he was a patsy, not so much if he was a lone nut. He could still have been heavily involved but not as a lone nut assassin. The LNers are actually WC Defenders. They're conspiracy deniers that can't afford to give an inch because it only takes 1 fact to destroy their world view and they will have wasted decades shilling for the conspirators. How embarrassing!  ???

Not really making sense at this point, but still. 1 1/2 points ain?t bad.[/list]
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 24, 2019, 10:38:21 PM
The only time a bullet moves in a straight line is when it's still in the barrel of the weapon. As soon as it exits the barrel, gravity immediately starts to drag it down. Then there's a host of environmental factors to deal with; air resistance for instance.

Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 24, 2019, 10:55:49 PM
Oswald as a patsy is nonsense. You CTers promote Oswald as such yet contend that he was a crappy shot with a crappy rifle and crappy ammo.

Can any of you lot not see the inherent contradiction there...
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 24, 2019, 10:56:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree with you about the Single bullet strike not occurring at Z190 but since when do bullets not travel in straight lines through air?

     Bump pertaining to claim of "straight line" bullet travel through air.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 24, 2019, 11:29:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But not only that, Dr Humes waits until the FBI guys are gone and then proceeds to confirm what the magic bullet supposes...exit out the neck? You would think the Feds would be invited in to do some cartwheels.


Humes didn't know about the bullet wound in JFK's throat until he called Parkland hospital on Saturday........Friday night he was so damned inept that rather than examine the wound and track the path of the bullet he accepted that the bullet had been fired from high to the rear, and then tried to guess  where the bullet had gone. Even offering the thought that an ice bullet had made the wound .......  If he had tracked the bullet's path through JFK's body he would have known that the bullet struck JFK's throat and had passed out of his back.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 24, 2019, 11:44:54 PM
@Newbies

From the Clark Panel Report:

"The possibility that the path of the bullet through the neck might have been more satisfactorily explored by the insertion of a finger or probe was considered. Obviously the cutaneous wound in the back was too small to permit the insertion of a finger. The insertion of a metal probe would have carried the risk of creating a false passage in part, because of the changed relationship of muscles at the time of autopsy and in part because of the existence of postmortem rigidity. Although the precise path of the bullet could undoubtedly have been demonstrated by complete dissection of the soft tissue between the two cutaneous wounds, there is no reason to believe that the information disclosed thereby would alter significantly the conclusions expressed in this report."
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 25, 2019, 12:45:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel made repeated reference to disruption evident on the x-rays, namely fracture and displacement of the right transverse process of T1 and possible tiny fragments of bullet or bone. The exact location of the exit wound isn?t known. Don Thomas offered the following explanation,

?What might be supposed is that crushed muscle tissues, compressed by cavitation during passage of the bullet caused fracture and displacement of the vertebral processes allowing the bullet to pass through them.?

The exit wound isn't known? It's right where Dr Malcolm Perry created a bogus tracheostomy shortly after the intubation of the throat wound, which is highly irregular. JFK was likely already dead by then so it was done for no other reason than to obscure the throat wound, which probably looked too much like an entrance wound.

Quote
It didn?t change direction, as JBC wasn?t sat directly in front of JDL and neither man was sitting bolt upright.

How do you know that? What if it hit JFK's spine? If the MB entered JFK at T1 and exited at C7, then struck Connally below his armpit then it had to change direction because that is not a valid trajectory from the SN.
 
Quote
It?s disputed what stretcher it was found on, and there isn?t a ?wrong? answer, it?s JBC?s or the kid?s.

Sorry, I meant to say the MB was "planted" on the wrong stretcher.

Quote
?For every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, clear and wrong.? - H. L. Mencken.

The bullet was by no means undamaged, and the physics (equations used to determine whether it could survive) give different answers depending on data you plug in (frame of shot, impact velocity at JFK and JBC, etc) which differs from sources. Some data (particularly that found in the WC volumes and FBI tests) shows that SBT shot circa Z222-224 could produce a 399 bullet.

Nonsense. Show me a single example where a bullet causing 7 wounds smashing thru 3 bones would have no DNA on it, while the head shot bullet hits 1 bone and explodes.

Quote
Bullets don?t travel in straight lines. Especially after hitting a target. A problem exacerbated by rifling. Also bullet wounds in bodies are rarely paths?more often convoluted cavities of destroyed tissue (clinicians can actually fail to identify or distinguish inshoot and outshoot wounds, the determination of which is aided by associated morphological features).

Like any mass, bullets follow a parabolic path under gravity. However, their initial velocity is so high that the parabolic arc is almost negligible over short distances, such as from JFK's throat to Connally. So are you claiming that Oswald aimed high via the iron sights to compensate for gravity? Because he wasn't going to hit squat with the wonky scope on the rifle.

Quote
Not improbable (see above).

Yes improbable. (see above).

Quote
Not a near stop (see adjusted Z-film). I don?t know if Greer had been drinking the previous night, which could have affected his behaviour, but who knows why he slowed down.

Adjusted Z-film? Greer not only slowed down, he turned around to make sure the POTUS' head exploded before turning face front and stepping on the gas. Mission accomplished.

Quote

People aren?t callous lawyers?believe or not, people can have emotional reactions after a tragedy that result in maladaptive behaviour. The CT expectation that everybody turn into Sherlock Holmes and wish to preserve everything for the precious trail is ludicrous. Why did the FBI replace the windshield? Maybe because it big cracks in it. Not good for a future driver.

The FBI had an emotional response to JFK getting whacked and that's why they obliterated crucial evidence to the crime of the century? LOL

Quote
Staging the crime scene? Sure, the irresponsibly moved it around for the cameras but staged implies wicked intent you can?t substantiate, same with their ?delivery? of Oswald to Ruby.

Fritz approached the SN and saw 3 hulls in a tight group right next to the window. He walked over to them and PICKED THEM UP WITH HIS BARE HANDS and put them in his pocket. When has a police captain ever done that before, let alone while heading the investigation of the assassination of the POTUS? The ONLY reason he would do that is because he didn't think the in-situ arrangement of the hulls looked authentic. He later returned with a rookie cameraman, removed the hulls from his pocket then tossed them on the floor in a more favorable arrangement to stage the crime scene. And you see nothing wicked in that?

Quote
There?s nothing actually wrong with the backyard photos.

You haven't been paying attention if you think there is nothing wrong with the 1 BYP that Marina took. Or was it 2 and she burned 1?

Quote
Also not significant.

Several Medical staff at Bethesda swear they saw a "fist-sized" hole in the back of JFK's head and it isn't significant? LOL

Quote
I?ll give you 1 point for Humes? brining his notes. But unfortunately you lose it for believing in surgery.

Not just me. Several Doctors noted it.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/postmortemsurgery.png)

Quote
More incompetent than suspicious. There should?ve been better pathologists there though. Half a point.

Suspiciously incompetent you mean. You'd think that they'd have a competent crew available for the emergency of the century.

Quote
Their entire basis for that claim was the acoustics.

Doubt it.

Quote
Not really making sense at this point, but still. 1 1/2 points ain?t bad.

It makes sense if you follow the logic. BTW how many points are required to make my point?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 25, 2019, 01:17:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The exit wound isn't known? It's right where Dr Malcolm Perry created a bogus tracheostomy shortly after the intubation of the throat wound, which is highly irregular. JFK was likely already dead by then so it was done for no other reason than to obscure the throat wound, which probably looked too much like an entrance wound.

How do you know that? What if it hit JFK's spine? If the MB entered JFK at T1 and exited at C7, then struck Connally below his armpit then it had to change direction because that is not a valid trajectory from the SN.
 
Sorry, I meant to say the MB was "planted" on the wrong stretcher.

Nonsense. Show me a single example where a bullet causing 7 wounds smashing thru 3 bones would have no DNA on it, while the head shot bullet hits 1 bone and explodes.

Like any mass, bullets follow a parabolic path under gravity. However, their initial velocity is so high that the parabolic arc is almost negligible over short distances, such as from JFK's throat to Connally. So are you claiming that Oswald aimed high via the iron sights to compensate for gravity? Because he wasn't going to hit squat with the wonky scope on the rifle.

Yes improbable. (see above).

Adjusted Z-film? Greer not only slowed down, he turned around to make sure the POTUS' head exploded before turning face front and stepping on the gas. Mission accomplished.

The FBI had an emotional response to JFK getting whacked and that's why they obliterated crucial evidence to the crime of the century? LOL

Fritz approached the SN and saw 3 hulls in a tight group right next to the window. He walked over to them and PICKED THEM UP WITH HIS BARE HANDS and put them in his pocket. When has a police captain ever done that before, let alone while heading the investigation of the assassination of the POTUS? The ONLY reason he would do that is because he didn't think the in-situ arrangement of the hulls looked authentic. He later returned with a rookie cameraman, removed the hulls from his pocket then tossed them on the floor in a more favorable arrangement to stage the crime scene. And you see nothing wicked in that?

You haven't been paying attention if you think there is nothing wrong with the 1 BYP that Marina took. Or was it 2 and she burned 1?

Several Medical staff at Bethesda swear they saw a "fist-sized" hole in the back of JFK's head and it isn't significant? LOL

Not just me. Several Doctors noted it.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/postmortemsurgery.png)

Suspiciously incompetent you mean. You'd think that they'd have a competent crew available for the emergency of the century.

Doubt it.

It makes sense if you follow the logic. BTW how many points are required to make my point?

JFK was likely already dead by then so it was done for no other reason than to obscure the throat wound,

So it's your contention that Dr Perry was one of the conspirators??
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 25, 2019, 01:45:36 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
JFK was likely already dead by then so it was done for no other reason than to obscure the throat wound,

So it's your contention that Dr Perry was one of the conspirators??

I'd give him the benefit of the doubt if there was an innocent explanation for such gross incompetency, but why would he perform this procedure when there was already a breathing tube inserted into JFK's trachea? And wouldn't that procedure have killed him if he wasn't already dead?

If Dr Perry was instructed to perform the procedure under duress then I might cut him some slack, otherwise, you do the math.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 25, 2019, 01:55:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'd give him the benefit of the doubt if there was an innocent explanation for such gross incompetency, but why would he perform this procedure when there was already a breathing tube inserted into JFK's trachea? And wouldn't that procedure have killed him if he wasn't already dead?

If Dr Perry was instructed to perform the procedure under duress then I might cut him some slack, otherwise, you do the math.

Perhaps you should review the actions taken in trama room #1......
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 25, 2019, 02:14:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Perhaps you should review the actions taken in trama room #1......

Perhaps you should review it so you can explain to us why Perry's actions taken in trauma room #1 exempt him as a conspirator. All I know is an awful lot of people did inexplicable things to JFK that day and performing a post-mortem tracheostomy was one of them. And yes, JFK must have been brain dead by then, especially when he was missing most of his brain. So why did Perry feel the need to perform the procedure when a breathing tube was already inserted in his trach thru the small bullet hole, which looked way too much like an entrance wound?

If you believe this was a conspiracy then everyone's actions are under suspicion. However, it's certainly possible Perry had innocent motives or was grossly incompetent so review his actions and let us know.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 25, 2019, 03:46:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
     Bump pertaining to claim of "straight line" bullet travel through air.

FBI Firearms expert Robert Frazier said that a rifle like the Carcano would not typically be sighted-in for less than 150 or 200 yards. What do you suppose would be the reason for not doing so?

What were the distances for the single bullet shot and the head shot?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 25, 2019, 04:02:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The only time a bullet moves in a straight line is when it's still in the barrel of the weapon. As soon as it exits the barrel, gravity immediately starts to drag it down. Then there's a host of environmental factors to deal with; air resistance for instance.


Sure. However, as Canning noted, the effect of gravity is very small and, as such, for a high speed bullet traveling a distance of less than 100 yards. the trajectory is basically a straight line.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 25, 2019, 04:41:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sure. However, as Canning noted, the effect of gravity is very small and, as such, for a high speed bullet traveling a distance of less than 100 yards. the trajectory is basically a straight line.

    Just admit You got it Wrong and move on. 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 25, 2019, 04:53:17 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    Just admit You got it Wrong and move on.

Wrong about what?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 25, 2019, 05:01:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
For what it?s worth I think the most plausible explanation for the Tague hit is a fragment from the headshot.

I'm not convinced of it's plausibility. A bullet that shatters into several pieces of which one piece makes a small dent in the chrome fitting of the windshield and another an insignificant spiderweb crack on the windshield doesn't jive with another piece of lead flying off dozens of feet and striking concrete with enough force to cause concrete chips to make a small scratch on Teague's face. IMO, the only plausible scenario would be like the one Haag proposed. The first shot missed, hit the street pavement and shattered and a piece of lead from that shattered bullet struck the concrete close to Tague causing Tague's scratch to face. The part where that proposal I believe is difficult is that there was no apparent hole in the pavement on Elm St. found.

The other proposal that had some mileage was Holland's proposal that the first shot hit the street lamp steel tube and ricochet from there..etc..etc.. That proposal was found to be unlikely by experiments done by Haag, I believe. That would leave a fourth shot fired from somewhere but there's no evidence of a second shooter, IMHO.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 25, 2019, 05:04:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree with you about the Single bullet strike not occurring at Z190 but since when do bullets not travel in straight lines through air?

    You got it  Wrong. Live with it.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 25, 2019, 05:12:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not convinced of it's plausibility. A bullet that shatters into several pieces of which one piece makes a small dent in the chrome fitting of the windshield and another an insignificant spiderweb crack on the windshield doesn't jive with another piece of lead flying off dozens of feet and striking concrete with enough force to cause concrete chips to make a small scratch on Teague's face. IMO, the only plausible scenario would be like the one Haag proposed. The first shot missed, hit the street pavement and shattered and a piece of lead from that shattered bullet struck the concrete close to Tague causing Tague's scratch to face. The part where that proposal I believe is difficult is that there was no apparent hole in the pavement on Elm St. found.

The other proposal that had some mileage was Holland's proposal that the first shot hit the street lamp steel tube and ricochet from there..etc..etc.. That proposal was found to be unlikely by experiments done by Haag, I believe. That would leave a fourth shot fired from somewhere but there's no evidence of a second shooter, IMHO.

Tague thought he was hit on either the second or third shot. The bullet would not have shattered upon hitting pavement. It probably would have just buried itself in it. A fragment from the head shot is the most plausible scenario for a Tague strike.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 25, 2019, 05:12:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    You got it  Wrong. Live with it.

Got what wrong?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 25, 2019, 05:13:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not convinced of it's plausibility. A bullet that shatters into several pieces of which one piece makes a small dent in the chrome fitting of the windshield and another an insignificant spiderweb crack on the windshield doesn't jive with another piece of lead flying off dozens of feet and striking concrete with enough force to cause concrete chips to make a small scratch on Teague's face. IMO, the only plausible scenario would be like the one Haag proposed. The first shot missed, hit the street pavement and shattered and a piece of lead from that shattered bullet struck the concrete close to Tague causing Tague's scratch to face. The part where that proposal I believe is difficult is that there was no apparent hole in the pavement on Elm St. found.

The other proposal that had some mileage was Holland's proposal that the first shot hit the street lamp steel tube and ricochet from there..etc..etc.. That proposal was found to be unlikely by experiments done by Haag, I believe. That would leave a fourth shot fired from somewhere but there's no evidence of a second shooter, IMHO.

     "Dozens of feet"? More like a distance of better than 1/2 a football field.  And if you buy into the Holland Hog Wash the distance increases. The logical explanation for Tague's facial injury is a missed 4th shot by an additional shooter. 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 25, 2019, 05:19:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
     "Dozens of feet"? More like a distance of better than 1/2 a football field.  And if you buy into the Holland Hog Wash the distance increases. The logical explanation for Tague's facial injury is a missed 4th shot by an additional shooter.

I don't buy into any theory that has been proposed, including a second shooter. That's why it's at the top of my list for unresolved questions in the JFK assassination.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 25, 2019, 05:23:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oscar <<<<< paints 4 inch wide boards with a 16 inch wide brush. Probably..maybe...could be 50%? But my claims [not theories] are correct ...I think  (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
P.S. I forgot to add that this lone assassin claim is 100% nonsense.

Wow! 100%. You beat me by 1%.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 25, 2019, 05:25:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sure. However, as Canning noted, the effect of gravity is very small and, as such, for a high speed bullet traveling a distance of less than 100 yards. the trajectory is basically a straight line.

True enough in this case, given the short distance
Best to use more precise language around here

Michael Lipphardt, Engineer at Quality Electrodynamics (2015-present)
Answered Apr 4, 2017
- cite Quora

"Bullets don't travel in a straight line in any dimension, ever. They start dropping as soon as the leave the barrel. The slightest crosswind changes their course laterally. The only time you can treat their course as moderately straight is within, say 100 yards for a center fire rifle of fairly high velocity in normal winds. Hand guns, long guns in 22 long rifle are completely different subjects. 22 drifts a lot farther. So, the answer is it varies. But it's never straight."

Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 25, 2019, 05:25:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't buy into any theory that has been proposed, including a second shooter. That's why it's at the top of my list for unresolved questions in the JFK assassination.

     Not 1 single piece of bullet fragments were retrieved Outside the JFK Limo. Not 1. That is a Fact. Yet, we are supposed to believe that the alleged 1 single fragment that did get outside the Limo: (1) managed to travel Over 1/2 a football field, (2) then inflicted the damage to Tague's face, and (3) somehow disappeared? Come on now.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 25, 2019, 05:32:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
     Not 1 single piece of bullet fragments were retrieved Outside the JFK Limo. Not 1. That is a Fact. Yet, we are supposed to believe that the alleged 1 single fragment that did get outside the Limo: (1) managed to travel Over 1/2 a football field, (2) then inflicted the damage to Tague's face, and (3) somehow disappeared? Come on now.

Yes, it's a hard one to accept.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 25, 2019, 05:33:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
     "Dozens of feet"? More like a distance of better than 1/2 a football field.  And if you buy into the Holland Hog Wash the distance increases. The logical explanation for Tague's facial injury is a missed 4th shot by an additional shooter.

Actually, it's more like the full length of a football field.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 25, 2019, 05:38:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, it's a hard one to accept.

Not for me it isn't. Why would you expect a fragment to be found outside of the limo?  Tague was likely hit directly by a fragment from the head shot.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 25, 2019, 06:09:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't buy into any theory that has been proposed, including a second shooter. That's why it's at the top of my list for unresolved questions in the JFK assassination.

Why would a second shooter be needed
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 25, 2019, 06:26:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
FBI Firearms expert Robert Frazier said that a rifle like the Carcano would not typically be sighted-in for less than 150 or 200 yards. What do you suppose would be the reason for not doing so?

What were the distances for the single bullet shot and the head shot?

If I recall correctly, Dave Emary said the Carcano was iron sighted out to about 230 yards or so to match average battlefield conditions.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 25, 2019, 12:33:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The exit wound isn't known? It's right where Dr Malcolm Perry created a bogus tracheostomy shortly after the intubation of the throat wound, which is highly irregular. JFK was likely already dead by then so it was done for no other reason than to obscure the throat wound, which probably looked too much like an entrance wound.

How do you know that? What if it hit JFK's spine? If the MB entered JFK at T1 and exited at C7, then struck Connally below his armpit then it had to change direction because that is not a valid trajectory from the SN.

*Exact* location isn?t known. C7 is a proposed inshoot. Bullet didn?t hit spine, take it you didn?t understand Thomas? explanation (which?using my superhuman precognitive powers I predict?you?ll claim you did and/or it didn?t make sense or something else that makes you out to be the smart one).

Also only like 4 of the Parkland staff actually said the throat wound was an entry; the vast majority said their observations were conclusive enough (others did say they thought it would turn out to be one).

Quote
Sorry, I meant to say the MB was "planted" on the wrong stretcher.

You can?t know whether it was planted or where it was ?meant? to be so. 

Quote
Nonsense. Show me a single example where a bullet causing 7 wounds smashing thru 3 bones would have no DNA on it, while the head shot bullet hits 1 bone and explodes.

Yeah! It?s not like the skull is harder than other bones or anything; they?re all the same. Just inconsistency after inconsistency, is obvs a conspiracy!

Quote
Like any mass, bullets follow a parabolic path under gravity. However, their initial velocity is so high that the parabolic arc is almost negligible over short distances, such as from JFK's throat to Connally. So are you claiming that Oswald aimed high via the iron sights to compensate for gravity? Because he wasn't going to hit squat with the wonky scope on the rifle.

Strange, I don?t recall saying about Oswald or what sights he was using.

Quote
Adjusted Z-film? Greer not only slowed down, he turned around to make sure the POTUS' head exploded before turning face front and stepping on the gas. Mission accomplished.

You psychic now? You don?t and can?t know why he did what he did.   

Quote
The FBI had an emotional response to JFK getting whacked and that's why they obliterated crucial evidence to the crime of the century? LOL

I robot. Preserve the crime scene. As we all know, 99.9% of all murders gonunsolved, so this obviously crucial.

Quote
Fritz approached the SN and saw 3 hulls in a tight group right next to the window. He walked over to them and PICKED THEM UP WITH HIS BARE HANDS and put them in his pocket. When has a police captain ever done that before, let alone while heading the investigation of the assassination of the POTUS? The ONLY reason he would do that is because he didn't think the in-situ arrangement of the hulls looked authentic. He later returned with a rookie cameraman, removed the hulls from his pocket then tossed them on the floor in a more favorable arrangement to stage the crime scene. And you see nothing wicked in that?

You. Don?t. Know. That! Fairly certain shoddy police activity was common in Dallas, 1963. Paranoid ideation: you?re seeing malicious intent or the part of everybody for no reason. The only possible explanation is that Fritz thought exactly this at exactly this nanosecond, because he and everyone else was horrible even conspirator man!

Quote
You haven't been paying attention if you think there is nothing wrong with the 1 BYP that Marina took. Or was it 2 and she burned 1?

There were 4, only 3 exist today. And no, nutjobs moaning about shadows means nothing. Read an actual analysis by actual experts.

Quote
Several Medical staff at Bethesda swear they saw a "fist-sized" hole in the back of JFK's head and it isn't significant? LOL

Because human memory is a flawless system far superior to mere photographers, x-rays and movies of the actual gunshot. 

Quote
Not just me. Several Doctors noted it.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/postmortemsurgery.png)

The majority don?t. Pretty sloppy surgery too.

Quote
Suspiciously incompetent you mean. You'd think that they'd have a competent crew available for the emergency of the century.

Again, half a point.

Quote
Doubt it.

Read it.

Quote
It makes sense if you follow the logic. BTW how many points are required to make my point?

?Logic.? I award points for any point I think was good. Humes? little fire is expedition is a genuinely good point (he lied about he reason), and he shouldn?t have been let anywhere near JFK?s body.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 25, 2019, 12:37:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not convinced of it's plausibility. A bullet that shatters into several pieces of which one piece makes a small dent in the chrome fitting of the windshield and another an insignificant spiderweb crack on the windshield doesn't jive with another piece of lead flying off dozens of feet and striking concrete with enough force to cause concrete chips to make a small scratch on Teague's face. IMO, the only plausible scenario would be like the one Haag proposed. The first shot missed, hit the street pavement and shattered and a piece of lead from that shattered bullet struck the concrete close to Tague causing Tague's scratch to face. The part where that proposal I believe is difficult is that there was no apparent hole in the pavement on Elm St. found.

The other proposal that had some mileage was Holland's proposal that the first shot hit the street lamp steel tube and ricochet from there..etc..etc.. That proposal was found to be unlikely by experiments done by Haag, I believe. That would leave a fourth shot fired from somewhere but there's no evidence of a second shooter, IMHO.

I?d say the fragments were of varying sizes ergo more KE. I think Haag?s just said the bullet disintegrated, which I agree with, and the headshot fragment hit Tague
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 25, 2019, 02:41:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not for me it isn't. Why would you expect a fragment to be found outside of the limo?  Tague was likely hit directly by a fragment from the head shot.

I would not expect all  fragments to remain inside the limo as all of the fragments found did not make up the weight for one 6.5mm WCC 160/61 grain bullet. What puzzles me is what I've already stated; the fragments found inside the limo did not have enough force to brake the windshield or penetrate the chrome molding on the windshield but had enough momentum to at least create a smudge on the concrete near where Tague was standing and that one was able to make a small scratch to Tague's cheek. I'll add that it seems to me that the fragment that created the scratch to the cheek had to have been very small, too small for it to have travelled the distance between the limo and Tague. By this I'm not eliminating the possibility of it happening it's just that it's difficult to accept it as happening. I think there's a better explanation that has not surfaced because the evidence has not been found.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 25, 2019, 02:43:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why would a second shooter be needed

That's the Cter version which I don't accept considering the lack of evidence of a second shooter.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 25, 2019, 02:52:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I?d say the fragments were of varying sizes ergo more KE. I think Haag?s just said the bullet disintegrated, which I agree with, and the headshot fragment hit Tague

larry Sturdivant said that in his book JFK Myths. I believe Haag said that did not necessarily have to have disintegrated and that the hole left on the pavement would have been quickly covered up by the passing of vehicles. At least that's how I remeber it. If this were to be the case it would be a better explanation for the Tague wound than for a fragment of the third shot theory, IMHO. It  also better explains the lead smudge on the concrete. This part; smudge vs chipped concrete is one that deserves clarity. Was it a smudge or chipped concrete?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 25, 2019, 03:31:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Actually, it's more like the full length of a football field.

    Thanks for the correction. Since I never have personally measured off the distance I went the conservative route. That Great Distance when No Other Fragment allegedly even left the confines of the Limo is hard to fathom. If you give this some serious thought, the distance this alleged fragment traveled is Greater than the Total Length of Houston St that the JFK Limo traveled down after turning right off of Main. And to top All of that off, this alleged Fragment then just Disappeared. ALL of this is Total Bunk.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 25, 2019, 03:50:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I would not expect all  fragments to remain inside the limo as all of the fragments found did not make up the weight for one 6.5mm WCC 160/61 grain bullet. What puzzles me is what I've already stated; the fragments found inside the limo did not have enough force to brake the windshield or penetrate the chrome molding on the windshield but had enough momentum to at least create a smudge on the concrete near where Tague was standing and that one was able to make a small scratch to Tague's cheek. I'll add that it seems to me that the fragment that created the scratch to the cheek had to have been very small, too small for it to have travelled the distance between the limo and Tague. By this I'm not eliminating the possibility of it happening it's just that it's difficult to accept it as happening. I think there's a better explanation that has not surfaced because the evidence has not been found.

    You make a Very good point regarding the Lack of "force" of fragments flying around after the Kill Shot vs the distance of the Tague Fragment. As all of us know from having hit/jumped curbs with bikes/autos that they are one tough bird. A curb will Not chip unless struck with Extreme Force by something of Substance. Just my opinion, but the Substance which struck and chipped that curb was recovered. A 4th Shot by a 2nd shooter would render a bullet fragment Not matching the Carcano.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 25, 2019, 04:05:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    You make a Very good point regarding the Lack of "force" of fragments flying around after the Kill Shot vs the distance of the Tague Fragment. As all of us know from having hit/jumped curbs with bikes/autos that they are one tough bird. A curb will Not chip unless struck with Extreme Force by something of Substance. Just my opinion, but the Substance which struck and chipped that curb was recovered. A 4th Shot by a 2nd shooter would render a bullet fragment Not matching the Carcano.

Well, there's no evidence that anything other than the fragments CE-567 & 569 plus the other smaller fragments inside the limo and on the curb were recovered. Also, I'm not sure the curb was actually chipped. On page 116 of the WCR it says "mark".
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 25, 2019, 04:22:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, there's no evidence that anything other than the fragments CE-567 & 569 plus the other smaller fragments inside the limo and on the curb were recovered. Also, I'm not sure the curb was actually chipped. On page 116 of the WCR it says "mark".

     If a bullet fragment struck the curb without chipping the curb and then struck Tague in the face, that Fragment should have remained intact and then be recovered. If on the other hand you're saying Tague was Directly struck by a bullet fragment, that makes the distance traveled by that fragment even more Unbelievable. You sight "no evidence" of fragments being found outside the Limo yet you seem willing to accept the Tague Hokum which also has "no evidence" of Any bullet fragment what-so-ever. A "mark" on a curb is Not Evidence. It is Speculation as is a 2nd Shooter/4th Shot.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 25, 2019, 05:28:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
     If a bullet fragment struck the curb without chipping the curb and then struck Tague in the face, that Fragment should have remained intact and then be recovered. If on the other hand you're saying Tague was Directly struck by a bullet fragment, that makes the distance traveled by that fragment even more Unbelievable. You sight "no evidence" of fragments being found outside the Limo yet you seem willing to accept the Tague Hokum which also has "no evidence" of Any bullet fragment what-so-ever. A "mark" on a curb is Not Evidence. It is Speculation as is a 2nd Shooter/4th Shot.

I didn't say or even imply any of the stuff you claim I said. What I said there's no evidence other than that found inside the limo or on the curb, the smudge of lead scraped of by the FBI for analysis. And I don't accept the "Tague Hokum". That's been the whole premise of my discussion. As to the mark on the curb it is evidence of something causing that mark. But of what and from were is the question. You and I both agree that a second shooter/4th shot is speculation.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 25, 2019, 05:39:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I didn't say or even imply any of the stuff you claim I said. What I said there's no evidence other than that found inside the limo or on the curb, the smudge of lead scraped of by the FBI for analysis. And I don't accept the "Tague Hokum". That's been the whole premise of my discussion. As to the mark on the curb it is evidence of something causing that mark. But of what and from were is the question. You and I both agree that a second shooter/4th shot is speculation.

       Specifically What do you Think: (1) Struck Teague on the face?, and (2) Where did that object which struck Tague in the face go? 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 25, 2019, 06:19:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
*Exact* location isn?t known. C7 is a proposed inshoot. Bullet didn?t hit spine, take it you didn?t understand Thomas? explanation (which?using my superhuman precognitive powers I predict?you?ll claim you did and/or it didn?t make sense or something else that makes you out to be the smart one).

I believe that it entered at about the level of C7 and exited at about C7.

Quote
Also only like 4 of the Parkland staff actually said the throat wound was an entry; the vast majority said their observations were conclusive enough (others did say they thought it would turn out to be one).

I think that three of those four later admitted that the wound could have been an exit wound.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 25, 2019, 06:24:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I would not expect all  fragments to remain inside the limo as all of the fragments found did not make up the weight for one 6.5mm WCC 160/61 grain bullet. What puzzles me is what I've already stated; the fragments found inside the limo did not have enough force to brake the windshield or penetrate the chrome molding on the windshield but had enough momentum to at least create a smudge on the concrete near where Tague was standing and that one was able to make a small scratch to Tague's cheek. I'll add that it seems to me that the fragment that created the scratch to the cheek had to have been very small, too small for it to have travelled the distance between the limo and Tague. By this I'm not eliminating the possibility of it happening it's just that it's difficult to accept it as happening. I think there's a better explanation that has not surfaced because the evidence has not been found.

Oscar,

Why would the fragment that struck Tague have had to been small? The fragments that struck the windshield and chrome piece did so with considerable force,
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 25, 2019, 06:26:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    Thanks for the correction. Since I never have personally measured off the distance I went the conservative route. That Great Distance when No Other Fragment allegedly even left the confines of the Limo is hard to fathom. If you give this some serious thought, the distance this alleged fragment traveled is Greater than the Total Length of Houston St that the JFK Limo traveled down after turning right off of Main. And to top All of that off, this alleged Fragment then just Disappeared. ALL of this is Total Bunk.

You're welcome. I used the Robert West survey map of 1964. You can download it from the Robert Cutler collection at the Baylor University site. It's among several maps. Most of which Cutler marked on himself.

I have no problem accepting that a fragment traveled that far and struck Tague on the cheek and was never found. I think it's unlikely that it hit the curb first. The curb was not  chipped. It had a lead smear on it. That's all. You believe that the Tague strike was from a 4th Shot by a 2nd shooter. So, I'll direct your question to Oscar towards you.

What do you Think: (1) Struck Tague on the face?, and (2) Where did that object which struck Tague in the face go?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 25, 2019, 06:30:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
larry Sturdivant said that in his book JFK Myths. I believe Haag said that did not necessarily have to have disintegrated and that the hole left on the pavement would have been quickly covered up by the passing of vehicles. At least that's how I remeber it. If this were to be the case it would be a better explanation for the Tague wound than for a fragment of the third shot theory, IMHO. It  also better explains the lead smudge on the concrete. This part; smudge vs chipped concrete is one that deserves clarity. Was it a smudge or chipped concrete?

The Haags conducted an expeirment which found most of the street shot would have disintegrated with only a narrow range of upward flying shards of concrete and/or metal. The Tague hit, they concluded in a peer reviewed paper, was most probably caused by fragment from the headshot.

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-shot-that-missed-jfk-new-forensic.html?m=1 (http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-shot-that-missed-jfk-new-forensic.html?m=1)

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/the-shot-that-missed (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/the-shot-that-missed)



 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 25, 2019, 06:30:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, there's no evidence that anything other than the fragments CE-567 & 569 plus the other smaller fragments inside the limo and on the curb were recovered. Also, I'm not sure the curb was actually chipped. On page 116 of the WCR it says "mark".

(https://i.imgur.com/oTpchEP.gif)

(https://i.imgur.com/FcfbdZr.jpg)

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305176
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 25, 2019, 06:43:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Haags conducted an expeirment which found most of the street shot would have disintegrated with only a narrow range of upward flying shards of concrete and/or metal. The Tague hit, they concluded in a peer reviewed paper, was most probably caused by fragment from the headshot.

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-shot-that-missed-jfk-new-forensic.html?m=1 (http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-shot-that-missed-jfk-new-forensic.html?m=1)

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/the-shot-that-missed (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/the-shot-that-missed)

Multiple shots were fired into sections of roadway asphalt set at that angle with the same surprising result: The Carcano bullets were completely and totally destroyed with not one single, recognizable bullet fragment to be found in the nominal 1-inch deep impact craters.

?This may seem difficult to believe,? Luke Haag wrote, ?but the answer and reason lies in the extreme ?g? forces acting on the bullet during the deceleration process. This phenomenon of total bullet destruction has been studied and explained in a previous article by this writer. [Haag, L.C. and A. Jason, ?Where are the Bullets?? AFTE Journal, Vol.44: No.3, Summer 2012, pp.196-207]

?In this case, a bullet traveling approximately 2100 f/s (1,432 miles per hour) comes to a complete stop in about 1 inch of travel in asphalt. A rough calculation of the decelerating forces acting on this bullet, expressed as gravities (g), yields a value of 1.6 million g. The relatively soft copper jacket disintegrates into minute fragments and the very soft lead core essentially vaporizes.

?The next surprise,? writes Haag, ?is the relatively confined, conical ejection of the pulverized asphaltic material that departs the surface of the asphalt along an angle that is orthogonal to the surface. This cone of debris is so tightly confined, that a person or object could be standing within as little as 2 feet of the impact site and not be struck by any of this ejected debris.? [emphasis in original, Haag, ?The Missing Bullet in the JFK Assassination? page 75]



The video isn't playing for me. I assume that it's from the JFK: Cold Case File program. I've watched that a couple of times and don't recall seeing that experiment or the Haags mentioning it. The results are surprising to me. But it was surprising to them as well. I'm going to re-watch the program tonight. I highly recommend it to those haven't already seen it.

(https://i.imgur.com/lz37LFz.png)

Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 25, 2019, 07:22:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
       Specifically What do you Think: (1) Struck Teague on the face?, and (2) Where did that object which struck Tague in the face go?

I don't know to both questions.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 25, 2019, 07:45:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oscar,

Why would the fragment that struck Tague have had to been small? The fragments that struck the windshield and chrome piece did so with considerable force,

Because I believe Tague would have felt the impact of a large fragment. I don't think the fragment(s) that struck the windshield carried much force or else it would have done more damage to the windshield glass. Try this. Go outside and throw a small metal ball bearing against the windshield of your car and see what happens.   :D Just kidding, buddy. I just might try this experiment at a junkyard. IMHO, the fragment that struck the chrome part was CE-567 as there was no lead residue found on the dent. It's possible that CE-569 was still inside CE-567 during impact and then separated and that a much smaller lead fragment struck the windshield. I have no idea how much force it would take to make a dent on the chrome part and have no idea how far that fragment, let's say it was CE-567/69, would have travelled if it had not struck the chrome part but it just doesn't compute that an even smaller fragment could have travelled the distance from the limo to the curb and caused the smudge on the concrete. Ditto for the fragment that struck Tague. Look, I may be overstating the perceived force required to send fragments flying off toward Tague but it just doesn't compute in my mind. 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 25, 2019, 08:17:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Haags conducted an expeirment which found most of the street shot would have disintegrated with only a narrow range of upward flying shards of concrete and/or metal. The Tague hit, they concluded in a peer reviewed paper, was most probably caused by fragment from the headshot.

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-shot-that-missed-jfk-new-forensic.html?m=1 (http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-shot-that-missed-jfk-new-forensic.html?m=1)

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/the-shot-that-missed (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/the-shot-that-missed)

Ah, thanks Dillon. Well, I was half right. If the first shot missed the asphalt (not made out of concrete) the hole would have been covered within a short period of time. But that was one heck of a hole, wasn't it! I think it would have been noticed right away by DPD scurrying around looking for evidence. That, IMHO, is something to consider. Also, Haag said (it's not in this video) that the round disintegrating against the asphalt would have left an odor that could have been similar to the odor of spent gunpowder. That would explain why Senator Yarborough smelled gunpowder. It would appear that going by the logical process of eliminating the obvious false assumptions one has to arrive at the conclusion that it was from the head shot fragments that Tague was slightly wounded. BUT I'M NOT CONVINCED!!!! AAAAhhhhh!!!!!
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 25, 2019, 08:19:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You're welcome. I used the Robert West survey map of 1964. You can download it from the Robert Cutler collection at the Baylor University site. It's among several maps. Most of which Cutler marked on himself.

I have no problem accepting that a fragment traveled that far and struck Tague on the cheek and was never found. I think it's unlikely that it hit the curb first. The curb was not  chipped. It had a lead smear on it. That's all. You believe that the Tague strike was from a 4th Shot by a 2nd shooter. So, I'll direct your question to Oscar towards you.

What do you Think: (1) Struck Tague on the face?, and (2) Where did that object which struck Tague in the face go?

     It is extremely hard to believe that the 1 single bullet fragment that was allegedly Blown Out of the Ground Level JFK Limo: (1) Traveled a distance greater than a football field, (2) Missed striking anyone standing on the South Elm grass section, (3) Missed striking Any of the cars on Main St, (4) Then, after traveling this great distance struck Tague in the face with a force so great he didn't even notice it at the time. The point made by Oscar Navarro regarding the bullet fragment(s) that struck both the JFK Limo chrome molding and windshield Not having the energy behind them to penetrate either vs the contrasting distance traveled by the alleged Tague Fragment is very compelling.     
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 25, 2019, 08:20:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://i.imgur.com/oTpchEP.gif)

(https://i.imgur.com/FcfbdZr.jpg)

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305176

Thanks, Tim  Thumb1: It appears there's a very small chip on the curb on one photo.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 25, 2019, 08:23:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Because I believe Tague would have felt the impact of a large fragment. I don't think the fragment(s) that struck the windshield carried much force or else it would have done more damage to the windshield glass. Try this. Go outside and throw a small metal ball bearing against the windshield of your car and see what happens.   :D Just kidding, buddy. I just might try this experiment at a junkyard. IMHO, the fragment that struck the chrome part was CE-567 as there was no lead residue found on the dent. It's possible that CE-569 was still inside CE-567 during impact and then separated and that a much smaller lead fragment struck the windshield. I have no idea how much force it would take to make a dent on the chrome part and have no idea how far that fragment, let's say it was CE-567/69, would have travelled if it had not struck the chrome part but it just doesn't compute that an even smaller fragment could have travelled the distance from the limo to the curb and caused the smudge on the concrete. Ditto for the fragment that struck Tague. Look, I may be overstating the perceived force required to send fragments flying off toward Tague but it just doesn't compute in my mind.

You are not considering velocity. A large fragment traveling at a lower velocity than a small fragment would not necessarily result in a more noticeable impact.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 25, 2019, 08:26:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
     It is extremely hard to believe that the 1 single bullet fragment that was allegedly Blown Out of the Ground Level JFK Limo: (1) Traveled a distance greater than a football field, (2) Missed striking anyone standing on the South Elm grass section, (3) Missed striking Any of the cars on Main St, (4) Then, after traveling this great distance struck Tague in the face with a force so great he didn't even notice it at the time. The point made by Oscar Navarro regarding the bullet fragment(s) that struck both the JFK Limo chrome molding and windshield Not having the energy behind them to penetrate either vs the contrasting distance traveled by the alleged Tague Fragment is very compelling.     

Your disbelief has been duly noted but you failed to address my questions.

What do you Think: (1) Struck Tague on the face?, and (2) Where did that object which struck Tague in the face go?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 25, 2019, 08:27:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If I recall correctly, Dave Emary said the Carcano was iron sighted out to about 230 yards or so to match average battlefield conditions.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 25, 2019, 08:30:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thanks, Tim  Thumb1: It appears there's a very small chip on the curb on one photo.

If you are referring to the Dallas Morning News photo , then it's too small of resolution to be able to say.

You can zoom in on the National Archive photos.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305176

There in no chip in that section of curb.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dale Nason on January 25, 2019, 08:47:29 PM
Bullets do travel in a straight line for a limited distance. This all depends on the "load" of the cartridge, the weapon firing the bullet, and of course, after lack of velocity, gravity takes over. It's all basic physics. When velocity can not overcome gravity, the trajectory will change.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 25, 2019, 09:02:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Bullets do travel in a straight line for a limited distance. This all depends on the "load" of the cartridge, the weapon firing the bullet, and of course, after lack of velocity, gravity takes over. It's all basic physics. When velocity can not overcome gravity, the trajectory will change.

Dale, Unless the velocity of an object is acting in opposition to gravity , it will never overcome it. A bullet fired horizontally will not overcome gravity at all. However, as you noted, over short distances, gravity has essentially no impact on accuracy of a high velocity rifle shot. The bullet travels in a straight line. 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 25, 2019, 09:27:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your disbelief has been duly noted but you failed to address my questions.

What do you Think: (1) Struck Tague on the face?, and (2) Where did that object which struck Tague in the face go?

        My belief is there was a 2nd shooter probably somewhere on the Front/Right of the JFK Limo. The Tague facial damage was a miss from this shooter. That missed shot may have struck the man hole cover/cement around it and skipped/bounced up and over to the Curb/Tague. Probably splintered. Anyway, that missed shot struck something and ricocheted. It was probably fired after the Kill Shot. On the Zapruder Film there are 2 guys running across the Elm St south grass section close to the Triple Underpass. These 2 guys are ducking/crouched as they haul arse. They look like they were initially positioned down there in the general area close to the Triple Underpass/ North of Teague. Incoming sent them running and ducking. I think the Teague Fragment was recovered and probably other fragment(s) also. These fragments did Not match the Carcano. If you look at the film footage taken from the snipers nest a couple hours after the assassination, 5-6  Law Enforcement Officers are crowded around that man hole cover/cement area on the South side of Elm St. Law Enforcement even parked a car atop that South Elm grass section close to Main St. Studebaker took a photo of Elm St looking toward the TSBD that same day. In that photo you can also clearly see a CSI Suitcase wide open and sitting on that Elm South grass section. A contingent of Law Enforcement went through that South grass section with a fine tooth comb immediately after they sealed off Dealey Plaza that day. A Mass of Law Enforcement was solely focused on that South grass section for a reason.     
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 25, 2019, 09:31:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not considering velocity. A large fragment traveling at a lower velocity than a small fragment would not necessarily result in a more noticeable impact.

    The Larger you make that Fragment and the Lower Velocity you have it traveling = the Shorter the Distance it would travel. Remember, it traveled 100+ yards.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 25, 2019, 09:48:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Dale, Unless the velocity of an object is acting in opposition to gravity , it will never overcome it. A bullet fired horizontally will not overcome gravity at all. However, as you noted, over short distances, gravity has essentially no impact on accuracy of a high velocity rifle shot. The bullet travels in a straight line.

over short distances, gravity has essentially no impact on accuracy of a high velocity rifle shot. The bullet travels in a straight line.

The above statement is false....   A bullet fired on a horizontal plane, or a near horizontal plane, does not travel in a straight line.   It's self evident that the effects of gravity do not have to be taken into consideration when the bullet is fired at a target a short distance away....However...that bullet does not travel in a straight line.

The heavier a bullet is, the greater the effect that gravity has upon the bullet......  That's simple physics.   Gravity has less effect on a 150 grain bullet than a 200 grain bullet fired from a cartridge with equal loads of propellant.     It should be obvious that the heavier 200 grain bullet takes more energy to propel it and it will not fly as far as the 150 grain bullet.... If the propellant charges are identical.    However neither bullet travels in a straight line....both will fall to earth at some point.     
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Jerry Freeman on January 25, 2019, 11:46:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
@Newbies
The blind leading the blind.
 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 26, 2019, 12:11:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
        My belief is there was a 2nd shooter probably somewhere on the Front/Right of the JFK Limo. The Tague facial damage was a miss from this shooter. That missed shot may have struck the man hole cover/cement around it and skipped/bounced up and over to the Curb/Tague. Probably splintered. Anyway, that missed shot struck something and ricocheted. It was probably fired after the Kill Shot. On the Zapruder Film there are 2 guys running across the Elm St south grass section close to the Triple Underpass. These 2 guys are ducking/crouched as they haul arse. They look like they were initially positioned down there in the general area close to the Triple Underpass/ North of Teague. Incoming sent them running and ducking. I think the Teague Fragment was recovered and probably other fragment(s) also. These fragments did Not match the Carcano. If you look at the film footage taken from the snipers nest a couple hours after the assassination, 5-6  Law Enforcement Officers are crowded around that man hole cover/cement area on the South side of Elm St. Law Enforcement even parked a car atop that South Elm grass section close to Main St. Studebaker took a photo of Elm St looking toward the TSBD that same day. In that photo you can also clearly see a CSI Suitcase wide open and sitting on that Elm South grass section. A contingent of Law Enforcement went through that South grass section with a fine tooth comb immediately after they sealed off Dealey Plaza that day. A Mass of Law Enforcement was solely focused on that South grass section for a reason.   

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that. I can't visualize it at all. I suspect that you haven't put much thought into it.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 26, 2019, 12:14:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    The Larger you make that Fragment and the Lower Velocity you have it traveling = the Shorter the Distance it would travel. Remember, it traveled 100+ yards.

The distance that the fragment would travel would depend on it's initial velocity. When the fragment exited Kennedy's skull, it's velocity was sufficient enough for it to reach Tague's position and cause the minor wound that he received. By the time it reached Tague, most of it's initial momentum had been expended. The trajectory of that fragment, from JFK's head to Tague's cheek, was not a straight line. At impact, the fragment was on a downward path.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dillon Rankine on January 26, 2019, 01:17:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
        My belief is there was a 2nd shooter probably somewhere on the Front/Right of the JFK Limo. The Tague facial damage was a miss from this shooter. That missed shot may have struck the man hole cover/cement around it and skipped/bounced up and over to the Curb/Tague. Probably splintered. Anyway, that missed shot struck something and ricocheted. It was probably fired after the Kill Shot. On the Zapruder Film there are 2 guys running across the Elm St south grass section close to the Triple Underpass. These 2 guys are ducking/crouched as they haul arse. They look like they were initially positioned down there in the general area close to the Triple Underpass/ North of Teague. Incoming sent them running and ducking. I think the Teague Fragment was recovered and probably other fragment(s) also. These fragments did Not match the Carcano. If you look at the film footage taken from the snipers nest a couple hours after the assassination, 5-6  Law Enforcement Officers are crowded around that man hole cover/cement area on the South side of Elm St. Law Enforcement even parked a car atop that South Elm grass section close to Main St. Studebaker took a photo of Elm St looking toward the TSBD that same day. In that photo you can also clearly see a CSI Suitcase wide open and sitting on that Elm South grass section. A contingent of Law Enforcement went through that South grass section with a fine tooth comb immediately after they sealed off Dealey Plaza that day. A Mass of Law Enforcement was solely focused on that South grass section for a reason.   

Pure speculation, but creative it?s unrealistic/detached creativity. GK shooter fires after his target?s head in shrouded by a crimson fog? Out of curiosity, what?s you?re take on the shooting?

(1) where were the gunmen (incl. how many)
(2) how many shots are fired (incl. from where)
(3) when (approx Z-frame if possible)

Cite your evidence later?give me the unfiltered, briefest version possible (I?m interested for some reason).
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 26, 2019, 04:22:06 PM
After watching this video and seeing how the trajectory of the SN window aligns pretty much with the head shot and Tague's position I'm beginning to see the real probability that it was indeed fragments from the head shot that caused the smudge on the concrete curb and the scratch to Tague's cheek. It still amazes me the distance the fragments had to travel to cause their damage but, as Churchill said of the D-Day landings "I'm hardening" to the idea.

Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 26, 2019, 05:06:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
After watching this video and seeing how the trajectory of the SN window aligns pretty much with the head shot and Tague's position I'm beginning to see the real probability that it was indeed fragments from the head shot that caused the smudge on the concrete curb and the scratch to Tague's cheek. It still amazes me the distance the fragments had to travel to cause their damage but, as Churchill said of the D-Day landings "I'm hardening" to the idea.



          You are talking about something generally being In-Line from start-to-finish with an EXPLOSION in between. Not happening. The bullet fragment which dented the chrome molding was thrown almost directly forward/toward the middle of front bumper of the Limo. If you buy the crack in the windshield being the result of the Head Explosion then again we have matter/bullet fragment(s) being projected almost directly Forward. Definitely nothing close to being in-line with the sniper's nest - Curb - Tague. And I am not even getting into the height a fragment would need to attain to somehow exit the Limo and then avoid striking Anything between the Limo & Curb/Tague over 100+ yards away. Those of you that have been to Dealey Plaza have a first hand visual picture in your head as to the Magical Mystery Tour a Lone Bullet Fragment from the JFK Limo has to take in order to reach Tague.  *Warning*  Dramamine may be required
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 26, 2019, 06:33:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

          You are talking about something generally being In-Line from start-to-finish with an EXPLOSION in between. Not happening. The bullet fragment which dented the chrome molding was thrown almost directly forward/toward the middle of front bumper of the Limo. If you buy the crack in the windshield being the result of the Head Explosion then again we have matter/bullet fragment(s) being projected almost directly Forward. Definitely nothing close to being in-line with the sniper's nest - Curb - Tague. And I am not even getting into the height a fragment would need to attain to somehow exit the Limo and then avoid striking Anything between the Limo & Curb/Tague over 100+ yards away. Those of you that have been to Dealey Plaza have a first hand visual picture in your head as to the Magical Mystery Tour a Lone Bullet Fragment from the JFK Limo has to take in order to reach Tague.  *Warning*  Dramamine may be required

The bullet fragment which dented the chrome molding was thrown almost directly forward/toward the middle of front bumper of the Limo.

The dent in the chrome molding was NOT made by a bullet FRAGMENT.....  It was caused by a complete bullet....  Probably fired from a silencer equipped weapon.
but it missed and struck the steel chrome molding.  Since it was fired from a silencer equipped weapon and the bullet itself traveled at subsonic velocity it had very poor penetrating  ability.....as can be seen in the photo of the chrome molding.   

Many years ago I acquired a chrome molding from a 62 Lincoln Convertible  ....  That molding is not light weight tin......I doubt that a .22 caliber bullet would penetrate the molding....

I've seen many bullet strikes on highway signs which are about the same gauge steel as the molding.... Many of the bullet dents on highway signs are caused by 22 caliber weapons.    If you own a 22 caliber gun .....find an old steel sign and use it for target practice .....  Learn something first hand..... 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Steve Logan on January 26, 2019, 06:45:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The bullet fragment which dented the chrome molding was thrown almost directly forward/toward the middle of front bumper of the Limo.

The dent in the chrome molding was NOT made by a bullet FRAGMENT.....  It was caused by a complete bullet....  Probably fired from a silencer equipped weapon.
but it missed and struck the steel chrome molding.  Since it was fired from a silencer equipped weapon and the bullet itself traveled at subsonic velocity it had very poor penetrating  ability.....as can be seen in the photo of the chrome molding.   

Many years ago I acquired a chrome molding from a 62 Lincoln Convertible  ....  That molding is not light weight tin......I double that a .22 caliber bullet would penetrate the molding....

I've seen many bullet strikes on highway signs which are about the same gauge steel as the molding.... Many of the bullet dents on highway signs are caused by 22 caliber weapons.    If you own a 22 caliber gun .....find an old steel sign and use it for target practice .....  Learn something first hand.....

Yup, just like I've said before "Multiple Oswalds and Suppressed shots ties up all the loose ends."  Well done.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 26, 2019, 06:55:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yup, just like I've said before "Multiple Oswalds and Suppressed shots ties up all the loose ends."  Well done.

Yup, just like I've said before "Multiple Oswalds and Suppressed shots ties up all the loose ends."   Well done...

Well done??.... This isn't a steak house.....   It's a chop joint....( and anybody who criticizes the official government approved tale gets chopped )

I see no evidence that there were multiple Oswalds' ....  However there were multiple shooters....( least two) and  one was firing a silencer equipped weapon.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 26, 2019, 07:57:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yup, just like I've said before "Multiple Oswalds and Suppressed shots ties up all the loose ends."  Well done.

     Steve - Gotta give you credit. THAT is a funny comeback.  Walk:
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 26, 2019, 08:00:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The bullet fragment which dented the chrome molding was thrown almost directly forward/toward the middle of front bumper of the Limo.

The dent in the chrome molding was NOT made by a bullet FRAGMENT.....  It was caused by a complete bullet....  Probably fired from a silencer equipped weapon.
but it missed and struck the steel chrome molding.  Since it was fired from a silencer equipped weapon and the bullet itself traveled at subsonic velocity it had very poor penetrating  ability.....as can be seen in the photo of the chrome molding.   

Many years ago I acquired a chrome molding from a 62 Lincoln Convertible  ....  That molding is not light weight tin......I doubt that a .22 caliber bullet would penetrate the molding....

I've seen many bullet strikes on highway signs which are about the same gauge steel as the molding.... Many of the bullet dents on highway signs are caused by 22 caliber weapons.    If you own a 22 caliber gun .....find an old steel sign and use it for target practice .....  Learn something first hand.....

    Walt - Just curious, but you went and acquired that "62" Lincoln chrome molding that was, "Not light weight tin". So why didn't you put that molding to the test and fire a bullet at it?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 26, 2019, 11:33:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    Walt - Just curious, but you went and acquired that "62" Lincoln chrome molding that was, "Not light weight tin". So why didn't you put that molding to the test and fire a bullet at it?

Can't answer that, I don't know why I didn't....  But probably because I instinctively knew that a 22 caliber bullet wouldn't penetrate the molding....

And I do recall thinking that the chrome steel molding was actually backed by the steel frame of the windshield, so unless it was actually on the car the test wouldn't be valid.

To be candid.... At the time I thought the bullet that had struck the molding was a 45 caliber bullet....and I still believe that's a possibility....But not many people have a 45 with which to fire at an old highway sign.....but lots of folks own 22 caliber guns.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dale Nason on January 26, 2019, 11:44:20 PM
Tim, I think you missed the point of my post. Gravity doesn't come into effect until velocity ceases to a certain point. Again......basic physics.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 27, 2019, 03:42:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tim, I think you missed the point of my post. Gravity doesn't come into effect until velocity ceases to a certain point. Again......basic physics.

Dale, I understood what you were trying to say. You didn't word it properly. You are still not wording it properly. I agree with the point you were trying to make. I apologize if I appear to be nitpicking.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 27, 2019, 03:22:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Dale, I understood what you were trying to say. You didn't word it properly. You are still not wording it properly. I agree with the point you were trying to make. I apologize if I appear to be nitpicking.

     You do the same thing to Walter. You "nitpick" at his Multiple Oswalds Theory. Where is his apology?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Jon Banks on January 27, 2019, 04:32:37 PM
The basic problem for CT'ers is, there are a million different ways a Conspiracy might've occurred and there's no consensus on the CT side for an alternative narrative to contrast with the LoneNut narrative.

So LN'ers often delegitimize CT'ers by grouping people who have plausible alternative theories with those who believe JFK might've been shot by the "Umbrella Man" or the "Three Tramps".

The problem I see for LN'ers is the failure to acknowledge the legit reasons to question the interpretations of the evidence or the conclusions of the various investigations.

It's possible that in spite of mistakes, the coverups, the obstruction, the lies, etc, that the LoneNut narrative is the correct one. But you have to leave a lot of valid questions about the investigations unanswered to be satisfied with that narrative. 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 27, 2019, 04:44:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
     You do the same thing to Walter. You "nitpick" at his Multiple Oswalds Theory. Where is his apology?

I do not have a multiple Oswald's theory....  That theory is utter nonsense....  However I do firmly believe that there was more than one gunman firing at JFK that day.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 27, 2019, 05:06:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I do not have a multiple Oswald's theory....  That theory is utter nonsense....  However I do firmly believe that there was more than one gunman firing at JFK that day.

    Now you're getting touchy. Was only kidding.  Remember, "He who Excuses himself, Accuses himself".
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 27, 2019, 05:15:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    Now you're getting touchy. Was only kidding.  Remember, "He who Excuses himself, Accuses himself".

OK...  I thought that you truly believed that I believe in multiple "Oswalds" ...  There's no doubt in my mind that the outfit who Lee was working for ( or thought he was working for)  used other young men as decoys for the real Lee Oswald.   Those decoys signed in as "Lee Oswald" ( Museum registrar) or identified themselves as "Lee Oswald" ( Odio)     
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Dale Nason on January 27, 2019, 10:09:11 PM
Here's my theory. Now I'm getting myself into the mix....LOL. The Warren Commisssion ASSUMED that there were 3 shots fired from the TSBD in about 6 seconds. ( Give or take a second or two). No where in the WC reports is there any reference to the change of trajectory, the 'load" of the bullet. the difference in distance of the shots, the realigning of the sights, the fact that the " alleged shooter" had to account for an obstruction in his sights, and most importantly....that the gun he "allegedly fired" was capable of producing " 3 consecutive" shots with the same velocity and the same accuracy  as the previous ones, period. We  are asked to assume that the shooter from this sight could be an expert marksman with incredible skills who could outshoot any reasonable person with basic shooting skills and then, walk away and calmly hide his weapon and escape undetected. I DON
T BUY IT FOR ONE SECOND. Sorry. It makes no sense to me. 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 27, 2019, 11:33:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here's my theory. Now I'm getting myself into the mix....LOL. The Warren Commisssion ASSUMED that there were 3 shots fired from the TSBD in about 6 seconds. ( Give or take a second or two). No where in the WC reports is there any reference to the change of trajectory, the 'load" of the bullet. the difference in distance of the shots, the realigning of the sights, the fact that the " alleged shooter" had to account for an obstruction in his sights, and most importantly....that the gun he "allegedly fired" was capable of producing " 3 consecutive" shots with the same velocity and the same accuracy  as the previous ones, period. We  are asked to assume that the shooter from this sight could be an expert marksman with incredible skills who could outshoot any reasonable person with basic shooting skills and then, walk away and calmly hide his weapon and escape undetected. I DON
T BUY IT FOR ONE SECOND. Sorry. It makes no sense to me.

     Very logical critique of the WC LN Theory.  The members of the WC followed their marching orders and in doing this were forced to insult the I.Q. of John Q. Public. They produced an unbelievable narrative that 55+ years later still renders head shaking from the masses.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 28, 2019, 12:02:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here's my theory. Now I'm getting myself into the mix....LOL. The Warren Commisssion ASSUMED that there were 3 shots fired from the TSBD in about 6 seconds. ( Give or take a second or two). No where in the WC reports is there any reference to the change of trajectory, the 'load" of the bullet. the difference in distance of the shots, the realigning of the sights, the fact that the " alleged shooter" had to account for an obstruction in his sights, and most importantly....that the gun he "allegedly fired" was capable of producing " 3 consecutive" shots with the same velocity and the same accuracy  as the previous ones, period. We  are asked to assume that the shooter from this sight could be an expert marksman with incredible skills who could outshoot any reasonable person with basic shooting skills and then, walk away and calmly hide his weapon and escape undetected. I DON
T BUY IT FOR ONE SECOND. Sorry. It makes no sense to me.

I DON'T BUY IT FOR ONE SECOND. Sorry. It makes no sense to me.

Well Perhaps if you smoked some stuff, you could imagine that the tale is true....   I suspect that's what many of the LNer's do......
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 28, 2019, 12:19:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
OK...  I thought that you truly believed that I believe in multiple "Oswalds" ...  There's no doubt in my mind that the outfit who Lee was working for ( or thought he was working for)  used other young men as decoys for the real Lee Oswald.   Those decoys signed in as "Lee Oswald" ( Museum registrar) or identified themselves as "Lee Oswald" ( Odio)     

Silvia Odio never said Lee, she  said "Leon Oswald". That was probably the war name used by the third guy. She remembers one of the guys used Leopoldo but doesn't remember the name used by the other guy, or if he even used a name. These guys supposedly came from New Orleans and the Lee Oswald story was not a secret. The most probable scenario is that the guy who used, or was referred to as Leon Oswald by Leopoldo was using Leon Oswald as a cover. Another interesting case of a coincidence being turned into conspiracy involving anti-Castro Cubans.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 28, 2019, 01:12:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Silvia Odio never said Lee, she  said "Leon Oswald". That was probably the war name used by the third guy. She remembers one of the guys used Leopoldo but doesn't remember the name used by the other guy, or if he even used a name. These guys supposedly came from New Orleans and the Lee Oswald story was not a secret. The most probable scenario is that the guy who used, or was referred to as Leon Oswald by Leopoldo was using Leon Oswald as a cover. Another interesting case of a coincidence being turned into conspiracy involving anti-Castro Cubans.


What a dishonest cretin you are Navarro.....
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 28, 2019, 12:12:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here's my theory. Now I'm getting myself into the mix....LOL. The Warren Commisssion ASSUMED that there were 3 shots fired from the TSBD in about 6 seconds. ( Give or take a second or two). No where in the WC reports is there any reference to the change of trajectory, the 'load" of the bullet. the difference in distance of the shots, the realigning of the sights, the fact that the " alleged shooter" had to account for an obstruction in his sights, and most importantly....that the gun he "allegedly fired" was capable of producing " 3 consecutive" shots with the same velocity and the same accuracy  as the previous ones, period. We  are asked to assume that the shooter from this sight could be an expert marksman with incredible skills who could outshoot any reasonable person with basic shooting skills and then, walk away and calmly hide his weapon and escape undetected. I DON
T BUY IT FOR ONE SECOND. Sorry. It makes no sense to me.


You're really starting off on the wrong foot, Dale. For starters The WC didn't assume anything of the sort you're claiming but based their conclusion that three shots were fired based on the overwhelming earwitness testimony that three shots were fired, that three empty hulls were found on the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD (the SN) and that there was no credible evidence found that shots were fired from any other spot. That 6second timeline was based on the Z film were it was calculated that 3 shots could have been fired between zframes 210-25 and 313, so divide that by 18.3fps (as calculated by FBI experts) and you get a range of 4.8 seconds to 5.6 seconds if, and this is very important, the second shot missed. If either the first, or much less probably, the third shot missed then the time span of the shots would be expanded by at least 2.3 seconds (the time calculated for the bolt to be operated). This would increase the time span for three shots to 7.1 to 7.9 seconds. But the WC also indicated that the time span could have been greater for the three shots if it took longer for the shooter to work the bolt and aquire it's target. This is all in the WRpages 110 - 117.

The trajectory and distance were covered in the WR between pages 96 and 110. The load of the bullet was determined to be on average about 160 to 161 grains and the obstruction of the Oak tree was covered when it was found that branches began to obstruct the shooter by zframe 160.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 28, 2019, 05:36:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You're really starting off on the wrong foot, Dale. For starters The WC didn't assume anything of the sort you're claiming but based their conclusion that three shots were fired based on the overwhelming earwitness testimony that three shots were fired, that three empty hulls were found on the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD (the SN) and that there was no credible evidence found that shots were fired from any other spot. That 6second timeline was based on the Z film were it was calculated that 3 shots could have been fired between zframes 210-25 and 313, so divide that by 18.3fps (as calculated by FBI experts) and you get a range of 4.8 seconds to 5.6 seconds if, and this is very important, the second shot missed. If either the first, or much less probably, the third shot missed then the time span of the shots would be expanded by at least 2.3 seconds (the time calculated for the bolt to be operated). This would increase the time span for three shots to 7.1 to 7.9 seconds. But the WC also indicated that the time span could have been greater for the three shots if it took longer for the shooter to work the bolt and aquire it's target. This is all in the WRpages 110 - 117.

The trajectory and distance were covered in the WR between pages 96 and 110. The load of the bullet was determined to be on average about 160 to 161 grains and the obstruction of the Oak tree was covered when it was found that branches began to obstruct the shooter by zframe 160.

    What you are basically saying is the WC Guessed as to the time span of shots being fired. Of course this Guess Work was tied to an unrestricted sight line from their alleged LN Sniper's Nest. Wham-Bam Got You Man. You forgot to mention this entire fairy tale was Altered at least one time upon Tague popping up with his corroborated facial wound.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 29, 2019, 11:30:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What a dishonest cretin you are Navarro.....

You're upset because I corrected your claim in quotes that Silvia Odio said "Lee Oswald" when in fact she said "Leon Oswald".
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on January 29, 2019, 12:00:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    What you are basically saying is the WC Guessed as to the time span of shots being fired. Of course this Guess Work was tied to an unrestricted sight line from their alleged LN Sniper's Nest. Wham-Bam Got You Man. You forgot to mention this entire fairy tale was Altered at least one time upon Tague popping up with his corroborated facial wound.


The WC associate members came up with the timeline by working backwards from the obvious head shot at z313 to the Z frame that shows JFK reacting to being shot through the neck, which corresponded to z225 to the Z frame that shows the sniper had a clear LOF beginning at Z frame z210. That's 88 to 103 frames divided by 18.3fps = 4.8 to 5.3 seconds. The reason the SN was used was due to the overwhelming evidence that pointed to the SN as to were the shots came from. The addition of 2.3 seconds was added due to test performed which showed that was how long it took to operate the bolt. Tague threw a monkey wrench into the original FBI conclusion that three shots had hit their mark with the first hitting JFK, the second JBC, and the third and last hitting JFK. IIRC, the SBT was already formulated before the Tague wounding became known to WC associate counsel investigators so it would not have affected the timeline of the shots because it  was already known they couldn't account for where the bullet that first hit JFK went. So it still would have gone first shot hit both JFK and JBC, second shot missed, third shot hit JFK thus the 4.8 to 5.6 second timeline became moot from the outset of the WR becoming public. Years of experiments trying to prove that three shots could have been fired to duplicate the alleged Oswald marksman feat were a waste of time and served only to mislead the public to the real circumstances that affected the correct timeline of the three shot sequence from the SN.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 29, 2019, 03:30:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The WC associate members came up with the timeline by working backwards from the obvious head shot at z313 to the Z frame that shows JFK reacting to being shot through the neck, which corresponded to z225 to the Z frame that shows the sniper had a clear LOF beginning at Z frame z210. That's 88 to 103 frames divided by 18.3fps = 4.8 to 5.3 seconds. The reason the SN was used was due to the overwhelming evidence that pointed to the SN as to were the shots came from. The addition of 2.3 seconds was added due to test performed which showed that was how long it took to operate the bolt. Tague threw a monkey wrench into the original FBI conclusion that three shots had hit their mark with the first hitting JFK, the second JBC, and the third and last hitting JFK. IIRC, the SBT was already formulated before the Tague wounding became known to WC associate counsel investigators so it would not have affected the timeline of the shots because it  was already known they couldn't account for where the bullet that first hit JFK went. So it still would have gone first shot hit both JFK and JBC, second shot missed, third shot hit JFK thus the 4.8 to 5.6 second timeline became moot from the outset of the WR becoming public. Years of experiments trying to prove that three shots could have been fired to duplicate the alleged Oswald marksman feat were a waste of time and served only to mislead the public to the real circumstances that affected the correct timeline of the three shot sequence from the SN.

     Well, let's STOP the bus at the get-go with the selection of, " a frame that shows JFK reacting to being shot through the neck....".  This is once again Guess Work.  I could get into that Visual Black Hole where the Limo is out of sight behind the Stemmons Sign, but you already DQ'd yourself right out of the box. GUESS WORK don't cut it.  This is why this case remains Unsolved after 55+ years. People cavalierly accepting as fact that which has been spoon fed to them = Uncertainty amidst Confusion.   
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 29, 2019, 08:24:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    What you are basically saying is the WC Guessed as to the time span of shots being fired. Of course this Guess Work was tied to an unrestricted sight line from their alleged LN Sniper's Nest. Wham-Bam Got You Man. You forgot to mention this entire fairy tale was Altered at least one time upon Tague popping up with his corroborated facial wound.

The WC never guessed. They didn't come to a conclusion as to the time span of the shots. They presented some possible scenarios for the shots. Two of those scenarios dealt with one of the three shots missing. If it was the second shot that missed, then the time span for the three shots was 5.6 seconds. If it was the first shot that missed, then the time span was 7 seconds or longer.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 30, 2019, 05:13:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The WC never guessed. They didn't come to a conclusion as to the time span of the shots. They presented some possible scenarios for the shots. Two of those scenarios dealt with one of the three shots missing. If it was the second shot that missed, then the time span for the three shots was 5.6 seconds. If it was the first shot that missed, then the time span was 7 seconds or longer.

           Thanks for confirming what I said by proffering that the WC presented "POSSIBLE Scenarios". Obviously, this IS "Guess Work". A Fact = Singular.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on January 30, 2019, 09:21:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
           Thanks for confirming what I said by proffering that the WC presented "POSSIBLE Scenarios". Obviously, this IS "Guess Work". A Fact = Singular.

Your claim was that the WC Guessed as to the time span of shots being fired. Presenting possible scenarios is not guessing. It's using the information they had available and applying it to come up with those scenarios.

Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 30, 2019, 09:51:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your claim was that the WC Guessed as to the time span of shots being fired. Presenting possible scenarios is not guessing. It's using the information they had available and applying it to come up with those scenarios.

            "Possible Scenarios" = Multiple Guesses. 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Bill Chapman on January 30, 2019, 10:43:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
            "Possible Scenarios" = Multiple Guesses.

Possible Scenarios = CSI = Taking Pains
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Jack Trojan on January 30, 2019, 10:50:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
*Exact* location isn?t known. C7 is a proposed inshoot. Bullet didn?t hit spine, take it you didn?t understand Thomas? explanation (which?using my superhuman precognitive powers I predict?you?ll claim you did and/or it didn?t make sense or something else that makes you out to be the smart one).

 ::) Here we go again. A closet lone nutter posing as the devil's advocate making excuses and obfuscating about anything that suggests a conspiracy. So do you believe the following x-ray, supplied by the conspirators as authentic?

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/x-ray_mb.gif)

Looks like the bullet smashed thru C7 to me. How about you?


Quote
Also only like 4 of the Parkland staff actually said the throat wound was an entry; the vast majority said their observations were conclusive enough (others did say they thought it would turn out to be one).

How many witnesses do you need, anyway? Besides, only Dr Perry's actions mattered, otherwise, looking like an entry wound to Parkland staff isn't as significant as the staff that saw the hole in the back of JFK's head.

Quote
You can?t know whether it was planted or where it was ?meant? to be so.

If the MB was not the same bullet that caused 7 wounds to JFK and Connally then it was planted. EOS.

Quote
Yeah! It?s not like the skull is harder than other bones or anything; they?re all the same. Just inconsistency after inconsistency, is obvs a conspiracy!

You mean that smashing thru C7, a rib and the radius bones leave the MB pristine yet thru the skull disintegrates a FMJ bullet? If you say so.

Quote
Strange, I don?t recall saying about Oswald or what sights he was using.

You implied it. You assume that Oswald took the shots, so why would marksman Oswald have kept a useless scope on the rifle? He would have needed to use the iron sights to pull off a 2 for 3 including a dead center head shot, that exploded in JFK's head.

Quote
You psychic now? You don?t and can?t know why he did what he did.

LOL. Of course I don't. But maybe you can show me where it says in the SS manual that you are supposed to slow down the limo to a near stop once you hear gunshots.   

Quote
I robot. Preserve the crime scene. As we all know, 99.9% of all murders gonunsolved, so this obviously crucial.

Huh? Are you actually sticking with your assertion that the FBI was so distraught that they obliterated crucial evidence so they could get the limo back into service?

Quote
You. Don?t. Know. That! Fairly certain shoddy police activity was common in Dallas, 1963. Paranoid ideation: you?re seeing malicious intent or the part of everybody for no reason. The only possible explanation is that Fritz thought exactly this at exactly this nanosecond, because he and everyone else was horrible even conspirator man!

Clutching at straws now? There is NO excuse for Fritz to have done what he did to stage the crime scene. EOS.

Quote
There were 4, only 3 exist today. And no, nutjobs moaning about shadows means nothing. Read an actual analysis by actual experts.

I figured you were channeling Lamson via PM. And sorry, but I am a photogrammetrist that has done extensive analysis on the BYPs and I am more than willing to go over all my findings that suggest that the BYPs were part of Oswald's  sheep-dipping and the DPD had a heavy hand in them, including what photo eventually got "leaked" to the public. But that photo was NOT taken with Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera and I can prove it. So exactly what does that tell you about nutjobs moaning about shadows?

Quote
Because human memory is a flawless system far superior to mere photographers, x-rays and movies of the actual gunshot.

But what if this was a conspiracy and you couldn't trust the photos, x-rays and movies?

Quote
The majority don?t. Pretty sloppy surgery too.

What majority are you talking about? And what was sloppy about straight cut surgery to cover up a bullet entrance wound?

Quote
Again, half a point.

Good thing you aren't in charge of assigning points because you aren't qualified.

Quote
Read it.

I did, which is why I doubt it.

Quote
?Logic.? I award points for any point I think was good. Humes? little fire is expedition is a genuinely good point (he lied about he reason), and he shouldn?t have been let anywhere near JFK?s body.

Without a doubt, Humes was a conspirator, which even you seem to acknowledge.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Royell Storing on January 30, 2019, 11:35:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Possible Scenarios = CSI = Taking Pains

     :D Yeah. Since when is the SBT anything remotely close to CSI?  You got: (1) Specter (2) A Stick (3) A Mock Limo Back Seat.  This qualifies as a Joke. Not CSI.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: John Iacoletti on January 31, 2019, 11:51:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The most probable scenario is that the guy who used, or was referred to as Leon Oswald by Leopoldo was using Leon Oswald as a cover. Another interesting case of a coincidence being turned into conspiracy involving anti-Castro Cubans.

Did he also just "coincidentally" look like Lee Oswald?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 01, 2019, 12:33:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did he also just "coincidentally" look like Lee Oswald?

Isn't it strange that it was the APPEARANCE ( the image) that Odio saw on TV that caused her near hysteria..... She saw the image on TV and recognized Lee Oswald as the man who had been to her apartment.....  But on the other hand several witnesses in Mexico City were just as certain that It was Lee Oswald they had seen in M C.

No wonder Hoover was trying to verify the voice.....Or at least he made the pretense ( or create confusion) of trying to determine if it was Oswald's voice.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Jon Banks on February 01, 2019, 01:55:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Silvia Odio never said Lee, she  said "Leon Oswald". That was probably the war name used by the third guy. She remembers one of the guys used Leopoldo but doesn't remember the name used by the other guy, or if he even used a name. These guys supposedly came from New Orleans and the Lee Oswald story was not a secret. The most probable scenario is that the guy who used, or was referred to as Leon Oswald by Leopoldo was using Leon Oswald as a cover. Another interesting case of a coincidence being turned into conspiracy involving anti-Castro Cubans.

The Odio events happened around the time Oswald is believed to have been traveling from New Orleans to Houston.

We don?t know ?how? Oswald traveled from New Orleans to Houston before going to Mexico.

It?s assumed that he rode a bus but there?s no evidence of that.

It?s plausible that Oswald traveled with anti-Castro Cubans (or Cuban spies posing as anti-Castro) from New Orleans to Texas.

Cuba?s spy network had infiltrated several anti-Castro groups by the early 1960s (hence the failure of the BoP and every plot to kill Castro).
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 01, 2019, 04:37:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Odio events happened around the time Oswald is believed to have been traveling from New Orleans to Houston.

We don?t know ?how? Oswald traveled from New Orleans to Houston before going to Mexico.

It?s assumed that he rode a bus but there?s no evidence of that.

It?s plausible that Oswald traveled with anti-Castro Cubans (or Cuban spies posing as anti-Castro) from New Orleans to Texas.

Cuba?s spy network had infiltrated several anti-Castro groups by the early 1960s (hence the failure of the BoP and every plot to kill Castro).

Cuba?s spy network had infiltrated several anti-Castro groups by the early 1960s (hence the failure of the BoP and every plot to kill Castro).

The Bay OF Pigs ( Operation Zapata) was no secret.... Stories of the CIA run operation appeared in many US newspapers  weeks before April 15.....And In a radio broadcast briefing JFK had clearly told the Cuban "Freedom Fighters" that they should not expect any US military involvement in active support of their operation. 

 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Jon Banks on February 01, 2019, 09:08:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Cuba?s spy network had infiltrated several anti-Castro groups by the early 1960s (hence the failure of the BoP and every plot to kill Castro).

The Bay OF Pigs ( Operation Zapata) was no secret.... Stories of the CIA run operation appeared in many US newspapers  weeks before April 15.....And In a radio broadcast briefing JFK had clearly told the Cuban "Freedom Fighters" that they should not expect any US military involvement in active support of their operation.

That may be true as well but the Cubans had an extensive and effective spy network. They were trained in espionage by the Soviets...
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 01, 2019, 10:06:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That may be true as well but the Cubans had an extensive and effective spy network. They were trained in espionage by the Soviets...

"They were trained in espionage by the Soviets"...

That's true Jon,...  And isn't it ironic that those Castro agents got some of their training by Lee Oswald, .... in Minsk.   He knew that he was teaching the young Russian and Cuban spies how to talk like a hip American....He'd been authorized by his American intel agency to teach the spies "Americanese"    Ya dig? Just as he been told it was OK to give the Russians "secret" info about the U-2.  ( because the CIA were aware that the Russians already knew those  "secrets")

Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 04, 2019, 09:38:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Odio events happened around the time Oswald is believed to have been traveling from New Orleans to Houston.

We don?t know ?how? Oswald traveled from New Orleans to Houston before going to Mexico.

It?s assumed that he rode a bus but there?s no evidence of that.

It?s plausible that Oswald traveled with anti-Castro Cubans (or Cuban spies posing as anti-Castro) from New Orleans to Texas.

Cuba?s spy network had infiltrated several anti-Castro groups by the early 1960s (hence the failure of the BoP and every plot to kill Castro).

Is there any corroboration for Odio's claim?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 04, 2019, 11:29:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Is there any corroboration for Odio's claim?

Her sister, Annie.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 05, 2019, 03:22:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Her sister, Annie.

The fact that she had a sister named Annie is corroboration of her claim?? ??? Or did Annie say something that corroborated her claim? If so, what?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on February 05, 2019, 06:24:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Odio events happened around the time Oswald is believed to have been traveling from New Orleans to Houston.

We don?t know ?how? Oswald traveled from New Orleans to Houston before going to Mexico.

It?s assumed that he rode a bus but there?s no evidence of that.

It?s plausible that Oswald traveled with anti-Castro Cubans (or Cuban spies posing as anti-Castro) from New Orleans to Texas.

Cuba?s spy network had infiltrated several anti-Castro groups by the early 1960s (hence the failure of the BoP and every plot to kill Castro).
In one account I've read (offhand I can't find it) Sylvia said she told her father, Amador, about the incident and related how the individuals said they knew him (the individuals said they were members of JURE, a socialist/leftist anti-Castro group). He denied knowing them. She also said they gave details that her father said were only known to him or to the Cuban agents who had tortured him into revealing. Amador and his wife, Sylvia's parents, had been arrested for being connected to one of the plots to kill Castro (it was the "bazooka" plot that involved Antonio Veciana).

If true then how did these individuals know about Amador and his activity IF he had only revealed them to Cuban agents? If the meeting happened; and if Sylvia's account is true. Lots of "ifs" in this story.

Added: Some of the above was mentioned by Sylvia in her WC testimony.

Mrs. ODIO. Before you start, let me give you a letter of my father's which he wrote me from prison. You can have it. It was very funny, because at the time he wrote it, the FBI incident happened a week later. I told my father this man had been in my house and he introduced himself as your friend; and he wrote me back in December telling me that such people were not his friends, and he said not to receive anybody in my house, and not any of them were his friends, and he didn't know those people. At the time I did give the names of one or two, and he wrote back, "I actually don't know who they are."

And this:
Mrs. ODIO. ...[T]hey told me they were members of JURE, and were trying to let me have them come into the house. When I said no, one of them said, "We are very good friends of your father." This struck me, because I didn't think my father could have such kind of friends, unless he knew them from anti-Castro activities. He gave me so many details about where they saw my father and what activities he was in. I mean, they gave me almost incredible details about things that somebody who knows him really would or that somebody informed well knows. And after a little while, after they mentioned my father, they started talking about the American.

Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 05, 2019, 06:50:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In one account I've read (offhand I can't find it) Sylvia said she told her father, Amador, about the incident and related how the individuals said they knew him (the individuals said they were members of JURE, a socialist/leftist anti-Castro group). He denied knowing them. She also said they gave details that her father said were only known to him or to the Cuban agents who had tortured him into revealing. Amador and his wife, Sylvia's parents, had been arrested for being connected to one of the plots to kill Castro (it was the "bazooka" plot that involved Antonio Veciana).

If true then how did these individuals know about Amador and his activity IF he had only revealed them to Cuban agents? If the meeting happened; and if Sylvia's account is true. Lots of "ifs" in this story.

If true then how did these individuals know about Amador and his activity IF he had only revealed them to Cuban agents?


I do believe that you've answered your own question....  The men were Castro's agents.....   
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 05, 2019, 11:21:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The fact that she had a sister named Annie is corroboration of her claim?? ??? Or did Annie say something that corroborated her claim? If so, what?

Are you deliberately being obtuse?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=398 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=398)
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 05, 2019, 11:24:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you deliberately being obtuse?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=398 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=398)

No,..... Obtuseness comes naturally to Tim.....
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 06, 2019, 12:01:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you deliberately being obtuse?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=398 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=398)

<a href="http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Odio.htm">we don?t have two genuinely independent identifications of Oswald at the Odio apartment</a>

Annie's telling of it isn't much of a corroboration. The author of that piece explains why. In short, she was led to the identification that she gave by her sister.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 06, 2019, 04:32:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
<a href="http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Odio.htm">we don?t have two genuinely independent identifications of Oswald at the Odio apartment</a>

Annie's telling of it isn't much of a corroboration. The author of that piece explains why. In short, she was led to the identification that she gave by her sister.

McAdams....LOL.

If Annie Odio's identification is "shaky", then Helen Markham's and Howard Brennan's sure as hell are.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on February 07, 2019, 12:23:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Odio events happened around the time Oswald is believed to have been traveling from New Orleans to Houston.

We don?t know ?how? Oswald traveled from New Orleans to Houston before going to Mexico.

It?s assumed that he rode a bus but there?s no evidence of that.

It?s plausible that Oswald traveled with anti-Castro Cubans (or Cuban spies posing as anti-Castro) from New Orleans to Texas.

Cuba?s spy network had infiltrated several anti-Castro groups by the early 1960s (hence the failure of the BoP and every plot to kill Castro).

Silvia Odio said "Leopoldo" a guy possibly named Angelo, and a guy identified to her by Leopoldo as "Leon Oswald" stopped by her apartment around 9:00PM the 26th or the 27th of Sept, 1963. Oswald was already on his way from Houston to Laredo, Texas aboard Continental Trailways bus 5133 by 2:35AM on the 26th so Oswald could not have been at Silvia Odio's apartment on the dates she gave. It's true there's no paper trail that has Oswald leaving New Orleans for Houston but there is evidence that Oswald placed a telephone call to the Twiford's in Houston on the night of the 25th and this would coincide with the scheduled Continental Trailways bus leaving from NO at 12:30 PM on the 25th and arriving in Houston at 10:50 PM that night.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on February 07, 2019, 12:26:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"They were trained in espionage by the Soviets"...

That's true Jon,...  And isn't it ironic that those Castro agents got some of their training by Lee Oswald, .... in Minsk.   He knew that he was teaching the young Russian and Cuban spies how to talk like a hip American....He'd been authorized by his American intel agency to teach the spies "Americanese"    Ya dig? Just as he been told it was OK to give the Russians "secret" info about the U-2.  ( because the CIA were aware that the Russians already knew those  "secrets")

Yeah, Jon. Ian Fleming based his 007 spy novels on Lee Oswald. ::)
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on February 07, 2019, 12:36:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In one account I've read (offhand I can't find it) Sylvia said she told her father, Amador, about the incident and related how the individuals said they knew him (the individuals said they were members of JURE, a socialist/leftist anti-Castro group). He denied knowing them. She also said they gave details that her father said were only known to him or to the Cuban agents who had tortured him into revealing. Amador and his wife, Sylvia's parents, had been arrested for being connected to one of the plots to kill Castro (it was the "bazooka" plot that involved Antonio Veciana).

If true then how did these individuals know about Amador and his activity IF he had only revealed them to Cuban agents? If the meeting happened; and if Sylvia's account is true. Lots of "ifs" in this story.

Added: Some of the above was mentioned by Sylvia in her WC testimony.

Mrs. ODIO. Before you start, let me give you a letter of my father's which he wrote me from prison. You can have it. It was very funny, because at the time he wrote it, the FBI incident happened a week later. I told my father this man had been in my house and he introduced himself as your friend; and he wrote me back in December telling me that such people were not his friends, and he said not to receive anybody in my house, and not any of them were his friends, and he didn't know those people. At the time I did give the names of one or two, and he wrote back, "I actually don't know who they are."

And this:
Mrs. ODIO. ...[T]hey told me they were members of JURE, and were trying to let me have them come into the house. When I said no, one of them said, "We are very good friends of your father." This struck me, because I didn't think my father could have such kind of friends, unless he knew them from anti-Castro activities. He gave me so many details about where they saw my father and what activities he was in. I mean, they gave me almost incredible details about things that somebody who knows him really would or that somebody informed well knows. And after a little while, after they mentioned my father, they started talking about the American.

That's all  BS:, Steve. If the English translation of Amador Odio  letter from the Cuban prison to his children is correct he only mentioned of one guy that went to Silvia's apartment and to find out his name. Silvia's WC account is wrong. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=709&tab=page
  (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=709&tab=page)
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 07, 2019, 01:50:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Silvia Odio said "Leopoldo" a guy possibly named Angelo, and a guy identified to her by Leopoldo as "Leon Oswald" stopped by her apartment around 9:00PM the 26th or the 27th of Sept, 1963. Oswald was already on his way from Houston to Laredo, Texas aboard Continental Trailways bus 5133 by 2:35AM on the 26th so Oswald could not have been at Silvia Odio's apartment on the dates she gave.

That's easy for you to say.  I could just as easily claim that Oswald was at Odio's apartment on the 26th or 27th, so he couldn't possibly have been on a Continental Trailways bus on that date.  Why are the McFarlands automatically more reliable than the Odios?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 07, 2019, 01:52:55 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's all  BS:, Steve. If the English translation of Amador Odio  letter from the Cuban prison to his children is correct he only mentioned of one guy that went to Silvia's apartment and to find out his name. Silvia's WC account is wrong.

Where does Amador's letter say anything about anyone coming to her apartment or when or how many?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on February 08, 2019, 10:24:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's easy for you to say.  I could just as easily claim that Oswald was at Odio's apartment on the 26th or 27th, so he couldn't possibly have been on a Continental Trailways bus on that date.  Why are the McFarlands automatically more reliable than the Odios?

I'll tell you what's easy, JohnI. It's playing the role of Doubting Thomas/Devil's Advocate. The McFarland's have corroborating evidence while Silvia Odio only has her sister's alleged support of someone who looked like LHO was at her house. The Mexican Tourist Visa had Oswald entering Nuevo Laredo, Mexico time stamped on Sept 26, 1963. There's the additional paper trail and witness evidence that places Oswald in MC from Sept 26 - Oct 3. Nothing else backs Silvia's story. Even the alleged witnesses that she claims she told of the incident cast doubts on her claims. Father McKann  told SSA that Silvia told him that Eugenio (war name for a JURE member) was one of the men that came to visit her along with Oswald. Silvia denies this and claims Father McKann just got the names confused. Odio claims that she told both her psychiatrist Dr. Einspruch and a friend that three men had come to visit her before the assassination. Both deny this story. In fact, her friend Mrs. Connell said that Silvia told her after the assassination that she had met Oswald at anti-Castro meetings. Silvia denied this, and here's the kicker. Antonio Alentado was one of the JURE leaders in Dallas and it would have only been natural that if some guys had come to see Silvia as members of JURE she would have notified Alentado. She said she had intended to but .......forgot  :'(  Plus, as has already been stated Silvia said she told her father Amador that one of the men (plural) was Leopoldo when the fact is that Amador asked Silvia not to trust anyone until she got the guys name. Amador also refers ro the singular instead of the plural as to the amigo. No reference is made by Amador to more than one person having visited Silvia. So, she lied to Liebler!
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on February 08, 2019, 10:31:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Where does Amador's letter say anything about anyone coming to her apartment or when or how many?

Read the letter. The link has been provided. In fact the most pertinent part has been underlined. Couldn't make it any easier. Besides the letter there's Silvia Odio's testimony.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on February 09, 2019, 04:24:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Read the letter. The link has been provided. In fact the most pertinent part has been underlined. Couldn't make it any easier. Besides the letter there's Silvia Odio's testimony.
Thanks for the link to the letter. I should have read it instead of relying on Odio's account of it.

There are several problems with her account with the main one being, as you indicate, the timeline. We're not sure how Oswald got to Houston but the evidence indicates that he was there on 26th. He arrived in Mexico City on the 27th after a 24 hour bus ride; so when exactly did he make this side trip to Odio's? And why? He was headed to the Cuban consulate after having spent most of the summer preparing his pro-Castro resume. What's the purpose in this trip?

Moreover Odio didn't tell the FBI or government about this encounter. She casually told a friend about it who then informed the FBI what Odio told her. That's really odd especially if, as Odio claimed, after seeing Oswald on television she passed out in an emotional shock or nervous breakdown.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 09, 2019, 09:42:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'll tell you what's easy, JohnI. It's playing the role of Doubting Thomas/Devil's Advocate. The McFarland's have corroborating evidence while Silvia Odio only has her sister's alleged support of someone who looked like LHO was at her house. The Mexican Tourist Visa had Oswald entering Nuevo Laredo, Mexico time stamped on Sept 26, 1963. There's the additional paper trail and witness evidence that places Oswald in MC from Sept 26 - Oct 3. Nothing else backs Silvia's story. Even the alleged witnesses that she claims she told of the incident cast doubts on her claims. Father McKann  told SSA that Silvia told him that Eugenio (war name for a JURE member) was one of the men that came to visit her along with Oswald. Silvia denies this and claims Father McKann just got the names confused. Odio claims that she told both her psychiatrist Dr. Einspruch and a friend that three men had come to visit her before the assassination. Both deny this story. In fact, her friend Mrs. Connell said that Silvia told her after the assassination that she had met Oswald at anti-Castro meetings. Silvia denied this, and here's the kicker. Antonio Alentado was one of the JURE leaders in Dallas and it would have only been natural that if some guys had come to see Silvia as members of JURE she would have notified Alentado. She said she had intended to but .......forgot  :'(  Plus, as has already been stated Silvia said she told her father Amador that one of the men (plural) was Leopoldo when the fact is that Amador asked Silvia not to trust anyone until she got the guys name. Amador also refers ro the singular instead of the plural as to the amigo. No reference is made by Amador to more than one person having visited Silvia. So, she lied to Liebler!

I've read Silvia Odio's testimony and I believe you're a bit confused ( which is understandable because she was also a bit confused)   

Silvia said she told her father Amador that one of the men (plural) was Leopoldo when the fact is that Amador asked Silvia not to trust anyone until she got the guys name.
The way I read that is Silvia had told her father that the man used his "war name" Leopoldo ....Her father didn't recognize that name and cautioned Silvia ...If the man returned to be sure to get his full name.


Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on February 12, 2019, 02:37:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thanks for the link to the letter. I should have read it instead of relying on Odio's account of it.

There are several problems with her account with the main one being, as you indicate, the timeline. We're not sure how Oswald got to Houston but the evidence indicates that he was there on 26th. He arrived in Mexico City on the 27th after a 24 hour bus ride; so when exactly did he make this side trip to Odio's? And why? He was headed to the Cuban consulate after having spent most of the summer preparing his pro-Castro resume. What's the purpose in this trip?

Moreover Odio didn't tell the FBI or government about this encounter. She casually told a friend about it who then informed the FBI what Odio told her. That's really odd especially if, as Odio claimed, after seeing Oswald on television she passed out in an emotional shock or nervous breakdown.


I also fell into the trap of taking Odio's testimony at face value until I read Amador's letter. That just about convinced me that Silvia was just not a trustworthy witness and her account has to be treated with a generous portion of salt.

IMHO, Oswald didn't make the trip to Dallas. The evidence against him being at Odio's outweighs Odio's troubled testimony. Oswald was hoping to be in Cuba via Mexico and Castro's G-2 had to have assumed the CIA would have known Oswald had again defected so what use could Oswald pose for Castro other than as a propaganda tool; US Marine defects again from imperialist Yankees sort of stuff.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on February 12, 2019, 02:46:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've read Silvia Odio's testimony and I believe you're a bit confused ( which is understandable because she was also a bit confused)   

Silvia said she told her father Amador that one of the men (plural) was Leopoldo when the fact is that Amador asked Silvia not to trust anyone until she got the guys name.
The way I read that is Silvia had told her father that the man used his "war name" Leopoldo ....Her father didn't recognize that name and cautioned Silvia ...If the man returned to be sure to get his full name.

That is just patently stupid. As a member of JURE Silvia would never reveal the "war name" in a letter guaranteed to be intercepted by Castro authorities. IMHO, what Amador meant was to caution Silvia not to trust anyone she didn't know claiming to be from JURE until she did get to know the person and could be trusted with whatever the situation dictated.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 12, 2019, 03:21:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is just patently stupid. As a member of JURE Silvia would never reveal the "war name" in a letter guaranteed to be intercepted by Castro authorities. IMHO, what Amador meant was to caution Silvia not to trust anyone she didn't know claiming to be from JURE until she did get to know the person and could be trusted with whatever the situation dictated.

A war name was an alias.... Leopoldo was an alias... So why wouldn't Silvia have told her father that a man named "Leopoldo" had knocked on her door??
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on February 12, 2019, 07:09:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A war name was an alias.... Leopoldo was an alias... So why wouldn't Silvia have told her father that a man named "Leopoldo" had knocked on her door??

Because you don't want to give the enemy any information that could be used against you.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on February 12, 2019, 07:31:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A war name was an alias.... Leopoldo was an alias... So why wouldn't Silvia have told her father that a man named "Leopoldo" had knocked on her door??
Question: Amador wrote the letter while he was still in prison. Do you think the Cuban authorities would let him send a letter, from prison, to Silvia exposing their infiltration (or attempted infiltration) of the JURE in this alleged meeting/event?

If these men were Cuban agents I doubt that the Cuban authorities holding Amador would let him give Silvia any evidence exposing them.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 12, 2019, 09:39:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Question: Amador wrote the letter while he was still in prison. Do you think the Cuban authorities would let him send a letter, from prison, to Silvia exposing their infiltration (or attempted infiltration) of the JURE in this alleged meeting/event?

If these men were Cuban agents I doubt that the Cuban authorities holding Amador would let him give Silvia any evidence exposing them.


I donno.... Silvia's father simply told her to be careful.... That's something any father would do....  It doesn't specify that the men might be Castro's agents. 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 13, 2019, 12:05:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Read the letter. The link has been provided. In fact the most pertinent part has been underlined. Couldn't make it any easier. Besides the letter there's Silvia Odio's testimony.

I did read the letter.  Assuming that it has been translated accurately, where does it say anything about anyone coming to her apartment or when or how many?

Here's what it actually says:

"Tell me who this is who says he is my friend -- be careful, I do not have any friend who might be here, through Dallas, so reject his friendship until you give me his name. You are alone, without men to protect you and you can be deceived."

So I'll ask again:  where does it say anything about anyone coming to her apartment or when or how many?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on February 15, 2019, 08:06:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I did read the letter.  Assuming that it has been translated accurately, where does it say anything about anyone coming to her apartment or when or how many?

Here's what it actually says:

"Tell me who this is who says he is my friend -- be careful, I do not have any friend who might be here, through Dallas, so reject his friendship until you give me his name. You are alone, without men to protect you and you can be deceived."

So I'll ask again:  where does it say anything about anyone coming to her apartment or when or how many?

Amador refers to a single person so that would be one. When can only be the dates Silvia claims the 26th or 27th of September, 1963. Where can only be where Silvia lived.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 19, 2019, 08:00:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Amador refers to a single person so that would be one. When can only be the dates Silvia claims the 26th or 27th of September, 1963. Where can only be where Silvia lived.

Since Amador doesn't mention anything about her apartment or a date in the letter, how do you know the "friend" refers to that incident at all?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on February 20, 2019, 12:37:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Since Amador doesn't mention anything about her apartment or a date in the letter, how do you know the "friend" refers to that incident at all?

Because Silvia said so in her testimony. She told Leopoldo that she was going to write to her father about them and.....

Mrs. ODIO. This first opinion that I mentioned to my psychiatrist, I did not give it a second thought. I forgot to tell Alentado about it; except 3 days later I wrote to my father after they came, and mentioned the fact that the two men had called themselves friends of his. And later in December, because the letter takes a long time to get here, he writes me back, "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them."
Mr. LIEBELER. You have already given us a copy of the letter that you received from your father in which he told you that these people were not his friends, and told you not to get involved with them?
Mrs. ODIO. That's right.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell your father the names of these men when you wrote to him?
Mrs. ODIO. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your father did not, however, mention their names in his letter, did he?
Mrs. ODIO. He mentioned their war names, because this was the only thing I knew. I probably put an Americano came too, two Cubans with an American, and I gave the names of the Cubans.

Add to that Silvia lived in an apartment.

Mrs. ODIO. The American was in the middle. They were leaning against the staircase...???.

Mr. LIEBELER. You mentioned when your sister saw Oswald's picture on television that she almost passed out. Did she recognize him, do you know, as the man that had been in the apartment?
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 20, 2019, 05:00:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Because Silvia said so in her testimony. She told Leopoldo that she was going to write to her father about them and.....

Mrs. ODIO. This first opinion that I mentioned to my psychiatrist, I did not give it a second thought. I forgot to tell Alentado about it; except 3 days later I wrote to my father after they came, and mentioned the fact that the two men had called themselves friends of his. And later in December, because the letter takes a long time to get here, he writes me back, "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them."

Where in this particular letter (Odio Ex.1) does Amador say "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them."?  Doesn't sound like he's referring to the same incident at all.

Quote
Mr. LIEBELER. Your father did not, however, mention their names in his letter, did he?
Mrs. ODIO. He mentioned their war names, because this was the only thing I knew. I probably put an Americano came too, two Cubans with an American, and I gave the names of the Cubans.

Ok, where in this particular letter are "war names" mentioned?

Quote
Add to that Silvia lived in an apartment.

Amador's letter makes no reference to "this who says he is my friend" meeting her at her apartment.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on February 20, 2019, 08:38:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Where in this particular letter (Odio Ex.1) does Amador say "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them."?  Doesn't sound like he's referring to the same incident at all.

Ok, where in this particular letter are "war names" mentioned?

Amador's letter makes no reference to "this who says he is my friend" meeting her at her apartment.

Where in this particular letter (Odio Ex.1) does Amador say "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them."?  Doesn't sound like he's referring to the same incident at all.
Ok, where in this particular letter are "war names" mentioned?

This is from Silvia Odio's testimony.  The purpose of which is to show you that Silvia and Amador are referring to the same incident. As a corollary to the exchange I found that Silvia lied to Liebler when she testified that she mentioned two men and possibly even Oswald to Amador in her letter. This meeting ocurred in Silvia's apartment and it does not require confirmation by Amador.



Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 20, 2019, 09:23:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Where in this particular letter (Odio Ex.1) does Amador say "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them."?  Doesn't sound like he's referring to the same incident at all.
Ok, where in this particular letter are "war names" mentioned?

This is from Silvia Odio's testimony.  The purpose of which is to show you that Silvia and Amador are referring to the same incident. As a corollary to the exchange I found that Silvia lied to Liebler when she testified that she mentioned two men and possibly even Oswald to Amador in her letter. This meeting ocurred in Silvia's apartment and it does not require confirmation by Amador.

That's a circular argument.  There is nothing in Amador's letter that would indicate that he is talking about this same incident.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on February 21, 2019, 02:21:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's a circular argument.  There is nothing in Amador's letter that would indicate that he is talking about this same incident.

Circular argument! What the heck are you talking about? What I've been doing is to patiently point out that you can't tell the difference between what Silvia Odio testified to and what Amador wrote in his letter. For the last time I'll try to make it as clear as possible and quote from Silvia Odio's testimony that proves Amador was replying to the so called "Odio Incident"., i.e the 26th or 27th Sept visit by men claiming to be his friends; (Leopoldo, the scrubby Mexican looking guy and Leon Oswald added for a little extra flavor). Just so that we're clear, while Silvia claims that she mentioned at least two individuals Amador only refers to one. That's just one of the lies Silvia told Liebler.

Mrs. ODIO. This first opinion that I mentioned to my psychiatrist, I did not give it a second thought. I forgot to tell Alentado about it; except 3 days later I wrote to my father after they came, and mentioned the fact that the two men had called themselves friends of his. And later in December, because the letter takes a long time to get here, he writes me back, "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them."

This is what Amador actually wrote;

"Tell me who this is who says he is my friend -- be careful, I do not have any friend who might be here, through Dallas, so reject his friendship until you give me his name. You are alone, without men to protect you and you can be deceived."

If it was a different incident why would Silvia bring the letter to the interview as proof of this alleged incident (I say alleged because I'm beginning to doubt that it even ocurred)?



Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 21, 2019, 07:36:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mrs. ODIO. This first opinion that I mentioned to my psychiatrist, I did not give it a second thought. I forgot to tell Alentado about it; except 3 days later I wrote to my father after they came, and mentioned the fact that the two men had called themselves friends of his. And later in December, because the letter takes a long time to get here, he writes me back, "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them."

Given that this letter doesn't say "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them" or anything even remotely similar to that, it must not be the same letter she's talking about.

I'm asking you how you know that Amador is talking about anybody coming to Silvia's apartment on the 26th or 27th of September, 1963 (since the letter says nothing about men or apartment, or 26th or 27th of September, 1963, or war names, or JURE, or Cuban underground), and your only answer is that he must be talking about that because she brought the letter to the interview.  So what?  That tells you nothing about what Amador was referring to.  Maybe she just brought the wrong letter.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on February 22, 2019, 01:26:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Given that this letter doesn't say "I do not know any of these men. Do not get involved with any of them" or anything even remotely similar to that, it must not be the same letter she's talking about.

I'm asking you how you know that Amador is talking about anybody coming to Silvia's apartment on the 26th or 27th of September, 1963 (since the letter says nothing about men or apartment, or 26th or 27th of September, 1963, or war names, or JURE, or Cuban underground), and your only answer is that he must be talking about that because she brought the letter to the interview.  So what?  That tells you nothing about what Amador was referring to.  Maybe she just brought the wrong letter.

Brought the wrong letter  ::) That wouldn't bode well for Silvia Odio's credibility if that was the case as it would further add to the doubts about her emotional instability. The letter and translation was placed as evidence and made a Commission exhibit for anyone to see. It was there during the HSCA hearings and available to uber CTer Gaeton Fonzi who made Odio one of his major star witnesses for the HSCA and a major character in his book The Last Investigation. You think they wouldn't have noticed it was the wrong letter? IMHO, too much reliance was placed on Silvia's testimony about the contents of the letter and not enough on what Amador actually wrote. Silvia Odio's credibility as a witness has suffered one more hit and should join Antonio Veciana in the "I met Lee Harvey Oswald" fantasy club.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 26, 2019, 08:38:28 PM
Maybe they should have subpeonaed Amador if they wanted to know what his letter meant.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.  You want Odio to be both credible and not credible at the same time.

Amador's letter still says nothing about men or apartment, or 26th or 27th of September, 1963, or war names, or JURE, or Cuban underground.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Oscar Navarro on February 27, 2019, 09:36:18 AM
Amador was limited to writing everything he could on just one side of the letter and Silvia's introduction of this letter as proof of her allegation should suffice even the most ardent critic that both Amador and Silvia are referring to the same incident. But you're not an ardent critic but a court jester whose only purpose is to entertain yourself with ridiculous remarks. I'm done with you. So long, sucker.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Brent Moldenhauer on February 27, 2019, 11:04:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
14cm x 14cm location measured on the actual body
Yet you jump on the (generic) drawing itself. Again.

Kennedy's haberdashery, post shots: A bunch of problems for CTers unable to do the math.

No one suggests an autopsy facesheet should be absolutely nailed on in terms of accuracy but it should be at least anatomically correct. How hard would it have been for a qualified pathologist to put the dot depicting the non fatal wound slightly higher up to somewhere approximating where the the autopsy report states the wound was?

Up until publication of the Warren Report there was no mention of a wound in the base of JFKs neck. The holes in JFKs shirt and jacket are consistent with the positioning of the wound in the face sheet. Then there is the death certificate drawn up by Burkley that puts the wound at the 3rd thoracic vertabrae. The recreation carried out by Arlen Specter show a mark on the JFK stand in at this point also. At the autopsy all the talk is of a wound in the shoulder or the soft part beneath the shoulder. SSA Glenn Bennett said he saw the President get hit in the back about 4 inches below the collar. SSA Clint Hill's statement said he examined the body after the autopsy and, "I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column"

Now there is a lot of good evidence and testimony to suggest that the wound in JFks rear was not in the base of the neck. Could one person make a mistake? Of course they could. Could they all be wrong despite pretty much corroborating each other? Highly unlikely.

I wonder why the holes in Connally's garments line up where his wounds are but one of the best tailored men in the world had a jacket and shirt that would ride up 5 inches
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Ray Mitcham on February 27, 2019, 01:59:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No one suggests an autopsy facesheet should be absolutely nailed on in terms of accuracy but it should be at least anatomically correct. How hard would it have been for a qualified pathologist to put the dot depicting the non fatal wound slightly higher up to somewhere approximating where the the autopsy report states the wound was?

Up until publication of the Warren Report there was no mention of a wound in the base of JFKs neck. The holes in JFKs shirt and jacket are consistent with the positioning of the wound in the face sheet. Then there is the death certificate drawn up by Burkley that puts the wound at the 3rd thoracic vertabrae. The recreation carried out by Arlen Specter show a mark on the JFK stand in at this point also. At the autopsy all the talk is of a wound in the shoulder or the soft part beneath the shoulder. SSA Glenn Bennett said he saw the President get hit in the back about 4 inches below the collar. SSA Clint Hill's statement said he examined the body after the autopsy and, "I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column"

Now there is a lot of good evidence and testimony to suggest that the wound in JFks rear was not in the base of the neck. Could one person make a mistake? Of course they could. Could they all be wrong despite pretty much corroborating each other? Highly unlikely.

I wonder why the holes in Connally's garments line up where his wounds are but one of the best tailored men in the world had a jacket and shirt that would ride up 5 inches

Magic clothes to match the magic bullet, Brent.
Title: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Brian Doyle on February 27, 2019, 03:04:41 PM

Magic forums to match magic members and research...
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Brent Moldenhauer on February 27, 2019, 04:31:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Magic forums to match magic members and research...

Can you find anything at all prior to the publication of the Warren Report that suggests the wound in JFKs torso was in the neck/base of the neck/lower neck?

Is there any film or photo taken in or around the time of the shots in Dealey Plaza that shows JFKs jacker and shirt bunched right up?

All the evidence and testimony points to a wound lower in the back.

Unfortunately, the autopsy notes and first draft of the autopsy were destroyed coincidently just after Oswald was murdered and there would be no trial. I wonder what they contained! And just how did Humes get blood on that first draft when he was sat in his own study? Still he later said it was because it had spelling errors....OK doc. But as the jacket and shirt also had blood on them but werent burned it makes you wonder what was so special about the notes.

Even if a jacket bunched up it doesnt follow that a shirt that would be tucked in to the pants and fastened at the neck would also ride up. The holes in the shirt and jacket are just a 1/4 of an inch different different from each other. To say both garments rode up when there is no proof the shirt moved at all is quite fraudulent.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 27, 2019, 05:11:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can you find anything at all prior to the publication of the Warren Report that suggests the wound in JFKs torso was in the neck/base of the neck/lower neck?

Is there any film or photo taken in or around the time of the shots in Dealey Plaza that shows JFKs jacker and shirt bunched right up?

All the evidence and testimony points to a wound lower in the back.

Unfortunately, the autopsy notes and first draft of the autopsy were destroyed coincidently just after Oswald was murdered and there would be no trial. I wonder what they contained! And just how did Humes get blood on that first draft when he was sat in his own study? Still he later said it was because it had spelling errors....OK doc. But as the jacket and shirt also had blood on them but werent burned it makes you wonder what was so special about the notes.

Even if a jacket bunched up it doesnt follow that a shirt that would be tucked in to the pants and fastened at the neck would also ride up. The holes in the shirt and jacket are just a 1/4 of an inch different different from each other. To say both garments rode up when there is no proof the shirt moved at all is quite fraudulent.

"To say both garments rode up when there is no proof the shirt moved at all is quite fraudulent."

Welcome to the circus, Brent....  I perceive  that you're going to be an asset for our team.   ( Can you throw the Hail Mary.... or a monkey wrench into the LNer's machinery?)   
Title: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Brian Doyle on February 27, 2019, 05:26:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can you find anything at all prior to the publication of the Warren Report that suggests the wound in JFKs torso was in the neck/base of the neck/lower neck?

Is there any film or photo taken in or around the time of the shots in Dealey Plaza that shows JFKs jacker and shirt bunched right up?

All the evidence and testimony points to a wound lower in the back.

Unfortunately, the autopsy notes and first draft of the autopsy were destroyed coincidently just after Oswald was murdered and there would be no trial. I wonder what they contained! And just how did Humes get blood on that first draft when he was sat in his own study? Still he later said it was because it had spelling errors....OK doc. But as the jacket and shirt also had blood on them but werent burned it makes you wonder what was so special about the notes.

Even if a jacket bunched up it doesnt follow that a shirt that would be tucked in to the pants and fastened at the neck would also ride up. The holes in the shirt and jacket are just a 1/4 of an inch different different from each other. To say both garments rode up when there is no proof the shirt moved at all is quite fraudulent.

I avoid all this, even though valid, by sticking to the wounds Dennis David was shown by Commander Pitzer...Dennis David said he was shown what was obviously an entrance wound to the front right area of Kennedy's head...This was the entry wound to the rear exit wound...

Because research of the conspiracy evidence in the Kennedy assassination is a free for all of trolls, nuts, and crazies no one ever went to Dennis David and asked him if Pitzer discussed using remote filming equipment to remotely film autopsies? I was the only one with the detective smarts to realize that Pitzer had installed remote filming equipment in an autopsy room in order to not get in the way of autopsies...Pitzer had discussed this somewhere...What happened was, in their rush to alter the wounds, the plotters took Kennedy to an autopsy room that Pitzer had wired for remote filming...He then dutifully filmed a covert pre-autopsy designed to alter the wounds...That's the only way he could have gotten the images he showed Dennis David...

Instead of looking further in to this the dysfunctional research community does their best to ignore it...Because of this petty egotistical self-hampering the community never asked Dennis David this important question while he was still alive...

 
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 27, 2019, 06:22:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Amador was limited to writing everything he could on just one side of the letter and Silvia's introduction of this letter as proof of her allegation should suffice even the most ardent critic that both Amador and Silvia are referring to the same incident.

It's amazing how you got all that just from "Tell me who this is who says he is my friend-be careful, I do not have any friend who might be here, through Dallas, so reject his friendship until you give me his name".  Somehow this is obvious code language for 3 people coming to Silvia's apartment on a certain date and talking about recruiting for the Cuban underground.  Must have lost something in the translation...

Quote
But you're not an ardent critic but a court jester whose only purpose is to entertain yourself with ridiculous remarks. I'm done with you. So long, sucker.

In other words, you're right just because you're right, dammit!

How compelling.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 27, 2019, 07:37:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Magic clothes to match the magic bullet, Brent.

Nothing magic about a generic face sheet drawing not matching Kennedy's body.
Nothing magic about Kennedy's back brace; nor multiple photographs taken along the parade route revealing the constant bunching of Kennedy's suit coat.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 27, 2019, 07:50:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can you find anything at all prior to the publication of the Warren Report that suggests the wound in JFKs torso was in the neck/base of the neck/lower neck?

Is there any film or photo taken in or around the time of the shots in Dealey Plaza that shows JFKs jacker and shirt bunched right up?

All the evidence and testimony points to a wound lower in the back.

Unfortunately, the autopsy notes and first draft of the autopsy were destroyed coincidently just after Oswald was murdered and there would be no trial. I wonder what they contained! And just how did Humes get blood on that first draft when he was sat in his own study? Still he later said it was because it had spelling errors....OK doc. But as the jacket and shirt also had blood on them but werent burned it makes you wonder what was so special about the notes.

Even if a jacket bunched up it doesnt follow that a shirt that would be tucked in to the pants and fastened at the neck would also ride up. The holes in the shirt and jacket are just a 1/4 of an inch different different from each other. To say both garments rode up when there is no proof the shirt moved at all is quite fraudulent.

Give us a way of knowing for sure that the shirt didn't move up
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 27, 2019, 09:57:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Give us a way of knowing for sure that the shirt didn't move up

LOL.  "The shirt bunched up unless you can prove it didn't".
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 28, 2019, 02:07:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL.  "The shirt bunched up unless you can prove it didn't".

Oh yes, JFk wore tailored shirts...But some nuts insist that those custom shirts just wouldn't stay tucked in the waistband of his slacks....
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 28, 2019, 03:16:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Give us a way of knowing for sure that the shirt didn't move up

"Ok, the jacket was bunched up...but the shirt wasn't." -- CT logic
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Brent Moldenhauer on February 28, 2019, 09:15:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nothing magic about a generic face sheet drawing not matching Kennedy's body.
Nothing magic about Kennedy's back brace; nor multiple photographs taken along the parade route revealing the constant bunching of Kennedy's suit coat.

Its not what the face sheet doesnt match that is the issue. It pretty much matches everything but the autopsy report. When a qualified pathologist who must be very familiar with the human anatomy cannot put a dot in the lower neck instead of in the back but places where all the other evidence puts it, does that not seem strange?

Can you show me a photograph in Dealey Plaza that shows JFKs shirt and jacket bunching up to the extent that holes in both garments, approx 5 and a half inches down from the collar, could cause a wound in the lower neck?

Just how does a shirt that is tucked in to the pants, and fastened at the collar, ride up to that extent? We are not talking about someone who put on his brothers hand me down shirt, we are talking about a man who had his clothes made to measure. I have tried it and sat in a car, with off the peg jacket and shirts, some too bag, some just right and some too small, and I cannot replicate it. 2 inches is the absolute best I could do and that was by deliberately sliding down in the seat.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Ray Mitcham on February 28, 2019, 09:39:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Ok, the jacket was bunched up...but the shirt wasn't." -- CT logic

"O.K. The jacket bunched up, therefore the shirt must have bunched up as well" LN logic.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Duncan MacRae on February 28, 2019, 11:31:19 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can you show me a photograph in Dealey Plaza that shows JFKs shirt and jacket bunching up to the extent that holes in both garments, approx 5 and a half inches down from the collar, could cause a wound in the lower neck?
         
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/bunchcrop.gif)

And don't forget the back brace which he was wearing that day.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/72/98/2d/72982d794001eecea5bbdc06002f3044.jpg)
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Ray Mitcham on February 28, 2019, 11:32:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/bunchcrop.gif)

And don't forget the back brace which he was wearing that day.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/72/98/2d/72982d794001eecea5bbdc06002f3044.jpg)

Please isolate the part of the gif which shows the shirt bunched up.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Duncan MacRae on February 28, 2019, 11:41:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Please isolate the part of the gif which shows the shirt bunched up.
Unfortunately I don't have X-Ray vision, but, here's a clue as to why his shirt was bunched up which I posted on edit after you had responded with your request.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/72/98/2d/72982d794001eecea5bbdc06002f3044.jpg)
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Ray Mitcham on February 28, 2019, 11:43:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Unfortunately I don't have X-Ray vision, but, here's a clue as to why his shirt was bunched up which I posted on edit after you had responded with your request.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/72/98/2d/72982d794001eecea5bbdc06002f3044.jpg)

The photo of him in his back brace doesn't show his shirt bunching up either. So the gif doesn't show his shirt and jacket bunching up. Got it.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Duncan MacRae on February 28, 2019, 12:16:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The photo of him in his back brace doesn't show his shirt bunching up either. So the gif doesn't show his shirt and jacket bunching up. Got it.

Ok Ray, you know best  ::) Best regards to Waldo  ;D

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Jacketbunched.png)
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Ray Mitcham on February 28, 2019, 12:29:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok Ray, you know best  ::) Best regards to Waldo  ;D

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Jacketbunched.png)

Glad you agree, for once.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 28, 2019, 07:46:21 PM
CT logic: 'We didn't see it, so it didn't happen'

A favorite quote of certain CTers around here (Martin and/or Colin, I think) goes something like 'Evidence of absence is not necessarily absence of evidence' They use it all the time except in instances like this, of course.

The fact is Kennedy would not likely have worn the back brace over the shirt in pubic, and although I've seen photos of him wearing a vest, no one made mention of him wearing a vest that day afaik.

Kennedy et al went to great lengths to conceal his many infirmities, and for obvious reasons
Especially before the upcoming election, in a state where 'men are men' ::) and you better not look like a pussy, by gum.
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 28, 2019, 07:59:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
CT logic: 'We didn't see it, so it didn't happen'

A favorite quote of certain CTers around here (Martin and/or Colin, I think) goes something like 'Evidence of absence is not necessarily absence of evidence' They use it all the time except in instances like this, of course.

The fact is Kennedy would not have worn the back brace OVER the shirt in PUBLIC
Kennedy et al went to great lengths to conceal his infirmities, and for obvious reasons
Especially before the upcoming election, in a state where 'men are men' ::) and you better not look like a pussy, by gum.

in a state where 'men are men'

Thank you for revealing your jaded reasoning.....  So you subscribe to the code of "taking the bull by the horns,"  or taking whatever action that you deem right, like lynching a black man to satisfy the clamor for justice even though you know he did not rape and murder  the pretty young cheerleader .   ( That's from the state where men are men)   
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 28, 2019, 08:18:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
in a state where 'men are men'

Thank you for revealing your jaded reasoning.....  So you subscribe to the code of "taking the bull by the horns,"  or taking whatever action that you deem right, like lynching a black man to satisfy the clamor for justice even though you know he did not rape and murder  the pretty young cheerleader .   ( That's from the state where men are men)

 ???

Keep your cheerleader fantasies to yourself, Waldo

Time for your nap
And take your meds
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 28, 2019, 08:42:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
???

Keep your cheerleader fantasies to yourself, Waldo

Time for your nap
And take your meds

If you can stay focused long enough to read a book ....Read the Book "White Lies"...By Nick Davis.  It's the story of justice Texas style....The cops, the DA. and the Judge KNEW that Clarence Brandley a black janitor had not raped and murdered the pretty young cheerleader, Cheryl Fergeson, and they knew that the murderer was a "good ol white boy"   ...but they sent Brandley to death row to satisfy the clamor for justice....

PS....It's a good book for a snowy day....
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 28, 2019, 08:58:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
CT logic: 'We didn't see it, so it didn't happen'

LN logic:  "There no evidence that it happened, but trust us, it happened."
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 28, 2019, 09:01:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Its not what the face sheet doesnt match that is the issue. It pretty much matches everything but the autopsy report. When a qualified pathologist who must be very familiar with the human anatomy cannot put a dot in the lower neck instead of in the back but places where all the other evidence puts it, does that not seem strange?

#: 425534 S7/JFK Debate [POLITICS]
25-Oct-95 02:03:49
Sb: #424036-#John Lattimer
Fm: Todd Wayne Vaughan 74063,3405
To: Jean Davison 72733,3516 (X)
Jean, et. al.,

I want to jump in here with something that is new and original and may shed some light on these problems with the face sheet, namely , the diagramed location versus the measured and notated locations. In short, you can't trust the diagramed location 100%.

In preparation for my 1993 ASK appearance, I looked at Earle Rose's Lee Harvey Oswald face sheet. I compared the locations of the wounds as marked on the body drawing with the measured location noted next to the wounds on the same sheet. It was obvious that they did not match, and that the marks on the body diagram were schematic and not to scale. I prepared an exhibit, and made a slide. I did not use the slide in the presentation, but now wish that I had.

For example, the left most end of the 7 1/4 inch thoracotomy incision on Oswald's left chest is measured at 6 3/4 inches left of the midline. The right most end of a 1 1/4 inch sub-left clavian incision is measured at 2 3/4 inches left of the midline. Yet, as diagramed, they seem to be within 2 inches of each other, when they should be actually be 4 inches apart, exactly.

If that were not enough, these measured versus diagramed problems on the Oswald face sheet persist in the measurements in the vertical plane. The left end of the thoracotomy incision is measured at 17 inches down from the top of the head, while the location of a cutdown on the left arm of Oswald is measured at 16 inches down from the top of the head. Yet both are diagramed at THE SAME LEVEL, the same distance down from the top of the head.

The top of the abdominal incision is measured at 21 1/2 inches down from the top of the head, while the location of a cutdown on the right arm of Oswald is measured at 18 inches down from the top of the head. Yet both are diagramed within an inch of each other as measured down from the top of the head. They should be 3 1/2 inches apart.

And there are other similar anomalies, all of which are supported by my examination of the Oswald autopsy photographs, which I have.

I think this is significant. Anyone can check this. Please do. The Oswald face sheet can be found at page 286 of Dallas Justice by Melvin Belli (David McKay Company, New York, 1964) But once done, and once the errors are realized and appreciated, I don't see how anyone can come away relying on the Boswell face sheet at face value, or "face sheet" value if you will.

Todd


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/toscale.htm
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 28, 2019, 09:08:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"O.K. The jacket bunched up, therefore the shirt must have bunched up as well" LN logic.

"We have the jacket and shirt where the holes show the bullet wound in the back." -- <a href="https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,233.msg7169.html#msg7169">Ray Mitcham</a>

"Ok, the jacket was bunched up...but the shirt wasn't." -- CT logic
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 28, 2019, 09:16:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Just how does a shirt that is tucked in to the pants, and fastened at the collar, ride up to that extent? We are not talking about someone who put on his brothers hand me down shirt, we are talking about a man who had his clothes made to measure.

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/LoweJFKphoto.jpg)
Title: Re: The Fundamental Problem
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 02, 2019, 11:56:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"We have the jacket and shirt where the holes show the bullet wound in the back." -- <a href="https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,233.msg7169.html#msg7169">Ray Mitcham</a>

"Ok, the jacket was bunched up...but the shirt wasn't." -- CT logic

"OK. the jacket was bunched up therefore the shirt must have been bunched up"  LN Logic.