JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2018, 03:22:33 PM

Title: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2018, 03:22:33 PM
I borrowed this photo from another thread.

(https://preview.ibb.co/jJ7yPR/Slide350.gif) (https://ibb.co/cis9W6)

Just above the box in the window there are three cars in three lanes....

The car in the center lane seems to be in roughly the same position where JFK's limo was when the shots were fired.

How does a bullet fired from this window and travelling in a straight downward line, passing through Kennedy's back and throat, end up hitting Connally?

Any suggestions?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 04, 2018, 03:29:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I borrowed this photo from another thread.

(https://preview.ibb.co/jJ7yPR/Slide350.gif) (https://ibb.co/cis9W6)

Just above the box in the window there are three cars in three lanes....

The car in the center lane seems to be in roughly the same position where JFK's limo was when the shots were fired.

How does a bullet fired from this window and travelling in a straight downward line, passing through Kennedy's back and throat, end up hitting Connally?

Any suggestions?

I have an even more basic question.....The scar that was said to have been made by the recoil of a rifle is clearly visible on top of the box.

How could the muzzle of the rifle have been declined toward the car it the rifle was resting on that box?   

(https://preview.ibb.co/jJ7yPR/Slide350.gif) (https://ibb.co/cis9W6)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Gary Craig on February 04, 2018, 03:32:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I borrowed this photo from another thread.

(https://preview.ibb.co/jJ7yPR/Slide350.gif) (https://ibb.co/cis9W6)

Just above the box in the window there are three cars in three lanes....

The car in the center lane seems to be in roughly the same position where JFK's limo was when the shots were fired.

How does a bullet fired from this window and travelling in a straight downward line, passing through Kennedy's back and throat, end up hitting Connally?

Any suggestions?

Use a "Magic Bullet".
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 04, 2018, 07:14:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I borrowed this photo from another thread.

(https://preview.ibb.co/jJ7yPR/Slide350.gif) (https://ibb.co/cis9W6)

Just above the box in the window there are three cars in three lanes....

The car in the center lane seems to be in roughly the same position where JFK's limo was when the shots were fired.

How does a bullet fired from this window and travelling in a straight downward line, passing through Kennedy's back and throat, end up hitting Connally?

Any suggestions?




Quote
The car in the center lane seems to be in......

Instead of a very broad and typical CT guess, let's apply a little science gathered from original evidence and recreations.

The SS recreation wasn't trying to replicate the Single Bullet Fact just the view of Kennedy within the Limo from the sniper's nest but inadvertently they provided more conclusive evidence of the Single Bullet Fact!


The closest the SS came to what we now know as the Single Bullet Alignment was Z222 and we can see that Connally is virtually in the right position but a little high.

(https://s17.postimg.org/f3tm2h7r3/CE_894.jpg)

(https://s17.postimg.org/bk7ocnplr/CE_894_rifle_scope.jpg)

(https://s17.postimg.org/pdw11td33/SBF1a.gif)

Now when we look at the Zapruder perspective comparison the height differential is explained, the Limo and/or Connally stand-in that the SS used made him too high but with the appropriate Zapruder correction the alignment is perfect.

(https://s17.postimg.org/5j9zfqnlr/SBF2.gif)

And what do you know at this exact point in time when the men were precisely lined up, we can see an obvious simultaneous reaction.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pqHV1ZHUal0/WRo7Bc8dH6I/AAAAAAABL0I/3gbqoFJwHNcLEdSUbfxa898LwU5wdhVRACLcB/s1600/Z225-Z226.gif)

To keep denying the Single Bullet Fact is akin to denying the Holocaust and the Moon Landings but I guess you Kooks simply can't help yourselves.



JohnM

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Ray Mitcham on February 04, 2018, 07:21:30 PM
In the Gif above, showing the re enactment and the actual color film, Connally is even further to the right of he limo.In the photo of the reenactment thru the scope, the bullet could not have hit Connally. Placing Connally further to his right as in the actual film shows that the bullet would have been even more magic.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2018, 07:30:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



Instead of a very broad and typical CT guess, let's apply a little science gathered from original evidence and recreations.

The SS recreation wasn't trying to replicate the Single Bullet Fact just the view of Kennedy within the Limo from the sniper's nest but inadvertently they provided more conclusive evidence of the Single Bullet Fact!


The closest the SS came to what we now know as the Single Bullet Alignment was Z222 and we can see that Connally is virtually in the right position but a little high.

(https://s17.postimg.org/f3tm2h7r3/CE_894.jpg)

(https://s17.postimg.org/bk7ocnplr/CE_894_rifle_scope.jpg)

(https://s17.postimg.org/pdw11td33/SBF1a.gif)

Now when we look at the Zapruder perspective comparison the height differential is explained, the Limo and/or Connally stand-in that the SS used made him too high but with the appropriate Zapruder correction the alignment is perfect.

(https://s17.postimg.org/5j9zfqnlr/SBF2.gif)

And what do you know at this precise point in time when the men were precisely lined up, we can see an obvious simultaneous reaction.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pqHV1ZHUal0/WRo7Bc8dH6I/AAAAAAABL0I/3gbqoFJwHNcLEdSUbfxa898LwU5wdhVRACLcB/s1600/Z225-Z226.gif)

To keep denying the Single Bullet Fact is akin to denying the Holocaust and the Moon Landings but I guess you Kooks simply can't help yourselves.



JohnM

Instead of a very broad and typical CT guess,

A guess? Sure... I never claimed it to be the exact spot. But just tell me where you want the limo to be and we'll go from there. IMO any location closer to the TSBD reduces even further the possibility of a straight shot ending up under Connally's shoulder.


let's apply a little science gathered from original evidence and recreations.

You're funny.... What kind of science would that be? Junk science, perhaps? You can't deduce a straight line between the TSBD window and the victims from those photos. You can only make one up.

The only photo that comes close to the photo I posted is the one in the middle marked "Photograph through the rifle scope" and even that one clearly shows that a shot coming from the TSBD and going through Kennedy's back and throad at that angle would never ever have hit Connally anywhere near where he was hit. You don't need science for that, just a pair of functional eyes!

You can present all the mumbo jumbo "science" you want based on Zap stills and SS photograph but all you are doing is what Myers did with his graphics.... You look for a way to support your preditermined conclusion, despite the fact that you are not, and never will be, able to come up with a straight line.


To keep denying the Single Bullet Fact is akin to denying the Holocaust and the Moon Landings but I guess you Kooks simply can't help yourselves.

Anybody who makes such a comment is a very sick puppy!

But just for your information, I do not deny the Holocaust or the moon landings. What I do deny is your propaganda crap about the SBT. Get back to me when you can come up with a straight line!
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 04, 2018, 07:46:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In the Gif above, showing the re enactment and the actual color film, Connally is even further to the right of he limo.In the photo of the reenactment thru the scope, the bullet could not have hit Connally. Placing Connally further to his right as in the actual film shows that the bullet would have been even more magic.
The Limos aren't the same, Connally is lower and further back, perspective can be your friend.
(https://s17.postimg.org/4slunr0cf/Connally_Kennedy_limo.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2018, 07:49:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The Limos aren't the same, Connally is lower and further back, perspective can be your friend.

(https://s17.postimg.org/4slunr0cf/Connally_Kennedy_limo.jpg)

JohnM

Makes no difference. The angle from the TSBD window stays the same as does the trajectory of a straight flying bullet.

Impress us... use the photograph I posted to begin with and move the limo as much as you like to get a straight line between the rifle and Connally's back wound.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 04, 2018, 07:56:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Makes no difference. The angle from the TSBD window stays the same as does the trajectory of a straight flying bullet.

Impress us... use the photograph I posted to begin with and move the limo as much as you like to get a straight line between the rifle and Connally's back wound.
Weidmann, while you were in Dealey Plaza, you said you did this recreation yourself with lasers (snigger) how about you show us your results and photographs and clear this up once and for all? LOL!

JohnM





Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2018, 08:08:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Weidmann, while you were in Dealey Plaza, you said you did this recreation yourself with lasers (snigger) how about you show us your results and photographs and clear this up once and for all? LOL!

JohnM

Weidmann, while you were in Dealey Plaza, you said you did this recreation yourself with lasers

To call it a recreation would be too much credit. DPD police didn't really give me enough time for that.

All I did, in the middle of the night, was shoot a laser from roughly the location of the limo to the 6th floor window and that was enough for me to satisfy my own curiosity. It is also the reason why I know that there is no way that you can come up with a straight line.

It's my guess you also understand this, because if you believed only for just a second you could do it, you would be all over this thing doing what you like doing the most; messing with gifs. The mere fact that you are trying to shift the burden of proof to me, by asking me to prove a negative, confirms it.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Joe Elliott on February 04, 2018, 08:16:38 PM

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

To keep denying the Single Bullet Fact is akin to denying the Holocaust and the Moon Landings but I guess you Kooks simply can't help yourselves.


There is a lot of truth to this. A lot of the prominent people who dismiss the Single Bullet Theory also have other eccentric beliefs:


James Fetzer ? An early leading spokesman for the Zapruder film being faked:
     Holocaust denier

Michael T Griffith ? The leading authority CTers go with to argue against the Neurological Spasm Theory:
     Creationist and denier of the Theory of Evolution
     Supports the notion that the South was right to secede from the Union

Jim Marrs ? Author of the book ?Crossfire? used as the basis for the movie ?JFK?
     Supported the notion that the government is conspiring with the space aliens
     and I believe he was also a Moon Landing denier


Prominent LNers, or even ordinary LNers, like those who post here, do not seem to have quirky beliefs.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2018, 08:22:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is a lot of truth to this. A lot of the prominent people who dismiss the Single Bullet Theory also have other eccentric beliefs:


James Fetzer ? An early leading spokesman for the Zapruder film being faked:
     Holocaust denier

Michael T Griffith ? The leading authority CTers go with to argue against the Neurological Spasm Theory:
     Creationist and denier of the Theory of Evolution
     Supports the notion that the South was right to secede from the Union

Jim Marrs ? Author of the book ?Crossfire? used as the basis for the movie ?JFK?
     Supported the notion that the government is conspiring with the space aliens
     and I believe he was also a Moon Landing denier


Prominent LNers, or even ordinary LNers, like those who post here, do not seem to have quirky beliefs.

And there is the expected attempt to derail the thread and alter the topic being discussed....
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Anthony Clayden on February 04, 2018, 08:26:35 PM
Joe,

Given the initial investigations had a 3 bullet pattern of JFK hit, Connally hit, JFK hit, which was only later modified to fit the Teague strike in after quite a period of time.
That Gov Connally and his wife both consistently asserted that the Gov was hit after JFK.

I do not think being sceptical of the SBT, is a quirky belief.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 04, 2018, 11:42:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Stront voor hersenen. You're comparing the angle on a 2D projection to that on a 3D random overhead view.

Stront voor hersenen.

Anybody can use a translation program but if what comes out of it is a rather stupid and pathetic comment in the other language, you've got eieren op je gezicht!

Why don't you try and use the photograph I posted in the OP and show us a straight line from the 6th floor window to the wound on Connally's back? Can you do that?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Paul McBrearty on February 05, 2018, 12:52:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I borrowed this photo from another thread.

(https://preview.ibb.co/jJ7yPR/Slide350.gif) (https://ibb.co/cis9W6)

Just above the box in the window there are three cars in three lanes....

The car in the center lane seems to be in roughly the same position where JFK's limo was when the shots were fired.

How does a bullet fired from this window and travelling in a straight downward line, passing through Kennedy's back and throat, end up hitting Connally?

Any suggestions?

First of all no bullet follows a straight line trajectory mainly because of the gravitational forces acting on it.

How does a bullet fired from this window and travelling in a straight downward line, passing through Kennedy's back and throat, end up hitting Connally?

First of all that box in the window is not an accurate representation of how that box was placed during the assassination. But close enough. The vehicle in the image is not an accurate representation of the position the Presidential Limousine during the assassination. But close enough. Connally got hit by the same bullet that hit JFK because of the relative positions both men were in at the time of the second shot which made the Single Bullet Theory possible, well not a theory at all but a single bullet fact.   
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2018, 12:57:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
First of all no bullet follows a straight line trajectory mainly because of the gravitational forces acting on it.

How does a bullet fired from this window and travelling in a straight downward line, passing through Kennedy's back and throat, end up hitting Connally?

First of all that box in the window is not an accurate representation of how that box was placed during the assassination. But close enough. The vehicle in the image is not an accurate representation of the position the Presidential Limousine during the assassination. But close enough. Connally got hit by the same bullet that hit JFK because of the relative positions both men were in at the time of the second shot which made the Single Bullet Theory possible, well not a theory at all but a single bullet fact.

Connally got hit by the same bullet that hit JFK because of the relative positions both men were in at the time of the second shot

For Connally to be hit where he was, he would have had to be sitting in the center of the car, so dream on.....
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Dillon Rankine on February 05, 2018, 02:33:30 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I borrowed this photo from another thread.

(https://preview.ibb.co/jJ7yPR/Slide350.gif) (https://ibb.co/cis9W6)

Just above the box in the window there are three cars in three lanes....

The car in the center lane seems to be in roughly the same position where JFK's limo was when the shots were fired.

How does a bullet fired from this window and travelling in a straight downward line, passing through Kennedy's back and throat, end up hitting Connally?

Any suggestions?

Bullets don?t travel in straight lines after striking an object?that?s a common myth. My answer: minute deflection as it traversed the neck. It would also be prudent to consider that JBC was neither directly in front of nor facing forward as was JFK.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Joe Elliott on February 05, 2018, 02:54:42 AM

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Joe,

Given the initial investigations had a 3 bullet pattern of JFK hit, Connally hit, JFK hit, which was only later modified to fit the Teague strike in after quite a period of time.
That Gov Connally and his wife both consistently asserted that the Gov was hit after JFK.

I do not think being sceptical of the SBT, is a quirky belief.



No, you just keep repeating what the other CTers tell you to believe.

What Governor Connally did not believe, was that he was struck by the first bullet. He insisted that he was struck by the second bullet, not the first, as the Warren Commission was leaning toward. He said he could not tell if JFK was hit by the first or second bullet, but he was hit by the second. It turned out that Governor Connally was right. He and JFK were hit by the second bullet.

Mrs. Connally was the one witness who insisted that JFK was hit first, her husband second. But the Zapruder film shows she was not looking at either until after both were hit. I am not persuaded by eyewitnesses, particularly when they are looking in the wrong direction.

Look at Governor Connally?s testimony to the Warren Commission and not just believe what you are told he believed.


https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/warren/wch/index.php
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 05, 2018, 03:11:34 AM
(http://i65.tinypic.com/24xmo8z.jpg)

You'll think the resident CT trajectory experts Doofus and Weidmann would have realized by now that they're a bit off on their car placement.

At least we now have an idea of where Martin was standing when he pointed his laser.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 05, 2018, 03:16:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I love it when posters try to determine a complex 3D trajectory using a static 2D picture.




(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/44/05/f5/4405f5dc458facbf96c531e92ff3ed2f--joker-tattoos-haha-tattoo-joker.jpg)

Your mate Ernie put the lines all over the image, LOL! all I was showing was that the jacket was bunched, do you agree that Kennedy's jacket was bunched?



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 05, 2018, 03:20:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And JFK's tailor fitted shirt bunched up by how much again?





(https://s17.postimg.org/h7met3lnj/spectorsbf.gif)

Not only can we see the Jacket clearly bunching but Kennedy's tailor fitted shirts could equally bunch, Sucko!

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-cVI0tXjsCEo/VIueBMskNwI/AAAAAAABCCk/da9VKiLOZXw/s1600/JFK-Shirt-Bunched.jpg)



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 05, 2018, 03:47:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I borrowed this photo from another thread.

(https://preview.ibb.co/jJ7yPR/Slide350.gif) (https://ibb.co/cis9W6)

Just above the box in the window there are three cars in three lanes....

The car in the center lane seems to be in roughly the same position where JFK's limo was when the shots were fired.

How does a bullet fired from this window and travelling in a straight downward line, passing through Kennedy's back and throat, end up hitting Connally?

Any suggestions?

Martin, Please tell me that you're joking.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 05, 2018, 03:48:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login




The Limos aren't the same, Connally is lower and further back, perspective can be your friend.

(https://s17.postimg.org/4slunr0cf/Connally_Kennedy_limo.jpg)



JohnM

Nice one John. I don't recall ever seeing it before.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 05, 2018, 03:52:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Martin, Please tell me that you're joking.



Hi Tim, unfortunately he's serious.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/29/93/af/2993af2dd98ba944e0225d7523f7a69b.gif)



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 05, 2018, 03:53:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Joe,

Given the initial investigations had a 3 bullet pattern of JFK hit, Connally hit, JFK hit, which was only later modified to fit the Teague strike in after quite a period of time.
That Gov Connally and his wife both consistently asserted that the Gov was hit after JFK.

I do not think being sceptical of the SBT, is a quirky belief.

Anthony, no modification was needed to fit the Tague strike. If Tague was hit at all, it was from a fragment from the head shot. Directly or indirectly.

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 05, 2018, 04:01:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nice one John. I don't recall ever seeing it before.

It's a nice one, isn't it. Tom Dillard snapped it at Love Field.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/jfk-arm-over-rail-01.jpg)

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/z225canningmap.png)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 05, 2018, 05:12:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's a nice one, isn't it. Tom Dillard snapped it at Love Field.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/jfk-arm-over-rail-01.jpg)

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/z225canningmap.png)

It is indeed Jerry. Rotate Connally 30 degrees to the right and move Kennedy's right arm inboard and down and you'll have their relative positions at the time of the single bullet strike. It's an awesome photo. Why haven't I seen it before?

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2018, 09:01:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(http://i65.tinypic.com/24xmo8z.jpg)

You'll think the resident CT trajectory experts Doofus and Weidmann would have realized by now that they're a bit off on their car placement.

At least we now have an idea of where Martin was standing when he pointed his laser.

You'll think the resident CT trajectory experts Doofus and Weidmann would have realized by now that they're a bit off on their car placement.

Says the guy who is unable to place the limo anywhere so it lines up in a straight line to the 6th floor window. Even your own close up shows perfectly that cars travelling in the center lane do not line up straight.


At least we now have an idea of where Martin was standing when he pointed his laser.

No you don't.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2018, 09:06:44 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I present irrefutable evidence and all you got is insults, Yawn!

JohnM

Too much substance abuse again, John?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2018, 09:09:49 AM
(https://s17.postimg.org/4slunr0cf/Connally_Kennedy_limo.jpg)

Where would a bullet coming from up and the left of the car end up after going through Kennedy's neck (if it ever did)?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2018, 09:12:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's a nice one, isn't it. Tom Dillard snapped it at Love Field.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/jfk-arm-over-rail-01.jpg)

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/z225canningmap.png)

So, now you have to move Kennedy further to the side of the car to make it work?

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2018, 09:17:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It is indeed Jerry. Rotate Connally 30 degrees to the right and move Kennedy's right arm inboard and down and you'll have their relative positions at the time of the single bullet strike. It's an awesome photo. Why haven't I seen it before?

Tim,

You don't have a clue about the relative positions of Kennedy and Connally at the time of the shooting. All you are doing is shifting them around to a point where you think the SBT would work. In other words, you are manipulating the evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 05, 2018, 09:27:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tim,

You don't have a clue about the relative positions of Kennedy and Connally. All you are doing is shifting them around to a point where you think the SBT would work. In other words, you are manipulation the "facts" to fit a predetermined conclusion.



Quote
You don't have a clue about the relative positions of Kennedy and Connally

The Zapruder film with a reasonable amount of accuracy gives us the relative positions of Kennedy and Connally.

Quote
All you are doing is shifting them around to a point where you think the SBT would work. In other words, you are manipulation the "facts" to fit a predetermined conclusion.

You must be joking, Tim's scientific methodology is precisely how you solve problems, you deal with the parameters and you match it against the known evidence.



JohnM



Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 05, 2018, 09:30:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


The Zapruder film with a reasonable amount of accuracy gives us the relative positions of Kennedy and Connally.

You must be joking, Tim's scientific methodology is precisely how you solve problems, you deal with the parameters and you match it against the known evidence.

JohnM

Tim's scientific methodology is precisely how you solve problems, you deal with the parameters and you make it match it against the known evidence.

There, I fixed it for you

Now what about that straight line from the 6th floor window to the limo? You can place the limo anywhere you like in the center lane, so why don't you give it a try?


Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Ray Mitcham on February 05, 2018, 09:36:43 AM
Perhaps Mr Mytton with his excellence in providing doctored photos could mark on the copy of the autopsy sheet where he thinks the bullet that he believes entered at the place marked 14 cos below the mastoid, exited JFK's body.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 05, 2018, 09:56:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Perhaps Mr Mytton with his excellence in providing doctored photos could mark on the copy of the autopsy sheet where he thinks the bullet that he believes entered at the place marked 14 cos below the mastoid, exited JFK's body.



(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sun.gif)



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Ray Mitcham on February 05, 2018, 03:43:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sun.gif)



JohnM

So you agree that the entrance hole shown on the autopsy sheet is much lower than the alleged exit hole in the throat.

Seems we are making progress.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Gary Craig on February 05, 2018, 03:45:39 PM
John F Kennedy - The Autopsy
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 05, 2018, 04:41:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Unfortunately, every single trajectory shown has the bullet passing front to back through JFK's neck on a route that would have to pass through JFK's cervical vertebrae.

66 posts in less than a day on this thread. I know why the CT's are here; once again, why do LN's put so much effort into "winning" debates on this forum?


(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/neck-transit-lateral-02.jpg)

The bullet did not strike the spinal column, if that's what you're claiming with "pass through JFK's cervical vertebrae".

The bullet passed to the immediate right of the spinal column. I believe it passed between the transverse processes of C7 and T1. Baden thought pressure from the missile channel caused the T1 right transverse process to suffer a non-displaced fracture.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/drawings/jfk-neck-wounds_autopsy-position-JFK-F-376.jpg)

Quote

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the coverup.

Are YOU part of the coverup?


This rote thing got Bob all the way through Grade Six. Not only that, he was the highest in his class.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Gary Craig on February 05, 2018, 04:58:18 PM


Here is the Attorney General, in a taped phone call, telling LBJ they don't have the photo of JFK's right lung. The one Humes testified was taken. Note this is 3+ years after the WCR and he's telling the POTUS that one photo could "show the course and direction the bullet that entered the lower part of the neck and exited the front part."

http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark.LBJ.html

Date: 1-21-67 12:00 Noon

Time: 7 mins 25 secs at the end of a 8 mins 31 secs conversation

Phone Conversation between Acting Attorney General Ramsey Clark and President Lyndon Johnson
Re: Autopsy Photos

-snip-

"That is, there may be a photo missing. Dr. Humes, Commander and Naval doctor, testified before the Warren Commission that this one photo made of the highest portion of the right lung."

-snip-

"It could be contended that that photo could show the course and direction the bullet that entered the lower part of the neck and exited the front part."

-snip-

"We are left with one specific problem. Dr. Humes did testify before the Warren Commission there was such a photo [that] we don't have."


-snip-
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 05, 2018, 05:09:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I borrowed this photo from another thread.

(https://preview.ibb.co/jJ7yPR/Slide350.gif) (https://ibb.co/cis9W6)

Just above the box in the window there are three cars in three lanes....

The car in the center lane seems to be in roughly the same position where JFK's limo was when the shots were fired.

How does a bullet fired from this window and travelling in a straight downward line, passing through Kennedy's back and throat, end up hitting Connally?

Any suggestions?


AREA OF PERSISTENT LAW ENFORCEMENT SCRUTINY

The Most Significant Revelation contained within this Photo is the gaggle of Law Enforcement/CSI gathered around the man hole cover/sewer drain on the South Side of Elm Street. This is the Exact Same area that Immediately following the assassination Law Enforcement was photographed picking something up from the grass area around the man hole cover. With regard to the photo above, Dealey Plaza had Now been closed to public foot traffic, and Law Enforcement/CSI in mass has once again descended upon the same man hole cover/sewer drain area. 
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 05, 2018, 08:05:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Perhaps you would be so good as to show me, on the diagram linked to below, just how a bullet managed to pass between the transverse processes of T1 and C7.

https://www.hawaii.edu/medicine/pediatrics/pemxray/v5c02d.jpg (https://www.hawaii.edu/medicine/pediatrics/pemxray/v5c02d.jpg)


Here, Bob, I'll post the image for you, since you can't.

(https://www.hawaii.edu/medicine/pediatrics/pemxray/v5c02d.jpg)

And here's how a bullet could slide on by the spine and still be between the transverse processes:

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/vertabrae-transverse-process-space.gif)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/C7_animation.gif)
from Wikimedia Commons

C7 highlighted in animation.

Quote

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the coverup.

Are YOU part of the coverup?

That rote thing again. You haven't been the same since you jumped off the Tallahatchie Bridge.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 05, 2018, 10:43:16 PM

HOCUS POCUS REQUIRED

Placing the JFK Back Entry Wound, (BELOW the shoulder), where it is Clearly Displayed on, (1) The autopsy face sheet, (2) JFK's suit coat, and (3) JFK's dress shirt, coupled with the alleged bullet traveling at a Downward Trajectory from the TSBD 6th floor = NO Way in hell this bullet then manages to Exit JFK's neck at a point Higher than the knot in his tie. 
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 05, 2018, 11:11:51 PM
Maybe one of you brainiacs can point out where the SLOPED shoulders on the face sheet GENERIC DRAWING match Kennedy's SQUARE shoulders.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 05, 2018, 11:48:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Another simple question. How does a bullet traveling DOWNWARD go upward after allegedly hitting JFK?

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/drawings/hsca-vol1-pg231.jpg)

This CT legend began with a simple presentation (above) by the HSCA. The wounds through the neck were established using Clyde Snow's anatomical-positioning method; the center profile among the three head outlines seem to be the nearest to Snow's anatomical-position. Baden showed the transit angle changed as the torso changed, settling on the rightmost outline as the wounding position ("the position of the President at the time the missile struck.")

This "wounding position" is shown in the sketch on the left side of JFK F-46. Unfortunately the artist didn't re-orientate the head to vertical, and so a new legend grew out of this, that the HSCA neck transit could only work if the head was tilted forward as shown by the sketch.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/_/rsrc/1395855907867/neckwound/hsca-f46-applied-to-wounding-position.jpg)

The HSCA must have thought readers would be smart enough to realize that when the torso angle at "wounding position" was established then it followed that the head would have to be vertical as in life. But I've seen some doctors on the CT side who couldn't get this.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f145_sbtslope.gif)

The HSCA clearly thought the head was at vertical and the neck transit was downward during the wounding. They portrayed it as such in a trajectory drawing.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 06, 2018, 02:38:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Actually, the FBI said in their report that the bullet was traveling downward. So did the testimony of James Humes.

The bullet allegedly came from the sixth floor so it had to be traveling at a downward angle.

Good, Rob. Good.

And the Clark Panel discovered the autopsy photos showed the neck transit went downward. They did this by noting neck wrinkles that were common to the back photo and the left-profile photo.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/_/rsrc/1515710209537/neckwound/bunch/necktransitbunch.gif)

Clyde Snow tried to show the neck wounds in an anatomical position, getting a slightly upward direction from back-to-front. The HSCA presented his findings with this drawing:

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/drawings/jfk-neck-wounds_autopsy-position-JFK-F-376.jpg)

"Autopsy Position" is a term for anatomical position. The HSCA would have presented the neck transit much better by simply illustrating the Clark Panel's finding that the neck transit was downward at autopsy.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Pat Speer on February 06, 2018, 06:50:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/drawings/hsca-vol1-pg231.jpg)

This CT legend began with a simple presentation (above) by the HSCA. The wounds through the neck were established using Clyde Snow's anatomical-positioning method; the center profile among the three head outlines seem to be the nearest to Snow's anatomical-position. Baden showed the transit angle changed as the torso changed, settling on the rightmost outline as the wounding position ("the position of the President at the time the missile struck.")

This "wounding position" is shown in the sketch on the left side of JFK F-46. Unfortunately the artist didn't re-orientate the head to vertical, and so a new legend grew out of this, that the HSCA neck transit could only work if the head was tilted forward as shown by the sketch.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/_/rsrc/1395855907867/neckwound/hsca-f46-applied-to-wounding-position.jpg)


The HSCA must have thought readers would be smart enough to realize that when the torso angle at "wounding position" was established then it followed that the head would have to be vertical as in life. But I've seen some doctors on the CT side who couldn't get this.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f145_sbtslope.gif)

The HSCA clearly thought the head was at vertical and the neck transit was downward during the wounding. They portrayed it as such in a trajectory drawing.

Uhh, no. The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel was at cross-purposes with its trajectory expert.

The FPP concluded the bullet rose within Kennedy's body, but that he was leaning sharply forward when struck. Their exhibits depict this lean.

Blakey went behind their backs and hired a trajectory expert, however. He even gave this expert, Thomas Canning, the authority to move the wounds if he wanted to. So he did.

As a consequence, Canning's exhibits show a bullet impacting at the base of the neck, two inches higher than the Pathology Panel placed the wound. Canning also made up some mumbo-jumbo about Kennedy leaning forward when shot in the back, and then sitting up in his seat before getting shot in the head. This was to hide that neither of the trajectories proposed by the HSCA (back to throat at 190, and cowlick to coronal suture at 313) made any sense when one studied the Zapruder film.

This, to me, was an absolute disgrace... And yes, I talked to Blakey about this at the 2014 Bethesda conference. He feigned interest and gave me his email address. But never responded.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 06, 2018, 04:03:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://cdn.homedit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/kids-wall-box.jpg)

"Err" Dummkopf, you're applying a ca. Z225 slope to the HSCA's drawing that shows the car at Z190, the place they assigned the second shot based largely on the (faulty) acoustic analysis. The big circle represents the margin-of-error, meaning the shot could have originated anywhere within the circle.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f145_sbtslope.gif)

Here's the HSCA drawing amended by me:

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/reworked/wcr-sbtslope.jpg)



WIPE THE CHERRY JUICE FROM YOUR CHIN

Enough with your Cherry Picking.
STOP siding with the HSCA whenever it suits your fancy and then throwing them to the dogs when it does Not.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 06, 2018, 04:19:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
                                                           
                                                           SITCOM WORTHY MATERIAL

         Lt. Day should have Never left CSI Green Horn Studebaker alone in the TSBD. This is like leaving Gomer Pyle in charge of the Ammo Dump.

Lt J.C. Day was no Dick Tracy.....   He was more like Trick Dacy...and didn't even know the difference between a bolt action rifle and a lever action rifle...
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 06, 2018, 05:34:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Lt J.C. Day was no Dick Tracy.....   He was more like Trick Dacy...and didn't even know the difference between a bolt action rifle and a lever action rifle...

                   
Or a Mauser vs a Carcano ???
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 06, 2018, 09:59:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


WIPE THE CHERRY JUICE FROM YOUR CHIN

Enough with your Cherry Picking.
STOP siding with the HSCA whenever it suits your fancy and then throwing them to the dogs when it does Not.

What are you babbling on about?

No LNer has supported the Z190 SBT since the acoustics analysis was discredited. Can't think of many that supported it before that. There were a few Committee members that didn't like that analysis at the time the report was released.

You want Ernst to keep applying a Z225 slope to a diagram that was showing the car Z190?

I know you CTs work in futility and don't like to be corrected, but this is ridiculous.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Pat Speer on February 06, 2018, 10:00:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



Different Limo!

TRY AGAIN!!!



JohnM

Specter had Thomas Kelley testify regarding the adjustments made on May 24, 1964, to assure the stand-ins were in the same alignment as Kennedy and Connally.

Mr. SPECTER. And what adjustment was made, if any, so that the relative positions of those two men were the same as the positioning of President Kennedy and Governor Connally on November 22, 1963?
Mr. KELLEY. The officials at Hess Eisenhardt, who have the original plans of the President's car, conducted a test to ascertain how high from the ground a person 72 1/2 inches would be seated in this car before its modification. And

132

it was ascertained that the person would be 52.78 inches from the ground--that is, taking into consideration the flexion of the tires, the flexion of the cushions that were on the car at the time.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say 52.78 inches, which individual would that be?
Mr. KELLEY. That would be the President.
Mr. SPECTER. And what part of his body?
Mr. KELLEY. The top of the head would be 52.78 inches from the ground. When Mr. Anderton was placed in the followup car, it was found that the top of his head was 62 inches from the ground. There was an adjustment made so that there would be--- the stand-in for Governor Connally would be in relatively the same position, taking into consideration the 3-inch difference in the jump seat and the 2-inch difference in his height.
Mr. SPECTER. Considering the 3-inch difference in the jump seat--and I believe it would be an inch and a half difference in height between President Kennedy and Governor Connally--how much higher, then, approximately, was President Kennedy sitting than the Governor on November 22?
Mr. KELLEY. I am not----
Mr. SPECTER. Would the President have been about an inch and half higher than the Governor on the day of the assassination?
Mr. KELLEY. The day of the assassination, yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And were----
The CHAIRMAN. Wouldn't the height of these men depend upon the length of their torso?
Mr. KELLEY. Well----
The CHAIRMAN. You have some people who are shortwaisted, some people who are longwaisted. I don't know which either of these men were who were of the same height. But I know there is a lot of difference in men. We sometimes see the--a man who looks large sitting down, when he stands up he is small, because he has a long torso, and vice versa.
Mr. KELLEY. Of course the relative positions are apparent from the films that were taken at the time of the assassination. It would be, of course, that judgment---and it would have to be a judgment. But I think the films indicate there was just about that much difference in their height when both were seated.
Mr. SPECTER. Inspector Kelley, I hand you a photograph marked as Commission Exhibit No. 697, which has heretofore been admitted into evidence, and identified by Governor Connally as depicting the President and the Governor as they rode in the motorcade on the day of the assassination, and I ask you if the stand-ins for the President and the Governor were seated in approximately the same relative positions on the reconstruction on May 24.
Mr. KELLEY. Yes., sir; in my judgment that is very close.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 06, 2018, 10:39:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Good, Jerry. Good. Now answer the question. How did a bullet traveling DOWNWARD go upward after allegedly hitting JFK?

Why would I need to do that? Unless you can show that Kennedy was in the anatomical position when he was wounded.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 06, 2018, 11:32:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Specter had Thomas Kelley testify regarding the adjustments made on May 24, 1964, to assure the stand-ins were in the same alignment as Kennedy and Connally.

Mr. SPECTER. And what adjustment was made, if any, so that the relative positions of those two men were the same as the positioning of President Kennedy and Governor Connally on November 22, 1963?
Mr. KELLEY. The officials at Hess Eisenhardt, who have the original plans of the President's car, conducted a test to ascertain how high from the ground a person 72 1/2 inches would be seated in this car before its modification. And

132

it was ascertained that the person would be 52.78 inches from the ground--that is, taking into consideration the flexion of the tires, the flexion of the cushions that were on the car at the time.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say 52.78 inches, which individual would that be?
Mr. KELLEY. That would be the President.
Mr. SPECTER. And what part of his body?
Mr. KELLEY. The top of the head would be 52.78 inches from the ground. When Mr. Anderton was placed in the followup car, it was found that the top of his head was 62 inches from the ground. There was an adjustment made so that there would be--- the stand-in for Governor Connally would be in relatively the same position, taking into consideration the 3-inch difference in the jump seat and the 2-inch difference in his height.
Mr. SPECTER. Considering the 3-inch difference in the jump seat--and I believe it would be an inch and a half difference in height between President Kennedy and Governor Connally--how much higher, then, approximately, was President Kennedy sitting than the Governor on November 22?
Mr. KELLEY. I am not----
Mr. SPECTER. Would the President have been about an inch and half higher than the Governor on the day of the assassination?
Mr. KELLEY. The day of the assassination, yes.
Mr. SPECTER. And were----
The CHAIRMAN. Wouldn't the height of these men depend upon the length of their torso?
Mr. KELLEY. Well----
The CHAIRMAN. You have some people who are shortwaisted, some people who are longwaisted. I don't know which either of these men were who were of the same height. But I know there is a lot of difference in men. We sometimes see the--a man who looks large sitting down, when he stands up he is small, because he has a long torso, and vice versa.
Mr. KELLEY. Of course the relative positions are apparent from the films that were taken at the time of the assassination. It would be, of course, that judgment---and it would have to be a judgment. But I think the films indicate there was just about that much difference in their height when both were seated.
Mr. SPECTER. Inspector Kelley, I hand you a photograph marked as Commission Exhibit No. 697, which has heretofore been admitted into evidence, and identified by Governor Connally as depicting the President and the Governor as they rode in the motorcade on the day of the assassination, and I ask you if the stand-ins for the President and the Governor were seated in approximately the same relative positions on the reconstruction on May 24.
Mr. KELLEY. Yes., sir; in my judgment that is very close.


Thanks Pat under the circumstances they did an admirable job but there was a few details that needed precision...

The CHAIRMAN. Wouldn't the height of these men depend upon the length of their torso?
Mr. KELLEY. Well----


.....because without those exact measurements and positions, they ended up with a scenario which is close but for further analysis requires a certain amount of predictable correction.

(https://s17.postimg.org/5j9zfqnlr/SBF2.gif)



JohnM

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 07, 2018, 12:13:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Uhh, no. The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel was at cross-purposes with its trajectory expert.

The FPP concluded the bullet rose within Kennedy's body, but that he was leaning sharply forward when struck. Their exhibits depict this lean.


You refer to F-46 as "a drawing of Kennedy leaning forward to the degree required for a non-deflected bullet to pass through his back and neck and then hit Governor Connally."

(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/000/82/images/img_82_110_100.png)
Can you show me where the FPP said this was the wounding position? Seems to me they were demonstrating how the neck transit angle changes if the anatomical profile is tilted.

I notice you later back off this claim of yours:

     A careful reading of the panel's report offers a partial
     explanation for these errors. It indicates that F-46 was
     only supposed to demonstrate the relationship between
     Kennedy?s wounds, and that determining the actual
     position of Kennedy at the moment of the shot and the
     trajectory of the bullet was the responsibility of the
     trajectory panel.

Quote

Blakey went behind their backs and hired a trajectory expert, however. He even gave this expert, Thomas Canning, the authority to move the wounds if he wanted to. So he did.


I don't know about going behind the FPP's back, but Canning described the rational for reorienting the head and neck so it reflected the President's posture at wounding.

Quote

As a consequence, Canning's exhibits show a bullet impacting at the base of the neck, two inches higher than the Pathology Panel placed the wound. Canning also made up some mumbo-jumbo about Kennedy leaning forward when shot in the back, and then sitting up in his seat before getting shot in the head. This was to hide that neither of the trajectories proposed by the HSCA (back to throat at 190, and cowlick to coronal suture at 313) made any sense when one studied the Zapruder film.

This, to me, was an absolute disgrace... And yes, I talked to Blakey about this at the 2014 Bethesda conference. He feigned interest and gave me his email address. But never responded.

I believe he -- along with Clyde Snow -- positioned the neck wounds on a drawing that represented "returning Kennedy's head to a normal position relative to his body." Which supposedly was quite different from the anatomical position.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/drawings/jfk-neck-wounds_autopsy-position-JFK-F-376.jpg)

From there they incorporated changes in the President's seated posture at the time of wounding, mainly using the Croft photo and assuming there was no significant change in posture between the taking of the Croft photo and the moment the bullet struck.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/canning/sbt/f145_sbtslope.gif)

This gets us to how the President is depicted in the drawing above.

I don't know how accurate it all turned out. For one thing, they were certainly working (without knowing so) with a flawed limousine drawing. I believe it was all a good-faith effort.

I'm just telling you how I understand what they were trying to do.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 07, 2018, 12:53:40 AM
DEFINITION OF TERMS
                                           
"predictable correction" = SPECULATION = SBT
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 07, 2018, 01:48:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

                                                   DEFINITION OF TERMS
                                           
                                       "predictable correction" = SPECULATION = SBT




Glad to SEE YOU back and CAPITALIZING words at RANDOM!

Quote
"predictable correction" = SPECULATION = SBT

speculation
ˌspɛkjʊˈleɪʃn/Submit
noun
1.
the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.


Sorry Storing but the following comparison GIF is not a theory but is firm evidence that you can see with your own two eyes and when we focus on Kennedy and his stand in from Zapruder's position we can calculate where Connally was seated.

(https://s17.postimg.org/5j9zfqnlr/SBF2.gif)

Using the above information, from Oswald's view we can see that the SS had Connally too high.

(https://s17.postimg.org/f3tm2h7r3/CE_894.jpg)

(https://s17.postimg.org/bk7ocnplr/CE_894_rifle_scope.jpg)

And to top it off, at this exact moment in time when the two men were precisely lined up we see a violent simultaneous reaction. What's left to argue?

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pqHV1ZHUal0/WRo7Bc8dH6I/AAAAAAABL0I/3gbqoFJwHNcLEdSUbfxa898LwU5wdhVRACLcB/s1600/Z225-Z226.gif)



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 07, 2018, 03:30:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
shot in the back...

(http://www.jfkennedy.it/Immagini/Leprovedelcomplotto/nelfilmdiZapruder/backhit.gif)

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pqHV1ZHUal0/WRo7Bc8dH6I/AAAAAAABL0I/3gbqoFJwHNcLEdSUbfxa898LwU5wdhVRACLcB/s1600/Z225-Z226.gif)

I'm thinking a shot through the neck is gonna make you convulse like that.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 07, 2018, 03:44:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm thinking a shot to the throat would cause you to grab your neck
...and an almost simultaneous shot to the back would push you forward and jolt up your shoulders

What you think Kennedy is? A tin "duck" at the carnival.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 07, 2018, 04:38:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
shot in the back...

(http://www.jfkennedy.it/Immagini/Leprovedelcomplotto/nelfilmdiZapruder/backhit.gif)




Yet another Capasse misrepresentation. Are you proud of yourself?

You have started your gif @Z228 a mere fraction of a second after the single bullet fact and what you are showing is just the continued reaction. Here's the entire sequence showing one continuous motion.

(https://s17.postimg.org/ja6nch29r/anothercapassemanipulationn.gif)



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 07, 2018, 05:24:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Capasse did a "visual" cherry-pick. In Egypt, it would cost you a finger.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UdKSnTDThh4/Uw3zRDBeDfI/AAAAAAAAx-c/pzqLNRvmd3k/s1600/Zapruder-Film-In-Motion-Clip.gif)
Von Pein

Kennedy slumps down between Z226 and Z228 (Z227 being too blurred to see anything clearly). Then lurches upward and forward after Z228.



John didn't "choose" the re-enactment vehicle. It was the Secret Service follow-up car that was flown to Dallas in 1964. John is analyzing the 1964 re-enactment, not creating a new one from scratch.




Quote
Capasse did a "visual" cherry-pick. In Egypt, it would cost you a finger.

He certainly has a history of manipulating images.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UdKSnTDThh4/Uw3zRDBeDfI/AAAAAAAAx-c/pzqLNRvmd3k/s1600/Zapruder-Film-In-Motion-Clip.gif)
Von Pein

Quote
Kennedy slumps down between Z226 and Z228 (Z227 being too blurred to see anything clearly). Then lurches upward and forward after Z228.

Nice gif.

Quote
John didn't "choose" the re-enactment vehicle. It was the Secret Service follow-up car that was flown to Dallas in 1964. John is analyzing the 1964 re-enactment, not creating a new one from scratch.

Thanks, Royell and his mates are not the sharpest tools in the shed.



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 07, 2018, 05:28:03 AM
John, your morph demonstrates that Connally was well inboard relative to Kennedy.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/connallys/governor-more-inboard-than-jackie.jpg)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 07, 2018, 06:29:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The recreation is using the SS car which doesn't have a jump seat




Isn't it nice that Paul confirmed the single bullet fact.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4678/28344506049_f0bba446e5_c.jpg)

(https://s17.postimg.org/bk7ocnplr/CE_894_rifle_scope.jpg)



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 07, 2018, 06:35:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The FPP concluded the bullet rose within Kennedy's body, but that he was leaning sharply forward when struck.


That isn't true Pat. "Several members of the panel"  does not equate with "a majority of the FPP" , let alone the "FPP as a whole".
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 07, 2018, 07:30:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



That graphic means nothing, you make some ninja dude do the funky chunky and then put a cross there? WTF?

In the Lost Bullet Special they placed the first shot a little too early but recreated the 2nd and 3rd shots with laser precision and the rifleman had no trouble with the shots, this is real, your cartoons are CRAP!!!

(https://s17.postimg.org/bg6jxuipr/whatstheproblemd_zpsatodspu8_1.jpg)

(https://s17.postimg.org/c5pca7qz3/cloggy_zpsegl5pfwt_1.jpg)



JohnM



(https://s18.postimg.org/bniyyxbu1/webber_sniper.jpg)

Daniel Webber, 5' 8 1/2" Australian actor who played Oswald in Stephen King's 11.22.63
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Pat Speer on February 07, 2018, 08:56:15 AM
It appears to me that Thomas Kelley's testimony was correct, and that the relative positions of Kennedy and Connally during the 5-24-64 re-enactment were quite close to their positions in the limo on 11-22.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4616/26215656038_d63970181c_c.jpg)

(https://www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2017/fall/images/motorcade-697-02.jpg)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 07, 2018, 09:18:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It appears to me that Thomas Kelley's testimony was correct, and that the relative positions of Kennedy and Connally during the 5-24-64 re-enactment were quite close to their positions in the limo on 11-22.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4616/26215656038_d63970181c_c.jpg)

(https://www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2017/fall/images/motorcade-697-02.jpg)

The one you provided is awfully close to the positions at the twofer impact

 ;)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 07, 2018, 09:24:04 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I do not claim he sat on that box... I already said even the WC wasn't sure about that, and AI already said that was probably the waiting position. How many times do I have to say that? I think taking a knee was the choice.

Your need to always yell speaks volumes. You are in an untenable position. You have not shown one shooter image that proves the size of Oswald is correct in proportion to the sn. I have shown Oswald actor Daniel Webber (same size as Oswald) easily placing himself in the corner, JohnM has done similar. A shooter was seen aiming a rifle and firing said rifle downrange at the time of the assassination. You have shown box positions that were moved to be fingerprinted, then returned to the window in casual fashion.. yet you claim something is faked.

You are fighting reality.

I have shown Oswald actor Daniel Webber (same size as Oswald) easily placing himself in the corner,

Sure you did. You just forgot about the two pipes next to the wall.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 07, 2018, 03:49:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Capasse did a "visual" cherry-pick. In Egypt, it would cost you a finger.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UdKSnTDThh4/Uw3zRDBeDfI/AAAAAAAAx-c/pzqLNRvmd3k/s1600/Zapruder-Film-In-Motion-Clip.gif)
Von Pein

Kennedy slumps down between Z226 and Z228 (Z227 being too blurred to see anything clearly). Then lurches upward and forward after Z228.



John didn't "choose" the re-enactment vehicle. It was the Secret Service follow-up car that was flown to Dallas in 1964. John is analyzing the 1964 re-enactment, not creating a new one from scratch.



RESTRICTED MOTION

(1) JFK has a Back Seat behind him which restricts his Backward Motion. He also has Back Brace tightly wrapped around him restricting his (L) movement. The side of the JFK Limo restricts his (R) movement. Where the heck do you expect him to go but UP/Forward?

(2) Who cares Where John got his Car from? Point is, he has "Chosen Poorly" with regard to the vehicle in his comparison = invalidating his Theory.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 07, 2018, 03:55:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



That graphic means nothing, you make some ninja dude do the funky chunky and then put a cross there? WTF?

In the Lost Bullet Special they placed the first shot a little too early but recreated the 2nd and 3rd shots with laser precision and the rifleman had no trouble with the shots, this is real, your cartoons are CRAP!!!

(https://s17.postimg.org/bg6jxuipr/whatstheproblemd_zpsatodspu8_1.jpg)

(https://s17.postimg.org/c5pca7qz3/cloggy_zpsegl5pfwt_1.jpg)



JohnM


NOW YOU SEE IT, NOW YOU DON'T

Do NOT proffer the "Lost Bullet" to buttress anything. If you look closely at that shooter in the Sniper's Nest, they consistently have the SCOPE Off-And On the rifle. Then, with the Scope OFF the rifle they want to test in what position the ejected shells fell onto the floor. Pure BS which is par-for-the-course with these never ending JFK Assassination Propaganda Specials.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 07, 2018, 04:45:25 PM
Not only did the re-enactment have "Connally" artificially higher, but the "Kennedy" stand-in wasn't as far to the right as he was in Dallas.

(https://s17.postimg.org/bk7ocnplr/CE_894_rifle_scope.jpg)  (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d8w0nVSeulY/Vh8YH0s0VOI/AAAAAAAAQME/xM4doigZBkE/s1600/JFKWHP-KN-C29318.jpg)

(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1523889.1384984453!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_1200/jfk-limousine.jpg)  (https://image.slidesharecdn.com/jfkonthe50thanniversaryofhisdeaththeassassination-131118124757-phpapp02-131118161838-phpapp01/95/asesinato-jfk-22-noviembre-1963-dallas-texas-23-638.jpg)

Kennedy could easily get his elbow to the outer edge of the car, whereas the re-enactor could not:

(https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/thisdayintech/2010/11/kenney_580px.jpg)  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_dealey-plaza1964may-mndc02.jpg)

When looking at the WC re-enactment scope photos, one must made an adjustment that would have "Kennedy" more to the right. Along with the "Connally" height adjustment, the "Kennedy" horizontal adjustment should line up the throat out-shoot with Connally's back in-shoot.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 07, 2018, 04:55:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not only did the re-enactment have "Connally" artificially higher, but the "Kennedy" stand-in wasn't as far to the right as he was in Dallas.

(https://s17.postimg.org/bk7ocnplr/CE_894_rifle_scope.jpg)  (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d8w0nVSeulY/Vh8YH0s0VOI/AAAAAAAAQME/xM4doigZBkE/s1600/JFKWHP-KN-C29318.jpg)

(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1523889.1384984453!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_1200/jfk-limousine.jpg)  (https://image.slidesharecdn.com/jfkonthe50thanniversaryofhisdeaththeassassination-131118124757-phpapp02-131118161838-phpapp01/95/asesinato-jfk-22-noviembre-1963-dallas-texas-23-638.jpg)

Kennedy could easily get his elbow to the outer edge of the car, whereas the re-enactor could not:

(https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/thisdayintech/2010/11/kenney_580px.jpg)  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_dealey-plaza1964may-mndc02.jpg)

When looking at the WC re-enactment scope photos, one must made an adjustment that would have "Kennedy" more to the right. Along with the "Connally" height adjustment, the "Kennedy" horizontal adjustment should line up the throat out-shoot with Connally's back in-shoot.



CHERRY PICKER AT IT AGAIN

When "Official" re-enactment disproves the SBT, = "....One must make an adjustment". It never ends
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 07, 2018, 05:30:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


CHERRY PICKER AT IT AGAIN

When "Official" re-enactment disproves the SBT, = "....One must make an adjustment". It never ends

LOL! Using the re-enactment photo WITHOUT adjustments from life observation is "smart".

Of course CTs aren't going to take the adjustment route because the re-enactment photos as-is "disprove" the SBT. Talk about living under a rock.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 07, 2018, 06:46:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If there had been a bullet fired from the rear at the time this photo was taken.....there's NO WAY the bullet could have exited at JFK's neck tie knot and stuck Connally below his right arm pit....

(https://www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2017/fall/images/motorcade-697-02.jpg)



Quote
...at the time this photo was taken.....there's NO WAY...

You're right it's a worthless comparison, the following photo taken by Croft on Elm Street just seconds before the Single Bullet Fact shows the two men appropriately lined up.

(http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/croft.jpg)



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 07, 2018, 08:21:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's quite obvious that JFK was NOT elevated above Connally.....The photo shows that their shoulders were close to the same height above the side of the Lincoln.....


That's an illusion because the photo captured an oblique view.

(http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/skaggs-23-5-photogs-1.jpg)
 
A photo taken more side-on removes what an oblique view induces. In the Skaggs photo above we have a better idea as to the height differential (there would be be more of a difference between the head tops if Kennedy was more upright).

Quote

But Connally was closer to the right side of the car


(https://www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2017/fall/images/motorcade-697-02.jpg)

Thanks for pointing that out. The reason we see so much of the Governor's right shoulder is because he's so far inboard. The more oblique the camera angle, the more we can see down into the space between Connally's right shoulder and the car.

If Connally was seated very close or touching the car door interior, then the amount of shoulder seen above the car rail in the Skaggs photo would basically be all we would be able to see, even in oblique angles.

Quote

because the rear seat that JFK was sitting on, was narrow and did not extend completely across the full width of the car due to the arm rests and electronic devices built into the sides of the Lincoln....


(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/limo/sbt-crop/limo-base-drwg-kenn-conn-area_solid%20rollbar.png)

The back seat was the same width as the front seat, probably a stock model width. The back door was extra thick.

Quote

If there had been a bullet fired from the rear at the time this photo was taken.....there's NO WAY the bullet could have exited at JFK's neck tie knot and stuck Connally below his right arm pit....


Of course not. Connally would not have sat inboard of Kennedy. Hee hee

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/6f/2a/d16f2a9cc4ecd8bec6a5d3563ee89087.jpg)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 07, 2018, 08:52:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


You're right it's a worthless comparison, the following photo taken by Croft on Elm Street just seconds before the Single Bullet Fact shows the two men appropriately lined up.

(http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/croft.jpg)

JohnM

Lined up for what? A bullet coming downward from a building on the left of the limo?

Yeah right....
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 07, 2018, 09:25:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL! Using the re-enactment photo WITHOUT adjustments from life observation is "smart".

Of course CTs aren't going to take the adjustment route because the re-enactment photos as-is "disprove" the SBT. Talk about living under a rock.


MONKEY BUSINESS
                                                                                                                       
Evidence has absolutely NO need for "adjustment(s)". What is being attempted here is TAMPERING With Evidence.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 07, 2018, 09:30:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


You're right it's a worthless comparison, the following photo taken by Croft on Elm Street just seconds before the Single Bullet Fact shows the two men appropriately lined up.

(http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/croft.jpg)

JohnM

 
SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE FOOT AGAIN

this photo that you want to hang your hat on, also shows Nellie Connally seated to the Left of Jackie. This position would put Nellie OUTSIDE the Limo.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 07, 2018, 11:03:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This drawing is grossly inaccurate.....Because it shows JFK's seat extending the full width of the car.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4711/39242326375_605256d077_c.jpg)

The rear seat on which JFK sat was only about 3/4 as wide as the width where Connally was sitting...IOW  The car was 62 inches across between the doors where the Connally's were sitting.  But the seat on which JFK was sitting was only about 45 inches ....   Thus Connally was sitting more to the right than depicted in the drawing....

The rear seat is approximately 60 inches wide.

LOL! I don't even post that drawing anymore. I said a few pages ago the limousine drawing was highly flawed. Even as is, it still has more clarity and conveyance of data than a typical Doofus Ernst graphic.

The drawing exists because GeoCities was backed-up and kept online by someone who wanted an advertising venue.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 08, 2018, 12:47:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

                                                              ANOTHER GUY SHOOTS HIMSELF IN THE FOOT
     
                        You have to be kidding. We know EXACTLY where the jumps seats were located. Their L-R positions were Fixed.

We know EXACTLY where the jumps seats were located. Their L-R positions were Fixed.

Royell you should know by now.....When debating a LNer NOTHING is fixed solid ..... It's like try to pickup Jello with a tweezers.....   

It's pretty clear to me that Connally was seated about 8 inches to the right of JFK.....and roughly on the same plane... 

ie... Their shoulders were at about the same height with reference to the top edge of the side of the car 
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 08, 2018, 03:32:13 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The SS recreation wasn't trying to replicate the Single Bullet Fact just the view of Kennedy within the Limo from the sniper's nest but inadvertently they provided more conclusive evidence of the Single Bullet Fact!

Quote
And what do you know at this exact point in time when the men were precisely lined up, we can see an obvious simultaneous reaction.

"Single Bullet Fact".  LOL.

"Obvious simultaneous reaction".  LOL.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 08, 2018, 03:34:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://s17.postimg.org/nhm9u02rz/But_Herbert_it_s_14cm_below_the_mastoid_process.jpg)

Where do you get the "14" that you slapped on your moved ruler?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 08, 2018, 04:16:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Where do you get the "14" that you slapped on your moved ruler?




"14"cm below the Mastoid Process.
Just like on the face sheet.
Another conspiracy theory bites the dust.

(https://s17.postimg.org/xdyvxa4pr/14cm_below_mastoid_process_a.jpg)

(https://s17.postimg.org/nhm9u02rz/But_Herbert_it_s_14cm_below_the_mastoid_process.jpg)



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 08, 2018, 06:15:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



"14"cm below the Mastoid Process.
Just like on the face sheet.
Another conspiracy theory bites the dust.

(https://s17.postimg.org/xdyvxa4pr/14cm_below_mastoid_process_a.jpg)

(https://s17.postimg.org/nhm9u02rz/But_Herbert_it_s_14cm_below_the_mastoid_process.jpg)



JohnM

                                                          ?????????

        Based on the back wound as pictured, how are You getting a bullet fired at a Downward angle to Exit at a point on the neck Above the knot in a tie?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Gary Craig on February 08, 2018, 03:01:41 PM
The fingers on the ruler suggest to me the person is indicating the lower mark on JFK's back is a significant.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/back-wound-w-ruler-autopsy.jpg)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Brown on February 08, 2018, 03:33:09 PM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 08, 2018, 03:43:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


SHOOTER POSITION ?

Based on the visual aid you have proffered, are You claiming the JFK back wound was created by a shot fired from a Ground Level position at the Dal Tex Bld. ???
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Brown on February 08, 2018, 03:46:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

                                                         SHOOTER POSITION ?

                 Based on the visual aid you have proffered, are You claiming the JFK back wound was created by a shot fired from a Ground Level position at the Dal Tex Bld. ???

Explain what makes you ask such a question.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 08, 2018, 04:35:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Explain what makes you ask such a question.


YOUR VISUAL AID

The goldish colored line Clearly:

(1) Eminates from ground level at the Dal Tex Bld

(2) Extends Down Elm St

(3) Impacts the back of JFK.

Again, are you advocating that the JFK Back Wound was the result of a shot fired from ground level at the Dal Tex Bld ???
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 08, 2018, 04:36:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

BUMP with regard to a shot being fired at ground level from the Dal Tex Bld.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Brown on February 08, 2018, 04:48:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

                           YOUR VISUAL AID

                      The goldish colored line Clearly:

                   (1) Eminates from ground level at the Dal Tex Bld

                   (2) Extends Down Elm St

                   (3) Impacts the back of JFK.

        Again, are you advocating that the JFK Back Wound was the result of a shot fired from ground level at the Dal Tex Bld ???


Quote
(1) Eminates from ground level at the Dal Tex Bld

I guess you need to look again.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you about this.  The video clearly shows where the "goldish colored line" begins and ends.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 08, 2018, 04:50:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
BUMP with regard to a shot being fired at ground level from the Dal Tex Bld.

Try playing the video, 'Err Sharpo.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 08, 2018, 07:22:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Again, are You claiming the goldish colored line is Not eminating from the Dal Tex building at ground level???  Easy question to answer.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Duncan MacRae on February 08, 2018, 07:45:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Again, are You claiming the goldish colored line is Not eminating from the Dal Tex building at ground level???  Easy question to answer.
Im sure that Bill, and anyone other than Mr Magoo, would agree with me that the goldish colored line is not eminating from the DalTex building at ground level.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Trajectory.jpg)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 08, 2018, 08:01:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Im sure that Bill, and anyone other than Mr Magoo, would agree with me that the goldish colored line is not eminating from the DalTex building at ground level.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Trajectory.jpg)

The above Visual Aid is NOT the same illustration. The goldish colored line above has been radically Relocated/Moved vs the original illustration that was posted. If there was an Error of some sort in the original Visual Aid posted by Bill, all he has to do is state such. Until stating such, his posted illustration Clearly displays the gold line/a shot being fired from the Dal Tex Bld from a ground level position.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Duncan MacRae on February 08, 2018, 08:14:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The above Visual Aid is NOT the same illustration. The goldish colored line above has been radically Relocated/Moved vs the original illustration that was posted. If there was an Error of some sort in the original Visual Aid posted by Bill, all he has to do is state such. Until stating such, his posted illustration Clearly displays the gold line/a shot being fired from the Dal Tex Bld from a ground level position.
The visual aid is Bill's posted illustration, ie, the exact same illustration with a new extended line drawn straight over the original line to make the trajectory line clearer.

I have made this more visually simpler for you to see, and to try try to comprehend.

No need to apologise for your faulty analysis and criticisms.  :)

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Trajectory.gif)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Lee Wotton on February 08, 2018, 08:20:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I borrowed this photo from another thread.

(https://preview.ibb.co/jJ7yPR/Slide350.gif) (https://ibb.co/cis9W6)

Just above the box in the window there are three cars in three lanes....

The car in the center lane seems to be in roughly the same position where JFK's limo was when the shots were fired.

How does a bullet fired from this window and travelling in a straight downward line, passing through Kennedy's back and throat, end up hitting Connally?

Any suggestions?

The answer is that the shot came from the Dal Tex building 2nd floor.

Kennedy was hit in the back according to his shirt and jacket not the back of the neck.  No shot from such a downward angle could have hit him in the back and then gone on to cause the injuries it is claimed, absolutely impossible unless there are some new laws of physics yet to be discovered.

I don't think a shot was fired at JFK from the TSBD that day maybe not at all.  However, your post has made me wonder if the shot that resulted in James Tague's injury whilst stood near the underpass on Main (not Elm) can from that spot in the TSBD, does the burn from the muzzle on rifle recoil point to that?  If so I doubt Oswald fired it more likely he assisted others who made out they were firing a warning shot to make the SS clean up their act as real threats existed against JFK's life.  Meanwhile the mechanics were in front and in the Dal Tex.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 08, 2018, 10:21:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"14"cm below the Mastoid Process.
Just like on the face sheet.
Another conspiracy theory bites the dust.

Are you claiming that you can read the markings on the ruler in the original photo?  What does superimposing a different ruler over the photo prove?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 08, 2018, 10:37:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So what's the problem with Bill admitting he mistakenly posted a Visual Aid which did Not reflect his Opinion? Your rushing to his aid should Not be necessary.
<facepalm>

What you call a "visual aid" is called a Youtube thumbnail.  Something which Bill had no control over.  Did you actually click on the
"visual aid" to see what would happen?

As for the video itself:

Dale Myers.  LOL.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 08, 2018, 11:21:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you claiming that you can read the markings on the ruler in the original photo?  What does superimposing a different ruler over the photo prove?
YAWN, not this crap again!

Quote
Are you claiming that you can read the markings on the ruler in the original photo?

It's a standard 30cm ruler.

(https://s17.postimg.org/hl41bbpdr/Fordumbass.jpg)

Quote
What does superimposing a different ruler over the photo prove?

You can't be this dense, your original post asked why I "slapped 14" on the ruler so I proved my case.

(https://s17.postimg.org/xdyvxa4pr/14cm_below_mastoid_process_a.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 08, 2018, 11:36:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's a standard 30cm ruler.

How do you know?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 08, 2018, 11:52:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How do you know?
Have another look at the ruler! DUH!

JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 09, 2018, 12:10:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Have another look at the ruler! DUH!

Duh indeed.  What tells you this is a "standard 30 cm ruler"?

(https://s17.postimg.org/hl41bbpdr/Fordumbass.jpg)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 09, 2018, 12:57:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Duh indeed.  What tells you this is a "standard 30 cm ruler"?

(https://s17.postimg.org/hl41bbpdr/Fordumbass.jpg)

Quote
Duh indeed.

LOL, It's right in front of your face, look harder!

Quote
What tells you this is a "standard 30 cm ruler"?

It's really not difficult, as I said, look harder.

JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 09, 2018, 02:36:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
We know EXACTLY where the jumps seats were located. Their L-R positions were Fixed.

Royell you should know by now.....When debating a LNer NOTHING is fixed solid ..... It's like try to pickup Jello with a tweezers.....   


LNers incorporate new information and evolve. Unlike CTs arguing claims from the 1960s.

Quote

It's pretty clear to me that Connally was seated about 8 inches to the right of JFK.....


Connally to the right of JFK? That's not a typo, is it?

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/connallys/head-heights-in-motorcade-photo.jpg)

Unless optics and perspective has changed, Connally in the motorcade photo is to the left of the President (and Kellerman as well).

Numerous photos and films (that show Kennedy over to his right and Connally upright) show that Connally was to the left of Kennedy.

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_DPowers.jpg)  (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LFsWb1KFxvI/T9L1xQ-Z_xI/AAAAAAAABoc/eop5u5t3NDc/s1600/Dallas-Motorcade-11-22-63.jpg)

Quote

and roughly on the same plane... 

ie... Their shoulders were at about the same height with reference to the top edge of the side of the car

The top of Connally's head was about three inches lower than Kennedy's.

Although some photos capture the subject at an oblique angle such that the height difference seems the same, numerous other photos show the height differential.

(https://dallasnews.imgix.net/JFKslideshow_0301met001.JPG)  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Weaver_Scan.jpg)  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Skaggs_4.jpg)

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Gayle%20Nix%20Jackson%20Frames/normal_0033.jpg)  (https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/ce27b3998af8aa0d71a370f459cd8982dab6e567/c=193-373-1878-1640&r=x393&c=520x390/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/11/20//1384978124000-jfk00001.jpg)  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_jim1.jpg)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 09, 2018, 02:48:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I borrowed this photo from another thread.

(https://preview.ibb.co/jJ7yPR/Slide350.gif) (https://ibb.co/cis9W6)

Just above the box in the window there are three cars in three lanes....

The car in the center lane seems to be in roughly the same position where JFK's limo was when the shots were fired.

How does a bullet fired from this window and travelling in a straight downward line, passing through Kennedy's back and throat, end up hitting Connally?

Any suggestions?

Martin, according to the ITEK Corp. Film and Photographic Analysis of the assassination, the lateral angle of trajectory was 11.5? +/-1? right to left, relative to the midline of the limo. They measured Connally to be positioned 6.4" +/-2.2" inboard of Kennedy.

How does a bullet passing through Kennedy's back/neck and throat not end up hitting Connally?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 09, 2018, 01:28:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Martin, according to the ITEK Corp. Film and Photographic Analysis of the assassination, the lateral angle of trajectory was 11.5? +/-1? right to left, relative to the midline of the limo. They measured Connally to be positioned 6.4" +/-2.2" inboard of Kennedy.

How does a bullet passing through Kennedy's back/neck and throat not end up hitting Connally?

I am not going to debate the ITEK conclusions with you, simply because determinations like these are at best speculative and can be made to measure to fit any theory. There are way too many different theories around about how Connally and Kennedy were positioned and, as far as I know, none of them were ever conclusively proven. I'd much rather discuss what we can see with our own eyes.

All I asked for is that somebody show me a straight line from the window to the limo below, in such a way that a bullet going through Kennedy does not end up in the area between to two jumpseats. So far, despite the fact that they can move the limo to any location in the center lane, nobody has been able to show that straight line.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 02:14:43 PM
Taken from the Secret Service follow-up car, earlier in the motorcade route before reaching Dealey Plaza...

(https://i.imgur.com/bSG2TRU.jpg)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 09, 2018, 04:31:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am not going to debate the ITEK conclusions with you, simply because determinations like these are at best speculative and can be made to measure to fit any theory. There are way too many different theories around about how Connally and Kennedy were positioned and, as far as I know, none of them were ever conclusively proven. I'd much rather discuss what we can see with our own eyes.

All I asked for is that somebody show me a straight line from the window to the limo below, in such a way that a bullet going through Kennedy does not end up in the area between to two jumpseats. So far, despite the fact that they can move the limo to any location in the center lane, nobody has been able to show that straight line.

 Also, The 2 Tall SS Agents standing atop the Queen Mary (R) running board are Never included in the line of sight/alleged "straight line" running from the snipers nest to the back of JFK. Bearing in mind the JFK Limo was progressing Down Hill, these Elevated SS Agents that were within mere feet of JFK should be included. Their continued 54+ year absence from consideration raises obvious questions.   
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 09, 2018, 04:37:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Taken from the Secret Service follow-up car, earlier in the motorcade route before reaching Dealey Plaza...

(https://i.imgur.com/bSG2TRU.jpg)

Whenever viewing the JFK Limo at Any point during its' journey through Dallas, also make Note of the closeness of the Limo to the Lead Car in front of it. The Total Absence of the Lead Car at the alleged beginning of the Current Zapruder Film further damages its' highly questionable provenance. 
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 04:46:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Also, The 2 Tall SS Agents standing atop the Queen Mary (R) running board are Never included in the line of sight/alleged "straight line" running from the snipers nest to the back of JFK. Bearing in mind the JFK Limo was progressing Down Hill, these Elevated SS Agents that were within mere feet of JFK should be included. Their continued 54+ year absence from consideration raises obvious questions.

"The 2 Tall SS Agents standing atop the Queen Mary" obstructed a shot from the sixth floor of the Depository building but not from a ground level floor of the Dal-Tex building?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 09, 2018, 05:47:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"The 2 Tall SS Agents standing atop the Queen Mary" obstructed a shot from the sixth floor of the Depository building but not from a ground level floor of the Dal-Tex building?

  Your protracted reaction reveals You are not being accustomed to warranting that the wagons be circled around You. Get used to it. Nobody is perfect. 
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Brown on February 09, 2018, 05:53:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  Your protracted reaction reveals You are not being accustomed to warranting that the wagons be circled around You. Get used to it. Nobody is perfect.

LOL  What?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Mike Orr on February 18, 2018, 01:11:11 AM
Nothing magic about that bullet ! It did not hit anything that day . You can draw all the straight lines you want from the 6th floor window . It's very hard to hit something that's moving. I forgot that Greer stopped the limo for the final shot . I also forgot that Tague was not moving either when he was hit on the cheek. I've just never figured out how Motorcycle cop Bobby Hargis ended up with blood and brain matter all over him when he was left and to the rear of the Limo unless that just didn't happen.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 18, 2018, 01:26:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nothing magic about that bullet ! It did not hit anything that day . You can draw all the straight lines you want from the 6th floor window . It's very hard to hit something that's moving.


I've been watching the Olympics, where they're winning events by fractions of a second. If Oswald had delayed the SBT shot by 1/10th second or had his rifle tilted to one degree, we'll be debating a different set of wounds.

Quote

I forgot that Greer stopped the limo for the final shot .


That's good. Because it didn't happen.

Quote

I also forgot that Tague was not moving either when he was hit on the cheek. I've just never figured out how Motorcycle cop Bobby Hargis ended up with blood and brain matter all over him when he was left and to the rear of the Limo unless that just didn't happen.

Hargis drove into the debris field as it descended. That means it must have been forward of Hargis (ie: it was expelled from the front of Kennedy's skull, just like the Z-film shows it was).
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Ray Mitcham on February 18, 2018, 04:09:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Hargis drove into the debris field as it descended. That means it must have been forward of Hargis (ie: it was expelled from the front of Kennedy's skull, just like the Z-film shows it was).

Jerry, if the debris was from the back of JFK's head would Hargis still have driven into it?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Sean Kneringer on February 18, 2018, 05:42:15 PM
A bullet passing downward through Kennedy's throat would have necessarily hit some part of Connally's body, so if not near the right shoulder blade, then where?

(https://s9.postimg.org/qfxtr3u3j/robinson1.jpg)

(https://s9.postimg.org/7nlynjd4v/ooi.jpg)

(https://s9.postimg.org/syjir95dr/Untitled_2.jpg)

(https://s9.postimg.org/7ovwgfzdr/3564575930_4586272dfd_b.jpg)

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 18, 2018, 08:21:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A bullet passing downward through Kennedy's throat would have necessarily hit some part of Connally's body, so if not near the right shoulder blade, then where?

(https://s9.postimg.org/qfxtr3u3j/robinson1.jpg)

(https://s9.postimg.org/7nlynjd4v/ooi.jpg)

(https://s9.postimg.org/syjir95dr/Untitled_2.jpg)

(https://s9.postimg.org/7ovwgfzdr/3564575930_4586272dfd_b.jpg)

     Remember, there is a Back Rest on Gov Connally's jump seat.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Sean Kneringer on February 18, 2018, 08:55:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
     Remember, there is a Back Rest on Gov Connally's jump seat.

Right. Despite the limo being inspected with a fine tooth comb, the FBI and SS somehow missed a bullet hole in the jump seat.  ::)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 18, 2018, 09:22:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Right. Despite the limo being inspected with a fine tooth comb, the FBI and SS somehow missed a bullet hole in the jump seat.  ::)

It was a hypothetical question being posed. Numerous JFK Specials attempting to replicate the SBT have Resulted in that shot/bullet going into & or bouncing off of the Limo Dash Board.
Was the Limo "fine tooth comb" inspection you are referring to the FBI inspection conducted Hours After the assassination? If so, they did a Horrible job. They examined an Altered Crime Scene. Just look at the photos they took. The Limo Sun Visors are DOWN in all of their photos. This was Not the position of the Limo Sun Visors when the Assassination occurred.     
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Sean Kneringer on February 18, 2018, 09:39:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
  It was a hypothetical question being posed. Numerous JFK Specials attempting to replicate the SBT have Resulted in that shot/bullet going into & or bouncing off of the Limo Dash Board.
  Was the Limo "fine tooth comb" inspection you are referring to the FBI inspection conducted Hours After the assassination? If so, they did a Horrible job. They examined an Altered Crime Scene.

Uh huh. Did the guy with the bucket at Parkland also make a bullet hole disappear?

Quote
Just look at the photos they took. The Limo Sun Visors are DOWN in all of their photos. This was Not the position of the Limo Sun Visors when the Assassination occurred.
 

So what? You don't think they looked behind the visors? Why take a photo of something that wasn't damaged.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 18, 2018, 09:53:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Uh huh. Did the guy with the bucket at Parkland also make a bullet hole disappear?
 

So what? You don't think they looked behind the visors? Why take a photo of something that wasn't damaged.

Do You believe the FBI KNOWINGLY photographed an Altered Crime Scene? If the FBI KNOWINGLY did this, what would be the purpose of doing so? (Other than Hiding pertinent Evidence from being retained for Posterity?)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on February 20, 2018, 06:39:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I borrowed this photo from another thread.

(https://preview.ibb.co/jJ7yPR/Slide350.gif) (https://ibb.co/cis9W6)

Just above the box in the window there are three cars in three lanes....

The car in the center lane seems to be in roughly the same position where JFK's limo was when the shots were fired.

How does a bullet fired from this window and travelling in a straight downward line, passing through Kennedy's back and throat, end up hitting Connally?

Any suggestions?
The holes in JFK's jacket, shirt, back and throat as well as the abrasion on the left side of the tie knot indicate that the bullet passed through JFK on a right to left angle.   There was no indication in the car that the bullet went on to strike anything in the car with significant force.  So, if it exited JFK with any significant velocity, which is almost certain, it must have struck something other than the car.  That leaves JBC was the only possible object that was struck by the bullet that exited JFK.

But that does not lead to the SBT. 

One of the many problems with the SBT is that the right to left angle was about 10-12 degrees depending on where the car was when the first shot occurred. The witness and photographic evidence is pretty consistent that the first shot was after z190 and before z202 and that it struck JFK.  At z197, the right-to-left angle was 12 degrees. That means that over the approximately 24 inches between JFK's neck and the plane of the jump seat-back behind Gov. Connally, the bullet travelled another 5 inches farther left. It is not likely or, in my view even possible, that the bullet, traveling in a straight line after leaving JFK struck Gov. Connally in the right armpit. 
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 20, 2018, 07:33:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The holes in JFK's jacket, shirt, back and throat as well as the abrasion on the left side of the tie knot indicate that the bullet passed through JFK on a right to left angle.   There was no indication in the car that the bullet went on to strike anything in the car with significant force.  So, if it exited JFK with any significant velocity, which is almost certain, it must have struck something other than the car.  That leaves JBC was the only possible object that was struck by the bullet that exited JFK.

But that does not lead to the SBT. 

One of the many problems with the SBT is that the right to left angle was about 10-12 degrees depending on where the car was when the first shot occurred. The witness and photographic evidence is pretty consistent that the first shot was after z190 and before z202 and that it struck JFK.  At z197, the right-to-left angle was 12 degrees. That means that over the approximately 24 inches between JFK's neck and the plane of the jump seat-back behind Gov. Connally, the bullet travelled another 5 inches farther left. It is not likely or, in my view even possible, that the bullet, traveling in a straight line after leaving JFK struck Gov. Connally in the right armpit.

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/limo_motorcade.jpg)

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/robinson1.jpg)  (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/robinson2.jpg)

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/zfilm/connallys/connally-san-antonio-dallas-car-rail.jpg)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 20, 2018, 07:40:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The holes in JFK's jacket, shirt, back and throat as well as the abrasion on the left side of the tie knot indicate that the bullet passed through JFK on a right to left angle.   There was no indication in the car that the bullet went on to strike anything in the car with significant force.  So, if it exited JFK with any significant velocity, which is almost certain, it must have struck something other than the car.  That leaves JBC was the only possible object that was struck by the bullet that exited JFK.

But that does not lead to the SBT. 

One of the many problems with the SBT is that the right to left angle was about 10-12 degrees depending on where the car was when the first shot occurred. The witness and photographic evidence is pretty consistent that the first shot was after z190 and before z202 and that it struck JFK.  At z197, the right-to-left angle was 12 degrees. That means that over the approximately 24 inches between JFK's neck and the plane of the jump seat-back behind Gov. Connally, the bullet travelled another 5 inches farther left. It is not likely or, in my view even possible, that the bullet, traveling in a straight line after leaving JFK struck Gov. Connally in the right armpit.
   

The Mistaken Assumption above is that the JFK Throat Wound was an Exit wound.
Bearing in mind: (1) White House Photographer Robert L Knudsen testified before the HSCA that on 11/23/63 he Developed & Viewed B/W Autopsy Photo(s) of a Probe in the Neck of JFK running front-to-back/entrance-to-exit, and (2) Humes Stuck his finger in the JFK Back wound and that wound Stopped at Humes 1st Knuckle = the Throat Wound being an ENTRANCE Wound.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on February 21, 2018, 08:53:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Limos aren't the same, Connally is lower and further back, perspective can be your friend.
(https://s17.postimg.org/4slunr0cf/Connally_Kennedy_limo.jpg)

JohnM
The bullet still goes to the left of JBC's mid-line.  You would have to put JBC's right armpit to the left of the centre of the jump seat in order for it to begin to work. Here is the trajectory based on a scale 3D model of Dealey Plaza and the limo with the limo and occupants in positions consistent with frame z197.

(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_positions1.jpg)


But your "SBT Fact" has more than just trajectory problems.  It does not fit with:

1.  at least 22 witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot as if he was hit by it.  Not a single witness said he waved or smiled afterward, let alone for 3 seconds.
2.  at least 40 witnesses said the last two shots were perceptibly closer together than the first two. 6 thought it was the other way around.
3.  dozens of witnesses put the first shot after z190, including two photographers (Hughes and Betzner), occupants of the VP car and VP security car, and witnesses standing on Elm St.

So as far as the SBT being a "fact", it isn't. It is a theory. And it is a theory that does not fit with a great deal of consistent independent pieces of evidence.  There is a much simpler explanation than the SBT that fits with all the evidence, including the overwhelming evidence that Oswald was the only shooter. Three shots, three hits, one shooter. .
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 21, 2018, 09:30:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The bullet still goes to the left of JBC's mid-line.  You would have to put JBC's right armpit to the left of the centre of the jump seat in order for it to begin to work. Here is the trajectory based on a scale 3D model of Dealey Plaza and the limo with the limo and occupants in positions consistent with frame z197.


(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/sketchup/mason-z197-shoulder-askew.jpg)

Your SketchUp model has been thoroughly discredited.

Quote


But your "SBT Fact" has more than just trajectory problems.  It does not fit with:

1.  at least 22 witnesses who said that JFK reacted to the first shot as if he was hit by it.  Not a single witness said he waved or smiled afterward, let alone for 3 seconds.


Went through those already. How many witnesses could see clearly the President's face or much of his right hand?

In your paper, you state:
    "At least 16 witnesses recalled that the President reacted
     to the first shot by leaning left and bringing his hands to
     his neck. (footnote) From frame 167 to frame 198 of the
     Zapruder film the President and First Lady turned to their
     right to smile and wave at the crowd. No one said that the
     smiling and waving occurred after the first shot."

From your footnote:
That's 16 ...
BTW, several of your first-shot "slump" witnesses thought the first two shots were closer together than the last two.

Quote

2.  at least 40 witnesses said the last two shots were perceptibly closer together than the first two. 6 thought it was the other way around.
3.  dozens of witnesses put the first shot after z190, including two photographers (Hughes and Betzner), occupants of the VP car and VP security car, and witnesses standing on Elm St.


Betzner said he was winding his camera and looked up from doing that when he heard the first shot. He's still lowering his camera and had yet to look down when he goes out of the Zapruder film at Z207. Your Z197?? first shot has already occurred but a Z223 shot is near to occurring. Betzner said he could only recall two shots but thought he heard another, so his "first shot" is not literally the first shot.

Hughes says he stopped filming about five seconds before the shots were heard. Problem for your Z197?? first shot is that he quits filming at Z185.

Quote

So as far as the SBT being a "fact", it isn't. It is a theory. And it is a theory that does not fit with a great deal of consistent independent pieces of evidence.  There is a much simpler explanation than the SBT that fits with all the evidence, including the overwhelming evidence that Oswald was the only shooter. Three shots, three hits, one shooter. .

The SBT theory is as simple as it gets. Your theory is unbelievably complicated.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 21, 2018, 10:04:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is a much simpler explanation than the SBT that fits with all the evidence, including the overwhelming evidence that Oswald was the only shooter. Three shots, three hits, one shooter. .

There's no overwhelming evidence that Oswald was a shooter.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on February 22, 2018, 04:05:58 AM
Quote
Your SketchUp model has been thoroughly discredited.
Who has discredited it? You? You have said nothing about the trajectory from the SN. The trajectory shows the bullet going to the left side of Connally. Unless his right armpit was on the left side of his seat the SBT can't work.

Quote
Went through those already. How many witnesses could see clearly the President's face or much of his right hand?

In your paper, you state:
    "At least 16 witnesses recalled that the President reacted
     to the first shot by leaning left and bringing his hands to
     his neck. (footnote) From frame 167 to frame 198 of the
     Zapruder film the President and First Lady turned to their
     right to smile and wave at the crowd. No one said that the
     smiling and waving occurred after the first shot."

From your footnote:
  • T.E. Moore (could not see the President's face and not much of his raided right hand;


    Moore's "slumping forward" could be head nod in the Z170s as seen from behind.)
  • Nellie Connally, whom you quote: "I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck." How can Nellie be reacting to a first shot at Z192ish if she doesn't see the President until he has his hands at his neck area? That's nearly two full seconds before she sees Kennedy if she heard a shot at Z192.
  • David Powers (can't see the President's face and maybe not his right hand)
  • Gayle Newman
  • William Newman, whom you quote: "The President jumped up in his seat, and it looked like what I thought was a firecracker had went off and I thought he had realized it. It was just like an explosion and he was standing up." ("Jumped up in his seat" and "he had realized like it" seems like the President was startled, not wounded.)
  • John Chism (shot you referenced occurred before the last shot)
  • Faye Chism (shot you referenced occurred before the last shot)
  • James Altgens, whom you state: "He said his z255 shot was after first shot and before any other." (But his testimony shows he was really only sure of two shots, but when pressed, he placed a shot between the two shots he was sure of.)
  • Abraham Zapruder (from the quote you provide, he could be be talking about the Z223 shot)
  • Clint Hill (even you acknowledge he only recalled two shots; Hill's "slump" shot could have occurred before the last shot.)
  • Linda Willis (she wouldn't see the President "grab his throat" and her view to the President at Z223 was probably blocked; more likely she saw the President when she had a view of him earlier -- "kind of slumped forward" could be the Z170s head nod as seen from behind.)
  • George Hickey (can't see the President's face; Hickey claims 2 to 3 seconds passed before he saw the President "slump"; three seconds before Z223 is Z168.)
  • Sam Kinney (can't see the President's face; Kinney's statement "I saw the President lean toward the left and appeared to have grabbed his chest with his right hand" could be the Z170s head nod and subsequent right hand lowering as seen from behind.)
  • Paul Landis, whom you quote: "I saw him moving in a manner which I thought was to look in the direction of the sound." (Doesn't sound like a witness for leaning leftward nor bringing his hands to his neck. Also can't see the President's face.)
  • Cecil Ault, whom you describe with:
        "Viewing from court house on Houston. Reported to
          have seen JFK rise up in his seat after first shot."

    (But Ault's full comment "Following the first shot Mr. AULT noted that President KENNEDY appeared to raise up in his seat in the Presidential automobile and after the second shot the President slumped into his seat" has the President slumping on the second shot.)
  • Harold Norman ("slumped or something" could just well be the Z170s head nod or Kennedy brushing his hair in the Z150s.)
That's 16 ...
  • Malcolm Summers (shot you referenced occurred before the last shot)
  • Mary Moorman, whom you quote: "As I snapped the picture of President Kennedy, I heard a shot ring out. President Kennedy kind of slumped over." (Can't quite link her taking her picture as the first shot occurred.)
  • Jean Newman (shot you referencef occurred before the last shot)
  • Charles Brehm (shot you referenced occurred before the last shot)
  • Pierce Allman, whom you quote: "the President was ducking from the first shot." (Couldn't see the President's face nor much of the right hand; could be head nod in Z170s as seen from behind.)
BTW, several of your first-shot "slump" witnesses thought the first two shots were closer together than the last two.
Quote
Thank-you for showing us why that huge amount of consistent evidence must be all wrong in tbe same way for tbe SBT to work.
Quote
Betzner said he was winding his camera and looked up from doing that when he heard the first shot. He's still lowering his camera and had yet to look down when he goes out of the Zapruder film at Z207. Your Z197?? first shot has already occurred but a Z223 shot is near to occurring. Betzner said he could only recall two shots but thought he heard another, so his "first shot" is not literally the first shot.
So Betzner, Life, the HSCA, Trask and just about everyone except you missed the "fact" that Betzner forgot that he had heard an "ear-shattering" noise two seconds before he took his photo? That is your position?

Quote
Hughes says he stopped filming about five seconds before the shots were heard. Problem for your Z197?? first shot is that he quits filming at Z185.
Hughes estimated that delay at 5 seconds long after the events. So your position is that he not only over-estimated it but he also got it backward and in fact he was filming for 2 seconds after the first shot?  I guess if the evidence doesn't fit you shouldn't quit... change it a bit, to make it fit.

Quote
The SBT theory is as simple as it gets. Your theory is unbelievably complicated.
The SBT is the complicated theory. Just look at the contortions to the evidence you have shown you need for it to work..
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 22, 2018, 04:43:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Who has discredited it? You? You have said nothing about the trajectory from the SN. The trajectory shows the bullet going to the left side of Connally.


(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/_/rsrc/1347555584838/misc/mason/mason-nut-first-shot.png)

Quote

Unless his right armpit was on the left side of his seat the SBT can't work.


LOL! Get your eyes checked.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 22, 2018, 04:44:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Who has discredited it? You? You have said nothing about the trajectory from the SN. The trajectory shows the bullet going to the left side of Connally. Unless his right armpit was on the left side of his seat the SBT can't work.
 So Betzner, Life, the HSCA, Trask and just about everyone except you missed the "fact" that Betzner forgot that he had heard an "ear-shattering" noise two seconds before he took his photo? That is your position?
 Hughes estimated that delay at 5 seconds long after the events. So your position is that he not only over-estimated it but he also got it backward and in fact he was filming for 2 seconds after the first shot?  I guess if the evidence doesn't fit you shouldn't quit... change it a bit, to make it fit.
The SBT is the complicated theory. Just look at the contortions to the evidence you have shown you need for it to work..

Andrew, I'm quite sure that I can get the SBT to work. I've done it before.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on February 22, 2018, 06:37:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

LOL! Get your eyes checked.
Your drawing is flawed. You have JBC too far left because the sight line from Zapruder goes to JBC's nose through the side window. He was farther right than that.  See this:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/mason-nut-first-shot.bmp)

Here are the positions in 3D at z197:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_1.jpg)
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_2.jpg)
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_3.jpg)
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_4.jpg)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 22, 2018, 07:28:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your drawing is flawed. You have JBC too far left because the sight line from Zapruder goes to JBC's nose through the side window. He was farther right than that.  See this:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/mason-nut-first-shot.bmp)

Here are the positions in 3D at z197:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_1.jpg)
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_2.jpg)
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_3.jpg)
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_4.jpg)

Again, the assumption in All of these visual aids is that JFK's throat wound was an Exit Wound. WHERE is there Any Proof that JFK's Back Wound connected/Exited at a point on his Throat?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on February 22, 2018, 08:23:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
           Again, the assumption in All of these visual aids is that JFK's throat wound was an Exit Wound. WHERE is there Any Proof that JFK's Back Wound connected/Exited at a point on his Throat?
It is not an assumption.  It is an inference based on the available evidence. 

There was a 6 mm entry wound on the back just to the right of the spine near the neck. There was no bullet in the body.  There was a bullet hole in JFK's neck that was observed by the medical staff at Parkland. The hole was enlarged for a tracheostomy. There were holes in JFK's shirt under the tie and a nick on the tie consistent with a bullet exiting the throat at that location.  There was evidence that bullets were fired from the SN using the 6.5 mm rifle found on the sixth floor.  Ballistics and medical evidence indicates that JFK's neck would not have stopped such a bullet. 

From that evidence one can draw a reasonable inference (I would say the only conceivable inference that can be drawn from that evidence) that the throat wound was an exit wound from the bullet that struck JFK in the back.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on February 22, 2018, 08:31:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Andrew, I'm quite sure that I can get the SBT to work. I've done it before.
One can get it to work.  It is just that one cannot get it to work and fit the evidence. The angle at z225 is 9 degrees so the right to left travel is less.  But at z225 JBC had turned around to face forward.  With JBC facing forward it is even harder to get the right armpit over to the left so that it is 4 inches farther left than JFK's throat. Sightlines show that JBC is in the middle of his seat so his right armpit is to the right of the middle of the seat.  Also JBC's right wrist is not in a position to receive a bullet exiting below his right nipple.  And the path does not align with his left leg at all (even if his left leg was not pointing out to the left but was pointing straight forward, which is unlikely).
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 22, 2018, 09:53:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It is not an assumption.  It is an inference based on the available evidence. 

There was a 6 mm entry wound on the back just to the right of the spine near the neck. There was no bullet in the body.  There was a bullet hole in JFK's neck that was observed by the medical staff at Parkland. The hole was enlarged for a tracheostomy. There were holes in JFK's shirt under the tie and a nick on the tie consistent with a bullet exiting the throat at that location.  There was evidence that bullets were fired from the SN using the 6.5 mm rifle found on the sixth floor.  Ballistics and medical evidence indicates that JFK's neck would not have stopped such a bullet. 

From that evidence one can draw a reasonable inference (I would say the only conceivable inference that can be drawn from that evidence) that the throat wound was an exit wound from the bullet that struck JFK in the back.

(1) Dr. Humes stuck his Finger into the JFK Back Wound and his finger STOPPED at roughly his 1st knuckle. (1) There was a Pristine Bullet recovered at Parkland Hospital. 1+1 = 2  The Bullet that Entered JFK's throat was extracted when his body arrived at Bethesda at 18:35. The early/clandestine arrival of JFK's body is Proven per: (1) Sgt Boyajian's Official MD-236, and (2) Humes ARRB Testimony has him 1st seeing the body of JFK at 18:45. Jackie Kennedy and JFK's Empty coffin eventually Arrived at Bethesda at 19:00. The "Official" JFK Autopsy allegedly started at roughly 20:00.   
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 22, 2018, 10:14:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
One can get it to work.  It is just that one cannot get it to work and fit the evidence. The angle at z225 is 9 degrees so the right to left travel is less.  But at z225 JBC had turned around to face forward.  With JBC facing forward it is even harder to get the right armpit over to the left so that it is 4 inches farther left than JFK's throat. Sightlines show that JBC is in the middle of his seat so his right armpit is to the right of the middle of the seat.  Also JBC's right wrist is not in a position to receive a bullet exiting below his right nipple.  And the path does not align with his left leg at all (even if his left leg was not pointing out to the left but was pointing straight forward, which is unlikely).

Andrew,

We don't know exactly where JBC's left leg was at Z223. Nor his right wrist for that matter. But we do know that he was not facing forward as you claim. He was rotated about 30 degrees to the right. Myers has him rotated 37 degrees at that point.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 22, 2018, 10:18:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
       (1) Dr. Humes stuck his Finger into the JFK Back Wound and his finger STOPPED at roughly his 1st knuckle. (

The hole in JFK's "back" was 7 mm x 4 mm. Do you honestly believe that Humes stuck any of his fingers inside of that hole?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 22, 2018, 11:24:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your drawing is flawed. You have JBC too far left because the sight line from Zapruder goes to JBC's nose through the side window. He was farther right than that.  See this:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/mason-nut-first-shot.bmp)


I don't understand. Your "shifted" Connally figure doesn't have the sight-line going through his nose -- just more so.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/mason/sketchup/Mason-Claim-Feb22-2018.png)

I redrew my alignment using my own drawing of the limousine and making some necessary adjustments. The relationship between Kennedy and Connally at Z193 is basically the same as it was in the 2012 graphic -- just they moved on the new diagram a bit to their right.

Quote

Here are the positions in 3D at z197:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/limo_z197_First_Shot_1.jpg)

You know, right, that that is not a genuine match of a Zapruder frame?

And we have the same problem with the shoulder line:

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/_/rsrc/1469292768677/misc/mason/sketchup/mason-z197-shoulder-askew.jpg)

Your overhead view is hilarious:

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35c3ixi.jpg)

You're mainly hampered by three things:
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on February 22, 2018, 11:31:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Andrew,

We don't know exactly where JBC's left leg was at Z223. Nor his right wrist for that matter. But we do know that he was not facing forward as you claim. He was rotated about 30 degrees to the right. Myers has him rotated 37 degrees at that point.
Ok. 30 degrees is a 1 o'clock position, which is plausible at z223.   But the point is that he is more forward facing that he was at z193. His right armpit has to be to   the right of his spine and is nowhere near being 4 inches left of JFK's midline, which is where it has to be for the SBT to begin to work (even ignoring the lack of any alignment of the chest exit and wrist or the wrist and left thigh).  You are right that we do not know where the left thigh was exactly but I think it would be highly unusual if his left thigh was on the right side of the jump seat. 

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 22, 2018, 11:47:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The hole in JFK's "back" was 7 mm x 4 mm. Do you honestly believe that Humes stuck any of his fingers inside of that hole?


      Are you disputing the Size of the Aligned Holes in: (1) JFK's Suit Coat, (2) JFK's Dress Shirt, and (3) JFK's Back /Autopsy Photo/Autopsy Face Sheet ???
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 23, 2018, 12:46:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok. 30 degrees is a 1 o'clock position, which is plausible at z223.   But the point is that he is more forward facing that he was at z193. His right armpit has to be to   the right of his spine and is nowhere near being 4 inches left of JFK's midline, which is where it has to be for the SBT to begin to work (even ignoring the lack of any alignment of the chest exit and wrist or the wrist and left thigh).  You are right that we do not know where the left thigh was exactly but I think it would be highly unusual if his left thigh was on the right side of the jump seat.

At Z193, Myers has Connally rotated by over 40 degrees I'm sure. The HSCA estimated his rotation to be 30 degrees to slightly over 45 degrees. So yes, 30 degrees is plausible at z223. Let's go with that.

ITEK's stereophotogammetric analysis placed Connally as much as 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 23, 2018, 12:46:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

      Are you disputing the Size of the Aligned Holes in: (1) JFK's Suit Coat, (2) JFK's Dress Shirt, and (3) JFK's Back /Autopsy Photo/Autopsy Face Sheet ???

I am not disputing the size of the hole as described on the autopsy facesheet. 7 x 4 mm.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on February 23, 2018, 02:57:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't understand. Your "shifted" Connally figure doesn't have the sight-line going through his nose -- just more so.

I redrew my alignment using my own drawing of the limousine and making some necessary adjustments. The relationship between Kennedy and Connally at Z193 is basically the same as it was in the 2012 graphic -- just they moved on the new diagram a bit to their right.
You can make the sightlines anything you want if you are not constrained by the evidence.  I have made my drawing of the car correspond to the actual dimensions of the car.  I don't know where you get your drawing from but the position of the jump seat is several inches farther left than it was and the side window and bulkhead in front of JBC appears to be at least 6 inches closer to the jump seat.


Quote
Your overhead view is hilarious:

You're mainly hampered by three things:
  • You can't do trajectory analysis
  • You can't do 3D analysis (you just picture it in your mind working)
  • Your theory's trajectory placements will never work in eternity
Trajectory analysis is possible to do accurately in a 3D model of Dealey Plaza and a correct model of the car.  You have yet to make a 3D model so I would not be too quick to criticise those who have. 

And, by the way, I have no theory about trajectory placements - just that they have to conform to the evidence.  You don't seem to be constrained by that.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 23, 2018, 03:18:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am not disputing the size of the hole as described on the autopsy facesheet. 7 x 4 mm.

Why are you dodging my question? Why? Because You have No Answer.  The Aligned Bullet Holes in: (1) JFK's Dress Coat, (2) JFK's Dress Shirt, & (3) JFK's Back/Autopsy Photo(s) are indisputable.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 23, 2018, 04:03:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You can make the sightlines anything you want if you are not constrained by the evidence. 


They're based on objective visual observation.

Quote

I have made my drawing of the car correspond to the actual dimensions of the car. 


It appears some of your "actual dimensions" made no allowance for perspective.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/_/rsrc/1470856243808/misc/mason/sketchup/shoehorn-wrongly-measure.jpg)

Quote

I don't know where you get your drawing from but the position of the jump seat is several inches farther left than it was and the side window and bulkhead in front of JBC appears to be at least 6 inches closer to the jump seat.


Observation and perceiving the effect of perspective on measurements and sight alignments.

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_9599335719_9020009fc7_o.jpg)
Possibly Connally is centered on
his jump-seat in this picture
  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_mURI_temp_64f8c3a5.jpg)
Was the jump-seat itself a good distance
from the car interior?
  (http://ss100x.com/LIMO1961.jpg)
Was the front of the jump seat near the rear
edge of the grab-bar (looking straight down)?

That's why I could no longer add figures and LoS using the 2012 diagram. There may be more adjustments and nudging in the future if new photos and the actual 100-X plans surface. I'm going where the evidence takes me.

Quote

Trajectory analysis is possible to do accurately in a 3D model of Dealey Plaza and a correct model of the car. 


Given all the things you've missed, you started off your SketchUp model with a limousine drawing that was inaccurate. And since you don't know how to do 3-D, you're building up from it was a disaster.

Quote

You have yet to make a 3D model so I would not be too quick to criticise those who have. 


I know you think your 3D model is the stuff of legend, but is there anything in particular that I pointed out about your 3D model that was inappropriate?

Quote

And, by the way, I have no theory about trajectory placements - just that they have to conform to the evidence.  You don't seem to be constrained by that.

Your trajectory alignments at Z197ish and Z270ish mainly conform to your pet theory.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 23, 2018, 07:46:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
     Why are you dodging my question? Why? Because You have No Answer.  The Aligned Bullet Holes in: (1) JFK's Dress Coat, (2) JFK's Dress Shirt, & (3) JFK's Back/Autopsy Photo(s) are indisputable.



Quote
The Aligned Bullet Holes in: (1) JFK's Dress Coat

(https://pantherapi.assetsdelivery.com/thumbnails/arcady31/arcady311210/arcady31121000067.jpg)

Thanks for inadvertently helping to prove the Single Bullet Fact.

(https://s17.postimg.org/jwqzswe4f/spectorsbf.gif)



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 23, 2018, 08:31:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


(https://pantherapi.assetsdelivery.com/thumbnails/arcady31/arcady311210/arcady31121000067.jpg)

Thanks for inadvertently helping to prove the Single Bullet Fact.

(https://s17.postimg.org/jwqzswe4f/spectorsbf.gif)

JohnM


Mytton, you're such a dufus, and a total amateur, mate. You need to take some courses on forensic photogrammetry for you to recognize how clueless and full of BS you are.

All this CAD crap is pointless and misleading. There are 2 angles you need to know to do a formal trajectory analysis, which are the angles from the 6th floor to the limo in 3-space. I accept that the downward angle is 17 degrees and the tangential angle is 7 degrees. But that's where it ends with respect to 3D modelling. I have to laugh at all the CAD renderings to analyze a problem that can be accomplished with human surrogates, not CGI models. Photoshoppers, which includes Myttonhead need to bow out and stop posting crap that they know nothing about. The most frustrating part of posting on the JFK forum is that ALL analyses are null and void because the LNers are not peers wrt photo-analysis. They're photoshoppers, not photogrammetrists.

I have said it over and over how any Joe LNer can settle the premise of this thread by setting up 2 lasers that point at one another (17 deg downward, 7 degrees tangential) and experiment with actors in a simulated limo. Surrogates don't lie, CGI does. Do the damned experiment for yourself. It's cheap and accurate as hell. But somehow I doubt any LNer will post the results.

Lastly, here's more food for thought. If 1 of the head shots did come from the front, then where was the shooter?

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg)


Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 23, 2018, 08:46:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
     Why are you dodging my question? Why? Because You have No Answer.  The Aligned Bullet Holes in: (1) JFK's Dress Coat, (2) JFK's Dress Shirt, & (3) JFK's Back/Autopsy Photo(s) are indisputable.

Your question was, "Are you disputing the Size of the Aligned Holes in: (1) JFK's Suit Coat, (2) JFK's Dress Shirt, and (3) JFK's Back /Autopsy Photo/Autopsy Face Sheet?"

To answer to your question fully; I'm not disputing the size of the hole Jfk's jacket, the size of the hole in his shirt , or the size of the hole described on the autopsy Facesheet or as seen in the autopsy photo.  Of  course the holes were aligned at the time of the shot.The Jacket and shirt were bunched up.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 23, 2018, 08:54:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Mytton, you're such a dufus, and a total amateur, mate. You need to take some courses on forensic photogrammetry for you to recognize how clueless and full of BS you are.

All this CAD crap is pointless and misleading. There are 2 angles you need to know to do a formal trajectory analysis, which are the angles from the 6th floor to the limo in 3-space. I accept that the downward angle is 17 degrees and the tangential angle is 7 degrees. But that's where it ends with respect to 3D modelling. I have to laugh at all the CAD renderings to analyze a problem that can be accomplished with human surrogates, not CGI models. Photoshoppers, which includes Myttonhead need to bow out and stop posting crap that they know nothing about. The most frustrating part of posting on the JFK forum is that ALL analyses are null and void because the LNers are not peers wrt photo-analysis. They're photoshoppers, not photogrammetrists.

I have said it over and over how any Joe LNer can settle the premise of this thread by setting up 2 lasers that point at one another (17 deg downward, 7 degrees tangential) and experiment with actors in a simulated limo. Surrogates don't lie, CGI does. Do the damned experiment for yourself. It's cheap and accurate as hell. But somehow I doubt any LNer will post the results.

Lastly, here's more food for thought. If 1 of the head shots did come from the front, then where was the shooter?

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg)







Quote
Mytton, you're such a dufus, and a total amateur, mate.

Awesome, our self professed photogrammetrist nuclear scientist is back. Yippee!

Quote
All this CAD crap is pointless and misleading.

The image was simply showing the jacket bunch, the "CAD crap" comes from your Kooky mate Ernie! Hahaha!

Quote
There are 2 angles you need to know to do a formal trajectory analysis, which are the angles from the 6th floor to the limo in 3-space.

Bullets don't travel in straight lines. Try again

Quote
I have to laugh at all the CAD renderings to analyze a problem that can be accomplished with human surrogates, not CGI models. Photoshoppers, which includes Myttonhead need to bow out and stop posting crap that they know nothing about.

Then you come up with this piece dog poo of an undefined 2D line on a 3D image done in Microsoft Paint -snigger-, some photogrammetrist!?, you're a Joke Trojan. LOLOLOLOL!

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg)

Quote
I have said it over and over how any Joe LNer can settle the premise of this thread by setting up 2 lasers that point at one another (17 deg downward, 7 degrees tangential) and experiment with actors in a simulated limo. Surrogates don't lie, CGI does. Do the damned experiment for yourself. It's cheap and accurate as hell. But somehow I doubt any LNer will post the results.

Wow, Weidmann your blood brother did the exact same experiment, but forgot to document it! Doh!



JohnM

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 23, 2018, 09:30:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Awesome, our self professed photogrammetrist nuclear scientist is back. Yippee!
I'm your worst nightmare Myttonhead, someone who knows what an amateur you are.

Quote
The image was simply showing the jacket bunch, the "CAD crap" comes from your Kooky mate Ernie! Hahaha!
So if JFK's jacket was "bunched" then he already had his hands to his throat before Z226, which caused the bunching, correct?
BTW, Earnie's CAD drawings are the best of the bunch and I am not claiming that 3D CGI is worthless, only that it will not convince anyone because you can arrange CGI characters any way you damn please. Human surrogates are the forensic way to settle this, which even YOU can do.

Quote
Bullets don't travel in straight lines. Try again
Bullets are like any object subjected to gravitational forces. They will take a parabolic path from start to finish. However, bullets travel so fast that their parabolic arc is very large and almost insignificant over a couple of hundred yards, mate.

Quote
Then you come up with this piece dog poo of an undefined 2D line on a 3D image done in Microsoft Paint -snigger-, some photogrammetrist!?, you're a Joke Trojan. LOLOLOLOL!
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg)
:D How you compose an image has nothing to do with the image editor you use, dufus. You have no idea.

Quote
Wow, Weidmann your blood brother did the exact same experiment, but forgot to document it! Doh!
How old are you? Do the SIMPLE, CHEAP experiment for yourself, or STFU.

JackT
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 23, 2018, 09:51:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm your worst nightmare Myttonhead, someone who knows what an amateur you are.
So if JFK's jacket was "bunched" then he already had his hands to his throat before Z226, which caused the bunching, correct?
BTW, Earnie's CAD drawings are the best of the bunch and I am not claiming that 3D CGI is worthless, only that it will not convince anyone because you can arrange CGI characters any way you damn please. Human surrogates are the forensic way to settle this, which even YOU can do.
Bullets are like any object subjected to gravitational forces. They will take a parabolic path from start to finish. However, bullets travel so fast that their parabolic arc is very large and almost insignificant over a couple of hundred yards, mate.
:D How you compose an image has nothing to do with the image editor you use, dufus. You have no idea.
How old are you? Do the SIMPLE, CHEAP experiment for yourself, or STFU.

JackT




Quote
I'm your worst nightmare Myttonhead, someone who knows what an amateur you are.

Oh puhleeze, let's not go through your history where I have thoroughly smashed everyone of your layman claims, like when you claimed to know photography but didn't know basic 101 about actual 35mm film size or even it's orientation. How embarrassing!
 
Quote
So if JFK's jacket was "bunched" then he already had his hands to his throat before Z226, which caused the bunching, correct?

Huh?, the jacket was bunched from Love field right through to Elm Street and when any Jacket hole measurements are taken this bunching must be taken into account.

Quote
BTW, Earnie's CAD drawings are the best of the bunch and I am not claiming that 3D CGI is worthless, only that it will not convince anyone because you can arrange CGI characters any way you damn please.


Yep, Ernie's a classic at arranging CGI characters onto 2 dimensional backgrounds.

Quote
Human surrogates are the forensic way to settle this, which even YOU can do.

So can YOU, document and prove something for a change instead of bludging off everybody else.

Quote
How old are you? Do the SIMPLE, CHEAP experiment for yourself, or STFU.

Calm down and take some deep breaths before you pop a blood vessel.
If it's so simple show us stop making silly demands, YOU prove it, surely a photography expert has a camera, do you have a camera? Giggle!



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 23, 2018, 09:52:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



Awesome, our self professed photogrammetrist nuclear scientist is back. Yippee!

The image was simply showing the jacket bunch, the "CAD crap" comes from your Kooky mate Ernie! Hahaha!

Bullets don't travel in straight lines. Try again

Then you come up with this piece dog poo of an undefined 2D line on a 3D image done in Microsoft Paint -snigger-, some photogrammetrist!?, you're a Joke Trojan. LOLOLOLOL!

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg)

Wow, Weidmann your blood brother did the exact same experiment, but forgot to document it! Doh!



JohnM

Wow, Weidmann your blood brother did the exact same experiment, but forgot to document it! Doh!

You really have to misrepresent everything, don't you? What is it with you? Is it simply that you just can't help yourself or are you really so afraid of the truth that you feel you need to lie all the time?

First of all, I did not do the exact same experiment. I just pointed a laser from the location of the limo to the 6th floor window and I did so to satisfy my own curiosity. And secondly, I did not forget to document it, either. I never planned to do so and never gave it any thought. Obviously, at the time I did it, I was not aware that years later I would run into a complete idiotic liar like you.

In any event, the "experiment" made it painfully obvious that the entire SBT is complete fiction.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 23, 2018, 09:55:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wow, Weidmann your blood brother did the exact same experiment, but forgot to document it! Doh!

You really have to misrepresent everything, don't you? What is it with you? Is it simply that you just can't help yourself or are you really so afraid of the truth that you feel you need to lie all the time?

First of all, I did not do the exact same experiment. I just pointed a laser from the location of the limo to the 6th floor window and I did so to satisfy my own curiosity. And secondly, I did not forget to document it, either. I never planned to do so and never gave it any thought. Obviously, at the time I did it, I was not aware that years later I found run into a complete idiotic liar like you.

In any event, the "experiment" made it painfully obvious that the entire SBT is complete fiction.




Blah blah blah, don't give us another sob story, either prove it or like your bosom buddy Trojan likes to say, STFU! ;D



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 23, 2018, 09:57:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Blah blah blah, don't give us another sob story, either prove it or like your bosom buddy Trojan says, STFU! ;D

JohnM

Trojan asked you how old you are and you have just provided the answer....
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 23, 2018, 10:06:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh puhleeze, let's not go through your history where I have thoroughly smashed everyone of your layman claims, like when you claimed to know photography but didn't know basic 101 about actual 35mm film size or even it's orientation. How embarrassing!
WTF are you talking about? You are the layman by everyone's standards.

Quote

Huh?, the jacket was bunched from Love field right through to Elm Street and when any Jacket hole measurements are taken this bunching must be taken into account.
JFK bunched the hell out of his jacket AFTER he got shot in the throat by the MB, which missed Connally. So what is your point dufus?

Quote
So can YOU, document and prove something for a change instead of bludging off everybody else.
Let's get this straight, no one is going to prove anything on the JFK forum, especially YOU.

Quote
Calm down and take some deep breaths before you pop a blood vessel.
If it's so simple show us stop making silly demands, YOU prove it, surely a photography expert has a camera, do you have a camera? Giggle!
I have done my laser experiment, which proves to me that the MB is BS. Would you buy my results if I posted them? Convince yourself dufus.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 23, 2018, 10:16:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
WTF are you talking about? You are the layman by everyone's standards.
JFK bunched the HELL out of his jacket after he got shot in the throat by the MB, which missed Connally. So what is your point dufus?
Let's get this straight, no one is going to prove anything on the JFK forum, especially YOU.
I have done my laser experiment, which proves to me that the MB is BS. What if I posted my results? Would you buy it? LOLOLOLOLOL! Convince yourself dufus.



Quote
WTF are you talking about? You are the layman by everyone's standards.

I have never claimed to be an expert, I let my posts and images do the talking.

Quote
JFK bunched the HELL out of his jacket after he got shot in the throat by the MB, which missed Connally. So what is your point dufus?
Let's get this straight, no one is going to prove anything on the JFK forum, especially YOU.
I have done my laser experiment, which proves to me that the MB is BS. What if I posted my results? Would you buy it? LOLOLOLOLOL! Convince yourself dufus.

I can't respond to this, you're a certified Loony!



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 23, 2018, 10:33:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have never claimed to be an expert, I let my posts and images do the talking.
Your posts aren't talkin' to anyone.

Quote
I can't respond to this, you're a certified Loony!
:( LOL!
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 23, 2018, 10:41:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Awesome, our self professed photogrammetrist nuclear scientist is back. Yippee!

 ;D
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 23, 2018, 10:56:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Mytton, you're such a dufus, and a total amateur, mate. You need to take some courses on forensic photogrammetry for you to recognize how clueless and full of BS you are.

All this CAD crap is pointless and misleading. There are 2 angles you need to know to do a formal trajectory analysis, which are the angles from the 6th floor to the limo in 3-space. I accept that the downward angle is 17 degrees and the tangential angle is 7 degrees. But that's where it ends with respect to 3D modelling. I have to laugh at all the CAD renderings to analyze a problem that can be accomplished with human surrogates, not CGI models. Photoshoppers, which includes Myttonhead need to bow out and stop posting crap that they know nothing about. The most frustrating part of posting on the JFK forum is that ALL analyses are null and void because the LNers are not peers wrt photo-analysis. They're photoshoppers, not photogrammetrists.

I have said it over and over how any Joe LNer can settle the premise of this thread by setting up 2 lasers that point at one another (17 deg downward, 7 degrees tangential) and experiment with actors in a simulated limo. Surrogates don't lie, CGI does. Do the damned experiment for yourself. It's cheap and accurate as hell. But somehow I doubt any LNer will post the results.

Lastly, here's more food for thought. If 1 of the head shots did come from the front, then where was the shooter?

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/TrainOverpassTurkeyShoot.jpg)

Are we to take your word for the laser thing, or are you going to post your experiment? Surely you would have a video of what you claim...
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 23, 2018, 11:26:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are we to take your word for the laser thing, or are you going to post your experiment? Surely you would have a video of what you claim...





Quote
Are we to take your word for the laser thing

Of course Bill, why would a Photogrammetrist, Nuclear scientist and all round Whizz Kid Lie???



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 24, 2018, 01:33:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm your worst nightmare Myttonhead, someone who knows what an amateur you are.
So if JFK's jacket was "bunched" then he already had his hands to his throat before Z226, which caused the bunching, correct?


(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-d8w0nVSeulY/Vh8YH0s0VOI/AAAAAAAAQME/xM4doigZBkE/s1600/JFKWHP-KN-C29318.jpg)

Sooooo rare for a jacket bunch to occur at the nape from just sitting in a car.

Quote

BTW, Earnie's CAD drawings are the best of the bunch ...


... As in bananas.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/PUhFfGhGLqdnq/giphy.gif)

"No way to get the rifle through the window."
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 24, 2018, 04:27:49 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Of course Bill, why would a Photogrammetrist, Nuclear scientist and all round Whizz Kid Lie???

JohnM

Does Trojan claim to be a professional?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on February 24, 2018, 04:42:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Does Trojan claim to be a professional?





You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Does Trojan claim to be a professional?




Yep, he claims a new profession whenever it suits the argument, he shares a lot in common with that other new angry guy Lloyd Morris whose mouth also writes cheques that his ass can't cash and coincidentally these aggressive and angry guys are both obsessed with Allen Dulles. How about that!



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 24, 2018, 05:07:41 AM
Use ce1312
Seat him on the brick wall inside. Plenty of room for Oswald to be seen seated in the window and be seen before the motorcade arrived.

Take a knee and move to the edge of the window for the head shot: Brennan didn't know the windows were low to the floor, so the shooter  'appeared' to be standing.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 25, 2018, 12:36:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are we to take your word for the laser thing, or are you going to post your experiment? Surely you would have a video of what you claim...

Yes, I have done the laser thing and, no I don't expect you to take my word for it. The whole point is for you to do it yourself because you wouldn't buy anything I posted anyway. You are a LNer and it's your job to ignore/obfuscate/deny any and all evidence that suggests Oswald was not a lone nut. Are you saying you might change your mind if I post my results? HA!

Everyone should convince themself by doing the simple, cheap experiment that even dufus Myttonhead can do. And it will be the most enlightening experiment you will ever do. But I doubt you will do it, since it might devastate your LNer world.

Here is what you need: 2 cheap leveling lasers (2 x $20), a protractor to set the angle of trajectory and a camera tripod. That's it! Set it all up as shown below:

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)

With the 2 lasers pointed at one another, sit in the chair so that the low laser strikes your throat at C6. Does the high laser strike your back at T1? No? Bend forward so that it does. How bent forward are you? Was JFK bent forward to the same degree?  The lasers simulate the bullet's straight line trajectory thru your body. To my knowledge no one has formally done this SIMPLE BLOODY EXPERIMENT which anyone can do, which renders all the CGI models moot. No one buys CAD drawings, but who can deny a deadly accurate re-enactment?

Good luck!

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 25, 2018, 02:40:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, I have done the laser thing and, no I don't expect you to take my word for it. The whole point is for you to do it yourself because you wouldn't buy anything I posted anyway. You are a LNer and it's your job to ignore/obfuscate/deny any and all evidence that suggests Oswald was not a lone nut. Are you saying you might change your mind if I post my results? HA!

Everyone should convince themself by doing the simple, cheap experiment that even dufus Myttonhead can do. And it will be the most enlightening experiment you will ever do. But I doubt you will do it, since it might devastate your LNer world.

Here is what you need: 2 cheap leveling lasers (2 x $20), a protractor to set the angle of trajectory and a camera tripod. That's it! Set it all up as shown below:

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)

With the 2 lasers pointed at one another, sit in the chair so that the low laser strikes your throat at C6. Does the high laser strike your back at T1? No? Bend forward so that it does. How bent forward are you? Was JFK bent forward to the same degree?  The lasers simulate the bullet's straight line trajectory thru your body. To my knowledge no one has formally done this SIMPLE BLOODY EXPERIMENT which anyone can do, which renders all the CGI models moot. No one buys CAD drawings, but who can deny a deadly accurate re-enactment?

Good luck!

Can you slouch and sit normally, or do you have to keep your back and neck 100% straight and then lean forward?

(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/jfk-final-minutes-03.jpg)

(http://www.tampabay.com/storyimage/HI/20131030/ARTICLE/310309500/EP/1/2/EP-310309500.jpg)  (https://wyostatearchives.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/wy-gf-4695a-pres-jf-kennedy-gale-mcgee-in-car-at-uw-9-25-63.jpg)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 25, 2018, 04:01:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can you slouch and sit normally, or do you have to keep your back and neck 100% straight and then lean forward?

(https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/jfk-final-minutes-03.jpg)

(http://www.tampabay.com/storyimage/HI/20131030/ARTICLE/310309500/EP/1/2/EP-310309500.jpg)  (https://wyostatearchives.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/wy-gf-4695a-pres-jf-kennedy-gale-mcgee-in-car-at-uw-9-25-63.jpg)

Do whatever makes you  happy. Then let us know how slouching put the MB in at T1 and out at C6.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 25, 2018, 04:49:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do whatever makes you  happy. Then let us know how slouching put the MB in at T1 and out at C6.

A downward trajectory at T1 would strike the first rib. How about enter at C7 and exit 3.5 cm lower at the throat? I don't know where you're getting an exit at C6.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 25, 2018, 03:37:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A downward trajectory at T1 would strike the first rib. How about enter at C7 and exit 3.5 cm lower at the throat? I don't know where you're getting an exit at C6.

A "downward trajectory" bullet fired from the 6th Floor of the TSBD which Enters at "C7", is NOT going to Exit at a spot on the throat ABOVE the knot in a tie. Now, a bullet fired from the 2nd Floor of the Dal Tex building Might be able to meet your proffered scenario.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 25, 2018, 04:19:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    A "downward trajectory" bullet fired from the 6th Floor of the TSBD which Enters at "C7", is NOT going to Exit at a spot on the throat ABOVE the knot in a tie. Now, a bullet fired from the 2nd Floor of the Dal Tex building Might be able to meet your proffered scenario.

Doesn't have to exit above the tie knot. It went through one side of the tie knot.

(http://www.vidiars.com/jfkwatergate/throatwoundplussuit.gif)
Animation Source Unknown

Twists & Turns of the Single Bullet Critics (Pt.4) ( Link (http://jfkfiles.blogspot.ca/2007/07/twists-turns-of-single-bullet-critics.html) )

About the Dr. James Carrico claim that the bullet hole was above the collar.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Royell Storing on February 25, 2018, 05:06:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Doesn't have to exit above the tie knot. It went through one side of the tie knot.

(http://www.vidiars.com/jfkwatergate/throatwoundplussuit.gif)
Animation Source Unknown

Twists & Turns of the Single Bullet Critics (Pt.4) ( Link (http://jfkfiles.blogspot.ca/2007/07/twists-turns-of-single-bullet-critics.html) )

About the Dr. James Carrico claim that the bullet hole was above the collar.

Not sure what you are getting at. A point "above the collar" would be at about the same Height as a point just above the knot in JFK's tie. Both positions on the throat are too High. A bullet fired in a Downward Trajectory entering at C7, (as You are claiming), would Not Exit at those High Points on the throat of JFK.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on February 26, 2018, 03:25:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
They're based on objective visual observation.
Mine are based on a full size model based on an accurate scale map of Dealey Plaza blown up to actual size and actual survey data.  I created a full-size model of the car using the H&E drawing and measurements and photographs.  I can then make all measurements on the model.  How do you determine angles and distances?

Quote
It appears some of your "actual dimensions" made no allowance for perspective.
The software takes care of perspective.  The perspective in Zapruder's film is somewhat flattened due to the use of a zoom lens.
Quote
Observation and perceiving the effect of perspective on measurements and sight alignments.
Actual measurements are better.
Quote
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_9599335719_9020009fc7_o.jpg)
Possibly Connally is centered on
his jump-seat in this picture
  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_mURI_temp_64f8c3a5.jpg)
Was the jump-seat itself a good distance
from the car interior?
  (http://ss100x.com/LIMO1961.jpg)
Was the front of the jump seat near the rear
edge of the grab-bar (looking straight down)?

That's why I could no longer add figures and LoS using the 2012 diagram. There may be more adjustments and nudging in the future if new photos and the actual 100-X plans surface. I'm going where the evidence takes me.
What are your values for the horizontal and vertical angles at z197? No matter how you do it, the bullet goes right to left

Quote
Given all the things you've missed, you started off your SketchUp model with a limousine drawing that was inaccurate. And since you don't know how to do 3-D, you're building up from it was a disaster.
Sketchup handles all the 3D stuff so one does not have to "know how to do 3D". One just has to know how to use Sketchup.  As you have pointed out, the scale drawings of the limo by Hess & Eisenhardt are not completely accurate. That is why my early models of the limo are not quite accurate.  Using a variety of photos of the limo at different angles is the only way to get the placements of the seats correct.  There may be some details that are still incorrect but I don't think they are major ones. If you can point out specific errors I will check and correct them if you are right.   

Quote
I know you think your 3D model is the stuff of legend, but is there anything in particular that I pointed out about your 3D model that was inappropriate?

Your trajectory alignments at Z197ish and Z270ish mainly conform to your pet theory.
You are using early (2012?) versions of the limo model.  Use the ones I have posted.  Trajectory alignments are based on the actual straight line from the SN to JFK's back where he appears to be in the car in z193.  The position of JBC's left leg is a bit of a guess. But it seems to me more likely that it was out to the left a bit than turned inward to the right. The path from JFK's throat to JBC's left thigh just works naturally.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 26, 2018, 09:59:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Use ce1312
Seat him on the brick wall inside. Plenty of room for Oswald to be seen seated in the window and be seen before the motorcade arrived.

Take a knee and move to the edge of the window for the head shot: Brennan didn't know the windows were low to the floor, so the shooter  'appeared' to be standing.

Taking a knee and still visible to Brennan from the belt up?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 26, 2018, 10:38:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Taking a knee and still visible to Brennan from the belt up?

Pretty sure Brennan said 'approximately'

Nobody knows for sure beyond the tip of the box seen in Dillard what the exact position of the box setup was during the firing sequence. Therefore I, along with witness testimony, can claim that the shooter found a position that enabled him to aim downrange effectively and successfully claim his place in history.

Just too bad 'anybody-but-Oswald' didn't have time to enter that in his History diary.

You are in the position of having not only to call each WC witness a liar, but also to tell us what they saw or didn't see.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 26, 2018, 11:40:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Pretty sure Brennan said 'approximately'

You're pretty sure about a lot of things.  How does that position even equate to "about his belt up"?  Do you think the shooter had a belt around his neck?  Can you illustrate it, or will you just continue to fall back on "Oswald did it, therefore he must have figured out a position like this"?

Quote
Nobody knows for sure beyond the tip of the box seen in Dillard what the exact position of the box setup was during the firing sequence. Therefore I, along with witness testimony, can claim that the shooter found a position that enabled him to aim downrange effectively and successfully claim his place in history.

Of course you can.  Because you start with a conclusion and try to make the evidence fit it.  Or more frequently ignore the evidence that doesn't fit it.

Quote
You are in the position of having not only to call each WC witness a liar, but also to tell us what they saw or didn't see.

I haven't called each WC witness a liar.  That's just something you keep making up to avoid having to argue the actual evidence.  That would make you the liar.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 27, 2018, 04:08:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You're pretty sure about a lot of things.  How does that position even equate to "about his belt up"?  Do you think the shooter had a belt around his neck?  Can you illustrate it, or will you just continue to fall back on "Oswald did it, therefore he must have figured out a position like this"?

Of course you can.  Because you start with a conclusion and try to make the evidence fit it.  Or more frequently ignore the evidence that doesn't fit it.

I haven't called each WC witness a liar.  That's just something you keep making up to avoid having to argue the actual evidence.  That would make you the liar.

Are you calling Brennan a liar as well?

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 27, 2018, 05:15:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you calling Brennan a liar as well?

No, just you.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 27, 2018, 05:17:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No one here can speak for the witnesses

Great.  Then Frazier saw a 2 foot long bag that was not CE 142, and Roger Craig saw a Mauser.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 27, 2018, 09:51:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, just you.

Cite
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 27, 2018, 10:05:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Cite

You accused me of calling every WC witness a liar.  You accused me of using the term "random guy" to refer to the shooter.  You accused me of claiming that "the only reason the DPD converged on the TT was solely because a man was reported for being suspected of not buying a ticket".  You accused me of "stating the facts as lies". 

Every time I ask you for a cite for one of these doozies, you go strangely silent.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 27, 2018, 10:06:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Great.  Then Frazier saw a 2 foot long bag that was not CE 142, and Roger Craig saw a Mauser.

And that Buell wasn't paying attention. And that years later said he didn't want to be remembered as the one who drove the (still-prime-and-only) suspect to work. And agreed with Bug that a longer bag could could have been carried in such a way as to escape his attention.

And Craig's sister who said her brother Roger had mental issues all his life.

But of course you are here to explain what these people really meant.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 27, 2018, 10:10:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And that Buell wasn't paying attention. And that years later said he didn't want to be remembered as the one who drove the (still-prime-and-only) suspect to work. And agreed with Bug that a longer bag could could have been carried in such a way as to escape his attention.

And Craig's sister who said her brother Roger had mental issues all his life.

But of course you are here to explain what these people really meant.

But of course, you get to speak for Frazier and for Dougherty and for Craig and his sister (not to mention speaking for Oswald all the time), because . . . reasons.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 27, 2018, 10:34:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But of course, you get to speak for Frazier and for Dougherty and for Craig and his sister (not to mention speaking for Oswald all the time), because . . . reasons.

Prime example: You just said that Buell saw a 2 foot bag, and conveniently ignored the other factors that I mention.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 27, 2018, 11:06:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Prime example: You just said that Buell saw a 2 foot bag, and conveniently ignored the other factors that I mention.

What other factors?  Just that he didn't pay much attention?  I didn't ignore that, that's just an excuse to disregard multiple pieces of converging evidence.  Both Frazier and Randle said the bag was about 2 feet long.  Both said that CE142 was not the same bag.  Dougherty said Oswald was empty handed when he entered the shipping room door.  CE142 was not photographed in situ and the accounts of where, when, how it was found and what it looked like differ.  There's no evidence of a rifle ever having been in it, and even CE 142 was too short to contain the rifle -- hence another excuse with absolutely no evidence to support it:  the rifle must have been disassembled and reassembled.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 27, 2018, 11:24:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The rifle must have been disassembled and reassembled.

Without getting a single print on the stock, barrel, bolt, scope, clip and ammo.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on February 28, 2018, 04:42:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Without getting a single print on the stock, barrel, bolt, scope, clip and ammo.
There was a palm print that was identified as Oswald's on the underside of the gun barrel:

(http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce639.jpg) (http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce640.jpg)

There were also indications of fingerprints on the trigger but they were not sufficient for identification. 
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 28, 2018, 06:57:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There was a palm print that was identified as Oswald's on the underside of the gun barrel:

Actually it was a print that just turned up in Washington a week later on an index card purporting to have been lifted from the gun barrel.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 28, 2018, 07:00:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am not sure about preventing fingerprints, but Oswald was wearing some of tools that can be used to remove them.

??  You mean his shirt?

Quote
Or do you think Oswald was too stupid to know that he might leave fingerprints on the rifle and that these could be used to identify him?

He apparently was too stupid to think about removing the Hidell ID from one of his 5 wallets.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 28, 2018, 07:51:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am not sure about preventing fingerprints, but Oswald was wearing some of tools that can be used to remove them. Or do you think Oswald was too stupid to know that he might leave fingerprints on the rifle and that these could be used to identify him?

Do you realize how difficult it is to remove all your prints from a MC after you have disassembled/reassembled and fired, then ditched it? Impossible! And Shirley, Oswald realized that a printless  rifle would still lead back to him, regardless of whether they snuck a post-mortem palm print on the stock.

Which leads us to why would military marksman Oswald, who knew a thing or 2 about rifles, keep a useless scope on the MC when he knew he would have to use the iron sights? Especially, if he smuggled it disassembled into the TSBD in a too short paper bag? If you counter with, Oswald didn't know the scope was useless because he hadn't shot the rifle before, then you have to explain how phenomenal it was that a rusty marksman pulled off 2 for 3 hits in 10 secs on a moving target with a wonky scope?

Oswald must have looked thru the scope, lined up JFK's head and hit Tague with a ricochet off the pavement. He must have noticed the small dust cloud from the 1st shot and re-calibrated his aim thru the scope for the MB shot, and what a shot it was. 7 wounds and very close to a head shot, all after bolting in the next round and re-aiming thru the wonky scope.

It took 3 shims to realign the scope on the MC before the FBI could even hit the target. The scope was useless and the big question is whether Oswald knew this and used the iron sights instead. And if Oswald knew the scope was useless, then why did he keep it on the gun when he smuggled its parts into the TSBD?

Answer: The scope was left on the gun (which was never disassembled/reassembled BTW) because the MC that was planted on the 6th floor needed to match the backyard photos of Oswald holding it. Sheep dipping 101. Otherwise, there is no way in hell that Oswald could have not left a single print on the stock, barrel, bolt, trigger, clip and ammo. Impossible.

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 28, 2018, 07:56:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And if Oswald knew the scope was useless, then why did he keep it on the gun when he smuggled it's parts into the TSBD?

One of the lamer excuses I've heard postulated here is that he just wanted to look like a sniper.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 28, 2018, 08:34:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
One of the lamer excuses I've heard postulated here is that he just wanted to look like a sniper.

I admit that the MC does look cooler with the scope, way better than a stinking scopeless Mauser.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 28, 2018, 09:53:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
One of the lamer excuses I've heard postulated here is that he just wanted to look like a sniper.

How do you know what Oswald was thinking... oh, wait... that's what you're here to explain to us, including what each witness really meant in testimony. Got it.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on February 28, 2018, 10:02:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How do you know what Oswald was thinking... oh, wait... that's what you're here to explain to us, including what each witness really meant in testimony. Got it.

No, you haven't got it at all.

In fact, you are really struggling with this stuff, aren't you?

John did not claim to know what Oswald was thinking.

He merely gave his opinion about something that was claimed by somebody else. It is the guy who came up with that lame excuse you need to talk to.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 28, 2018, 10:26:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How do you know what Oswald was thinking... oh, wait... that's what you're here to explain to us, including what each witness really meant in testimony. Got it.

Uhh, Chapman, the guy who came up with this lame excuse is the one claiming to know what Oswald was thinking, not me.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 01, 2018, 03:18:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Uhh, Chapman, the guy who came up with this lame excuse is the one claiming to know what Oswald was thinking, not me.

Uhh, Iacoletti... The fact that you called it a 'lame excuse' suggests you must know Oswald would not want to 'look like a sniper'

However, brandishing a rifle, with pistol on his hip, decked out in all-black getup, clutching commie literature* and posing for the camera might suggest that which you dismiss so easily may be not so far off the mark after all.


*All of which Marina found quite amusing, purportedly
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 01, 2018, 03:37:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Uhh, Iacoletti... The fact that you called it a 'lame excuse' suggests you must know Oswald would not want to 'look like a sniper'

However, brandishing a rifle, with pistol on his hip, decked out in all-black getup, clutching commie literature* and posing for the camera might suggest that which you dismiss so easily may be not so far off the mark after all.


*All of which Marina found quite amusing, purportedly

The fact that you called it a 'lame excuse' suggests you must know Oswald would not want to 'look like a sniper'

No.

Try to follow along, please, if you can...

The person making the claim could not possibly know what Oswald was thinking, so any claim based on that alone would automatically be a lame excuse.

Get it now?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 01, 2018, 01:01:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do you realize how difficult it is to remove all your prints from a MC after you have disassembled/reassembled and fired, then ditched it? Impossible!
No, I don't. Tell me how difficult it would be.
Quote
And Shirley, Oswald realized that a printless  rifle would still lead back to him, regardless of whether they snuck a post-mortem palm print on the stock.
Or to a PO Box registered under "AJ HIDELL". And my name is Andrew, BTW.

Quote
Which leads us to why would military marksman Oswald, who knew a thing or 2 about rifles, keep a useless scope on the MC when he knew he would have to use the iron sights?
According to Robert Frazier of the FBI, the scope was slightly out but if the target was moving in the direction away and to the right, the error was reduced. So by aiming at the president's head it would have hit 6 inches lower in the upper back. 3 H 409

 
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 01, 2018, 02:48:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The fact that you called it a 'lame excuse' suggests you must know Oswald would not want to 'look like a sniper'

No.

Try to follow along, please, if you can...

The person making the claim could not possibly know what Oswald was thinking, so any claim based on that alone would automatically be a lame excuse.

Get it now?

Of course you and your trollmates would think it a lame excuse. After all, both of you busybodies are here to protect the killer of JFK.

Tell us if the poster claimed, or merely suggested that Oswald did or might want 'look like a sniper'.

I personally think it was an interesting take on the possibilities given Oswald's aforementioned BY antics, History diary, wanting to be remembered for the next 10,000 years...

Any hints in there for you, Martini?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 01, 2018, 05:30:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Uhh, Iacoletti... The fact that you called it a 'lame excuse' suggests you must know Oswald would not want to 'look like a sniper'

Sigh.  No, Bill.  It's a lame excuse because it's completely contrived with no evidence whatsoever that Oswald wanted to "look like a sniper" while shooting the president.  If that was the case, and he had actually done it, why would he deny doing it?

Quote
*All of which Marina found quite amusing, purportedly

You mean the same Marina who said there was no scope on this rifle at the time?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 01, 2018, 05:32:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Of course you and your trollmates would think it a lame excuse. After all, both of you busybodies are here to protect the killer of JFK.

It sure is easy to make an argument when you just assume that the thing you're trying to prove is true.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 01, 2018, 05:57:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sigh.  No, Bill.  It's a lame excuse because it's completely contrived with no evidence whatsoever that Oswald wanted to "look like a sniper" while shooting the president.  If that was the case, and he had actually done it, why would he deny doing it?

You mean the same Marina who said there was no scope on this rifle at the time?

Sigh



Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 01, 2018, 07:43:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Of course you and your trollmates would think it a lame excuse. After all, both of you busybodies are here to protect the killer of JFK.

Tell us if the poster claimed, or merely suggested that Oswald did or might want 'look like a sniper'.

I personally think it was an interesting take on the possibilities given Oswald's aforementioned BY antics, History diary, wanting to be remembered for the next 10,000 years...

Any hints in there for you, Martini?

Of course you and your trollmates would think it a lame excuse.

No. It's utterly amazing that you don't (want to) get such a simple concept.

Any sane rational individual understands that a claim or even a suggestion solely based upon what one individual speculates about what another individual might have thought is complete and utter BS and thus lame excuse.

But perhaps it's hardly a surprise that you don't get that after all, as LN's desperately need that kind of speculation to support their fairytale.


After all, both of you busybodies are here to protect the killer of JFK.

Really? Who exactly are those "busybodies" and show us please where they have actually tried to protect anybody?

Btw, could it possibly be true that for you disagreeing with the BS arguments you post somehow equals defending a killer?

I personally think it was an interesting take

Of course that's what you personally think, because it lets you speculate and make up stuff as much as you want. It's typical for an average LN. In the real world nobody cares what you think.

Any hints in there for you, Martini?

Oh sure, but I'll spare your feelings by mentioning any of it. One must have pity for a guy who can't even write my name correctly....
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 01, 2018, 08:17:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, I don't. Tell me how difficult it would be.

Damned near impossible. And at the very least, Oswald must have taken the time AFTER the shooting to wipe his prints off the stock, bolt and trigger, before ditching the weapon. You give LHO way too much credit. No one could have done this, let alone patsy Oswald.

Quote
Or to a PO Box registered under "AJ HIDELL". And my name is Andrew, BTW.
Sorry Andrew, but Shirley LHO knew that any rifle found in the building would come back to him. The FBI linked the gun to Oswald in less than 12 hours! Imagine that.

Quote
According to Robert Frazier of the FBI, the scope was slightly out but if the target was moving in the direction away and to the right, the error was reduced. So by aiming at the president's head it would have hit 6 inches lower in the upper back. 3 H 409

Frazier said the scope needed 3 shims for it to even hit the target. That is no where near "slightly out". Face it, the scope was useless, even IF Oswald was a practiced marksman. No one could have used the scope to make 2 of 3 shots, which includes the head shot. And Oswald was NOT a practiced marksman by any stretch, he was a patsy that didn't even take a shot.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 01, 2018, 10:08:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, I don't. Tell me how difficult it would be.  Or to a PO Box registered under "AJ HIDELL".

What gave you the idea that there was a PO box registered under AJ HIDELL?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 02, 2018, 12:59:02 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Damned near impossible. And at the very least, Oswald must have taken the time AFTER the shooting to wipe his prints off the stock, bolt and trigger, before ditching the weapon. You give LHO way too much credit. No one could have done this, let alone patsy Oswald.

You state that as if you know it from experience.  Are you a forensic crime analyst as well? That's quite a resume you've got there.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 02, 2018, 01:39:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What gave you the idea that there was a PO box registered under AJ HIDELL?
I am assuming or inferring that. The actual registration documents for that box were destroyed.. A Hidell was likely registered to receive mail at that box because mail addressed to that name was received at that box. When Oswald moved to New Orleans he registered A. Hidell as a person entitled to receive mail there.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 02, 2018, 03:28:15 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It sure is easy to make an argument when you just assume that the thing you're trying to prove is true.

Iacoletti = 787 posts in less than two months.

Pretty damn busy, John

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 02, 2018, 03:36:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sigh.  No, Bill.  It's a lame excuse because it's completely contrived with no evidence whatsoever that Oswald wanted to "look like a sniper" while shooting the president.  If that was the case, and he had actually done it, why would he deny doing it?

You mean the same Marina who said there was no scope on this rifle at the time?

Oswald denied everything
Marina wasn't in the sniper nest at the time
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 02, 2018, 03:44:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You state that as if you know it from experience.  Are you a forensic crime analyst as well? That's quite a resume you've got there.

Spank you very much. But you don't have to be an expert to use some common sense, logic and maybe a little research. You should try it sometime.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 02, 2018, 03:49:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It sure is easy to make an argument when you just assume that the thing you're trying to prove is true.

Show us where I claim the BY scene is proof of murder
Show us where I have claimed that any single factor on its own is proof of murder

My earlier post:
"However, brandishing a rifle, with pistol on his hip, decked out in all-black getup, clutching commie literature* and posing for the camera might suggest that which you dismiss so easily may be not so far off the mark after all"

Show us where I have ever claimed that I could prove Oswald was the killer
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 02, 2018, 04:22:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The fact that you called it a 'lame excuse' suggests you must know Oswald would not want to 'look like a sniper'

No.

Try to follow along, please, if you can...

The person making the claim could not possibly know what Oswald was thinking, so any claim based on that alone would automatically be a lame excuse.

Get it now?

Are you sure the original poster claimed that he knew what Oswald was thinking?
Are you suggesting that I claimed to know what Oswald was thinking?
Are you sure that I require your help in this matter?

A person can study Oswald's backstory including the BY scene, the 'killer of facsists' note, George DeM joking around about the Walker attempt, Oswald often calling himself important (according to Marina, and which she also found funny).

I contend that adding the scope to the mix could arguably align with Oswald's known arrogant behaviour.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 02, 2018, 10:24:22 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Iacoletti = 787 posts in less than two months.

Pretty damn busy, John


A classic BS argument, frequently used by LNs as if it matters.

Whenever Mytton gets stuck he often uses the same crap. Did you get the idea from him, perhaps?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 02, 2018, 10:31:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Show us where I claim the BY scene is proof of murder
Show us where I have claimed that any single factor on its own is proof of murder

My earlier post:
"However, brandishing a rifle, with pistol on his hip, decked out in all-black getup, clutching commie literature* and posing for the camera might suggest that which you dismiss so easily may be not so far off the mark after all"

Show us where I have ever claimed that I could prove Oswald was the killer

What's the point of a lame "I don't know for sure but he possibly could have" argument?

It means nothing and does not contribute to the discussion, does it now?


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Are you sure the original poster claimed that he knew what Oswald was thinking?
Are you suggesting that I claimed to know what Oswald was thinking?
Are you sure that I require your help in this matter?

A person can study Oswald's backstory including the BY scene, the 'killer of facsists' note, George DeM joking around about the Walker attempt, Oswald often calling himself important (according to Marina, and which she also found funny).

I contend that adding the scope to the mix could arguably align with Oswald's known arrogant behaviour.


Who cares about what somebody speculates Oswald was thinking? No matter how you twist and turn it, any argument (or even suggestion) based on such speculation will always be a lame excuse.

Are you sure that I require your help in this matter?

Well, you sure as hell need help from somebody..... but I would prefer it if it wasn't me as I don't really like to waste my time.

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 02, 2018, 10:41:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Stop yelling, and take your meds

Emboldening words is not shouting. Putting words in "upper case" is shouting. Please try to keep up, Chappers.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 02, 2018, 10:34:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am assuming or inferring that. The actual registration documents for that box were destroyed..

Not before the FBI saw them apparently.

(http://oi39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg)


Quote
A Hidell was likely registered to receive mail at that box because mail addressed to that name was received at that box.

What mail?  And don't say the rifle, because that would be a circular argument!  However, see the above.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 02, 2018, 10:39:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oswald denied everything
Marina wasn't in the sniper nest at the time

You sure are a slippery one.  You invoke Marina's amused reaction to the backyard photos to support your notion that Oswald kept the scope on the rifle to look like a sniper when Marina never saw a scope on the rifle. Then you divert back to the sniper's nest, even though you were the one trying to use the backyard photos to make your point.  So much for requiring a scope on a rifle to look like a sniper though.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 02, 2018, 10:44:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Show us where I claim the BY scene is proof of murder
Show us where I have claimed that any single factor on its own is proof of murder

My earlier post:
"However, brandishing a rifle, with pistol on his hip, decked out in all-black getup, clutching commie literature* and posing for the camera might suggest that which you dismiss so easily may be not so far off the mark after all"

Show us where I have ever claimed that I could prove Oswald was the killer

Where did all that come from?  The thing I was responding to was your quote that I helpfully included in the text of my response.

(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Of course you and your trollmates would think it a lame excuse. After all, both of you busybodies are here to protect the killer of JFK.

"the killer of JFK" is the thing you're assuming to be true in order to make your argument for it being true.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 03, 2018, 12:03:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Without getting a single print on the stock, barrel, bolt, scope, clip and ammo.

Barrel, inside the stock
Carcano stock too rough to hold useable prints
Technology now exists that helps find useable prints on spent shell casings, even when prints have wiped off.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 03, 2018, 12:06:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Barrel, inside the stock
Carcano stock too rough to hold useable prints
Technology now exists that helps find useable prints on spent shell casings, even when prints have wiped off.

Technology now exists that helps find useable prints on spent shell casings, even when prints have wiped off.


Great. Now all you need is a time machine.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 03, 2018, 12:14:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your assumption is false as even the FBI said that no one but LHO was listed to receive mail at his Dallas P.O. Box.
Do you have a cite for that? Harry Holmes, Chief Inspector of the US Postal Service for Dallas, stated that the Part 3 of the post office box application form contained a list of other people authorized to receive mail at that box and that Part 3 was thrown away (in accordance with post office practice) when the box was closed in May 1963. So, the fact is that we do not know who else may have been listed to receive mail in Box 2915, Dallas in March 1963.  Here is his testimony (7 H 527):

MR. LIEBELER -- "So there is no way, as I understand it, to tell from the records maintained, as far as you know anyway, who was authorized to receive mail at Post Office Box 2915 that Oswald had while he was here in Dallas before he went to New Orleans in April of 1963; is that correct?"

MR. HOLMES -- "Other than Oswald himself and his name on the application."

....

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 03, 2018, 12:16:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do you have a cite for that? Harry Holmes, Chief Inspector of the US Postal Service for Dallas, stated that the Part 3 of the post office box application form contained a list of other people authorized to receive mail at that box and that Part 3 was thrown away (in accordance with post office practice) when the box was closed in May 1963. So, the fact is that we do not know who else may have been listed to receive mail in Box 2915, Dallas in March 1963.  Here is his testimony (7 H 527):

MR. LIEBELER -- "So there is no way, as I understand it, to tell from the records maintained, as far as you know anyway, who was authorized to receive mail at Post Office Box 2915 that Oswald had while he was here in Dallas before he went to New Orleans in April of 1963; is that correct?"

MR. HOLMES -- "Other than Oswald himself and his name on the application."

....

I already posted it 6 posts above this.  Look for CE 2585.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 03, 2018, 12:23:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not before the FBI saw them apparently.

(http://oi39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg)
Are you suggesting that the FBI saw Part 3 and then destroyed it? You will need some evidence because the Post Office said that Part 3 was thrown away in May 1963 when the box was closed. The likely explanation for the FBI memo is that they retrieved the first part of the application and assumed that since there were no other persons listed or no part 3 present that there were no others registered to receive mail.  That would, of courese, be incorrect, as Holmes explained.  The fact that the only remaining Part 3 of a post office box application made by Oswald lists Hidell and Marina as persons entitled to receive mail at that box is interesting.  In the end it does not matter. We know that the rifle and gun were sent to that box and that Oswald was in possession of them. We know this from Marina and the BY photos.


Quote
What mail?  And don't say the rifle, because that would be a circular argument!  However, see the above.
What is circular about the fact that Klein's sent the rifle to Oswald's PO box under Hidell's name and the fact that the rifle was in Oswald's possession?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on March 03, 2018, 12:28:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Not before the FBI saw them apparently.

(http://oi39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg)






Where does it say the FBI saw anything?


What does exist is Oswald's New Orleans Post Office Application and we can all see Oswald's previous behaviour.

(https://s17.postimg.org/rah1ga18f/aj_hidell_new_orleans.jpg)



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 03, 2018, 12:33:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Where does it say the FBI saw anything?

It's part of an FBI report.

Quote
What does exist is Oswald's New Orleans Post Office Application and we can all see Oswald's previous behaviour.

That tells you nothing about who was authorized to receive mail at PO Box 2915 in Dallas.  And the FPFC card doesn't relate to PO boxes at all.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 03, 2018, 12:56:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What is circular about the fact that Klein's sent the rifle to Oswald's PO box under Hidell's name and the fact that the rifle was in Oswald's possession?

Probably the same thing that is circular about the fact that Seaport Traders sent the revolver to Oswald's PO box under Hidell's name and the fact that the revolver was in Oswald's possession in the Texas Theatre.

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 03, 2018, 01:00:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Probably the same thing that is circular about the fact that Seaport Traders sent the revolver to Oswald's PO box under Hidell's name and the fact that the revolver was in Oswald's possession in the Texas Theatre.

Actually Tim,

If I remember correctly, Seaport had only received a 10 dollar payment when the revolver was ordered and shipped the weapon c.o.d. for the remaining balance of something like 19 dollar.

If the outstanding balance was paid upon receipt of the weapon, shouldn't there be any paperwork for that?
At least something like a confirmation for the transfer of the money to Seaport....
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 03, 2018, 01:02:48 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's part of an FBI report.

That tells you nothing about who was authorized to receive mail at PO Box 2915 in Dallas.  And the FPFC card doesn't relate to PO boxes at all.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0018a.htm

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0023a.htm

What do those two tell you about who was authorized to receive mail at PO Box 2915 in Dallas?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 03, 2018, 01:07:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0018a.htm

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0023a.htm

What do those two tell you about who was authorized to receive mail at PO Box 2915 in Dallas?

What do those two tell you about who was authorized to receive mail at PO Box 2915 in Dallas?

Absolutely nothing.

Were those two letters really received at the P.O. box or are they merely addressed to it?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 03, 2018, 01:15:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Actually Tim,

If I remember correctly, Seaport had only received a 10 dollar payment when the revolver was ordered and shipped the weapon c.o.d. for the remaining balance of something like 19 dollar.

If the outstanding balance was paid upon receipt of the weapon, shouldn't there be any paperwork for that?
At least something like a confirmation for the transfer of the money to Seaport....

I don't know if there should be paperwork for it or not. Here is what we have though:

(https://i.imgur.com/X4Mz0L5.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/8GEmMKA.jpg)

Mr. BALL. Is there anything in your files which shows that the Railway Express did remit to you the $19.95?
Mr. MICHAELIS. The fact that the exhibit number--may I see this green one?
Mr. BALL. Five.
Mr. MICHAELIS. Was attached to the red copy of the invoice.
Mr. BALL. Red copy of the invoice being----
Mr. MICHAELIS. No; was attached to the red copy of the invoice, exhibit number----
Mr. BALL. Two.
Mr. MICHAELIS. Indicates that the money was received.




Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 03, 2018, 01:27:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't know if there should be paperwork for it or not. Here is what we have though:

(https://i.imgur.com/X4Mz0L5.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/8GEmMKA.jpg)

Mr. BALL. Is there anything in your files which shows that the Railway Express did remit to you the $19.95?
Mr. MICHAELIS. The fact that the exhibit number--may I see this green one?
Mr. BALL. Five.
Mr. MICHAELIS. Was attached to the red copy of the invoice.
Mr. BALL. Red copy of the invoice being----
Mr. MICHAELIS. No; was attached to the red copy of the invoice, exhibit number----
Mr. BALL. Two.
Mr. MICHAELIS. Indicates that the money was received.


So again (just like with Klein's) no actual paperwork available to show the payment was received...

All we have is, yet another, person confirming that a document "indicates that the money was received"

Amazing, when I receive a package (even one without c.o.d.) I always have to sign for receipt, but perhaps they did things differently in Dallas in those days.... 
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on March 03, 2018, 01:38:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's part of an FBI report.

That tells you nothing about who was authorized to receive mail at PO Box 2915 in Dallas.  And the FPFC card doesn't relate to PO boxes at all.



Quote
It's part of an FBI report.

How does that answer my question?

Quote
That tells you nothing about who was authorized to receive mail at PO Box 2915 in Dallas.

You CTs are so predictable, in court I'd present the established predictable behaviour of Oswald's New Orleans Post Office application with AJ Hidell written in Oswald's handwriting and you'd present...... nothing.



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 03, 2018, 02:49:32 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


How does that answer my question?

You CTs are so predictable, in court I'd present the established predictable behaviour of Oswald's New Orleans Post Office application with AJ Hidell written in Oswald's handwriting and you'd present...... nothing.



JohnM

in court I'd present the established predictable behaviour of Oswald's New Orleans Post Office application with AJ Hidell written in Oswald's handwriting

In what court? The one in your imagination or a real one?

Btw.. are you a lawyer now?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 03, 2018, 05:57:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do you realize how difficult it is to remove all your prints from a MC after you have disassembled/reassembled and fired, then ditched it? Impossible! And Shirley, Oswald realized that a printless  rifle would still lead back to him, regardless of whether they snuck a post-mortem palm print on the stock.

Which leads us to why would military marksman Oswald, who knew a thing or 2 about rifles, keep a useless scope on the MC when he knew he would have to use the iron sights? Especially, if he smuggled it disassembled into the TSBD in a too short paper bag? If you counter with, Oswald didn't know the scope was useless because he hadn't shot the rifle before, then you have to explain how phenomenal it was that a rusty marksman pulled off 2 for 3 hits in 10 secs on a moving target with a wonky scope?

Oswald must have looked thru the scope, lined up JFK's head and hit Tague with a ricochet off the pavement. He must have noticed the small dust cloud from the 1st shot and re-calibrated his aim thru the scope for the MB shot, and what a shot it was. 7 wounds and very close to a head shot, all after bolting in the next round and re-aiming thru the wonky scope.

It took 3 shims to realign the scope on the MC before the FBI could even hit the target. The scope was useless and the big question is whether Oswald knew this and used the iron sights instead. And if Oswald knew the scope was useless, then why did he keep it on the gun when he smuggled its parts into the TSBD?

Answer: The scope was left on the gun (which was never disassembled/reassembled BTW) because the MC that was planted on the 6th floor needed to match the backyard photos of Oswald holding it. Sheep dipping 101. Otherwise, there is no way in hell that Oswald could have not left a single print on the stock, barrel, bolt, trigger, clip and ammo. Impossible.

'Answer: The scope was left on the gun (which was never disassembled/reassembled BTW) because the MC that was planted on the 6th floor needed to match the backyard photos of Oswald holding it. Sheep dipping 101. Otherwise, there is no way in hell that Oswald could have not left a single print on the stock, barrel, bolt, trigger, clip and ammo. Impossible.'

Thanks for clearing that all up for us

 ;)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 03, 2018, 06:32:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Emboldening words is not shouting. Putting words in "upper case" is shouting. Please try to keep up, Chappers.

You mean like this, from Ernie?

YOUR BOX IS OTHERWISE POSITIONED THEN THE BOX IN THE REAL DILLARD PHOTO,........

And since all-caps are banned from this forum, one could argue that all-bolded text becomes the go-to formatting (for conveying yelling) by default.

IMO, all-caps plus bolding, as in Ernie's sample above (combined with his automatic insults to all LNers who dare disagree with him) are tantamount to screaming

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 03, 2018, 09:48:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You mean like this, from Ernie?

YOUR BOX IS OTHERWISE POSITIONED THEN THE BOX IN THE REAL DILLARD PHOTO,........

And since all-caps are banned from this forum, one could argue that all-bolded text becomes the go-to formatting (for conveying yelling) by default.

IMO, all-caps plus bolding, as in Ernie's sample above (combined with his automatic insults to all LNers who dare disagree with him) are tantamount to screaming
Your apology for being wrong accepted.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 03, 2018, 11:08:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
'Answer: The scope was left on the gun (which was never disassembled/reassembled BTW) because the MC that was planted on the 6th floor needed to match the backyard photos of Oswald holding it. Sheep dipping 101. Otherwise, there is no way in hell that Oswald could have not left a single print on the stock, barrel, bolt, trigger, clip and ammo. Impossible.'

Thanks for clearing that all up for us

 ;)

Check and mate!  ;)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 04, 2018, 12:31:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
'Answer: The scope was left on the gun (which was never disassembled/reassembled BTW) because the MC that was planted on the 6th floor needed to match the backyard photos of Oswald holding it. Sheep dipping 101. Otherwise, there is no way in hell that Oswald could have not left a single print on the stock, barrel, bolt, trigger, clip and ammo. Impossible.'

Thanks for clearing that all up for us

 ;)

Remember they say Oswald never owned that rifle. That's what he said too.

All planted.

So the same rifle they say Oswald never had is in the picture of him with that rifle. And oh yeah, he really truly did bring curtain rods to work that day. The ones never found? The ones he didn't bring with him when he left the building right after the shooting? The ones he absolutely needed to bring to his room. Yeah, those rods.

That's called conspiracy logic. It doesn't have to make sense; it just has to clear Oswald.

Yes, the top CIA agent Oswald who never had a car, never had a phone, never had a house, lived on unemployment checks and apparently went on his top secret missions using a bus.

In cloud cuckoo land that makes sense. Everywhere else it's absurd.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 04, 2018, 01:40:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Remember they say Oswald never owned that rifle. That's what he said too.

All planted.

So the same rifle they say Oswald never had is in the picture of him with that rifle. And oh yeah, he really truly did bring curtain rods to work that day. The ones never found? The ones he didn't bring with him when he left the building right after the shooting? The ones he absolutely needed to bring to his room. Yeah, those rods.

That's called conspiracy logic. It doesn't have to make sense; it just has to clear Oswald.

Yes, the top CIA agent Oswald who never had a car, never had a phone, never had a house, lived on unemployment checks and apparently went on his top secret missions using a bus.

In cloud cuckoo land that makes sense. Everywhere else it's absurd.

Now apply all that to Oswald being a fake defector singleton agent, sheep dipped as a patsy and it all makes sense to those with freedom of thought.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 04, 2018, 03:49:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now apply all that to Oswald being a fake defector singleton agent, sheep dipped as a patsy and it all makes sense to those with freedom of thought.

Tell us why anyone would want to entertain fringer theories.

Additionally, if you have proof that anyone else besides the killer knew that there was about to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means do post it.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 04, 2018, 02:48:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tell us why anyone would want to entertain fringer theories.

Additionally, if you have proof that anyone else besides the killer knew that there was about to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means do post it.

Tell us why anyone would want to entertain fringer theories.

This coming from the guy who recently persistently bored us with a "I don't know for sure but he possibly could have" argument is absolutely hilarious.

Do you need to be reminded that the official narrative is also nothing more than a theory?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 04, 2018, 04:02:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Do you need to be reminded that the official narrative is also nothing more than a theory?

So is Newtonian gravity.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 04, 2018, 04:05:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

So is Newtonian gravity.


It is?

I wasn't aware there was much doubt and/or discussion about Newton's findings, but then again there still seem to be some people around who believe the earth is flat, so by all means enlighten me, Tim.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 04, 2018, 04:25:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tell us why anyone would want to entertain fringer theories.

This coming from the guy who recently persistently bored us with a "I don't know for sure but he possibly could have" argument is absolutely hilarious.

Do you need to be reminded that the official narrative is also nothing more than a theory?


Stop twisting what I said
I said probably, not merely 'possibly'
'Possibly' is generic, sitting on the fence
'Probably' implies taking a stance


The WC findings were the results of an investigation, not the results of a trial.

CTers might claim that the truth was covered up... and yet none of you has presented a plausible, coherent counter-narrative, as abundantly demonstrated by nothing but dead silence in the lack of response to my ongoing invitation for anyone to name their own shooter and prove that anyone other than the assassin knew there was to be an attempt to be made on Kennedy that day. Feel free to post to provide those answers.

I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it.
 ;)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 04, 2018, 04:37:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


The WC findings were the results of an investigation, not the results of a trial.

CTers might claim that the truth was covered up... and yet none of you has presented a plausible, coherent counter-narrative, as abundantly demonstrated by nothing but dead silence in the lack of response to my ongoing invitation for anyone to name their own shooter and prove that anyone other than the assassin knew there was to be an attempt to be made on Kennedy that day. Feel free to post to provide those answers.

I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it.
 ;)

It's a combination of the evidence pointing to Oswald as well as the lack of a credible and viable alternative that says to me that Oswald alone killed JFK.

There have been numerous investigations, of course, into the assassination. The conspiracy crowd fixates on the Warren Commission Report and ignores the other investigations that have been done (the HSCA, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission (granted, this was pretty slipshod), et cetera). This includes those done by news organizations - CBS, ABC, PBS - as well as investigations by private journalists like Tim Weiner on the CIA and other reporters. We can add the works of historians like those by Caro and Dallek to the mix.

Add all of this up and the conspiracy believers have rumors and allegations and "suspicious" behavior but no alternative explanation that is the least bit persuasive.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 04, 2018, 04:39:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The WC findings were the results of an investigation, not the results of a trial.

CTers might claim that the truth was covered up... and yet none of you has presented a plausible, coherent counter-narrative, as abundantly demonstrated by nothing but dead silence in response to my ongoing invitation for anyone to name their own shooter and prove that anyone other than the assassin knew there was to be an attempt to be made on Kennedy that day.

I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it.
Weighing one side against the other has led me to that probability.

The WC findings were the results of an investigation, not the results of a trial.

Exactly. And so it remains a theory.

Btw is it you opinion that every investigation Always results in the right outcome?

CTers might claim that the truth was covered up

Oh, there are some honest LNs also who will agree that there was indeed a cover up of sorts after the fact.

yet none of you has presented a plausible, coherent counter-narrative,

Your request is a pathetically stupid one, because even if no counter-narrative would exist, that still would not mean your theory is the right one.

Besides, no counter narrative will ever be considered plausible by you and your ilk, yet a conspiracy/cover up is the automatic go to default if and when it can not be proven conclusively that Oswald was in fact the lone gunman.

Trying to shift the burden of proof isn't really a very convincing way to make your case, but LNs like yourself are constantly doing that nevertheless. Could it be that you actually understand just how weak your own case really is?

I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it.
Weighing one side against the other has led me to that probability.


Several members of this board are already acutely aware of the lack of sound judgment on your part.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 04, 2018, 04:52:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Stop twisting what I said
I said probably, not merely 'possibly'
'Possibly' is generic, sitting on the fence
'Probably' implies taking a stance


Nobody is twisting what you said.

What makes you think my remark was about your lame "I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it." "stance" ?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 04, 2018, 05:05:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's a combination of the evidence pointing to Oswald as well as the lack of a credible and viable alternative that says to me that Oswald alone killed JFK.

There have been numerous investigations, of course, into the assassination. The conspiracy crowd fixates on the Warren Commission Report and ignores the other investigations that have been done (the HSCA, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission (granted, this was pretty slipshod), et cetera). This includes those done by news organizations - CBS, ABC, PBS - as well as investigations by private journalists like Tim Weiner on the CIA and other reporters. We can add the works of historians like those by Caro and Dallek to the mix.

Add all of this up and the conspiracy believers have rumors and allegations and "suspicious" behavior but no alternative explanation that is the least bit persuasive.

There have been numerous investigations, of course, into the assassination.

Indeed... and basically all used the same evidentiary material and most were politically motivated.

HSCA chairman Henry Gonzalez  and Chief Counsel Richard Sprague both resigned because of disagreements over the investigative techniques used. And Sprague's Robert K. Tanenbaum also left shortly thereafter.

All private and news investigations were always restricted by the information that was already available at the time of those investigations. It's a bit like playing basketball with one hand tied behind your back. 
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 04, 2018, 05:58:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nobody is twisting what you said.

What makes you think my remark was about your lame "I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it." "stance" ?

Your statement:
"This coming from the guy who recently persistently bored us with a "I don't know for sure but he possibly could have" argument is absolutely hilarious."

You are twisting what I actually said in an abundantly transparent manner by exchanging 'probably' (my word) for 'possibly' (your word). The two have completely different connotations. Agreed?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 04, 2018, 06:46:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


And so it remains a theory.
>A theory that is plausible and coherent, as opposed to diddly squat from CT tall foreheads.

Btw is it you opinion that every investigation Always results in the right outcome?
> Nope. OJ for instance

Oh, there are some honest LNs also who will agree that there was indeed a cover up of sorts after the fact.
> The CYA is a given

Your request is a pathetically stupid one, because even if no counter-narrative would exist, that still would not mean your theory is the right one.
> Point out where I said my conclusions were the right ones

Besides, no counter narrative will ever be considered plausible by you and your ilk
>Your first step would be to present one

Trying to shift the burden of proof isn't really a very convincing way to make your case, but LNs like yourself are constantly doing that nevertheless. Could it be that you actually understand just how weak your own case really is?
> LOL. Since when has any evidence at all not been called fake by you characters? And note that I've never claimed I could prove anything in this case.

Several members of this board are already acutely aware of the lack of sound judgment on your part.
> Who shall heretofore remain nameless like your shooter. Remind them that they are also invited to name their shooter and present a coherent counter-narrative


Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 04, 2018, 07:50:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your statement:
"This coming from the guy who recently persistently bored us with a "I don't know for sure but he possibly could have" argument is absolutely hilarious."

You are twisting what I actually said in an abundantly transparent manner by exchanging 'probably' (my word) for 'possibly' (your word). The two have completely different connotations. Agreed?

Again, what makes you think I was referring to your "I'm 100% sure that Oswald probably did it." remark?


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And so it remains a theory.
>A theory that is plausible and coherent, as opposed to diddly squat from CT tall foreheads.

Btw is it you opinion that every investigation Always results in the right outcome?
> Nope. OJ for instance

Oh, there are some honest LNs also who will agree that there was indeed a cover up of sorts after the fact.
> The CYA is a given

Your request is a pathetically stupid one, because even if no counter-narrative would exist, that still would not mean your theory is the right one.
> Point out where I said my conclusions were the right ones

Besides, no counter narrative will ever be considered plausible by you and your ilk
>Your first step would be to present one

Trying to shift the burden of proof isn't really a very convincing way to make your case, but LNs like yourself are constantly doing that nevertheless. Could it be that you actually understand just how weak your own case really is?
> LOL. Since when has any evidence at all not been called fake by you characters? And note that I've never claimed I could prove anything in this case.

Several members of this board are already acutely aware of the lack of sound judgment on your part.
> Who shall heretofore remain nameless like your shooter. Remind them that they are also invited to name their shooter and present a coherent counter-narrative


A theory that is plausible and coherent

Which is only your opinion. Some beg to differ...

Point out where I said my conclusions were the right ones

Point out where I claimed that?

LOL. Since when has any evidence at all not been called fake by you characters?

So, I write "weak case" and you read "fake evidence"? Talk about twisting words....

And note that I've never claimed I could prove anything in this case.

No need to say it. That's already obvious.

Who shall heretofore remain nameless like your shooter.

Who would "your shooter" be? I wasn't aware I had (or needed) one.



Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 04, 2018, 08:27:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There have been numerous investigations, of course, into the assassination.

Indeed... and basically all used the same evidentiary material and most were politically motivated.

HSCA chairman Henry Gonzalez  and Chief Counsel Richard Sprague both resigned because of disagreements over the investigative techniques used. And Sprague's Robert K. Tanenbaum also left shortly thereafter.

All private and news investigations were always restricted by the information that was already available at the time of those investigations. It's a bit like playing basketball with one hand tied behind your back.


The investigations by ABC, CBS and PBS as well as the ones done by the NY Times and Washington Post were politically motivated? Restricted by the information available?

They didn't conduct their own interviews? Talk to witnesses themselves? They were "politically motivated"? Really?

Do you know anything about their investigations? Such as the PBS Frontline investigation that interviewed hundreds of witnesses over years?

This is conspiracy nonsense at its finest.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 04, 2018, 08:58:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The investigations by ABC, CBS and PBS as well as the ones done by the NY Times and Washington Post were politically motivated? Restricted by the information available?

They didn't conduct their own interviews? Talk to witnesses themselves? They were "politically motivated"? Really?

Do you know anything about their investigations? Such as the PBS Frontline investigation that interviewed hundreds of witnesses over years?

This is conspiracy nonsense at its finest.

The investigations by ABC, CBS and PBS as well as the ones done by the NY Times and Washington Post were politically motivated?

Do you have a problem reading or just understanding what is written?

Restricted by the information available?

Did those news outlets have full access to the files and physical evidence stored at the National Archives?

They didn't conduct their own interviews?

Who said that?

Talk to witnesses themselves?

They probably did... but which ones? Probably only those mentioned in the WC report, right?

Do you know anything about their investigations? Such as the PBS Frontline investigation that interviewed hundreds of witnesses over years?

Since when does quantity of witnesses being interviewed equal quality of witnesses?

Btw what was the objective of PBS Frontline for their "investigation"? Did they investigate the case or did they just want to find out "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald"?

This is conspiracy nonsense at its finest.

Perhaps you should try to understand the information provided to you before making a judgment, but then on the other hand you're not a LN for nothing, right?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 05, 2018, 06:15:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There have been numerous investigations, of course, into the assassination.

Indeed... and basically all used the same evidentiary material

What other material should they have used?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 05, 2018, 06:34:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What other material should they have used?


What about the material they could have gathered during a real investigation of their own, rather than just rely (time after time) on the material that went through Hoover's filter?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 05, 2018, 06:37:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What about the material they could have gathered during a real investigation of their own, rather than just rely (time after time) on the material that went through Hoover's filter?

What material would that be exactly and just how would they go about gathering it? Should the material gathered by the Dallas Police and examined by the FBI be ignored?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 05, 2018, 06:44:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What material would that be exactly and just how would they go about gathering it? Should the material gathered by the Dallas Police and examined by the FBI be ignored?


What material would that be exactly

How in the world would I know what a second investigation would have turned up?

I answered your original question... You figure out the rest.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 05, 2018, 07:00:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What material would that be exactly

How in the world would I know what a second investigation would have turned up?

I answered your original question... You figure out the rest.

A second investigation? Have you ever heard of the House Select Committee on Assassinations?

You're the one suggesting that a non-government investigation would be preferable. Why not explain why and then explain  how such an investigation would work? What possible materials could be gathered by a private entity that would have greater evidentiary value than materials gathered by law enforcement agencies?

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 05, 2018, 07:04:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A second investigation? Have you ever heard of the House Select Committee on Assassinations?

You're the one suggesting that a non-government investigation would be preferable. Why not explain why and then explain  how such an investigation would work? What possible materials could be gathered by a private entity that would have greater evidentiary value than materials gathered by law enforcement agencies?

You mean the HSCA investigation who said

 "The HSCA found that although the Commission and the different agencies and departments examining Kennedy's assassination performed in good faith and were thorough in their investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald, they performed with "varying degrees of competency" and the search for possible conspiracy was inadequate.:2 The HSCA determined, based on available evidence, that the probable conspiracy did not involve the governments of the Soviet Union or Cuba. The committee also stated that the conspiracy did not involve any organized crime group, anti-Castro group, nor the FBI, CIA, or Secret Service."

Seems your HSCA don't support your view that there was no conspiracy.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 05, 2018, 07:08:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

A second investigation? Have you ever heard of the House Select Committee on Assassinations?

You're the one suggesting that a non-government investigation would be preferable. Why not explain why and then explain  how such an investigation would work? What possible materials could be gathered by a private entity that would have greater evidentiary value than materials gathered by law enforcement agencies?

A second investigation? Have you ever heard of the House Select Committee on Assassinations?

Of course I have heard of the HSCA and if you had read my earlier comments you would know that and not ask such silly question.

Btw.. did the HSCA conduct a full investigation from scratch or did they mainly re-examine the WC evidence?

You're the one suggesting that a non-government investigation would be preferable.

When and where did I suggest that?

What possible materials could be gathered by a private entity that would have greater evidentiary value than materials gathered by law enforcement agencies?

Where are you getting this BS? Who - except you - is talking about "greater evidentiary value"?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 05, 2018, 07:21:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You mean the HSCA investigation who said

 "The HSCA found that although the Commission and the different agencies and departments examining Kennedy's assassination performed in good faith and were thorough in their investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald, they performed with "varying degrees of competency" and the search for possible conspiracy was inadequate.:2 The HSCA determined, based on available evidence, that the probable conspiracy did not involve the governments of the Soviet Union or Cuba. The committee also stated that the conspiracy did not involve any organized crime group, anti-Castro group, nor the FBI, CIA, or Secret Service."


Yup.That's the one.

I. Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations in the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Tex., November 22, 1963

Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.

President Kennedy was struck by two rifle shots fired from behind him.

The shots that struck President Kennedy from behind him were fired from the sixth floor window of the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository building.

Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle that was used to fire the shots from the sixth floor window of the southeast comer of the Texas School Book Depository building.

Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the assassination, had access to and was present on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.

Lee Harvey Oswald's other actions tend to support the conclusion that he assassinated President Kennedy.


Quote
Seems your HSCA don't support your view that there was no conspiracy.

"Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations."

Ah yes, the acoustical evidence.

IV. Recommendations for further investigation

The Department of Justice should contract for the examination of a film taken by Charles L. Bronson to determine its significance if any, to the assassination of President Kennedy.

The National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice of the Department of Justice and the National Science Foundation should make a study of the theory and application of the principles of acoustics to forensic questions, using the materials available in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy as a case study.

The Department of Justice should review the committee's findings and report in the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and after completion of the recommended investigation enumerated in sections A and B, analyze whether further official investigation is warranted in either case. The Department of Justice should report its analyses to the Judiciary Committee.


The National Research Council Committee on Ballistic Acoustics findings:

-The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95% probability of such a shot.

- The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital.

- Therefore, reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 05, 2018, 07:24:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yup.That's the one.

I. Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations in the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Tex., November 22, 1963

Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.

President Kennedy was struck by two rifle shots fired from behind him.

The shots that struck President Kennedy from behind him were fired from the sixth floor window of the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository building.

Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle that was used to fire the shots from the sixth floor window of the southeast comer of the Texas School Book Depository building.

Lee Harvey Oswald, shortly before the assassination, had access to and was present on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.

Lee Harvey Oswald's other actions tend to support the conclusion that he assassinated President Kennedy.


"Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations."

Ah yes, the acoustical evidence.

IV. Recommendations for further investigation

The Department of Justice should contract for the examination of a film taken by Charles L. Bronson to determine its significance if any, to the assassination of President Kennedy.

The National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice of the Department of Justice and the National Science Foundation should make a study of the theory and application of the principles of acoustics to forensic questions, using the materials available in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy as a case study.

The Department of Justice should review the committee's findings and report in the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and after completion of the recommended investigation enumerated in sections A and B, analyze whether further official investigation is warranted in either case. The Department of Justice should report its analyses to the Judiciary Committee.


The National Research Council Committee on Ballistic Acoustics findings:

-The acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95% probability of such a shot.

- The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital.

- Therefore, reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman.


Glad to see you agree with their conclusions, Richard. there was a conspiracy.

Or do you just want to cherry pick what they said?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 05, 2018, 07:25:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Glad to see you agree with their conclusions, Richard. there was a conspiracy.

Or do you just want to cherry pick what they said?

Ray, I'm not Richard.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 05, 2018, 07:33:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Glad to see you agree with their conclusions, Richard. there was a conspiracy.

Or do you just want to cherry pick what they said?

Ray, I do agree with their conclusions.  Do you? Or do you just want to cherry pick what they said?

FTR, they never said that there was a conspiracy. They said there was probably a conspiracy.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 05, 2018, 09:06:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You mean the HSCA investigation who said

 "The HSCA found that although the Commission and the different agencies and departments examining Kennedy's assassination performed in good faith and were thorough in their investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald, they performed with "varying degrees of competency" and the search for possible conspiracy was inadequate.:2 The HSCA determined, based on available evidence, that the probable conspiracy did not involve the governments of the Soviet Union or Cuba. The committee also stated that the conspiracy did not involve any organized crime group, anti-Castro group, nor the FBI, CIA, or Secret Service."

Seems your HSCA don't support your view that there was no conspiracy.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ray, I do agree with their conclusions.  Do you? Or do you just want to cherry pick what they said?

FTR, they never said that there was a conspiracy. They said there was probably a conspiracy.
"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 05, 2018, 09:23:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy."

Right. That's what I said.

Do you agree with the findings of the HSCA?  Or do you just want to cherry pick what they said?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 05, 2018, 09:58:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Do you agree with the findings of the HSCA?  Or do you just want to cherry pick what they said?

I asked you first. :D
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 05, 2018, 10:10:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I asked you first. :D

I already answered.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 06, 2018, 05:06:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ray, I do agree with their conclusions.  Do you? Or do you just want to cherry pick what they said?

FTR, they never said that there was a conspiracy. They said there was probably a conspiracy.
What is wrong with agreeing with some of their conclusions and disagreeing with others?  I disagree with their conclusion that there was a second gunman because that conclusion is based on very unreliable acoustic analysis that has since been completely discredited, let alone that it fits with no other evidence.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2018, 09:40:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Probably the same thing that is circular about the fact that Seaport Traders sent the revolver to Oswald's PO box under Hidell's name and the fact that the revolver was in Oswald's possession in the Texas Theatre.

"fact".  LOL.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2018, 09:47:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You CTs are so predictable, in court I'd present the established predictable behaviour of Oswald's New Orleans Post Office application with AJ Hidell written in Oswald's handwriting and you'd present...... nothing.

"predictable behaviour".  LOL.  That's about as convincing as "prohibitive probability".  I'd present an FBI report saying that Oswald did not indicate that Hidell would receive mail through the box, and you'd present "predictable behaviour".
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2018, 09:48:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Life can turn on a dime...

Says the guy with zero evidence that said rifle was ever assembled with a dime.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2018, 09:51:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Remember they say Oswald never owned that rifle. That's what he said too.

All planted.

So the same rifle they say Oswald never had is in the picture of him with that rifle. And oh yeah, he really truly did bring curtain rods to work that day. The ones never found? The ones he didn't bring with him when he left the building right after the shooting? The ones he absolutely needed to bring to his room. Yeah, those rods.

That's called conspiracy logic. It doesn't have to make sense; it just has to clear Oswald.

Yes, the top CIA agent Oswald who never had a car, never had a phone, never had a house, lived on unemployment checks and apparently went on his top secret missions using a bus.

In cloud cuckoo land that makes sense. Everywhere else it's absurd.

Can you prove that Oswald owned that rifle?  Or that that specific rifle is the one in the backyard photos?  That's LN logic.  Make up conclusions that you can't prove and state them as facts.  It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to convict Oswald.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2018, 09:54:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The WC findings were the results of an investigation, not the results of a trial.

And by "investigation" you mean making a bunch of wild-ass guesses based on insufficient, contradictory, and tainted evidence.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2018, 10:01:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There have been numerous investigations, of course, into the assassination. The conspiracy crowd fixates on the Warren Commission Report and ignores the other investigations that have been done (the HSCA, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission (granted, this was pretty slipshod), et cetera). This includes those done by news organizations - CBS, ABC, PBS - as well as investigations by private journalists like Tim Weiner on the CIA and other reporters. We can add the works of historians like those by Caro and Dallek to the mix.

They were all slipshod.  The problem with investigations like this is that they feel like they're required to come up with some answer and then rationalize it rather than just admitting that they don't know.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 06, 2018, 10:14:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ray, I do agree with their conclusions.  Do you?

Tim, you agree that "John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy"?

 :o
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 08, 2018, 05:25:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can you prove that Oswald owned that rifle?  Or that that specific rifle is the one in the backyard photos?  That's LN logic.  Make up conclusions that you can't prove and state them as facts.  It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to convict Oswald.
It is really not essential to the case that Oswald owned the gun. If the ownership of gun found on the 6th floor could not be tied to Oswald (ie. suppose Klein's had a fire and lost all its records), the case would not fall apart.  In any event, one does not have to prove all facts separately beyond a reasonable doubt in order to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Having said that, proof" is accomplished by persuading a trier of fact that the evidence meets the standard of proof. That's all. The evidence may not persuade you. But I would venture to say that if you picked any jury and asked them, based on the evidence, whether it had been proven that Oswald owned the gun, they would find that it had.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 08, 2018, 07:42:08 PM
Just to remind the LNers, re the simple, cheap experiment that will convince them of the path of the MB thru JFK.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here is what you need: 2 cheap leveling lasers (2 x $20), a protractor to set the angle of trajectory and a camera tripod. That's it! Set it all up as shown below:

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)

With the 2 lasers pointed at one another, sit in the chair so that the low laser strikes your throat at C6. Does the high laser strike your back at T1? No? Bend forward so that it does. How bent forward are you? Was JFK bent forward to the same degree?  The lasers simulate the bullet's straight line trajectory thru your body. To my knowledge no one has formally done this simple experiment which anyone can do, which renders all the CGI models moot. No one buys CAD drawings, but who can deny a deadly accurate re-enactment?

Good luck!

ps why haven't any of the LNers posted their results showing the MB did indeed enter JFK at T1 and exit at C6 showing the MB was feasible? (rhetorical)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 08, 2018, 08:53:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just to remind the LNers, re the simple, cheap experiment that will convince them of the path of the MB thru JFK.

ps why haven't any of the LNers posted their results showing the MB did indeed enter JFK at T1 and exit at C6 showing the MB was feasible? (rhetorical)

Why would any LNs try to show that the Single Bullet entered at T1 and exited at C6?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 08, 2018, 09:23:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just to remind the LNers, re the simple, cheap experiment that will convince them of the path of the MB thru JFK.

ps why haven't any of the LNers posted their results showing the MB did indeed enter JFK at T1 and exit at C6 showing the MB was feasible? (rhetorical)

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/_/rsrc/1471667104794/neckwound/generic-anatomic-and-seated-positions.jpg)

If the slump is severe enough, I suppose it's possible to make a portion of C6 go below a portion of T1. But don't worry, the bullet didn't enter at T1 and didn't exit at C6 anyway.

If you're going to try this experiment, effect a less pronounced slouch and have the bullet enter over from the C7 bump at the back of the neck. Since the body in the experiment is parallel to the laser paths, the 17? ground laser should strike the front of the neck at a level equal to a point above the jugular notch, as shown below.

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_BE3_HI.JPG)

That's if you've managed to mimic the posture of the President's neck at the time he was wounded. But at least you tried.

Critics don't want it to work and they will cite the 99% of the time when it doesn't work. A sensible margin of error of 10% would cut the failure rate considerably. But you notice Trojan didn't offer it.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 08, 2018, 09:31:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I borrowed this photo from another thread.

(https://preview.ibb.co/jJ7yPR/Slide350.gif) (https://ibb.co/cis9W6)

Just above the box in the window there are three cars in three lanes....

The car in the center lane seems to be in roughly the same position where JFK's limo was when the shots were fired.

How does a bullet fired from this window and travelling in a straight downward line, passing through Kennedy's back and throat, end up hitting Connally?

Any suggestions?


Thank you for posting this photo Martin. Can I borrow it? Oh, I'll just go ahead and make my observation. I would like someone (CT's) to look at the center car and tell me where a shooter could have been out in front of it. Many CT's (most) claim that a shot went through the front windshield and struck the president in the throat. Where was that shooter?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 08, 2018, 10:44:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Thank you for posting this photo Martin. Can I borrow it? Oh, I'll just go ahead and make my observation. I would like someone (CT's) to look at the center car and tell me where a shooter could have been out in front of it. Many CT's (most) claim that a shot went through the front windshield and struck the president in the throat. Where was that shooter?

For what it is worth....See the truck in the background? The one that just passed the triple underpass going into town? During the shooting there was a flatbed truck parked there (it can be seem in Zapruder's frame 410) and that location lines up near perfect in a straight line with the limo coming down Elm street. A photo taken from the grass next to where Zapruder stood (I believe Dillard took it), just after the shooting, shows a man by the truck who wasn't there seconds earlier in frame 410. Shortly after that the truck disappeared. Somebody did not hang around DP in the aftermath of the shooting.....
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 08, 2018, 11:03:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
For what it is worth....See the truck in the background? The one that just passed the triple underpass going into town? During the shooting there was a flatbed truck parked there (it can be seem in Zapruder's frame 410) and that location lines up near perfect in a straight line with the limo coming down Elm street. A photo taken from the grass next to where Zapruder stood (I believe Dillard took it), just after the shooting, shows a man by the truck that wasn't there in frame 410. Shortly after that the truck disappeared. Somebody did not hang around DP in the aftermath of the shooting.....


Are you saying there was a shooter there? You are aware that there were two policemen and several workers on top of the triple underpass? None of them reported hearing a shot come from there.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 08, 2018, 11:13:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Are you saying there was a shooter there? You are aware that there were two policemen and several workers on top of the triple underpass? None of them reported hearing a shot come from there.

No, I am answering your question about where a shooter could have been. That's what you wanted to know, right?

There is in fact photographic evidence of the flatbed truck being there one moment and gone the next and the location lines up with the limo in Altgens 6.

The fact that some people on top of the triple underpass did not see a possible shooter doesn't mean he wasn't or couldn't have been there. Let's not forget that the witnesses were looking at the limo coming down Elm street...
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 08, 2018, 11:19:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, I am answering your question about where a shooter could have been. That's what you wanted to know, right?

There is in fact photographic evidence of the flatbed truck being there one moment and gone the next and the location lines up with the limo in Altgens 6.

The fact that some people on top of the triple underpass did not see a possible shooter doesn't mean he wasn't or couldn't have been there. Let's not forget that the witnesses were looking at the limo coming down Elm street...


Fair enough Martin. There are other issues of a shot through the windshield. Maybe we can discuss them later. Thanks.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 10, 2018, 06:59:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/_/rsrc/1471667104794/neckwound/generic-anatomic-and-seated-positions.jpg)

If the slump is severe enough, I suppose it's possible to make a portion of C6 go below a portion of T1. But don't worry, the bullet didn't enter at T1 and didn't exit at C6 anyway.

So you claim. Do my experiment any way you like then post the results, otherwise, x-ray graphics are meaningless.

Quote
If you're going to try this experiment, effect a less pronounced slouch and have the bullet enter over from the C7 bump at the back of the neck. Since the body in the experiment is parallel to the laser paths, the 17? ground laser should strike the front of the neck at a level equal to a point above the jugular notch, as shown below.

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_BE3_HI.JPG)

Do it any way you like, just do it!

Quote
That's if you've managed to mimic the posture of the President's neck at the time he was wounded. But at least you tried.

I didn't try anything, I described the experiment, which all you LNers either failed to do or didn't like the results.

Quote
Critics don't want it to work and they will cite the 99% of the time when it doesn't work. A sensible margin of error of 10% would cut the failure rate considerably. But you notice Trojan didn't offer it.

You LNers are inconvincible, so why would I post my results?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 10, 2018, 09:54:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just to remind the LNers, re the simple, cheap experiment that will convince them of the path of the MB thru JFK.

ps why haven't any of the LNers posted their results showing the MB did indeed enter JFK at T1 and exit at C6 showing the MB was feasible? (rhetorical)

Why would any LNs try to show that the Single Bullet entered at T1 and exited at C6?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 11, 2018, 12:17:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Thank you for posting this photo Martin. Can I borrow it? Oh, I'll just go ahead and make my observation. I would like someone (CT's) to look at the center car and tell me where a shooter could have been out in front of it. Many CT's (most) claim that a shot went through the front windshield and struck the president in the throat. Where was that shooter?

Wesley, there's no need for you to borrow the photo from Martin. You'll find that photo and many more at the following site;

https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/JFKDP/browse/?q=boxes
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 11, 2018, 03:27:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wesley, there's no need for you to borrow the photo from Martin. You'll find that photo and many more at the following site;

https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/JFKDP/browse/?q=boxes


Thanks Tim. I was just being sarcastic.  :D
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 13, 2018, 03:21:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Thanks Tim. I was just being sarcastic.  :D

Well, cut it out. That's not permitted here.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 13, 2018, 05:17:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why would any LNs try to show that the Single Bullet entered at T1 and exited at C6?

That's just my contention. Sorry if it destroys your world view. Otherwise, do my laser experiment any way you like, then post the results to support your claim. If you don't, then you are just too lazy to care about the truth. So get on it. :D
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 14, 2018, 10:53:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It is really not essential to the case that Oswald owned the gun.

I agree.  The case against Oswald needs to prove that he did the shooting.

Quote
The evidence may not persuade you. But I would venture to say that if you picked any jury and asked them, based on the evidence, whether it had been proven that Oswald owned the gun, they would find that it had.

Why would you venture to say that?  Just because you think he did?  You have to actually examine the evidentiary basis for that conclusion and you're left with an unscientific handwriting "analysis" of a couple of block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon and an "order blank" printed from microfilm that is now "missing" showing a PO box box number that Oswald had access to with a serial number handwritten on the form at some indeterminate time.  And a photo with a rifle that (despite what Mytton claims) cannot be proven to be be the same rifle.

Evidence?  Sure.  Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?  Hardly.  But even if it was, you've already pointed out the problem.  Showing that somebody owned a gun doesn't tell you anything about who fired it at the president.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 15, 2018, 03:15:51 AM
You have a good point and observation. I believe that maybe there was more than one gunman but at the same time no one has proof of that and people heard the shots from the building that Oswald was in. But I believe Oswald was only a decoy. Take a look at this article before I say any more to make my point. I have more evidence as well. Skip down to where it talks about the assassination with Kennedy. There is fingerprint evidence mentioned in this article as well.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwallaceM.htm
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 15, 2018, 03:29:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You have a good point and observation. I believe that maybe there was more than one gunman but at the same time no one has proof of that and people heard the shots from the building that Oswald was in. But I believe Oswald was only a decoy. Take a look at this article before I say any more to make my point. I have more evidence as well. Skip down to where it talks about the assassination with Kennedy. There is fingerprint evidence mentioned in this article as well.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwallaceM.htm

The Mac Wallace myth
From Faustian Bargains
by Joan Mellen

JFKFacts
October 12, 2016

[Excerpt]

Fingerprint

Mellen?s biggest service is to revisit the story of an unidentified fingerprint found on a box on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Numerous JFK researchers have repeated the claim that the fingerprint was that of Mac Wallace, an LBJ associate who apparently murdered a man whom he believed to have slept with his wife. As Mellen shows with a careful reconstruction of the case, Wallace escaped punishment for the crime thanks to legal machinations of Texas politicos aligned with LBJ. From these events arose the hoary legend that Mac Wallace had something to do with JFK?s assassination.

Mellen kills the legend. She points out that the two ?experts? who said that fingerprint came from Wallace were not certified identification experts at the time of their claims. They also used a faulty image of the fingerprint. She notes that the JFK authors who repeated the story of the Mac Wallace fingerprint often used identical language without ever bothering verify the claim.

By contrast, Mellen did the due diligence. She obtained a quality fingerprint image from the National Archives and showed it to an accredited expert, Robert Garrett, without disclosing the issue at stake. Garrett stated, without qualification, that the fingerprint does not match Wallace?s. Mellen reproduces his methodology. The Mac Wallace fingerprint myth has now been definitively debunked.

 
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 15, 2018, 03:58:02 AM
What year did this person "debunk" the evidence because in 1998 an investigator by the name of Walt Brown identified it as Wallace's and he was a real investigator.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 15, 2018, 04:13:29 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree.  The case against Oswald needs to prove that he did the shooting.

Why would you venture to say that?  Just because you think he did?  You have to actually examine the evidentiary basis for that conclusion and you're left with an unscientific handwriting "analysis" of a couple of block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon and an "order blank" printed from microfilm that is now "missing" showing a PO box box number that Oswald had access to with a serial number handwritten on the form at some indeterminate time.  And a photo with a rifle that (despite what Mytton claims) cannot be proven to be be the same rifle.

Evidence?  Sure.  Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?  Hardly.  But even if it was, you've already pointed out the problem.  Showing that somebody owned a gun doesn't tell you anything about who fired it at the president.
Well, ownership is relevant because it connects Oswald to the murder weapon. A jury does not have to find he owned it beyond a reasonable doubt to conclude that he owned the gun. They only have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the murder.  They could conclude that he likely owned the gun and use that as one of the many pieces of evidence connecting Oswald to the murder to ultimately find, beyond a reasonable doubt, Oswald guilty. 

The ownership of the gun comes from many different sources and circumstances. Marina admitted that Oswald purchased a rifle at about the same time as the purchase from Klein's by "Hidell" and that he had told her that he used the rifle to shoot at Gen. Walker.  She said the rifle was kept in the garage in a blanket.  The rifle was not there after the assassination. No other rifle belonging to Oswald has ever been found.   The rifle had Oswald's palm print on the stock. His prints were on the paper bag found in the SN.  Marina admitted taking the backyard photo of Oswald with the rifle. Oswald was seen taking a long paper package that he told Buell Frazier contained curtain rods.  No curtain rods were ever found, of course. Oswald denied telling Frazier this and said he took his lunch.  A jury might have little difficulty concluding that was not a lunch bag and that it did not contain curtain rods. 

On all the evidence, it is difficult to fathom how any group of 12 reasonable people could, at the end of the day, find that Oswald was not tied to that rifle found in the TSBD.

Finding Oswald guilty of murder requires more than that, of course. But there is ample evidence simply from Oswald's conduct after the assassination adding to the strong circumstantial link to the rifle. All the evidence, together, is more than enough to establish Oswald's involvement beyond a reasonable doubt. The similar fact evidence from Marina of the attempt on Gen. Walker, is just icing on the cake.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 15, 2018, 04:15:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What year did this person "debunk" the evidence because in 1998 an investigator by the name of Walt Brown identified it as Wallace's and he was a real investigator.

Mac Wallace

The myth of Wallace being one of the shooters of Kennedy persists. Conspiracy theorist Walt Brown, the editor of the substantive JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly, claimed, in a May 29, 1998, press conference at the Conspiracy Museum in Dallas and in the October 2001 edition of his publication, that a latent print examiner from Texas, Nathan Darby, was furnished with a copy of the only latent print found on the cardboard cartons inside the sniper?s nest that was never identified,54? as well as the 1951 fingerprint card for Wallace following his arrest for the murder of John Kinser, and that the expert made a positive match, finding fourteen points of identification. (Recall that our boy Loy Factor put Wallace several windows to the west of the sniper?s nest.) According to Darby?s March 9, 1998, affidavit, the match was of ?the left little finger.?55

On November 20, 2001, I spoke over the telephone with Darby. Eighty-seven at the time, he told me he had been the head of the Austin, Texas, police department?s Identification and Criminal Records Section for several years. He had retired from the force and was still living in Austin. I told him I had trouble with his finding a ?match? between prints found at the sniper?s nest on the sixth floor and the fingerprint exemplar card of Malcolm Wallace. ?Why?? he asked. ?Because,? I pointed out, ?the unidentified latent print found on the sixth floor was a palm print, not a fingerprint, and unless you?ve come up with something new, I?ve never heard of anyone matching a palm print with a fingerprint.? Darby, sensing he had been taken, told me that he had been given ?two fingerprints, one from a card, the other a latent. It was all blind. I didn?t know and wasn?t told who they belonged to (it was much later, he said, that he heard Malcolm Wallace?s name mentioned), although I recognized the layout of the card (he said all identifying features had been blacked out) as that of the Texas Department of Public Safety. I wasn?t given any palm print. They were both fingerprints. Of course, you can?t compare a palm print with a fingerprint.?

Bugliosi, Vincent (2007-05-17). Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Kindle Locations 25490-25506). Norton. Kindle Edition.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 15, 2018, 12:46:35 PM
So this is pretty much saying that it was a palm print found and not a fingerprint then? That's why they couldn't confirm if it was Wallace's?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 15, 2018, 05:59:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
By contrast, Mellen did the due diligence. She obtained a quality fingerprint image from the National Archives and showed it to an accredited expert, Robert Garrett, without disclosing the issue at stake. Garrett stated, without qualification, that the fingerprint does not match Wallace?s. Mellen reproduces his methodology. The Mac Wallace fingerprint myth has now been definitively debunked.

So whose print was it then?  Does anyone care?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 15, 2018, 06:14:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, ownership is relevant because it connects Oswald to the murder weapon. A jury does not have to find he owned it beyond a reasonable doubt to conclude that he owned the gun. They only have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the murder.  They could conclude that he likely owned the gun and use that as one of the many pieces of evidence connecting Oswald to the murder to ultimately find, beyond a reasonable doubt, Oswald guilty. 

First of all, there's no proof that this was the murder weapon.  At best you can show that it was the weapon that fired the shells allegedly found on the 6th floor, and (if you buy Frazier's "lining up the marks in his mind" technique) the weapon that fired the mutilated fragments allegedly found in the limo and the near pristine bullet allegedly found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital.

Quote
The ownership of the gun comes from many different sources and circumstances. Marina admitted that Oswald purchased a rifle at about the same time as the purchase from Klein's by "Hidell" and that he had told her that he used the rifle to shoot at Gen. Walker.

It's not enough to show that Oswald had some rifle.

Quote
She said the rifle was kept in the garage in a blanket.

She saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle about 6 weeks before the assassination.

Quote
  The rifle was not there after the assassination. No other rifle belonging to Oswald has ever been found.

You can't just assume that particular rifle was Oswald's because you didn't find any other one.

Quote
   The rifle had Oswald's palm print on the stock.

No it didn't.  A partial palm print was found a week later on an index card that was claimed to have been lifted from the barrel.

Quote
His prints were on the paper bag found in the SN.

There's no evidence that that bag ever had anything to do with any rifle.  Or that it was even in the SN when it was first discovered.

Quote
  Marina admitted taking the backyard photo of Oswald with the rifle.

With some rifle.

Quote
Oswald was seen taking a long paper package that he told Buell Frazier contained curtain rods.

A bag that both Frazier and Randle said was not the bag supposedly found in the SN.

Quote
  No curtain rods were ever found, of course. Oswald denied telling Frazier this and said he took his lunch.  A jury might have little difficulty concluding that was not a lunch bag and that it did not contain curtain rods.

A jury might have a lot of difficulty concluding that this was the CE 142 bag and that it ever contained a rifle.  Because there is no evidence to support that. 

Quote
On all the evidence, it is difficult to fathom how any group of 12 reasonable people could, at the end of the day, find that Oswald was not tied to that rifle found in the TSBD.

The problem is that you're defining "reasonable people" as people who agree with your assumptions.

Quote
Finding Oswald guilty of murder requires more than that, of course. But there is ample evidence simply from Oswald's conduct after the assassination adding to the strong circumstantial link to the rifle.

No, there really isn't.  No matter how Oswald had conducted himself, it would have been spun as the actions of a guilty person.

Quote
All the evidence, together, is more than enough to establish Oswald's involvement beyond a reasonable doubt. The similar fact evidence from Marina of the attempt on Gen. Walker, is just icing on the cake.

I know you believe that, but what evidence is that based on?  Can you name a single piece of evidence, physical or circumstantial, that isn't questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 15, 2018, 10:30:53 PM
It was identified as Malcolm Wallace's fingerprint in 1998 by investigator Walt Brown.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 16, 2018, 02:53:47 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Mac Wallace myth
From Faustian Bargains
by Joan Mellen

JFKFacts
October 12, 2016

[Excerpt]

Fingerprint

Mellen?s biggest service is to revisit the story of an unidentified fingerprint found on a box on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Numerous JFK researchers have repeated the claim that the fingerprint was that of Mac Wallace, an LBJ associate who apparently murdered a man whom he believed to have slept with his wife. As Mellen shows with a careful reconstruction of the case, Wallace escaped punishment for the crime thanks to legal machinations of Texas politicos aligned with LBJ. From these events arose the hoary legend that Mac Wallace had something to do with JFK?s assassination.

Mellen kills the legend. She points out that the two ?experts? who said that fingerprint came from Wallace were not certified identification experts at the time of their claims. They also used a faulty image of the fingerprint. She notes that the JFK authors who repeated the story of the Mac Wallace fingerprint often used identical language without ever bothering verify the claim.

By contrast, Mellen did the due diligence. She obtained a quality fingerprint image from the National Archives and showed it to an accredited expert, Robert Garrett, without disclosing the issue at stake. Garrett stated, without qualification, that the fingerprint does not match Wallace?s. Mellen reproduces his methodology. The Mac Wallace fingerprint myth has now been definitively debunked.

Rubbish. Wallace's fingerprint is not a myth as much as you LNers would like to believe. Joan Mellen was taking the word of a member of the FBI, who originally pooh-poohed the print, based on what??? Where is their analysis/report? You can't just say nope the print doesn't match. Obviously, the FBI is still working the BS to this day. Why would Walt Brown lie? Was Darby not as competent as whomever analyzed the print at the FBI? Isn't that like the GOP overseeing the Trump investigation? Give me a break!
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on March 16, 2018, 03:00:57 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Rubbish. Wallace's fingerprint is not a myth as much as you LNers would like to believe. Joan Mellen was taking the word of a member of the FBI, who originally pooh-poohed the print, based on what??? Where is their analysis/report? You can't just say nope the print doesn't match. Obviously, the FBI is still working the BS to this day. Why would Walt Brown lie? Was he not as competent as whomever analyzed the print at the FBI? Isn't that like the GOP overseeing the Trump investigation? Give me a break!



The fingerprints exist so instead of your endless bleating get up off your lazy ass, take the fingerprints to someone with authority and prove something for a change.



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 16, 2018, 03:05:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Rubbish. Wallace's fingerprint is not a myth as much as you LNers would like to believe. Joan Mellen was taking the word of a member of the FBI, who originally pooh-poohed the print, based on what??? Where is their analysis/report? You can't just say nope the print doesn't match. Obviously, the FBI is still working the BS to this day. Why would Walt Brown lie? Was he not as competent as whomever analyzed the print at the FBI? Isn't that like the GOP overseeing the Trump investigation? Give me a break!

Uhhh...do you know who Walt Brown is?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 16, 2018, 03:10:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Uhhh...do you know who Walt Brown is?

He's the researcher who got A. Nathan Darby to analyze the fingerprint and declared it a match to Wallace. Didn't he?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 16, 2018, 03:13:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


The fingerprints exist so instead of your endless bleating get up off your lazy ass, take the fingerprints to someone with authority and prove something for a change.



JohnM

 :D Did you get off your lazy ass and do my laser experiment yet? I'll bet you did and you're choked over the results!
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 16, 2018, 03:20:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He's the researcher who got A. Nathan Darby to analyze the fingerprint and declared it a match to Wallace. Didn't he?

Ok. The way that you worded it sounded like you were say that Walt Brown was the expert in fingerprint identification.

Darby never analyzed a fingerprint and matched it to Wallace. He analyzed a photograph of a palm print and declared it a match to Wallace's fingerprint.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 16, 2018, 03:23:18 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:D Did you get off your lazy ass and do my laser experiment yet? I'll bet you did and you're choked over the results!

Get off your own lazy ass and show us the pictures and data of your laser experiment.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 16, 2018, 03:41:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok. The way that you worded it sounded like you were say that Walt Brown was the expert in fingerprint identification.

Darby never analyzed a fingerprint and matched it to Wallace. He analyzed a photograph of a palm print and declared it a match to Wallace's fingerprint.

Actually Tim, Darby did analyze a left little fingerprint of Wallace's. The problem was, it was a plant. Author Barr McClellan along with another author named Harrison gave Darby an old fingerprint card and what they claimed was a latent print and have him analyze them. Of course he said it was a match. When he was told that the only latent print found was a palm print Darby knew he had been played. It was all just so McClellan and Harrison could write a book. That's what all this has turned in to. It is just so the CT buff authors can sell books. That is why people like Harold Weisberg fight so hard against authors like Bugliosi and Posner. It kills their book sells if too many people start believing Oswald acted alone. It is disgusting that they make so much money off of lies and the president's death. 
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 16, 2018, 04:17:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Actually Tim, Darby did analyze a left little fingerprint of Wallace's. The problem was, it was a plant.

Isn't it funny how LNers are all about the planted evidence when it suits them.

Quote
That's what all this has turned in to. It is just so the CT buff authors can sell books.

Yeah, because Posner, Bugliosi, and Myers didn't want to sell books.  They did it out of the goodness of their hearts.

What kind of publisher's advance do you think Weisberg ever got?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 16, 2018, 04:29:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Isn't it funny how LNers are all about the planted evidence when it suits them.

Yeah, because Posner, Bugliosi, and Myers didn't want to sell books.  They did it out of the goodness of their hearts.

What kind of publisher's advance do you think Weisberg ever got?

Do you dispute that Darby was played by McClellan and Harrison? Yes john I'm aware that Weisberg did some of his own publishing. It's because what he writes is crap. So John, I'm now beside you up on the fence. Can you tell me what happened that day. Like the buffs are always saying, "the truth finally revealed"! Educate me John. I believe everything you and Martin and Rob have been putting out. Give me the truth John.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 16, 2018, 04:45:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do you dispute that Darby was played by McClellan and Harrison? Yes john I'm aware that Weisberg did some of his own publishing. It's because what he writes is crap.

No, what you write is crap.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 16, 2018, 04:54:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, what you write is crap.

So you don't dispute that Darby was played, Excellent! Now I'm with you on that Fence John. It's getting wobbly, tell me what you think happened? On a different post you stated there may be more than just Oswald did it and a conspiracy. Enlighten me John. Give me some more choices.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 16, 2018, 05:09:33 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So you don't dispute that Darby was played, Excellent! Now I'm with you on that Fence John. It's getting wobbly, tell me what you think happened? On a different post you stated there may be more than just Oswald did it and a conspiracy. Enlighten me John. Give me some more choices.

I don't know if Darby was played.  I don't know if Garrett was played either.  Or Vincent Scalice for that matter.  I do know that print matching is subjective, prone to bias, and that the criteria for a positive match vary.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 16, 2018, 05:19:43 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't know if Darby was played.  I don't know if Garrett was played either.  Or Vincent Scalice for that matter.  I do know that print matching is subjective, prone to bias, and that the criteria for a positive match vary.

You ever watch the first Star Trek John? In one episode Spock said something like "if I drop a hammer, I do not need to see it hit the floor to know that it has". That's logic John, which is something few of you have on here. If Spock was here you guys would say, "well Spock, I heard the hammer hit the floor, but my head was turned , so I don't know that it was the hammer that made the noise, and I can't be sure if the hammer really even hit the floor", and on forever. It truly is fascinating, the things some of you come up with.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 16, 2018, 06:11:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You ever watch the first Star Trek John? In one episode Spock said something like "if I drop a hammer, I do not need to see it hit the floor to know that it has". That's logic John, which is something few of you have on here. If Spock was here you guys would say, "well Spock, I heard the hammer hit the floor, but my head was turned , so I don't know that it was the hammer that made the noise, and I can't be sure if the hammer really even hit the floor", and on forever. It truly is fascinating, the things some of you come up with.

If Spock's head was turned, how would he know who dropped the hammer?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 16, 2018, 06:26:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Actually Tim, Darby did analyze a left little fingerprint of Wallace's. The problem was, it was a plant. Author Barr McClellan along with another author named Harrison gave Darby an old fingerprint card and what they claimed was a latent print and have him analyze them. Of course he said it was a match. When he was told that the only latent print found was a palm print Darby knew he had been played. It was all just so McClellan and Harrison could write a book. That's what all this has turned in to. It is just so the CT buff authors can sell books. That is why people like Harold Weisberg fight so hard against authors like Bugliosi and Posner. It kills their book sells if too many people start believing Oswald acted alone. It is disgusting that they make so much money off of lies and the president's death.

It's not clear to me what you are saying. I assumed that Darby was given fingerprints of Wallace's in order to compare with the unidentified print from the sixth floor. I don't know what you mean by "it was a plant" though. Perhaps you mis worded it. A fraud by Livingston and McClellan may be what you meant to say.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 16, 2018, 06:28:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Isn't it funny how LNers are all about the planted evidence when it suits them.

This one isn't about planted evidence. It's about a fraud carried out by Livingston and McClellan.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 16, 2018, 06:31:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Author Barr McClellan along with another author named Harrison gave Darby an old fingerprint card and what they claimed was a latent print and have him analyze them.

You mean the way Latona was given an index card with what they claimed was a latent partial palmprint lifted from the rifle barrel?  You mean the way Scalice was given photographs of what they claimed was the trigger guard area of the rifle?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 16, 2018, 06:35:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You mean the way Latona was given an index card with what they claimed was a latent partial palmprint lifted from the rifle

How is that anywhere near the same? The card did hold a latent print that was lifted from the rifle.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 16, 2018, 07:30:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How is that anywhere near the same? The card did hold a latent print that was lifted from the rifle.

That's easy for you to say.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 16, 2018, 10:35:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If Spock's head was turned, how would he know who dropped the hammer?
Maybe he would use logic to conclude that it was the guy who immediately picked up the hammer, threw it into the closet, ran out the door and down to the officers' mess and grabbed a Dr. Klingon (a popular soft drink) to look cool and avoid suspicion, then ran toward the escape deck killing a Vulcan security guard on the way, then ran into the virtual reality theater (without paying) and finally tried to shoot the security guards when placed under arrest.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 16, 2018, 11:28:23 PM
If any of you could link some websites that talk about Johnson and his associate's involvement in the assassination I would appreciate it.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Robert Reeves on March 16, 2018, 11:37:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If any of you could link some websites that talk about Johnson and his associate's involvement in the assassination I would appreciate it.

'The Case Against LBJ' by Roger Stone, pretty much covers everything you're looking for.

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Mytton on March 16, 2018, 11:46:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If Spock's head was turned, how would he know who dropped the hammer?





If just before Spock turned away he saw a man carrying a hammer then turned back to see the man with a hammer at his feet then of course the logical conclusion would be that the man had dropped the hammer.



JohnM
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 17, 2018, 05:09:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's not clear to me what you are saying. I assumed that Darby was given fingerprints of Wallace's in order to compare with the unidentified print from the sixth floor. I don't know what you mean by "it was a plant" though. Perhaps you mis worded it. A fraud by Livingston and McClellan may be what you meant to say.

Tim, McClellan and Harrison gave Darby an old fingerprint of Wallace's along with an old fingerprint card with Wallace's print on it. They never gave Darby the real latent palm print from the TSBD 6th floor. It was all a fake.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 17, 2018, 05:12:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If Spock's head was turned, how would he know who dropped the hammer?

You are not a dummy are you John? You know full well the point. You are a smart guy John so you figure it out. By the way, why don't you tell me what you think happened after you and all the rest on here dispute the evidence? Any ideas John?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 17, 2018, 05:16:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you a Trekie? Do you go to those conventions where they all dress up as characters on the show? Wow, that's cool.

No not a Trekie. It was just an illustration on how the CTers try and respond to evidence.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 17, 2018, 08:04:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Tim, McClellan and Harrison gave Darby an old fingerprint of Wallace's along with an old fingerprint card with Wallace's print on it. They never gave Darby the real latent palm print from the TSBD 6th floor. It was all a fake.


And the evidence for this is.... what exactly?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 17, 2018, 08:17:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
'The Case Against LBJ' by Roger Stone, pretty much covers everything you're looking for.

Stone provides a few grounds for suspicion but no evidence.  I guess LBJ was so powerful that he was able to make the evidence disappear.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 18, 2018, 01:49:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Actually Tim, Darby did analyze a left little fingerprint of Wallace's. The problem was, it was a plant. Author Barr McClellan along with another author named Harrison gave Darby an old fingerprint card and what they claimed was a latent print and have him analyze them. Of course he said it was a match. When he was told that the only latent print found was a palm print Darby knew he had been played. It was all just so McClellan and Harrison could write a book. That's what all this has turned in to. It is just so the CT buff authors can sell books. That is why people like Harold Weisberg fight so hard against authors like Bugliosi and Posner. It kills their book sells if too many people start believing Oswald acted alone. It is disgusting that they make so much money off of lies and the president's death.

Wallace's fingerprint was a plant? You're sounding a little like a CT (Coincidence Theorist). Are you saying that Walt Brown planted the Wallace print to indemnify Oswald? :D
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 18, 2018, 02:13:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tim, McClellan and Harrison gave Darby an old fingerprint of Wallace's along with an old fingerprint card with Wallace's print on it.

Wesley, Are sure about that? From a signed 1998 affidavit by Nathan Darby:

7.    Recently I received a photocopy of an inked print along with a
photocopy of a latent print from [ Texas researcher]. After careful
and extended examination of the inked print photocopy and the latent
print photocopy given to me, I have their identifying characteristics
marked and numbered. The inked print is Exhibit DAN #3, and the latent
Print is Exhibit DAN #4.


https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.crime/k8Ji79QRyXk
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 18, 2018, 02:39:24 AM
"Agents" took Oswald's palm print post-mortem to compare against the print on the MC? When did they claim that?

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 18, 2018, 02:31:53 PM
LBJ was befriended by literally everyone, and if he wasn't he threatened to blackmail them, so no it doesn't surprise me that all evidence is "disappeared"
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 18, 2018, 02:44:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LBJ was befriended by literally everyone, and if he wasn't he threatened to blackmail them, so no it doesn't surprise me that all evidence is "disappeared"
Ok, I get it.  So you are saying that the fact that there is no evidence that LBJ was involved is, therefore, evidence he was involved. 
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Joe Elliott on March 19, 2018, 12:59:28 AM

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

LBJ was befriended by literally everyone, and if he wasn't he threatened to blackmail them, so no it doesn't surprise me that all evidence is "disappeared"



https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conspiracy-theories-who-why-and-how.pdf

Section 7   -   ?Top Ten Ways to Test Conspiacies?

2. The agents behind the pattern of conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. Most of the time in most circumstances, people are not nearly so powerful as we think they are.



During his years in Congress, while I thought he was pretty busy with legislation, LBJ was buddying up with FBI agents, Naval Doctors, even each member of the Dallas Police Force. After all, you never know which of them may stumble upon evidence that needs to be suppressed. Those he couldn?t charm, he managed to dig up stuff he could blackmail them with (like periodically breaking their patrol to used a restroom). LBJ was totally amazing.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 19, 2018, 02:16:41 AM
LBJ was amazing all right. He once tied a stick of dynamite to the leg of a dog and blew it up. I can see how that could have gone horribly wrong. "No boy, no...run away, GO AWAY, NOOOOO...BOOM!
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 19, 2018, 03:04:18 PM
I'm not saying that necessarily, but what I am saying is that people who knew him personally have said that he was a very violent man and always got what he wanted. If he didn't he would have his associates or as I should say a "hitman" kill them. For instance, When Henry Marshall found that Billie Sol Estes was committing a crime he was going to tell authorities and Johnson said he would promote him if he kept his mouth shut and he refused so he had Malcolm Wallace Kill Marshall at his own farm.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 19, 2018, 03:05:16 PM
That's literally defining a psycho with that. Wow, I can't believe he put dynamite on an innocent dog.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 19, 2018, 03:32:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's literally defining a psycho with that. Wow, I can't believe he put dynamite on an innocent dog.
Apparently, he even had his own sister murdered by Mac Wallace.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2018, 03:36:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I'm not saying that necessarily, but what I am saying is that people who knew him personally have said that he was a very violent man and always got what he wanted. If he didn't he would have his associates or as I should say a "hitman" kill them. For instance, When Henry Marshall found that Billie Sol Estes was committing a crime he was going to tell authorities and Johnson said he would promote him if he kept his mouth shut and he refused so he had Malcolm Wallace Kill Marshall at his own farm.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Apparently, he even had his own sister murdered by Mac Wallace.


I know these claims were made in an episode of "the men who killed Kennedy" but beyond that has any of this ever been substantiated?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 19, 2018, 04:03:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's literally defining a psycho with that. Wow, I can't believe he put dynamite on an innocent dog.

LOL What makes you think the dog was innocent...

  ;)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 19, 2018, 04:04:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I know these claims were made in an episode of "the men who killed Kennedy" but beyond that has any of this ever been substantiated?

"LBJ KILLED JFK


After 50 years, the sad truth is revealed?
Unknown to the general American public and never mentioned in history books is the fact that a Texas Grand Jury has officially indicted and found Lyndon Baines Johnson guilty as a co-conspirator (from his association with Malcolm Wallace, Billie Sol Estes and Edward Clark) in the following nine (9) murders:


The killing of Henry Marshall (the Agriculture Secretary)
The killing of George Krutelnik (an FBI informant who worked for Estes)
The killing of Ike Rogers and his secretary
The killing of Harold Orr (an FBI informant who worked for Estes)
The killing of Coleman Wade (an FBI informant who wqorked for Estes)
The killing of Josefa Johnson (LBJ?s own sister!)
The killing of John Kinser (Josefa?s boyfriend)
The killing of President John Kennedy


Read the complete article here(several pages):

http://www.viewzone.com/lbj/indexx.html"
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 19, 2018, 04:15:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"LBJ KILLED JFK


After 50 years, the sad truth is revealed?
Unknown to the general American public and never mentioned in history books is the fact that a Texas Grand Jury has officially indicted and found Lyndon Baines Johnson guilty as a co-conspirator (from his association with Malcolm Wallace, Billie Sol Estes and Edward Clark) in the following nine (9) murders:


The killing of Henry Marshall (the Agriculture Secretary)
The killing of George Krutelnik (an FBI informant who worked for Estes)
The killing of Ike Rogers and his secretary
The killing of Harold Orr (an FBI informant who worked for Estes)
The killing of Coleman Wade (an FBI informant who wqorked for Estes)
The killing of Josefa Johnson (LBJ?s own sister!)
The killing of John Kinser (Josefa?s boyfriend)
The killing of President John Kennedy


Read the complete article here(several pages):

http://www.viewzone.com/lbj/indexx.html"

Ray, Grand Juries do NOT find people guilty or not guilty.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 19, 2018, 04:26:54 PM
Tim, I think you meant don't find people guilty or innocent?

They only determine whether there's sufficient evidence - "probable cause" - to bring charges against someone.


Never mind. It was corrected.

I do find this interesting: LBJ was a bad man therefore he killed JFK.

What did LBJ do after becoming president? He passed civil rights (two of them), a voting rights bill, a fair housing bill, poverty programs, he ended Operation Mongoose and the covert war on Cuba.....

Yes, as Caro documented in his books - and as he himself said - LBJ was a horrible, despicable person. Nobody denies that. But that is not evidence of his involvement in the assassination. Besides, he would have to have underlings pull off this act of treason. The conspiracy crowd likes to cry Hoover! and LBJ! and other awful people as if that is sufficient alone to prove their involvement. Sorry, that's not enough.

Anyway, LBJ's post assassination acts are hardly those of right wing militarists who killed JFK to promote their malevolent agenda.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Ray Mitcham on March 19, 2018, 04:39:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ray, Grand Juries do NOT find people guilty or not guilty.

You'd better send an e mail to Viewzone, Tim.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 19, 2018, 04:52:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wesley, Are sure about that? From a signed 1998 affidavit by Nathan Darby:

7.    Recently I received a photocopy of an inked print along with a
photocopy of a latent print from [ Texas researcher]. After careful
and extended examination of the inked print photocopy and the latent
print photocopy given to me, I have their identifying characteristics
marked and numbered. The inked print is Exhibit DAN #3, and the latent
Print is Exhibit DAN #4.


https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.crime/k8Ji79QRyXk

Tim I am sure at the time Darby said that, that the two prints matched. I'm not disputing that. The only latent print found in the sniper's nest was a palm print collected by the DPD. There was not a latent print of a "little finger print" found. It was all faked by McClellan and Harrison. When they gave the prints to Darby he was not told what or who the belonged to.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 19, 2018, 04:56:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And the evidence for this is.... what exactly?

From the Dallas Police Department Martin. Look it up. I did. If you deny the DPD collected a latent palm print from the 6th floor sniper's nest then by implication you are saying there was a conspiracy. Are you ready to come down off of that fence?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2018, 05:11:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

From the Dallas Police Department Martin. Look it up. I did. If you deny the DPD collected a latent palm print from the 6th floor sniper's nest then by implication you are saying there was a conspiracy. Are you ready to come down off of that fence?


Translation: I am too lazy or unable to support the claims I make... Pathetic

You claimed;

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Tim, McClellan and Harrison gave Darby an old fingerprint of Wallace's along with an old fingerprint card with Wallace's print on it. They never gave Darby the real latent palm print from the TSBD 6th floor. It was all a fake.


which has nothing to do with what's in the DPD files or not.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 19, 2018, 05:38:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tim, I think you meant don't find people guilty or innocent?

They only determine whether there's sufficient evidence - "probable cause" - to bring charges against someone.

I do find this interesting: LBJ was a bad man therefore he killed JFK.

What did LBJ do after becoming president? He passed civil rights (two of them), a voting rights bill, a fair housing bill, poverty programs, he ended Operation Mongoose and the covert war on Cuba.....

Yes, as Caro documented in his books - and as he himself said - LBJ was a horrible, despicable person. Nobody denies that. But that is not evidence of his involvement in the assassination. Besides, he would have to have underlings pull off this act of treason. The conspiracy crowd likes to cry Hoover! and LBJ! and other awful people as if that is sufficient alone to prove their involvement. Sorry, that's not enough.

Anyway, LBJ's post assassination acts are hardly those of right wing militarists who killed JFK to promote their malevolent agenda.

Steve, I edited my post four minutes before this post of yours.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 19, 2018, 05:40:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You'd better send an e mail to Viewzone, Tim.

What for? That article is full of errors. I'm not going to waste my time correcting every damn fool on the internet.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 19, 2018, 05:42:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tim I am sure at the time Darby said that, that the two prints matched. I'm not disputing that. The only latent print found in the sniper's nest was a palm print collected by the DPD. There was not a latent print of a "little finger print" found. It was all faked by McClellan and Harrison. When they gave the prints to Darby he was not told what or who the belonged to.

Wesley, my point is that Darby wasn't given an actual print of Wallace's to compare with his known prints. He was given a photocopy of Wallace's fingerprint.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 19, 2018, 07:07:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Translation: I am too lazy or unable to support the claims I make... Pathetic

You claimed;

which has nothing to do with what's in the DPD files or not.

which has nothing to do with what's in the DPD files or not.

Who is being lazy? You are. Are you saying that the Dallas Police Department did not collect a "latent palm print" from the area around the 6th floor sniper's window?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 19, 2018, 07:11:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wesley, my point is that Darby wasn't given an actual print of Wallace's to compare with his known prints. He was given a photocopy of Wallace's fingerprint.

Yes I understand. My only point is, there was never a "latent finger print" found at the sniper's nest, it was a "latent palm print" and Darby did not know that because McClellan and Harrison played him. I understand your point.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2018, 07:22:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
which has nothing to do with what's in the DPD files or not.

Who is being lazy? You are. Are you saying that the Dallas Police Department did not collect a "latent palm print" from the area around the 6th floor sniper's window?

No, I am saying that you make claims that you can't or won't support.

I'm not going to search the DPD files to check your claim!
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 19, 2018, 08:09:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No, I am saying that you make claims that you can't or won't support.

I'm not going to search the DPD files to check your claim!

I'm not going to search the DPD files to check your claim!


Why not? I've researched the conspiracy buffs crap. I use to believe there was a conspiracy Martin, until more and more theories came out that conflicted. I stopped believing there was a conspiracy when I read Lifton's farce. How do you know if I can't support what I claim if you don't research it? Who is being closed minded Martin? 
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 19, 2018, 08:16:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This means that he can't cite any evidence. What else is new?


And this from the king of the fence walkers and BS artists.  ;D
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2018, 08:24:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not going to search the DPD files to check your claim!


Why not? I've researched the conspiracy buffs crap. I use to believe there was a conspiracy Martin, until more and more theories came out that conflicted. I stopped believing there was a conspiracy when I read Lifton's farce. How do you know if I can't support what I claim if you don't research it? Who is being closed minded Martin?

This has nothing to do with being closed minded. You made a claim and when I asked you to back it up, you didn't. Instead you told me to look it up for myself. I know what's in the DPD files. I have done my research, but I'll be damned if I start looking for something that you are supposed to provide but don't!

How do you know if I can't support what I claim if you don't research it?

This is the world upside down. I don't need to find out if you can support a claim or not. You need to support your claim. So, why don't you?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 19, 2018, 08:38:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This has nothing to do with being closed minded. You made a claim and when I asked you to back it up, you didn't. Instead you told me to look it up for myself. I know what's in the DPD files. I have done my research, but I'll be damned if I start looking for something that you are supposed to provide but don't!

How do you know if I can't support what I claim if you don't research it?

This is the world upside down. I don't need to find out if you can support a claim or not. You need to support your claim. So, why don't you?

I know what's in the DPD files.

Good, then you know what I claimed is true. And you on other posts have made claims without supporting them. Kind of hypocritical Martin. An example Martin is on the thread where I asked "who do you believe" most of your comments if not all were all assumptions and not supported by anything. Oh, you wanted me to support why I thought Oswald lied to Fritz or why I thought Arnold was wrong. And I supported that by citing to you the statements Oswald made to Fritz and by citing that Sander's statement conflicted with Arnold. All you gave me was assumptions. Hypocritical.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2018, 08:41:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I know what's in the DPD files.

Good, then you know what I claimed is true. And you on other posts have made claims without supporting them. Kind of hypocritical Martin. An example Martin is on the thread where I asked "who do you believe" most of your comments if not all were all assumptions and not supported by anything. Oh, you wanted me to support why I thought Oswald lied to Fritz or why I thought Arnold was wrong. And I supported that by citing to you the statements Oswald made to Fritz and by citing that Sander's statement conflicted with Arnold. All you gave me was assumptions. Hypocritical.

Stop rambling and start making sense, please.

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 19, 2018, 08:44:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Stop rambling and start making sense, please.

Thanks, I'll take that as confirmation that all you ever do is assume.  ::)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2018, 09:02:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Thanks, I'll take that as confirmation that all you ever do is assume.  ::)


Do as you please. It seems you do that anyway, regardless of what anybody tells you.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 19, 2018, 09:06:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do as you please. It seems you do that anyway, regardless of what anybody tells you.

At least I say what I believe.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2018, 09:25:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

At least I say what I believe.


The problem could be that what you believe could well be wrong.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Brown on March 19, 2018, 10:24:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not going to search the DPD files to check your claim!


Why not? I've researched the conspiracy buffs crap. I use to believe there was a conspiracy Martin, until more and more theories came out that conflicted. I stopped believing there was a conspiracy when I read Lifton's farce. How do you know if I can't support what I claim if you don't research it? Who is being closed minded Martin?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This has nothing to do with being closed minded. You made a claim and when I asked you to back it up, you didn't. Instead you told me to look it up for myself. I know what's in the DPD files. I have done my research, but I'll be damned if I start looking for something that you are supposed to provide but don't!

How do you know if I can't support what I claim if you don't research it?

This is the world upside down. I don't need to find out if you can support a claim or not. You need to support your claim. So, why don't you?


Quote
You made a claim and when I asked you to back it up, you didn't.

Back up your (mistaken) claim that Tom Robinson worked on Kennedy's head for several hours.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 19, 2018, 10:45:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why do you have NO problem with LNers making unsupported claims when you always demand that CTers back up their claims?

That's just Bill Brown desperate for a conversation that's not going to happen. He knows it, but keeps trying nevertheless.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Brown on March 19, 2018, 11:17:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's just Bill Brown desperate for a conversation that's not going to happen. He knows it, but keeps trying nevertheless.

So, it's okay to use your own falsehood in an attempt to prove a point which you were trying to make?  Don't you think that makes your entire point 100% invalid?

You ask Wesley Johnson to back up a claim he is making but you are above reproach?

In a miserable attempt to argue the wounds, you stated that Tom Robinson, from the funeral home, worked on Kennedy's head for several hours.  In reality, Robinson was never close enough to even touch the body.

You haven't even acknowledged your mistake and therefore, it appears you still stand by your error.

I wouldn't want to talk to me either, if I were you.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Joe Elliott on March 20, 2018, 07:39:55 AM

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

LBJ was amazing all right. He once tied a stick of dynamite to the leg of a dog and blew it up. I can see how that could have gone horribly wrong. "No boy, no...run away, GO AWAY, NOOOOO...BOOM!



You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

That's literally defining a psycho with that. Wow, I can't believe he put dynamite on an innocent dog.



I get the impression that some CTers will believe anything. And that some do believe this story.

At what point do stories start to be unbelievable?


Stories:

Johnson was so mean he once tied a stick of dynamite to a dog. It was only by luck that the dog ran away from him and not toward him.

Johnson was so mean he once locked himself and a kid into a small room, produced a grenade and pulled the pin. It was only by luck that the grenade malfunctioned and failed to explode.



For some people, I don?t think that point is ever reached. The more lurid the story the more believable it is.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 20, 2018, 12:57:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


I get the impression that some CTers will believe anything. And that some do believe this story.

At what point do stories start to be unbelievable?


Stories:

Johnson was so mean he once tied a stick of dynamite to a dog. It was only by luck that the dog ran away from him and not toward him.

Johnson was so mean he once locked himself and a kid into a small room, produced a grenade and pulled the pin. It was only by luck that the grenade malfunctioned and failed to explode.



For some people, I don?t think that point is ever reached. The more lurid the story the more believable it is.

If it implicates Oswald they have this incredible - insuperable - standard of proof; if it implicates anyone else they just go with it.

I don't know who was the first person who said it but it's true: the JFK assassination is a Rohrschach test for people: what they see in it, who they think did it, tells us more about them than it does about their understanding of the event. Here we have the hatred of LBJ - a truly nasty person - showing itself.

Plus we have the ordinary human psychological problem of simply not accepting that a nothing like Oswald could do something so significant, could alter history with a $20 rifle and not much else. That's hard to accept. Great events must have great causes. And a 24 year old misfit simply can't be that cause.

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 20, 2018, 03:37:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Even this you can't get right. I am hardly a "fence walker" as you erroneously claim. My position is clear in every post that I make.

Stop spinning 🕸.

Rob you are in denial if you think you are not a fence walker. You are obviously overly obsessed with discrediting the WC. I will ask again, if all of the WC report is false, as you seem to think, then tell me what you think happened and who was behind the assassination. The president was killed that day. I think I will be waiting a long time for an answer.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 20, 2018, 04:30:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


I get the impression that some CTers will believe anything. And that some do believe this story.

At what point do stories start to be unbelievable?


Stories:

Johnson was so mean he once tied a stick of dynamite to a dog. It was only by luck that the dog ran away from him and not toward him.

Johnson was so mean he once locked himself and a kid into a small room, produced a grenade and pulled the pin. It was only by luck that the grenade malfunctioned and failed to explode.



For some people, I don?t think that point is ever reached. The more lurid the story the more believable it is.

No, that's just how you LNers like to rail against any hint of conspiracy because it is a threat to your world view. Your contention is that LBJ was incapable of complying with a coup because he was too honorable and forthright. Give me a break, he was a Texas mobster before getting into politics.

Here's one for ya. In 1963 LBJ had to make a decision whether to go to prison for life or be complicit with a coup d'etat that made him President. No brainer for someone Nixon described as an "animal" who once beat a mule to death in front of a small crowd. But the mule had it comin'.

The funniest one is how the LNers think a patsy acted alone. :D
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 20, 2018, 10:13:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe he would use logic to conclude that it was the guy who immediately picked up the hammer, threw it into the closet, ran out the door and down to the officers' mess and grabbed a Dr. Klingon (a popular soft drink) to look cool and avoid suspicion, then ran toward the escape deck killing a Vulcan security guard on the way, then ran into the virtual reality theater (without paying) and finally tried to shoot the security guards when placed under arrest.

That's not "logic" -- that's making up a story out of whole cloth.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 20, 2018, 10:20:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tim, McClellan and Harrison gave Darby an old fingerprint of Wallace's along with an old fingerprint card with Wallace's print on it. They never gave Darby the real latent palm print from the TSBD 6th floor. It was all a fake.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And the evidence for this is.... what exactly?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
From the Dallas Police Department Martin. Look it up. I did.

Please show us the Dallas Police Department file that says that McClellan and Harrison never gave Darby the real latent palm print from the TSBD 6th floor.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 20, 2018, 10:22:54 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The problem could be that what you believe could well be wrong.

In Wesley's universe, picking a belief is a virtue in and of itself.  Even if you don't have any good reason for picking it.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 20, 2018, 10:24:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Stories:

Johnson was so mean he once tied a stick of dynamite to a dog. It was only by luck that the dog ran away from him and not toward him.

Johnson was so mean he once locked himself and a kid into a small room, produced a grenade and pulled the pin. It was only by luck that the grenade malfunctioned and failed to explode.

For some people, I don?t think that point is ever reached. The more lurid the story the more believable it is.

So now your skepticism finally kicks in when it's something you don't want to believe.  Is that how it works?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 20, 2018, 10:27:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If it implicates Oswald they have this incredible - insuperable - standard of proof; if it implicates anyone else they just go with it.

You have that exactly backwards.  Where Oswald is concerned you have this incredible, insufferable, weak standard of proof.  You'll go with anything -- even ridiculous things like "he left his wedding ring behind".
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 21, 2018, 03:38:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Please show us the Dallas Police Department file that says that McClellan and Harrison never gave Darby the real latent palm print from the TSBD 6th floor.

Please show us the Dallas Police Department file that says that McClellan and Harrison never gave Darby the real latent palm print from the TSBD 6th floor.
[/quote]


Please show us where it says they did give Darby a latent palm print? Because John they gave Darby two prints that were "left little finger prints" that's why.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 21, 2018, 05:51:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Please show us the Dallas Police Department file that says that McClellan and Harrison never gave Darby the real latent palm print from the TSBD 6th floor.


Please show us where it says they did give Darby a latent palm print? Because John they gave Darby two prints that were "left little finger prints" that's why.

So just because something isn't in the files, or perhaps you simply couldn't find it, in your mind, somehow becomes evidence of something not having happened?

Amazing.... simply amazing!

Btw, if you now claim something isn't in the DPD files, what exactly did you want me to look up?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
From the Dallas Police Department Martin. Look it up. I did.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 21, 2018, 07:07:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So just because something isn't in the files, or perhaps you simply couldn't find it, in your mind, somehow becomes evidence of something not having happened?

Amazing.... simply amazing!

Btw, if you now claim something isn't in the DPD files, what exactly did you want me to look up?

Martin, I was just responding to John. John's statement about the DPD was pointless.  The only unidentified latent print was a "palm print".  The only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace. And they were not found in the TSBD. It was all a sham. Not many serious conspiracy people even believe the Mac Wallace\LBJ theory.

"The cartons. Using the silver nitrate method, the FBI developed nine identifiable latent fingerprints and four identifiable latent palmprints on Box A, seven identifiable fingerprints and two identifiable palmprints on Box B, and two identifiable fingerprints and one identifiable palmprint on Box C. One of the fingerprints on Box A was identified as the right index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald, and one of the palmprints on Box A was identified as the left palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald. All the remaining prints on Box A were the palmprints of R. L. Studebaker, a Dallas police officer, and Forest L. Lucy, an FBI clerk, who shipped the cartons from Dallas to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D. C. and fingerprints of Detective Studebaker. All but one of the fingerprints on Box B belonged to Studebaker and Lucy and one palmprint was that of Studebaker. The fingerprints on Box C were those of Studebaker and Lucy and the palmprint was Studebaker's. One palmprint on Box B was unidentified."
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 21, 2018, 07:21:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Martin, I was just responding to John. John's statement about the DPD was pointless.  The only unidentified latent print was a "palm print".  The only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace. And they were not found in the TSBD. It was all a sham. Not many serious conspiracy people even believe the Mac Wallace\LBJ theory.

"The cartons. Using the silver nitrate method, the FBI developed nine identifiable latent fingerprints and four identifiable latent palmprints on Box A, seven identifiable fingerprints and two identifiable palmprints on Box B, and two identifiable fingerprints and one identifiable palmprint on Box C. One of the fingerprints on Box A was identified as the right index fingerprint of Lee Harvey Oswald, and one of the palmprints on Box A was identified as the left palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald. All the remaining prints on Box A were the palmprints of R. L. Studebaker, a Dallas police officer, and Forest L. Lucy, an FBI clerk, who shipped the cartons from Dallas to the FBI Laboratory in Washington, D. C. and fingerprints of Detective Studebaker. All but one of the fingerprints on Box B belonged to Studebaker and Lucy and one palmprint was that of Studebaker. The fingerprints on Box C were those of Studebaker and Lucy and the palmprint was Studebaker's. One palmprint on Box B was unidentified."

Martin, I was just responding to John.

So what? This is a public forum.

John's statement about the DPD was pointless.

It wasn't a statement. It was a question and it certainly wasn't pointless since you had told me to search the DPD files for something you knew wasn't there.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 21, 2018, 08:16:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Please show us the Dallas Police Department file that says that McClellan and Harrison never gave Darby the real latent palm print from the TSBD 6th floor.


Please show us where it says they did give Darby a latent palm print?

Seriously?  You're shifting the burden again?

Quote
Because John they gave Darby two prints that were "left little finger prints" that's why.

Did you find that in the DPD files too?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 21, 2018, 08:23:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace. And they were not found in the TSBD. It was all a sham.

What is your evidence for this?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 21, 2018, 09:29:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Martin, I was just responding to John.

So what? This is a public forum.

John's statement about the DPD was pointless.

It wasn't a statement. It was a question and it certainly wasn't pointless since you had told me to search the DPD files for something you knew wasn't there.
What do you have to do with anything John posts to me? My post to him had nothing to do with me telling you to do anything. You are getting kind of weird Martin.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 21, 2018, 09:46:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

What do you have to do with anything John posts to me? My post to him had nothing to do with me telling you to do anything. You are getting kind of weird Martin.


My post to him had nothing to do with me telling you to do anything.

I seriously doubt that you actually know or remember what you have written on this forum...

You seem to be truly confused.

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 21, 2018, 09:47:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What do you have to do with anything John posts to me? My post to him had nothing to do with me telling you to do anything. You are getting kind of weird Martin.

Try to follow along, Wesley:

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/50390f82525f5158db33acb14cb03b36/tenor.gif)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tim, McClellan and Harrison gave Darby an old fingerprint of Wallace's along with an old fingerprint card with Wallace's print on it. They never gave Darby the real latent palm print from the TSBD 6th floor. It was all a fake.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And the evidence for this is.... what exactly?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
From the Dallas Police Department Martin. Look it up. I did.

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 21, 2018, 09:50:52 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What is your evidence for this?

Are you saying that you don't believe McClellan and Harrison gave Darby two finger prints to analyze? And that he said they matched and McClellan and Harrison came out and said they were Mac Wallace's left, little finger prints? Lol.

"only one latent palm print remains to be identified" (CE 3131, 26H 799, 809)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 21, 2018, 10:02:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
My post to him had nothing to do with me telling you to do anything.

I seriously doubt that you actually know or remember what you have written on this forum...

You seem to be truly confused.

"One palmprint on Box B was unidentified." "only one latent palm print remains to be identified" (CE 3131, 26H 799, 809)

What Martin? "I seriously doubt that you actually know or remember what you have written on this forum..."
 

That's all you have to say? You are always asking me to cite something that most on here are already aware of. You disappoint me Martin. And here I was thinking we could be friends.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 21, 2018, 10:08:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"One palmprint on Box B was unidentified." "only one latent palm print remains to be identified" (CE 3131, 26H 799, 809)

What Martin? "I seriously doubt that you actually know or remember what you have written on this forum..."
 


That's all you have to say? You are always asking me to cite something that most on here are already aware of. You disappoint me Martin. And here I was thinking we could be friends.

And here I was thinking we could be friends.

You came here to make friends?

You become more Myttonesque by the day.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 21, 2018, 10:21:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you saying that you don't believe McClellan and Harrison gave Darby two finger prints to analyze?

Sigh......

I'm asking you for evidence for your claim that "the only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace".  Do you have any?

Quote
"only one latent palm print remains to be identified" (CE 3131, 26H 799, 809)

Are you sure about that?  This seems to indicate that there was an unidentified fingerprint (print #20) on Box B.

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/box-b-fingerprint.gif)
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0170b.jpg)
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0171a.jpg)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 21, 2018, 10:41:14 PM
There was also a fingerprint on Box A (print 29) that was labeled "insufficient characteristics", which sounds like unidentified to me.

(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0165b.jpg)
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0166a.jpg)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 22, 2018, 02:57:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sigh......

I'm asking you for evidence for your claim that "the only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace".  Do you have any?

Are you sure about that?  This seems to indicate that there was an unidentified fingerprint (print #20) on Box B.

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/box-b-fingerprint.gif)
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0170b.jpg)
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0171a.jpg)

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The cartons.--Using the silver nitrate method, the FBI developed nine identifiable latent fingerprints and four identifiable latent palm-prints on Box A, 118 seven identifiable fingerprints and two identifiable palmprints on Box B, 119
.................................
All but one of the fingerprints on Box B belonged to Studebaker and Lucy and one palmprint was that of Studebaker. The fingerprints on Box C were those of Studebaker and Lucy and the palmprint was Studebaker's. 123 One palmprint on Box B was unidentified. 124

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The part that I bolded is not accurate. Whoever wrote that messed up. Following the footnote(123) used  will lead you to CE-3131, which comes from Warren Commission Document 1507. The latter is easier to read.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0423a.htm

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11902#relPageId=19&tab=page
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 22, 2018, 02:59:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There was also a fingerprint on Box A (print 29) that was labeled "insufficient characteristics", which sounds like unidentified to me.

(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0165b.jpg)
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0166a.jpg)

"insufficient characteristics" means that it was worthless. It was not identifiable.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 22, 2018, 04:02:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The part that I bolded is not accurate. Whoever wrote that messed up. Following the footnote(123) used  will lead you to CE-3131, which comes from Warren Commission Document 1507. The latter is easier to read.

There are conflicting accounts about exactly how many identifiable prints there were.

- Latona testified that 20 identifiable finger prints and 8 palmprints were developed on these cartons.

- WR page 249 says a total of 25 identifiable prints were found on the 4 cartons   
   
- CE 3131 says there were 19 identifiable latent fingerprints and six identifiable latent palm prints on the four cardboard cartons

Sounds like one of Latona's 20 identifiable finger prints turned into 19.  Would that be print #20, marked "unidentifed"?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 22, 2018, 04:05:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"insufficient characteristics" means that it was worthless. It was not identifiable.

Maybe not identifiable by them.  Latona said the trigger guard area prints were insufficient as well.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 22, 2018, 07:25:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There are conflicting accounts about exactly how many identifiable prints there were.

- Latona testified that 20 identifiable finger prints and 8 palmprints were developed on these cartons.

- WR page 249 says a total of 25 identifiable prints were found on the 4 cartons   
   
- CE 3131 says there were 19 identifiable latent fingerprints and six identifiable latent palm prints on the four cardboard cartons

Sounds like one of Latona's 20 identifiable finger prints turned into 19.  Would that be print #20, marked "unidentifed"?

I count 20 identifiable finger prints and 7 palmprints in Latona's testimony. Those totals result from a bit of confusion on Latona's part in his testimony.

Mr. LATONA. There was another print identified on that. There were two prints, one palmprint. There was developed on Box A, Exhibit No. 641, one palmprint and one fingerprint.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were those the only identifiable prints, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. No; there were other fingerprints developed on this box.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you recall how many there were?
Mr. LATONA. On Box A, in addition to these two prints there were developed eight fingerprints and three palmprints.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, a total of 13?
Mr. LATONA. Nine fingerprints and four palmprints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Thirteen identifiable prints?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.


He erroneously added the two prints to the eight fingerprints and three palmprints, when in fact they were part of those eleven prints.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 22, 2018, 08:07:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sigh......

I'm asking you for evidence for your claim that "the only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace".  Do you have any?

Are you sure about that?  This seems to indicate that there was an unidentified fingerprint (print #20) on Box B.

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/box-b-fingerprint.gif)
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0170b.jpg)
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0171a.jpg)

 This seems to indicate that there was an unidentified fingerprint (print #20) on Box B.

Sigh.
It doesn't indicate that at all John and you know it. It does not say "unidentified" at all. It says "all but one of the fingerprints on Box B belonged to Studebaker and Lucy and one palmprint was that of Studebaker".
You are stretching it a bit there John.

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 22, 2018, 08:42:36 PM
I'm asking you for evidence for your claim that "the only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace".  Do you have any?

John, it is not a matter of me having any evidence for that. I'm only going by what McClellan and Harrison claimed themselves. Are you saying that the two prints that Darby was given were not Wallace's? In 1998 Darby was approached by McClellan and Harrison and given two prints. One was from a 1951 fingerprint exemplar card and the other was "supposedly" a latent print from a cardboard box found on the 6th floor of the TSBD at the sniper's nest. Darby matched the prints finding 14 points of identification. Later McClellan and Harrison revealed they were the prints of Mac Wallace. In Darby's March 9, 1998 affidavit Darby said they were "the left little finger". If you have a problem with that go talk to Darby. I stand by what I have said before. The only unidentified latent print was a palmprint.
"only one latent palm print remains to be identified" (CE 3131, 26H 799, 809)


9 March 1998

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Affidavit

County of Travis

1.    My name is A. Nathan Darby. I am a resident of Austin , Texas ,
and I am fully competent to make this affidavit.

2.    I have been active in law enforcement for many years, starting
with the Texas Department of public Safety as a State Trooper in 1938.
I then served with the Austin , Texas Police Department from October
1940, and including my military service, I was with the Austin Police
Department until my retirement in August 1979. During that period of
service, I rose to the rank of Lieutenant-Commander. I am presently an
expert in fingerprint identification, and I hold the designation of
Certified Latent Fingerprint Examiner (#78-468), which is issued by
the Internal Association for Identification, pursuant to the attached
Exhibit DAN #1.

3.    I first became interested in fingerprint work in 1942. My direct
work in fingerprint identification began soon after, during my
military service. I joined the U.S. Army in October 1943 and graduated
from Officer Candidate School as a lieutenant in February 1945. I was
immediately put in charge of preparing a fingerprint identification
system for the Philippine Commonwealth. For my work of setting up
their Central Fingerprint Bureau, I was awarded the Philippine
Military Merit Medal, the Philippine Commonwealth's highest non-combat
award for foreign military personnel. The United States Army also
awarded me the Army Commendation Medal. This achievement was further
recognized in the 1946 textbook, Lectures in Fingerprints by Fred C.
Luchico, then Chief of the Identification Division with the Department
of Justice, where he states that I "provided a modern, current, and
complete fingerprint file for the Philippine Commonwealth." By 1946 I
had risen to the rank of Captain. When my tour of Duty was completed
in the Philippines , I returned to the Austin Police Department in
November 1946.

4.    On 1 January 1948 I was promoted to sergeant and assigned to the
Identification Section of the Austin Police Department. On 7 July 1953
I was promoted to lieutenant. In 1956, I was made supervisor of the
four employees of Identification and Criminal Records Section of the
Austin Police Department. At this time I handled the classification of
176,000 cards and expanded the section to fourteen employees, training
and supervising all personnel. In 1970, I worked on advanced record-
keeping with the Kodak Miracode system and developed the fingerprint
and photograph coding method for the system. During this time I also
served on the board of directors of the Texas Division of the
International Association for Identification. I hold an Advanced
Certificate in Law Enforcement and an Instructor Certificate from the
Texas Commission on Law Enforcement. I have been a member of the Texas
Division of the International Association for Identification since
November, 1946.

5.    Since 1949, I have testified in numerous cases in the State and
Federal Courts about fingerprint identification. This testimony
included the preparation of latent charts as exhibits. There was never
a mistrial or appeal based on my testimony. Attached is Exhibit DAN#2.
This exhibit shows the opinions of two District Judges, Travis
County , Texas regarding my testimony experience.

6.    Fingerprints are an important part of law enforcement because no
two prints are alike. Although no person has been able to calculate
the likelihood of a mismatch with statistical certainty, the courts
accept the admissibility of evidence from fingerprints. Human
fingerprints are from unique ridges, which are useful for gripping and
holding. An inked fingerprint is the reproduction of the ridges of the
finger. An inked fingerprint is provided by putting black ink on the
finger and then placing the finger on a suitable contrasting
background surface, such as white paper. A latent fingerprint is the
production of ridges when the finger has been placed on a surface. The
ridges of the finger leave a residue, body fluids, and chemicals on
the surface touched. The latent prints are recovered and compared to
the inked prints.

For an expert to identify a latent print with an inked print, matching
formations must be found on both prints. The ridge lines between the
matched formation are then counted. This ridge count must be the same
count for both the latent and the ink print. There is no fixed
documented limit on how many matching points must be made. The
identifying marks on the Ink print and the latent print are then
marked and numbered. A conclusion and identification is then made
based on the location of the characters on the prints, their
formation, and the ridge count between them.

7.    Recently I received a photocopy of an inked print along with a
photocopy of a latent print from [ Texas researcher]. After careful
and extended examination of the inked print photocopy and the latent
print photocopy given to me, I have their identifying characteristics
marked and numbered. The inked print is Exhibit DAN #3, and the latent
Print is Exhibit DAN #4.

8.    In addition to exhibit DAN#3 and exhibit DAN#4, [researcher]
gave me a photocopy of a standard form fingerprint card. This is
exhibit DAN#5. Exhibit DAN#5 is from an unknown source and has
fingerprints of an unknown person to me. The space#10 on exhibit DAN#5
is the same inked print as DAN#3. Space #10 on exhibit DAN#5 is the
space used for the left little finger. There are other indications
that the print in space #10 on Exhibit DAN#5 is the left little
finger.

9.    Based on my comparison, I conclude that the unknown person to me
who produced the inked fingerprint Exhibit DAN#3 produced the latent
print Exhibit DAN#4, and produced the print in space #10 on exhibit
DAN #5.

/s/ A. Nathan Darby

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12 day of March, 1998.

/s/ [not easily read]

Notary Public for Texas
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 22, 2018, 08:50:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And here I was thinking we could be friends.

You came here to make friends?

You become more Myttonesque by the day.

You came here to make friends?

You need to get out more Martin. It was only lighthearted sarcasm. Lighten up. Go have a beer and loosen up.  :o
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 22, 2018, 08:54:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You came here to make friends?

You need to get out more Martin. It was only lighthearted sarcasm. Lighten up. Go have a beer and loosen up.  :o

So much to you understanding sarcasm..
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 22, 2018, 09:03:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So much to you understanding sarcasm..

Oh, I get it Martin. But you don't. If we ever happen to meet at Dealy Plaza, I'll buy you that beer.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 22, 2018, 09:38:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This seems to indicate that there was an unidentified fingerprint (print #20) on Box B.

Sigh.
It doesn't indicate that at all John and you know it. It does not say "unidentified" at all. It says "all but one of the fingerprints on Box B belonged to Studebaker and Lucy and one palmprint was that of Studebaker".
You are stretching it a bit there John.

Stretching it?  Did you see the photograph of print #20 from box B with "unidentified" written on the back of it?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 22, 2018, 09:46:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
John, it is not a matter of me having any evidence for that. I'm only going by what McClellan and Harrison claimed themselves. Are you saying that the two prints that Darby was given were not Wallace's? In 1998 Darby was approached by McClellan and Harrison and given two prints. One was from a 1951 fingerprint exemplar card and the other was "supposedly" a latent print from a cardboard box found on the 6th floor of the TSBD at the sniper's nest.

Why do you say "supposedly"?  I have just shown that there were at least 2 fingerprints that apparently were not identified by Latona.

Quote
In Darby's March 9, 1998 affidavit Darby said they were "the left little finger". If you have a problem with that go talk to Darby.

I'm not talking about what Darby said -- I'm talking about what you said:

"the only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace"

Darby's affidavit doesn't say that at all.  He says that he received a photocopy of an inked print along with a photocopy of a latent print.  It was you who declared that they duped him by giving him two left, little finger prints of Wallace.  What is your evidence for this?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 22, 2018, 09:47:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Stretching it?  Did you see the photograph of print #20 from box B with "unidentified" written on the back of it?

Did you see the photograph of print #20 from box B with "unidentified" written on the back of it?
[/quote]


Do you have any evidence to prove that the photo wasn't faked and that the fingerprint was not later identified? What is your evidence that that is really print #20? Do you have any evidence that, that is really box 20?  ;D
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 22, 2018, 09:51:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did you see the photograph of print #20 from box B with "unidentified" written on the back of it?


Do you have any evidence to prove that the photo wasn't faked and that the fingerprint was not later identified? What is your evidence that that is really print #20? Do you have any evidence that, that is really box 20?  ;D

A LN who thinks he's clever by questioning the evidence of the WC... Now I've seen it all.

And all because Wesley can't give a straight answer if it saved his life.....
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 22, 2018, 09:52:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why do you say "supposedly"?  I have just shown that there were at least 2 fingerprints that apparently were not identified by Latona.

I'm not talking about what Darby said -- I'm talking about what you said:

"the only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace"

Darby's affidavit doesn't say that at all.  He says that he received a photocopy of an inked print along with a photocopy of a latent print.  It was you who declared that they duped him by giving him two left, little finger prints of Wallace.  What is your evidence for this?

I have just shown that there were at least 2 fingerprints that apparently were not identified by Latona.

How do I know that you just showed that there were at least 2 fingerprints that were apparently not identified by latona? Do you have any evidence of that? :D Are you saying the prints matched by Darby were not of Wallace's left little finger?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 22, 2018, 09:53:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did you see the photograph of print #20 from box B with "unidentified" written on the back of it?


Do you have any evidence to prove that the photo wasn't faked and that the fingerprint was not later identified? What is your evidence that that is really print #20? Do you have any evidence that, that is really box 20?  ;D

Nice try.  You're the one invoking part of the WC report that contradicts another part of the WC report.  And just picking the one you like better.  My question is, given that it clearly states "all but one of the fingerprints on Box B belonged to Studebaker and Lucy" and there is a photo of a print from box B clearly marked "unidentified", why are you sure that the only unidentified print was a palmprint?  Which passage from the same document do you believe and why?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 22, 2018, 09:56:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A LN who thinks he's clever by questioning the evidence of the WC... Now I've seen it all.

And all because Wesley can't give a straight answer if it saved his life.....

 Now I've seen it all.

How do I know that you've seen it all. Do you have any evidence to prove that?  :o
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 22, 2018, 09:59:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now I've seen it all.

How do I know that you've seen it all. Do you have any evidence to prove that?  :o

10... 9... 8... 7... 6... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... Take off
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 22, 2018, 09:59:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How do I know that you just showed that there were at least 2 fingerprints that were apparently not identified by latona? Do you have any evidence of that?

Yes, Wesley.  See the photos posted earlier from CE 660 and WR 566.  Are you going to explain why "unidentified" doesn't actually mean "unidentified"?

Quote
:D Are you saying the prints matched by Darby were not of Wallace's left little finger?

No, I'm asking for your evidence that "the only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace. And they were not found in the TSBD".

Do you have any?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 22, 2018, 10:01:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now I've seen it all.

How do I know that you've seen it all. Do you have any evidence to prove that?  :o

Wesley the troll has just devolved into behaving like a sputtering lunatic.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 22, 2018, 10:03:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nice try.  You're the one invoking part of the WC report that contradicts another part of the WC report.  And just picking the one you like better.  My question is, given that it clearly states "all but one of the fingerprints on Box B belonged to Studebaker and Lucy" and there is a photo of a print from box B clearly marked "unidentified", why are you sure that the only unidentified print was a palmprint?  Which passage from the same document do you believe and why?

 And just picking the one you like better.


How do you know that I'm just picking the one I like better? Do you have proof of that? What is your evidence?  ;D
Now, are you claiming that the two prints Darby matched are not of Wallace's left little finger? What is your evidence for that?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 22, 2018, 10:05:13 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
10... 9... 8... 7... 6... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... Take off

 Take off

Do you have any evidence to prove a take off?  ;D
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 22, 2018, 10:10:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wesley the troll has just devolved into a sputtering lunatic.

Wesley the troll has just devolved into a sputtering lunatic.

And you have just proved John that when you people don't get the response you want, you devolve into making insults. Well done John.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 22, 2018, 10:18:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wesley the troll has just devolved into a sputtering lunatic.

And you have just proved John that when you people don't get the response you want, you devolve into making insults. Well done John.

And you've proven that when your claims are subjected to any scrutiny, you are reduced to parroting the intellectual equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" over and over again.

Ok, you've devolved into behaving like a sputtering lunatic.  Is that better?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 22, 2018, 10:20:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How do you know that I'm just picking the one I like better? Do you have proof of that? What is your evidence?  ;D
Now, are you claiming that the two prints Darby matched are not of Wallace's left little finger? What is your evidence for that?

Cute.  It's obvious that all you've got is a shifting the burden of proof fallacy in every aspect to this case.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 22, 2018, 10:31:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Stretching it?  Did you see the photograph of print #20 from box B with "unidentified" written on the back of it?

At the time of Latona's testimony there was more than one print that had not been positively identified. By mid September of 1964 , there was only one print that had not been positively identified. It may be that photograph #20 was of that never identified palm print.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 23, 2018, 01:49:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Both of you morons should go back and read Latona's testimony again and this time, pay attention to what you're actually reading.

Another useless observation from Bill Brown.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 23, 2018, 02:05:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Cute.  It's obvious that all you've got is a shifting the burden of proof fallacy in every aspect to this case.

John it doesn't bother me a bit that you revert to name calling when someone doesn't play along with your weak little game. And before we are done you will again. But let's go this route. First off, I stand by the fact that by the time the investigation was over the only unidentified latent print was indeed a palmprint. Let's say I believe that there was an unidentified "fingerprint", on Box B. Are you claiming that, that print was the print that McClellan and Harrison gave to Nathan Darby and he matched it to the print from the exemplar fingerprint card?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 23, 2018, 03:17:50 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
First off, I stand by the fact that by the time the investigation was over the only unidentified latent print was indeed a palmprint.

What you "stand by" is completely irrelevant.  Both the Warren Report and the WC exhibits point to at least one unidentified fingerprint on box B and a supposedly "unidentifiable" fingerprint on Box A.

Quote
Let's say I believe that there was an unidentified "fingerprint", on Box B. Are you claiming that, that print was the print that McClellan and Harrison gave to Nathan Darby and he matched it to the print from the exemplar fingerprint card?

You really are incapable of getting this, aren't you?  You stated as a fact that "the only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace. And they were not found in the TSBD".

Stop pretending that I ever made a contrary claim.  You can either support your own claim with evidence or you cannot.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 23, 2018, 03:56:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What you "stand by" is completely irrelevant.  Both the Warren Report and the WC exhibits point to at least one unidentified fingerprint on box B and a supposedly "unidentifiable" fingerprint on Box A.

You really are incapable of getting this, aren't you?  You stated as a fact that "the only prints given to Darby by McClellan and Harrison were left, little finger prints of Wallace. And they were not found in the TSBD".

Stop pretending that I ever made a contrary claim.  You can either support your own claim with evidence or you cannot.

And you are ducking and dodging like you always do. I stand by what I said. Are you saying that the prints given to Darby are not of Wallace's left, little finger? Yes or no. The prints Darby was given did not come from the TSBD. McClellan and Harrison did not even try their little scam until 35 years after the assassination. 35 years in which a "latent fingerprint" was never mentioned by anyone. Are you claiming that this "unidentified fingerprint" was of Wallace's finger and came from the TSBD? And if so, how did McClellan and Harrison happen to get it? Where did they get it from?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 23, 2018, 04:08:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And you are ducking and dodging like you always do. I stand by what I said. Are you saying that the prints given to Darby are not of Wallace's left, little finger? Yes or no. The prints Darby was given did not come from the TSBD. McClellan and Harrison did not even try their little scam until 35 years after the assassination. 35 years in which a "latent fingerprint" was never mentioned by anyone. Are you claiming that this "unidentified fingerprint" was of Wallace's finger and came from the TSBD? And if so, how did McClellan and Harrison happen to get it? Where did they get it from?

I stand by what I said.

You just can't/won't provide any kind of evidence/proof for it.... what else is new?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 23, 2018, 04:09:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And you are ducking and dodging like you always do. I stand by what I said.

I'm not dodging anything.  I don't care what you "stand by".  What is your evidence for what you claimed?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Wesley Johnson on March 23, 2018, 04:31:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not dodging anything.  I don't care what you "stand by".  What is your evidence for what you claimed?


"only one latent palm print remains to be identified" (CE 3131, 26H 799, 809)


At least I'm not afraid to admit what I believe. I believe Oswald acted alone. See how easy that is John. You hide behind your lame excuse of "questioning" all the evidence and by implication you are showing you believe there was a conspiracy. You and people like you don't admit to believing there was a conspiracy because you know after 54 years there is not one scrap of physical or ballistic evidence that supports any of the numerous conspiracy theories. By you questioning every little piece of evidence that was gathered and examined, from Oswald's clothes, to all of the ballistic evidence, to questioning every eyewitness's testimony, if you are right, it would have to have been a conspiracy of massive proportions.It would have had to include the Dallas Police, FBI, CIA, SS, Military, medical personnel, to all of the eyewitness's that id'ed Oswald, and more. I do this for just the entertainment of debating it. What are you hoping to get out of it John? Just curious. 
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 23, 2018, 04:43:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

"only one latent palm print remains to be identified" (CE 3131, 26H 799, 809)


At least I'm not afraid to admit what I believe. I believe Oswald acted alone. See how easy that is John. You hide behind your lame excuse of "questioning" all the evidence and by implication you are showing you believe there was a conspiracy. You and people like you don't admit to believing there was a conspiracy because you know after 54 years there is not one scrap of physical or ballistic evidence that supports any of the numerous conspiracy theories. By you questioning every little piece of evidence that was gathered and examined, from Oswald's clothes, to all of the ballistic evidence, to questioning every eyewitness's testimony, if you are right, it would have to have been a conspiracy of massive proportions.It would have had to include the Dallas Police, FBI, CIA, SS, Military, medical personnel, to all of the eyewitness's that id'ed Oswald, and more. I do this for just the entertainment of debating it. What are you hoping to get out of it John? Just curious.

At least I'm not afraid to admit what I believe.

What a pathetic comment to make. It's actually easy to ignore the obvious problems with the evidence and go with the flow. There is no courage in saying you believe Oswald did it alone.

I do this for just the entertainment of debating it.

Except for the fact that you don't debate a damn thing. So I fixed your comment for you.

I don't believe for a second you were ever anything else but a die hard LNer. You simply lack the honesty to admit that there are serious problems with the evidence!
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 23, 2018, 05:35:40 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
At least I'm not afraid to admit what I believe. I believe Oswald acted alone.

Again, believing something without evidence is not a virtue.

Quote
See how easy that is John.

Yes I do.  But I don't care how easy it is to believe something.  I care if it's actually true.

Quote
You hide behind your lame excuse of "questioning" all the evidence and by implication you are showing you believe there was a conspiracy.

Only in the land of false dichotomies.  What is it about "I don't believe that the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald did it" equates to "I believe there was a conspiracy" in your mind?

Quote
You and people like you don't admit to believing there was a conspiracy because you know after 54 years there is not one scrap of physical or ballistic evidence that supports any of the numerous conspiracy theories.

. . . "and therefore Oswald did it"?  Is that how your mind works?

Quote
By you questioning every little piece of evidence that was gathered and examined, from Oswald's clothes, to all of the ballistic evidence, to questioning every eyewitness's testimony,

Oswald's clothes prove that he killed JFK?  Do tell!  "All the ballistic evidence" proves that Oswald killed JFK?  Do tell!

What little evidence there is, is weak and circumstantial, and it's all questionable, arguable, impeachable, or tainted in some way.  I understand why you refuse to discuss it in any detail, because that becomes obvious rather quickly.

Quote
if you are right, it would have to have been a conspiracy of massive proportions.

What, do you guys all read from the same strawman script?

Quote
I do this for just the entertainment of debating it. What are you hoping to get out of it John? Just curious.

Clearly.  You certainly don't do this because you want to talk about the evidence.  I'm hoping that someday somebody will come up with a better argument than "the Warren Commission concluded it, I believe it, and that settles it".
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 24, 2018, 05:34:43 PM
I just don't get why you think that he acted alone Wesley? Even though everything that makes it lead people to believe that it wasn't just Oswald is only theories, I still just don't get why you think it was him?? Take a look at this website about the dinner the night before the assassination.

http://www.viewzone.com/lbj/lbj4.html
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 24, 2018, 06:19:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I just don't get why you think that he acted alone Wesley? Even though everything that makes it lead people to believe that it wasn't just Oswald is only theories, I still just don't get why you think it was him?? Take a look at this website about the dinner the night before the assassination.

http://www.viewzone.com/lbj/lbj4.html

Alice, The evidence establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that Oswald alone assassinated Kennedy. I've yet to see any credible evidence showing that he was acting with or on behalf of others.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 24, 2018, 07:57:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Alice, The evidence establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that Oswald alone assassinated Kennedy. I've yet to see any credible evidence showing that he was acting with or on behalf of others.


Alice, this is what happens if you keep repeating to yourself: "but his rifle was there"
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 25, 2018, 03:55:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alice, this is what happens if you keep repeating to yourself: "but his rifle was there"
Right. Oh yeah, and then he left immediately afterward, took a bus but decided it was too slow so he went home in a taxi (not responding when the driver said "I wonder what the hell is the uproar", which he obviously knew what it was about since he had figured work was shut down for the day because of it), picked up his revolver and left quickly on foot, shot Officer Tippit for no apparent reason seconds after the officer got out of his patrol car, ran down an alley and slipped into the Texas Theater without paying, pulled his gun out when police arrested him in the theater and tried to shoot the arresting officer saying "well, its all over now".

There really isn't any evidence on which a reasonable person could infer that Oswald assassinated JFK?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 25, 2018, 04:45:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alice, The evidence establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that Oswald alone assassinated Kennedy. I've yet to see any credible evidence showing that he was acting with or on behalf of others.

Which yes I agree with you that there isn't any proof, but Johnson has links to all of these people and he could make anyone do anything or say anything that he wanted to be done. He is linked to Jack Ruby, who was the one that shot and killed Oswald. So maybe Oswald was about, to tell the truth, and Johnson had Ruby kill Oswald from saying the truth. So as everyone says in order to keep a secret someone has to be dead, therefore, Oswald killed.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 25, 2018, 04:45:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Right. Oh yeah, and then he left immediately afterward, took a bus but decided it was too slow so he went home in a taxi (not responding when the driver said "I wonder what the hell is the uproar", which he obviously knew what it was about since he had figured work was shut down for the day because of it), picked up his revolver and left quickly on foot, shot Officer Tippit for no apparent reason seconds after the officer got out of his patrol car, ran down an alley and slipped into the Texas Theater without paying, pulled his gun out when police arrested him in the theater and tried to shoot the arresting officer saying "well, its all over now".

There really isn't any evidence on which a reasonable person could infer that Oswald assassinated JFK?

Oh yeah, and then he left immediately afterward, took a bus but decided it was too slow so he went home in a taxi

That's what we're told, but did it really happen?

What about the guy looking like Oswald that was seen by several people running towards Elm street and being picked up by a car. Or did that not happen?

picked up his revolver and left quickly on foot,

Really? So you have proof he picked up his revolver at the rooming house? And what about Roberts seeing him waiting at a bus stop?

shot Officer Tippit for no apparent reason

Did he?

What reason did he have to be at 10th street to begin with? The killer of the President decides to take a walk on a go nowhere street rather than get the hell out of town? Really?

ran down an alley and slipped into the Texas Theater without paying, pulled his gun out when police arrested him in the theater and tried to shoot the arresting officer

Again, so we are told. But even if true, wouldn't he have done the same after killing Tippit only?

There really isn't any evidence on which a reasonable person could infer that Oswald assassinated JFK?

You can infer all you want, but most of what you have is highly circumstantial and speculative and what little physical evidence there is has it's own set of problems.

Try making this story stick without "but his rifle was there"
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Joe Elliott on March 25, 2018, 04:46:06 PM

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Right. Oh yeah, and then he left immediately afterward, took a bus but decided it was too slow so he went home in a taxi (not responding when the driver said "I wonder what the hell is the uproar", which he obviously knew what it was about since he had figured work was shut down for the day because of it), picked up his revolver and left quickly on foot, shot Officer Tippit for no apparent reason seconds after the officer got out of his patrol car, ran down an alley and slipped into the Texas Theater without paying, pulled his gun out when police arrested him in the theater and tried to shoot the arresting officer saying "well, its all over now".

There really isn't any evidence on which a reasonable person could infer that Oswald assassinated JFK?


Actually, there really isn't any evidence on which an unreasonable person could infer that Oswald assassinated JFK? And I don?t see how there could be.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 25, 2018, 04:49:26 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alice, this is what happens if you keep repeating to yourself: "but his rifle was there"

The angle of the shots literally doesn't match. There had to of been another shooter! Malcolm Wallace was in the marines and he has killed many other people and guilty for it. He was a friend of Johnson's. How are you guys not getting this?! I know there's no "proof" that you guys want, but it literally makes perfect sense that Oswald DID NOT ACT ALONE.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 25, 2018, 05:02:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Right. Oh yeah, and then he left immediately afterward, took a bus but decided it was too slow so he went home in a taxi (not responding when the driver said "I wonder what the hell is the uproar", which he obviously knew what it was about since he had figured work was shut down for the day because of it), picked up his revolver and left quickly on foot, shot Officer Tippit for no apparent reason seconds after the officer got out of his patrol car, ran down an alley and slipped into the Texas Theater without paying, pulled his gun out when police arrested him in the theater and tried to shoot the arresting officer saying "well, its all over now".

There really isn't any evidence on which a reasonable person could infer that Oswald assassinated JFK?


Tippit... poor dumb cop, huh. Smith, Wesson, and Lee. And I guess boys just carried guns around because that's what boys did or something...  yeah, that must be it.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 25, 2018, 05:10:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The angle of the shots literally doesn't match. There had to of been another shooter! Malcolm Wallace was in the marines and he has killed many other people and guilty for it. He was a friend of Johnson's. How are you guys not getting this?! I know there's no "proof" that you guys want, but it literally makes perfect sense that Oswald DID NOT ACT ALONE.

Right

He had fate and Lady Luck with him
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 25, 2018, 05:13:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Right

He had fate and Lady Luck with him

What do you mean by "fate and lady luck" ??? I'm confused.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 25, 2018, 05:14:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Tippit... poor dumb cop, huh. Smith, Wesson, and Lee. And I guess boys just carried guns around because that's what boys did, or something...  yeah, that must be it.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 25, 2018, 05:28:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The angle of the shots literally doesn't match. There had to of been another shooter!

The angle? Alice, there was more than one angle for the shots. Simply stating that the angles don't match wont suffice. You're going to have to explain using numbers.

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 25, 2018, 05:57:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm confused.

Yes, you are...
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 25, 2018, 07:00:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes, you are...

Well, what did you mean by what you said?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 25, 2018, 10:04:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The angle? Alice, there was more than one angle for the shots. Simply stating that the angles don't match wont suffice. You're going to have to explain using numbers.

Do you really want the MB numbers or are you just brushing off Alice's argument because she's not an expert? If it's the former, then do a simple re-enactment experiment for yourself then post your results. CTs can't demonstrate how a straight line trajectory was impossible. That's trying to prove a negative. The onus is on you LNers to show that it was possible.

I have posted several times before how laymen can demonstrate with expert precision how the SBT was feasible via a re-enactment experiment using 2 lasers pointed at each other.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)

Orient yourself between the 2 lasers so that the low laser strikes your throat and the high laser strikes your back as per the (dubious) autopsy photos of JFK. We can discuss whether the photos make sense once you establish whether there was a straight line path for the MB thru JFK coming from the TSBD. But the big question is whether JFK's body orientation matched the -17 deg pitch and -7 deg yaw angles, and whether there was a straight line path thru JFK from his back to throat that missed his spine at T1.

The fact that not a single LNer has reported the results of this exp says the following:

1) They did the exp and wish they hadn't and pretend they didn't
2) They don't give a rat's ass about the truth so why do the exp?
3) They're too committed to the LNer cause to admit they're wrong whether or not they did the exp
4) Too cheap or lazy to do the exp

Otherwise, any LNers that did the exp with results that support their claims would shirley have posted them instead of the myriad of CGI graphics that tell us squat.

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 25, 2018, 11:17:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do you really want the MB numbers or are you just brushing off Alice's argument because she's not an expert?

Alice hasn't really made an argument here. She made a claim and failed to provide any support for it.

Quote
If it's the former, then do a simple re-enactment experiment for yourself then post your results. CTs can't demonstrate how a straight line trajectory was impossible. That's trying to prove a negative. The onus is on you LNers to show that it was possible.

I have posted several times before how laymen can demonstrate with expert precision how the SBT was feasible via a re-enactment experiment using 2 lasers pointed at each other.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)

Orient yourself between the 2 lasers so that the low laser strikes your throat and the high laser strikes your back as per the (dubious) autopsy photos of JFK. We can discuss whether the photos make sense once you establish whether there was a straight line path for the MB thru JFK coming from the TSBD. But the big question is whether JFK's body orientation matched the -17 deg pitch and -7 deg yaw angles, and whether there was a straight line path thru JFK from his back to throat that missed his spine at T1.

The fact that not a single LNer has reported the results of this exp says the following:

1) They did the exp and wish they hadn't and pretend they didn't
2) They don't give a rat's ass about the truth so why do the exp?
3) They're too committed to the LNer cause to admit they're wrong whether or not they did the exp
4) Too cheap or lazy to do the exp

Otherwise, any LNers that did the exp with results that support their claims would shirley have posted them instead of the myriad of CGI graphics that tell us squat.

It's already been demonstrated how a straight line trajectory was possible. I don't accept your opinion as being authoritative on the matter. You've claimed numerous times that this "simple two laser experiment"  would settle the matter once and for all. and yet you've failed to provide us the results of your own study. Why is that?

The fact that you have failed to report the results of this experient says the following:

1) You did the experiment and wish you hadn't and pretend you didn't
2) You don't give a rat's ass about the truth so why do the experiment?
3)You're too committed to the CT cause to admit you're wrong whether or not you did the experiment.
4) You're too cheap or lazy to do the experiment.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 25, 2018, 11:48:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's already been demonstrated how a straight line trajectory was possible.

BS

Quote
I don't accept your opinion as being authoritative on the matter. You've claimed numerous times that this "simple two laser experiment"  would settle the matter once and for all. and yet you've failed to provide us the results of your own study. Why is that?

No, it's because you don't understand the physics, evidence, facts, proof and logic to form conclusions.  If I posted a few photos of my exp you would dismiss them for whatever reason. Rightly so, because I can't prove that the SBT was impossible. FYI, you can actually prove a negative but it is beyond the scope of this case.

So get off your cheap, lazy ass and do my laser exp!
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 26, 2018, 12:36:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alice, The evidence establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that Oswald alone assassinated Kennedy.

Alice, no it doesn?t.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 26, 2018, 12:38:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Right. Oh yeah, and then he left immediately afterward, took a bus but decided it was too slow so he went home in a taxi (not responding when the driver said "I wonder what the hell is the uproar", which he obviously knew what it was about since he had figured work was shut down for the day because of it), picked up his revolver and left quickly on foot, shot Officer Tippit for no apparent reason seconds after the officer got out of his patrol car, ran down an alley and slipped into the Texas Theater without paying, pulled his gun out when police arrested him in the theater and tried to shoot the arresting officer saying "well, its all over now".

Isn?t story time fun? There isn?t any solid evidence to support any of the claims made in this narrative.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 26, 2018, 12:40:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Actually, there really isn't any evidence on which an unreasonable person could infer that Oswald assassinated JFK? And I don?t see how there could be.

?Infer? all you like, Joe, but don?t go calling it ?reason?.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 26, 2018, 12:42:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What do you mean by "fate and lady luck" ??? I'm confused.

In Bill?s mind, Oswald did it because Oswald did it.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 26, 2018, 12:46:25 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alice hasn't really made an argument here. She made a claim and failed to provide any support for it.

You mean the way you guys constantly do?

At least Alice admits it when she doesn?t have proof.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 26, 2018, 01:49:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
BS

No, it's because you don't understand the physics, evidence, facts, proof and logic to form conclusions.

Unlike you, I do understand the physics, evidence, facts, proof and logic to form conclusions.  You are a blowhard.

 
Quote
If I posted a few photos of my exp you would dismiss them for whatever reason. Rightly so, because I can't prove that the SBT was impossible. FYI, you can actually prove a negative but it is beyond the scope of this case.

So get off your cheap, lazy ass and do my laser exp!

That just illustrates how full of shit that you truly are. You could prove that the SBT was impossible if it was in fact impossible. It's a numbers game. Either the numbers work or they don't.

Put up or shut up. Get off your cheap, lazy ass and do your own damn laser experiment yourself.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 26, 2018, 03:30:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In Bill?s mind, Oswald did it because Oswald did it.

Alice, Oswald is innocent in CT opinion because he said he was.

Oswald probably did it, Alice...
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 26, 2018, 04:21:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Unlike you, I do understand the physics, evidence, facts, proof and logic to form conclusions.  You are a blowhard.

I know you are but what am I? Clearly what you aren't is a physicist.

Quote

That just illustrates how full of shit that you truly are. You could prove that the SBT was impossible if it was in fact impossible. It's a numbers game. Either the numbers work or they don't.

Put up or shut up. Get off your cheap, lazy ass and do your own damn laser experiment yourself.

You keep telling me I'm full of shit but you're not much on the showing me part. What you still don't get is that you can't prove a negative. What could I post that would prove anything to you? The onus is on you to show it was possible, otherwise, no one can show that it wasn't possible. That's logic. So get off your lazy ass, do the exp and shove your results down my festering gob, else STFU.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 26, 2018, 04:23:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alice, Oswald is innocent in CT opinion because he said he was.

Oswald probably did it, Alice...

But he probably didn't do it alone.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 26, 2018, 02:08:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

That just illustrates how full of shit that you truly are. You could prove that the SBT was impossible if it was in fact impossible. It's a numbers game. Either the numbers work or they don't.
It is a matter of evidence.  There is evidence that shows the SBT was impossible. It is just that you don't accept that evidence.

If the witnesses who said that JFK was hit by the first shot (20+) were correct then the second shot SBT is impossible.

If the 40+ witnesses who said that the shot pattern was 1.......2...3 were correct, then the second shot SBT is impossible.

If JBC was sitting in the middle of his seat as he appears to be and if the bullet through JFK did not deflect, then the SBT was impossible at z221-223.

If JFK is already reacting at z223, as the WC concluded and as it appears to many reasonable people, then the SBT at z221-223 is not reasonably possible.

So, on the evidence I accept, the second shot SBT was not reasonably possible.  But since you don't accept that evidence for what it says, you disagree. 

On the evidence, the SBT did not occur. On the evidence, Oswald fired all three shots and there was no missed shots. One has to discredit the evidence to conclude otherwise.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 26, 2018, 05:33:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
On the evidence, the SBT did not occur. On the evidence, Oswald fired all three shots and there was no missed shots. One has to discredit the evidence to conclude otherwise.

There's no evidence that Oswald fired any shots, other than arguably Howard Brennan's later change of heart.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 26, 2018, 05:34:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alice, Oswald is innocent in CT opinion because he said he was.

Oswald probably did it, Alice...

Pulling a "probability" out of your azz is hardly compelling.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 26, 2018, 06:25:09 PM
Sorry, Tim, I wasn't born when it happened and that I don't have any actual proof because I don't have access to the actual truth of what happened that day. My only evidence is google, ok. I was just stating my opinion.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 26, 2018, 06:28:58 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alice, no it doesn?t.

I know, I agree with you, John. None of us in this forum were there that day. None of us have the "proof" that we all want. Everyone has a right to their opinions, but we don't have to fight and argue about it. I was just simply saying that from everything that I have found, I have concluded that I believe it was Johnson and his associates and that the other gunman was Malcolm Wallace. I believe he was hired by Edward Clark and Johnson. And that Edward Clark got a very million from the Oil Millionaires for achieving the assassination.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 26, 2018, 06:32:46 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alice, Oswald is innocent in CT opinion because he said he was.

Oswald probably did it, Alice...

Just because someone says they're innocent doesn't mean they're innocent.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 26, 2018, 06:35:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But he probably didn't do it alone.

I agree, there was someone else too that day... well I should say at least in my opinion.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 26, 2018, 06:41:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just because someone says they're innocent doesn't mean they're innocent.

Nobody has actually ever said that Oswald is innocent because he said he was.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 26, 2018, 06:50:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nobody has actually ever said that Oswald is innocent because he said he was.
I am not sure about that.   Many CTers say that Oswald was a "patsy" and, as far as I can tell, the only evidence that he was a patsy came from Oswald himself.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on March 26, 2018, 07:15:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am not sure about that.   Many CTers say that Oswald was a "patsy" and, as far as I can tell, the only evidence that he was a patsy came from Oswald himself.

But a patsy doesn't have to be the same as innocent. He could well have been involved at some level and be framed to be the patsy. The most unlikely scenario would be that a completely innocent outsider would be used to be the patsy.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 26, 2018, 10:01:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It is a matter of evidence.  There is evidence that shows the SBT was impossible. It is just that you don't accept that evidence.

If the witnesses who said that JFK was hit by the first shot (20+) were correct then the second shot SBT is impossible.

If the 40+ witnesses who said that the shot pattern was 1.......2...3 were correct, then the second shot SBT is impossible.

If JBC was sitting in the middle of his seat as he appears to be and if the bullet through JFK did not deflect, then the SBT was impossible at z221-223.

If JFK is already reacting at z223, as the WC concluded and as it appears to many reasonable people, then the SBT at z221-223 is not reasonably possible.

So, on the evidence I accept, the second shot SBT was not reasonably possible.  But since you don't accept that evidence for what it says, you disagree. 

On the evidence, the SBT did not occur. On the evidence, Oswald fired all three shots and there was no missed shots. One has to discredit the evidence to conclude otherwise.

That's a lot of Ifs.

Quote
If the witnesses who said that JFK was hit by the first shot (20+) were correct then the second shot SBT is impossible.

Quite a few of your 20+ witnesses are missing one of the three shots from their accounts. They do not account for the real first shot.

Quote
If the 40+ witnesses who said that the shot pattern was 1.......2...3 were correct, then the second shot SBT is impossible.

Not necessarily. If there was more time between shots one and two than between two and three then that just means that the first shot was earlier than is generally believed.

Quote
If JBC was sitting in the middle of his seat as he appears to be and if the bullet through JFK did not deflect, then the SBT was impossible at z221-223.

That one is easy. JBC was NOT sitting in the middle of his seat. The ITEK analysis has him as much as 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy.

Quote
If JFK is already reacting at z223, as the WC concluded and as it appears to many reasonable people, then the SBT at z221-223 is not reasonably possible.

I wasn't aware that the WC came to that conclusion. It's hard to see how they could have, since Kennedy can't be seen in Z223. Kennedy does not show a reaction until between Z225 and Z226.

(https://i.imgur.com/UZP7ht1.gif)

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

On the evidence, the SBT did occur. There's really no way around it.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 26, 2018, 10:38:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That one is easy. JBC was NOT sitting in the middle of his seat. The ITEK analysis has him as much as 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy.

...and as little as 4.2 inches.  Not much help there.  Besides, Itek based this on their positions at Z183 and Z188.

Quote
I wasn't aware that the WC came to that conclusion. It's hard to see how they could have, since Kennedy can't be seen in Z223. Kennedy does not show a reaction until between Z225 and Z226.

Why were his arms already raised?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 26, 2018, 10:50:23 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
...and as little as 4.2 inches.  Not much help there.

As usual ,you are wrong. "As much as 8.6 inches" is quite helpful.

 
Quote
Besides, Itek based this on their positions at Z183 and Z188.

They also utilized stereo pairs from 183-187, and 189-193.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 26, 2018, 11:00:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just because someone says they're innocent doesn't mean they're innocent.

Some of what I post is tongue-in-cheek, Alice. St.John the Virtuous once accused me of believing Oswald quilty only because no other shooter could be shown. So, I naturally countered with an equally nonesensical notion that CTers believe Oswald innocent because he said he was. Tit for tat.

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 26, 2018, 11:23:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As usual ,you are wrong. "As much as 8.6 inches" is quite helpful.

It's only helpful if you can show the SBT works for 4.2 inches as well.
 
Quote
They also utilized stereo pairs from 183-187, and 189-193.

That's great, but do you think the single bullet happened between 183-187 or 189-193?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 26, 2018, 11:24:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Some of what is tongue-in-cheek, Alice. John once accused me of believing Oswald quilty only because no other shooter could be shown.

That's because the only response you ever give in support of your opinion is "name your shooter".
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 27, 2018, 12:55:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am not sure about that.   Many CTers say that Oswald was a "patsy" and, as far as I can tell, the only evidence that he was a patsy came from Oswald himself.

Yes, I have seen that as well. News has a direct quote from Oswald saying that himself.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 27, 2018, 01:02:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's only helpful if you can show the SBT works for 4.2 inches as well.

Wrong. It's helpful in that it allows me to position Connally as much as 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy if I need to.
 
Quote
That's great, but do you think the single bullet happened between 183-187 or 189-193?

Z193 was about 1.6 seconds before the shot. The positions of the two would have changed very little in that small amount of time. 
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Steve Thompson on March 27, 2018, 01:04:08 AM
I believe the bullet that passed through JFK and hit JBC in the back is the one shown just behind the reenactor's right ear by the hairline.
The shot to JFK's back, apparently, did not penetrate more than an inch or two.

Sometime after this reenactment by the SS, it was decided that the wound by the hairline should be forgotten, and that the back shot show now be connected to a throat exit - which as you can see from the below photo and considering the sixth floor snipers nest behind - is preposterous.  But, without dropping the hairline shot, you've got three hits on JFK...and that just doesn't work well with the lone nut scenario...

(https://photos.google.com/search/_tra_/photo/AF1QipOgAYwTqNlIRPDhDbLL_gZEIor5ooWadb8WxfV-)

https://photos.google.com/search/_tra_/photo/AF1QipOgAYwTqNlIRPDhDbLL_gZEIor5ooWadb8WxfV- (https://photos.google.com/search/_tra_/photo/AF1QipOgAYwTqNlIRPDhDbLL_gZEIor5ooWadb8WxfV-)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 27, 2018, 01:07:39 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I believe the bullet that passed through JFK and hit JBC in the back is the one shown just behind the reenactor's right ear by the hairline.
The shot to JFK's back, apparently, did not penetrate more than an inch or two.

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=1197&fullsize=1 (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=1197&fullsize=1)

Steve, that's contradictory. The bullet passed through JFK yet it only penetrated no more than an inch or two? ???
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 27, 2018, 01:09:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wrong. The evidence - you know the stuff that you avoid -- shows that he shot no one on 11/22/63.

This doesn't mean that he couldn't have been involved in some way though.

This is one of the biggest falsehoods that LNers tell as the vast majority of CTers do not proclaim LHO to be totally innocent. We truly don't know what his true role was in the events of November 22.

I believe Oswald was just the decoy. They framed him to hide who really shot JFK. I think if he was just the decoy that his reward for doing it was being accepted with the Soviets? Look I may be totally wrong or have my words mixed up. Look all I know is that someone got some type of reward for this one way or another. Kennedy was trying to make many policies happen that many people didn't want. Like the Oil Millionaires and such.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Steve Thompson on March 27, 2018, 01:14:26 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Steve, that's contradictory. The bullet passed through JFK yet it only penetrated no more than an inch or two? ???

Nope.
The bullet that *passed through* JFK hit him behind the right ear at the hairline, continued on a downslope, and exited near his Adams Apple and went on to strike JBC.
The bullet that *did not* pass through JFK was a separate bullet, which hit him several inches below the collar line and to the right of his spine.

Both bullet strikes are illustrated by the SS in the photo I linked to in my post.

Does that make it clearer ?

Thanks,
Steve
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 27, 2018, 01:20:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's only helpful if you can show the SBT works for 4.2 inches as well.

Agreed. But it would be helpful if you and others would give at least a reasonable amount of ground in situations where something that couldn't be concluded to a dead certainty, like not having quite enough blanket fibers, or too mangled a Walker bullet to make a definitive conclusion... yet also could not be completely dismissed.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 27, 2018, 02:06:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nope.
The bullet that *passed through* JFK hit him behind the right ear at the hairline, continued on a downslope, and exited near his Adams Apple and went on to strike JBC.
The bullet that *did not* pass through JFK was a separate bullet, which hit him several inches below the collar line and to the right of his spine.

Both bullet strikes are illustrated by the SS in the photo I linked to in my post.

Does that make it clearer ?

Thanks,
Steve

Ok, I see it now. Thanks for the clarification. There are some problems with that scenario, which I'm sure you are aware of.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Steve Thompson on March 27, 2018, 02:13:50 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok, I see it now. Thanks for the clarification. There are some problems with that scenario, which I'm sure you are aware of.

I'm curious, what do you see as problems ?

Thanks,
Steve
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 27, 2018, 02:17:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm curious, what do you see as problems ?

I haven't taken the time to examine the trajectory of your upper wound but your lower bullet penetrating an inch or two doesn't seem plausible for a couple of reasons. Why would the bullet only have penetrated an inch or two and what happened to that bullet? The bullet would not have backed out even if it had only penetrated an inch.  Also, there's the bruising of the apex of the right lung that will have to be explained.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Steve Thompson on March 27, 2018, 02:32:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I haven't taken the time to examine the trajectory of your upper wound but your lower bullet penetrating an inch or two doesn't seem plausible for a couple of reasons. Why would the bullet only have penetrated an inch or two and what happened to that bullet? The bullet would not have backed out even if it had only penetrated an inch.  Also, there's the bruising of the apex of the right lung that will have to be explained.

Consider that Richard Lipsey was a witness to the autopsy and he gave this testimony to HSCA in 1978 in which he said, "It was obvious that one bullet entered the back of his head and exited on the right side of his face and pretty well blew away the right side of his head. And then the other two bullets had entered the lower part of his neck and the best of my knowledge, or the best of my memory, one had exited. The other bullet had entered from behind and hit his chest cavity and the bullet went down into the body."

In addition, FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill witnessed the autopsy and in their official report stated that the bullet that entered JFK's back did NOT exit his body.

The "bullet entered JFK's back and exited his throat" scenario, I would argue, is not fact.  It's a *conclusion* posited by Arlen Specter.  I've never been able to find any facts that Arlen Specter gave that actually supported his theory.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm)

https://books.google.com/books?id=GyskeQlVFfkC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=sibert+o%27neill+bullet+did+not+exit&source=bl&ots=b1_NGpCvYG&sig=zMWLKQQYaDvDTzzbmggs0o4cMCs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_u7P8q4vaAhUU3YMKHWmzBj8Q6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=sibert%20o'neill%20bullet%20did%20not%20exit&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=GyskeQlVFfkC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=sibert+o%27neill+bullet+did+not+exit&source=bl&ots=b1_NGpCvYG&sig=zMWLKQQYaDvDTzzbmggs0o4cMCs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_u7P8q4vaAhUU3YMKHWmzBj8Q6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=sibert%20o'neill%20bullet%20did%20not%20exit&f=false)

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 27, 2018, 03:07:21 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Consider that Richard Lipsey was a witness to the autopsy and he gave this testimony to HSCA in 1978 in which he said, "It was obvious that one bullet entered the back of his head and exited on the right side of his face and pretty well blew away the right side of his head. And then the other two bullets had entered the lower part of his neck and the best of my knowledge, or the best of my memory, one had exited. The other bullet had entered from behind and hit his chest cavity and the bullet went down into the body."

Lipsey says two bullets in the neck, not one in the neck and one in the back. In his drawing for the HSCA, he has them both in the neck, with one of them being above the collar line.  If a bullet went down in the body, how is it possible that it never showed up on any of the X-rays?

Quote
In addition, FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill witnessed the autopsy and in their official report stated that the bullet that entered JFK's back did NOT exit his body.

Again, if the bullet never exited, what happened to it? Sibert and O'Neill were not aware of the exit wound in the throat when they dictated their report.

Quote
The "bullet entered JFK's back and exited his throat" scenario, I would argue, is not fact.  It's a *conclusion* posited by Arlen Specter.  I've never been able to find any facts that Arlen Specter gave that actually supported his theory.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm (https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm)

https://books.google.com/books?id=GyskeQlVFfkC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=sibert+o%27neill+bullet+did+not+exit&source=bl&ots=b1_NGpCvYG&sig=zMWLKQQYaDvDTzzbmggs0o4cMCs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_u7P8q4vaAhUU3YMKHWmzBj8Q6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=sibert%20o'neill%20bullet%20did%20not%20exit&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=GyskeQlVFfkC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=sibert+o%27neill+bullet+did+not+exit&source=bl&ots=b1_NGpCvYG&sig=zMWLKQQYaDvDTzzbmggs0o4cMCs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_u7P8q4vaAhUU3YMKHWmzBj8Q6AEILDAA#v=onepage&q=sibert%20o'neill%20bullet%20did%20not%20exit&f=false)

The conclusion that the bullet traversed through the neck and exited the throat did not originate with Specter. It was the Bethesda Pathologists who reached that determination. It's written in their autopsy report.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Steve Thompson on March 27, 2018, 03:22:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Lipsey says two bullets in the neck, not one in the neck and one in the back.

Tim - with apologies, I'm not following you, old boy...

Did you read all of Lipsey's testimony ? 
He clearly says that:
1. The bullet that entered the lower part of the head came out the front of the neck.
2. The other bullet was not found

"LIPSEY: The bullet entered lower part of the head or upper part of the neck. [long pause] To the best of my knowledge, came out the front of the neck. But the one that I remember they spent so much time on, obviously, was the one they found did not come out. There was a bullet -- that's my vivid recollection cause that's all they talked about. For about two hours all they talked about was finding that bullet. To the rest of my recollection they found some particles but they never found the bullet -- pieces of it, trances of it. The best of my knowledge, this is one thing I definitely remember they just never found that whole bullet.

"LIPSEY: Not really, not considering if you want to consider this a head or a neck wound. I consider it more of a neck wound and I believe in their discussions they discussed it more of a neck wound. I consider my wound #1 is the head wound. I consider this wound #2 on a Upper neck/lower part of your head
Q: Was it in the hair, hairline?
LIPSEY: Yes. It was in the hair, but the lower hairline.
Q: It was in the hair?
LIPSEY: Just a minute. Wait. I'm considering where my hairline is today. Like I say, it was just a blood smash area back there. It could have been in the part that you sort of shave right up there. But lower head still, but upper neck. But the third one definitely was the lower neck, upper vertebrae."
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 27, 2018, 03:33:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tim - with apologies, I'm not following you, old boy...

Did you read all of Lipsey's testimony ? 
He clearly says that:
1. The bullet that entered the lower part of the head came out the front of the neck.
2. The other bullet was not found

"LIPSEY: The bullet entered lower part of the head or upper part of the neck. [long pause] To the best of my knowledge, came out the front of the neck. But the one that I remember they spent so much time on, obviously, was the one they found did not come out. There was a bullet -- that's my vivid recollection cause that's all they talked about. For about two hours all they talked about was finding that bullet. To the rest of my recollection they found some particles but they never found the bullet -- pieces of it, trances of it. The best of my knowledge, this is one thing I definitely remember they just never found that whole bullet.

It is confusing. In the bolded text above he says 'or upper part of the neck". That is where he placed it on the diagram. However ,in the text you posted previously he says "the other two bullets had entered the lower part of his neck". That's how I got "two bullets in the neck, not one in the neck and one in the back".
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Steve Thompson on March 27, 2018, 03:45:10 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It is confusing. In the bolded text above he says 'or upper part of the neck". That is where he placed it on the diagram. However ,in the text you posted previously he says "the other two bullets had entered the lower part of his neck". That's how I got "two bullets in the neck, not one in the neck and one in the back".

Having read Lipsey's testimony many, many times...and his testimony is as follows:
JFK was hit three times
* Bullet 1 entered/exited JFK's head creating the massive Z313 blowout
* Bullet 2 entered the base of JFK's skull at the hairline behind the right ear and exited his throat
* Bullet 3 entered JFK's lower neck/upper back and could not be traced any further

I believe Lipsey's testimony - he has no agenda.
The magic bullet entering JFK's upper back (i.e. "Lipsey's bullet 3") and exiting his throat is patently absurd and illogical.

The FBI recreation with a patch indicating a bullet entrance at JFK's hairline behind the right ear (Lipsey's Bullet 2) and a 2nd patch on JFK's upper back (Lipsey's Bullet 3) is 100% in sync with Lipsey's testimony - but had to be revised after the fact to fit the Lone Nut scenario...
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 27, 2018, 04:02:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Having read Lipsey's testimony many, many times...if I'm understanding him correctly:
* Bullet 1 entered/exited JFK's head creating the massive Z313 blowout

Did you see where on the head that he has the bullet entering? It's way to the right, where no one else described seeing it.

Quote
* Bullet 2 entered the base of JFK's skull at the hairline behind the right ear and exited his throat

He said "entered lower part of the head or upper part of the neck." If it struck the skull it would have fragmented,

Quote
* Bullet 3 entered JFK's lower neck/upper back and could not be traced any further

That is what he was saying. I agree.

Quote
I believe Lipsey's testimony - he has no agenda.

I have no doubt that Lipsey was an honest man with no agenda and that he told things as he remembered them. I just don't believe that his recollection was particularly accurate.

Quote
The magic bullet entering JFK's upper back (i.e. "Lipsey's bullet 3") and exiting his throat is patently absurd and illogical.

The single bullet entering JFK's lower neck  (i.e. "Lipsey's bullet 3") and exiting his throat is neither absurd nor illogical. It works.

Quote
The FBI recreation with a patch indicating a bullet entrance at JFK's hairline behind the right ear (Lipsey's Bullet 2) and a 2nd patch on JFK's upper back (Lipsey's Bullet 3) is 100% in sync with Lipsey's testimony - but had to be revised after the fact to fit the Lone Nut scenario...

When was it revised and who did the revising?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Steve Thompson on March 27, 2018, 04:12:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did you see where on the head that he has the bullet entering? It's way to the right, where no one else described seeing it.

He said "entered lower part of the head or upper part of the neck." If it struck the skull it would have fragmented,

That is what he was saying. I agree.

I have no doubt that Lipsey was an honest man with no agenda and that he told things as he remembered them. I just don't believe that his recollection was particularly accurate.

The single bullet entering JFK's lower neck  (i.e. "Lipsey's bullet 3") and exiting his throat is neither absurd nor illogical. It works.

When was it revised and who did the revising?

Tim, i will glady let you have the last word...

God bless.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 27, 2018, 05:11:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wrong. The evidence - you know the stuff that you avoid -- shows that he shot no one on 11/22/63.

This doesn't mean that he couldn't have been involved in some way though.

This is one of the biggest falsehoods that LNers tell as the vast majority of CTers do not proclaim LHO to be totally innocent. We truly don't know what his true role was in the events of November 22.

My view is that Oswald probably did it, and 5% that he might have had help, but only indirectly, as an off-the-cuff remark seemingly made in jest by George deM regarding the Walker attempt.

Disappointing events in those final days in Oswald's personal life, combined with Oswald realizing the motorcade would be swinging by his place of work, with Kennedy practically falling into his lap-- a 'sitting duck' as some visitors to tiny Dealey Plaza have remarked--might have, arguably, combined to spark Oswald into a kind of 'Hail Mary-take-a-shot-at-history-attempt' on Kennedy.

Too bad for you guys that people involved forgot their measuring tapes and electron microscopes at home.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 27, 2018, 03:03:24 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
JFK was doing, and had been doing, things to powerful centers of power and that is why the list of possible conspirators is so long.

LHO was most likely involved with U.S. intelligence. His role could have been to uncover any suspicious things he was assigned to investigate or he could have joined the conspiracy. There is no way to know for sure.

The one thing we do know for sure was that he did not shoot anyone on 11/22/63 because that is what the evidence shows.

How does the evidence show for sure that he didn't shoot anyone? Please provide a website that explains this.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 27, 2018, 05:32:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Read the twenty-six volumes of evidence. Read my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series.

I would, but I just don't have time for that. Is there any way that you could link me to some website that has this information? Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 27, 2018, 05:53:20 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I would, but I just don't have time for that. Is there any way that you could link me to some website that has this information? Thanks in advance.

Alice, have you read any books on the assassination? That might be the best way for you to get up to speed on the Assassination and the Tippit murder. Read two actually. One pushing conspiracy, the other not. I'd recommend Jim Marrs' "Crossfire" and Gerald Posner's "Case Closed".
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 05:55:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Wrong. It's helpful in that it allows me to position Connally as much as 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy if I need to.

And there you have it.  You start with the conclusion that they were wounded by a single bullet fired from the SE 6th floor window of the TSBD and you move the bodies around until the wounds (or where you assume the wounds were) sort of line up.

Quote
Z193 was about 1.6 seconds before the shot. The positions of the two would have changed very little in that small amount of time.

Another claim made without any evidence.  You don't think a human body can move significantly in 2 seconds?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 05:58:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Agreed. But it would be helpful if you and others would give at least a reasonable amount of ground in situations where something that couldn't be concluded to a dead certainty, like not having quite enough blanket fibers, or too mangled a Walker bullet to make a definitive conclusion... yet also could not be completely dismissed.

If something can't be definitively concluded, then it's inconclusive.  Right?  Of what use is it to show that something was merely possible?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 06:06:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why would the bullet only have penetrated an inch or two and what happened to that bullet?

Oh, I don't know.  Maybe it worked its way out via external cardiac massage?

What happened to the bullet from the "first missed shot" that you believe happened?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 27, 2018, 06:07:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And there you have it.  You start with the conclusion that they were wounded by a single bullet fired from the SE 6th floor window of the TSBD and you move the bodies around until the wounds (or where you assume the wounds were) sort of line up.

Another claim made without any evidence.  You don't think a human body can move significantly in 2 seconds?

You jumped in here and commented on something without understanding what that something was about. You do that a lot. I was challenged to show that the SBT was possible. I can do that and will do so using numbers and ranges provided by analyses like the ITEK one. 6.4" +/- 2.2" allows me to position Connally as much as 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy. I don't really need to but it's there.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 06:08:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Show me where I ever claimed I could prove my conclusions to anyone else? And tell us why I would want to in the first place?

Then how did you come to your conclusions?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 27, 2018, 06:08:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh, I don't know.  Maybe it worked its way out via external cardiac massage?

Extremely improbable.

Quote
What happened to the bullet from the "first missed shot" that you believe happened?

It's missing.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 27, 2018, 06:12:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Extremely improbable.

It's missing.

It never existed.....  The back wound was an exit wound.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 06:13:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Extremely improbable.

That's easy for you to say.  So's the SBT.  What happened to "I only need to show that it is possible"?

Quote
It's missing.

That clears it up.  Then so is the bullet that penetrated JFK's back an inch or two.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 27, 2018, 06:16:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's easy for you to say.  So's the SBT.  What happened to "I only need to show that it is possible"?

 ???

Quote
That clears it up.  Then so is the bullet that penetrated JFK's back an inch or two.

There never was such a bullet.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 06:48:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
???

There never was such a bullet.

Stating an assumption as a fact doesn't actually turn it into a fact.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 27, 2018, 08:44:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Stating an assumption as a fact doesn't actually turn it into a fact.

Where do you get that there was such a bullet?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 27, 2018, 09:34:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alice, have you read any books on the assassination? That might be the best way for you to get up to speed on the Assassination and the Tippit murder. Read two actually. One pushing conspiracy, the other not. I'd recommend Jim Marrs' "Crossfire" and Gerald Posner's "Case Closed".

Are there free online PDF's of these books? I don't have the money to buy them.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Alice Thorton on March 27, 2018, 09:37:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The case is not closed. Even Hoover said this.

J. Edgar Hoover? As in FBI Director? What did he have to say about it?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2018, 10:26:27 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are there free online PDF's of these books? I don't have the money to buy them.

You might try the public library.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 28, 2018, 04:09:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's a lot of Ifs.
You seem to miss the point. Only ONE of the "ifs" needs to be true to negate the SBT. They ALL have to be false in order for the SBT to be possible. And then you would still need convincing evidence that it actually occurred or maybe some convincing proof of a missed shot
Quote
Quite a few of your 20+ witnesses are missing one of the three shots from their accounts. They do not account for the real first shot.
??They described what JFK did in response to the first shot. No uncertainty there. Why they would have to count the shots afterward?

Quote
Not necessarily. If there was more time between shots one and two than between two and three then that just means that the first shot was earlier than is generally believed.
Since there were at least 5 seconds between JFK's reaction and the head shot, the last two were not "in rapid succession"as described by dozens of witnesses, if there was no shot in between. And in order to make the 1-2 spacing noticeably longer than 2-3 the first shot would have to be well before Zapruder started filming (the Max Holland conjecture). Good luck fitting that to any evidence.
Quote
That one is easy. JBC was NOT sitting in the middle of his seat. The ITEK analysis has him as much as 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy.
That puts Connally's right armpit in front of JFK's midline. Not enough. And that was the maximum range. He could have been 4 inches inboard of the president.
Quote
I wasn't aware that the WC came to that conclusion. It's hard to see how they could have, since Kennedy can't be seen in Z223. Kennedy does not show a reaction until between Z225 and Z226.
JFK's hands are seen and they are in the position that many witnesses described him assuming in response to the first shot. They are in a very different position than in z193.


Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 28, 2018, 04:58:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You seem to miss the point. Only ONE of the "ifs" needs to be true to negate the SBT. They ALL have to be false in order for the SBT to be possible. And then you would still need convincing evidence that it actually occurred or maybe some convincing proof of a missed shot.

They don't all have to be false in order for the  SBT to be possible. Nevertheless, they are all false. 

Quote
??They described what JFK did in response to the first shot. No uncertainty there. Why they would have to count the shots afterward?

Was Kennedy hit in the head by the second shot? Yes or no.

Quote
Since there were at least 5 seconds between JFK's reaction and the head shot, the last two were not "in rapid succession"as described by dozens of witnesses, if there was no shot in between. And in order to make the 1-2 spacing noticeably longer than 2-3 the first shot would have to be well before Zapruder started filming (the Max Holland conjecture). Good luck fitting that to any evidence.

If the spacing between the last two really was shorter than the first two then Holland's conjecture could be made to fit.

Quote
That puts Connally's right armpit in front of JFK's midline. Not enough. And that was the maximum range. He could have been 4 inches inboard of the president.

8.6 inches inboard is more than enough.

Quote
JFK's hands are seen and they are in the position that many witnesses described him assuming in response to the first shot. They are in a very different position than in z193.

https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?album=162&pos=106

JFK's hands cannot been seen in Z223.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 28, 2018, 03:23:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are there free online PDF's of these books? I don't have the money to buy them.

Alice, you can download a Kindle version of "Case Closed" from Amazon for $7.71.

https://www.amazon.com/Case-Closed-Harvey-Oswald-Assassination/dp/1400034620
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 28, 2018, 04:43:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Then how did you come to your conclusions?

 ;)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 28, 2018, 05:54:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
They don't all have to be false in order for the  SBT to be possible. Nevertheless, they are all false.
So let's make this clear. You are saying that:

1.  The witnesses (40+) who recalled that the last two shots were in rapid succession, noticeably closer than the first two, were all wrong and what they really heard was 1...2.....3  AND

2.  The witnesses who heard 3 shots and said JFK reacted to the first shot, including Dave Powers, TE Moore, Linda Willis, Nellie Connally, Bobby Hargis, George Hickey, Sam Kinney, Emory Roberts, Harold Norman, Gayle Newman,  and Cecil Ault, did not see what they said they saw; AND

3. The witnesses who said that the first shot was after z186/z191 were wrong even though not a single piece of evidence conflicts with their recollections. These witnesses include Hughes, Betzner, Linda Willis, Phil Willis, Mary Woodward, TE Moore, and motorcade witnesses in the VP car, VP security car as well as witnesses along Elm: Jean Newman, Billy Clay, Georgia Hendrix, Sue Dickerson, Dorothy Garner, Karan Hicks, Gloria Calvary, Karen Westbrook.

Quote
Was Kennedy hit in the head by the second shot? Yes or no.
No. The second shot nearly hit him in the head, according to George Hickey, but just lifted his hair on the right side.  One or two witnesses may have thought the second shot hit him in the head (eg. John Chism) but these witnesses were never cross-examined. 

Quote
If the spacing between the last two really was shorter than the first two then Holland's conjecture could be made to fit.
But not in "rapid succession" (eg. SA Hickey 18H762), "quick succession" (SA McIntyre 18H747), "very close together" (Robert Jackson 2H159, Lee Bowers 6H287), "pretty close together" (Luke Mooney 3H282), "rather close together" (B R Williams 3H175), "one and one-half seconds" - "a much shorter time" (Sen. Yarborough 7H439), "real close" (Clyde Haygood, 6H298), "very quickly" (James Crawford, 6H172).

And these witnesses all said that the difference in spacing was quite noticeable.  Many said it was about 2:1.  Even if it was just 1.5:1 (7.5 seconds to 5 seconds) that puts the first shot before the QM finished the turn, with the VP car just entering the intersection and the VP security car behind that on Houston.  (How could the occupants of those cars be so wrong - in the same way?)

Quote
8.6 inches inboard is more than enough.
The bullet was traveling from right to left at an angle of at least 9 degrees.  Over the 24 inches between JFK's throat and the plane of the back of the jump seat, the bullet would have travelled left an additional 3.8 inches. According to the HSCA the wound on JBC was 20 cm or 7.9 inches from his midline. If his midline was 8.6 inches left of JFK's midline, that puts his right armpit .7 inches left of JFK's midline.  It has to be another 3.1 inches farther left than that.  And that is assuming the maximum distance he could have been to the left of JFK, which is your best case scenario. ITEK actually said he was probably 6.4 inches left and could have been as little as 4.2 inches left.  That would make JBC too far right probably by 5.3 inches and possibly by as much as 7.5 inches.


Quote
JFK's hands cannot been seen in Z223.
Right. z224.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Gary Craig on March 28, 2018, 06:20:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Alice, you can waste your money if you choose, but the twenty-six volumes are online for free at:

http://www.historymatters.com

and here

MARY FERRELL FOUNDATION
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Main_Page.html
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 28, 2018, 10:01:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Then how did you come to your conclusions?

 ;)

Your lack of an answer to that question speaks volumes.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on March 28, 2018, 10:25:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So let's make this clear. You are saying that:

1.  The witnesses (40+) who recalled that the last two shots were in rapid succession, noticeably closer than the first two, were all wrong and what they really heard was 1...2.....3  AND

I'm saying that the 40+ witnesses who recalled that the last two shots were closer than the first two were wrong. 54 other witnesses recalled differently.

Quote
2.  The witnesses who heard 3 shots and said JFK reacted to the first shot, including Dave Powers, TE Moore, Linda Willis, Nellie Connally, Bobby Hargis, George Hickey, Sam Kinney, Emory Roberts, Harold Norman, Gayle Newman,  and Cecil Ault, did not see what they said they saw; AND

Dave Powers just says that after the first shot the President moved to the left. That?s not much of a reaction. Moore said that all three shots were spaced at regular intervals. Nellie Connally said that there was less time between the first and the second than between the second and the third. Hargis couldn't recall more than two shots. Kinney said immediately after the second shot they stepped on the gas. They never stepped on the gas until after the third shot. His second shot was really the third shot. Initially, Roberts wasn't sure whether there were two or three shots fired. A week later, he thinks he recalls three shots but didn't know if kennedy was hit in the head by the second shot or by the third shot. Norman said that the shots were evenly spaced. He placed the first shot at the same time that Williams did, right about  when the President was smoothing back his hair. Gayle Newman placed the first two shots much closer together than the second and third shots. Cecil Ault said he saw the President slump after the second shot.

Quote
3. The witnesses who said that the first shot was after z186/z191 were wrong even though not a single piece of evidence conflicts with their recollections. These witnesses include Hughes, Betzner, Linda Willis, Phil Willis, Mary Woodward, TE Moore, and motorcade witnesses in the VP car, VP security car as well as witnesses along Elm: Jean Newman, Billy Clay, Georgia Hendrix, Sue Dickerson, Dorothy Garner, Karan Hicks, Gloria Calvary, Karen Westbrook.

Hughes never specified anything about the shots. Betzner is a two shot witness. The real first shot is missing from his account. Phil Willis  said that all three shots were evenly spaced. Mary Woodward said that the first shot missed. Max Holland interprets Moore's statement differently than you. He says that Moore's highway marker was to the east of the one you believe it to be. Jean Newman recalled hearing only two shots. Hendrix saw Kennedy slump on the second shot. Dickerson didn't specify when the first shot was fired. Neither did Dorothy Garner. The other three never said how many shots they heard.


Quote
No. The second shot nearly hit him in the head, according to George Hickey, but just lifted his hair on the right side.  One or two witnesses may have thought the second shot hit him in the head (eg. John Chism) but these witnesses were never cross-examined. 

Many of your witnesses were not cross examined.

Quote
But not in "rapid succession" (eg. SA Hickey 18H762), "quick succession" (SA McIntyre 18H747), "very close together" (Robert Jackson 2H159, Lee Bowers 6H287), "pretty close together" (Luke Mooney 3H282), "rather close together" (B R Williams 3H175), "one and one-half seconds" - "a much shorter time" (Sen. Yarborough 7H439), "real close" (Clyde Haygood, 6H298), "very quickly" (James Crawford, 6H172).

And these witnesses all said that the difference in spacing was quite noticeable.  Many said it was about 2:1.  Even if it was just 1.5:1 (7.5 seconds to 5 seconds) that puts the first shot before the QM finished the turn, with the VP car just entering the intersection and the VP security car behind that on Houston.  (How could the occupants of those cars be so wrong - in the same way?)

Rapid succession, quick succession, and very close together are all relative descriptions. They could mean two seconds , three, four or more.

Quote
The bullet was traveling from right to left at an angle of at least 9 degrees.  Over the 24 inches between JFK's throat and the plane of the back of the jump seat, the bullet would have travelled left an additional 3.8 inches. According to the HSCA the wound on JBC was 20 cm or 7.9 inches from his midline. If his midline was 8.6 inches left of JFK's midline, that puts his right armpit .7 inches left of JFK's midline.  It has to be another 3.1 inches farther left than that.  And that is assuming the maximum distance he could have been to the left of JFK, which is your best case scenario. ITEK actually said he was probably 6.4 inches left and could have been as little as 4.2 inches left.  That would make JBC too far right probably by 5.3 inches and possibly by as much as 7.5 inches.

Are you sure that the HSCA placed the wound on JBC 7.9 inches from his midline?  Baden's measurement was 6.5 inches from the midline. I thought that 7.5 inches would be about right. However, I think that I can still get the SBT to work with 7.9 inches from the midline.

Quote
Right. z224.

What are his hands doing at z224?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Gary Craig on March 29, 2018, 03:33:49 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm saying that the 40+ witnesses who recalled that the last two shots were closer than the first two were wrong. 54 other witnesses recalled differently.

Dave Powers just says that after the first shot the President moved to the left. That?s not much of a reaction. Moore said that all three shots were spaced at regular intervals. Nellie Connally said that there was less time between the first and the second than between the second and the third. Hargis couldn't recall more than two shots. Kinney said immediately after the second shot they stepped on the gas. They never stepped on the gas until after the third shot. His second shot was really the third shot. Initially, Roberts wasn't sure whether there were two or three shots fired. A week later, he thinks he recalls three shots but didn't know if kennedy was hit in the head by the second shot or by the third shot. Norman said that the shots were evenly spaced. He placed the first shot at the same time that Williams did, right about  when the President was smoothing back his hair. Gayle Newman placed the first two shots much closer together than the second and third shots. Cecil Ault said he saw the President slump after the second shot.

Hughes never specified anything about the shots. Betzner is a two shot witness. The real first shot is missing from his account. Phil Willis  said that all three shots were evenly spaced. Mary Woodward said that the first shot missed. Max Holland interprets Moore's statement differently than you. He says that Moore's highway marker was to the east of the one you believe it to be. Jean Newman recalled hearing only two shots. Hendrix saw Kennedy slump on the second shot. Dickerson didn't specify when the first shot was fired. Neither did Dorothy Garner. The other three never said how many shots they heard.


Many of your witnesses were not cross examined.

Rapid succession, quick succession, and very close together are all relative descriptions. They could mean two seconds , three, four or more.

Are you sure that the HSCA placed the wound on JBC 7.9 inches from his midline?  Baden's measurement was 6.5 inches from the midline. I thought that 7.5 inches would be about right. However, I think that I can still get the SBT to work with 7.9 inches from the midline.

What are his hands doing at z224?

"Dave Powers just says that after the first shot the President moved to the left. That?s not much of a reaction."

No!
Powers was directly behind the President in the follow up car.
After hearing the first shot, he saw JFK pull his hand towards his throat and fall over towards Jackie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=77&v=Yl7a-50BHLE
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on March 31, 2018, 03:23:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm saying that the 40+ witnesses who recalled that the last two shots were closer than the first two were wrong. 54 other witnesses recalled differently.
Who are the 54 witnesses?  By my count, 6 said that the first two were closer and 10 thought they were about equally spaced.  45 said the last two were closer together.  See my paper on the shot pattern evidence.  (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf)

Quote
Dave Powers just says that after the first shot the President moved to the left. That?s not much of a reaction.
Where do you see him move to the left before z222?  Where does JBC disappear from his view?
Quote
Moore said that all three shots were spaced at regular intervals.
Where did you get that? Moore did not mention shot spacing in his FBI statement, which is the only statement I have found. He said he heard the first shot when the President was at the Thornton Freeway sign and he could not see the President's car when the last two shots were fired: 24H534.
Quote
Nellie Connally said that there was less time between the first and the second than between the second and the third.
That is true. But she also said she did not look back after the second shot. She is looking back up to z269. So that conflicts where her impression of the shot spacing.
Quote
Hargis couldn't recall more than two shots.
Sorry about that. You are right. I was going by Stuart Galanor's page which said he heard 3 shots (https://history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/Moore.htm) but he did recall only 2. He said things happened so fast that he may not have noticed if there were another 30 shots.
Quote

Hughes never specified anything about the shots. Betzner is a two shot witness. The real first shot is missing from his account. Phil Willis  said that all three shots were evenly spaced. Mary Woodward said that the first shot missed. Max Holland interprets Moore's statement differently than you. He says that Moore's highway marker was to the east of the one you believe it to be. Jean Newman recalled hearing only two shots. Hendrix saw Kennedy slump on the second shot. Dickerson didn't specify when the first shot was fired. Neither did Dorothy Garner. The other three never said how many shots they heard.
So all their evidence is wrong. Thanks for making my point that one has to make excuses why their evidence could be wrong. Why did they all imagine, falsely, that JFK reacted to the first shot? Why did none of them see JFK smile and wave after the first shot? Why did so many say he was smiling and waving before the first shot?


Quote
Rapid succession, quick succession, and very close together are all relative descriptions. They could mean two seconds , three, four or more.
?? Not likely. The spacing was described by Charles Brehm, who had experience with guns, that the three shots "were fired just about as quickly as an individual can manouver a bolt-action rifle" (22H837). Do you think 7.5 seconds and 5 seconds fits that description? How about 4 and 2.3?

Quote
Are you sure that the HSCA placed the wound on JBC 7.9 inches from his midline?  Baden's measurement was 6.5 inches from the midline. I thought that 7.5 inches would be about right. However, I think that I can still get the SBT to work with 7.9 inches from the midline.
20 cm: = 7.9 inches. 6 HSCA 48 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0027b.htm) (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/JBC_wound_location.jpg)
Quote
What are his hands doing at z224?
They appear to be doing what Nellie and others described they did in response to the first shot.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 01, 2018, 02:53:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Who are the 54 witnesses?  By my count, 6 said that the first two were closer and 10 thought they were about equally spaced.  45 said the last two were closer together.  See my paper on the shot pattern evidence.  (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/shot_pattern_evidence.pdf)

It was something that Dave Reitzes had posted on McAdams' forum. For the life of me, I cannot find it this evening. His compilation numbers were: 15 placed the first two shots closer together, 39 said that they were all evenly spaced , and 58 said that the last two were closer together.

Quote
Dave Powers just says that after the first shot the President moved to the left. That?s not much of a reaction. Where do you see him move to the left before z222?  Where does JBC disappear from his view?

Powers is a first shot hit witness.

Quote
Where did you get that? Moore did not mention shot spacing in his FBI statement, which is the only statement I have found. He said he heard the first shot when the President was at the Thornton Freeway sign and he could not see the President's car when the last two shots were fired: 24H534.

Larry Sneed, in No More Silence, quoted Moore as saying "I feel sure that there were three shots and they spaced at regular intervals."

Quote
So all their evidence is wrong. Thanks for making my point that one has to make excuses why their evidence could be wrong. Why did they all imagine, falsely, that JFK reacted to the first shot? Why did none of them see JFK smile and wave after the first shot? Why did so many say he was smiling and waving before the first shot?

I don't see how I made your point. Clearly you've misread what I said.  Why did approximately 40 witnesses report seeing the limo stop?

Quote
?? Not likely. The spacing was described by Charles Brehm, who had experience with guns, that the three shots "were fired just about as quickly as an individual can manouver a bolt-action rifle" (22H837). Do you think 7.5 seconds and 5 seconds fits that description? How about 4 and 2.3?

You left off the "take aim, and fire three shots."

Brehm has the second shot as the head shot.


Quote
20 cm: = 7.9 inches. 6 HSCA 48 (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0027b.htm) (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/JBC_wound_location.jpg)

They purportedly used Baden's report of his examination of Connally's scars to come up with the placements on that diagram.

157.In addition to the information that already had been analyzed concerning Kennedy's neck wound, derivation of this trajectory required placement of the location of Connally's entry wound to the back. At the committee's request, Connally agreed to have the position of his back wound redetermined by the Forensic Pathology Panel. His inshoot wound was described as being immediately above his right armpit. This description is essentially consistent with figure II-18. (JFK exhibit F-377.) (57)

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0027b.htm

(57) Memorandum from Dr. Michael Baden to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Sept 8, 1978


That says Sept 8, whereas the actual letter is dated Sept 6.

ADDENDUM G

REPORT OF THE PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF GOVERNOR JOHN R. CONNALLY--MEM ORANDUM BY MICHAEL M. BADEN, M.D., TO TIlE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ASSASSINATIONS. DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 1978

MEMORANDUM

To: Gary Cornwell, Esq. From. Michael Baden, M.D. Date: September 6, 1978.

Re Physical examination of Governor John Connally.

Pursuant to your arrangements I met with Governor Connally on September 6, 1978, at 2:05 p.m. In room 772 of the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. Also present were Mrs. Connally; Mr. Julian Reed, an associate of the Governor who had been with him on the day of the assassination of President Kennedy; and Mrs. Ida Jane Ross of your staff.

The Governor was very cooperative, but rushed, to catch a plane.

On removing his shirt, it was readily apparent that at the site of gunshot perforation of the upper right back there is now a 1 1/8-inch long horizontal pale well healed scar that is up to 3/8 inch wide centrally, with a lateral border slightly lower than the medial border (about 5 degrees). The medial margin is one-half inch superior to and five-eighths inch medial to the apex of the right posterior axilla. The lateral border is 6 inches to the right of the midline of the back and 4 3/4 inches below the shoulder line.


https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0125b.htm

Previously, I believed that the terms medial and lateral were mistakenly reversed by Baden. However, I now realize that "The lateral border is 6 inches to the right of the midline of the back" was really meant to be "The lateral border is 8 inches to the right of the midline of the back." That would place the midpoint of the 1 1/8" long scar at 7.5 inches to the right of the midline.

Quote
They appear to be doing what Nellie and others described they did in response to the first shot.

What was that exactly? The hands drop between Z224 AND Z225. I don't recall Nellie describing seeing that.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on April 01, 2018, 11:03:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It was something that Dave Reitzes had posted on McAdams' forum. For the life of me, I cannot find it this evening. His compilation numbers were: 15 placed the first two shots closer together, 39 said that they were all evenly spaced , and 58 said that the last two were closer together.
I can guarantee you that those numbers are wrong.  I looked at every witness who heard the shots and i found only 6 who heard 1...2.....3 and 9 who said they were about equally-spaced. Over 40 recalled 1.......2....3 and many of those said volunteered that last two shots were in rapid succession/close together. In addition, there are witnesses who put the second shot around z270, such as Altgens, Nellie C., SA George Hickey, and SA Wm. Greer. 

Quote
Powers is a first shot hit witness.

Larry Sneed, in No More Silence, quoted Moore as saying "I feel sure that there were three shots and they spaced at regular intervals."
You are relying on an interview made 30 years afterward?!!

Quote
I don't see how I made your point. Clearly you've misread what I said.  Why did approximately 40 witnesses report seeing the limo stop?
We have gone over this before. In fact, there were only 8 witnesses who said the limo stopped. 19 said it slowed but did not stop and another 20 gave ambiguous statements about whether it stopped or slowed. See my analysis here (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Palamara_analysed_am.pdf).

You make my point by arguing that the witnesses did not observe what they said they observed. Your argument that they were wrong is not evidence that they observed what you suggest. The statistical significance of the consistent observations of the "first shot hit", "first shot after z191" and "second shot close to third shot" witnesses is impossible to explain as random error.  You need collusion of all those witnesses to explain how they all got their observations wrong in the same way.

Quote
....
Previously, I believed that the terms medial and lateral were mistakenly reversed by Baden. However, I now realize that "The lateral border is 6 inches to the right of the midline of the back" was really meant to be "The lateral border is 8 inches to the right of the midline of the back." That would place the midpoint of the 1 1/8" long scar at 7.5 inches to the right of the midline.
You are still going to be 2.5 inches out and probably 4.8 inches out and possibly as much as 7 inches out.

Quote
What was that exactly? The hands drop between Z224 AND Z225. I don't recall Nellie describing seeing that.
The hands stay in roughly that position for a while (going by memory).  The impression of many was that he was clutching at his throat.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 02, 2018, 06:00:45 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I can guarantee you that those numbers are wrong.  I looked at every witness who heard the shots and i found only 6 who heard 1...2.....3 and 9 who said they were about equally-spaced. Over 40 recalled 1.......2....3 and many of those said volunteered that last two shots were in rapid succession/close together. In addition, there are witnesses who put the second shot around z270, such as Altgens, Nellie C., SA George Hickey, and SA Wm. Greer.

Found it:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/_hY71ak_h3o

I count 15 in that who said that the first two shots were closer together. I would add Karen Westbrook to that number. In her recent interview with Stephen Fagin of the Sixth Floor Museum, she said that the first two shots were closer together.

Quote
You are relying on an interview made 30 years afterward?!!

I wouldn't say that I'm  relying on it. I'm just making note of it, that's all. It's worth considering. Particularly if it doesn't contradict something he said much earlier. The same goes for all of the Sneed interviews.

Quote
We have gone over this before. In fact, there were only 8 witnesses who said the limo stopped. 19 said it slowed but did not stop and another 20 gave ambiguous statements about whether it stopped or slowed. See my analysis here (http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Palamara_analysed_am.pdf).

Yes we have gone over it before.  I don't count 40 but I count a lot more than 8.

Quote
You make my point by arguing that the witnesses did not observe what they said they observed. Your argument that they were wrong is not evidence that they observed what you suggest. The statistical significance of the consistent observations of the "first shot hit", "first shot after z191" and "second shot close to third shot" witnesses is impossible to explain as random error.  You need collusion of all those witnesses to explain how they all got their observations wrong in the same way.

Again, I don't understand how my pointing out that witnesses were wrong makes your point. It does just the opposite.

Quote
You are still going to be 2.5 inches out and probably 4.8 inches out and possibly as much as 7 inches out.

You have a poor memory. I've demonstrated to you in the past that I can make it fit. And that was using a lateral angle of 10.5 degrees, not the 9 degrees that you have offered. I'll show it to you again but let's see if we can agree on some numbers first.

- A lateral angle of 9 to 10.5 degrees.

- The bullet struck Kennedy at 2 inches to the right of his midline.

- the distance that the bullet travelled through Kennedy's neck was 6.5 inches

- The straight on (shortest) distance from the front of Kennedy's neck to Connally's back was about 24 inches.

- Connally was recessed further into the car than Kennedy 6.4 +/- 2.2 inches   -- pages 43 - 47 of "John Kennedy Assassination Film Analysis", ITEK corporation, May 2, 1976

- The thickness of Connally's torso, from the very back of his spine to the front of his sternum, was about 9 inches.

- Connally's torso was rotated to the right by 30 degrees.  (HSCA Appendix to Hearings - Volume VI, "The Trajectory Analysis",  prepared under the direction of Thomas N. Canning, with the assistance of Clyde C. Snow and C.S. McCamy.)

Quote
The hands stay in roughly that position for a while (going by memory).  The impression of many was that he was clutching at his throat.

At z224, his hands are not at his neck.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on April 03, 2018, 01:06:11 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Found it:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/_hY71ak_h3o

I count 15 in that who said that the first two shots were closer together. I would add Karen Westbrook to that number. In her recent interview with Stephen Fagin of the Sixth Floor Museum, she said that the first two shots were closer together.
Thanks for the link.  I will study it further but a few comments:

Reitzes uses Pierce Allman as an "equal spacing" witness because Allman said the shots were well-spaced and distinct.  But many who recalled the 1......2...3 pattern also said the shots were distinct and described shots spaced 3 and 1.5 or 2 seconds apart, which could also be described as "well-spaced". 

Reitzes uses Harold Norman as an "equal spacing" witness on the basis of Norman's interview where he vocalizes the shot sounds:


But if you measure the spacing, he has the spacing at roughly 3:2 (at 8, 11 and 13 seconds) which is not equal.  Furthermore he was not asked about the spacing - he was asked what they sounded like.  His earlier WC statement refers to "I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots".  I don't see how one gets an equal spacing out of that evidence.

As far as Karen Westbrook is concerned, she describes the first two shots closer together and then refers to having heard that Jackie Kennedy also recalled that pattern as a kind of support for her recollection (at about 24:20 of her interview which is at
).  If she confidently recalled the 1..2....3 pattern why did she immediately refer to Jackie for support. She did not do that for her recollection of the number of shots or the location of the first shot or what JFK did in reaction to the first shot. (In fact, Jackie did not describe the shot spacing at all and was unsure of the number of shots). There is no record of Karen Westbrook describing the shot spacing prior to this 2013 interview, unfortunately.

Karen Westbrook did have an apparently clear recollection that the first shot occurred while Jackie was turned looking directly toward her brushing her hair away from her face and waving. That could not have occurred until at least z190 because Jackie is turned left or forward until z189. In fact, she identifies z202 as the time of the first shot (but that was done in a rather leading way by the interviewer).  And she says that JFK reacted to that first shot.

Quote
Again, I don't understand how my pointing out that witnesses were wrong makes your point. It does just the opposite.
The point I was making is that you need to do that to support the SBT.  One does not have to point to any body of evidence being wrong in order to support the 3 shot, 3 hit, one shooter conclusion.

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 03, 2018, 09:12:38 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

- A lateral angle of 9 to 10.5 degrees.

- The bullet struck Kennedy at 2 inches to the right of his midline.

- the distance that the bullet travelled through Kennedy's neck was 6.5 inches

- The straight on (shortest) distance from the front of Kennedy's neck to Connally's back was about 24 inches.

- Connally was recessed further into the car than Kennedy 6.4 +/- 2.2 inches   -- pages 43 - 47 of "John Kennedy Assassination Film Analysis", ITEK corporation, May 2, 1976

- The thickness of Connally's torso, from the very back of his spine to the front of his sternum, was about 9 inches.

- Connally's torso was rotated to the right by 30 degrees.  (HSCA Appendix to Hearings - Volume VI, "The Trajectory Analysis",  prepared under the direction of Thomas N. Canning, with the assistance of Clyde C. Snow and C.S. McCamy.)

Even with a 12 degree angle (2 inches right of his midline), how did the MB travel thru JFK's spine and exit nose first then in 24 inches tumble into Connally?

(http://www.readclip.com/images/MB_Back_T1_Throat_12.png)

Quote
At z224, his hands are not at his neck.

Was Connally's body in the correct position at z224 to receive all the MB wounds?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Andrew Mason on April 04, 2018, 12:49:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Even with a 12 degree angle (2 inches right of his midline), how did the MB travel thru JFK's spine and exit nose first then in 24 inches tumble into Connally?
It is not that difficult to re-create the positions of the car and occupants using the zfilm and using an accurate model of the limo.  From the SN, the angle to the car direction at z195 was about 13.5 degrees.  At z224 it was 9 degrees.  The separation between JFK and JBC was about 24 inches.  The wound in JBC's right armpit was 20 cm or 7.9 inches from his midline.  The exit wound in JFK's throat was .5 cm left of his (JFK's) midline. 

Do the math. The bullet traveling in a straight line from JFK's exit wound on a 9 degree angle will travel 3.8 inches or 9.5 cm farther left before it strikes JBC.  So for the bullet to strike JBC's right armpit, his right armpit had to be 10 cm farther left than JFK's midline.  So JBC's midline had to be about 30 cm farther left than JFK.  Even if his shoulders were turned quite a bit more than he appears to be turned in z225 and even if he was sitting 21 cm inboard of JFK (ITEK said it was probably 10.7 cm and that puts him right in the middle of the jump seat), that is not enough.  And that assumes the shot was at z225, an assumption that conflicts with a lot of consistent evidence.

On the other hand, if the first shot struck JFK (as 20+ witnesses recalled) and if it occurred between z191-z202 (which is where all the evidence places it), then with JBC's midline 4.2 inches or 10.7 cm left of JFK and with JBC turned about 60 degrees which moves his left shoulder/armpit forward by 17 cm (6.8 inches) and to the right by 10 cm (4 inches).  So the bullet travels 18 cm farther left after exiting JFK.  All JBC has to do is lean a bit forward in his seat and the bullet just missed his back on the left side. What does it strike?  What part of JBC's left side was struck?

Quote
Was Connally's body in the correct position at z224 to receive all the MB wounds?
No. His body was never in a position to receive all the wounds.  Besides, James Tague said he was struck by something on the second shot. That bullet was not CE399.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 04, 2018, 06:01:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Even with a 12 degree angle (2 inches right of his midline), how did the MB travel thru JFK's spine and exit nose first then in 24 inches tumble into Connally?

(http://www.readclip.com/images/MB_Back_T1_Throat_12.png)

That's the T1 vertebrae.The single bullet passed above that level. You need to find an image of C7. Also keep in mind that Kennedy's torso was rotated about 5 degrees to the right and his head was turned about 60 degrees to the right. With a lateral angle of 9 degrees the bullet would have exited Kennedy about 1 inch to the right of his midline.

Quote
Was Connally's body in the correct position at z224 to receive all the MB wounds?

Yes it was.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 04, 2018, 06:34:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It is not that difficult to re-create the positions of the car and occupants using the zfilm and using an accurate model of the limo.  From the SN, the angle to the car direction at z195 was about 13.5 degrees.  At z224 it was 9 degrees.  The separation between JFK and JBC was about 24 inches.  The wound in JBC's right armpit was 20 cm or 7.9 inches from his midline.  The exit wound in JFK's throat was .5 cm left of his (JFK's) midline. 

Andrew ,using a lateral angle of 9 degrees, the exit wound in JFK's throat would be about 1 inch to the right of his midline, not 0.5 cm to the left.

The bullet entered at the base of Kennedy's neck at 2 inches to the right of his midline (Clark Panel).  Approximating the length of the path through Kennedy to be 6.5 inches:

tan(9 degrees) x 6.5 = 1.03

2.0 -1.03 =0.97 inches

Quote
Do the math. The bullet traveling in a straight line from JFK's exit wound on a 9 degree angle will travel 3.8 inches or 9.5 cm farther left before it strikes JBC.  So for the bullet to strike JBC's right armpit, his right armpit had to be 10 cm farther left than JFK's midline.  So JBC's midline had to be about 30 cm farther left than JFK.  Even if his shoulders were turned quite a bit more than he appears to be turned in z225 and even if he was sitting 21 cm inboard of JFK (ITEK said it was probably 10.7 cm and that puts him right in the middle of the jump seat), that is not enough.  And that assumes the shot was at z225, an assumption that conflicts with a lot of consistent evidence.

tan(9 degrees) x 24 = 3.8

As you said, between Kennedy and Connally, the bullet moves 3.8 inches to the left.

3.8 - 0.97 = 2.83

If Connally had been directly in front of JFK and facing fully forward, the bullet would have struck him 2.8 inches to the left of his midline. Moving Connally 7 inches to the left , which the ITEK analysis allows me to do, the bullet strikes at 4.2 inches to the right of midline.

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

By rotating 30 degrees to the right, Connally moved the entry point on his back 3.25 inches to the left.

With Connally rotated at 30 degrees, the bullet strikes at 7.45 inches to the right of his midline. And I still have 1.6 inches to spare.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Gary Craig on April 04, 2018, 02:44:10 PM
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/autopsydescriptivesheet.png)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/buckley%202.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/autopsybackwound.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/3rdthoracicV.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/back-wound-w-ruler-autopsy.jpg)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 06, 2018, 01:52:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's the T1 vertebrae.The single bullet passed above that level. You need to find an image of C7. Also keep in mind that Kennedy's torso was rotated about 5 degrees to the right and his head was turned about 60 degrees to the right. With a lateral angle of 9 degrees the bullet would have exited Kennedy about 1 inch to the right of his midline.

Yes it was.

Nope, you just don't get it. The angle I posted was based on the autopsy photo and your contention that the back wound was 2 inches right of the spine. The bullet's trajectory gives us JFK's body position. You have to live with this angle, which is untenable, but fill your boots.

ps sez you the bullet entered above T1. Show me using my laser experiment. Do this for the head shot and the MB and then get back to us. But I won't hold my breath.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 06, 2018, 02:12:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/3rdthoracicV.jpg)

This must be wrong, T3 is WAY too low for Oswald to be a LN! In at T3 and 17 degrees later out at C7? Sorry, that just doesn't work for my world view. :D
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 06, 2018, 02:47:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nope, you just don't get it. The angle I posted was based on the autopsy photo and your contention that the back wound was 2 inches right of the spine. The bullet's trajectory gives us JFK's body position. You have to live with this angle, which is untenable, but fill your boots.

You got an angle of 12 degrees from looking at an autopsy photo? Really? Which one? How exactly did you come up with 12 degrees? Did you not understand what I posted?

The image that you posted was an axial view of T1. The single bullet passed through above the level of T1. Find an axial view of a C7 image and then try to make a case.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 06, 2018, 02:50:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You got an angle of 12 degrees from looking at an autopsy photo? Really? Which one? How exactly did you come up with 12 degrees? Did you not understand what I posted?

The image that you posted was an axial view of T1. The single bullet passed through above the level of T1. Find an axial view of a C7 image and then try to make a case.

Lame! 2 inches right of the spine. :D
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 06, 2018, 02:58:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Lame! 2 inches right of the spine. :D

Right. 2 inches to the right of the spine. However, that alone doesn't give us the lateral angle of trajectory.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 06, 2018, 03:04:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Right. 2 inches to the right of the spine. However, that alone doesn't give us the lateral angle of trajectory.

It sure as hell does. It gives us the EXACT lateral (pitch) angle of trajectory. We just need to determine where JFK was on Elm relative to the SN when the MB struck him.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 06, 2018, 03:11:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It sure as hell does. It gives us the EXACT lateral (pitch) angle of trajectory. We just need to determine where JFK was on Elm relative to the SN when the MB struck him.

It sure as hell does not. On its own, it tells us nothing at all about the lateral angle of trajectory.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 06, 2018, 03:13:31 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It sure as hell does not. On its own, it tells us nothing at all about the lateral angle of trajectory.

Are you serial? Admit it, you don't know what you're talking about, do you?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 06, 2018, 03:25:52 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you serial? Admit it, you don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Jack,  why don't you, as our resident physicist/photogammatrist, explain to the rest of us here how the entry wound being 2 inches to the right of the spine gives the EXACT lateral (pitch) angle of trajectory? Go ahead and dazzle us.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Steve Taylor on April 06, 2018, 03:48:07 PM
Humes says the back wound was 2" right of the spine.  According to SBT, this bullet then exited midline in the neck.  That's 2" displacement for about 6" forward.  By the time it moves 24" more, to the plane of Connally's back, it should have displaced 8" to the left of JFK's neck.  In my opinion, there is no way this could hit Connally on the right side.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 06, 2018, 05:14:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Humes says the back wound was 2" right of the spine.  According to SBT, this bullet then exited midline in the neck.  That's 2" displacement for about 6" forward.  By the time it moves 24" more, to the plane of Connally's back, it should have displaced 8" to the left of JFK's neck.  In my opinion, there is no way this could hit Connally on the right side.

That seems like an intelligent and rational conclusion......
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 06, 2018, 06:07:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
According to SBT, this bullet then exited midline in the neck. 

That is false.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on April 06, 2018, 08:14:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Going Ballistic

Pretty sure a bullet starts to drop the moment it exits the barrel. It's called gravity.. plus air density, temperature, and wind have an effect on the flight of the bullet.

Seems the guy on the whoopee cushion is, ironically, a fine representation of yet another CTer lame attempt to prove this, that, and the other.

At least he makes an attempt to prove something, much unlike yourself, who only offers opinions.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 06, 2018, 08:40:31 PM
Going Ballistic

Pretty sure a bullet starts to drop the moment it exits the barrel. It's called gravity.. plus air density, temperature, and wind have an effect on the flight of the bullet.

Seems the guy on the whoopee cushion is, ironically, a fine representation of yet another CTer lame attempt to prove this, that, and the other.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 06, 2018, 08:44:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
At least he makes an attempt to prove something, much unlike yourself, who only offers opinions.

Show me where I said I could prove anything here. And tell us why you need people to prove something to you.

It seems to me that you characters are the ones casting opinions around. If you have a problem with gravity, maybe read what Newton's and Einstein's opinions are on the subject.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 06, 2018, 09:54:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Jack,  why don't you, as our resident physicist/photogammatrist, explain to the rest of us here how the entry wound being 2 inches to the right of the spine gives the EXACT lateral (pitch) angle of trajectory? Go ahead and dazzle us.

It doesn't give us the pitch of the MB trajectory, but it does give us JFK's orientation when he was struck by the (cough cough) MB. We know the pitch of the MB thru geometry (and not "photogammetry", whatever that is) and the position of the limo at frame z224 relative to the SN. The pitch angle was -7 degrees. Since the angle thru JFK was say >12 degrees (2 inches right of his spine) we know that JFK had to be turned to his RIGHT 5 degrees relative to the limo to form a -12 degree bullet trajectory from his back to his throat. This was clearly not the case so what do you propose resolves this discrepancy?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 06, 2018, 10:04:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It doesn't give us the pitch of the MB trajectory, but it does give us JFK's orientation when he was struck by the (cough cough) MB.

How does it give JFK's orientation when he was struck by the single bullet?


Quote
We know the pitch of the MB thru geometry (and not "photogammetry", whatever that is) and the position of the limo at frame z224 relative to the SN. The pitch angle was -7 degrees. Since the angle thru JFK was say >12 degrees (2 inches right of his spine) we know that JFK had to be turned to his RIGHT 5 degrees relative to the limo to form a -12 degree bullet trajectory from his back to his throat. This was clearly not the case so what do you propose resolves this discrepancy?

You're not making any sense at all.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 06, 2018, 10:18:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Pretty sure a bullet starts to drop the moment it exits the barrel. It's called gravity.. plus air density, temperature, and wind have an effect on the flight of the bullet.

The bullet does not automatically start to rotate when it exits a human body. A bullet tumbles in response to interacting with a solid object such as bone that deflects its trajectory. It does not deflect appreciably when it transitions from one medium to another such as flesh to air or water to air, etc. It certainly doesn't rotate appreciably within a couple of feet of exiting the body.

Otherwise, a bullet follows a parabolic path like anything else under gravity. The mussel velocity defines the parabolic arc of a projectile, which is insignificant over a hundred feet and has nothing to do with a tumbling bullet.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Martin Weidmann on April 06, 2018, 10:21:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Show me where I said I could prove anything here. And tell us why you need people to prove something to you.

Why?

Quote
It seems to me that you characters are the ones casting opinions around. If you have a problem with gravity, maybe read what Newton's and Einstein's opinions are on the subject.

Who are "you characters" and where did I say I have a problem with gravity?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 06, 2018, 10:26:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
How does it give JFK's orientation when he was struck by the single bullet?

Re-read my post and start thinking photogammetrically. ;)

Quote
You're not making any sense at all.

Using an ortho-map overhead of Elm, draw a line from the SN to the limo at frame z224. What's that angle? Now take the supposed angle of the MB thru JFK and reconcile the 2.

Good luck with that!
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 07, 2018, 12:21:27 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The bullet does not automatically start to rotate when it exits a human body. A bullet tumbles in response to interacting with a solid object such as bone that deflects its trajectory. It does not deflect appreciably when it transitions from one medium to another such as flesh to air or water to air, etc. It certainly doesn't rotate appreciably within a couple of feet of exiting the body.

Otherwise, a bullet follows a parabolic path like anything else under gravity. The mussel velocity defines the parabolic arc of a projectile, which is insignificant over a hundred feet and has nothing to do with a tumbling bullet.

Where did I address bullet tumble in my post? I'm questioning your use of a laser beam which of course is not affected by wind, air temperature, air density or gravity as is a bullet in flight. At that distance it might only be a barely noticeable drop (as I understand it, nevertheless one is talking fractions here. My research is talking 200-300 yards downrange and beyond.

I might be getting the wrong idea about what you say you are proving.

Re tumble, I understand Carcano rifling grabs that ammo near the front rather than the back, thereby providing a very stable bullet in flight.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 07, 2018, 12:44:06 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Re-read my post and start thinking photogammetrically. ;)

Nope. You're going to have to show it or explain it.

Quote
Using an ortho-map overhead of Elm, draw a line from the SN to the limo at frame z224. What's that angle? Now take the supposed angle of the MB thru JFK and reconcile the 2.

(https://i.imgur.com/dg0Li4j.png)

I used the Robert West Survey of 1964. Measuring from the SN to the limo, I get a lateral angle of 9 degrees. I don't know what you mean by "reconcile the 2". What exactly is there to reconcile?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 08, 2018, 01:18:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Where did I address bullet tumble in my post? I'm questioning your use of a laser beam which of course is not affected by wind, air temperature, air density or gravity as is a bullet in flight. At that distance it might only be a barely noticeable drop (as I understand it, nevertheless one is talking fractions here. My research is talking 200-300 yards downrange and beyond.

I might be getting the wrong idea about what you say you are proving.

Re tumble, I understand Carcano rifling grabs that ammo near the front rather than the back, thereby providing a very stable bullet in flight.

The laser is only simulating the bullet's trajectory as it passes thru JFK and Connally. Once a bullet hits an object all bets are off. But you LNers want to think that the bullet managed to take a straight line trajectory thru JFK's body and somehow avoided his spine and ribs. You contend this because the bullet came out of a small hole in his throat which meant it wasn't tumbling. Then you contend it smashed thru Connally and ended up clean and unscathed on the wrong stretcher and you want us to believe it wasn't planted.
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 08, 2018, 01:32:16 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nope. You're going to have to show it or explain it.

(https://i.imgur.com/dg0Li4j.png)

I used the Robert West Survey of 1964. Measuring from the SN to the limo, I get a lateral angle of 9 degrees. I don't know what you mean by "reconcile the 2". What exactly is there to reconcile?

How do you know that survey map is to scale? Let's give it the benefit of the doubt. You need to determine where the limo was relative to the Z-film to sync with the shots. All that is a bit iffy, but I will give you the BOTD again and say your angles might be ok.

If so, then put the limo with occupants into the scene and line everything up with a shot 2 inches to the right of the spine at T1 and out the throat at C7, then into the right side of Connally, into his wrist, then his thigh then ending up on the wrong stretcher.

Use my laser experiment for a re-enactment for JFK and Connally and make me eat crow, I dare you!
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 08, 2018, 02:18:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If so, then put the limo with occupants into the scene and line everything up with a shot 2 inches to the right of the spine at T1 and out the throat at C7,

Why should I do that? I already told you that the bullet entered above the level of T1.

 
Quote
then into the right side of Connally,


I already did.

Quote
into his wrist, then his thigh

You're making ridiculous requests. The bullet took a curved path through Connally. Who could possibly say exactly what that path was? Certainly not me,

Quote
then ending up on the wrong stretcher.

What for? Why would I put it on the wrong stretcher?

Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 08, 2018, 04:02:01 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Why should I do that? I already told you that the bullet entered above the level of T1.

I already did.

You're making ridiculous requests. The bullet took a curved path through Connally. Who could possibly say exactly what that path was? Certainly not me,

What for? Why would I put it on the wrong stretcher?

Just throwing out pearls. :D
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 08, 2018, 05:13:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just throwing out pearls. :D

Yeah, I am. Is that a crime?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Steve Taylor on April 12, 2018, 02:50:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is false.
Mr. Specter: Assuming some factors in addition to those which you personally observed, Dr. Baxter, what would your opinion be if these additional facts were present: First, the President had a bullet wound of entry on the right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the Scapula with the wound measuring 7 by 4 mm. in oval shape, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process--assume this is the set of facts, that the wound Just described was caused by a 6.5 mm bullet shot from approximately 160 to 250 feet away from the President, from a weapon having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, assuming as a third factor that the bullet passed through the President's body, going in between the strap muscles of the shoulder without violating the pleura space and exited at a point in the midline of the neck, would the hole which you saw on the President's throat be consistent with an exit point, assuming the factors which I have Just given to you?
Title: Re: A straight line
Post by: Tim Nickerson on April 12, 2018, 03:56:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr. Specter: Assuming some factors in addition to those which you personally observed, Dr. Baxter, what would your opinion be if these additional facts were present: First, the President had a bullet wound of entry on the right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the Scapula with the wound measuring 7 by 4 mm. in oval shape, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process--assume this is the set of facts, that the wound Just described was caused by a 6.5 mm bullet shot from approximately 160 to 250 feet away from the President, from a weapon having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, assuming as a third factor that the bullet passed through the President's body, going in between the strap muscles of the shoulder without violating the pleura space and exited at a point in the midline of the neck, would the hole which you saw on the President's throat be consistent with an exit point, assuming the factors which I have Just given to you?

exited at a point in the midline of the neck

That's Specter making an assumption of his own. It's not from the autopsy report itself.