JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Walt Cakebread on November 23, 2019, 03:59:16 PM

Title: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 23, 2019, 03:59:16 PM
Ten years after the coup d e'tat in Dallas, the HSCA determined that President Kennedy had been murdered by a group ( unnamed) of conspirators.  There has been ship loads of evidence uncovered that lead to the undeniable conclusion that Lee Oswald was merely a hapless kid who fancied himself to be a budding Herb Philbrick, who allowed himself to be suckered into the role of scapegoat .   

All of us have learned of the many nefarious and devious plots hatched by the CIA in their efforts to stir up trouble and start wars.   There can be no denial of these facts.   So why do some folks refuse to believe that Lee Oswald was simply a "Patsy", who was used by US intelligence agents?  Do those folks truly believe the Warren Report?   ( It hard to to believe that any intelligent reasoning adult would embrace the Warren Report as the truth)  Do they know the truth, and simply lack the guts to face the truth....or are they in reality agents of the conspiracy?   Still struggling after all these years  to try to keep the truth hidden. 
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 23, 2019, 10:28:20 PM
(https://media1.jpc.de/image/w600/front/0/0602557136555.jpg)  (https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61Hop0wKI7L._AC_.jpg)

"If You Believe"  and "Not Guilty"

   I'm really sorry that you've been misled.
   But like you heard me said:
   Not guilty.

From possibly George Harrison's finest solo album, in 1979.

His work was overshadowed by the "All Things Must Pass" album.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 23, 2019, 11:55:14 PM
Ten years after the coup d e'tat in Dallas, the HSCA determined that President Kennedy had been murdered by a group ( unnamed) of conspirators.  There has been ship loads of evidence uncovered that lead to the undeniable conclusion that Lee Oswald was merely a hapless kid who fancied himself to be a budding Herb Philbrick, who allowed himself to be suckered into the role of scapegoat .   

All of us have learned of the many nefarious and devious plots hatched by the CIA in their efforts to stir up trouble and start wars.   There can be no denial of these facts.   So why do some folks refuse to believe that Lee Oswald was simply a "Patsy", who was used by US intelligence agents?  Do those folks truly believe the Warren Report?   ( It hard to to believe that any intelligent reasoning adult would embrace the Warren Report as the truth)  Do they know the truth, and simply lack the guts to face the truth....or are they in reality agents of the conspiracy?   Still struggling after all these years  to try to keep the truth hidden.

Walter,

KGB-boy Vladimir Putin loves you (and Mark Lane, and Jim Garrison, and Oliver Stone, and Roger Stone, and James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio at the so-called Education Forum, et al.) for what you do.

Keep up the good work, Comrade.

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 24, 2019, 12:15:09 AM
Walter,

KGB-boy Vladimir Putin loves you (and Mark Lane, and Jim Garrison, and Oliver Stone, and Roger Stone, and James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio at the so-called Education Forum, et al.) for what you do.

Keep up the good work, Comrade.

--  MWT  ;)

Tommy ...you are a good example of someone who would buy Sea shore property in Arizona.......If yer ol Unca Sam offered it at a bargain price.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 24, 2019, 12:17:43 AM
Tommy ...you are a good example of someone who would buy Sea shore property in Arizona.......

Walter,

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you.

Must be a conspiracy, huh?

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 24, 2019, 04:33:14 PM
 ???

There was a conspiracy?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Paul May on November 24, 2019, 04:55:17 PM
People deny UFO’s and Bigfoot for the same reasons. Lack of hard, credible, undisputed evidence. And the beat goes on.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 24, 2019, 05:12:18 PM
People deny UFO’s and Bigfoot for the same reasons. Lack of hard, credible, undisputed evidence.

Exactly why people don’t believe the WC narrative.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Michael Walton on November 24, 2019, 10:53:12 PM
Just putting this up here. Tom...Bill...Paul...John M -- care to at least try to explain how the so-called through and through shot that never was hit where the lower white mark is on the stand in and supposedly came out on the other side where the white mark on the neck area is?

Keep in mind that these are your heroes - FBI agents - during the official reenactment of the case several months after 11/22.

No "well, what about this?" or "what about that?" Explain please.

***

Here's one of my all-time favorite photos. The official investigation has begun. Investigators have marked the Kennedy stand-in's back and we're in Dealey Plaza to boot. The marks on the back are based on the measurements from the official autopsy and all are very accurate.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall during this reenactment listening in:

GMan 1: "How in the hell was that back shot [which was a shallow wound and no through and through exit per the autopsy] supposed to come out his neck like we got it marked here?"

GMan 2: "Beats me."

LOLOLOL!

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4gdWxEAnONc/XdgYq04sAqI/AAAAAAAAFdE/5vYcXgq0EgU1pGsHfVT67PHfvbXREt7JQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1964_FBI_REENACTMENT_color4.jpg)

Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Mytton on November 25, 2019, 12:11:43 AM
Just putting this up here. Tom...Bill...Paul...John M -- care to at least try to explain how the so-called through and through shot that never was hit where the lower white mark is on the stand in and supposedly came out on the other side where the white mark on the neck area is?

Keep in mind that these are your heroes - FBI agents - during the official reenactment of the case several months after 11/22.

No "well, what about this?" or "what about that?" Explain please.

***

Here's one of my all-time favorite photos. The official investigation has begun. Investigators have marked the Kennedy stand-in's back and we're in Dealey Plaza to boot. The marks on the back are based on the measurements from the official autopsy and all are very accurate.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall during this reenactment listening in:

GMan 1: "How in the hell was that back shot [which was a shallow wound and no through and through exit per the autopsy] supposed to come out his neck like we got it marked here?"

GMan 2: "Beats me."

LOLOLOL!

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4gdWxEAnONc/XdgYq04sAqI/AAAAAAAAFdE/5vYcXgq0EgU1pGsHfVT67PHfvbXREt7JQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1964_FBI_REENACTMENT_color4.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/sf4MtKw6/sbf2.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 25, 2019, 01:15:51 AM
Just putting this up here. Tom...Bill...Paul...John M -- care to at least try to explain how the so-called through and through shot that never was hit where the lower white mark is on the stand in and supposedly came out on the other side where the white mark on the neck area is?

Keep in mind that these are your heroes - FBI agents - during the official reenactment of the case several months after 11/22.

No "well, what about this?" or "what about that?" Explain please.

***

Here's one of my all-time favorite photos. The official investigation has begun. Investigators have marked the Kennedy stand-in's back and we're in Dealey Plaza to boot. The marks on the back are based on the measurements from the official autopsy and all are very accurate.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall during this reenactment listening in:

GMan 1: "How in the hell was that back shot [which was a shallow wound and no through and through exit per the autopsy] supposed to come out his neck like we got it marked here?"

GMan 2: "Beats me."

LOLOLOL!

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4gdWxEAnONc/XdgYq04sAqI/AAAAAAAAFdE/5vYcXgq0EgU1pGsHfVT67PHfvbXREt7JQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1964_FBI_REENACTMENT_color4.jpg)

The lower white mark comports with 14x14cm twofer entry. And show us the jump seat in that particular car.

BTW, Walter White's expertise in shooting from the trunk of a vehicle would be needed in order to exact the exit placement shown via the upper white spot.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 25, 2019, 01:49:49 AM
Just putting this up here. Tom...Bill...Paul...John M -- care to at least try to explain how the so-called through and through shot that never was hit where the lower white mark is on the stand in and supposedly came out on the other side where the white mark on the neck area is?

Keep in mind that these are your heroes - FBI agents - during the official reenactment of the case several months after 11/22.

No "well, what about this?" or "what about that?" Explain please.

***

Here's one of my all-time favorite photos. The official investigation has begun. Investigators have marked the Kennedy stand-in's back and we're in Dealey Plaza to boot. The marks on the back are based on the measurements from the official autopsy and all are very accurate.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall during this reenactment listening in:

GMan 1: "How in the hell was that back shot [which was a shallow wound and no through and through exit per the autopsy] supposed to come out his neck like we got it marked here?"

GMan 2: "Beats me."

LOLOLOL!

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4gdWxEAnONc/XdgYq04sAqI/AAAAAAAAFdE/5vYcXgq0EgU1pGsHfVT67PHfvbXREt7JQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1964_FBI_REENACTMENT_color4.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
The re-enactment hasn't even begun.
 
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SuUkulKvkL4/UK6TT91fdOI/AAAAAAAAkwc/5F3xE4Ru91Y/s1600/Photo-Taken-During-Warren-Commission-Reenactment-Of-Assassination-In-Dealey-Plaza-On-May-24-1964--01.png)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Car's location, taken from a different vantage point.

(http://dlyakota.ru/uploads/posts/2016-10/dlyakota.ru_istoriya_queen-mary-ii-i-queen-elizabeth-ii-cadillaci-prezidentskogo-kortezha_7.jpeg)  (https://rememberheroes.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Dim_j17Nov_Motorcade_CMYK-604x270.jpg)

Connally's jumpseat was lower than the one in the re-enactment car. Also the "Kennedy" stand-in couldn't get himself as far to the right as Kennedy actually did. When you adjust for those things, the SBT trajectory at ca.Z223 works out fine.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Michael Walton on November 25, 2019, 09:12:36 PM
Jerry and Bill...

You're both basically just throwing stuff up here. Neither of you have explained how the FBI, knowing the wound positioning based on the autopsy, put stickers almost precisely where the wounds are located (wound on the back and one on the throat showing on the back of the neck) and yet neither of these wound stickers reconcile with one another.

Why are both of you talking about the raising and lowering of the seat(s)?  Whether Kennedy or JBC were sitting higher or lower, it makes no difference as it does NOT explain how a supposed shot from 90 feet high in the air would hit Kennedy's back and exit ABOVE a bullet with a downward trajectory. Precisely where the marks are on the stand-in.

You're going to have to do much, much better than that.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 25, 2019, 09:44:05 PM
Connally's jumpseat was lower than the one in the re-enactment car. Also the "Kennedy" stand-in couldn't get himself as far to the right as Kennedy actually did. When you adjust for those things, the SBT trajectory at ca.Z223 works out fine.

Why don't you show us how the MB trajectory worked out fine. Point 2 lasers at each other as depicted below and get in between them ANY WAY YOU LIKE, and duplicate the entrance/exit wounds on JFK.

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

Cheap and easy way to convince yourself and everyone the MB trajectory works fine. Mytton couldn't do it, but maybe you'll have better luck.

Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 25, 2019, 09:48:01 PM
Jerry and Bill...

You're both basically just throwing stuff up here. Neither of you have explained how the FBI, knowing the wound positioning based on the autopsy, put stickers almost precisely where the wounds are located (wound on the back and one on the throat showing on the back of the neck) and yet neither of these wound stickers reconcile with one another.

Why are both of you talking about the raising and lowering of the seat(s)?  Whether Kennedy or JBC were sitting higher or lower, it makes no difference as it does NOT explain how a supposed shot from 90 feet high in the air would hit Kennedy's back and exit ABOVE a bullet with a downward trajectory. Precisely where the marks are on the stand-in.

You're going to have to do much, much better than that.

 ???

The jump seat makes all the difference. Take a look at the images showing the actual placement of the two all along the parade route. Dude, FFS already..

The top sticker indicates the twofer either exited the mouth or Kennedy had his tie and shirt pulled up over his chin.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 25, 2019, 10:02:37 PM
Connally's jumpseat was lower than the one in the re-enactment car. Also the "Kennedy" stand-in couldn't get himself as far to the right as Kennedy actually did. When you adjust for those things, the SBT trajectory at ca.Z223 works out fine.

'SBT trajectory at ca.Z223 works out fine'

>>> For Oswald. Not so much for Kennedy  ;)
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 25, 2019, 10:08:42 PM
Why don't you show us how the MB trajectory worked out fine. Point 2 lasers at each other as depicted below and get in between them ANY WAY YOU LIKE, and duplicate the entrance/exit wounds on JFK.

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

Cheap and easy way to convince yourself and everyone the MB trajectory works fine. Mytton couldn't do it, but maybe you'll have better luck.

 ???

The shooter used a laser gun? Okay, sure...

Anyway, Oswald showed how it worked out fine
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 26, 2019, 01:53:51 AM
Why don't you show us how the MB trajectory worked out fine. Point 2 lasers at each other as depicted below and get in between them ANY WAY YOU LIKE, and duplicate the entrance/exit wounds on JFK.

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

Cheap and easy way to convince yourself and everyone the MB trajectory works fine. Mytton couldn't do it, but maybe you'll have better luck.

Sure. Whatever. A cartoon outline figure equates Kennedy's seated position in the motorcade.

(https://static.parade.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/jfk-jackie-kennedy-arriving-dallas-ftr.jpg)

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/bunch/love-field-cap-showing-bunch-at-nape.jpg)
  (https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59095230c14b3c606c103b6c/master/pass/JFK-convertable-580.jpeg)
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184557/m1/1/small_res/)  (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184649/m1/1/med_res/)
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 26, 2019, 04:03:43 AM
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/2lasers.jpg)
Sure. Whatever. A cartoon outline figure equates Kennedy's seated position in the motorcade.

Are you really that obtuse? You literally didn't understand my post? I must have posted the 2 laser challenge a dozen times on this forum and you never understood what I was getting at? Your problem is that you didn't realize the graphic was to show you how to do the experiment, not the experiment itself. Otherwise, CGI can't prove anything because it can defy logic and physics. You need reality.

Skip the CGI and put yourself in any position you like in the 2 laser scenario but actually do a physical re-enactment for a change. The lasers represent a straight line path thru JFK, not the trajectory of the MB from the SN. And remember, you can't fake real!

Now go out there and buy a couple of cheap leveling lasers and a protractor and do the goddamned experiment for yourself, then post your results and make me eat crow. ;D
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 26, 2019, 04:07:55 AM
???

The shooter used a laser gun? Okay, sure...

Anyway, Oswald showed how it worked out fine

Hopeless.  ::)
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Michael Walton on November 26, 2019, 02:30:06 PM
???

The jump seat makes all the difference. Take a look at the images showing the actual placement of the two all along the parade route. Dude, FFS already..

The top sticker indicates the twofer either exited the mouth or Kennedy had his tie and shirt pulled up over his chin.

Uh, no, Bill. It doesn't. What does make a difference are the markings on the stand-in's backside there. Explain how a bullet heading downward would exit *above* on the other side like the marks show. That's an official reenactment (your heroes) you see there, Bill, and they're going by the autopsy findings, also official.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Michael Walton on November 26, 2019, 02:32:39 PM
???

The shooter used a laser gun? Okay, sure...

Anyway, Oswald showed how it worked out fine

Now you're just being disingenuous here, Bill. Put another way, you're just being an asshat here now, Bill.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 26, 2019, 03:00:28 PM
Now you're just being disingenuous here, Bill. Put another way, you're just being an asshat here now, Bill.

When is he ever not?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 26, 2019, 03:55:46 PM
Uh, no, Bill. It doesn't. What does make a difference are the markings on the stand-in's backside there. Explain how a bullet heading downward would exit *above* on the other side like the marks show. That's an official reenactment (your heroes) you see there, Bill, and they're going by the autopsy findings, also official.
Based on these particular photos, and with the stand-in more upright than Kennedy, ...

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4gdWxEAnONc/XdgYq04sAqI/AAAAAAAAFdE/5vYcXgq0EgU1pGsHfVT67PHfvbXREt7JQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1964_FBI_REENACTMENT_color4.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Bullet enters base of the back of
"Kennedy's" neck (mark on jacket).
 
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SuUkulKvkL4/UK6TT91fdOI/AAAAAAAAkwc/5F3xE4Ru91Y/s1600/Photo-Taken-During-Warren-Commission-Reenactment-Of-Assassination-In-Dealey-Plaza-On-May-24-1964--01.png)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Goes downward to exit at level of tie knot.
Cue Cakebread to point out the car, stand-ins and where car is currently stopped are not the same as those on the day of the assassination.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Michael Walton on November 26, 2019, 04:48:45 PM
Based on these particular photos, and with the stand-in more upright than Kennedy, ...

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4gdWxEAnONc/XdgYq04sAqI/AAAAAAAAFdE/5vYcXgq0EgU1pGsHfVT67PHfvbXREt7JQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/1964_FBI_REENACTMENT_color4.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Bullet enters base of the back of
"Kennedy's" neck (mark on jacket).
 
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SuUkulKvkL4/UK6TT91fdOI/AAAAAAAAkwc/5F3xE4Ru91Y/s1600/Photo-Taken-During-Warren-Commission-Reenactment-Of-Assassination-In-Dealey-Plaza-On-May-24-1964--01.png)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Goes downward to exit at level of tie knot.
Cue Cakebread to point out the car, stand-ins and where car is currently stopped are not the same as those on the day of the assassination.

Uh, no, Jerry. That's not what they're doing here. They knew where the wounds were because they were well informed, having seen the autopsy photos. They have the mark on the upper back EXACTLY as seen in Bethesda. Here, see how nice I am - I put this together for you:

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HB1iPBCsDgI/Xd1Uxg_e6EI/AAAAAAAAFdg/eB3aG9ckbQcdoVnMZxY2O8RNsZPsg8oUwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/fbi-and-autopsy.jpg)

And because there is no report at all of any rear neck wound as marked in the area above the upper back wound in that reenactment photo, this clearly is showing where that wound was if it was simply moved around to the front of the throat.

So I ask you [and others again] - how can a bullet shot from high up heading downward hit that upper back area and exit ABOVE and out of the neck? It's not plausible, Jerry, and goes against any and all things that happen in real life.

'Night, John Boy
'Night, Mary Ellen
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 26, 2019, 06:17:37 PM
Uh, no, Bill. It doesn't. What does make a difference are the markings on the stand-in's backside there. Explain how a bullet heading downward would exit *above* on the other side like the marks show. That's an official reenactment (your heroes) you see there, Bill, and they're going by the autopsy findings, also official.

I agree with the overlay you provided
It comports (roughly) with 14x14cm

I don't see the Kennedy vehicle
I don't see the JFK/JBC stand-ins seated properly

What I see is a shabby reenactment
What I see is the top marking having Kennedy spitting chicklets upon exit

EDIT 1:48 EST
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Michael Walton on November 26, 2019, 06:25:16 PM
I don't see any markings on anyone's backside
I don't see the Kennedy vehicle
I don't see the JFK/JBC stand-ins seated properly

What I see is a shabby reenactment
What I see is the top marking having Kennedy spitting chicklets upon exit

Sure, Bill, sure. So what you're basically saying here is the US government's investigation of the murdered president was "shabby," right?

FINALLY - some truth from the Oswald Did It crowd!

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 26, 2019, 06:29:19 PM
Uh, no, Jerry. That's not what they're doing here. They knew where the wounds were because they were well informed, having seen the autopsy photos. They have the mark on the upper back EXACTLY as seen in Bethesda. Here, see how nice I am - I put this together for you:

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HB1iPBCsDgI/Xd1Uxg_e6EI/AAAAAAAAFdg/eB3aG9ckbQcdoVnMZxY2O8RNsZPsg8oUwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/fbi-and-autopsy.jpg)

And because there is no report at all of any rear neck wound as marked in the area above the upper back wound in that reenactment photo, this clearly is showing where that wound was if it was simply moved around to the front of the throat.

First you claim about the re-enactment photo: "The marks on the back are based on the measurements from the official autopsy and all are very accurate." Now you say "there is no report at all of any rear neck wound as marked in the area above the upper back wound in that reenactment photo".

We're trying to follow what you say but you throw out contradictions and now you've added an autopsy picture.

Quote
So I ask you [and others again] - how can a bullet shot from high up heading downward hit that upper back area and exit ABOVE and out of the neck?

'Night, John Boy
'Night, Mary Ellen

Now you're talking about the autopsy photo (I guess). Have you allowed for the back surface in the autopsy photo being photographed at a much more oblique angle than the re-enactment photo was taken at? A reasonable person wouldn't just take an autopsy photo and slap it onto some other photo without determining if the camera angles were similar.

Quote
It's not plausible, Jerry, and goes against any and all things that happen in real life.

That an autopsy photo was taken at a different camera angle than a motorcade photo seems a "real life" consideration. That Kennedy's posture in the motorcade was different than "perfect posture" seems a legitimate reflection of "real life".
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 26, 2019, 06:43:40 PM
Sure, Bill, sure. So what you're basically saying here is the US government's investigation of the murdered president was "shabby," right?

FINALLY - some truth from the Oswald Did It crowd!

 Thumb1:

I don't agree with the methodology of this particular reenactment. You're the one presenting a reenactment, that is missing the proper ingredients, as the be-all and end-all of official government findings.

The jump seat makes all the difference whether you like it or not.

EDIT: 2:00pm EST
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 26, 2019, 07:21:15 PM
Are you really that obtuse? You literally didn't understand my post? I must have posted the 2 laser challenge a dozen times on this forum and you never understood what I was getting at? Your problem is that you didn't realize the graphic was to show you how to do the experiment, not the experiment itself. Otherwise, CGI can't prove anything because it can defy logic and physics. You need reality.

Skip the CGI and put yourself in any position you like in the 2 laser scenario but actually do a physical re-enactment for a change. The lasers represent a straight line path thru JFK, not the trajectory of the MB from the SN. And remember, you can't fake real!

Now go out there and buy a couple of cheap leveling lasers and a protractor and do the goddamned experiment for yourself, then post your results and make me eat crow. ;D

Your "high-tech" laser test will always produce false positives.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/bf/3c/wdf8qvo1_o.png)

Reasonable person with a legitimate interest in the truth of the case don't want to be misled by magician tricks from conspiracy loons with set-agendas.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 26, 2019, 07:22:04 PM
I don't agree with the methodology of this particular reenactment. You're the one presenting a reenactment, that is missing the proper ingredients, as the be-all and end-all of official government findings.

The jump seat makes all the difference whether you like it or not.

EDIT: 2:00pm EST

How did the jump seat affect the MB bullet path thru JFK? If it can be shown that the trajectory of the MB thru JFK does not match the trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD, then Houston, we have a problem (smoking gun), which all you LNers conveniently ignore, for obvious reasons.

We're through the looking glass here. This comes down to basic geometry and proof that Oswald was not responsible for the MB.

Bump.

The Warren Commission Report attempted to summarize the autopsy:

"The autopsy examination further disclosed that, after entering the President, the bullet passed between two large muscles, produced a contusion on the upper part of the pleural cavity (without penetrating that cavity), bruised the top portion of the right lung and ripped the windpipe (trachea) in its path through the President's neck. The examining surgeons concluded that the wounds were caused by the bullet rather than the tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital. The nature of the bruises indicated that the President's heart and lungs were functioning when the bruises were caused, whereas there was very little circulation in the President's body when incisions on the President's chest were made to insert tubes during the tracheotomy."

The takeaway here being that there was no bruising caused by the tracheotomy, which meant that JFK was already dead. So unless JFK was struggling to breath, why perform one? And why not insert the trach tube into the bullet hole instead of creating a ragged mess? Was that standard procedure?

"No bone was struck by the bullet which passed through the President's body. By projecting from a point of entry on the rear of the neck and proceeding at a slight downward angle through the bruised interior portions, the doctors concluded that the bullet exited from the front portion of the President's neck that had been cut away by the tracheotomy."

Looks like the missile passed thru bone to me, T1 to be specific.

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

I guess they were covering for the intact condition of CE-399 before they were informed it magically created multiple wounds in JFK and Connally, smashing thru at least 3 bones before dropping onto the wrong stretcher without a trace of blood, tissue or bone on it in "swimming pool" condition.

"Concluding that a bullet passed through the President's neck, the doctors at Bethesda Naval Hospital rejected a theory that the bullet lodged in the large muscles in the back of his neck and fell out through the point of entry when external heart massage was applied at Parkland Hospital. In the earlier stages of the autopsy, the surgeons were unable to find a path into any large muscle in the back of the neck. At that time they did not know that there had been a bullet hole in the front of the President's neck when he arrived at Parkland Hospital because the tracheotomy incision had completely eliminated that evidence. While the autopsy was being performed, surgeons learned that a whole bullet had been found at Parkland Hospital on a stretcher which, at that time, was thought to be the stretcher occupied by the President. This led to speculation that the bullet might have penetrated a short distance into the back of the neck and then dropped out onto the stretcher as a result of the external heart massage."

Wherein the Magic Bullet was born. "..dropped out onto the stretcher as a result of the external heart massage". Sure, onto the wrong stretcher. It defies logic to think CE-399 wasn't planted.

"Further exploration during the autopsy disproved that theory. The surgeons determined that the bullet had passed between two large strap muscles and bruised them without leaving any channel, since the bullet merely passed between them. Commander Humes, who believed that a tracheotomy had been performed from his observations at the autopsy, talked by telephone with Dr. Perry early on the morning of November 23, and learned that his assumption was correct and that Dr. Perry had used the missile wound in the neck as the point to make the incision. This confirmed the Bethesda surgeons' conclusion that the bullet had exited from the front part of the neck."

The surgeons' official conclusion was that the magic bullet struck JFK right of center at the T1 vertebrae and exited center of the throat at the C7 vertebrae, without touching bone. However, there are at least 2 things wrong with those assumptions:

1) The missile path could not have avoided the T1 vertebrae (see x-ray above).

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MRI_MB_T1_8b.png)

2) There wasn't a straight line trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD striking JFK's back at T1 and exiting at C7. Given the geometric parameters as established by the WC we have the following scenario:

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/C7_17deg.jpg)

The ONLY way to support the Magic Bullet Theory is to sit in between 2 lasers pointed at each other at a 17 degree angle and reproduce JFK's back/throat wounds then post the results.

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

I've been waiting for years now and still no takers.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 26, 2019, 07:32:17 PM
How did the jump seat affect the MB bullet path thru JFK? If it can be shown that the trajectory of the MB thru JFK does not match the trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD, then Houston, we have a problem (smoking gun), which all you LNers conveniently ignore, for obvious reasons.

We're through the looking glass here. This comes down to basic geometry and proof that Oswald was not responsible for the MB.

Bump.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MRI_MB_T1_8b.png)

That's misleading. The bullet exit through the midline (or slightly left of same) at the lower neck at the front. This graphic has the bullet going through the frontal midline of the trachea.

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

Not missing bone. But thanks for highlighting the air in the missile passage the HSCA consultants said was there.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 26, 2019, 07:40:01 PM
Your "high-tech" laser test will always produce false positives.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/bf/3c/wdf8qvo1_o.png)

Reasonable person with a legitimate interest in the truth of the case don't want to be misled by magician tricks from conspiracy loons with set-agendas.

You actually don't have a basic understanding of geometry and physics, do you? Magician tricks? :D Why are you using my graphic for your ridiculous "slouching" argument? Have a surrogate slouch their ass off and show us how the lasers correctly identify the entrance/exit wounds. Your graphics tell us nothing. We know you are advocating JFK "slouching" to make the MB work, but you can't show us with more useless CGI because you can always twist it to support your LNer agenda!

Are you too cheap to buy a couple of lasers and a protractor and do the experiment for yourself? Costs less than your CAD s/w, unless you pirated it.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 26, 2019, 07:47:33 PM
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/MRI_MB_T1_8b.png)

That's misleading. The bullet exit through the midline (or slightly left of same) at the lower neck at the front. This graphic has the bullet going through the frontal midline of the trachea.

If you say so. But that's not what all the medicos claimed and that includes the conspirators.

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

Not missing bone. But thanks for highlighting the air in the missile passage the HSCA consultants said was there.

So, you must believe the HSCA was correct and this was likely a conspiracy? Good to know. ;D

ps. Humes concluded that the missile missed bone, which is why I put a straight line path thru JFK with no deflection. However, that means the missile entered at T1 and exited at C7, which is impossible if it came from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Maybe you want to reconsider? Or will your agenda prevent you from doing so?

Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Michael Walton on November 26, 2019, 08:49:53 PM
First you claim about the re-enactment photo: "The marks on the back are based on the measurements from the official autopsy and all are very accurate." Now you say "there is no report at all of any rear neck wound as marked in the area above the upper back wound in that reenactment photo".

We're trying to follow what you say but you throw out contradictions and now you've added an autopsy picture.

Now you're talking about the autopsy photo (I guess). Have you allowed for the back surface in the autopsy photo being photographed at a much more oblique angle than the re-enactment photo was taken at? A reasonable person wouldn't just take an autopsy photo and slap it onto some other photo without determining if the camera angles were similar.

That an autopsy photo was taken at a different camera angle than a motorcade photo seems a "real life" consideration. That Kennedy's posture in the motorcade was different than "perfect posture" seems a legitimate reflection of "real life".

You obviously have either a reading comprehension defect or can't keep track of running commentary. I feel sorry for you [eh, not really...]

If you can't stay on the ball here, then get off the field please. And here - find a copy as this may help...

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6b/27/df/6b27df048ef8082d7fb3388b8dae9446.jpg)
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Michael Walton on November 26, 2019, 08:58:15 PM
I don't agree with the methodology of this particular reenactment. You're the one presenting a reenactment, that is missing the proper ingredients, as the be-all and end-all of official government findings.

The jump seat makes all the difference whether you like it or not.

EDIT: 2:00pm EST

Sure, Bill, sure. So now we're into the methodology of it. LOL. And proper ingredients. Sounds rich. You can't have it both ways, Bill. You can't buy all into it while also disagreeing with methodologies and proper ingredients, Bill. If that's the case, what about the methodologies and proper ingredients of the Magic Bullet doing all it supposedly did? And so on...

We're getting into Patty Cake territory now. Sure, Bill, sure.

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/610inNLHtIL.jpg)
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 26, 2019, 09:11:50 PM
You actually don't have a basic understanding of geometry and physics, do you? Magician tricks? :D Why are you using my graphic for your ridiculous "slouching" argument? Have a surrogate slouch their ass off and show us how the lasers correctly identify the entrance/exit wounds. Your graphics tell us nothing. We know you are advocating JFK "slouching" to make the MB work, but you can't show us with more useless CGI because you can always twist it to support your LNer agenda!

Nothing would ever convince you. I merely expect reasonable visitors to the Forum to compare what we have both put forward.

Quote
Are you too cheap to buy a couple of lasers and a protractor and do the experiment for yourself?

Duncan would charge you absolutely nothing to add a sentence cautioning laser-test "experimenters" to conform to Kennedy's posture in the motorcade.

Quote
Costs less than your CAD s/w, unless you pirated it.

3D work I post (none in this topic so far, BTW) is done using SketchUp Make (free; can't afford the Pro version). Most of my 2D work is done using a $10 "PhotoImpact" disc I bought at a checkout over ten years ago. A good 3D artist can do more in Make than a mediocre 3D artist can do with programs costing hundreds and thousands.

You obviously have either a reading comprehension defect or can't keep track of running commentary. I feel sorry for you [eh, not really...]

If you can't stay on the ball here, then get off the field please. And here - find a copy as this may help...

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6b/27/df/6b27df048ef8082d7fb3388b8dae9446.jpg)

Ewww! I'm quaking in my wellies. Looks like we got us another Cartoon Ernie.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Mytton on November 26, 2019, 09:59:42 PM
Your "high-tech" laser test will always produce false positives.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/bf/3c/wdf8qvo1_o.png)

Reasonable person with a legitimate interest in the truth of the case don't want to be misled by magician tricks from conspiracy loons with set-agendas.

 Thumb1:

I agree it's only reasonable to be fair and compare apples with apples but a lot of what the CT community does is deliberately paint a misleading picture of what happened.
Like above, they make a layman claim and demand that you prove them wrong, it's totally absurd, if Jack of all trades, master of none, was actually genuine he'd show us his "laser experiment" results and I have asked him plenty of times to show us but he just repeats the same demand that I prove him wrong over and over.

Another consideration is that Kennedy's well conditioned body shape is a factor and he wasn't some generic long necked skinny guy sitting on a chair.

(https://i.postimg.cc/85vSTvzt/JFK-ocean-zps324a7076.jpg)

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQfJ-Wd_Cc1m1J0Rr1mqaTp5rt11OML_ExWz220yZ5YDgeIK0oM)

And this demonstration is hardly a fair representation of reality and is downright criminal, how can Wecht honestly sleep at night? and it looks like these models are just teenagers, how dare Wecht expose these innocent young minds to such deception? and if it's at a school with kids in the audience then shame on him!

(https://i.postimg.cc/vmkyRhb4/wecht-sbt.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 26, 2019, 10:11:44 PM
How did the jump seat affect the MB bullet path thru JFK? If it can be shown that the trajectory of the MB thru JFK does not match the trajectory from the 6th floor of the TSBD, then Houston, we have a problem (smoking gun), which all you LNers conveniently ignore, for obvious reasons.

We're through the looking glass here. This comes down to basic geometry and proof that Oswald was not responsible for the MB.

Bump.

Do us all a solid and place JBC in the picture. You have to include the both of them if you are going to deny a twofer. Still, that drawing on your White Paper (apparently) is as generic as the JFK face sheet and means SFA to me.

However, I prefer photographs such as Croft with a 17 degree trajectory line applied. Close enough!

Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Mytton on November 26, 2019, 10:19:48 PM
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcR_dLlz6p4JPUGsR7jdOitkRR0HmMDn2xwoYLnAJT34Kdzo5Aq7)

When both men are lined up directly back to the snipers nest window, at that EXACT same point in time in Zapruder in a fraction of a second we see;

Connally's jacket lapel explode forward.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-94Smfj5-wQ4/UolSwlgbXNI/AAAAAAAAw1w/2t04L3GlQPY/s530/110.+Z223-Z224+Toggling+Clip.gif)

As Kennedy raises his hand to his throat, Connally's right wrist, the same wrist that was struck by a bullet also reacts.

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

Both men are violently reacting simultaneously.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/Xyf3minuoxuBq/giphy.gif)

There's quite a bit of footage of the two men as they drove through Dallas and besides waving, at no time in this footage did they show these extreme reactions.

JohnM
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 26, 2019, 10:30:38 PM
Sure, Bill, sure. So now we're into the methodology of it. LOL. And proper ingredients. Sounds rich. You can't have it both ways, Bill. You can't buy all into it while also disagreeing with methodologies and proper ingredients, Bill. If that's the case, what about the methodologies and proper ingredients of the Magic Bullet doing all it supposedly did? And so on...

We're getting into Patty Cake territory now. Sure, Bill, sure.

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/610inNLHtIL.jpg)

Sticks & stones.

In the meantime, show us what I 'bought into' exactly.

And just for the record, what I don't 'buy into' is the absence of a JBC figure in a drawing supposedly meant to trash the twofer.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 26, 2019, 10:47:54 PM
 :D You mad fools! You STILL don't get it. No wonder you're LNers, you have no sense of logic or critical thinking.

I can't show you that the MB can't be done. That would be trying to prove a negative and you would accuse me of not trying hard enough. Only you can prove it was possible and you sure as hell can't do it with drawings and graphics. You guys have to get off the pot and conduct a real live physical experiment for once in your lives.

If you are so damned sure that JFK's slouch allowed the MB to "work fine", then bloody well show it with a re-enactment.  Slouch in your chair just like JFK did (or find someone who can) and position yourself so that the high laser strikes you 2 inches right of the spine at the T1 vertebrae and the low laser strikes you in the throat at the C7 vertebrae. Then take a couple of photos showing your body position and the 2 laser dots that makes the MB work fine. You don't even have to post the photos. They are your own personal proof that the MB was possible and no one can take that away from you!  ;)

As for Mytton, he's just barely competent enough to know the significance of doing this laser re-enactment, which is why he did it long ago hoping to make me eat crow. I'm still waiting.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jim Brunsman on November 26, 2019, 11:02:35 PM
The jump seat is irrelevant since the shot to JFK's back did not exit according to the witnesses at Bethesda. End of SBT, which was a boneheaded idea to begin with.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 26, 2019, 11:08:12 PM
:D You mad fools! You STILL don't get it. No wonder you're LNers, you have no sense of logic or critical thinking.

I can't show you that the MB can't be done. That would be trying to prove a negative and you would accuse me of not trying hard enough. Only you can prove it was possible and you sure as hell can't do it with drawings and graphics. You guys have to get off the pot and conduct a real live physical experiment for once in your lives.

If you are so damned sure that JFK's slouch allowed the MB to "work fine", then bloody well show it with a re-enactment.  Slouch in your chair just like JFK did (or find someone who can) and position yourself so that the high laser strikes you 2 inches right of the spine at the T1 vertebrae and the low laser strikes you in the throat at the C7 vertebrae. Then take a couple of photos showing your body position and the 2 laser dots that makes the MB work fine. You don't even have to post the photos. They are your own personal proof that the MB was possible and no one can take that away from you!  ;)

As for Mytton, he's just barely competent enough to know the significance of doing this laser re-enactment, which is why he did it long ago hoping to make me eat crow. I'm still waiting.

I fully agree with you.... Though I've never performed the Laser experiment.   I've known for years that there were no shots fired from the SE corner window. There are many physical reasons that nobody could have shot President Kennedy from that window, and they have been enumerated  many times by many different posters.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 27, 2019, 02:43:20 AM
Why do people keep referring to Croft when nobody believes that the alleged single bullet hit JFK at the time of Croft?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Mytton on November 27, 2019, 04:48:53 AM
Why do people keep referring to Croft when nobody believes that the alleged single bullet hit JFK at the time of Croft?

Croft was taken at Zapruder frame 161.

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hunt/z161croft.jpg)

This GIF is the Zapruder film from Z161 through to after Kennedy emerges from behind the sign.

(https://i.postimg.cc/RVGmcwy3/zap-z161-z230.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 27, 2019, 05:26:37 AM
Croft was taken at Zapruder frame 161.

This GIF is the Zapruder film from Z161 through to after Kennedy emerges from behind the sign.

And your point would be . . . ?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 27, 2019, 04:37:09 PM
Why do people keep referring to Croft when nobody believes that the alleged single bullet hit JFK at the time of Croft?

   nobody  Walt believes that the alleged single bullet hit JFK at the time of Croft?

 Mr Iacoletti .....   I'm not sure how precise you are being when you say the single bullet hit JFK at the instant that Croft snapped the shutter.....But I believe that Croft snapped the shutter a split second after the bullet passed through JFK's throat .....However my name is not Nobody.....
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 27, 2019, 05:02:08 PM
Fair enough - I didn’t know that.

But none of the SBT LNers who are using Croft as a posture and “jacket-bunch” reference think that a bullet hit him then.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 27, 2019, 05:37:57 PM
Like above, they make a layman claim and demand that you prove them wrong, it's totally absurd, if Jack of all trades, master of none, was actually genuine he'd show us his "laser experiment" results and I have asked him plenty of times to show us but he just repeats the same demand that I prove him wrong over and over.

Trojan's experiment is right out of Rube Goldberg.

Imagine using a protractor on a laser. And do you need positional mounts for the lasers? Do you mount the back laser on the wall or ceiling?

Instead of two lasers, you only need one. Position the laser and take a photo with no one there, and without moving the camera, take another with a person breaking the beam. Then superimpose the pictures.

But first you need to measure the laser beam angle on the photo until it gets to 17-degrees, assuming the camera is at a right angle to the laser beam. That's just the technical set-up. One has to figure out the posture requirements, which renders the whole experiment subjective.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 27, 2019, 06:46:30 PM
Trojan's experiment is right out of Rube Goldberg.

Imagine using a protractor on a laser. And do you need positional mounts for the lasers? Do you mount the back laser on the wall or ceiling?

Instead of two lasers, you only need one. Position the laser and take a photo with no one there, and without moving the camera, take another with a person breaking the beam. Then superimpose the pictures.

But first you need to measure the laser beam angle on the photo until it gets to 17-degrees, assuming the camera is at a right angle to the laser beam. That's just the technical set-up. One has to figure out the posture requirements, which renders the whole experiment subjective.

Jerry, why aren't you getting this? The set up couldn't be easier or clearer. You just need to understand geometry a little better than you do. You can easily angle the low laser 17 degrees by using a tiny bit of trig to work out the opposite and adjacent sides of the triangle. The opposite side is where you position the high laser and you position it exactly where the red dot from the low laser strikes it. Then you aim the high laser at the low laser so that they have a coincident alignment of their beams. With this the set up is complete.

And yes, you do need 2 lasers to simulate the straight line path thru your body to identify the entrance and exit wounds. You can't do that with a single laser because you need simultaneous red dots on your body estimating the MB wounds. You certainly can't take one photo, move the laser and take another photo and expect your body to be in the exact same position as the 1st photo. Comprende?

When you find a solution that works fine, note your body position and compare that to JFK's. If you think you have a match then post the results and make me eat crow.

2 leveling lasers cost me $35 bucks, I found an old protractor from grade school (even though you can use trig instead), I used a camera tripod on a table for the high laser and it took me about 10 minutes to set the whole thing up. And after many minutes of work, I just couldn't make the MB work for me. Maybe you will have better luck. As for JFK, he must have had a grossly disfigured spine or he was bent over so far he could kiss his own ass goodbye.

We can poo-poo each other's graphics until the cows come home, and rightly so, but you can't effectively argue against a re-enactment with a surrogate based on valid geometry. EOS.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Vincent Baxter on November 27, 2019, 06:49:15 PM
:D You mad fools! You STILL don't get it. No wonder you're LNers, you have no sense of logic or critical thinking.

I can't show you that the MB can't be done. That would be trying to prove a negative and you would accuse me of not trying hard enough. Only you can prove it was possible and you sure as hell can't do it with drawings and graphics. You guys have to get off the pot and conduct a real live physical experiment for once in your lives.

If you are so damned sure that JFK's slouch allowed the MB to "work fine", then bloody well show it with a re-enactment.  Slouch in your chair just like JFK did (or find someone who can) and position yourself so that the high laser strikes you 2 inches right of the spine at the T1 vertebrae and the low laser strikes you in the throat at the C7 vertebrae. Then take a couple of photos showing your body position and the 2 laser dots that makes the MB work fine. You don't even have to post the photos. They are your own personal proof that the MB was possible and no one can take that away from you!  ;)

As for Mytton, he's just barely competent enough to know the significance of doing this laser re-enactment, which is why he did it long ago hoping to make me eat crow. I'm still waiting.

Surely, it's already been proven to be possible as that's what happened on 22nd November, 1963 so there's no need for a re-enactment.

If you're saying the shot didn't come from the 6th floor of the Texas Book Depository, where are you suggesting it came from then? Or are you disregarding the majority of every witness in Dealey Plaza that day's testimony? Where did your non-existent laser experiment pin point the shot to come from?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 27, 2019, 06:53:30 PM
Croft is in the ballpark, given that it's so close to the twofer
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Vincent Baxter on November 27, 2019, 06:57:57 PM
Jerry, why aren't you getting this? The set up couldn't be easier or clearer. You just need to understand geometry a little better than you do. You can easily angle the low laser 17 degrees by using a tiny bit of trig to work out the opposite and adjacent sides of the triangle. The opposite side is where you position the high laser and you position it exactly where the red dot from the low laser strikes it. Then you aim the high laser at the low laser so that they have a coincident alignment of their beams. With this the set up is complete.

And yes, you do need 2 lasers to simulate the straight line path thru your body to identify the entrance and exit wounds. You can't do that with a single laser because you need simultaneous red dots on your body estimating the MB wounds. You certainly can't take one photo, move the laser and take another photo and expect your body to be in the exact same position as the 1st photo. Comprende?

When you find a solution that works fine, note your body position and compare that to JFK's. If you think you have a match then post the results and make me eat crow.

2 leveling lasers cost me $35 bucks, I found an old protractor from grade school (even though you can use trig instead), I used a camera tripod for the high laser and it took me about 10 minutes to set the whole thing up. And after many minutes of work, I just couldn't make the MB work for me. Maybe you will have better luck. As for JFK, he must have had a grossly disfigured spine or he was bent over so far he could kiss his own ass goodbye.

We can poo-poo each other's graphics until the cows come home, and rightly so, but you can't effectively argue against a re-enactment with a surrogate based on valid geometry. EOS.

You can't re-enact this with levelling lasers that cost you $35 bucks. You can't re-enact it by shooting real bullets through ram's heads or silicon wrapped in animal skin. The shot, the bullet, the rifle, the angle, the reaction of the live human body muscles as the bullet makes contact, the ricochet off human bone, etc. make the shot truly unique and totally impossible to re-enact.
No matter how many times you do it, no matter whether you shoot at a living person or synthetic you WILL NOT get an accurate or identical outcome so why bother to argue that it didn't happen?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 27, 2019, 07:19:40 PM
Surely, it's already been proven to be possible as that's what happened on 22nd November, 1963 so there's no need for a re-enactment.

If you're saying the shot didn't come from the 6th floor of the Texas Book Depository, where are you suggesting it came from then? Or are you disregarding the majority of every witness in Dealey Plaza that day's testimony? Where did your non-existent laser experiment pin point the shot to come from?

"..already proven possible..because it happened". Not very scientific or logical of you to see no need for a re-enactment, and don't call me Shirley. ;D

What the laser experiment demonstrates to you is that at the moment that JFK was struck by the MB it could not have taken a straight line path into JFK's back and out his throat if the shot came from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Otherwise, conduct the experiment yourself and prove me wrong. Don't just tell me I'm wrong because you don't understand the experiment.

Given the angle of the MB thru JFK, its only valid trajectory was from the 2nd floor of the Dal-Tex building. You asked. ;)
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 27, 2019, 07:30:23 PM
You can't re-enact this with levelling lasers that cost you $35 bucks. You can't re-enact it by shooting real bullets through ram's heads or silicon wrapped in animal skin. The shot, the bullet, the rifle, the angle, the reaction of the live human body muscles as the bullet makes contact, the ricochet off human bone, etc. make the shot truly unique and totally impossible to re-enact.
No matter how many times you do it, no matter whether you shoot at a living person or synthetic you WILL NOT get an accurate or identical outcome so why bother to argue that it didn't happen?

I'm using your LNer criteria to test the MB, which doesn't include any ricochet off JFK's bones. Humes concluded the bullet took a straight line path thru JFK without touching bone. That's why the MB was pristine and showed up on the wrong stretcher. Forget that it smashed thru Connally's bones and according to you, ricocheted off JFK's spine.

What my experiment tells you is that it couldn't have happened the way the WC said it did. Isn't that worth a re-enactment?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Vincent Baxter on November 27, 2019, 07:40:05 PM
"..already proven possible..because it happened". Not very scientific or logical of you to see no need for a re-enactment, and don't call me Shirley. ;D

What the laser experiment demonstrates to you is that at the moment that JFK was struck by the MB it could not have taken a straight line path into JFK's back and out his throat if the shot came from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Otherwise, conduct the experiment yourself and prove me wrong. Don't just tell me I'm wrong because you don't understand the experiment.

Given the angle of the MB thru JFK, its only valid trajectory was from the 2nd floor of the Dal-Tex building. You asked. ;)

Why are you so convinced that nobody on here understands the concept of your experiment? I do understand it but, as stated elsewhere on this topic thread, it's impossible to re-enact a once in infinity occurrence.

Assuming that you did get President Kennedy's posture correct, your laser experiment then presumes that absolutely nothing interfered with the bullet's trajectory from the moment the shot was fired until the bullet exited the President's throat. A laser cannot measure the exact angle the bullet left the rifle, the conditions in Dealey Plaza that day, how the bullet reacted when ripping through live human muscle and flesh, etc. Even the most unbelievably minuscule slight movement would effect the outcome. The reaction of a live bullet traveling through a live human body cannot be measured by a laser and even shooting a live person through the back of the neck from the same angle wouldn't have the same outcome. It just doesn't work like that.

It already happened, that's it you can't recreate it. You can't ask someone to re-enact something like this.
Conspiracy theorists don't believe two planes flying into the World Trade Centre would cause both towers to collapse but it happened. I suppose you'd ask someone to re-enact that t prove it's possible too?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Peter Goth on November 27, 2019, 07:47:18 PM
Why are you so convinced that nobody on here understands the concept of your experiment? I do understand it but, as stated elsewhere on this topic thread, it's impossible to re-enact a once in infinity occurrence.

Assuming that you did get President Kennedy's posture correct, your laser experiment then presumes that absolutely nothing interfered with the bullet's trajectory from the moment the shot was fired until the bullet exited the President's throat. A laser cannot measure the exact angle the bullet left the rifle, the conditions in Dealey Plaza that day, how the bullet reacted when ripping through live human muscle and flesh, etc. Even the most unbelievably minuscule slight movement would effect the outcome. The reaction of a live bullet traveling through a live human body cannot be measured by a laser and even shooting a live person through the back of the neck from the same angle wouldn't have the same outcome. It just doesn't work like that.

It already happened, that's it you can't recreate it. You can't ask someone to re-enact something like this.
Conspiracy theorists don't believe two planes flying into the World Trade Centre would cause both towers to collapse but it happened. I suppose you'd ask someone to re-enact that t prove it's possible too?

 :D you talk like Mytton.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Vincent Baxter on November 27, 2019, 07:50:08 PM
I'm using your LNer criteria to test the MB, which doesn't include any ricochet off JFK's bones. Humes concluded the bullet took a straight line path thru JFK without touching bone. That's why the MB was pristine and showed up on the wrong stretcher. Forget that it smashed thru Connally's bones and according to you, ricocheted off JFK's spine.

What my experiment tells you is that it couldn't have happened the way the WC said it did. Isn't that worth a re-enactment?

Yeah, I was referring to the bullet hitting Connally as well with regards to the human bone, but I realise we're only talking about it's movement until it exit's Kennedy's throat so my bad there.

If a 100% accurate test could be done, then yes, but people can't even agree on the posture or position of JFK at the time of the shooting so how can you accurately do a test?

Am I correct in thinking that not a single person in Dealey Plaza that day testified to saying they believed shots came from the Dal-Tex building? (That is indeed a question not a statement as I can't say for sure)
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 27, 2019, 07:55:09 PM
Jerry, why aren't you getting this? The set up couldn't be easier or clearer. You just need to understand geometry a little better than you do. You can easily angle the low laser 17 degrees by using a tiny bit of trig to work out the opposite and adjacent sides of the triangle. The opposite side is where you position the high laser and you position it exactly where the red dot from the low laser strikes it. Then you aim the high laser at the low laser so that they have a coincident alignment of their beams. With this the set up is complete.

And yes, you do need 2 lasers to simulate the straight line path thru your body to identify the entrance and exit wounds. You can't do that with a single laser because you need simultaneous red dots on your body estimating the MB wounds. You certainly can't take one photo, move the laser and take another photo and expect your body to be in the exact same position as the 1st photo. Comprende?

I didn't say to have a model in the picture before ensuring there appeared a 17-degree beam angle in the picture. You start doing model shots with a site-fixed camera AFTER the beam angle is set. Preferably having someone on the camera directing the model. Someone aware of Kennedy's actual position in the motorcade.

Quote
When you find a solution that works fine, note your body position and compare that to JFK's. If you think you have a match then post the results and make me eat crow.

Great. When are we going to see your laser-experiment photos to compare your body position to JFK's?

Quote
2 leveling lasers cost me $35 bucks, I found an old protractor from grade school (even though you can use trig instead), I used a camera tripod on a table for the high laser and it took me about 10 minutes to set the whole thing up. And after many minutes of work, I just couldn't make the MB work for me. Maybe you will have better luck. As for JFK, he must have had a grossly disfigured spine or he was bent over so far he could kiss his own ass goodbye.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/bf/3c/wdf8qvo1_o.png)

This represents "a grossly disfigured spine" and/or Olympic-style contortion?

Quote
We can poo-poo each other's graphics until the cows come home, and rightly so, but you can't effectively argue against a re-enactment with a surrogate based on valid geometry. EOS.

No one's disputing the ability to construct a 17-degree laser beam and take a picture of someone sitting in its path. When we now need to do is see how close your body position is to Kennedy's in the motorcade. If off, we can declare your own personal experiment, rather than the MB, a failure. What you're doing is declaring the MB a failure based on a personal experiment that hasn't been vetted.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Vincent Baxter on November 27, 2019, 07:55:46 PM
:D you talk like Mytton.

Yes, you've said that before, Goth.
Yet another fascinating insight and contribution to the discussion from yourself.

Do enlighten us with your method of re-enacting a completely authentic and accurate test of the shot, or are you just going to leave us all with your usual contribution of your infinite wisdom of "you talk like Mytton"?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 27, 2019, 10:32:11 PM
Surely, it's already been proven to be possible as that's what happened on 22nd November, 1963 so there's no need for a re-enactment.

Circular argument (n.): see circular argument
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 27, 2019, 11:08:44 PM
Surely, it's already been proven to be possible as that's what happened on 22nd November, 1963 so there's no need for a re-enactment.

Circular argument (n.): see circular argument

Not only that, but also a contradiction, when one considers this is what he said next...

You can't re-enact this with levelling lasers that cost you $35 bucks. You can't re-enact it by shooting real bullets through ram's heads or silicon wrapped in animal skin. The shot, the bullet, the rifle, the angle, the reaction of the live human body muscles as the bullet makes contact, the ricochet off human bone, etc. make the shot truly unique and totally impossible to re-enact.
No matter how many times you do it, no matter whether you shoot at a living person or synthetic you WILL NOT get an accurate or identical outcome so why bother to argue that it didn't happen?

How in the world can Baxter argue that the shot has been proven, when next he says that it's impossible to re-enact the shot?

It's classic LN crap again; "I say the shot happened that way and since you can not prove it didn't happen, I win by default" Pathetic!
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 27, 2019, 11:46:01 PM
I didn't say to have a model in the picture before ensuring there appeared a 17-degree beam angle in the picture. You start doing model shots with a site-fixed camera AFTER the beam angle is set. Preferably having someone on the camera directing the model. Someone aware of Kennedy's actual position in the motorcade.

Now you're getting it.

Quote
Great. When are we going to see your laser-experiment photos to compare your body position to JFK's?

You would never believe my photos were legit. This exp is for you to corroborate or refute your own graphics.

Quote
(https://images2.imgbox.com/bf/3c/wdf8qvo1_o.png)

This represents "a grossly disfigured spine" and/or Olympic-style contortion?

No, but it also doesn't represent a solution either. Unless you are a photogrammetrist applying a physics engine (CAD s/w), graphics can never give you the answer because at best they are a 3D projection on a 2D medium (screen). However, you can't fake a real surrogate.

Quote
No one's disputing the ability to construct a 17-degree laser beam and take a picture of someone sitting in its path. When we now need to do is see how close your body position is to Kennedy's in the motorcade. If off, we can declare your own personal experiment, rather than the MB, a failure. What you're doing is declaring the MB a failure based on a personal experiment that hasn't been vetted.

I'm not declaring anything. I only proffer that this experiment is a means for you LNers to put your money where your mouth is and prove that the MB was possible. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it was impossible, but if it prevents you from posting your graphics that don't tell us anything useful and certainly don't prove your point, then it will have been worth it.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 28, 2019, 12:53:07 AM
Now you're getting it.

Laddie boy, we're all getting onto you.

Quote
You would never believe my photos were legit. This exp is for you to corroborate or refute your own graphics.

Oh, I'm pretty sure you're incapable of convincing PhotoShopping. What I believe is that your photos are authentic but they conflict with the President's posture in the motorcade. Perhaps we'll all see what controls are present, like a camera-operator and still model.

Quote
No, but it also doesn't represent a solution either. Unless you are a photogrammetrist applying a physics engine (CAD s/w), graphics can never give you the answer because at best they are a 3D projection on a 2D medium (screen). However, you can't fake a real surrogate.

Evidently a surrogate can sit anyway he wants and proclaim results without documentation. As far as we know, this is how you posed and the extent of your camera angle.

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

This sets a new standard. I can do 3D work and simply proclaim my results without publishing.

Quote
I'm not declaring anything.

     "What my experiment tells you is that it couldn't
      have happened the way the WC said it did."

We've gone thru the looking glass, alright.

Quote
I only proffer that this experiment is a means for you LNers to put your money where your mouth is and prove that the MB was possible. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean it was impossible, but if it prevents you from posting your graphics that don't tell us anything useful and certainly don't prove your point, then it will have been worth it.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/bf/3c/wdf8qvo1_o.png)

Wow. It's now a cheat to utilize motorcade photos to demonstrate actual body positions. You're not Andrew Mason?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Vincent Baxter on November 28, 2019, 01:00:58 AM
Not only that, but also a contradiction, when one considers this is what he said next...

How in the world can Baxter argue that the shot has been proven, when next he says that it's impossible to re-enact the shot?

It's classic LN crap again; "I say the shot happened that way and since you can not prove it didn't happen, I win by default" Pathetic!

Not quite sure what you're point is here, Weidmann. It's comes across as if you're saying that the shot can't be proven to have happened simply because I've said it's impossible to accurately re-enact it. Maybe you need to reword your argument because at the moment that clearly just doesn't make any sense.

I'm not personally saying the shot happened that way, clearly I haven't done my own investigation into it and I'm nowhere even near qualified to do so even if I wanted to, but this was the official verdict given by a team of respected professionals who were qualified to do such an investigation. Now, when you take everything into account and the evidence and facts that have been laid out on this matter, I personally choose to believe that that was the way it happened.
Even the majority of CTs have long dismissed the magic bullet argument and acknowledge that Oswald (most likely) shot bullet CE399 from the 6th floor TBD window. Its the third and fatal shot that is where most people disagree.

All you seem to do is refute everyones opinion by saying "Facts? Where are your facts that this is 100% what happened?" offering absolutely no facts or counter argument yourself to prove otherwise. Yeah, I know you're going to come back with your usual "You said something so you need to prove it, I don't have to provide evidence to say it's not true" which is all very repetitive, lazy and extremely convenient for you, isn't it?

What do you actually believe? All you go on about is needing "facts" and considering there are very few 100% dead cert facts in this entire case people come to their own conclusions based on what information is out there. Are you totally on the fence with no opinion one way or the other until someone finally comes up with actual hard evidence?

All I've ever seen you do is dismiss everything you don't agree with by asking for "proof" and "evidence" without ever making any decent points or counter arguments yourself. Basically, Weidmann, you're just very boring.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 28, 2019, 02:45:25 AM
Not quite sure what you're point is here, Weidmann. It's comes across as if you're saying that the shot can't be proven to have happened simply because I've said it's impossible to accurately re-enact it. Maybe you need to reword your argument because at the moment that clearly just doesn't make any sense.

I'm not personally saying the shot happened that way, clearly I haven't done my own investigation into it and I'm nowhere even near qualified to do so even if I wanted to, but this was the official verdict given by a team of respected professionals who were qualified to do such an investigation. Now, when you take everything into account and the evidence and facts that have been laid out on this matter, I personally choose to believe that that was the way it happened.
Even the majority of CTs have long dismissed the magic bullet argument and acknowledge that Oswald (most likely) shot bullet CE399 from the 6th floor TBD window. Its the third and fatal shot that is where most people disagree.

All you seem to do is refute everyones opinion by saying "Facts? Where are your facts that this is 100% what happened?" offering absolutely no facts or counter argument yourself to prove otherwise. Yeah, I know you're going to come back with your usual "You said something so you need to prove it, I don't have to provide evidence to say it's not true" which is all very repetitive, lazy and extremely convenient for you, isn't it?

What do you actually believe? All you go on about is needing "facts" and considering there are very few 100% dead cert facts in this entire case people come to their own conclusions based on what information is out there. Are you totally on the fence with no opinion one way or the other until someone finally comes up with actual hard evidence?

All I've ever seen you do is dismiss everything you don't agree with by asking for "proof" and "evidence" without ever making any decent points or counter arguments yourself. Basically, Weidmann, you're just very boring.

Not quite sure what you're point is here, Weidmann.

Now, there's a surprise...

but this was the official verdict given by a team of respected professionals who were qualified to do such an investigation.

Are you serious or just oblivious to the facts? The Magic Bullet theory (it's not called that for nothing) was Arlen Specter's invention when they ended up with only two bullets to account for all the wounds. The alternative would have been more that three bullets and thus a conspiracy. And they didn't want to go there...

I personally choose to believe that that was the way it happened.

Great. That means what you believe can also be wrong which in turn means that anything you claim like "the shot has been proven" is just your belief and not worth a damn thing.

Even the majority of CTs have long dismissed the magic bullet argument and acknowledge that Oswald (most likely) shot bullet CE399 from the 6th floor TBD window.

Really? That's strange, because most CTs I know don't even believe that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was fired that day or ever was at Parkland Hospital.

All you seem to do is refute everyones opinion by saying "Facts? Where are your facts that this is 100% what happened?" offering absolutely no facts or counter argument yourself to prove otherwise.

Having an opinion is one thing, presenting it as fact (as most, if not all LNs do) is an entirely different matter. Facts always trump opinions. Don't claim something happened if you can't back it up with factual evidence.

Yeah, I know you're going to come back with your usual "You said something so you need to prove it, I don't have to provide evidence to say it's not true" which is all very repetitive, lazy and extremely convenient for you, isn't it?

Yes, it's also the way it should be. You make a claim, you prove it. What is it with guys like you? You just want to make wild and unsupported claims without being able to back them up with evidence? Ain't gonna happen!

What do you actually believe?

I believe that Kennedy and Tippit were both murdered and that there are (on both sides of the argument) individuals who are not able or willing to honestly discuss the case and who are only defending their biased opinions

All you go on about is needing "facts" and considering there are very few 100% dead cert facts in this entire case people come to their own conclusions based on what information is out there.

That's fair enough as long as those conclusions are not presented as "fact" and there is a willingness to discuss those conclusions with an open mind.

Are you totally on the fence with no opinion one way or the other

Yes, I have no predetermined opinion and in many ways, at this point in time, I couldn't care less if Oswald did it alone or if there was a conspiracy. I just want to try to find out for myself what actually happened. Not that it will make a damn bit of difference one way of the other, in the bigger scheme of things. Oswald has been dead for 56 years, history books have been written and the world keeps on turning regardless of my opinion. Which is exactly why I never give my opinion. I just want to examine the details of the case and for that I need facts!

All I've ever seen you do is dismiss everything you don't agree with by asking for "proof" and "evidence" without ever making any decent points or counter arguments yourself.

If that's all you've ever seen, than you haven't looked well and far enough. The notion that I dismiss something because I don't agree with it is absurd. I ask for proof and evidence to learn more about the substance of the argument being made. And as for "decent points or counter arguments", you really should check my posting history. When you do, you will not only find that you are wrong, but also that LNs very quickly run from the actual facts simply because they can not answer simple questions.

Basically, Weidmann, you're just very boring.

 :D
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 28, 2019, 03:40:48 AM
Laddie boy, we're all getting onto you.

Oh, I'm pretty sure you're incapable of convincing PhotoShopping. What I believe is that your photos are authentic but they conflict with the President's posture in the motorcade. Perhaps we'll all see what controls are present, like a camera-operator and still model.

Just when I thought you were getting it you prove me wrong. You're like a dog with a bone. Would you stop referencing my graphic like it was the results of my experiment. It was merely instructional for the set up for YOU to conduct the experiment yourself and slouch any goddamned way you like JUST LIKE YOU THINK JFK DID, and get the magic bullet wounds to line up with the lasers. GEEZUS!

Quote
Evidently a surrogate can sit anyway he wants and proclaim results without documentation. As far as we know, this is how you posed and the extent of your camera angle.

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

This sets a new standard. I can do 3D work and simply proclaim my results without publishing.

For Christsakes, my only claim was that I couldn't prove the MB was possible. BUT YOU CAN! If you comprehended any of this, that is.  I don't expect you to believe me and I especially don't expect you to believe my setup graphics are my results. How many times to I have to say that? A LNer says what?

Quote

     "What my experiment tells you is that it couldn't
      have happened the way the WC said it did."

We've gone thru the looking glass, alright.


Always an agenda with you LNers. Paranoid much? I give you the perfect chance to prove me wrong and make me eat crow and all you can do is spombleprofglidnoctobuns the bed.

Quote
(https://images2.imgbox.com/bf/3c/wdf8qvo1_o.png)

Wow. It's now a cheat to utilize motorcade photos to demonstrate actual body positions. You're not Andrew Mason?

Yes, it is a cheat for you to use unregistered imagery from 2D film, ortho-rectify it and render a 3D CGI model in ArcGIS and use the physics engine to prove the Magic Bullet trajectory, unless you can actually do it? Can you? Way easier and cheaper using 2 lasers and a surrogate. After all, if you can get someone to make it work, then you win! Try that with a CAD app and if you succeed, I will eat a bug.


Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 28, 2019, 02:24:13 PM
Just when I thought you were getting it you prove me wrong. You're like a dog with a bone. Would you stop referencing my graphic like it was the results of my experiment. It was merely instructional for the set up for YOU to conduct the experiment yourself and slouch any goddamned way you like JUST LIKE YOU THINK JFK DID, and get the magic bullet wounds to line up with the lasers. GEEZUS!

For Christsakes, my only claim was that I couldn't prove the MB was possible.

Now your claim is conditional, but before ...

    "What my experiment tells you is that it couldn't
      have happened the way the WC said it did."

Quote
BUT YOU CAN! If you comprehended any of this, that is.  I don't expect you to believe me and I especially don't expect you to believe my setup graphics are my results. How many times to I have to say that? A LNer says what?

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

This is the only imagery you've given us.

Quote
Always an agenda with you LNers. Paranoid much? I give you the perfect chance to prove me wrong and make me eat crow and all you can do is spombleprofglidnoctobuns the bed.

So if one does the experiment and the laser strikes match the wound sites from the JFK autopsy, one simply proclaims it and doesn't have to show their pictures?

Quote
Yes, it is a cheat for you to use unregistered imagery from 2D film, ortho-rectify it and render a 3D CGI model in ArcGIS and use the physics engine to prove the Magic Bullet trajectory, unless you can actually do it? Can you?

What are you talking about? Map-making?

Quote
Way easier and cheaper using 2 lasers and a surrogate. After all, if you can get someone to make it work, then you win! Try that with a CAD app and if you succeed, I will eat a bug.

Well, we tried to show you that the subject in the autopsy photos was the same man with the same hair, but you argued that he must have been given a haircut during the autopsy. ( Link (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2303.msg68783.html#msg68783) )
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Vincent Baxter on November 28, 2019, 03:42:00 PM
Not quite sure what you're point is here, Weidmann.

Now, there's a surprise...

but this was the official verdict given by a team of respected professionals who were qualified to do such an investigation.

Are you serious or just oblivious to the facts? The Magic Bullet theory (it's not called that for nothing) was Arlen Specter's invention when they ended up with only two bullets to account for all the wounds. The alternative would have been more that three bullets and thus a conspiracy. And they didn't want to go there...

I personally choose to believe that that was the way it happened.

Great. That means what you believe can also be wrong which in turn means that anything you claim like "the shot has been proven" is just your belief and not worth a damn thing.

Even the majority of CTs have long dismissed the magic bullet argument and acknowledge that Oswald (most likely) shot bullet CE399 from the 6th floor TBD window.

Really? That's strange, because most CTs I know don't even believe that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 was fired that day or ever was at Parkland Hospital.

All you seem to do is refute everyones opinion by saying "Facts? Where are your facts that this is 100% what happened?" offering absolutely no facts or counter argument yourself to prove otherwise.

Having an opinion is one thing, presenting it as fact (as most, if not all LNs do) is an entirely different matter. Facts always trump opinions. Don't claim something happened if you can't back it up with factual evidence.

Yeah, I know you're going to come back with your usual "You said something so you need to prove it, I don't have to provide evidence to say it's not true" which is all very repetitive, lazy and extremely convenient for you, isn't it?

Yes, it's also the way it should be. You make a claim, you prove it. What is it with guys like you? You just want to make wild and unsupported claims without being able to back them up with evidence? Ain't gonna happen!

What do you actually believe?

I believe that Kennedy and Tippit were both murdered and that there are (on both sides of the argument) individuals who are not able or willing to honestly discuss the case and who are only defending their biased opinions

All you go on about is needing "facts" and considering there are very few 100% dead cert facts in this entire case people come to their own conclusions based on what information is out there.

That's fair enough as long as those conclusions are not presented as "fact" and there is a willingness to discuss those conclusions with an open mind.

Are you totally on the fence with no opinion one way or the other

Yes, I have no predetermined opinion and in many ways, at this point in time, I couldn't care less if Oswald did it alone or if there was a conspiracy. I just want to try to find out for myself what actually happened. Not that it will make a damn bit of difference one way of the other, in the bigger scheme of things. Oswald has been dead for 56 years, history books have been written and the world keeps on turning regardless of my opinion. Which is exactly why I never give my opinion. I just want to examine the details of the case and for that I need facts!

All I've ever seen you do is dismiss everything you don't agree with by asking for "proof" and "evidence" without ever making any decent points or counter arguments yourself.

If that's all you've ever seen, than you haven't looked well and far enough. The notion that I dismiss something because I don't agree with it is absurd. I ask for proof and evidence to learn more about the substance of the argument being made. And as for "decent points or counter arguments", you really should check my posting history. When you do, you will not only find that you are wrong, but also that LNs very quickly run from the actual facts simply because they can not answer simple questions.

Basically, Weidmann, you're just very boring.

 :D

YAWN!  ::)
So as suspected, you "conveniently" never give your opinion and instead just act all high and mighty and holier-than-thou by just shooting down anyone who gives theirs. Considering your non-committal to either camp, it's odd how you only really seem to refute LNs arguments with your "FACTS! FACTS!" stance.
As said previously, there are very little concrete, set in stone FACTS on the case which is why forums like this exist and why it has been possible for thousands of varying books to written on the case.
Everyone knows that and nobody really tries to present arguments as FACTS on here. It's their opinion followed by why they think that. You're the only one that takes everything so literal. You really need to take that stick out of your arse and chill out. Criticising people for how they word something rather than for what they're actually saying is boring and that's all I really see you do.

And do people really still use the twisting and turning magic bullet theory as an argument? I was under the impression that went out about the same time as the argument that the world was flat.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 28, 2019, 04:51:02 PM
YAWN!  ::)
So as suspected, you "conveniently" never give your opinion and instead just act all high and mighty and holier-than-thou by just shooting down anyone who gives theirs. Considering your non-committal to either camp, it's odd how you only really seem to refute LNs arguments with your "FACTS! FACTS!" stance.
As said previously, there are very little concrete, set in stone FACTS on the case which is why forums like this exist and why it has been possible for thousands of varying books to written on the case.
Everyone knows that and nobody really tries to present arguments as FACTS on here. It's their opinion followed by why they think that. You're the only one that takes everything so literal. You really need to take that stick out of your arse and chill out. Criticising people for how they word something rather than for what they're actually saying is boring and that's all I really see you do.

And do people really still use the twisting and turning magic bullet theory as an argument? I was under the impression that went out about the same time as the argument that the world was flat.

you "conveniently" never give your opinion and instead just act all high and mighty and holier-than-thou by just shooting down anyone who gives theirs.

Why should I give you or anybody else an opinion I don't have? Just to please you, so you have something to attack? Why not simply try to discuss something, or have you never learned how to do that? All your hyperbolic crap aside, I don't shoot anyone down who gives their opinion. I ask questions to find out how solid the opinion is and I can't help it when that theory then falls apart.

Just how much is an opinion worth if it can be shot down that easily?

Considering your non-committal to either camp, it's odd how you only really seem to refute LNs arguments with your "FACTS! FACTS!" stance.

First of all, that's not true. And secondly it's not odd at all. The LN arguments very often, if not always, equal the official narrative, so that's the place to start. I play devil's advocate to determine how solid the evidence is. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, whiny little man!

Btw, what's your problem with facts? Don't you like them, can't you deal with them, or do you simply prefer to ignore them to make up your own reality?

As said previously, there are very little concrete, set in stone FACTS on the case which is why forums like this exist and why it has been possible for thousands of varying books to written on the case.

Thank you for admitting that there are very few facts in this case. Yet you still defend a narrative that is based on hardly any facts at all. Why is that?

Everyone knows that and nobody really tries to present arguments as FACTS on here.

For a relatively new member that's a bold statement. I am not sure who "everyone" is, but you are dead wrong about nobody trying to present arguments as facts. It happens all the time. In fact, you just did it by unqualified claiming "everybody knows" when there is no way in the world you could possibly know that. You also did it in your previous post when you falsely claimed that "Even the majority of CTs have long dismissed the magic bullet argument and acknowledge that Oswald (most likely) shot bullet CE399 from the 6th floor TBD window."

It's their opinion followed by why they think that. You're the only one that takes everything so literal.

That's simply not true.

Criticising people for how they word something rather than for what they're actually saying is boring and that's all I really see you do.

I don't give a damn if you think it's boring or not, but words and how they are presented matter. Your buddy "Mytton" for example constantly misrepresents evidence by wording something in a certain way and other LNs on this board play word games all the time.

And do people really still use the twisting and turning magic bullet theory as an argument? I was under the impression that went out about the same time as the argument that the world was flat.

Which only shows just how uninformed and naive you really are.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 28, 2019, 04:56:22 PM
Everyone knows that and nobody really tries to present arguments as FACTS on here. It's their opinion followed by why they think that.

Lot’s of people on here present their opinions and conjectures as facts.

I don’t have any problem with you sharing your opinion, but my opinion is that “a team of respected professionals thought so” is a bad reason to believe something is true.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 28, 2019, 09:09:29 PM
Laddie boy, we're all getting onto you.

Oh, I'm pretty sure you're incapable of convincing PhotoShopping. What I believe is that your photos are authentic but they conflict with the President's posture in the motorcade. Perhaps we'll all see what controls are present, like a camera-operator and still model.

Evidently a surrogate can sit anyway he wants and proclaim results without documentation. As far as we know, this is how you posed and the extent of your camera angle.

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

This sets a new standard. I can do 3D work and simply proclaim my results without publishing.

     "What my experiment tells you is that it couldn't
      have happened the way the WC said it did."

We've gone thru the looking glass, alright.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/bf/3c/wdf8qvo1_o.png)

Wow. It's now a cheat to utilize motorcade photos to demonstrate actual body positions. You're not Andrew Mason?

It's now a cheat to utilize motorcade photos to demonstrate actual body positions
>>> Absolutely. After all, those motorcade photos were all faked, planted or altered in some way.

And Kennedy was stark naked, sitting bolt-upright on a whoopee cushion. And JBC didn't exist.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 29, 2019, 01:39:22 AM
It's now a cheat to utilize motorcade photos to demonstrate actual body positions
>>> Absolutely. After all, those motorcade photos were all faked, planted or altered in some way.

And Kennedy was stark naked, sitting bolt-upright on a whoopy cushion. And JBC didn't exist.

Thanks again for your always-useful input.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 29, 2019, 02:56:21 PM
Thanks again for your always-useful input.

 ;)

Great line, bro
Who would of thought that you, of all people, could have come up with such wit

Oh, wait...
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 29, 2019, 07:01:04 PM
Unlike you, I’m not here for the sole purpose of trying to be “witty” (and failing miserably).
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Thomas Graves on November 29, 2019, 07:21:51 PM
;)

Great line, bro
Who would of thought that you, of all people, could have come up with such wit

Oh, wait...

Bill,

Please take it easy on John.

After all, he's been so busy in his garden that all he can see now are blobs.

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 29, 2019, 08:39:06 PM
Unlike you, I’m not here for the sole purpose of trying to be “witty” (and failing miserably).

LOL

Oh, wait.. sorry, that's lazy



Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 29, 2019, 11:16:15 PM
Now your claim is conditional, but before ...

    "What my experiment tells you is that it couldn't
      have happened the way the WC said it did."

You asked me what my experiment could tell you, if you bothered to do it. But you didn't understand my ans the 1st time so forget it.

Quote
So if one does the experiment and the laser strikes match the wound sites from the JFK autopsy, one simply proclaims it and doesn't have to show their pictures?

No, it's so YOU will do the experiment for yourself and stop posting your feckless graphics.

Quote
What are you talking about? Map-making?

No, I'm talking about photogrammetry, which is the only way you can use graphics to render a 3D model from a 2D image and use it to make your point, otherwise, your graphics tell us nothing and you are obviously not a photogrammetrist.

Quote
Well, we tried to show you that the subject in the autopsy photos was the same man with the same hair, but you argued that he must have been given a haircut during the autopsy. ( Link (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2303.msg68783.html#msg68783) )

You showed me squat. Your excuse was "short at the back, long on top", but I was talking about the long on top, short on top (autopsy) aspect of the photos. Then your next excuse was "wet on top just looks like short on top". Do you see the LNer excuse pattern here? Didn't think so.

__________________________

What you failed to grasp here is that proving the MB was possible cannot be achieved with 2D graphics and Photoshop. You must use photogrammetry to restore the 3D to a 2D photo so you can measure all the 3D angles, etc. Since you are no photo expert your only option is to conduct your experiments in the real world with real 3D objects and lasers. Then you don't have to know anything about forensic photo-metrology to prove the MB was possible, which you don't.

This is my last response to you in this thread because it is like pounding my head against the wall. So you can have the last word. But from now on refer to the following graphic to demonstrate the SET UP for my 2 laser challenge, which you not only failed to do, but failed to comprehend.

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

Otherwise, soldier on!
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Freeman on November 30, 2019, 12:51:23 AM
56 years later... and the single bullet theory is still the stupidest theory ever proposed. A miraculous shot with a miraculous bullet miraculously "found" miraculously intact! 
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 30, 2019, 01:34:12 AM
56 years later... and the single bullet theory is still the stupidest theory ever proposed. A miraculous shot with a miraculous bullet miraculously "found" miraculously intact!

Well said , Jerry....
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 30, 2019, 02:38:30 AM
You asked me what my experiment could tell you, if you bothered to do it. But you didn't understand my ans the 1st time so forget it.

No, it's so YOU will do the experiment for yourself and stop posting your feckless graphics.

No, I'm talking about photogrammetry, which is the only way you can use graphics to render a 3D model from a 2D image and use it to make your point, otherwise, your graphics tell us nothing and you are obviously not a photogrammetrist.

    "Yes, it is a cheat for you to use unregistered imagery
     from 2D film, ortho-rectify it and render a 3D CGI
     model in ArcGIS and use the physics engine to prove
     the Magic Bullet trajectory, unless you can actually do it?

Well you were talking about ArcGIS software, which is mostly used in mapping, not objects per se for comparison with photos. The "GIS" stands for "geographic information system".

Quote

You showed me squat. Your excuse was "short at the back, long on top", but I was talking about the long on top, short on top (autopsy) aspect of the photos. Then your next excuse was "wet on top just looks like short on top". Do you see the LNer excuse pattern here? Didn't think so.

The hair was probably made wet for the taking of the Back-of-the-Head photo, so as to comb it and thus better expose the in-shoot wound for the camera. Wet hair clumps together. Pictures of Kennedy-in-life with his hair wet shows the same thing. There's also the matter of foreshortening of the long strands (on the top of the head) that are seen in the Back-of-the-Head photo due to the change in perspective and camera angle.

Quote
__________________________

What you failed to grasp here is that proving the MB was possible cannot be achieved with 2D graphics and Photoshop. You must use photogrammetry to restore the 3D to a 2D photo so you can measure all the 3D angles, etc. Since you are no photo expert your only option is to conduct your experiments in the real world with real 3D objects and lasers. Then you don't have to know anything about forensic photo-metrology to prove the MB was possible, which you don't.

The better 3D models are properly done with a 3D scanning technique, first marketed in the 1960s. Not from 2D views (though some have tried).

There's no reason a reasonably-accurate 3D model can't be used to compare to the same item in a photo. Hundreds of professional 3D experts and artists do just that year-after-year. Probably more reliable than the chance of a random human matching Kennedy's physiology and posture in the motorcade by sitting upright in a chair.

Quote
This is my last response to you in this thread because it is like pounding my head against the wall. So you can have the last word. But from now on refer to the following graphic to demonstrate the SET UP for my 2 laser challenge, which you not only failed to do, but failed to comprehend.

Otherwise, soldier on!

    "my last response to you in this thread"

Also put me on your ignore list. Thanks.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 30, 2019, 04:15:41 AM
Bill,

Please take it easy on John.

After all, he's been so busy in his garden that all he can see now are blobs.

--  MWT  ;)

All together now:

GRAVES — GET A LIFE.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 30, 2019, 08:36:27 AM
Bill,

Please take it easy on John.

After all, he's been so busy in his garden that all he can see now are blobs.

--  MWT  ;)

Don't use my posts to attack any other posters on a subject that I'm not interested in.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Michael Walton on November 30, 2019, 11:18:21 AM
   nobody  Walt believes that the alleged single bullet hit JFK at the time of Croft?

 Mr Iacoletti .....   I'm not sure how precise you are being when you say the single bullet hit JFK at the instant that Croft snapped the shutter.....But I believe that Croft snapped the shutter a split second after the bullet passed through JFK's throat .....However my name is not Nobody.....

Walt, you're way off base and incorrect with this. The Croft photo was NOT shot a split second after the bullet passed through. That's way too early in the shooting sequence. That photo was taken before JFK had a chance to be yelled at by the women down further where he looked over and smiled and waved to him. He then went behind the sign in Z and then a split second after re-appearing, the shooting sequence started.

People tend to throw around sparks flying and shots being fired earlier in the sequence to try to explain the murder. Remember the oak tree which was right there around Croft. No murder planner would have their shooters firing that early.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Michael Walton on November 30, 2019, 11:49:28 AM
So after all of the blather here with photos of skinny guys in underwear and photos of the murder taken much earlier but somehow magically being synced up with the Z film. And of faulty methodologies and proper ingredients (or better ingredients if you eat Papa John - LOL), I ask here again:

Here's the FBI reenactment photo down on the ground. The G Men got the wound positioning correct based on the autopsy:

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HB1iPBCsDgI/Xd1Uxg_e6EI/AAAAAAAAFdg/eB3aG9ckbQcdoVnMZxY2O8RNsZPsg8oUwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/fbi-and-autopsy.jpg)

And then of course they went ahead and filmed this reenactment from the so-called [throw down] sniper's nest:

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S2-6e9Xgh18/XeJSqIm6fiI/AAAAAAAAFeA/08VQ5up9VcE_DHHDsoT0DIZOHYXEnrPHACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/not%2Bpossible.png)

You can tell the cast of characters in the first photo are the same as the second during the filmed reenactment. You can also see the sticker exactly where it's supposed to be. One of the Oswald Did It believers here agrees with this.

Now there's going to be more blathering here. The seat heights weren't the same in the limo...it's a Cadillac vs. the Lincoln limo. My hunch is that the G Men didn't care about this because they figured the main thrust here was to see where the bullet from the 6th floor was going to go from start to finish. After all, they did get the wound placement right based on the stickers. Further, the JBC stand-in is slightly inboard from the JFK one which is also right.

And yet - look at that second photo. How did it exit from Kennedy's throat? It's impossible logically and plausibly.

And as the text says in the image, the wound terminated, meaning it was not a through and through exit [based on the autopsy].

So...commence the debate [or excuses], please.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 30, 2019, 03:10:27 PM
So after all of the blather here with photos of skinny guys in underwear and photos of the murder taken much earlier but somehow magically being synced up with the Z film.

The Croft photo was taken 3.33 sec before Z223. It's the best-quality semi-profile image we have of Kennedy and Connally prior-to-and-including Z223-226. Since there is no obvious change in posture between the two points, it's reasonable to use the Croft photo to determine the President's posture.

Quote
And of faulty methodologies and proper ingredients (or better ingredients if you eat Papa John - LOL), I ask here again:

You're one to cast shade. Your posts use a re-enactment photo taken up by the reflecting pool.

Quote
Here's the FBI reenactment photo down on the ground. The G Men got the wound positioning correct based on the autopsy:

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HB1iPBCsDgI/Xd1Uxg_e6EI/AAAAAAAAFdg/eB3aG9ckbQcdoVnMZxY2O8RNsZPsg8oUwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/fbi-and-autopsy.jpg)

And then of course they went ahead and filmed this reenactment from the so-called [throw down] sniper's nest:

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S2-6e9Xgh18/XeJSqIm6fiI/AAAAAAAAFeA/08VQ5up9VcE_DHHDsoT0DIZOHYXEnrPHACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/not%2Bpossible.png)

You can tell the cast of characters in the first photo are the same as the second during the filmed reenactment. You can also see the sticker exactly where it's supposed to be. One of the Oswald Did It believers here agrees with this.

It's pretty close but it's unclear if they've adjusted for the jacket bunch. The Commission was aware of the bunch at some stage because it's in the Bible Report.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/WCR-Exh895.jpg)

The Kennedy stand-in isn't slouching like JFK. I'll skip the problems with "Connally" because we're addressing just the neck transit.

(https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images3/1/0517/09/jfk-single-bullet-theory-archive-34_1_966509d200eb5546e9c3b25e359b1a1f.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Lattimer described in his 1980 book "Kennedy and Lincoln" a ballistic test to
demonstrate the neck wound at the front was small because of clothing.
  • Middle inset: Hole becomes larger with tears when away from collar stitch line.
  • Bottom inset: Large exit hole when no tie.
 
HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel Report
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pages/HSCA_Vol7_0053a.gif)
Quote
Now there's going to be more blathering here.

Only you can choose to learn. We can show you the water but no one can make you drink.

Quote
The seat heights weren't the same in the limo...it's a Cadillac vs. the Lincoln limo. My hunch is that the G Men didn't care about this because they figured the main thrust here was to see where the bullet from the 6th floor was going to go from start to finish. After all, they did get the wound placement right based on the stickers. Further, the JBC stand-in is slightly inboard from the JFK one which is also right.

Myers cleaned this up some time ago. It's an animation grab and the cross-hair intersection is a bit generic (I don't think it's exactly where it should be).

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcR_dLlz6p4JPUGsR7jdOitkRR0HmMDn2xwoYLnAJT34Kdzo5Aq7)

Quote
And yet - look at that second photo. How did it exit from Kennedy's throat? It's impossible logically and plausibly.

And as the text says in the image, the wound terminated, meaning it was not a through and through exit [based on the autopsy].

So...commence the debate [or excuses], please.

(https://i.postimg.cc/sf4MtKw6/sbf2.gif)
Mytton

You've had this graphic since Page One. A bullet entering a slouched person's upper back (specifically the base of the back of the neck) on that trajectory slope will exit at the base of the front of the neck. What don't you get?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 30, 2019, 05:11:51 PM
The Croft photo was taken 3.33 sec before Z223. It's the best-quality semi-profile image we have of Kennedy and Connally prior-to-and-including Z223-226. Since there is no obvious change in posture between the two points, it's reasonable to use the Croft photo to determine the President's posture.

A lot can happen in 3.33 seconds. There’s no obvious reason to think that the posture and positioning would be identical either.

Quote
It's pretty close but it's unclear if they've adjusted for the jacket bunch. The Commission was aware of the bunch at some stage because it's in the Bible Report.

The “jacket bunch” is just a lame excuse to handwave away a too-low entrance wound.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 30, 2019, 06:37:01 PM
A lot can happen in 3.33 seconds.

You see a lot happening regarding the posture of Kennedy's trunk and shoulders?

(https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z133-z199/z162.jpg)  (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z200-z249/z225.jpg)  (https://sites.google.com/site/lightboxzframes/mpi/z200-z249/z226.jpg)

Quote
There’s no obvious reason to think that the posture and positioning would be identical either.


Maybe in the latter frames, JFK is slouched forward a little more than he is in the Croft photo.


Quote
The “jacket bunch” is just a lame excuse to handwave away a too-low entrance wound.

The photos (those of sufficient quality) consistently show the jacket bunch. Willis 05 and Betzner--sometimes used to show no bunch--lack the resolution to show something as subtle as a jacket collar line; they just show the top of the jacket remained high. The bunch is more-readily seen in the Towner and Croft photos.

Something like this:

(https://www.allmystery.de/i/te92592245403_travel.jpg)
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 30, 2019, 09:58:25 PM
Willis 05 and Betzner--sometimes used to show no bunch--lack the resolution to show something as subtle as a jacket collar line;

That’s a convenient excuse to cherry-pick Croft.

Quote
The bunch is more-readily seen in the Towner and Croft photos.

We’ll have to disagree about Towner.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 30, 2019, 10:28:45 PM
That’s a convenient excuse to cherry-pick Croft.

Willis 05 and Betzner simply do not have the resolution to depict the bottom edge of the jacket collar on the nape.

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xrBzJVN5hIg/XJDwslQV6AI/AAAAAAABRCY/1kj803_InYs-AID-8ZbeQGypYVrRJHYmwCLcBGAs/s800/JFK-At-Love-Field-In-Dallas-11-22-63.jpg)

The photo above does. So we can't say Willis/Betzner shows the bunch gone and the jacket collar now visible. All I see is that the top of the jacket remained high. Which is consistent with the Croft photo having a bunch that obscures the jacket collar line from most angles. Possible there was some major wardrobe malfunction in the 1.3 sec between Croft and Betzner. A lot of things are possible. But some are more likely than others.

Quote
We’ll have to disagree about Towner.

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hunt/towner.jpg)

Seems Towner shows jacket material at the nape behind the collar. As the right shoulder was elevated, the bunch probably got bigger as it went to the President's right.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Mytton on December 01, 2019, 12:47:53 AM
A lot can happen in 3.33 seconds.

From Love Field through to Croft 120,000+ seconds later there is absolutely no evidence that Kennedy's jacket wasn't bunched but as a last desperate grasp of conspiracy you unrealistically rely on "A lot can happen in 3.33 seconds". Lame, very lame.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcR4G7TX9qvMbpAyjBBmFP2w9MI9ZXsCmR70fxwa6cDOIw3LDfhz)

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQBtAlT6NXYdu2mBP0itCGdPD4a8l36Hhx5v_lJQVgWAYH6svO9)

Here's the Zapruder film from Croft through to after JFK emerges from behind the sign and all JFK can be seen doing is lifting his right arm and waving.

(https://i.postimg.cc/9Q1rnDFp/zap-z161-z230.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 01, 2019, 07:01:40 AM
From Love Field through to Croft 120,000+ seconds later there is absolutely no evidence that Kennedy's jacket wasn't bunched but as a last desperate grasp of conspiracy you unrealistically rely on "A lot can happen in 3.33 seconds". Lame, very lame.

You know what’s a lame argument? The idea that “there’s no evidence the jacket wasn’t bunched” is somehow an argument for it actually being bunched at the time he was shot.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 01, 2019, 04:44:52 PM
From Love Field through to Croft 120,000+ seconds later there is absolutely no evidence that Kennedy's jacket wasn't bunched but as a last desperate grasp of conspiracy you unrealistically rely on "A lot can happen in 3.33 seconds". Lame, very lame.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcR4G7TX9qvMbpAyjBBmFP2w9MI9ZXsCmR70fxwa6cDOIw3LDfhz)

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQBtAlT6NXYdu2mBP0itCGdPD4a8l36Hhx5v_lJQVgWAYH6svO9)

Here's the Zapruder film from Croft through to after JFK emerges from behind the sign and all JFK can be seen doing is lifting his right arm and waving.

(https://i.postimg.cc/9Q1rnDFp/zap-z161-z230.gif)

JohnM

Not so fast, John

A lot can happen in 33.3 seconds
'The Picard Maneuver', for instance:

Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 01, 2019, 04:59:24 PM
You know what’s a lame argument? The idea that “there’s no evidence the jacket wasn’t bunched” is somehow an argument for it actually being bunched at the time he was shot.

It could have been even MORE bunched at the time he was hit.. yes, a lot can happen in those 33.3 seconds
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 01, 2019, 06:23:28 PM
Not so fast, John

A lot can happen in 33.3 seconds
'The Picard Maneuver', for instance:

Has Chapman ever posted anything relevant?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 01, 2019, 06:23:56 PM
It could have been even MORE bunched at the time he was hit.. yes, a lot can happen in those 33.3 seconds

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

Probably.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 02, 2019, 05:18:43 AM
Has Chapman ever posted anything relevant?

Iacoletti Post #87
'A lot can happen in 3.33 seconds'

So he couldn't have straightened out his jacket? How is what I posted not relevant? Aren't you arguing for a possibly not bunched jacket in those remaining 33.3 seconds?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 02, 2019, 05:35:58 AM
Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

Probably.

So any possible straightening of his jacket to make it less bunched was not included in your 'a lot can happen is 33.3 seconds' remark?  I would have jumped on that opportunity if I was trying to debunk the bunching thing.

And thanks again for your always-useful input
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 02, 2019, 05:52:09 AM
So, no evidence that his jacket and shirt were equally bunched at the time of the back shot, but oh look here are some YouTube clips from Star Trek and Terminator movies.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 02, 2019, 07:05:03 AM
So, no evidence that his jacket and shirt were equally bunched at the time of the back shot, but oh look here are some YouTube clips from Star Trek and Terminator movies.

You have deflected to an aspect of the bunching that I have not noticed here today. And I'm still not clear whether or not you intended to include/not include the possible manipulation of the bunch in that 3.3 second gap available between Croft & the twofer.

Point out where I used the terminator guy here today. I haven't used that reconstituting melted bad guy here today since this about the bunching R&R thing. The melted bad guy video is meant as a symbol of reuniting the aspects of the case rather than trying to keep individual said aspects separated.

EDIT TYPO
3:29AM EST: Dec 04
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 03, 2019, 02:46:29 AM
33.3 seconds. Seriously, Chapman? So you think your “two-fer” happened on Stemmons Freeway then?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Tom Scully on December 03, 2019, 03:45:04 AM
Ten years after the coup d e'tat in Dallas, the HSCA determined that President Kennedy had been murdered by a group ( unnamed) of conspirators.  There has been ship loads of evidence uncovered that lead to the undeniable conclusion that Lee Oswald was merely a hapless kid who fancied himself to be a budding Herb Philbrick, who allowed himself to be suckered into the role of scapegoat .   

All of us have learned of the many nefarious and devious plots hatched by the CIA in their efforts to stir up trouble and start wars.   There can be no denial of these facts.   So why do some folks refuse to believe that Lee Oswald was simply a "Patsy", who was used by US intelligence agents?  Do those folks truly believe the Warren Report?   ( It hard to to believe that any intelligent reasoning adult would embrace the Warren Report as the truth)  Do they know the truth, and simply lack the guts to face the truth....or are they in reality agents of the conspiracy?   Still struggling after all these years  to try to keep the truth hidden.

You apprise your readers with black or white. Prominent challengers of the WR may have done more harm than good, especially early ones, Penn Jones for example.
Garrison, Fetzer, and Lifton, followed by John Armstrong, may have done even more than Jones to misinform, to stir up, you, for example.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zLIoQLayKsA/VrZ3SCcgfuI/AAAAAAAACts/zP4r1-Uw53o/s512-Ic42/LemannWDSUFCC022067.jpg)

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/T%20Disk/TV-Radio%20Transcripts%20From%20Trunzo%20Russ/WFLD-TV/67-07-11.pdf
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BaldwinEdwardGurvichJimsGotAfamily_1of2.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BaldwinEdwardGurvichJimsGotAfamily_2of2.jpg)

Monte Lemann  -  and spouse Mildred Crumb Lyons Lemann .........Adele Ziegler Baldwin Raworth and brother Herbert Ziegler
Sons:...…………………………………...Daughter: ....................................Sons: ........................................Daughter: Mrs Jim Garrison
Stephen B Lemann ………………...Mildred Lyons Baldwin - and spouse David G Baldwin
Thomas B Lemann ....................................................................Edward Baldwin..
Son:
Nicholas B Lemann

Quote
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/2/6/the-rise-and-fall-of-big/
The Rise and Fall of Big Jim G.
Politics
By Nicholas Lemann,
February 6, 1974

ONE OF THE OLDEST saws about Southern politics runs something like this: If only a politician in the South could run with the united support of blacks and blue-collar whites, he would be unbeatable. And since he wouldn't be tied to the rich whites who control the South, he could really change things. Only a very few Southern politicians have been able to put together this mythical coalition, but Jim Garrison, the six-and-a-half foot tall New Orleans district attorney who lost his third reelection campaign in December, remained politically powerful in New Orleans for years with a loyal black and blue-collar white constituency. ...
......

Quote
https://jfkfacts.org/provocative-prolific-joan-mellen/#comment-869223
......
Quote
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Unredacted_-_Episode_1_-_Transcript.html
Unredacted Episode 1: Transcript of Interview with Joan Mellen
Joan Mellen is the author of A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK’s Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History. This interview was conducted on 22 Feb 2006. Tyler Weaver provided the introduction, and the interview was conducted by Rex Bradford.
…….
REX: I – I think –
JOAN: – when (Atty Edward) Baldwin was present, he was a CIA asset, his brother (David) worked for the International Trade Mart and Clay Shaw, David Baldwin, and these, these are CIA people….
.....
.........In the course of attempting to determine if my new fact checked research details were actually original, I found identical details, by author of a biography of Clay Shaw,
Donald H Carpenter.-
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-knckgt3ASNI/Vrd2i7xQ1aI/AAAAAAAACvc/m_y25b9LkuA/s512-Ic42/BaldwinFirstCousinCarpenter.jpg)

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6e7iexAG0lM/Vrds4GJIGUI/AAAAAAAACvM/3WomDDWJrMw/s512-Ic42/BaldwinLemannStepsisterCarpenter.jpg)

Quote
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/806/603/1747985/
Russo v. Conde Nast Publications, 806 F. Supp. 603 (E.D. La. 1992)

US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana - 806 F. Supp. 603 (E.D. La. 1992)
November 17, 1992
......UNDISPUTED FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
In its January, 1992 issue, GQ Magazine published an article entitled "The Case Against Jim Garrison" (hereafter the "GQ article"). The GQ article was written by Nicholas B. Lemann, a New Orleans native and winner of numerous awards for his books and articles. The GQ article was a personal memoir[1] of Lemann's recollections of growing up in New Orleans during District Attorney Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw for allegedly conspiring to assassinate JFK.
The 1991 movie release, JFK sparked renewed interest in the assassination as well as the prosecution itself of Clay Shaw. The film was purportedly based on Garrison's book, On the Trail of Assassins, and sympathetically portrayed Garrison.
The GQ article published by Lemann took a different slant, expressing his view that Shaw's prosecution was built on flimsy evidence and was a tremendous embarrassment to the city.[2] The thrust of Lemann's article was his opinion countering that expressed by Stone in his film release JFK, to wit:
......

Quote
The FBI, JFK and JIm Garrison
By James DiEugenio, Wednesday at 12:26 PM in JFK Assassination Debate

This was my presentation at CAPA.
I had not been to one of these in about three years.  But since Oliver went, so did I.  As most of you know, I have been working on Kennedy's foreign policy for about the last 5-6 years.  Since Oliver was there, I switched back to my old topic.  There are some things in this that I had never brought up at any conference.
 
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-fbi-jfk-and-jim-garrison

.pdf version : https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/FBI-JFK-Garrison-2019.pdf
The FBI, JFK and Jim Garrison
CAPA November in Dallas, 11/22/2019
Jim DiEugenio with help from Malcolm Blunt

(http://jfkforum.com/images/DiEugenioCAPAcarpenter112219.jpg)

The "research community," ignores that some of the "leading lights" are commercialized, self-important incompetents.
The "rank and file," the consumers of the "feed," such as the excerpt above, presented in Dallas less than two weeks ago, have only themselves to blame, and they indicate by a near universal reluctance to even seriously discuss it, that they like it "just fine," that Garrison conned everybody, except for Clay Shaw.

Blame author Donald Carpenter, take a bow, the silence will continue. No increase in the body of verifiable knowledge is likely until readers say, no, this is BS, enough already, with the prima donna posturing. Readers let them get away with this.

Walt, you are not part of the solution, but you could change that.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Tom Scully on December 03, 2019, 05:16:47 AM
Stephen B. Lemann, uncle of Nicholas B. Lemann and step-brother of Mildred Lyons Baldwin, and owner of more than ten percent interest in WDSU,
described by Garrison as WDSU outside counsel distributing "CIA funds".....

Quote
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?…d=176&tab=page
2of2 Garrison 06/67 letter to FCC comm. Rosel H. Hyde
(Top of right side column)
…It should be added that the last described endeavor has been accomplished not by members of the station (WDSU) itself, but by an attorney closely connected with the station who has previously been known to disperse funds in the New Orleans area in behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency….

December 21, 1991, JFK, the movie, is released in theaters.:
January, 1992 issue of GQ Magazine:

Quote
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=6761&search=lemann#relPageId=152&tab=page
The Case Against Jim Garrison
The ex-D.A.’s theory on who murdered JFK
reassessed and shot full of holes
By Nicholas Lemann….

No disclosure in Nicholas’s rebuttal to Zachary Sklar, or from Sklar about Lemann’s conflicts/background:
Were Sklar and Stone unaware of critic Nicholas's background because Garrison kept the editor of his biography, Zachary Sklar, as well as Oliver Stone, in the dark?

Quote
JFK: The Book of the Film  (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&source=hp&ei=wvjlXf2bDcSMggeum7LQCQ&q=Evidently+GQ+has+forgotten+one+of+the+fundamental+rules+of+American+journalism%3A+&oq=Evidently+GQ+has+forgotten+one+of+the+fundamental+rules+of+American+journalism%3A+&gs_l=psy-ab.3...1442.1442..2305...0.0..0.89.89.1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.fLV58dB7kXo&ved=0ahUKEwj9hIa45ZjmAhVEhuAKHa6NDJoQ4dUDCAc&uact=5): the Documented Screenplay
By Oliver Stone, Zachary Sklar

…..Evidently GQ has forgotten one of the fundamental rules of American journalism: Give the readers both sides of the story. The case for Jim Garrison is not to be found in your pages. Lemann’s glib charges are so sweeping that it’s impossible to respond to all of them in a letter. I suggest anyone interested in Garrison’s case read On the Trail of the Assassins, the former New Orleans district attorney’s own account of his investigation. As the editor of this book, and co-screenwriter of Oliver Stone’s JFK, I take issue with several of Lemann’s unfounded assertions…..

Here's that Dallas priest, again.... In April, 2016, I received an email from the author Gayle Nix Jackson, whose grandfather made the Nix film. She had contacted Walter Machann and he had agreed to meet with her. He was located through details in his mother's obituary in DMN.
She asked me for suggestions of questions to ask the former priest. The meeting took place but he refused to discuss anything related to the period before he worked on foreign assignment for the U.N. in Asia.

Quote
http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.com/2018/09/walter-machann-interview-excerpts.html
Monday, September 24, 2018
Walter Machann Interview Excerpts

Gayle Nix Jackson's Interview Excerpts with Walter Machann.
For the complete interview - see "Pieces of the Puzzle" (by Gail Nix Jackson 2017)

GAYLE: How did you become the head of the Dallas Catholic Cuban Relief Program?

……The problem here is that the official Warren Commission records indicate that it was not Hosty, but Secret Service Inspector Thomas Kelley, who questioned Machann in New Orleans about the Odio incident. According to these documents, the investigator had Machann call Sylvia Odio on the phone and ask her once again about her visitors. And according to the official report, Odio then said one of the visitors was Rogelio Cisneros, but she later denied saying that.
And then we don’t hear from Machann for many years. When I tracked Machann’s family to Texas and talked to his sister on the phone, she said her brother was in Thailand, where he moved to after leaving the priesthood. I imagined he had continued his theological musings and became a monk, but boy was I wrong.
Machann says that, “My first real job other than being a priest or throwing a newspaper route was working at the Mental Health Halfway house (in New Orleans).”

World Travel—Thailand
After leaving New Orleans, Machann says, “I worked in Florida for a few years in the mental health field. I didn’t like the commercialization of Florida. I lived in West Palm Beach where the rich people were … I traveled throughout Russia with a travel group. It was a break in the Cold War. They wouldn’t let you read just any book, so you had to be careful which books you carried. I bought a Volkswagen in Hamburg in 1968 and drove all the way through the Baltic States, the Czech Republic and the Coast of Spain. I was sleeping in the car and eating just to stay alive. I ran out of money and had to come back home.”
“When I was in New York, I was having a hard time finding a job. I had put in applications to many overseas jobs and WHO just happened to hire me. I moved to Thailand and lived there many years. In fact, I had my son there. Yes, I have a son … Unfortunately, his mother died when he was seven of dengue fever. He basically grew up as an orphan. He had no mother. But he always was interested in philosophy as well. I don’t know how much of who we are is genetic, environment or education, but he was mesmerized by Greek books at a very young age … He did a few tours in Iraq and came back a different man. He tried to find peace here, but eventually moved back to Thailand. I’m going to see him soon.”
“I haven’t talked much about my low points in life, because you don’t go through traumatic changes in your life without discussing your philosophy, emotions, mental state and the like. My wife dying forced me to come back to Texas. That’s when I also found that in life after 40, you become unemployable in the states. My friends tried to get me jobs. Incidentally, one was a medical director at UT Southwestern. He hated the Kennedys. What came out was, he had a tremendous hatred for the Kennedys even though he was from the north. I was kind of shocked. He was one of these New England Harvard graduates, I don’t know. But I knew I didn’t want to work there.”….

May 26, 1957 DMN article
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldFatherMachann1957.jpg)

(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldFatherMachannubans.jpg)

(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldStephenLemannMentalHealth.jpg)

(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldFatherMachannStephenLemann.jpg)

Quote
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/5347-father-mcchann-and-odios/?tab=comments#comment-44700
William Kelly - Posted November 9, 2005
….
Here's some excerpts from Lafontaine's book regarding McChann, and have read Maryanne Sullivan's book, "Kennedy Ripples - A True Love Story" (1994, San Clemente, Calf.), which Lafontaine calls the "Harlequin Romance" version of the Kennedy assassination, which follows McChann to New Orleans and Florida, but not to Tailand.
Peter Dale Scott has been spending a lot of time in Thailand, and he's awaiting my review of Max Holland's KAT, and I'll ask him about McChann.
Bill Kelly
Bary Kampjfk3@yahoo.com
Machann, Walter Michael, Father –
Also spelled phonetically as MaChann, McCann, McKann and McChan.
From: Oswald Talked – The New Evidence in the JFK Assassination
by Ray and Mary La Fontaine, (Pelican Publishing Co. , Gretna, 1996).
[p.264-265]: “The last time Father Machann was seen in his public role as shepherd of the city’s Catholic exile community was the Tuesday night of October 1, 1963. On that evening, he and other prominent members of the resettlement committee had shared the stage of Highland Park Town Hall with a guest speaker, John Martino, a fifty-two-year-old American and Mafia associate who was on a Bircher-paid tour to talk about his recently published book, ‘I Was Castro’s Prisoner.’ Martino had been imprisoned in Cuba for some thirty-nine months (during which time he befriended Silvia Odio’s father, Amador), and his three-hour book talk dwelled on the barbarism of his confinement by the revolutionary regime – balm to the ars of the gathered refugees and their circle of benefactors on the Town Hall stage…”

......
.........“…investigator Harold Weisberg had also heard that Father Machann entered ‘a home to rest’ following the assassination.”
Page 251: “….A few weeks before the assassination (Fr. Walter M. Machann) had mysteriously dropped out of sight, perhaps from a breakdown, in the city where he had been a lifelong resident. Some weeks later, after the assassination, he quietly left town and has not lived in Dallas since, though returning occasionally to visit his mother. He was last seen in (1993) in Bangkok. (Machann’s mother told Mary in a recent interview that he was visited by the Secret Service or other government investigators as recently as 1992 or 1990.).”
“But in the spring of 1964, Father Machann hadn’t yet made it to Bangkok. That April, apparently at he behest of the Western general counsel J. Lee Rankin, the Secret Service had launched an all-out search for the unusual padre, who was rumored to have bedded a number of women parishioners during his denture as assistant pastor at the Catholic church in east Dallas. After agents failed even to identify the father in Miami (where he had received his training as a Cuban refugee adviser), Secret Service inspector Thomas Kelly managed to locate Machann in New Orleans, interviewing him on Thursday, April 30.”
“The former Dallas priest (he was now on indefinite leave) had been attending classes at LOYOLA UNIVERSITY, and was, as he told Kelly, a frequent visitor of Silvia’s uncle, Dr. Agustin Guitart, a physics professor at the university. Cuitart, it may be recalled, happened also to be a friend of Carlos Bringuier’s, and had attended the New Orleans court hearing of Lee Harvey Oswald following his ‘street scuffle’ with Bringuier and two other members of the local chapter of the Student Revolutionary Directorate (DRE) the previous summer.”
“It wasn’t, of course Machann’s vow-breaking proclivities that interested assassination investigators like Kelley, but the role he was said to have played from 1961 through most of 1963 as chaplain of a Dallas group assisting Cuban refugees; for if rumors were flying concerning the priest’s sexual liaisons, they were even more rampant on a more relevant matter, the possible participation of Cubans – whether pro- or antic-Castro one couldn’t say – in the assassination of the president. On the latter matter, Machann had been in a position to be an invaluable informant.” .....

Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on December 03, 2019, 07:49:31 AM
Stephen B. Lemann, uncle of Nicholas B. Lemann and step-brother of Mildred Lyons Baldwin, and owner of more than ten percent interest in WDSU,
described by Garrison as WDSU outside counsel distributing "CIA funds".....

December 21, 1991, JFK, the movie, is released in theaters.:
January, 1992 issue of GQ Magazine:

No disclosure in Nicholas’s rebuttal to Zachary Sklar, or from Sklar about Lemann’s conflicts/background:
Were Sklar and Stone unaware of critic Nicholas's background because Garrison kept the editor of his biography, Zachary Sklar, as well as Oliver Stone, in the dark?

Here's that Dallas priest, again.... In April, 2016, I received an email from the author Gayle Nix Jackson, whose grandfather made the Nix film. She had contacted Walter Machann and he had agreed to meet with her. He was located through details in his mother's obituary in DMN.
She asked me for suggestions of questions to ask the former priest. The meeting took place but he refused to discuss anything related to the period before he worked on foreign assignment for the U.N. in Asia.

May 26, 1957 DMN article
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldFatherMachann1957.jpg)

(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldFatherMachannubans.jpg)

(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldStephenLemannMentalHealth.jpg)

(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldFatherMachannStephenLemann.jpg)

Bless me, Fadduh, for I have sinned, and have never given a confession, coz' nobody listens anyway.

Great findings (again), Tom.  Oh, bytheway....... I see Cardinal Stone has anointed St. Judyth of Bradenton with his Most Holy Oil (from his scalp, maybe?)  Got Brylcreem?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Tom Scully on December 03, 2019, 08:57:38 AM
Bless me, Fadduh, for I have sinned, and have never given a confession, coz' nobody listens anyway.

Great findings (again), Tom.  Oh, bytheway....... I see Cardinal Stone has anointed St. Judyth of Bradenton with his Most Holy Oil (from his scalp, maybe?)  Got Brylcreem?

Mark, the two of them deserve each other. Harold, Sylvia, Roger Feinman, formerly of CBS (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/F%20Disk/Feinman%20Roger%20Bruce/Item%2085.pdf) died trying to "solve the case." Mary's and Garrison's families, along with Oliver and Judyth,
have been monetizing cherry picked details. It's always about the benjamins (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&ei=yB_mXdfBAoGa_Qbasby4Bg&q=terry+semel+%22jim+garrison%22&oq=terry+semel+%22jim+garrison%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160.27216.35337..35710...0.0..0.160.1463.15j2......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i22i30j0j33i299.lFaTZkC4sBg&ved=0ahUKEwjXxcjTipnmAhUBTd8KHdoYD2cQ4dUDCAo&uact=5). Sempel when he was at Warner greenlighted the money to make JFK. I wonder if he interacted with Garrison.

What is DiEugenio blaming Donald Carpenter or Max Holland for doing, embarrassing Jim with facts? Dallas in November has experienced its share of face saving.
Remember Janney's presentation there in 2012? "We concluded he was missing and must be a CIA assassin, but it turned out we couldn't find him because he changed his name to "Bill".
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 04, 2019, 09:09:32 AM
33.3 seconds. Seriously, Chapman? So you think your “two-fer” happened on Stemmons Freeway then?

Oops. Just corrected that, TypoSuckJohnny.
Thanks for living up to the above term I coined for you.
Run, Johnny... RUN... hide behind your typo-sucking

You call what I post irrelevant: Tell us why I should engage a contrarian in your interminable blablafuckinbla when I can get my point across in one powerful image.


 
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Ray Mitcham on December 04, 2019, 11:44:31 AM
Just a rule reminder for Chapman.

"Behave at all times, no swearing, racism or personal insults."
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 04, 2019, 04:00:35 PM
Just a rule reminder for Chapman.

"Behave at all times, no swearing, racism or personal insults."

If that was seriously enforced, the Forum would self-destruct.

With all the run-around and silliness, how about closing the Forum for two weeks around the upcoming holidays?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: John Iacoletti on December 04, 2019, 04:01:56 PM
Oops. Just corrected that, TypoSuckJohnny.

Why is it that every time Chapman screws up some aspect of this case (which is pretty much every day), it’s a “typo”. I suppose it was also a “typo” when he claimed the gunman was 12-15 feet away from Callaway too.

Quote
You call what I post irrelevant: Tell us why I should engage a contrarian in your interminable blablafuckinbla when I can get my point across in one powerful image.

What point? You refuse to engage in the details because you are woefully ignorant of them. You’re here to play games and try to look “clever”.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Michael Walton on December 04, 2019, 08:20:06 PM
What point? You refuse to engage in the details because you are woefully ignorant of them. You’re here to play games and try to look “clever”.

Nice. Very nice. Like this one. I'm still waiting for one of the geniuses here to tell me how in the XXXX that bullet went upward and out of the neck...

So after all of the blather here with photos of skinny guys in underwear and photos of the murder taken much earlier but somehow magically being synced up with the Z film. And of faulty methodologies and proper ingredients (or better ingredients if you eat Papa John - LOL), I ask here again:

Here's the FBI reenactment photo down on the ground. The G Men got the wound positioning correct based on the autopsy:

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HB1iPBCsDgI/Xd1Uxg_e6EI/AAAAAAAAFdg/eB3aG9ckbQcdoVnMZxY2O8RNsZPsg8oUwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/fbi-and-autopsy.jpg)

And then of course they went ahead and filmed this reenactment from the so-called [throw down] sniper's nest:

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S2-6e9Xgh18/XeJSqIm6fiI/AAAAAAAAFeA/08VQ5up9VcE_DHHDsoT0DIZOHYXEnrPHACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/not%2Bpossible.png)

You can tell the cast of characters in the first photo are the same as the second during the filmed reenactment. You can also see the sticker exactly where it's supposed to be. One of the Oswald Did It believers here agrees with this.

Now there's going to be more blathering here. The seat heights weren't the same in the limo...it's a Cadillac vs. the Lincoln limo. My hunch is that the G Men didn't care about this because they figured the main thrust here was to see where the bullet from the 6th floor was going to go from start to finish. After all, they did get the wound placement right based on the stickers. Further, the JBC stand-in is slightly inboard from the JFK one which is also right.

And yet - look at that second photo. How did it exit from Kennedy's throat? It's impossible logically and plausibly.

And as the text says in the image, the wound terminated, meaning it was not a through and through exit [based on the autopsy].

So...commence the debate [or excuses], please.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 04, 2019, 08:43:22 PM
What point? You refuse to engage in the details because you are woefully ignorant of them. You’re here to play games and try to look “clever”.

Nice. Very nice. Like this one. I'm still waiting for one of the geniuses here to tell me how in the XXXX that bullet went upward and out of the neck...

First I've heard you mention "upward". I kept asking you for specifics.

How do your graphics show a bullet going upwards? Make the jacket bunch upwards a bit as in life, and a downward trajectory at the base of the back of the neck will transit to emerge near the base of the front of the neck. Or is the acknowledgement of the jacket bunch a case of woeful ignorance?

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HB1iPBCsDgI/Xd1Uxg_e6EI/AAAAAAAAFdg/eB3aG9ckbQcdoVnMZxY2O8RNsZPsg8oUwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/fbi-and-autopsy.jpg)  (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-S2-6e9Xgh18/XeJSqIm6fiI/AAAAAAAAFeA/08VQ5up9VcE_DHHDsoT0DIZOHYXEnrPHACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/not%2Bpossible.png)

Why the autopsy photo? Did the FBI do a second autopsy on Elm Street?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Michael Walton on December 04, 2019, 10:39:10 PM
Come on, Jerry. Are you really that obtuse? Every time I post this, you keep taking things literally and expect me to explain it to you further.

I'm not going to do that. If you can't figure it out what I'm trying to show and say here, I don't know what else to say except we'll keep going around in circles with this.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 05, 2019, 12:56:09 AM
Come on, Jerry. Are you really that obtuse? Every time I post this, you keep taking things literally and expect me to explain it to you further.

I'm not going to do that. If you can't figure it out what I'm trying to show and say here, I don't know what else to say except we'll keep going around in circles with this.

And if I do so, I'm putting words in your mouth. How long will it take to articulate something in a sentence or two? Your contention is something simple and obvious, right? You're the one being evasive. You became downright non-responsive after your post in another topic: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2311.msg69539.html#msg69539

One graphic has a cropped autopsy photo stuck on a re-enactment photo and the other graphic claims there was no exit. I dealt with the latter by citing the Lattimer test and HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel in another topic. Fine if we disagree but don't say you're not getting answers.

Does the autopsy photo in the re-enactment graphic have some significance?

As explained, the re-enactment and autopsy photo were taken at different camera angles, and therefore the surface of the back and shoulders appearing in each photo show at a different angle. The autopsy photo shows an entry wound at the base of the back of the neck. A projection from there to the exit wound at the base of the front of the throat is downward.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 09, 2019, 09:18:30 PM
Just a rule reminder for Chapman.

"Behave at all times, no swearing, racism or personal insults."

 :'(

Point out where I show racism here.
And I push back far better than you talentless dullards.

Go ahead, make my day
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on December 09, 2019, 10:56:23 PM

Nice. Very nice. Like this one. I'm still waiting for one of the geniuses here to tell me how in the XXXX that bullet went upward and out of the neck...

The bullet never went upward. It's trajectory was always downward.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Freeman on December 09, 2019, 11:54:15 PM
What point? You refuse to engage in the details because you are woefully ignorant of them. You’re here to play games and try to look “clever”.
  I'm still waiting for one of the geniuses here to tell me how in the XXXX that bullet went upward and out of the neck...
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/autopsy-descriptive-sheet-0 

The bullet never went upward. It's trajectory was always downward.
If that is true...according to the autopsy notes above....the bullet should have gone downward into the center of the chest.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Tim Nickerson on December 10, 2019, 12:25:31 AM
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/autopsy-descriptive-sheet-0 
If that is true...according to the autopsy notes above....the bullet should have gone downward into the center of the chest.

According to the notations on that Face Sheet, the bullet entered 14 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process.  Correct?  The downward angle of trajectory would have had to be a hell of a lot greater than 17.5 degrees in order for the bullet to enter the center of the chest. Jerry Organ has a superb graphic explaining the path through Kennedy. Have you ever seen it?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 10, 2019, 01:51:51 AM
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/bunch/necktransitbunch.gif)  (http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/diagrams/spine.jpg)
This graphic by unknown appears to show the missile channel would
have passed by the spine at the T1 level. But it's obvious the skull
overlay is too small, which draws upward the cervical vertebrae.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jack Trojan on December 10, 2019, 03:28:16 AM
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/neckwound/bunch/necktransitbunch.gif)  (http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/diagrams/spine.jpg)
This graphic by unknown appears to show the missile channel would
have passed by the spine at the T1 level. But it's obvious the skull
overlay is too small, which draws upward the cervical vertebrae.

When are you going to accept that you can't measure a 2D image this way? Your POV is never a perfect profile and all measurements are distorted. This is not how photogrammetry is done. Do the damn 2 laser challenge if you actually care about the truth and you want to advance your argument. Otherwise, your graphics are worse than misleading.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 10, 2019, 04:53:14 AM
When are you going to accept that you can't measure a 2D image this way? Your POV is never a perfect profile and all measurements are distorted. This is not how photogrammetry is done. Do the damn 2 laser challenge if you actually care about the truth and you want to advance your argument. Otherwise, your graphics are worse than misleading.

All the measurements apply to the mid-line and so are on the same plane. Practically no distortion.

Why can't one do photogrammetry and allow for perspective?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Freeman on December 10, 2019, 05:43:22 AM
You can sit around and let these clowns [who weren't there] tell you what happened if you want--- or you can hear what really happened from the doctors who attended President Kennedy at Parkland. 

Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 10, 2019, 04:40:53 PM
You can sit around and let these clowns [who weren't there] tell you what happened if you want--- or you can hear what really happened from the doctors who attended President Kennedy at Parkland. 


I see Jones confirming the tracheotomy cut had been large to allow exploration and that the head wound was on the upper top right.

McClellan was standing over Kennedy and could see the gaping wound was at the back of Kennedy's skull? Not possible. Jenkins is keeping Kennedy's head face-up.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Martin Weidmann on December 10, 2019, 04:57:26 PM
I see Jones confirming the tracheotomy cut had been large to allow exploration and that the head wound was on the upper top right.

McClellan was standing over Kennedy and could see the gaping wound was at the back of Kennedy's skull? Not possible. Jenkins is keeping Kennedy's head face-up.

McClellan was standing over Kennedy and could see the gaping wound was at the back of Kennedy's skull? Not possible.

Says the guy who wasn't there and who could not possibly know what McClellan saw.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Walt Cakebread on December 10, 2019, 05:54:50 PM
I see Jones confirming the tracheotomy cut had been large to allow exploration and that the head wound was on the upper top right.

McClellan was standing over Kennedy and could see the gaping wound was at the back of Kennedy's skull? Not possible. Jenkins is keeping Kennedy's head face-up.

So you are saying that Doctor Mc Clelland is a liar......    Dr Mc Clelland said that he saw a huge hole in the lower right rear of JFK's head ..... His statement is verified by 18 witnesses who are shown in photos  on pages 86. 87. and 88 of Groden's,  TKOAP. (Incidentally one of those photos is of Doctor Ronald Jones, and in the photo Dr Jones is seen with his right hand with the fingers splayed depicting the large wound LOW on the rear of JFK's head  )   In the Video that was made 50 years later in 2013, Dr Jones contradicts his earlier photo and indicates that the wound on the rear of JFK's head was HIGH on the rear of JFK's head.   

Dr Mc Clelland comes across as much more credible than Dr Jones..... 
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jack Trojan on December 10, 2019, 07:27:21 PM
All the measurements apply to the mid-line and so are on the same plane. Practically no distortion.

Why can't one do photogrammetry and allow for perspective?

No, there is no POV from a 2D image that you can measure without ortho-recitfying it. You must "flatten" out the image to counteract the distortion created when you project a 3D object onto a 2D image. This is the only way to measure objects on a 2D image, which is what photogrammetry is all about; restoring the 3rd dimension from a 2D image. Since this is likely beyond your purview, your best bet is to create a digital 3D model of JFK, which you can manipulate graphically into the correct position to make the MB work, or not.  But you are relying on the CAD's physics engine to do all the work for you and in the end, who is going to buy it?

It's so much easier to skip the CGI and use 3D surrogates instead, which anyone can do even if you have no photo-analysis credentials. That is the beauty of a 3D re-enactment using lasers. It's cheap and deadly accurate and anyone can do it to convince themselves that the MB was either feasible or BS:

Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 10, 2019, 07:42:07 PM
So you are saying that Doctor Mc Clelland is a liar......    Dr Mc Clelland said that he saw a huge hole in the lower right rear of JFK's head ..... His statement is verified by 18 witnesses who are shown in photos  on pages 86. 87. and 88 of Groden's,  TKOAP. (Incidentally one of those photos is of Doctor Ronald Jones, and in the photo Dr Jones is seen with his right hand with the fingers splayed depicting the large wound LOW on the rear of JFK's head  )   In the Video that was made 50 years later in 2013, Dr Jones contradicts his earlier photo and indicates that the wound on the rear of JFK's head was HIGH on the rear of JFK's head.   

Dr Mc Clelland comes across as much more credible than Dr Jones.....

You mean the fellow who wrote on the day of the assassination: "The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple."? Even he got left wrong from right (as I do sometimes), he's describing a wound more parietal and top than some occipital blowout.

You ever consider McClelland might have become a full-fledged conspiracy buff after seeing the Zapruder film and after loons like Jones, Lifton and Thompson started asking questions "sharing" viewpoints with the Parkland doctors in the mid-60s?

How can he be at the head of the table if Perry said: "I don't think Bob McClelland was in the best place to see the head wound."?
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 10, 2019, 08:31:17 PM
No, there is no POV from a 2D image that you can measure without ortho-recitfying it. You must "flatten" out the image to counteract the distortion created when you project a 3D object onto a 2D image.

Show us one of those "flatten" out 2D images.

No reason you can't place a properly-scaled 3D model on an unaltered 2D photo and match the photo's field-of-view.

Quote
This is the only way to measure objects on a 2D image, which is what photogrammetry is all about; restoring the 3rd dimension from a 2D image.

You have a graphic example of that?

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

In the above image, the President's head is approximately in profile and its plane is similar to the film plane. We can add measurements at the head's midline that will be on the same plane as the head seen in the photo and the film plane. All three planes coincide. OK, I'll concede 2% "distortion (but that's a lot less distortion than your laser test).

Quote
Since this is likely beyond your purview, your best bet is to create a digital 3D model of JFK, which you can manipulate graphically into the correct position to make the MB work, or not.  But you are relying on the CAD's physics engine to do all the work for you and in the end, who is going to buy it?

"Manipulate graphically". What are you talking about? The 3D model exists as scaled (usually 1:1) and in its own file. It should come very close to matching the same subject and its position unique to the photo. Often-times, it will match close-to-perfect, depends on facet-count and so forth.

Quote
It's so much easier to skip the CGI and use 3D surrogates instead, which anyone can do even if you have no photo-analysis credentials. That is the beauty of a 3D re-enactment using lasers. It's cheap and deadly accurate and anyone can do it to convince themselves that the MB was either feasible or BS:

Supposedly not having your photos from your own test allows everyone to "buy it". LOL.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jack Trojan on December 10, 2019, 09:24:13 PM
Show us one of those "flatten" out 2D images.

You, nor I have the info needed to ortho-rectify 2D images you find on the internet. That is my point.

Quote
No reason you can't place a properly-scaled 3D model on an unaltered 2D photo and match the photo's field-of-view.

Yes there is, which is why you can't assume anything you know nothing about. And what does "properly scaled" mean?


Quote
You have a graphic example of that?

[snip image]

In the above image, the President's head is approximately in profile and its plane is similar to the film plane. We can add measurements at the head's midline that will be on the same plane as the head seen in the photo and the film plane. All three planes coincide. OK, I'll concede 2% "distortion (but that's a lot less distortion than your laser test).

Any 2D image is not suitable for this. You can't "concede" a % of distortion, you have to measure and rectify it. And there is zero distortion on my 3D laser test, because it is already in 3D.

Quote
"Manipulate graphically". What are you talking about? The 3D model exists as scaled (usually 1:1) and in its own file. It should come very close to matching the same subject and its position unique to the photo. Often-times, it will match close-to-perfect, depends on facet-count and so forth.

I thought you understood the concept of manipulating a digital 3D model. It's how video games work. A 3D model is rendered in 2D using hidden lines and projection algorithms. You hamstring yourself by converting everything from 3D to 2D and then expect us to believe you got it right.

Quote
Supposedly not having your photos from your own test allows everyone to "buy it". LOL.

For that, you fail since you have no interest in the truth. Carry on LNer.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jerry Organ on December 10, 2019, 10:01:19 PM
You, nor I have the info needed to ortho-rectify 2D images you find on the internet. That is my point.

Orthorectification is a process used in map-making where everything has to appear on the same-scaled plane, as if the satellite or plane that took the photo was always directly above specific areas in the photo. It relies on ground control points (GCPs).

So the "flattened out" images you referred to earlier are used to draw maps. And you're likening that to 3D models applied to life photos? Amazing.

Quote
Yes there is, which is why you can't assume anything you know nothing about. And what does "properly scaled" mean?

Scaled in the same XYZ dimensions as the subject matter. And typically using 1:1 units of measure.

Quote
Any 2D image is not suitable for this. You can't "concede" a % of distortion, you have to measure and rectify it.

The measurements are known parameters fixed in the 3D model and the life subject itself. If they parallel, there should be matching points. In the case of the autopsy left-profile photo, a coincidence of planes ensured accuracy.

Quote
And there is zero distortion on my 3D laser test, because it is already in 3D.
I thought you understood the concept of manipulating a digital 3D model. It's how video games work. A 3D model is rendered in 2D using hidden lines and projection algorithms. You hamstring yourself by converting everything from 3D to 2D and then expect us to believe you got it right.

For that, you fail since you have no interest in the truth. Carry on LNer.

Map-making and video games. You CTs really think outside the box.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jack Trojan on December 10, 2019, 10:26:15 PM
Orthorectification is a process used in map-making where everything has to appear on the same-scaled plane, as if the satellite or plane that took the photo was always directly above specific areas in the photo. It relies on ground control points (GCPs).

So the "flattened out" images you referred to earlier are used to draw maps. And you're likening that to 3D models applied to life photos? Amazing.

Scaled in the same XYZ dimensions as the subject matter. And typically using 1:1 units of measure.

The measurements are known parameters fixed in the 3D model and the life subject itself. If they parallel, there should be matching points. In the case of the autopsy left-profile photo, a coincidence of planes ensured accuracy.

Map-making and video games. You CTs really think outside the box.

Close range photogrammetry applies the exact same principles and physics as for satellite mapping. You must apply it to a 2D image of a 3D object if you want to measure it like you are trying to do. Ortho-rectification actually distorts the image over a 2D plane, which is why it is never appropriate for close range photogrammetry. This is why you shouldn't do it, or justify it without knowing what you are talking about.
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Bill Chapman on December 11, 2019, 07:23:48 PM
You, nor I have the info needed to ortho-rectify 2D images you find on the internet. That is my point.

Yes there is, which is why you can't assume anything you know nothing about. And what does "properly scaled" mean?


Any 2D image is not suitable for this. You can't "concede" a % of distortion, you have to measure and rectify it. And there is zero distortion on my 3D laser test, because it is already in 3D.

I thought you understood the concept of manipulating a digital 3D model. It's how video games work. A 3D model is rendered in 2D using hidden lines and projection algorithms. You hamstring yourself by converting everything from 3D to 2D and then expect us to believe you got it right.

For that, you fail since you have no interest in the truth. Carry on LNer.

For that, you fail since you have no interest in the truth. Carry on LNer.
>>> With that, you've just lost the argument
Title: Re: 56 years later and still the WC apologists deny the conspiracy.
Post by: Jack Trojan on December 11, 2019, 10:35:43 PM
For that, you fail since you have no interest in the truth. Carry on LNer.
>>> With that, you've just lost the argument

According to whom, you?  :D