Many obvious facts refute the lone-gunman theory. Here are some of them:
-- Even the HSCA admitted that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit with a shot at around Z186-190. JFK's cheeks puff at Z188. At around Z200, JFK's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion; his right hand also drops to the chin or throat level in a fraction of a second and stays there until he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207; and his head moves rapidly from the right toward his wife on his left. The HSCA's photographic experts detected a strong blur/jiggle episode from Z189-197. Here's the problem for the lone-gunman theory: The sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK was obscured by the intervening oak tree from Z166-209. Obviously, this shot did not come from the sixth-floor window.
-- At least 2 seconds after JFK visibly reacts to the Z186-190 shot, he is clearly struck again at Z226. Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and the position of his hands and elbows--particularly his elbows--changes dramatically, as they are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements are quite startling when one compares Z226, where they are first discernible, to Z232 just 1/3-second later.
Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions in the entire Zapruder film. In addition, Dr. Luis Alvarez and HSCA photographic experts Hartmann and Scott noted a blur/jiggle episode at around Z225-229. This shot must have hit at right around Z224. Needless to say, this means the Zapruder film shows that JFK suffered two non-fatal shots, which means that at least four shots were fired at him.
-- There is strong evidence in the Zapruder film that a shot was fired at right around Z285:
* There is a strong blur/jiggle episode from Z289-295.
* Special Agent Warren Taylor said he heard a shot at the very instant his left foot touched the ground after he opened the door to exit the vehicle in which he was riding. A photo taken by newsman James Altgens at Z255, shows Taylor in the process of opening the door--1.65 seconds before Z285.
* Texas Highway Patrolman Milton Wright said he heard a shot just as his car turned onto Elm Street. The above-mentioned Altgens photo shows that Wright’s car had not made that turn by Z255 but was nearing the corner. By Z300, Wright's car was on Elm Street.
* SSA William Greer, the limousine's driver, snaps his head to the rear beginning
at Z301.
* SSA Roy Kellerman, who is sitting next to Greer, seems to duck his head beginning at Z293. His head tips noticeably forward, in an apparent ducking motion.
* Jean Hill begins to snap her head to the right at around Z295.
Government-hired experts have studiously avoided dealing with the clear photographic and jiggle-analysis evidence of a shot at around Z285, but many private researchers have discussed it. The Z285 shot refutes the lone-gunman theory because it means that at least four shots were fired.
More information on these shots can be found in this article:
Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view
-- Firearms experience and extensive testing have established that CE 543, the dented shell found in the sniper's nest, could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination because the dent is so severe that it would have prevented the shell from discharging the missile. The fact that this shell was not fired during the assassination is also seen in the following facts:
CE 543 does not have the alleged murder weapon’s characteristic chambering mark on its side, whereas the two other shells do. CE 543 has follower marks on its bottom, but these marks do not appear on the two other shells nor on any of the shells that were ejected from the rifle in the WC’s test firings. CE 543 could not have been marked by the alleged murder weapon’s magazine follower during the assassination because it was not the last shell in the clip. No experiment, including Chad Zimmerman's, has produced a shell as dented as CE 543 (see my discussion on this point in my article cited below).
Thus, unless the police "missed/overlooked" a shell in the sixth-floor sniper's nest, the sixth-floor gunman could have only fired two shots.
For more information on the dented shell, see this article:
The Dented Bullet Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ihue8a0GmN_Ptl38bPjpu1F99nqU0Z6f/view
The sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK was obscured by the intervening oak tree from Z166-209. Obviously, this shot did not come from the sixth-floor window.
Thumb1: Michael... I applaud your post, and I can verify that you are 100% correct in stating that the tree blocked the line of sight from Z166 to Z209. Many years ago I built a scale model of the area and I used a large cardboard box scaled to the size of the TSBD ...... I cut out the sixth floor window so that I could look down on the area on Elm street from behind the sixth floor window, .......I used a drinking straw as a sighting device and was not surprised, but never-the-less, I was stunned to verify that the live oak tree blocked the line of sight to JFK at the time when photos and films clearly show that he had been shot.....
Many obvious facts refute the lone-gunman theory. Here are some of them:
-- Even the HSCA admitted that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit with a shot at around Z186-190. JFK's cheeks puff at Z188. At around Z200, JFK's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion; his right hand also drops to the chin or throat level in a fraction of a second and stays there until he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207; and his head moves rapidly from the right toward his wife on his left. The HSCA's photographic experts detected a strong blur/jiggle episode from Z189-197. Here's the problem for the lone-gunman theory: The sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK was obscured by the intervening oak tree from Z166-209. Obviously, this shot did not come from the sixth-floor window.
. . .
-- There is strong evidence in the Zapruder film that a shot was fired at right around Z285:
. . .
Michael's definition of a "fact" is different from mine. He seems to have a low bar for declaring a "fact". If a majority of the HSCA concludes a bullet was fired during z186-z190, that make it a "fact". Or the opinion of Dr. Luiz Alvarez, whom he disagrees on most things about the assassination, makes a shot at z285 a "fact". Any "fact" that supports multiple shooters gets the nod from Michael, however the slim the reasons are. Even if it is the opinions of those who support a "fact" he believes were largely deluded about the JFK assassination on so many other details. If one of them supports a "fact" that supports multiple shooters, that makes it a "fact".Yes, but they're not just "facts" to Mr. Griffith, they are "obvious facts." They have twice as much power as simply ordinary ones. More important, as you pointed out these are subjective interpretations of the Zapruder film, a film, by the way, that he thinks is inauthentic/faked. If it's faked then how can you say it's a reliable piece of evidence? Conspiracy game: if it shows a conspiracy it's real; if it contradicts a conspiracy it's faked. The same evidence mind you.
The jiggle of the camera just after z153 was much stronger than the jiggle just after z285. But that doesn't matter. To Michael, a shot at z285 is a "fact" and a shot at z153 is just a falsehood. Clearly a falsehood. Because a shot at z285 supports the multiple shooter scenario while a shot at z153 does not.
What are my "facts" on the JFK assassination? I don't have any "facts". I believe, that most likely, Oswald fired shots around z153, z222 and z312. But none of these are "facts". Particularly for the shot at z153. I just believe the evidence for a shot around z153 is pretty compelling, but not a "fact". And I may change my mind in the future, as I have on other issues, like the importance in the "Jet Effect" in explaining why JFK's head and torso went backwards after z313 (I now think the "Jet Effect" had minimum effect).
Yes, but they're not just "facts" to Mr. Griffith, they are "obvious facts." They have twice as much power as simply ordinary ones.
He's said that he believes that Jim Garrison showed that Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw conspired to shoot JFK. Then went to the CIA with their plan. Garrison also said (Shaw trial) that Oswald brought the rifle that was used to kill JFK, i.e., it was his rifle that was used. But he also said he believes John Newman's conclusion that it was the Pentagon not the CIA that killed JFK. He also believe Veciana's claims that Oswald was handled by Phillips. So was it the Pentagon or the CIA? Was Oswald framed or a willing participant?
You cannot believe all of these claims; they are contradictory and at odds with each other. But in conspiracy world consistency doesn't matter; if it promotes a conspiracy and can be used to do so then it's supported. This is their problem: it's been nearly 60 years and each one of these conspiracy hobbyists has his or her own theory as to what happened. The CIA, the Pentagon, the Birchers, rich Texas oilmen, the mob, anti-Castro Cubans. It's like a conspiracy cafeteria where each person picks what he desires and ignores everything else. Sometimes they want the meatloaf, the next day they want the soup, another day it's spaghetti.
Michael's definition of a "fact" is different from mine. He seems to have a low bar for declaring a "fact". If a majority of the HSCA concludes a bullet was fired during z186-z190, that make it a "fact". Or the opinion of Dr. Luiz Alvarez, whom he disagrees on most things about the assassination, makes a shot at z285 a "fact". Any "fact" that supports multiple shooters gets the nod from Michael, however the slim the reasons are. Even if it is the opinions of those who support a "fact" he believes were largely deluded about the JFK assassination on so many other details. If one of them supports a "fact" that supports multiple shooters, that makes it a "fact".
The jiggle of the camera just after z153 was much stronger than the jiggle just after z285. But that doesn't matter. To Michael, a shot at z285 is a "fact" and a shot at z153 is just a falsehood. Clearly a falsehood. Because a shot at z285 supports the multiple shooter scenario while a shot at z153 does not.
What are my "facts" on the JFK assassination? I don't have any "facts". I believe, that most likely, Oswald fired shots around z153, z222 and z312. But none of these are "facts". Particularly for the shot at z153. I just believe the evidence for a shot around z153 is pretty compelling, but not a "fact". And I may change my mind in the future, as I have on other issues, like the importance in the "Jet Effect" in explaining why JFK's head and torso went backwards after z313 (I now think the "Jet Effect" had minimum effect).
Your reply is merely more of your usual evasion, distortion, and deception. Shall I note the obvious fact that you offered no explanation for any of the evidence that I presented in support of those facts? Your comments remind one of the comments that Flat Earthers make when asked about satellite photos that show a round Earth.
There will always be some people who will refuse to acknowledge facts, no matter how obvious they are and no matter how much evidence supports them, and you are a prime example of this. Just because diehard true believers in a false theory won't acknowledge facts that refute that theory does not mean those facts are not facts.
The fact that the Zapruder film shows JFK reacting to a shot from Z188-207 is obvious to anyone who is not committed to the lone-gunman myth. People don't start clutching at their throat for no reason, nor do they freeze their waving motion and rapidly turn their head for no reason. The HSCA PEP deserves great credit for being willing to acknowledge these reaction movements, and Blakey deserves great credit for ensuring that the acknowledgement of these reaction movements was not suppressed. But you can't acknowledge these reaction movements because doing so would destroy your silly lone-gunman myth.
The fact that the Zapruder film shows JFK being jolted forward and his elbows and hands being flung upward and forward starting at Z226 is even more obvious than his reactions in Z188-207. To ascribe these movements as reactions to your posited Z222 shot requires us to believe that it took four frames for the bullet to start jolting JFK forward. How could your Z312 shot have instantly started pushing JFK's head forward--it moves slightly forward at Z312--if your Z222 shot took four frames to start pushing JFK forward? And how could your Z222 shot have taken 14 frames to start pushing Connally's right shoulder down and forward?
When it comes to the Zapruder film, you guys will always be able to claim that you don't see this or that and come up with comical explanations to avoid the obvious implications and meanings of movements. Similarly, you guys offer only phony, laughable explanations for the fact that the nick in the tie knot is not on the edge and that there's no hole through the tie (and no photo/footage taken the motorcade shows JFK's tie off-center enough for the bullet to have missed it), and for the fact that the rear bullet holes in JFK's coat and shirt are at least five inches below the neck line (and no photo/footage of JFK taken during the motorcade shows his coat bunched more than an inch or two, and even though the buttoned-down tailor-made shirt could not have bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat).
Contrary to your misleading claim, I do not posit a Z285 merely because of Alvarez, but also because of the reactions of three other people in the Zapruder film and because of the accounts of Wright and Taylor. But, of course, you must sweep all of this aside because your theory of the shooting does not allow you to accept more than three shots, and a shot at Z285 would mean that at least six shots were fired (Z186-190, Z224, Z234, Z285, Z312, and the Tague curb shot).
How about CE 543, the dented shell? I notice you said nothing about this. Zimmerman's own experiment failed to produce a single shell that was as dented as CE 543, as did the HSCA experiment. This is in addition to the fact that CE 543 does not have the alleged murder weapon’s chambering mark on its side, whereas the two other shells do, and that CE 543 has follower marks on its bottom, whereas these marks do not appear on the two other shells nor on any of the shells that were ejected from the rifle in the WC’s test firings.
How about CE 543, the dented shell? I notice you said nothing about this. Zimmerman's own experiment failed to produce a single shell that was as dented as CE 543, as did the HSCA experiment. This is in addition to the fact that CE 543 does not have the alleged murder weapon’s chambering mark on its side, whereas the two other shells do, and that CE 543 has follower marks on its bottom, whereas these marks do not appear on the two other shells nor on any of the shells that were ejected from the rifle in the WC’s test firings.
The fact that the Zapruder film shows JFK being jolted forward and his elbows and hands being flung upward and forward starting at Z226 is even more obvious than his reactions in Z188-207. To ascribe these movements as reactions to your posited Z222 shot requires us to believe that it took four frames for the bullet to start jolting JFK forward. How could your Z312 shot have instantly started pushing JFK's head forward--it moves slightly forward at Z312--if your Z222 shot took four frames to start pushing JFK forward? And how could your Z222 shot have taken 14 frames to start pushing Connally's right shoulder down and forward?
The fact that the Zapruder film shows JFK reacting to a shot from Z188-207 is obvious to anyone who is not committed to the lone-gunman myth. People don't start clutching at their throat for no reason, nor do they freeze their waving motion and rapidly turn their head for no reason. The HSCA PEP deserves great credit for being willing to acknowledge these reaction movements, and Blakey deserves great credit for ensuring that the acknowledgement of these reaction movements was not suppressed. But you can't acknowledge these reaction movements because doing so would destroy your silly lone-gunman myth.
How could your Z312 shot have instantly started pushing JFK's head forward--it moves slightly forward at Z312--if your Z222 shot took four frames to start pushing JFK forward? And how could your Z222 shot have taken 14 frames to start pushing Connally's right shoulder down and forward?
How about CE 543, the dented shell? I notice you said nothing about this. Zimmerman's own experiment failed to produce a single shell that was as dented as CE 543, as did the HSCA experiment. This is in addition to the fact that CE 543 does not have the alleged murder weapon’s chambering mark on its side, whereas the two other shells do, and that CE 543 has follower marks on its bottom, whereas these marks do not appear on the two other shells nor on any of the shells that were ejected from the rifle in the WC’s test firings.
Yes, but they're not just "facts" to Mr. Griffith, they are "obvious facts." They have twice as much power as simply ordinary ones. More important, as you pointed out these are subjective interpretations of the Zapruder film, a film, by the way, that he thinks is inauthentic/faked. If it's faked then how can you say it's a reliable piece of evidence? Conspiracy game: if it shows a conspiracy it's real; if it contradicts a conspiracy it's faked. The same evidence mind you.
He's said that he believes that Jim Garrison showed that Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw conspired to shoot JFK. Then went to the CIA with their plan. Garrison also said (Shaw trial) that Oswald brought the rifle that was used to kill JFK, i.e., it was his rifle that was used. But he also said he believes John Newman's conclusion that it was the Pentagon not the CIA that killed JFK. He also believe Veciana's claims that Oswald was handled by Phillips. So was it the Pentagon or the CIA? Was Oswald framed or a willing participant?
You cannot believe all of these claims; they are contradictory and at odds with each other. But in conspiracy world consistency doesn't matter; if it promotes a conspiracy and can be used to do so then it's supported. This is their problem: it's been nearly 60 years and each one of these conspiracy hobbyists has his or her own theory as to what happened. The CIA, the Pentagon, the Birchers, rich Texas oilmen, the mob, anti-Castro Cubans. It's like a conspiracy cafeteria where each person picks what he desires and ignores everything else. Sometimes they want the meatloaf, the next day they want the soup, another day it's spaghetti.
Michael. Before you answer any of my questions, I would like you to respond to Steve's post.
Is it true that you sometimes argue that Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw came up with the initial plan to kill JFK and presented it to the CIA?
Is it true that you sometimes argue that Oswald was instead working with the FBI to assassinate JFK?
Did you hold one opinion from 2010 through 2015 and a different after 2015? If so, no problem.
Or have you frequently alternated between the two theories? Have you sometimes argued for a different group of conspirators?
If so, this sounds like the product of a disorganized mind, at least when it comes to the JFK assassination. Not a type of mental illness. Just not being able to keep you thoughts well organized and consistent.
Many obvious facts refute the lone-gunman theory. Here are some of them:
-- Even the HSCA admitted that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit with a shot at around Z186-190.
JFK's cheeks puff at Z188.
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1BdfKQK3wzpvE9SF1jQdwTNfBUhT2NQn8) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1hJ0oJkJuk3uBcolLtRyRqHcIZMwstdq7) |
You seem to be referring to Z188, a frame with horizontal panning blur where everybody's cheeks "puff".
That always perplexed me about the Zapruder film. Why does everyone's cheeks periodically puff out at the same time? Were they all practicing for the U. S. Synchronized Cheek Puffing Olympic team?
Many obvious facts refute the lone-gunman theory. Here are some of them:
[SNIP]
Some additional obvious facts that refute the lone-gunman theory:
-- The knot of JFK's tie has no hole through it and no nick on either of its edges, which proves that no bullet exited JFK's throat. Any bullet exiting the throat through the front shirt slits could not have missed the tie knot and would have either made a hole through the knot or would have at least nicked one of the knot's edges, and no photo or footage shows JFK's tie knot even remotely so far off-center that a bullet could have missed it.
The WC claimed that the alleged magic bullet of the single-bullet theory (SBT) nicked the left side of the knot, but the two photos of the tie knot plainly and clearly refute this claim.
There is a small nick on the tie knot, but it is very shallow, and it is clearly not on the left edge of the knot (see CE 395). This nick was made by
a Parkland Hospital nurse as she hurriedly cut JFK's tie to remove his shirt. The fact that the nick is not on either edge of the knot refutes the suggestion that a bullet nicked the knot after supposedly exiting the throat.
The FBI produced a misleading photo of the front of the tie knot. The photo includes a caption that reads "nick exposed white lining of tie." In this photo, which contradicts CE 395, the knot is contorted so that the nick is almost squarely in the middle of the knot. This was done to give the misleading impression that there was a hole through the knot, but years later it was revealed that the knot has no hole through it.
Importantly, although the FBI found metallic traces on the rear holes in JFK's shirt and coat, it found no metallic traces on the tie knot and on the shirt slits. When bullets enter and exit clothing, they leave metallic traces. Yet, the FBI found no such traces on the tie knot and on the shirt slits. Not surprisingly, the WC said nothing about this crucial fact in its comments about the tie knot and the shirt slits (WCR, pp. 91-92).
-- The slits in the front of JFK's shirt could not have made by an exiting bullet. The slits do not correspond to each other. They are not the same shape or thickness or length, and are not level with each other. The slit under the button is half vertical and half diagonal, and does not extend into the neckband. In contrast, the slit under the button hole is narrower and much straighter than the other slit, and about 1/5 of it extends into the neckband.
Anyone can look at the FBI photo of the slits and see these facts for themselves (FBI Exhibit 60). This is undoubtedly why the WC did not publish this photo.
Interestingly, we now know that the FBI lab report on the shirt slits did not claim they were made by a bullet; rather, it said they had the "characteristics of an exit for for a bullet fragment." Yet, when FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier testified before the WC, he said nothing about this vital finding. An irregular-shaped fragment could, in theory, have made the slits. This is at least plausible. However, the SBT requires that a non-yawing, virtually pristine bullet made the slits.
In addition, there is no fabric missing from the shirt slits, which is additional proof they were not made by an exiting bullet. It is a revealing fact that neither the FBI lab nor Robert Frazier claimed that any fabric was missing from the shirt slits. Frazier surely knew that this fact alone almost certainly proved the slits were not made by a bullet. Dr. David Mantik confirmed that no fabric is missing from the slits when he examined JFK's shirt at the National Archives.
Another key fact about the shirt slits, contrary to another lone-gunman myth, is that the fibers of the slits were not bent outward. The myth that the shirt-slit fibers were bent outward, suggesting a back-to-front path for the object that made them, was first peddled by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. To its great credit, the HSCA debunked this myth. The HSCA noted that the FBI lab report on the slits said nothing about the fibers being bent in any direction.
So what caused the shirt slits? Obviously, just as Dr. Charles Carrico indicated years ago, the slits, like the nick in the tie knot, were made by a Parkland nurse as she hurriedly cut away JFK's clothing to remove it. When Dr. Mantik examined the slits at the National Archives, he found that they looked like "a scalpel incision." This, needless to say, explains why no metallic traces were found on the slits, why the slits are so irregular, and why no fabric is missing from the slits.
This also explains why there is no hole in the tie knot and no nick on either edge of the knot; why the throat wound was small, neat, and punched-in; why three Parkland doctors independently confirmed that the throat wound was above the collar; and why in the Zapruder film JFK starts clutching at his throat before he disappears behind the freeway sign in Z207 and is still clutching at his throat when he is visibly and strongly knocked forward starting in Z226. The Z186 shot hit him in the throat, and the Z224 shot hit him in the back.
You seem to grasp the concept there was only two shots. How do you now explain the wound in JBC's back if the bullet does not first pass through JFK?
Where do you get the idea that I believe there were only two shots?
JBC was hit by a separate bullet, quite possibly by two bullets (one to the back and the other to his wrist).
Two bullets struck JFK's head, one from behind (slightly above the EOP) and one from the front (in the right temple). This is why there is a cloud of tiny fragments in the right frontal region on the lateral autopsy skull x-ray. This is why the autopsy doctors saw two fragment trails in the skull, one that started at the EOP and went upward to the right orbit, and one that started in the right frontal region and went upward toward the back of the head--and why they had to ignore one of those two fragment trails to maintain the fiction of a single shot to the head from behind. They chose to ignore the high fragment trail. However, the plotters decided that the high fragment trail was less problematic than the low one, so the low one--the one described in the autopsy report but not seen on the skull x-rays--was made to disappear.
Where do you get the idea that I believe there were only two shots?
JBC was hit by a separate bullet, quite possibly by two bullets (one to the back and the other to his wrist).
Two bullets struck JFK's head, one from behind (slightly above the EOP) and one from the front (in the right temple). This is why there is a cloud of tiny fragments in the right frontal region on the lateral autopsy skull x-ray. This is why the autopsy doctors saw two fragment trails in the skull, one that started at the EOP and went upward to the right orbit, and one that started in the right frontal region and went upward toward the back of the head--and why they had to ignore one of those two fragment trails to maintain the fiction of a single shot to the head from behind. They chose to ignore the high fragment trail. However, the plotters decided that the high fragment trail was less problematic than the low one, so the low one--the one described in the autopsy report but not seen on the skull x-rays--was made to disappear.
Another interesting fact worth noting about the absence of missing fabric from the slits in the front of JFK's shirt: every undisputed, acknowledged clothing hole made by bullets during the assassination had fabric missing from it. The rear holes in JFK's coat and shirt have fabric missing from them. The holes in the front and back of Connally's coat and shirt all have fabric missing from them. Gee, how about that?! That's because when bullets rip through clothing, they invariably remove some fabric. Yet, no fabric is missing from the shirt slits. Why? Because they were not made by a bullet.
This explains why no metallic traces were found on the slits, why the slits are so irregular in shape, why one of the slits extends partly into the neckband but the other does not, and why the FBI lab initially declined to attribute the slits to a bullet but said they could have been made by a fragment.
Due to the positioning of the two men in the car, the wound in JBC's back can only be explained if the bullet first passes through JFK.
Due to the positioning of the two men in the car, the wound in JBC's back can only be explained if the bullet first passes through JFK.
That's just silly. You folks are like the fawning subjects in the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. The amount of evidence you are ignoring in making this claim is incredible and embarrassing.
Let's just try to get you to explain two things, okay?
One: The Z186 shot, identified by the HSCA experts, causes JFK's cheeks to puff, causes him to freeze his waving motion in mid-wave, causes Jackie to suddenly turn to look at JFK, and causes JFK to start reaching for his throat--all before he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207. Anyone with a functioning brain and functioning eyes can see these reactions. (Clearly, this was the throat shot, which is why JFK starts to reach for his throat, but never mind this for now.)
By the way, and I forget to mention this earlier, the first Secret Service analysis of the photographic evidence, mainly the Zapruder film, concluded that JFK was hit before Z200.
Now, how could the Z186 shot have anything to do with Connally's dramatic reactions that start 50 frames later, in Z236, especially the rapid and visible dropping of his right shoulder? Keep in mind that Connally himself--the guy who actually experienced the shot--after studying enlargements of the Zapruder frames for Life magazine, said that he was hit at Z234 and that he was absolutely certain he was not hit before Z230.
Remember, too, that even bullets fired from the low-velocity Carcano rifle would have been traveling at 2,100 fps, which equals 114 feet per Zapruder frame.
Two: How could the Z186 shot have suddenly knocked JFK visibly forward 40 frames later, starting at Z226, when the Z312 head shot causes JFK's head to start moving forward in that frame, i.e., within 1/18-second? Beginning at Z226, JFK's upper body is visibly knocked sharply forward, and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. The force and speed of these movements are quite startling when one compares Z226, where they are first discernible, to Z232, just 1/3-second later. Again, how could the Z186 shot have caused these violent movements?
Government-hired experts have studiously avoided dealing with the dramatic Z226-232 movements because they obviously, plainly show that JFK was struck by a bullet in the back at Z226. Part of the problem with acknowledging these movements is that Connally's shoulder does not begin its dramatic collapse until Z236, much too late to have been caused by a Z224 shot, and, as mentioned, Connally himself was certain he was not hit before Z230 and identified Z234 as the moment he was struck.
Do you think the Willis photo of JFK waving to the TSBD secretaries at approximately Z202 was a hoax? It is known where the first shot occurred. Right in front of them. They said so, there were not any HSCA members standing beside them. To believe a shot at Z186 means he would have to go back waving to the crowd after being wounded. What a politician to be able to accomplish that.
You want to quote the HSCA, but seemingly forgetful when it comes to Mr. Canning’s analysis of the film and concluding the only possible explanation for the wound to have occurred in JBC’s back was a bullet having first passed through JFK.
The eyewitnesses were unanimous in stating JFK reacted to the first shot. Only Elizabeth Woodward stated he reacted after the second shot, but she states it was after he turned back forward, which does not occur until after Z207.
The experts should have taken the time to talk to the eyewitnesses who were present at the time of the actual assassination.
Further divorcing the committee's investigation from reliability was its
dependence upon the analysis of NASA expert Thomas Canning for determining the trajectory of the bullets that struck President Kennedy and Governor Connally. . . .
In permitting Canning to perform his trajectory analysis, the committee ignored the advice of the Pathology Panel. The panel cautioned that there is no reliable method of "determining the missile trajectory . . . particularly if precision within the range of a few degrees is required." This was illustrated by Canning's rejection of the objective medical evidence. Instead of using the true location of the entrance wound in Kennedy's back (approximately four inches below the shoulder), Canning arbitrarily raised it three inches in order to arrive at a trajectory consistent with the sixth-floor window [i.e., the window from which Oswald supposedly fired]. He also computed the angle of the wound as twenty-one degrees downward. This was nothing less than a blatant distortion of the medical evidence, which proved that the bullet entered the president's back at a "slightly upward" angle.
Despite similar distortions of other parts of the objective medical data, Canning's trajectory analysis resulted in margins of error, by his own admission, that would have permitted the assassins to have fired from such diverse locations as the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh floors, and the roof of the Depository, as well as from the two upper floors of the neighboring Dal-Tex building. (Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination from a Historian's Perspective, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1982, pp. 179-180)
Noticeably absent from Posner's alignment theory is any discussion of the incompatible angles at which the magic bullet would have had to travel. For example, according to chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. James Humes, the bullet that struck Kennedy in the back penetrated at a downward angle of 45 degrees to 60 degrees. The Select Committee's trajectory expert said the downward angle was 21 degrees. But the bullet that injured Connally entered at a downward angle of 27 degrees (2:63; 4:74-75). To further complicate matters, the HSCA's medical panel unanimously concluded that the magic bullet had a "slightly upward trajectory" as it allegedly transited JFK's neck and exited the throat (28:435, emphasis added; 2:390).
How could a bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Book Depository have transited the body and exited the neck at any kind of an upward angle (or even an even angle or an only slightly downward angle)? And how could a bullet exiting JFK's throat at a slightly upward angle have entered Connally's back at a downward angle of over 20 degrees? These are geometric impossibilities, unless one wants to assume that Kennedy was leaning far forward when he was hit and/or that his head was tilted markedly forward. Indeed, as was shown in the 1988 NOVA documentary Who Shot President Kennedy?, the only way to make the magic bullet's vertical trajectory work is to assume that JFK was leaning very far forward and that Connally was leaning noticeably backward at the same time. But the HSCA's own trajectory expert said Kennedy was leaning forward by no more than 18 degrees (he put JFK's forward lean at between 11 and 18 degrees), and the Warren Commission noted that Connally was sitting "erect."
Thomas Canning, the NASA scientist who prepared the Committee's trajectory analysis, found it necessary to, in effect, ignore the medical panel's finding about the magic bullet's trajectory, though I'm sure he would deny this. Canning assumed the missile's entry point was very close to the base of the neck. Canning had to employ these and other assumptions in order to make his trajectory analysis seem plausible.
Additionally, Canning found that he could not get his vertical trajectory lines to match up when he considered the back wound's location as determined by the Committee's medical panel--even that was too low. Canning brushed this problem aside as a meaningless "experimental error." In order to make the horizontal trajectory work, Canning had to assume that Connally was positioned so far to the left that his right shoulder was practically in the middle of the jump seat (see 8:item number 28). Frame 224 alone visibly refutes any attempt to move Connally that far to the left.
No magic-bullet alignment theory has yet explained how bullets coming from the alleged sniper's nest could have caused the damage that was done to the limousine's windshield. The windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a bullet coming down into the car from the sixth-floor window (8:248). The Select Committee speculated that the damage was caused by the supposed rear-head-shot bullet after it exited the skull, but Canning stated that the alleged vertical trajectory of this supposed bullet didn't line up well with the windshield damage (8:246).
There is also the fact that the chrome above the windshield was dented by a bullet (or by a very large fragment). If the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a fragment from the head shot, then it is especially hard to understand how a head-shot fragment could have caused the deep circular dent in the windshield's chrome (the dent was a good inch or two above the windshield damage). (pp. 67-68)
What??? Holy cow. JFK is not waving at the crowd in Z202! What on earth are you talking about? Starting in Z200, he abruptly stops waving and starts moving his right hand toward his throat. At the same time, Z200-207, Jackie suddenly starts to turn her head to the right toward JFK. If you view this segment in slow motion, you cannot fail to see these movements.
Willis slide 5 is actually solid evidence that a shot was fired just before Z190, as Dr. David Wrone explains in his book The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination. Yes, Willis 5 corresponds to Z202, but you have to allow time from the moment the shot was fired (1) to the moment Willis heard it, (2) to the moment Willis began his physiological reaction, and (3) to the moment when Willis's physiological reaction resulted in his snapping of the camera's shutter. Making a reasonable allowance for the time these events would have taken (just 12 frames, or 12/18th of a second), the shot that startled Willis into snapping the picture must have been fired "just prior to frame 190" (p. 192).
Of course, one reason this is crucial is that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the intervening oak tree from Z166 to Z210. Thus, whoever fired this shot was not the sixth-floor gunman.
I notice you simply ignored JFK's 226-232 movements and Connally's Z236-242 movements. I also notice you ignored the fact that the first Secret Service analysis of the Zapruder film found that JFK was hit before Z200.
Citing the witnesses as a group to establish the shooting sequence does not work because some of the witnesses did not notice the first shot and/or the second shot, and because at least two of the shots were so close together that they sounded like a single shot to many of the witnesses.
As for Canning, oh boy. Before you ever cite Canning again, you'd better do a little homework. I'm guessing that, for starters, you have not actually read Canning's analysis. You apparently don't realize that Canning concluded that JFK was hit by Z190, noting the same Z200-207 movements that I've discussed. Canning also admitted that his findings included a large margin of error. But Canning got himself into all sorts of nonsense when he tried to make the pre-Z190 shot fit the single-bullet theory. Dr. Michael Kurtz:
And, allow me to quote what I say about Canning and his analysis in my book Hasty Judgment:
In Willis #5, JFK has not been wounded and is still waving at Z202. Kind of makes the rest of your post a moot point.
Zapruder Frames - Costella Combined Edit (assassinationresearch.com)
=================
The really obvious observation is JFK is not quite directly opposite from the TSBD secretaries. Which is where they state the first shot occurred. The Chism’s stated the first shot took place right before the car reached their location. Jean Newman stated the first shot happened right after the car passed her.
=====================
Canning is very clear as to the shot that went through JFK’s neck is the only possible explanation for the wound in Gov Connally’s back.
Canning’s Trajectory Analysis of the wounds clearly places the origin of the shots as having come from the 6th floor of the TSBD. As far as some imaginary shooters from other locations, provide locations and proof they caused some type of wounds. Cannings Analysis explains all of them.
====================
Quoting yourself or Kurz is probably of very limited value.
At approximately Zapruder frame 200, Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a waving motion and his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by the time the President goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is evidencing some kind of reaction to a severe external stimulus. By the time he emerges from behind the sign at Zapruder frame 225, the President makes a clutching motion with his hands toward his neck, indicating clearly that he has been shot. (6 HSCA 17)
When I was asked to participate in analysis of the physical evidence regarding the assassination of John Kennedy, I welcomed the opportunity to help set the record straight. I did not anticipate that study of the photographic record of itself would reveal major discrepancies in the Warren Commission findings. Such has turned out to be the case. (Letter from Thomas Canning to G. Robert Blakey, January 5, 1978, https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/canning-s-letter-to-blakey)
This is just silliness. You did not address a single point that Dr. Kurtz made. Nor did you explain any of the points that I made. You did nothing but repeat the same talking points you've been peddlng here for years.
Specifically, I notice you ignored the point that Willis 5 must have been snapped in reaction to a shot fired before Z190 and that Canning said JFK was hit by Z190, which means you have to believe that your sixth-floor gunman fired at JFK while his view of JFK was obstructed by the oak tree. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.
Did you look at Z200-207 in slow motion yet? If you do, you can't help but see that starting in Z200, JFK suddenly freezes his waving motion, starts to bring his right hand toward his throat, and starts to rapidly turn his head to the left. You will also see that during this same time frame, Jackie suddenly starts to turn her head from left to right to look at JFK. Even most of the HSCA experts who analyzed the Zapruder film acknowledged that these movements meant that JFK must have been shot before Z190.
In fact, let's read what the HSCA analysis says about these actions:
Obviously, this clutching motion could not have been in reaction to a Z224 shot, since we can see in Z224 that JFK's left hand is already clutching at his throat. Clearly, this clutching motion began well before Z224. It takes humans time to bring their hands up into a clutching motion. This motion clearly seems to start in Z200-206 when we see that JFK freezes his waving motion and starts to bring his right hand toward his throat.
The HSCA experts also noted that there is a strong blur episode from Z189-197, which of course indicates a shot was fired a few frames earlier (6 HSCA 27).
I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning said the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.
I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning found it necessary to ignore the HSCA medical panel's placement of the back wound to get his SBT trajectory to work, which was a damning and revealing admission.
Have you looked at Canning's diagrams? Find me one photo or frame that shows Connally as far left as Canning had to put him to make the SBT trajectory work. Let's see it. Z224 destroys, utterly destroys, the fiction that Connally was that far to the left.
By the way, are you aware that Canning told Blakey that he was surprised that his study of the photographic evidence "revealed major discrepancies in the Warren Commission findings"?:
Of course, one of those "major discrepancies" was the discovery that the Zapruder film shows that a shot was fired at JFK at around Z186 and that he begins to show visible reactions to being hit by Z200. Obviously, the sixth-floor gunman did not fire this shot, since his view of JFK was obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210.
I further notice that you are still ignoring JFK's dramatic reactions that start in Z226, when he is jolted forward and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. These actions show that JFK was hit in the back a frame or two earlier. But WC apologists are caught between a rock and a hard place by these Z226-232 reactions and the Z200-207 reactions, because they obviously could not have been caused by the same bullet. That's why you guys either ignore one or both of these reaction sequences.
Z190 was chosen for Mr. Canning by none other than the acoustics panel. What acoustics were they referring to? Dictabelt? You cannot actually still be a believer in that tripe?
It would be best if you would quote Canning discussing the fragment hitting the windshield. The whole thought seems suspect and outside his area of expertise.
==========================================
Here is what Mr Canning thought of the placement of JBC in the car.
“Mr. CANNING. Thank you.
I would like to make just one point that has occurred to me that may not have been amply clear, and, that is, in the case of the single bullet theory, we established with high reliability and precision, I believe, the rightmost position which Governor Connally could have been sitting in at the time that he was wounded. We did not establish how far to the left he could, with comparable of quantitative certainty. And with that in mind, there may be some small change that might come about in where the error circle for this case would lie if we were able to determine, for instance, that he was several centimeters to the left of where I placed him in that drawing, and what that would do is, that it would move the lefthand margin of the smallest ellipse, of that black ellipse, it would move it somewhat to the left, as we see it. It would move it to the west. But that change is not in my view an important change in the overall result.”
======================================================
Thomas Canning did not testify until Sept. 12th of 1978. This imaginary letter is dated Jan.5th 1978, A full 8 months before he actually testified. Quite a feat to see into the future and complain about the conditions of his own testimony before they even occur. The whole letter is just a complete fake. In it he is supposedly referencing the congressman questioning him.
January 5, 1978
Professor Robert Blakely [sic]
Chief Counsel,
House Select Committee on Assassinations
U.S. House of Representatives
House Office Bldg.
Annex No. 2
Washington D.C. 20515
Dear Professor Blakely: [sic]
Canning letter: “I needn't remind you of the importance of managing time when many expensive people are participating and particularly when millions are watching. To allow staff and witnesses to overrun their planned allotments to the detriment of the whole planned presentation indicates that either the plan or its execution has been weak.
Clearly the participation of the Congressmen in subsequent questioning, though necessary, uses time somewhat inefficiently; even here enough experience must have accumulated to anticipate the problem and lead you and Chairman Stokes to deal with it.
Much of this rather negative reaction to the hearings themselves stems from my being strongly persuaded to rush through a difficult analysis at the last minute, abandon my regular pursuits for two days, try to boil down forty-five minutes of testimony to thirty, and then listen and watch while two hours' excellent testimony is allowed to dribble out over most of a day.”
AARC Public Library - HSCA Hearings - Volume II (aarclibrary.org)
It is safe to assume this supposed letter is just nonsense.
=========================
Don’t forget jiggle analysis was performed on Zapruder, who thought there were only two shots. Ignoring what the eyewitnesses stated occurred seems like folly.
Garland Slack heard the two shots and referenced them to the sound of the bullets striking JFK. All the supposed shots are interesting but did not actually happen. There were just the two shots.
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
[SNIP]
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning said the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.
I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning said the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. If you doubt that he said this, go read his analysis/testimony. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.
Canning didn't say that. Repeating falsehoods doesn't imbue them with any credibility.
Mr. FITHIAN. Mr. Canning, were you able to project the path of the bullet or the major fragments of the bullet that struck the President's head, that is, on into where they would be imbedded or wherever they were actually located in the car?
Mr. CANNING. I made no attempt to do anything exact along those lines. I noted qualitatively that damage to the windshield of the car appeared to be in reasonable directional alinement but did not appear to be particularly in good slope alinement. But I did no quantitative work in that line.
This is your answer to all the points I presented to you in my two previous replies? No, Canning did not get the pre-Z190 shot from the acoustical evidence. He got it from his own analysis and from most of the HSCA photographic experts. You still have not read his analysis, have you?
You seem to be making the bizarre argument that we can reconstruct the shooting solely from the eyewitness accounts. You're the first person I've seen propose such a bogus approach. Again, the witnesses were situated all over the plaza and many of them did not notice one or more of the shots, which is only natural. You cannot seriously believe that you can establish the shooting events just by using the witness accounts.
Again, I notice you ignored the point that Willis 5 must have been snapped in reaction to a shot fired before Z190, which means you have to believe that your sixth-floor gunman fired at JFK while his view of JFK was obstructed by the oak tree. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.
Did you look at Z200-207 in slow motion yet? If you do, you can't help but see that starting in Z200, JFK suddenly freezes his waving motion, starts to bring his right hand toward his throat, and starts to rapidly turn his head to the left. You will also see that during this same time frame, Jackie suddenly starts to turn her head from left to right to look at JFK. Even most of the HSCA experts who analyzed the Zapruder film acknowledged that these movements mean that JFK must have been shot before Z190.
The HSCA experts also noted that there is a strong blur episode from Z189-197, which of course indicates a shot was fired a few frames earlier (6 HSCA 27).
I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning said the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. If you doubt that he said this, go read his analysis/testimony. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.
I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning found it necessary to ignore the HSCA medical panel's placement of the back wound to get his SBT trajectory to work, which was a damning and revealing admission.
Have you looked at Canning's diagrams? Go look at his diagram that shows his placement of JBC in the limo, and then, again, find me one photo or frame that shows Connally as far left as Canning shows him to be. Let's see it. Z224 destroys, utterly destroys, the fiction that Connally was that far to the left.
I further notice that you are still ignoring JFK's dramatic reactions that start in Z226, when he is jolted forward and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. These actions show that JFK was hit in the back a frame or two earlier, clearly after he had begun to react to the Z186 shot in Z200-207. WC apologists are caught between a rock and a hard place by these Z226-232 reactions and the Z200-207 reactions, because they obviously could not have been caused by the same bullet. That's why you guys either ignore one or both of these reaction sequences.
And, yes, I most certainly believe in the HSCA acoustical evidence Are you aware that Dr. Thompson arranged for new testing to be done on the acoustical evidence by BBN scientists and that this testing confirmed the HSCA experts' findings? Here's my own humble article on the acoustical evidence:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view
which means you have to believe that your sixth-floor gunman fired at JFK while his view of JFK was obstructed by the oak tree.
Mr. LIEBELER. You couldn’t tell whether he was hit by the first shot? You couldn’t tell whether he had been hit by the first shot or the second shot or the third shot, or by how many shots he had been hit?
Mr. WILLIS. No, sir; except this one thing might be worthy of mention. When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction, and he more or less faced the other side of the street and leaned forward, which caused me to wonder, although I could not see anything positively. It did cause me to wonder.
Mr. LIEBELER. You say that the President looked toward his left; is that correct? Toward the side of Elm Street that you are standing on, or which way?
Mr. WILLIS. In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead, and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street. Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him and he more or less slumped forward, and it caused me to wonder if he were hit, although I couldn’t say.”
Did you look at Z200-207 in slow motion yet? If you do, you can't help but see that starting in Z200, JFK suddenly freezes his waving motion, starts to bring his right hand toward his throat, and starts to rapidly turn his head to the left.
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1cKJcmTDdNwjMKZeEV-jp3hieaiaSgwg4) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1NyyHvwUD70y2R6qwB7s_suQRt_wBrVnB) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1z5a0frIhy1gBo3WsWUeP-uo1QARMIojy) |
You will also see that during this same time frame, Jackie suddenly starts to turn her head from left to right to look at JFK.
Even most of the HSCA experts who analyzed the Zapruder film acknowledged that these movements mean that JFK must have been shot before Z190.
The HSCA experts also noted that there is a strong blur episode from Z189-197, which of course indicates a shot was fired a few frames earlier (6 HSCA 27).
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1aLHMyLB1luukiE5FgxueSswjk7Rj2adB) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1rAX5WOv3Zdw_TI_s1j9eYFEgHqJekI8-) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1812JheoKZ6BXJgH4W0ColDUSOSt2uBye) |
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1kQ1X4OEUt5CU3A5LGOJKKquL5Qa_6RtE) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1H1OINraUWcNMfQKYYr4uJjJqXv0ZjVrn) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1gzcrSyEU6aIoT1d49kLbA-q8FFJUAdkr) |
I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning said the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. If you doubt that he said this, go read his analysis/testimony. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.
I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning found it necessary to ignore the HSCA medical panel's placement of the back wound to get his SBT trajectory to work, which was a damning and revealing admission.
Have you looked at Canning's diagrams? Go look at his diagram that shows his placement of JBC in the limo, and then, again, find me one photo or frame that shows Connally as far left as Canning shows him to be. Let's see it. Z224 destroys, utterly destroys, the fiction that Connally was that far to the left.
I further notice that you are still ignoring JFK's dramatic reactions that start in Z226, when he is jolted forward and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. These actions show that JFK was hit in the back a frame or two earlier, clearly after he had begun to react to the Z186 shot in Z200-207. WC apologists are caught between a rock and a hard place by these Z226-232 reactions and the Z200-207 reactions, because they obviously could not have been caused by the same bullet. That's why you guys either ignore one or both of these reaction sequences.
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1GZwywh1AiSZEamh46SO4QkzcUeZRzOoD) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1sxVszv21HxODmtCm4fVgQr3ND_crPOZb) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1LyWEhnj4sTidlRcB2S2mdWnWpHtLHEa6) |
It’s easy to see the effects of angular momentum caused by a bullet hitting Connelly off center of his torso and shoulders as he turns counter clockwise within about another 1/18 sec frame after the lapel flap frame.
So I agree with Jerry on the point of the lapel flap being a sign of a bullet exiting rather than a wind gust.
However I’m not convinced that Jerry’s model of Connelly is accurate at the moment Connelly is hit. Imo, for the trajectory line to work, Connallys legs and his torso would be rotated clockwise towards the right side door .
I think that Connelly being rather tall and having long legs would have found it uncomfortable to have his legs in parallel with the side door and his knees being pushed onto the back of Kellermans seat.
Also from the angle of Connallys shoulder line in Jerry’s posted frames just a fraction of a sec before the lapel flap, Connallys torso is likely in the same angle as his shoulders and his head which appears to be facing the right front side of the limo. ( Connally may have been noticing umbrella man and DC man actions as were the SS agents looking that same direction).
Have you looked at Canning's diagrams? Go look at his diagram that shows his placement of JBC in the limo, and then, again, find me one photo or frame that shows Connally as far left as Canning shows him to be. Let's see it. Z224 destroys, utterly destroys, the fiction that Connally was that far to the left.
I'm sure that you're aware of the Photographic and film analysis done of the Kennedy assassination by the ITEK Corporation in 1976. People with training and experience in the following disciplines participated in the program: physics, photographic science, special photographic processing, photo interpretation, image analysis, coherent optical image processing, photogrammetry, and digital image processing. From the Zapruder film, they determined that Connally was as much as 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy.
I'm sure that you're aware of the Photographic and film analysis done of the Kennedy assassination by the ITEK Corporation in 1976. People with training and experience in the following disciplines participated in the program: physics, photographic science, special photographic processing, photo interpretation, image analysis, coherent optical image processing, photogrammetry, and digital image processing. From the Zapruder film, they determined that Connally was as much as 8.6 inches inboard of Kennedy.
This is one of the most shocking contradictions in the entire case. The shape of the larger piece of metal is nothing like the supposedly identical piece seen on the X-rays. No measurements taken on this piece can explain its bizarre transformation in shape. Most likely, it is not the piece taken from the skull. Its origin is unknown.
John Hunt has much better quality images, obtained from NARA. Incidentally, I saw only two, not three, fragments at NARA. The largest, however, bears no resemblance to the corresponding image on the X-rays. The larger piece shown here is pancake shaped and was 107 mg. On the other hand, the X-rays show a club shaped object on both X-ray views (see Figures 2 and 6 above). The studies done by the FBI on this object (spectrographic analysis and neutron activation analysis) required only a tiny amount at most, about 1 mg, according to one of the FBI experts. No one has ever offered an explanation for this flagrant discrepancy in the shape of the largest piece. ("The JFK Autopsy Materials: Twenty-Nine Conclusions After Nine Visits," pp. 14-15, http://themantikview.org/pdf/The_JFK_Autopsy_Materials.pdf)
Another obvious fact that refutes the lone-gunman theory is the self-evident contradiction between the largest fragment that was supposedly removed from the frontal area of JFK's head and the appearance of that fragment on the autopsy skull x-rays.
The fragment can be seen in CE 843. It is the largest of the fragments in the exhibit. The large fragment in CE 843 is supposed to be the 7 x 2 mm fragment described in the autopsy report and seen on the skull x-rays, but the two fragments look nothing like each other.
The large fragment in CE 843 is roundish in shape and weighs 107 mg. In contrast, the 7 x 2 mm fragment seen on the skull x-rays looks nothing like that: it is a mostly straight and narrow object that bends moderately to the left in the top fourth of its body. Some might refer to it as being shaped like a club.
The FBI only removed about 1 mg of the fragment's substance to perform spectrographic and NAA testing; the removal of such a tiny amount of the fragment's mass would not have drastically altered it shape.
Dr. Mantik discuses this contradiction in his article "The JFK Autopsy Materials: Twenty-Nine Conclusions After Nine Visits":
Wrong thread. This fragments subject is being discussed in the thread:
: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
In this thread you were explaining how there were two other shots having been fired by an unknown assassin in addition to the two shots that were fired by LHO.
Anyway, WC apologists, as we've seen, have no even halfway credible answers for the Z186 shot reactions. Admitting that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit before Z190 was perhaps the most contentious and controversial issue that the HSCA PEP discussed, because of the obvious implications, given the fact that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166-210.
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1qOivy7ADmBc9oZ6W5WrJVc89AT4gH2mc) | (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/58031/58031-h/images/i_p101.jpg) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1hIselIptVoyeHQQWPGOTo6fNTZesIV-k) |
Anyway, WC apologists, as we've seen, have no even halfway credible answers for the Z186 shot reactions. Admitting that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit before Z190 was perhaps the most contentious and controversial issue that the HSCA PEP discussed, because of the obvious implications, given the fact that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166-210.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/90/df/K62hzXHx_o.gif)
The HSCA's conclusions about Kennedy's head turn and handwave "freeze" was challenged by Dale K. Myers about two decades ago. The critics didn't have enough sense to challenge it, so much are they enthralled with a ca.Z190 shot.
Aside from the rightward head turns of the Connallys and Mrs. Kennedy (supposedly in reaction to hearing the first shot), the other significant pre-sign reaction is the sudden stopping of the running girl Rosemary Willis. You have to allow a bit of time for her to stop; when she does get stopped, she turns her head towards the direction of the Depository. She said hearing the first shot made her decide to stop.
It seems little Rosemary was trying to keep up with the presidential limo. The Croft photo shows that Jackie may well have been watching her as she ran along. She could no longer keep up with the limo so slowed down.
Nothing sinister.
The limousine at that time was going at or below 12 mph (as I recall). Covering 50 yards in 8.5 seconds. I found on the internet that some typical third grader won a 50 yard dash race in 5.6 seconds. From a standing start. I don't think Rosemary Willis would have had any problem keeping up with that limousine. At 67 years old, I might have been able to keep up with it for a few seconds. And I would easily lose a 50 yard dash race to an eight year old Rosemary Willis. Hell, I might have lost a 50 yard dash to Rosemary if I raced her that day (I was eight years old too). Picking them up and putting them down was not my forte.
Look at the the Zapruder film. Does she ever look like she is flying as fast as she could go? Not to me.
Rosemary Willis just decided not to keep up with the limousine? Possible. Incapable of keeping up with the limousine up through z225? Not a chance.
Umm, there is often some overlap between threads.
Obviously, the large fragment in CE 843 could not be the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes said he removed from the frontal area of JFK's skull, the 7 x 2 mm fragment that appears on the autopsy skull x-rays. The two fragments look nothing like each other. We're still waiting for a single LNer to explain this problem.
I'm guessing you are not aware of the disclosure about the NAA analysis of the paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek. We now know that that analysis found strong evidence that Oswald did not fire a rifle on 11/22/63.
I'm guessing you are also not aware of the new evidence regarding Oswald's whereabouts during and right after the shooting. It's discussed in the new documentary JFK Revisited. We now know that no one who was on or near the stairs within 90 seconds of the shooting saw or heard anyone else on the stairs.
It was already fairly obvious that Oswald was not on those stairs from Roy Truly's testimony, wherein Truly said that he was running ahead of Baker up the stairs and saw no one coming down the stairs from the third floor and saw no one on the second-floor landing.
Anyway, WC apologists, as we've seen, have no even halfway credible answers for the Z186 shot reactions. Admitting that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit before Z190 was perhaps the most contentious and controversial issue that the HSCA PEP discussed, because of the obvious implications, given the fact that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166-210.
Obviously, the large fragment in CE 843 could not be the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes said he removed from the frontal area of JFK's skull, the 7 x 2 mm fragment that appears on the autopsy skull x-rays. The two fragments look nothing like each other. We're still waiting for a single LNer to explain this problem.
I'm guessing you are not aware of the disclosure about the NAA analysis of the paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek. We now know that that analysis found strong evidence that Oswald did not fire a rifle on 11/22/63.
I'm guessing you are also not aware of the new evidence regarding Oswald's whereabouts during and right after the shooting. It's discussed in the new documentary JFK Revisited. We now know that no one who was on or near the stairs within 90 seconds of the shooting saw or heard anyone else on the stairs.
It was already fairly obvious that Oswald was not on those stairs from Roy Truly's testimony, wherein Truly said that he was running ahead of Baker up the stairs and saw no one coming down the stairs from the third floor and saw no one on the second-floor landing.
Anyway, WC apologists, as we've seen, have no even halfway credible answers for the Z186 shot reactions.
What about the movement and head turn left of SS agent Hickey coincident with the Willis girl stopping?
No one was on or near the stairs within 90 seconds of the shooting except for Oswald, Baker, and Truly.
How could you possibly know that?
Mr. BALL. They reported that you told them on the 23d of November that you and Hank, that is Hank Norman, isn't it--
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And Junior--that is Junior Jarman-were standing where they would have seen anyone coming down from the sixth floor by way of the stairs. Did you tell them that?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I could not possibly have told him that, because you cannot see anything coming down from that position.
Mr. BALL. And that you did not see anyone coming down.
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir. An elephant could walk by there, and you could not see him.
But you'd definitely hear it.
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir. An elephant could walk by there, and you could not see him.
Yet somehow Williams saw Marrion Baker come up.
Also Dorothy Garner: "I remember the stairs were very noisy".
Yet somehow Williams saw Marrion Baker come up.
Also Dorothy Garner: "I remember the stairs were very noisy".
Roy Lewis, one of the order fillers for the TSBD. From "No More Silence": "
I believe that he said he only saw the top of Baker’s motorcycle helmet. LHO was only 5’-9”. How tall was
Baker with his helmet on?
Some people can walk quietly, hunters walking quietly while hunting is one example. LHO learned, at an early age, to quietly sneak out of his aunt’s house at night while everyone was asleep.
They had moved to the west wall by then.
Maybe she was referring to two or more people on the stairs at a time who didn't care if they were heard. So unlike Oswald.
From this account it seems that if someone wanted to be quiet on the stairs/steps and not be heard he could pull it off.
In 75 seconds after the first shot?
Another award winning brilliant “Richard” argument: if there was actual evidence of Oswald going down the stairs then I fantasize that you wouldn’t believe it, therefore you should just believe it with no evidence whatsoever.
And prints on “SN boxes” proves murder, how, exactly?
Serious question... What would you consider proof of someone's guilt in a murder? What kind of evidence would it take for you to consider someone guilty?
As serious questions are being asked, let me ask you one;
Even if we assume that the MC rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD belonged to Oswald, how does the presence of that rifle prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired?
You can't be serious with this nonsense. Who would have access to Oswald's rifle and bring it to his place of employment other than Oswald? Oswald was asked about the rifle, and he lied to the authorities. He told them he didn't own any rifle. He didn't explain how it could have been in the possession of any other person when given a chance. In fact, he denies ownership of it to distance himself from this rifle as a guilty person would do. What are you suggesting could have happened here for Oswald's rifle to be on the 6th floor? You have no evidence whatsoever to link this rifle to any person other than Oswald. He was given a chance to explain and lied about it. He also had no credible alibi. The presence of the murder weapon left at the scene of the crime is highly incriminatory absent some alternative explanation for its presence. There is none in this case. Some alternative possibility (which you can't even articulate) dreamed up to suit your desired narrative does not rebut the obvious conclusion from the evidence. Imagine if every criminal could suggest doubt by such means?
You can't be serious with this nonsense. Who would have access to Oswald's rifle and bring it to his place of employment other than Oswald?
Oh look at the little puppy following me around..... :D
When you have nothing of significance or substance to offer, please don't just go off on another "what about" rant that goes nowhere, as per usual.
The presence of the murder weapon left at the scene of the crime is highly incriminatory absent some alternative explanation for its presence. There is none in this case.
Utter BS. They never looked at the possibility of an alternative explanation, so there isn't one. Did it ever occur to you that the rifle might have been there are the result of a conspiracy?
The most idiotic part of what you are saying is this; let's say I am in a position to "borrow" your gun and I take it and shoot somebody with it, would leaving that gun at the crime scene - by your own logic - incriminate you as the shooter?
Your word salad still does not answer the basic question;
Even if (and that's a massive "if") the rifle belonged to Oswald (in as much as that he ordered it for himself and received it from Klein's), how does that prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired?
Don't worry, I won't be surprised if you ignore the question or simply can not answer it. It would be nothing else than the game you've been playing for the past 6 months or so. I am used to it by now.
Some nut named Gary Fannis says Ruth Paine did it. He thinks she lied about taking her kids to the dentist that morning and instead used that time to ferry the rifle to Elm Street. Here's the whole sordid story:
Personal commentary - check
Insults - check
No substantive response - big check.
This is real simple. It does not require going down a contrarian rabbit hole. The rifle belonged to Oswald. It was found at Oswald's place of employment. The scene of a shooting with a rifle. There is zero evidence - and you haven't even attempted to provide any - that anyone other than Oswald had access to this rifle and carried it to the TSBD. Oswald had a chance to offer an explanation. He provided no answer. Instead he denied owning any rifle. A lie as confirmed by his own wife, photos, and Klein's documents. Why would Oswald lie about this to the police? Oswald doesn't say, for example, that he owned a rifle and the police could find it in the Paine's garage. You don't find the presence of a weapon at a murder scene highly incriminatory of its owner? And you imply that its presence alone doesn't implicate its owner when that person can't account for it being there, lies about his ownership of the rifle, and has no credible alibi for the moment of the crime? Unreal. A time machine would be necessary to ever convict anyone of a crime in your contrarian world.
I give him credit for at least trying to provide an explanation despite it being completely baseless and insane. Contrarians like Martin IMPLY that something like that happened but won't even articulate a theory or confirm that this is their position because they know it is impossible. The rifle just magically appears at the TSBD in their fantasy world. No explanation much less actual evidence is required for how it might have gotten there if Oswald didn't bring it. A time machine would be necessary to prove that Oswald - the owner of that rifle who worked in that building brought it there. The fact that Oswald lies to the police and denies ownership of any rifle apparently doesn't faze them. In fact, they just ignore this like a pro bono defense attorney trying to defend a guilty client. The fact that Oswald's prints are on the rifle doesn't faze them. No fact that they don't want to accept can ever be proven to their subjective satisfaction. Hopefully Martin is not on the jury of that guy Idaho. There is no time machine that places him at the scene either. Just the evidence he left behind.
Repeating the same bs over and over again and expecting a different result is a fool's game.
Bottom line is a simple one; You can not explain how the presence of the rifle at the TSBD proves that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Period!
The rifle belonged to Oswald.
Did it? If that is true, why can't you prove it?
There is zero evidence - and you haven't even attempted to provide any - that anyone other than Oswald had access to this rifle and carried it to the TSBD.
Why don't you stop making idiotic statements and first prove that Oswald had access to the rifle that was found at the TSBD and/or that he carried it into the TSBD?
Oh wait, you can't prove it. You're just making superficial assumptions for which you can not offer a shred of evidence.
Why would Oswald lie about this to the police?
What makes you so sure that Oswald lied to the police?
You don't find the presence of a weapon at a murder scene highly incriminatory of its owner?
Sure, it would be, but you can't even prove that Oswald owned the rifle that was found at the TSBD and the presence of a rifle doesn't automatically prove that the owner was there as well.
A time machine would be necessary to ever convict anyone of a crime in your contrarian world.
Nah, not really. All it would take is conclusive authentic evidence instead of a bunch of unsupported assumptions and wild speculation.
I'll ask again;
Even if (and that's a massive "if") the rifle belonged to Oswald, how does that prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired?
Try to come up with a credible reply for once!
The old moving the goal posts trick. Your original question was premised on Oswald's ownership of the rifle. Now you are framing this in terms of doubt of his ownership because you apparently realize how idiotic it is to claim there is any doubt that Oswald was the shooter if it was his rifle found on the 6th floor. Dropping a murder weapon that can be linked to a specific person at the crime scene is about as incriminating as it gets absent an alibi or explanation for its presence. Neither of which Oswald provided. To the contrary, he lied and denied ownership of the rifle. You have not provided nor even suggested any alternative explanation for the presence of Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor. Just because it is not impossible as a theoretical matter that someone else could have brought it there and there is no time machine to disprove that baseless possibility does not create any doubt. Disproving the negative to your subjective satisfaction is not a reasonable standard in the absence of any evidence that someone else had access to the rifle and an opportunity to plant it at the crime scene. If it were, no criminal could ever be convicted because there would always be the theoretical possibility that the evidence against them was planted. That is contrarian kookery to suggest false doubt by any means. There is zero evidence that anyone other than Oswald had access to that rifle and brought it to his workplace. You certainly have provided none or even attempted to do so. Just like Oswald because he was guilty and could not explain the presence of his rifle at the murder scene.
Even if (and that's a massive "if") the rifle belonged to Oswald (in as much as that he ordered it for himself and received it from Klein's), how does that prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired?
This is real simple. It does not require going down a contrarian rabbit hole. The rifle belonged to Oswald. It was found at Oswald's place of employment. The scene of a shooting with a rifle. There is zero evidence - and you haven't even attempted to provide any - that anyone other than Oswald had access to this rifle and carried it to the TSBD.
Oswald had a chance to offer an explanation. He provided no answer. Instead he denied owning any rifle.
You don't find the presence of a weapon at a murder scene highly incriminatory of its owner?
Serious question... What would you consider proof of someone's guilt in a murder? What kind of evidence would it take for you to consider someone guilty?
The fact that Oswald's prints are on the rifle doesn't faze them.
Serious answer: means, motive, opportunity. Along with reliable and conclusive objective evidence of his actual involvement.
Your original question was premised on Oswald's ownership of the rifle.
No it wasn't. You do understand that anybody can read back what my initial question was. Here it is again;
Why are you misrepresenting the question?
Your original question was premised on Oswald's ownership of the rifle.
No it wasn't. You do understand that anybody can read back what my initial question was. Here it is again;
Why are you misrepresenting the question?
how idiotic it is to claim there is any doubt that Oswald was the shooter if it was his rifle found on the 6th floor. Dropping a murder weapon that can be linked to a specific person at the crime scene is about as incriminating as it gets absent an alibi or explanation for its presence.
Are you really this superficial and naive? All you are presenting here is the hilarious assumption that the (alleged) owner of a weapon found at a crime scene is, without doubt, the shooter, when you can't even prove to a reasonable standard of proof that the man is actually the owner (and had possession) of that particular weapon. Wow! So much ignorance should be forbidden by law!
You have not provided nor even suggested any alternative explanation for the presence of Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor.
As long as you can't prove it was "Oswald's rifle" on the 6th floor, I don't need to provide or suggest anything.
Just because it is not impossible as a theoretical matter that someone else could have brought it there and there is no time machine to disprove that baseless possibility does not create any doubt.
Oh boy, you're all over the place again. Why does that keep happening to you? How can you call a possibility "baseless" when you've just said that "there is no time machine to disprove it it"?
And the possibility of someone else planting the rifle at the 6th floor is most certainly not impossible. So, as long as you can't prove it was Oswald who left the rifle there, the possibility that he didn't leave it there does in fact create reasonable doubt.
An honest investigation is basically a process of elimination. When you can't eliminate a possibility you can not simply ignore it because it's inconvenient.
Disproving the negative to your subjective satisfaction is not a reasonable standard in the absence of any evidence that someone else had access to the rifle and an opportunity to plant it at the crime scene.
I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you to prove that Oswald did own that particular rifle and left it at the 6th floor.
There is zero evidence that anyone other than Oswald had access to that rifle and brought it to his workplace.
There is zero evidence that Oswald had access to the rifle that was found on the 6th floor. If you disagree, just show me the evidence and I'll gladly admit that I am wrong.
You certainly have provided none or even attempted to do so.
What is there for me to provide? I have seen no evidence whatsoever that shows that the rifle found at the 6th floor of the TSBD is the same one that allegedly was stored in Ruth Paine's garage.
When are you going to understand that your assumptions and highly speculative conjecture are not evidence?
Hilarious. Your original question does exactly what I said it did. It is premised entirely on Oswald's ownership of the rifle. Here it is again:
"Even if (and that's a massive "if") the rifle belonged to Oswald (in as much as that he ordered it for himself and received it from Klein's), how does that prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired?"
The "that" in your question relates to the rifle belonging to Oswald. Thus, your question is premised entirely on Oswald's possession of the rifle. You are asking how Oswald's ownership of the rifle proves his presence on the 6th floor. LOL. I realize that you stupidly dispute Oswald's ownership of the rifle, but here you are asking how "even if" the rifle belonged to Oswald that proves he was on the 6th floor. And I explained this to you even though it is obvious.
This response is so disorganized and contains so many internal inconsistencies and false premises that it should be framed and placed in the contrarian Hall of Fame. Again, Martin asked a question that was premised upon Oswald's possession of the rifle. Then he goes on and on here making a case that there is doubt about Oswald's ownership of the rifle. We also learn here that if the police find the murder weapon at the scene of the crime and can trace that weapon to a specific individual who can't explain its presence there and has no alibi (in fact lies about ownership of the weapon) that the authorities would have to disprove every other possible way that the weapon could have arrived at that location using something like a time machine. Martin has finally admitted it! A time machine is needed in his contrarian world to prove any fact if he can dream up a mere baseless explanation. His alternative explanation just needs to be theoretically not impossible. Perhaps Elvis, for example, brought Oswald's rifle to the TSBD. It's not impossible. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this happened, but no one has disproven it to Martin's subjective satisfaction. So there must be doubt about Oswald doing so even though it is his rifle, at his place of work, with his prints, and he lies to the police about his ownership of the rifle and has no alibi. Nothing to see there.
Again, Martin asked a question that was premised upon Oswald's possession of the rifle.
What part of "Even if (and that's a massive "if") the rifle belonged to Oswald" did you not understand?
We also learn here that if the police find the murder weapon at the scene of the crime and can trace that weapon to a specific individual who can't explain its presence there and has no alibi (in fact lies about ownership of the weapon) that the authorities would have to disprove every other possible way that the weapon could have arrived at that location using something like a time machine.
Utter BS. Your reading comprehension problem is playing up again. The police doesn't have to disprove anything. What they do need to prove is that it was the owner of the weapon who used it and then left it at the crime scene. That's how it works, at least for the sane honest people in the world. You can't just simply say; "you're rifle was there, so you must have been there as well"! But that's exactly what you are, rather foolishly, doing.
Martin has finally admitted it! A time machine is needed in his contrarian world to prove any fact if he can dream up a mere baseless explanation. His alternative explanation just needs to be theoretically not impossible.
Fool, when I used the words "time machine" I was quoting you.
In reply to this comment from you;
Just because it is not impossible as a theoretical matter that someone else could have brought it there and there is no time machine to disprove that baseless possibility does not create any doubt.
this is what I actually said;
How can you call a possibility "baseless" when you've just said that "there is no time machine to disprove it it"?
I never got a reply, but that's not surprising. What is surprising is that you seem to believe that only the owner of a weapon could have placed it at the crime scene and that all other scenarios are automatically impossible. It is of course completely pathetic, but I've gotten used to this kind of BS coming from you.
Perhaps Elvis, for example, brought Oswald's rifle to the TSBD. It's not impossible.
When he can't make a normal argument, Richard resorts to argumentum ad absurdum to cover up his total inability to have a normal conversation.
So there must be doubt about Oswald doing so even though it is his rifle, at his place of work, with his prints, and he lies to the police about his ownership of the rifle and has no alibi.
Wash, rinse and repeat!
What Richard didn't produce in his most recent word salad is the answer to a basic question that he has been running away from for more than 6 months now.
Here it is again;
How does the mere presence of a rifle prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired?
Now all we have to do is wait to see what Richard's next evasion will be.
LOL. How are you discounting the possibility that Elvis didn't leave the rifle using your bizarre standard? It's theoretically possible even if there is no evidence of such. Right? So disprove it to my subjective satisfaction. That is the standard you are applying to your "conspirators." You suggest there is doubt that Oswald left his rifle at the scene by arguing that some unknown conspirator could have left it. Even though there is zero evidence that anyone other than Oswald had access to his rifle. The rifle belonged to Oswald. No one other than Oswald was ever known to have possessed it. It was found at Oswald's place of employment. I really can't believe that anyone would struggle so mightily against the obvious conclusion that a murder weapon left at the scene of the crime implicates the owner of that weapon absent some explanation from the owner for how it came to be there or an alibi. Oswald provided neither. His rifle was left at the scene of a shooting. When asked about the rifle, Oswald lied to the police and denies ownership. He could provide no alibi for the time of the crime. His prints are on the boxes by the window from which the shots were fired. Fired bullet casings from his rifle are found by the window from which witnesses confirm the shots were fired. All of that evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor at the moment of the crime. There is zero evidence that anyone planted that rifle. Martin hasn't even made an attempt to prove such. He just claims it is possible. Guilty.
Again, this is simple and obvious to any reasonable person. The discovery of a weapon at the scene of a crime that can be linked to a specific individual is highly incriminatory of that individual's responsibility for committing the crime. In the absence of any credible explanation from that individual as to how a weapon that belongs to them came to be at the crime scene and no credible alibi for the time of the crime, that is strong evidence linking them to the crime. The prisons are full of such criminals who were linked to the crime by a weapon. Of course, there is much more evidence than just the rifle that links Oswald to the crime but the rifle is the most important evidence. Martin suggests there is doubt EVEN if the rifle belongs to Oswald. He suggests that some unknown "conspirator" could have placed Oswald's rifle at that location. Of course, there is no evidence of this and Martin make no effort whatsoever to provide any. It is just theoretically possible or at least not impossible in his contrarian world. That implies it is necessary to disprove that any other person alive on planet Earth at the time of the crime could have left the rifle to conclude that Oswald was the person who did so. A laughable example of the lengths that a contrarian will go to defend Oswald and take the discussion down the rabbit hole. I honestly don't think Martin believes his own nonsense. Rather, this is just a hobby to play devil's advocate to the obvious and extend the discussion for as long as possible. A strange psychological compulsion.
All of that evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor at the moment of the crime.
No it doesn't, but I'll play along. Explain precisely how any of that proves that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired?
So many words and still nothing of any significance...
Answer the question;
We have gone over this a thousand times. You know the evidence. What psychological impulse wants to go over it again and again? Weird. Here it is again as outlined by the WC nearly six decades ago. A rifle belonging to Oswald was left on the 6th floor. The crime scene. Oswald is the only person known to have access to this rifle. It was stored in a garage where only he and his wife knew it was there. His wife didn't bring it to the TSBD. His prints are found on it. He was photographed holding it. His wife confirms he owned a rifle. He carried a long bag to work that morning after making an unusual trip to the location where the rifle was stored (and later lied to the police about carrying a long bag). Fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found by the very window from which several witnesses confirm seeing a rifle/shooter at the moment of the crime (i.e. 12:30). Confirmation that Oswald's rifle was used in the crime. Oswald has no alibi for the moment of the crime. He provides the police with no explanation for how his rifle came to be on the 6th floor. Instead he lies to them about ownership of any rifle to distance himself from the murder weapon. Oswald's prints are found on the SN boxes in the window from which the shots were fired. No other TSBD employee left prints on those boxes. Oswald's prints were also found on the long bag next to that window from which the shots were fired. He flees the crime scene within minutes. Flight can be used as evidence of guilt. In rebuttal, you have merely suggested that it is not impossible for someone to have left Oswald's rifle at the scene. You have not provided an iota of evidence to support this point or even attempted to do so. Just arguing that it is apparently not impossible because no one has a time machine. Weak contrarian sauce. Guilty.
Yes, we have been over this and yet still you come up with the same BS expecting a different result.
You claim Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired, but you obviously can not provide conclusive evidence for that. Which is why you keep on repeating your flawed conjecture based upon highly questional assumptions and claims that are simply not true.
The bottom line is a simple one; you can't prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Period.
The "bottom line" is that I can't convince you because you are a contrarian loon who applies an impossible subjective standard of proof to the topic. Can you understand why that is not necessary? That is actually a rhetorical question since I realize that you are incapable of such.
(*) a reasonable person will re-examine his arguments when his "evidence" or lack thereof fails to convince somebody. An ignorant and arrogant person continues to believe his own BS and simply blames the person he can't convince.
That's pure comedy gold considering the source.
No need to display your ignorance and arrogance again.
Are you 12 years old? Honestly, the hysterics are embarrassing.
The "bottom line" is that I can't convince you because you are a contrarian loon who applies an impossible subjective standard of proof to the topic.
We have gone over this a thousand times. You know the evidence. What psychological impulse wants to go over it again and again?