Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Zeon Mason on Today at 09:56:21 PM »
Dans Z224 1st shot sequence fits better than any other of the LN 1st shot miss sequences with a 3rd shot that could possibly have hit  the manhole cover. It’s an unaimed shot 2 secs after Z313. If it’s possible a lead fragment separated from the copper jacket and flew across the green to strike the curb near Tague, then that fragment was probably traveling at least 1500ft/ sec which would have been enough to cause some concrete debris from the curb causing Tagues cheek wound. It fits closer with Norman’s shot spacing and with Tagues recollection ( he said it was the 2nd OR the 3rd shot). And 4.8 secs then 2 secs is lot closer to the 75%witness heard  shot pattern of 1… 2.3 than any LN Z140 thru Z170 1st shot missed sequence that is 9-10secs in duration.

Andrew’s Z190-Z270-Z313 sequence is the only other LN proposal but where in there could the manhole cover have been hit?
2
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / EF-JFKA... Better, but Still Some P.U.
« Last post by Brian Doyle on Today at 09:54:45 PM »


Do you believe Westbrook when he says there were no cars at the Police Station so he walked from the Police Station to the Depository?...
3
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Andrew Mason on Today at 09:15:55 PM »
Quote from: Dan O'meara on Today at 03:23:51 PM
Come on Andrew, let's not go through all this yet again.


The location of the hole in the clothing such as a jacket that is free to move around can be misleading. You also have the jacket on a hanger. Here it is on the body:

 
Quote
Just be honest.
Look at the image of JBC's jacket above and how low down the bullet hole is.
Remember the bullet exits on a downward trajectory, so his wrist would have to be even lower than the bullet hole.
Quote
Now look at how high up JBC is holding his wrist in z271.

All you need to do is be honest.
The bullet struck just above the end of the jacket cuff and struck the middle of the french cuff:



To suggest that one has to be dishonest to argue that JBC was struck on the second shot at z271 is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of all the evidence.
4
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Andrew Mason on Today at 08:18:01 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Today at 03:14:58 PM
How the hell does a bullet fired from behind the limo exit from the right nipple during that sequence? It's preposterous
I didn’t make up the notion the JBC was turned sideways when the second shot sounded. Nellie and Gayle Newman observed it and JBC’s three doctors agreed that his chest was nearly parallel to the direction of the bullet:
5
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Yet Another Bullet That the Lone-Gunman Theory Cannot Explain
« Last post by Michael Capasse on Today at 07:42:20 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Today at 07:38:55 PM
I've looked at a number of online dictionary definitions of "missile", some of which would apply to a bullet fragment and others which would not. It really isn't important. It is what the person who used the term "missile" meant by it. If that person considered a fragment to be a missile, then it is a missile.

Does nothing to clarify the receipt dated 11/22/63
lame with a bit of mumbo-jumbo on the side

6
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Yet Another Bullet That the Lone-Gunman Theory Cannot Explain
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 07:38:55 PM »
Quote from: Michael Capasse on Today at 07:29:31 PM
Well then, it should be easy to find clarification in the official documents for such a major discrepancy.
Missile is a bullet, I'm not aware of any reference of other fragments found in this case called "missiles".
Even if "removed" Humes made no further reference to it, The document was hidden until 1972.

Find an official reference that missile means fragment would clarify it as not just another lame excuse

I've looked at a number of online dictionary definitions of "missile", some of which would apply to a bullet fragment and others which would not. It really isn't important. It is what the person who used the term "missile" meant by it. If that person considered a fragment to be a missile, then it is a missile.
7
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: EF-JFKA... Better, but Still Some P.U.
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 07:30:03 PM »
Quote from: Brian Doyle on Today at 06:48:20 PM
You are offering yourself and your shallow nay-saying as not only on parr with Armstrong but better...

I think any review or your material vs Armstrong's sleuthing shows that for what it is...

Just Armstrong's Westbrook material is near genius work and cracks the case...

Do you believe Westbrook when he says he walked from the Police Station to the Depository?

The case was "cracked" 12 hours after Oswald killed JFK. That's when the DPD formally charged him with JFK's murder. They had already charged him with killing Tippit a few hours earlier.

Everything that has been learned since and all the advances in the forensic sciences has only served to make that case stronger in the years since. There is no rational explanation of the JFKA that doesn't have Oswald as the man who fired the shots at JFK and who later killed Tippit.
8
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Yet Another Bullet That the Lone-Gunman Theory Cannot Explain
« Last post by Michael Capasse on Today at 07:29:31 PM »
Quote from: Mitch Todd on Today at 06:50:36 PM
The "major discrepancy" exists only in your own head and nowhere else. "Missile" has a range of meanings, and the fragments exchanged for the receipt falls within that. For that matter, Sibert and O'Neil both talk about the fragments and the receipt exchanged therefore in their ARRB depositions.

Well then, it should be easy to find clarification in the official documents for such a major discrepancy.
Missile is a bullet, I'm not aware of any reference of other fragments found in this case called "missiles".
Even if "removed" Humes made no further reference to it, The document was hidden until 1972.

Find an official reference that missile means fragment would clarify it as not just another lame excuse
9
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: EF-JFKA... Better, but Still Some P.U.
« Last post by Duncan MacRae on Today at 06:53:44 PM »
Quote from: Brian Doyle on Today at 03:11:25 PM
Armstrong is one of the best in the business...He deserves better and his evidence stands up...

10
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Yet Another Bullet That the Lone-Gunman Theory Cannot Explain
« Last post by Mitch Todd on Today at 06:50:36 PM »
Quote from: Michael Capasse on Yesterday at 04:29:16 PM
Well then, it should be easy to find clarification in the official documents for such a major discrepancy.
Missile is a bullet, I'm not aware of any reference of other fragments found in this case called "missiles".
Even if "removed" Humes made no further reference to it, The document was hidden until 1972.

Find an official reference that missile means fragment would clarify it as not just another lame excuse 
The "major discrepancy" exists only in your own head and nowhere else. "Missile" has a range of meanings, and the fragments exchanged for the receipt falls within that. For that matter, Sibert and O'Neil both talk about the fragments and the receipt exchanged therefore in their ARRB depositions.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10