Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
   WHO CARES about this bickering between Lane and Dudman? You guys get knotted up in  BS: that does Not matter.
   Show this Forum the Image Evidence of a hole in the windshield. Personally, I believe there are far better images of the JFK Limo windshield than Altgens 6. There are very clear images of the JFK Limo taken from the rear of the car as it sat at Parkland Hospital. The trunk of the car is closed and there is No Top on the car. These CLEAR Images of the JFK Limo also include Wiegman entering the picture from the (R) with his camera at his face. (time stamp). The entire inside of the windshield is visible in these images. Research 'Work" focusing on these images of the inside of the windshield should reveal whether it had a thru-n-thru HOLE in it or Not.

I have said nothing about the photographic evidence of a windshield bullet hole. My point is that eight witnesses in three different locations saw a hole the windshield.

When Dudman spoke in 1988, he had no idea that the windshield in evidence was not the original windshield, that the windshield had been replaced. If he had known this, he almost certainly would have stood by his original account as expressed in his two December 1963 articles. He had no doubt that he had seen a hole in the windshield.

Two weeks after Dudman wrote his December 1 article for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, fellow journalist Robert Branson noted that "Richard Dudman . . . insists that when he inspected the car afterward, he saw what appeared to him to be a small, round hole near the middle of the windshield."
2
The man you are calling Shelley has a much stockier body shape than the real Shelley who can be seen fast-walking up the extension with the correct body shape and Duck's Ass hair doo...

If we can get the 6th Floor Museum 1st generation copy of Darnell we can see Molina in front of Calvery in better resolution...

   And why do You completely avoid mentioning Lovelady being on the TSBD front steps? That is because Lovelady is standing in almost the exact same position that we see him in the Altgens 6 photo. It is supposed to be both Shelley AND LOVELADY walking down the Elm St Extension. You simply can Not get around Lovelady being on the image above. 
3
Interesting form of debate. I post a response in the form of Dr. Shaw’s drawing.  I also post an explanation of why the evidence implies that the bullet changed direction upon hitting JBC in the fifth rib.   You call the post dumb.  I then ask which one is dumb. And your response asks me to explain which one isn’t dumb.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable question.
4
I guess we can add photo analysis to the fields in which MTG has no expertise but chooses to pontificate about anyway.
5
Yikes, "is our children learning?" You really should learn to speak English at a high-school level before you try to question anyone's credibility.

If you can't even speak English at a high-school level, it's a good bet you have no business passing judgment on who qualifies as a scholar.

Oh, goody for you. You caught one of my typos. I bet that made your day.
Quote

No, I documented the fact that FMJ bullets will never, ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after striking bone.

No, you took Di Maio's statements out of context and applied your interpretation of them, then presented them as if Di Maio expressed those opinions. He never wrote anything that said Oswald's Carano bullet could not have shattered the way the x-rays showed it did. Then you flat out lied that he had changed his mind about Oswald being the assassin. He never said any such thing and we both know it.
Quote

Is this some kind of joke? You said this in response to my quoting of world-renowned forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent DiMaio's observation that if an x-ray shows dozens of tiny fragments, a "lead snowstorm," this rules out FMJ ammo, and that on the "rare" occasions when FMJ bullets do fragment after striking bone, the fragments will be "few" in number. Did you miss that?  Let's read it again:

You're lying again. I should have been more skeptical of your statements when I first read them given your history of misrepresenting the people you cite. Contrary to what you have implied, neither of Di Maio's books, Gunshot Wounds or Forensic Pathology, even address the issues of the JFK assassination.. Here is how AI answered that question:

Do Vincent DiMaio’s Gunshot Wounds and Forensic Pathology Address the JFK Assassination?

Neither Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques nor Forensic Pathology by Vincent J.M. DiMaio is a book that focuses on the JFK assassination.

About Gunshot Wounds
This CRC Press textbook, written by DiMaio — a former chief medical examiner in San Antonio — is a comprehensive, technical reference on firearm injuries, ballistics, wound classification, autopsy procedures, and forensic laboratory analysis Google Books+1. It covers the science and practice of examining gunshot wounds in general, but it does not contain a dedicated chapter or analysis of the JFK case. The book’s scope is broad, aimed at forensic pathologists, law enforcement, and legal professionals, but it is not case-specific.

About Forensic Pathology
The Forensic Pathology text also focuses on the principles and practice of forensic medicine, including autopsy techniques, cause and manner of death determination, and the role of forensic pathology in legal investigations Amazon. Like Gunshot Wounds, it is a general forensic science reference, not a case study or historical analysis of the JFK assassination.

Why they don’t address JFK

Both books are general forensic pathology and ballistics texts, not historical or political investigations.

They do not include case studies of the JFK assassination or related events.

DiMaio’s other works, such as those in the Practical Aspects of Criminal and Forensic Investigations series, may cover broader criminal investigations, but the JFK assassination is not a featured topic in the editions reviewed.

Conclusion
If you are looking for DiMaio’s work on the JFK assassination, you would need to consult other sources — such as historical investigations, official reports, or books specifically dedicated to the case — rather than these general forensic science texts.
Quote

An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a 'lead snowstorm'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318, emphasis added)

You should now understand (1) in the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments, and (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo.

This is your interpretation of Di Maio's work. He never wrote specifically about the JFK assassination in either of these textbooks and never expressed the opinions you attributed to him.
Quote

Uh, no, they cannot. Go back and re-read DiMaio's statements quoted above. I'll wait. . . . Still waiting. . . . Okay, that's long enough. Are we clear now?

For your additional education, I quote Dr. Cyril Wecht, a famous forensic pathologist and a former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences:

It is my experience, including bullets that are not as powerful and fully jacketed ammunition like this [the 6.5 mm Carcano bullet], that they do not explode into dozens of pieces. They may break into two or three fragments or pieces, but they don't just disintegrate like that. And so when you say it behaved much more like a soft or hollow-point or so on, I agree with you. I've been saying that for a long time. (Mortal Error, p. 231)
Quote

You're citing Mortal Error? One of the goofiest theories of the JFK assassination ever offered. But you don't care. You'll embrace anything that disputes the WCR. You don't even care that the sources you cite conflict with one another.
Quote

I defy you to cite a single forensic source that says that FMJ bullets will ever shatter into dozens of tiny pieces after striking bone, regardless of their velocity. I'll save you some time: there aren't any such sources.

The conclusions of the FPP said exactly that.
Quote

Never mind that your alleged FMJ bullet not only supposedly shattered into dozens of tiny fragments but also allegedly did this while supposedly "shearing off" a fragment on the outer table of the skull upon entry and while also supposedly depositing two isolated fragments at the opposite end of the skull. Never mind that. Just find me one forensic source that says an FMJ bullet will ever shatter into dozens of tiny fragments after striking skull bone. Again, I'll save you some time: no such sources exist.
[/quote[

Forgive me if I'm not at all impressed by your opinions about wound ballistics. You are a rank amateur on that subject.
Quote

"Full velocity"? What is that? There's no such thing as a "full-velocity" rifle or "full velocity" ammo. Is "full velocity" your evasive synonym for "high velocity," since I proved to you that the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle? Because you seem to need things repeated, let's read once again what FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier told the WC's about the rifle's velocity:

I won't presume to speak for Bill Brown. He does a fine job of doing that for himself. High or low velocity when referring to bullets is a relative term. The Carcano had a lower velocity than an AR-15 or various .30-06 rounds. It had a much higher velocity than FMJ bullets fired from handguns which are by far used in more homicides than rifle bullets and which make up the bulk of the homicides in case studies of homicides involving FMJ ammo.
Quote

Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight. . . .

Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges—the killing power of the rifles you have named?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?

Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity, . . .  (3 H 414, emphasis added)


Yet, a whole bunch of experts who have examined the JFK autopsy skull x-rays, including the Clark Panel, have concluded they show damage caused by ammo that was moving at a high velocity. The Clark Panel said, "These findings indicate that the back of the head was struck by a single bullet traveling at high velocity" (Clark Panel report, p. 8 ).

The Rockefeller Commission's medical panel concurred with the Clark Panel's conclusion about the velocity of the ammo that hit the head (see the medical panel's report in Rockefeller Commission Report, pp. 258-261). BTW, just FYI, the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel consisted of Drs. Werner Spitz, Fred Hodges, Alfred Olivier, and Richard Lindenberg, and LTC Robert R. McMeekin, chief of aerospace pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

Do you know of an accepted definition of what constitutes a high velocity round that both Eisenberg and the two panels you cited would have been adhering to? Eisenberg was comparing the Carcano to other military style rifles that do have a higher velocity. That does not relegate the Carcano to a low-velocity rifle. At 2265 fps, a Carcano FMJ
bullet produced enough energy to inflict a devastating wound on JFK's head.
Quote

Dr. Gerald McDonnel, one of the radiology experts consulted by the HSCA FPP, concluded that the bullet that hit the back of JFK's skull was "a low mass, high velocity projectile" (7 HSCA 218). Low-mass bullets range from 90 grains to 120 grains. Oswald's alleged bullets weighed 158.6 to 159 grains, far too heavy.

So you have your alleged lone gunman firing the wrong kind of rifle (a low-velocity rifle, not a high-velocity rifle), using the wrong kind of ammo (FMJ ammo), and using the wrong kind of ammo that was also too heavy (ammo that was at least 38.6 grains too heavy to qualify as low-mass ammo, or at least 31% heavier than the heaviest low-mass ammo). Trifecta!

There you go again playing semantics with whether the Carcano was a high or low velocity weapon. It's all relative. The question is whether it was capable of inflicting the wounds on JFK and JBC. It certainly was.
6

Which part is not?
Interesting form of debate. I post a response in the form of Dr. Shaw’s drawing.  I also post an explanation of why the evidence implies that the bullet changed direction upon hitting JBC in the fifth rib.   You call the post dumb.  I then ask which one is dumb. And your response asks me to explain which one isn’t dumb.
7
My layman's take is Prayer Man is a woman. I don't understand the CT'ers making this a hill to die on. They look silly.

Well, let it ride, take a walk in the sun, buy a great hamburger somewhere.

This forum we are on seems good.


The CT-ers who back Prayer Man are those who have established a clique of BS artists for whom pro-CT theories come before rigor...The motive is seizing a venue and keeping pro-conspiracy material as the foremost thing whether right or wrong...These favored researchers are using their reputations to cut corners on research credibility and are trying to establish a JFK internet where they simply post by name instead of content...These people are forcing an internet where compliance to that clique comes before credibility of research and they are enforcing it...Jim DiEugenio is a dirty bastard and he consciously directs that den of research crooks...It is ultimately about power and control that ultimately results in income, prominence, and ego satisfaction...These people are networked with crooked favoring moderators - which is the gate-keeper point at which they get away with it...That is how a dummy like Eli Frame goes from unquestioning Kamp shill to Education Forum moderator in one move under Andrew Iler...

The Education Forum is the forum that sent Jim DiEugenio before Congress to push a bogus Greg Parker theory...And it is the same forum that is using banning to prevent Jim from answering why he is pushing a BS theory that he already admitted to me on Facebook that I had disproven...
8
Huh, so a "specular highlight" takes the appearance of cracks on the windshield? The damage disappears because the angle of the windshield to the camera changes, not because it's a "specular highlight."

As for Altgens 6, I cannot force you to admit you can see what you don't want to admit you can see. Roy Schaeffer noticed the windshield damage in Altgens 6 way back in the 1960s. Anthony DeFiore also identified windshield damage in Altgens 6 and provided high-quality enlargements of the photo showing the damage. Dr. Mantik has likewise identified windshield damage in the photo and in the same area noted by Weldon, DeFiore, and Schaeffer. But, I'm confident you guys will continue to insist you don't see it.

Regarding my photogrammetry, I had to educate you on the meaning of the term "parallax" (although you did catch me in a math gaffe resulting from the PEP's curious use of the term "results"), while Mytton made the hilarious claim that the HSCA PEP found "massive parallax" in the backyard photos, when in fact the PEP explained that the parallax they found was so tiny that it could only be detected with the aid of computer analysis and high magnification.

For the benefit of other readers, regarding the issue of parallax and the backyard rifle photos, parallax is the apparent shift in an object’s position when viewed from two different points; as applied to the backyard photos, it refers to changes in the camera's position between exposures as indicated by the differences in the distances between background objects in the photos.

The HSCA's photographic experts (PEP) found very small differences between the distances in background objects in the 133-A and 133-B backyard rifle photos, differences that were so small they required the use of  “computer-assisted photographic evaluation” and also “examination under magnification with magnifiers and microscopes” to detect (2 HSCA 398, 405). The slight parallax between 133-A and 133-B proves the backyard photos could not have been taken in the manner claimed by the official version.

And note that the PEP only tested for horizontal and vertical parallax and only in two of the photos. Revealingly, they did not test to see if the camera moved angularly in any direction, i.e., if there was any pitch, yaw, or roll in the camera’s position between exposures.

The official story is that Marina Oswald took the three backyard photos and handed the camera to Lee between each exposure so he could forward the film for her. Leaving aside the fact that Marina later said those photos were not the ones she took, if the photos had been taken in this manner, there would have been far greater differences in the distances between background objects in the photos, i.e., the camera's position would have changed much more between exposures, and not just horizontally and vertically but also angularly.

Achieving the extremely small amount of parallax detected in the backyard photos would be difficult to achieve in the alleged circumstances even when using a tripod and a camera that automatically forwarded the film after each exposure. Mr. Brian Mee, an NSA photographer and photographic lab technician, emphasized this point when I interviewed him in the 1990s.

Like your many Zapruder failures, here again, you haven't got a clue!

Here's the HSCA's methodology and you simply have a complete misunderstanding of the numbers. It really is so basic that a child could understand, the HSCA measurements were based on tiny photos and therefore your conclusion of "microscopic amounts of parallax" is beyond laughable.



Here in another of my "goofy" educational aids and as I previously schooled you, the HSCA Photographic Panel demonstrated massive amounts of relative parallax movements between the objects in each backyard photo.
And in your HSCA example of "gate bolt to screen", as can be seen in my "goofy" graphic, the vertical parallax movement is hardly "microscopic" and in fact is quite consistent with how Marina took the photos.

I have highlighted and stabilized the gate bolt, and the screen behind can be seen clearly moving more than a "tiny fraction of an inch"! Hahaha!



BTW on your Backyard photo fraud page you seem to rely on Jack White who believes in Moon Landing and 9/11 fakery, which goes a long way to explain your belief system.

Here is a direct comparison between 133-C and 133-A, and by lining up the 2nd middle gap in the fence palings, it can be clearly seen that both backgrounds aren't identical and just as the HSCA proved with 133-B and 133-A, the camera moved.



Knowing that you would claim that the other two backyard photos could be identical and just to rain on your parade, here is a direct comparison between 133-C and 133-B, and again by lining up the 2nd middle gap in the fence palings, it can be clearly seen that both backgrounds aren't identical and just as the HSCA proved with 133-B and 133-A, the camera moved.



To address your comment regarding "camera's angular position (pitch, yaw, and roll)" not being addressed, I've already told you, shown you and further proved that Oswald's camera tilted upwards(pitch). No offence but are you mentally retarded?



While making these above and below comparisons and to line up the gap in the fence palings I had to rotate(roll) the photos so the fence gap could line up and as witnessed in all comparisons, objects either side of the lined up fence gap/s move simultaneously away and towards the camera which illustrates, and you guessed it(yaw)!



I shouldn't need to say this yet again but here I go, your assertion of "microscopic differences" has no bearing on objects as they exist in the "real World", the HSCA were taking measurements from a vastly scaled down photo and when the measured objects are relatively measured in the "real world" as opposed to a tiny photographic representation, the HSCA example of the distance between the gate bolt to the bottom of the screen behind is NOT microscopic and the distance between these two objects is "HUGE" as compared to your microscopic nonsense! And the amount of objects that show a parallax change is indeed "VAST", so stop misrepresenting and misquoting me!



BTW, whenever you try to refute the photographic/film evidence you continue to make the most childish amateurish mistakes which are all easily disproved, you really need a new hobby!

JohnM
9
BD-

Yes, EF-JFKA has had a dubious track record on moderation.

I am willing to see how Andrew Iler plays out.

My layman's take is Prayer Man is a woman. I don't understand the CT'ers making this a hill to die on. They look silly.

Well, let it ride, take a walk in the sun, buy a great hamburger somewhere.

This forum we are on seems good.
10
   DOYLE - You continue to avoid addressing the images above. Shelley and Lovelady are right there on the TSBD Steps as Officer Baker runs toward the building. They can Not be the "2 Guys" moving down the Elm St Extension. It is physically impossible.

The man you are calling Shelley has a much stockier body shape than the real Shelley who can be seen fast-walking up the extension with the correct body shape and Duck's Ass hair doo...

If we can get the 6th Floor Museum 1st generation copy of Darnell we can see Molina in front of Calvery in better resolution...
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10