Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: DiEugenio Promotes Prayer Man Scam To Congress

« Last post by Royell Storing on Today at 04:55:35 PM »

Quote from: Brian Doyle on Today at 04:19:30 PM

The Davidson Enhancement of the clearest Wiegman frame came out in 2016 and should have ended the issue for anyone daring to sell himself as a Kennedy Assassination researcher worth listening to...The face was obviously female and therefore not Oswald...Once I managed to get Sarah Stanton's family photo showing her obesity the chubby-ness of the face in Davidson was obviously that of Stanton - not to mention the height that matched the 5 foot 4 Stanton was according to her grand daughter Wanda...Stanton can be seen looking down in to her purse (which appears as a black shape) in the Davidson Enhancement...That purse was recognized by her grand daughter Wanda who sent me a family photo of the purse she thought it was...This wasn't good enough for the Prayer Man people however who brought technical examination "expert" Andrej Stancak in to create made to order excuses for all this damning evidence...The Prayer Man people simply honored these rubbish claims by Stancak and ignored my undeniable proof...I was then shown the door and followed-through with destruction as a researcher...They don't stop at just banning...They come after you with personal destruction and intentional ignoring of your evidence...The Prayer Man world they created through ignoring and censorship is the same one DiEugenio deludes himself with in his quotes above...Knowing they were in trouble the Prayer Man group quickly formed the original films request strawman and stuck to it and nothing else...If they called for the originals they could avoid admitting to themselves that they had been out-argued on the already-available evidence...

I do Not believe Prayer Man is Oswald. That said, all of us can only gain knowledge with the release of early generation copies of the Original JFK Assassination Films. Why for 62+ years running are the Networks NOT releasing their Original Copies and Not granting permission for early generation copies to be released publicly? I am still waiting for the Sixth Floor Museum to release the 2nd half of the Darnell Film. That 2nd half of the Darnell Film will give us a very good look at: (1) The Train Yard, (2) The Passenger Train Cars, (3) The Bogus DPD Motorcycle Cop, and (4) The Elm St Extension. The current images of these areas of interest are scant and poor.

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: Is it plausible Oswald could have completely missed the limo with his first shot

« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 04:46:03 PM »

Quote from: Andrew Mason on Today at 04:31:45 PM

Both couldbe wrong? How could either be right if they couldn’t tell where the shot came from?

Physical evidence is not the only way to corroborate a witness. Since you seem to be afraid of using AI I asked this question:

In researching the witness statements in the JFK assassination, I have found 25 witnesses who independently reported that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot. No one said he continued to smile and wave after the first shot. What is the probability that these 25 witnesses independently made similar incorrect observations and, in fact, JFK continued to smile and wave for 3 or 4 seconds after the first shot?

and Chat GPT gave this answer:

The short answer is: you can’t calculate a meaningful probability from the witness count alone, and any numerical answer would require assumptions that cannot be justified from the available evidence.

Here’s why.

If you have 25 genuinely independent witnesses who all reported that President John F. Kennedy visibly reacted immediately after the first shot, and no witnesses reported that he continued smiling and waving for another 3–4 seconds after that first shot, then that is strong evidence against the “continued smiling and waving” scenario.

However, to compute an actual probability, you’d need to know things like:

* how accurate each witness typically is,
* whether their errors are independent,
* whether they influenced one another,
* what each person’s vantage point was,
* what prior probability you assign to each hypothesis.

Without those inputs, there is no defensible way to produce a number like “1 in a million.”

A simple illustration

Suppose (purely hypothetically) each witness had a 90% chance of correctly identifying whether JFK visibly reacted immediately after the first shot, and suppose their observations were completely independent.

Then the probability that all 25 independently made the same incorrect observation would be:

(0.10)^{25} = 10^{-25}

That is astronomically small.

But that calculation depends entirely on assumptions that are almost certainly false:

* eyewitnesses are not statistically independent;
* they viewed the event from different angles and distances;
* memory can be influenced by subsequent discussion and media coverage;
* some witnesses are more reliable than others.

What historians actually do

Rather than trying to assign a numerical probability, historians and forensic investigators look for convergence of evidence.

If:

* 25 independent witnesses describe an immediate visible reaction,
* the contemporaneous films show an immediate change in JFK’s posture,
* the medical evidence is consistent with a shot having already occurred,

then the combined evidence strongly favors the conclusion that JFK reacted at or very shortly after the first shot.

Conversely, if a theory requires JFK to have remained smiling and waving for another 3–4 seconds after the first shot, that theory would need to explain why:

* none of those 25 witnesses reported that,
* multiple independent observations instead describe an immediate reaction,
* and the visual record would have to be interpreted in a way consistent with that claim.

One caution

The key question is whether those 25 witnesses are truly independent. If they gave statements before being exposed to media accounts, were located at different positions, and had no opportunity to influence one another, then the agreement among them is much stronger than if they all learned details from a common source afterward.

So, while it is not possible to assign a rigorous probability to your question, the existence of 25 independent witnesses all describing an immediate reaction—and none describing several more seconds of smiling and waving—would generally be considered strong evidentiary support for the immediate-reaction account.

AI has no special powers of discernment. It can only regurgitate what it gathers from other sources. It can be used as a source but its answers should be taken with a grain of salt. Garbage in. Garbage out.

What I suspect is that what some people perceived to be the first shot was actually the second. We know a number of people didn't recognize the first shot as the sound of a gunshot. We can only guess as to why that was. Maybe they thought the first shot was a firecracker. Maybe that thought it was a motorcycle backfire. Maybe it was the roar of the motorcycles accelerating out of the turn onto Elm. Maybe they were so intent on seeing a President and a First Lady for the first time in their lives that the sound of the first shot didn't register with them. Maybe it was a combination of these factors. Whatever the reason, if their focus was 100% on JFK and Jackie, that focus would have been broken when they saw JFK unmistakably react to the second shot by suddenly raising both arms to the level of his throat and then slump over to his left. That was the time I believe most people began to realize what was happening. I'm sure the sound of that first shot reached those people's ears but not their brains. If they didn't perceive what was happening at the time it was happening, there's no reason to believe they would piece it together correctly later one.

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: How Did Bart Kamp Create The Lovelady Image?

« Last post by Royell Storing on Today at 04:40:21 PM »

Quote from: Dan O'meara on September 30, 2025, 12:50:48 AM

Once again, you're talking utter nonsense.
The image you posted is NOT a Gerda Dunkel image.
You have been corrected on this issue THREE TIMES now.

According to Kamp - "Terry Martin visits the National Archives in Washington for me and finds a huge Couch film print in Richard E Sprague’s collection."
This is a copy of the Sprague print at the Prayer Man website:

Look at this image.
Look at how unbelievably poor it is.
It's washed out and lacks all fine detail - except for Lovelady's shirt!
In contrast, look at this far superior Couch image from "4 Days in November":

Compare it to the Sprague image.
Look at how more superior this image is. Look at how much more detail is in this image.
Yet there is no hint whatsoever of the checkered pattern in this image or the 'bald spot'.

I wish I knew more about image enhancement because I can't figure out how this far superior image shows none of the fine detail we see in the shirt in the inferior Sprague image.
How can this be?
How does that work?
Any idea's old-timer?
And, by the way, how are you getting along with your timeline?

BUMP - Several excellent points made by Dan O'meara above. And Not a single peep in response. None!

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: Is it plausible Oswald could have completely missed the limo with his first shot

« Last post by Andrew Mason on Today at 04:31:45 PM »

Quote from: John Corbett on Today at 04:00:33 PM

No, I am saying neither corroborates the other because both could be wrong. There is no physical evidence that corroborates either.

Both couldbe wrong? How could either be right if they couldn’t tell where the shot came from?

Physical evidence is not the only way to corroborate a witness. Since you seem to be afraid of using AI I asked this question:

In researching the witness statements in the JFK assassination, I have found 25 witnesses who independently reported that JFK reacted visibly to the first shot. No one said he continued to smile and wave after the first shot. What is the probability that these 25 witnesses independently made similar incorrect observations and, in fact, JFK continued to smile and wave for 3 or 4 seconds after the first shot?

and Chat GPT gave this answer:

The short answer is: you can’t calculate a meaningful probability from the witness count alone, and any numerical answer would require assumptions that cannot be justified from the available evidence.

Here’s why.

If you have 25 genuinely independent witnesses who all reported that President John F. Kennedy visibly reacted immediately after the first shot, and no witnesses reported that he continued smiling and waving for another 3–4 seconds after that first shot, then that is strong evidence against the “continued smiling and waving” scenario.

However, to compute an actual probability, you’d need to know things like:

* how accurate each witness typically is,
* whether their errors are independent,
* whether they influenced one another,
* what each person’s vantage point was,
* what prior probability you assign to each hypothesis.

Without those inputs, there is no defensible way to produce a number like “1 in a million.”

A simple illustration

Suppose (purely hypothetically) each witness had a 90% chance of correctly identifying whether JFK visibly reacted immediately after the first shot, and suppose their observations were completely independent.

Then the probability that all 25 independently made the same incorrect observation would be:

(0.10)^{25} = 10^{-25}

That is astronomically small.

But that calculation depends entirely on assumptions that are almost certainly false:

* eyewitnesses are not statistically independent;
* they viewed the event from different angles and distances;
* memory can be influenced by subsequent discussion and media coverage;
* some witnesses are more reliable than others.

What historians actually do

Rather than trying to assign a numerical probability, historians and forensic investigators look for convergence of evidence.

If:

* 25 independent witnesses describe an immediate visible reaction,
* the contemporaneous films show an immediate change in JFK’s posture,
* the medical evidence is consistent with a shot having already occurred,

then the combined evidence strongly favors the conclusion that JFK reacted at or very shortly after the first shot.

Conversely, if a theory requires JFK to have remained smiling and waving for another 3–4 seconds after the first shot, that theory would need to explain why:

* none of those 25 witnesses reported that,
* multiple independent observations instead describe an immediate reaction,
* and the visual record would have to be interpreted in a way consistent with that claim.

One caution

The key question is whether those 25 witnesses are truly independent. If they gave statements before being exposed to media accounts, were located at different positions, and had no opportunity to influence one another, then the agreement among them is much stronger than if they all learned details from a common source afterward.

So, while it is not possible to assign a rigorous probability to your question, the existence of 25 independent witnesses all describing an immediate reaction—and none describing several more seconds of smiling and waving—would generally be considered strong evidentiary support for the immediate-reaction account.

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: Is it plausible Oswald could have completely missed the limo with his first shot

« Last post by Andrew Mason on Today at 04:20:05 PM »

Quote from: Charles Collins on Today at 02:51:47 PM

Tague seems pretty clueless to me. He is all over the place. In his book he is adamant that the third shot missed. I personally have no problem discounting his ideas enough to believe that an early first shot could have been the one that missed.

I would agree that Tague’s later writings are not worth much as evidence and should be ignored.

Quote

BTW, here is what DPD motorcycle officer Stavis Ellis told Larry Sneed as shown on page 144 of his book “No More Silence”:

“We came west on Main Street to Houston Street and took a right, facing right into that building. The building with the window was looking right at us as we came up to Elm Street and made a left, heading back toward the Triple Underpass. Midway down Elm I remember waving at my wife’s niece and nephew, Bill and Gayle Newman, who had apparently come out to see the President. About the time I started on a curve on Elm, I had turned to my right to give signals to open up the intervals since we were fixing to get on the freeway a short distance away. That’s all I had on my mind. Just as I turned around, then the first shot went off. It hit back there. I hadn’t been able to see back where Chaney was because Curry was there, but I could see where the shot came down into the south side of the curb. It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the concrete.”

I drew a yellow circle around the location of the manhole cover apron (where it is believed that a bullet ricocheted) on the south side of Elm Street. I also drew a dashed yellow line to show that Curry’s car would have been close to the line of sight of Ellis trying to look back at the area of the limo where Cheney was. This is around the time that I believe an early first shot might have occurred. Stavis Ellis (-5 character in the animation) is just approaching the entrance to the triple overpass.

I find it difficult to believe that Ellis really saw what he described for the first time in a book published in 1998 and did not mention it in any statement to the WC or HSCA or to anyone else in the preceding 35 years.

And as far as his reliability as a witness, do you think his reported observation of a hole in the limo windshield was accurate? Ellis told interviewer Gil Toff in 1971: “There was a hole in the left front windshield…You could put a pencil through it…you could take a regular standard writing pencil…and stick [it] through there.”

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / DiEugenio Promotes Prayer Man Scam To Congress

« Last post by Brian Doyle on Today at 04:19:30 PM »

The Davidson Enhancement of the clearest Wiegman frame came out in 2016 and should have ended the issue for anyone daring to sell himself as a Kennedy Assassination researcher worth listening to...The face was obviously female and therefore not Oswald...Once I managed to get Sarah Stanton's family photo showing her obesity the chubby-ness of the face in Davidson was obviously that of Stanton - not to mention the height that matched the 5 foot 4 Stanton was according to her grand daughter Wanda...Stanton can be seen looking down in to her purse (which appears as a black shape) in the Davidson Enhancement...That purse was recognized by her grand daughter Wanda who sent me a family photo of the purse she thought it was...This wasn't good enough for the Prayer Man people however who brought technical examination "expert" Andrej Stancak in to create made to order excuses for all this damning evidence...The Prayer Man people simply honored these rubbish claims by Stancak and ignored my undeniable proof...I was then shown the door and followed-through with destruction as a researcher...They don't stop at just banning...They come after you with personal destruction and intentional ignoring of your evidence...The Prayer Man world they created through ignoring and censorship is the same one DiEugenio deludes himself with in his quotes above...Knowing they were in trouble the Prayer Man group quickly formed the original films request strawman and stuck to it and nothing else...If they called for the originals they could avoid admitting to themselves that they had been out-argued on the already-available evidence...

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: Is it plausible Oswald could have completely missed the limo with his first shot

« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 04:00:33 PM »

Quote from: Andrew Mason on Today at 03:23:44 PM

Are you seriously asking if Miller corroborates Woodward or vice-versa?

No, I am saying neither corroborates the other because both could be wrong. There is no physical evidence that corroborates either.

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory

« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 03:56:43 PM »

Let me see if I understand the point MTG is trying to make. The wound in the center of JFK's throat could not be an exit wound because it didn't go through the knot in his tie but it could be an entrance wound without having gone through the knot in his tie.

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: JFK Dictabelt Recording

« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 03:50:27 PM »

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Today at 03:44:47 PM

Bugliosi blundered all over the place because he didn't understand what he was reading and was determined to reject the acoustical evidence no matter what.

You are determined to cling to the acoustics "evidence" no matter what. Not surprising given that you have no real evidence to support your cause.

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: JFK Dictabelt Recording

« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Today at 03:44:47 PM »

Quote from: John Mytton on November 12, 2025, 03:00:05 AM

1. McLain's bike was too far back.
2. According to the bike expert and actual rider, McClain, he said motor sound on the dictabelt is from a three wheeled bike.
3. Sheriff Bill Decker saying "hold everything secure" in the exact place where the shots supposedly occurred. Yet Decker was known to have said "hold everything secure" about a minute after the real shots in Dealey Plaza.

Once again you are years behind the information curve. Every one of those claims was refuted years ago.

Quote from: John Mytton on November 12, 2025, 03:00:05 AM

Steve Barber as seen below is the actual expert on the dictabelt evidence and Steve's initial interest came from when he heard the "hold everything secure" from a recording of the dictabelt and these words were proven to have come way after Dealey Plaza! Go Steve, Go!

So Steve Barber, a drummer, is your "actual expert" on the acoustical evidence?!

How about the HSCA's acoustical experts: BBN's Dr. James Barger, Dr. Jared Wolf, Dr. Scott Robinson, and Dr. Edward Schmidt, and Queen's College's Dr. Mark Weiss and Professor Ernest Aschkenasy? How would you compare Barber's credentials in acoustical science with those of the six HSCA acoustical scientists?

Barber's responses to Dr. Don Thomas's articles on the acoustical evidence are downright laughable.

How about BBN acoustical scientist Dr. Richard Mullen? Dr. Mullen did new research on the acoustical evidence at the request of Dr. Josiah Thompson and proved conclusively with pattern-cross-correlation (PCC) analysis that the Decker "hold everything" transmission is not crosstalk but is an overdub created during the copying process, rendering it irrelevant, and that the Fisher "I'll check" transmission is genuine crosstalk, which proves the gunshot impulse patterns were recorded during the assassination.

Dr. Thompson devotes over 100 pages to this historic new research in his 2020 book Last Second in Dallas. Dr. Mullen wrote Appendix B, "Signal Processing Results for Both DPD Audio Files," in the book. Dr. Barger wrote Appendix A, "A Quantitative Analysis of Crosstalk Found in Audio Recorded During the JFK Assassination," in the book.

I have pointed out all these facts to you in other threads, but you just ignore and repeat your outdated claims about the acoustical evidence.

Quote from: John Mytton on November 12, 2025, 03:00:05 AM

The following passages come from Reclaiming History and McClain the actual man behind the supposed Dealey Plaza recording, strongly refutes this deceptive "audio evidence".[SNIP]

Bugliosi blundered all over the place because he didn't understand what he was reading and was determined to reject the acoustical evidence no matter what.

You realize that not one of the members of the NRC/NAS panel that critiqued the acoustical evidence was an acoustical scientist, right? Right?

You realize that the NRC/NAS panel admitted that there's a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists between the dictabelt and the recording of the test firing in Dealey Plaza occurred because the dictabelt recorded gunfire in Dealey Plaza, right?

You realize that the NRC/NAS panel admitted there's a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern, identified by Weiss and Aschkenasy as gunfire from the grassy knoll, was in fact gunfire from the knoll, right?

All of this, and much more, flew right over Bugliosi's head, or he just chose to ignore it, just as you keep doing.

For those who want to read the other side of the story on the acoustical evidence, I highly recommend Dr. Thompson's book, and also the following online articles:

"The HSCA’s Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman in the JFK Assassination," by yours truly.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view

“Debugging Bugliosi,” by Dr. Don Thomas, https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-
_Debugging_Bugliosi.html.

“Overview and History of the Acoustical Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination Case,” by Dr. Don Thomas
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Acoustics_Overview_and_History.html
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Acoustics_Overview_and_History_-_part_2.html
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Acoustics_Overview_and_History_-_part_3.html

“Sabato, Sonalysts, and Sophistry,” 2014, by Dr. Don Thomas
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Sabato_Sonalysts_Sophistry.html.

Another excellent analysis of the acoustical evidence is Dr. David Kaiser's lengthy discussion on the subject in his highly acclaimed book The Road to Dallas (pp. 377-387).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10