Just more of your poor research, distortions, and falsehoods. I've already answered your blundering arguments about the timing of the shots and the reactions.
You and Tony Marsh are like two peas in a pod. Every time I have challenged you with a question for which neither of you had an answer, you both resorted to the cowardly "I've already answered that" dodge which was a lie every time either of you resorted to it. Over the past 35 years, I have answered the same questions countless times without resorting to such a
dodge. The reason you won't provide a scenario with specific time frames and locations for each of the shots is because you know it would get ripped to shreds. There is no way you can sync up the BBN's shot scenario with the Z-film so you refuse to do it. Keep running and hiding from the tough questions. It's what you do best. You don't have the guts to lay your cards on the table.
You don't even know what your own side's experts have said on those subjects.
I do my own thinking and I don't need to know everything every LN has hypothesized over the years nor am I obligated to defend it. LN's agree that Oswald was the assassin and he fired the shots from the 6th floor sniper's nest. Beyond that there is a good deal of disagreement among LNs regarding the timing of the shots. We have LNs who don't accept the SBT and we even have at least one LN on this forum who thinks Oswald only fired two shots.
Now you're desperately trying to use the Zapruder film to refute the acoustical evidence,
Because it does. There is no way to sync the BBN conclusions with the Z-film which is why you won't even try.
when in fact the acoustical evidence is further scientific proof that the Zapruder film has been altered.
That statement deserves five
This is the classic dodge every CT eventualy is forced to fall back on. When the evidence doesn't fit their belief in conspiracy, it is the evidence that is fraudulent. You just won't admit it it your beliefs which are FUBAR.
However, since you assume the Zapruder film is pristine, I should point out that Dr. Thompson has made a credible case that the dictabelt's gunshots can in fact be synced with wound events in the Zapruder film (Thompson also believes the film is pristine).
If Tink can do that, why can't you?
You still, even now, weeks later, cannot provide a credible explanation as to how gunfire N-waves and gunfire windshield distortions got on the dictabelt if the dictabelt was not recorded in Dealey Plaza during the shooting. And you're still refusing to deal with the fact that even the NRC/NAS panel said that there was a 93% chance that the timing-movement correlations occurred because the dictabelt was recorded in the plaza during the shooting, and that there was a 77.7% chance that the 144.9 impulse pattern was caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll (and they only got the probability down to 77.7% by introducing two severe errors into their calculations).
Unlike you, I don't pretend to be an expert in highly technical fields and so I don't try to explain them to other people. I leave that to people who are experts in these various fields. As for probabilities, those are nothing more than SWAGs (scientific wild Bahookie guesses). There's a reason the FBI doesn't speculate on probabilities. They know they are nothing more than guesses. When they analyze a piece of evidence, they decide something is either positive, negative, or inconclusive. If it's not black-and-white, there is only one shade of gray. I know of one person who could tell you all about the value of probabilities. That would be President Hillary Clinton. Prior to the 2016 election, the New York Times gave her a 91% chance of being elected POTUS. How did that work out.
Uh, yes, I have. I've discussed two such tests. Sheesh, now you're just ba Walk:ld-face lying, or you have a terrible memory.
Now you're just blowing smoke. You have cited case studies regarding how other makes of FMJ bullets have behaved after striking a skull. Why don't you cite specific cases of how a 6.5mm FMJ Carcano bullet behaves when it strikes a skull. Let me guess. You've already done that.
And, as you know but dishonestly ignore, Dr. Vincent DiMaio, considered one of the greatest forensic pathologists of the 20th and 21st centuries, said FMJ bullets will never, ever shatter into dozens of fragments after penetrating skull bone.
Why don't you cite one of his case studies of what a Carcano FMJ bullet will do when striking a skull.
WCC 6.5 mm FMJ bullets (which you keep mislabeling as "6.5mm CARCANO FMJ bullets") do not behave any differently than other FMJ bullets, as numerous ballistics tests have proven. Regardless of the manufacturer, FMJ bullets behave in the same manner in every essential respect in terms of what they do when they hit bone and/or soft tissue.
Unless you can cite a specific case of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet striking a skull, that is an empty claim. If you don't have a specific case study of such a bullet, striking a skull, there is no way to say how such a bullet will react.
FYI, some bullet calibers are identified by the company that introduced it. Early .38 rounds were called Short Colt and Long Colt. The .40 S&W round is a common caliber for semi-automatic hand guns, and it is called that no matter what make of handgun uses it or if the ammo was manufactured by Smith and Wesson or not. Whenever you try to play Mr Smarty Pants, you usually ended up making yourself look foolish. That's another trait you share with Tony Marsh.
No, it's just that you're too uneducated and/or too stubborn to see how absurd your "involuntary arm flip" argument is.
It is duly noted you have never offered a plausible reason why JBC would suddenly flip his right arm upward at the exact moment JFK also started raising his arms. Instead you act as if it never happened. Tony Marsh would refuse to acknowledge that arm flip as well. Are the two of you related by any chance?
Again, for the umpteenth time, forensic science tells us that the bullet would have pushed Connally's shoulder downward,
JBC's right shoulder was driven downward immediately after being struck. That can be seen on David von Pein's outstanding webpage devoted to the single bullet theory:
https://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/Between Z224-225 we see his right shoulder dip and his left shoulder rise. The website shows toggling between the critical frames from Z223-226. In rapid succession we see the following:
Z223-224 The right side of JBC's jacket suddenly bulges out, the result of the bullet having just passed through it.
Z224-225 JBC's right shoulder dips. JFK's right hand is still moving downward, a motion started before he disappeared
Z225-226 JFK suddenly flips both arms upward in reaction to being shot a few frames early. At this same instant, JBC's right arm suddenly flips upward, a motion which last 9 frames or about a half second.
All of the above motions are easily discernable with enlarged frames which DVP's website provides. These actions are perfectly consistent with a single bullet having passed through both men immediately preceding them.
caused his cheeks to puff, and caused a pained expression on his face in right around four frames, not 16 frames later, as you ridiculously claim (i.e., after your mythical Z222 hit). But you just don't care. You won't listen. You just keep repeating your argument over and over and over and over, and then accuse others of "ignoring" your points.
Oh, really. I'd love to see you cite a source for that claim. Just because CTs have repeated that same
line for years doesn't make it a scientific fact. You choose to ignore JBC's arm flip simply because you know what a powerful piece of evidence it is for the SBT.
The Z226-228 arm flip, as I have explained to you several times, is hardly a wound reaction but clearly a nervous reaction to having just heard gunfire. This happens at the same time his body noticeably stiffens. Connally said he recognized the loud bang that he heard as gunfire right away, so of course he became nervous and his arm flipped as a nervous twitching reaction. But this sequence has nothing to do with the obvious wound reactions that start in Z238, as Connally himself made clear.
Connally made it clear that when he first heard a shot he turned and looked over his right shoulder which we see him do at Z164. He made not sudden startle reaction upon hearing gunfire. But you would have us believe that after making such a measured reaction to the first shot, he would be startled by the second causing him to flip his right arm upward.
This is where your acoustics evidence falls completely apart. If JFK is making a delayed reaction to being hit by a Z196 shot, what shot do you think caused JBC to double over in the Z230s? According to the BBN team, the next shot didn't occur until Z296. At least the HSCA accepted that JFK and JBC were hit by the same shot. Since you reject the SBT, that leaves you with a real conundrum. How do you square JFK and JBC having been hit by separate shots if you accept the BBN analysis? The obvious answer is you can't which is why you won't even try.
Connally did not select Z234 as the moment of impact based on "the cognitive reaction he made when he doubled over." You must be kidding. Your blind bias is showing again. No, Connally reached that conclusion after spending some two hours studying high-quality color prints of the Zapruder frames under high magnification and watching the film on a large screen in slow motion, and his analysis had the unique advantage of being informed by his having actually experienced the events seen in the Zapruder frames, especially by his actually having felt the bullet's impact.
JBC was looking for the reaction he remembered making. He wasn't looking for when his arm flipped up because he had no memory of having made that reflexive, involuntary reaction.
But you just won't listen, either because you lack the reasoning power to understand why your argument is so implausible or you are too stubborn to admit it. It's like talking to a spoiled teenager who can't bring himself to admit he has so badly blundered.
Unlike you, I have the ability to apply critical thinking to the evidence.
This is evident in your juvenile attempt to blame AI for your blunder in claiming that the HSCA PEP put the first hit at Z223-224. The fact that you felt the need to ask AI about this shows what a joke you are. You should have already known when the PEP said the first hit occurred. If nothing else, you could have just looked at the PEP's report, for crying out loud. But, nah, you were too lazy to do that. This is even worse than your blundering use of a "fact check" site to get information on the acoustical evidence.
My "blunder" was simply accepting a source without getting confirmation. You on the other hand blunder badly when you try to analyze all the information you have accumulated over the years. Like Tony Marsh, you have accumulated a vast knowledge of the details of the JFK assassination but then apply the most FUBAR analysis imaginable to that wealth of knowledge, just like Marsh. It's amazing how similar you two are. Is it possible the two of you were separated at birth?
Recent Posts