1
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: When Was JBC Hit?
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Today at 05:02:26 PM »It's the best I need in this case.As expected, a witness gives evidence undermining your naive understanding of this issue and she is totally dismissed.
Yes I did. I noticed Sitzman was behind Zapruder.
So you think sound only travels in a vector?
Oh, goody. Another version of what happened from an ear witness. Just how many different ways do you think the JFKA happened?
Eye and earwitness accounts don't prove anything unless you can prove the witness' account is accurate. I trust people's observed reactions far more than I trust their recollections. The Newmans, who were not far from Zapruder reacted by pushing their kids on the ground and shielding them with their bodies.
You're so gullible you think one witness undermines a wealth of evidence which is contrary to their account. I always get a chuckle when somebody starts and argument with, "So-and-so said....." as if what so-and-so said. People choose to believe the witnesses who support what they want to believe. Because there are so many differing versions of what happened, it's not hard to find a witness who will support your argument. I don't accept any witness' account that can't be corroborated through other evidence. We have visual evidence that Zapruder's camera shook noticeably 7-8 frames after the second shot was fired and 7-8 frames after the third shot was fired. Is that just a coincidence? It would have taken about 4 frames for the sound of the muzzle blast to reach Zapruder's ears which leaves another 3-4 frames for a startle reaction, about what that should take.
That is one of the dumbest things I have read on this forum. It is silly to think the sound of the muzzle blast would have dissipated in just 90 yard. You want to be all your eggs in the Sitzman basket as if her account is the definitive story of the JFKA. Foolish.
Funny how his vertigo only kicked in 7-8 frames after the second and third shots.
This is no great shock.
Your post is full of the usual lunacy but this cannot be ignored:
You're so gullible you think one witness undermines a wealth of evidence which is contrary to their account.
The issue at hand is whether or not the sound of the shots were loud enough to startle Zapruder at his location and create 'jiggle' in the Z-film.
My approach has been to take the witness testimony of someone stood right next to Zapruder. This witness reports the sound of the shots was "far off" and a "far away sound". They were certainly not enough to create 'jiggle' in the film.
The distant nature of this sound might explain why neither Zapruder or Sitzman could confidently recall how many shots they heard.
This is evidence directly contradicting the reliability of Jiggle Analysis regarding the Z-film.
However, you insist there is a "wealth of evidence" countering Sitzman's testimony. This is utter nonsense. It's a falsehood. An untruth.
There is not a single scrap of evidence that the shots were loud enough to create a startle reflex at Zapruder's location - not a single scrap!
The problem is your delusion - you believe you are right no matter what. You believe this "wealth of evidence" must exist because you sooo believe you are right
But it does not.
There is not a chance in hell that you will retract the falsehood you have posted, which will make it a deliberate falsehood - a lie.
Please provide this "wealth of evidence" that the sound of the shots was loud enough to create a startle reflex from at Zapruder's position.
Recent Posts