Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Prayer Woman Clearer 6th Floor Museum Image
« Last post by Zeon Mason on Today at 10:51:24 PM »
Quote from: Royell Storing on Today at 10:30:05 PM
   Are YOU claiming the balding guy standing on the TSBD steps is Not Lovelady? If so, say so. 
   This is pretty clear, especially when considering where Lovelady was standing on Altgens 6. Lovelady is NOT 1 of the "2 Guys" moving away from the "getaway" car on the Couch and Darnell Films.

Except… Altgens 6 photo at Z255 was taken 30 seconds BEFORE the Darnell film started recording Baker ( it’s 25 seconds POST shots )
2
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Prayer Woman Clearer 6th Floor Museum Image
« Last post by Royell Storing on Today at 10:30:05 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Today at 09:47:10 PM
You really do have a problem with basic logic. Just because you don't know the answer to a question does not mean that the only answer you can think of is the correct one.

   Are YOU claiming the balding guy standing on the TSBD steps is Not Lovelady? If so, say so. 
   This is pretty clear, especially when considering where Lovelady was standing on Altgens 6. Lovelady is NOT 1 of the "2 Guys" moving away from the "getaway" car on the Couch and Darnell Films.   
3
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: "Overthinking" (or maybe not?) the Walker attempt
« Last post by Charles Collins on Today at 10:28:28 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Today at 09:36:10 PM
If you add in the awkwardness of the shot, having to raise up and fire a near vertical shot through a window open only about a foot or so at a target moving across the line of fire, it's easy to see why Oswald would miss so badly. I would agree with you if he was firing at a stationary target from a steady position, but that would not have been the case so I don't see the MOA to be all that relevant to this issue. You have recognized the difficulty of that first shot by suggesting he wouldn't have taken it on purpose but the simple fact is he had a better chance of hitting JFK by taking that shot but not that much better.

We will just have to disagree. Here’s a paragraph from the study I did a while back and a link in case you wish to read more.


I have related all of the above information in hopes that it might help drive home what a suggested minimum of 36” miss from the intended point of impact at a 104’ distance really looks like. It has been suggested that an intended shot missed the entire limo due to the limo’s movement. Let’s see what that would look like in MOA. A 36” miss means that 36” would be the radius of a circle target centered on the intended point of impact. That means a 72” in diameter target would have been completely missed from a distance of 104’. That size target is ~208-MOA at 104’. Does it seem reasonable to believe that LHO might have missed by that much if his shot was an intentional shot that was not interfered with? It definitely doesn’t seem reasonable to me. And that is just one reason why I believe an early missed shot was probably inadvertent due to some unexpected interference from the box in the window.


https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4151.msg159173.html#msg159173
4
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Prayer Woman Clearer 6th Floor Museum Image
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 09:47:10 PM »
Quote from: Royell Storing on Today at 06:58:50 PM
    This balding man showing a massive amount of forehead is Lovelady. No question. This means Lovelady can Not be one of the "2 Guys" walking away from the "getaway" car. So exactly Who are those guys? And where did they come from? The came from inside the "getaway" car

You really do have a problem with basic logic. Just because you don't know the answer to a question does not mean that the only answer you can think of is the correct one.
5
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: "Overthinking" (or maybe not?) the Walker attempt
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 09:36:10 PM »
Quote from: Charles Collins on Today at 09:10:44 PM

I did a study a while back that compared the minutes of angle (MOA) required to miss the entire limo (if it is assumed that JFK’s head was the target) to the MOA that the USMC shooting range test results indicated LHO was capable of. I am on my phone now and not inclined to search the forum for that study. My memory is that I concluded that an intentional shot wouldn’t have missed by anything even remotely close to that amount of MOA. But you are entitled to your opinion.
The trigger pull weight of the Carcano was significantly lower than what a typical military rifle would be.

If you add in the awkwardness of the shot, having to raise up and fire a near vertical shot through a window open only about a foot or so at a target moving across the line of fire, it's easy to see why Oswald would miss so badly. I would agree with you if he was firing at a stationary target from a steady position, but that would not have been the case so I don't see the MOA to be all that relevant to this issue. You have recognized the difficulty of that first shot by suggesting he wouldn't have taken it on purpose but the simple fact is he had a better chance of hitting JFK by taking that shot but not that much better.
6
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 09:28:21 PM »
Quote from: Andrew Mason on Today at 09:12:59 PM
It all depends on how well equipped witnesses are to observe a fact. Counting the shots was not a problem. 132 out of 178 witnesses recalled three shots. The next largest group was 17 people who recalled only two shots. Determining that the third shot was the last shot was not a problem. Determining what colour Jackie was wearing or where she was sitting was not a problem. Determining where the shots were coming from was a huge problem because of the many reflective surfaces in Dealey Plaza. Brandt remarked that there was "tremendous reverberation".  That is not a problem with witnesses being accurate in recalling an observation. It is a problem that witnesses were unable to make the observation ie. discerning the direction of the source of shots.


Everything the witnesses have told us is suspect without corroboration. Witnesses can be wrong about anything and frequents are.
Quote

So why do you not accept his evidence that the car had gone about 150-200 feet along Elm St. when the first shot struck?

Because JBC did not have a tape measure with him. He was guessing.
Quote
The "We" does not include me.  He said turned around to look at JFK. He makes not even the slightest attempt to do that until after z230.

Next time you view the Z-film, open your eyes.
Quote

If you follow the evidence, that was not the turn he was referring to.

Says you. Any reliable source for that?
Quote

It was a turn at about the same time as JFK turned to his right and started smiling and waving at Mary Woodward and her group who had just shouted to him.  They said that his smiling and waving was BEFORE the first 'horrible ear-shattering noise'.

"She said" doesn't count for squat unless you can prove what she said is accurate. You simply assume it is because it fits your FUBAR narrative.
7
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 09:19:28 PM »
Quote from: Royell Storing on Today at 08:55:07 PM

   It is extremely foolish to worship the Z Film as if it were the Holy Grail. Question the validity of eyewitness accounts and then blindly accept "evidence" that went for, "30 pieces of silver"? Not me. These "Scales of Justice" are not balanced.

The Z-film is the only truly reliable account of the assassination. All human accounts are subject to fallibility.
8
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Andrew Mason on Today at 09:12:59 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Today at 08:26:01 PM
Ear and eyewitnesses will lead you astray because they are wrong as often as they are right.
It all depends on how well equipped witnesses are to observe a fact. Counting the shots was not a problem. 132 out of 178 witnesses recalled three shots. The next largest group was 17 people who recalled only two shots. Determining that the third shot was the last shot was not a problem. Determining what colour Jackie was wearing or where she was sitting was not a problem. Determining where the shots were coming from was a huge problem because of the many reflective surfaces in Dealey Plaza. Brandt remarked that there was "tremendous reverberation".  That is not a problem with witnesses being accurate in recalling an observation. It is a problem that witnesses were unable to make the observation ie. discerning the direction of the source of shots.
Quote
JBC is the key to determining when the first shot was fired.
So why do you not accept his evidence that the car had gone about 150-200 feet along Elm St. when the first shot struck?

Quote
He said he turned to look over his right shoulder in reaction to the first shot. So is he right or wrong. We see him start to make that turn at Z164.
The "We" does not include me.  He said turned around to look at JFK. He makes not even the slightest attempt to do that until after z230.

Quote
So the question then becomes is he turning in reaction to the first shot which happened earlier or is he turning in anticipation of a shot that would come later. That question answers itself.
If you follow the evidence, that was not the turn he was referring to.  It was a turn at about the same time as JFK turned to his right and started smiling and waving at Mary Woodward and her group who had just shouted to him.  They said that his smiling and waving was BEFORE the first 'horrible ear-shattering noise'.

9
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: "Overthinking" (or maybe not?) the Walker attempt
« Last post by Charles Collins on Today at 09:10:44 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Today at 08:33:59 PM
It's not hard to believe Oswald missed the entire limo because I'm pretty sure he was not trying to shoot the limo. He was shooting at a guy sitting on the extreme right side of the limo and if that shot missed to the right of the intended target, he misses the whole car. I'm not sure what kind of a trigger pull the Carcano rifle has but my bolt action .30-06 doesn't exactly have a hair trigger. An accidental discharge would likely require a pretty good jolt. There is an unconfirmed report of a bullet strike to the right rear of the limo. If that is where Oswald's first shot struck, that would be consistent with a pull of the trigger rather than a steady squeeze.


I did a study a while back that compared the minutes of angle (MOA) required to miss the entire limo (if it is assumed that JFK’s head was the target) to the MOA that the USMC shooting range test results indicated LHO was capable of. I am on my phone now and not inclined to search the forum for that study. My memory is that I concluded that an intentional shot wouldn’t have missed by anything even remotely close to that amount of MOA. But you are entitled to your opinion.
The trigger pull weight of the Carcano was significantly lower than what a typical military rifle would be.
10
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Royell Storing on Today at 08:55:07 PM »


   It is extremely foolish to worship the Z Film as if it were the Holy Grail. Question the validity of eyewitness accounts and then blindly accept "evidence" that went for, "30 pieces of silver"? Not me. These "Scales of Justice" are not balanced.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10