Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Is This Our Man?
« Last post by Mark A. Oblazney on Today at 03:35:24 PM »

Can't be an Oswald look-alike because Harvey went out the Loading Dock and down Houston...

The only Oswald that could be is Lee and 1) It obviously isn't him... 2) Lee was seen by Helen Forrest coming out from behind the west rear of the Depository and going right to the Station Wagon that was seen by Robinson and Craig...

dang, that’s exactly what I was about to say, Albert.  a great brain cell thinks alike, oui?
2


      The JFK internet is so corrupted that no one asks Malcolm Blunt what he thinks of Bart Kamp's Prayer Man garbage and no one even mentions it...This subject is protected by the bias of the research community while Andrew Iler passes himself off as credible...
3
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Is This Our Man?
« Last post by Brian Doyle on Today at 03:27:43 PM »


Can't be an Oswald look-alike because Harvey went out the Loading Dock and down Houston...

The only Oswald that could be is Lee and 1) It obviously isn't him... 2) Lee was seen by Helen Forrest coming out from behind the west rear of the Depository and going right to the Station Wagon that was seen by Robinson and Craig...
4
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 03:21:33 PM »
So I guess John Corbett's new strategy is to ignore the scientific evidence that confirms the presence of gunfire on the dictabelt and to try to impugn the acoustical evidence on the unscientific basis that it disagrees with his theory of how the shooting occurred.

I guess MTG's strategy is to ignore the fact it is impossible to sync the HSCA acoustics teams determination of the spacing of the shots to the Zapruder film in any way that fits the action in Zapruder film
Quote

Man alive, you are just one never-ending clown show. The HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel (PEP) did not say JFK was hit at Z223-224. They said he was hit at or slightly before Z190. How in the world can you not know this? How?

That is what my AI search indicated. I know AI is not the most reliable source but it comes up with nothing on its own. Apparently AI found a source that indicated the photographic panel concluded JFK was hit in the  Z223-224 window. A strike at or slightly before Z190 makes no sense since JFK didn't exhibit a reaction until two seconds later at Z226.
Quote

This is further proof that you really have no business posting in this forum under any pretense that you are competent to discuss the JFK case. You constantly blunder over basic, well-known facts, facts that have been known for decades.

Anyone who makes the silly arguments you do has no business talking about somebody else's competence.
Quote

I'd bet that even some of your fellow WC apologists are wondering how in the world you could not know that the PEP determined that JFK was hit by Z190 and that he starts to react at Z200-202.

If you could only hear the chuckling from some of your fellow CTs when reading the nonsense you spew.
Quote

Your embarrassing ignorance on this point is especially baffling because the PEP's hit-by-Z190 finding has been discussed extensively in this forum, given the fact that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree during this timeframe, strongly indicating that the shot must have come from somewhere else.

And, as I've told you before, the HSCA's acoustics team did not do their own analysis of the Zapruder film. Blakey simply told them which gunshot impulse patterns lined up with which Zapruder frames, as Barger later confirmed. Again, I've explained this to you before. Why you do keep saying things that you know are not true?

If the bullet struck at Z222, why does JFK start to react in Z200? Why does Jackie start to react to JFK's reaction by Z202?

JFK does not react to a gunshot at Z200. He simply starts to lower his right hand after waving to the spectators on Elm St. He apparently was reacting to the fact there were few spectators left as the limo proceeded down Elm St.
Quote

As I've told you before but as you just keep ignoring, two of your side's own medical experts have acknowledged that it would have taken JFK at least 4 frames to begin to voluntarily react to his first wound, which is why Dr. Lattimer said JFK was already hit by Z221.

ZZ26 is 4 frames after Z222 when I believe the bullet struck. Lattimer could be right but I would put the strike at Z222 plus or minus one frame. It's impossible to be more precise than that because JFK was hidden when the bullet struck and we are basing the estimated strike on JFK's reaction at Z226 and Zapruder's camera jiggle at Z227. Reaction times are measured in milliseconds and a single frame covers about 55 milliseconds in time.
Quote

Of course, we both know that your Z222 hit is nonsense because Connally, the guy who actually experienced the wounding, insisted he was certain he was not hit before Z229. Starting in Z238, Connally's right shoulder is suddenly driven downward at the same time his cheeks puff and a pained expression appears on his face. Forensic science tells us that about four frames would elapse between the bullet's forceful impact and the start of involuntary body movement, cheek puffing, and the appearance of a pained expression.

JBC based that on the cognitive reaction he made when he doubled over. That reaction followed his involuntary arm flip which began at Z226 and was immediately followed by his cognitive reaction 9 frames later. That's a reaction you have no explanation for and choose to ignore instead. That's the same sort of denial Tony Marsh exhibited for years.
Quote

And, gee, Connally said he was hit at Z234 and that the impact felt like he was hit hard with a doubled-up fist, and, four frames later, we see his right shoulder driven downward starting in Z238, in perfect accord with forensic science.

JBC gave a reasonable estimate on what he remembered and what he saw in the Z-film. He apparently didn't notice his Z226 arm flip which is understandable. I didn't notice if for decades until I saw the enhanced frames on DVP's website.
Quote

Oh my goodness. Another display of your blind bias. You again judge scientific fact by your lone-gunman theory, instead of the other way around.

The lone gunman finding syncs perfectly with the physical evidence and the action in the Z-film. Your beliefs, not so much.
Quote

We have also seen that you have no explanation for the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used, and that all experts who have commented on the subject have said that the skull damage must have been done by ammo moving at a high velocity, whereas the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle.

You have presented no case studies that shows how a 6.5mm CARCANO FMJ bullet behaves when striking a skull which would be the only case study pertinent to this case. It doesn't matter how a 5.56mm NATO FMJ round, a .30-06 FMJ round would behave after striking a skull. Since such ammo is not going to behave the same way every time it hits a skull, it would require dozens if not hundreds of test shots in to skulls to determine how an Carcano FMJ round might behave.

Do you accept the HSCA's determination that the shots were fired at Z166, Z196, Z296, and Z313? if so, where did BBN determine where each of these shots were fired from?

If not, tell us how you think the BBN shots sync with the Z-film and where you think each of those four shots were fired from.
5
Even the uber-cautious Pat Speer points out some of the gaping problems with Givens' WC testimony:

We now arrive at the 4-8-64 testimony of Charles Givens (6H345-356). There are four problems with Givens' testimony that would almost certainly have come to light should Oswald have been provided a defense, or even if Ball (and his junior partner Belin) had found his testimony at odds with the Oswald-did-it conclusion.

The first problem bubbles up near the beginning of his testimony.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what time you got to work that day?

Mr. GIVENS. Yes; I got to work around about a quarter to eight.

Mr. BELIN. Where did you go when you got to work?

Mr. GIVENS. I went in a little lunchroom that we have downstairs.

Mr. BELIN. Is that what you call the domino room?

Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. You carry your lunch with you?

Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. You put your lunch there?

Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Did you wear a jacket to work that day?

Mr. GIVENS. I wore a raincoat, I believe. It was misting that morning.

Mr. BELIN. Did you hang up your coat in that room, too?

Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.

Now, this is clear, right? Belin asked Givens about a jacket, and Givens corrected Belin and told him he'd wore a raincoat, and that he'd hung it up in the domino room.

Belin then asked Givens about his seeing Oswald on the morning of the 22nd. Givens said he saw Oswald on the first floor around 8:30. Belin then asked Givens about the next time he saw Oswald.

Here is his response: “Well, it was about a quarter till 12, we were on our way downstairs, and we passed him, and he (Oswald) was standing at the gate on the fifth floor. I came downstairs, and I discovered I left my cigarettes in my jacket pocket upstairs, and I took the elevator back upstairs to get my jacket with my cigarettes in it."

Well, wait a second. This bit about the jacket is not only in conflict with Givens' earlier testimony he hung up his raincoat (not jacket) in the domino room, it's in conflict with a statement Givens provided the FBI on 3-18-64, in which he asserted that he was a block away from Dealey Plaza when the President was shot, but that "After the President was shot I returned to the Texas School Book Depository Building, and was told by a Dallas policeman that I could not enter the building. About an hour later, I went to the Dallas Police Department and was questioned by the police for about forty-five minutes. Then I returned to the Book Depository Building about 5 o'clock that same afternoon to pick up my hat and coat. I left the building a few minutes after I picked up my hat and coat." (22H649)

Okay. Let's get this straight. Givens said he went to the sixth floor to get cigarettes from his jacket. No jacket was found on the sixth floor. It follows then that Givens took his jacket with him when he went to lunch. Now, he also claimed he returned to the building to get his coat. Well, the only way Givens' statements and testimony can make any sense, then, is if we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he wore both a coat and jacket to work on 11-22-63.

Now, should we give him that benefit? Absolutely not. Givens was a warehouse worker. He did not work in a jacket. So, why should we believe he wore a raincoat to work over a jacket, removed this raincoat in the domino room, and then removed the jacket up on the sixth floor? I repeat, he was a warehouse worker. He would know, upon entrance into the building, that he wasn't gonna need a jacket while working up on the sixth floor. It follows, then, that he would have left his jacket (if he was even wearing a jacket) with his coat in the domino room. I mean, think about it. The order pullers and floor crew with access to the sixth floor were not allowed to return to that floor after the shooting. Some of them--Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams, and Billy Lovelady come to mind--were captured in photographs during or just after the shooting. And yet none of them were wearing jackets when photographed. And yet none of their jackets were found on the sixth floor.

Givens' claim he left a jacket on the sixth floor is simply not credible.

Belin's failure to clarify Givens' testimony regarding his raincoat and/or jacket is also strange, if not suspicious...

Suspicious Omission #6
                                                                                                   
4-8-64. Warren Commission attorney David Belin fails to follow-up and clarify the record when Charles Givens testifies to leaving his coat in the domino room upon his arrival at work, but then going back up to the sixth floor to get his jacket after everyone else had left for lunch--a brand new addition to Givens' story that allowed Belin and the Commission to place Oswald in the proximity of the sniper's nest shortly before the shooting.

This brings us to the second problem with Givens' testimony.

Givens continued: "When I got back upstairs, he was on the sixth floor in that vicinity, coming from that way…Toward the window up front where the shots were fired from…he had his clipboard in his hand…He was coming towards the elevators…He said…'When you get downstairs, close the gate to the elevator.'" 

Now, this is the centerpiece of Givens' testimony. He changed his story from seeing and hearing Oswald yell out to close the gate when the floor crew was heading down to lunch to his seeing Oswald on the sixth floor (and hearing Oswald yell out to close the gate) after the floor crew had gone down to lunch and he (Givens) had returned to the sixth floor.

And Belin knew this. A 3-18-64 Ball/Belin memo outlined the topics to be explored in Givens' upcoming testimony. Under the subject heading "Elevator," Belin noted: "Oswald was on the fifth floor. Oswald called for them to stop. Oswald yelled at Givens to close the gates so that Oswald could have the elevator to return to the sixth floor." Well, heck. That's almost shocking. But a few weeks before Givens testified to Oswald's yelling out when he (Givens) came down alone, Ball and Belin were planning to spin that Oswald's yelling out when the floor crew came down meant he wanted to use the elevator to go back up to the sixth floor.

In any event, when Givens testified to returning to the sixth floor on his lunch hour, seeing Oswald on the sixth floor near the sniper's nest, and hearing Oswald yell out when he (Givens) descended to the first floor, Belin failed to remind Givens of his prior statements. Or even the testimony of his co-workers, Bonnie Ray Williams, Danny Arce, and Billy Lovelady, who claimed Oswald yelled out when Givens first headed down for lunch. (A New Perspective on the John F. Kennedy Assassination, chapter 17, online book, https://www.patspeer.com/jahs-chapter-17)
6
Hi Alex, to be honest, I'm coming up with an even quicker time for the beginning of the Darnell footage that begins with this frame:



It's something closer to 19 seconds as I believe Weigman is in position filming the Hesters during this frame.
Whatever the case, a big thanks to yourself for providing some excellent quality footage to work with.

   Look at the background of this Darnell Film opening frame. You can see the Zapruder perch. We do Not see Zapruder and/or Sitzman anywhere. They are not On the Perch, they are Not near the perch, they are Not anywhere on the cement that is around the Perch. They are simply NOT there. And how long did it take Zapruder who was suffering from vertigo to dismount that Pedestal? Certainly more than 15 seconds. Much more. This Darnell opening frame is far later than roughly 15 seconds after the Kill Shot. And much later than the Bell Film which does show Zapruder wandering around the cement area near the Pedestal. The current time stamp of the Darnell Film is Wrong. And so is the :20 second time stamp that has been applied to this same Darnell film showing Officer Baker running across the Island.


7
The numerous witness accounts of two shots in very rapid succession was one of the first things that caught Howard Donahue's attention and made him doubt the WC's version of the shooting.

Of course, the major thing that led Donahue to doubt the WC's shooting scenario was that he, as a court-certified firearms and ballistics expert, recognized that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like FMJ ammo.
8
Havana and Moscow have no qualms about murdering anyone who hurts the regime. No one will be a whistleblower in those two capitals.

And by now, people who knew the truth about LHO and the DGI-G2, and KGB are likely dead. 



9
So I guess John Corbett's new strategy is to ignore the scientific evidence that confirms the presence of gunfire on the dictabelt and to try to impugn the acoustical evidence on the unscientific basis that it disagrees with his theory of how the shooting occurred.

One more reason to doubt the HSCA acoustics team, perhaps the most compelling reason, is that their placement of the shots does not sync with the action in the Zapruder film as their own photographic panel recognized. The HSCA panel placed the shots that struck JFK at Z223-224. . . .

Man alive, you are just one never-ending clown show. The HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel (PEP) did not say JFK was hit at Z223-224. They said he was hit at or slightly before Z190. How in the world can you not know this? How?

This is further proof that you really have no business posting in this forum under any pretense that you are competent to discuss the JFK case. You constantly blunder over basic, well-known facts, facts that have been known for decades. I'd bet that even some of your fellow WC apologists are wondering how in the world you could not know that the PEP determined that JFK was hit by Z190 and that he starts to react at Z200-202.

Your embarrassing ignorance on this point is especially baffling because the PEP's hit-by-Z190 finding has been discussed extensively in this forum, given the fact that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree during this timeframe, strongly indicating that the shot must have come from somewhere else.

And, as I've told you before, the HSCA's acoustics team did not do their own analysis of the Zapruder film. Blakey simply told them which gunshot impulse patterns lined up with which Zapruder frames, as Barger later confirmed. Again, I've explained this to you before. Why you do keep saying things that you know are not true?

If there is one thing EVERYONE seems to be agreement on is the headshot striking at Z313, which is pretty obvious. I think the single bullet struck at Z222 but I'm not going to quibble over a frame or two because there is room for debate on precisely when that shot struck. The HSCA placement of the shots based on what their acoustic team's analysis is a first shot miss occurred at Z166. The single bullet struck at Z196. the GK shot missed at Z296, and the headshot of course struck at Z313. Based on the simultaneous reaction of JFK and JBC at Z226 when they simultaneously raised their arms in reaction to having been struck by the single bullet. It is a virtual certainty they were struck 89-91 frames before the head shot but there is no way to sync that to the acoustics team's conclusion which had the shots fired at 30, 100, and 17 frame intervals.

If the bullet struck at Z222, why does JFK start to react in Z200? Why does Jackie start to react to JFK's reaction by Z202?

As I've told you before but as you just keep ignoring, two of your side's own medical experts have acknowledged that it would have taken JFK at least 4 frames to begin to voluntarily react to his first wound, which is why Dr. Lattimer said JFK was already hit by Z221.

Of course, we both know that your Z222 hit is nonsense because Connally, the guy who actually experienced the wounding, insisted he was certain he was not hit before Z229. Starting in Z238, Connally's right shoulder is suddenly driven downward at the same time his cheeks puff and a pained expression appears on his face. Forensic science tells us that about four frames would elapse between the bullet's forceful impact and the start of involuntary body movement, cheek puffing, and the appearance of a pained expression.

And, gee, Connally said he was hit at Z234 and that the impact felt like he was hit hard with a doubled-up fist, and, four frames later, we see his right shoulder driven downward starting in Z238, in perfect accord with forensic science.

[quote author=John Corbett link=topic=5215.msg186707#msg186707 date=1790396Of course, if the proponents of the acoustics evidence disagree with the HSCA's placement of the shots they are free to offer their own placement, but it is pretty much a given that the headshot occurred at Z313. How would they sync the shots to the Zapruder film, given the acoustics teams determination of the intervals between the shots.[/quote]

One, again, the acoustical team did not do their own analysis of the Zapruder film. Two, I've already explained to you the reasons that any sync of the dictabelt shots with the Zapruder film is impossible given the scientific evidence that the film has been altered and is missing many frames that were in the original.

It is simply impossible that Oswald could have fired two shots 30 frames apart yet the HSCA determined that is what happened.

Oh my goodness. Another display of your blind bias. You again judge scientific fact by your lone-gunman theory, instead of the other way around.

We have also seen that you have no explanation for the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used, and that all experts who have commented on the subject have said that the skull damage must have been done by ammo moving at a high velocity, whereas the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle.



10
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 05:28:01 AM »
One more reason to doubt the HSCA acoustics team, perhaps the most compelling reason, is that their placement of the shots does not sync with the action in the Zapruder film as their own photographic panel recognized. The HSCA panel placed the shots that struck JFK at Z223-224 and Z313. If there is one thing EVERYONE seems to be agreement on is the headshot striking at Z313, which is pretty obvious. I think the single bullet struck at Z222 but I'm not going to quibble over a frame or two because there is room for debate on precisely when that shot struck. The HSCA placement of the shots based on what their acoustic team's analysis is a first shot miss occurred at Z166. The single bullet struck at Z196. the GK shot missed at Z296, and the headshot of course struck at Z313. Based on the simultaneous reaction of JFK and JBC at Z226 when they simultaneously raised their arms in reaction to having been struck by the single bullet. It is a virtual certainty they were struck 89-91 frames before the head shot but there is no way to sync that to the acoustics team's conclusion which had the shots fired at 30, 100, and 17 frame intervals. It is simply impossible that Oswald could have fired two shots 30 frames apart yet the HSCA determined that is what happened.

Of course, if the proponents of the acoustics evidence disagree with the HSCA's placement of the shots they are free to offer their own placement, but it is pretty much a given that the headshot occurred at Z313. How would they sync the shots to the Zapruder film, given the acoustics teams determination of the intervals between the shots.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10