Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: JFK Hands Never Go To-Or Toward-His Throat

« Last post by Royell Storing on Today at 03:55:07 AM »

Quote from: David Von Pein on Today at 02:45:39 AM

And does your "cramped quarters" theory also explain the other things we see happening to Governor Connally at the exact same two-frame time period? E.G., the pained open-mouthed grimace that appears on JBC's face at precisely Z225. (Connally's mouth had been closed in frame 224, btw.) And there's also the "Lapel Flip/Bulge" at Z224 as well. Did the cramped seating space cause the lapel to bulge out too?

Royell,

Are you, by chance, related to James R. Gordon (former owner of the Edu. Forum)? Because your SBT denial regarding Governor Connally sounds remarkably similar to his own.

Heck, James even went so deep into SBT Denial Mode that he said he couldn't even see Connally jerk his right arm upward between Z225-226. (Now, that's what I'd called some Big-Ass Denial!)

I am no relation to whoever that guy is.
The Open Mouth is a separate issue. It is not connected to the select frames that You posted with respect to Gov Conally's shoulders.
I also find the reaction of Jackie interesting. She is aware that something is Not right on the frames that You posted. Jackie physically reacting means what we are seeing on those frames is after JFK has been hit. How long did it take her to physically react like this? A subject worthy of discussion.
I am Not a Posner fan. He's a One Trick Pony. He beat that lapel stuff to death a long, long, time ago.
The extremely restricted confines of the JFK Limo have never been appreciated and therefore not considered. Gov Connally is already supposed to be all shot up, yet he manages to turn around and go face-to-face with JFK?
And then we also have the Dan Rather description of when Connally was shot in the chest.

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: JFK Hands Never Go To-Or Toward-His Throat

« Last post by David Von Pein on Today at 02:45:39 AM »

Quote from: Royell Storing on Today at 01:06:26 AM

Gov Connally is beginning to turn around and face JFK. There is extremely little space between the Connally jump seat and the Limo door. Plus, in order to turn around and literally face JFK, Connally is forced to raise his (R) arm above his jump seat backrest. This is the RAISING that you are seeing.

And does your "cramped quarters" theory also explain the other things we see happening to Governor Connally at the exact same two-frame time period? Such as: the pained open-mouthed grimace that appears on JBC's face at precisely Z225. (Connally's mouth had been closed in frame 224, btw.)

And there's also the "Lapel Flip/Bulge" at Z224 as well. Did the cramped seating space cause the lapel to bulge out too?

Royell,

Are you, by chance, related to James R. Gordon (former owner of the Edu. Forum)? Because your SBT denial regarding Governor Connally sounds remarkably similar to his own.

Heck, James even went so deep into SBT Denial Mode during the course of THIS DISCUSSION that he said he couldn't even see Connally jerk his right arm upward between Z225-226. (Now, that's what I'd called some Big-Ass Denial!)

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: How Mrs. Connally Described Her Husband Being Shot-HSCA

« Last post by Steve Barber on Today at 02:23:52 AM »

Quote from: Benjamin Cole on Today at 01:34:45 AM

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0023a.htm

Mrs. Connally had the best seat in the house (pardon the flip expression) when it came to injuries sustained by her husband, Gov. JBC on 11.22.

Mrs. Connally's testimony flatly contradicts, and really obviates, the SBT-LNT theorizing.

After being shot, JBC was incapacitated, and she thought him "dead."

I rather suspect a man shot through the chest with a large high-powered slug would in fact be incapacitated. That is a reasonable assumption.

The SBT-LNT hypothesis is that after being shot through the chest, JBC makes a 180-degree turn in his seat to check on JFK. That is, the SBT-LNT theory posits, despite contradictory evidence, that JBC was shot ~Z-221.

The SBT-LNT hypothesis does not check out with the Z-film, or the testimony of both Connallys.

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

My best guess is JBC is shot ~Z-295. After Z-221, JBC is bolt upright. Not doubled over.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.

In the Zapruder film, Mrs. Connally can clearly be seen looking straight ahead, and not at all at her husband as he's hit, like she said she did. It's easy to distinguish her forehead and hairline, as well as upper facial features, i.e. eyes and nose in frames 225 and 226. She doesn't turn her head to her right until after her husband is struck. She didn't see him when he was struck. She saw the aftermath of when he was struck.

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: Quoting Common Sense

« Last post by David Von Pein on Today at 02:22:35 AM »

"If firing those shots at JFK from the sixth floor (while using the Carcano rifle) was so utterly "impossible" (as many conspiracy theorists seem to think it truly was)....and if a large part of the assassination "plot" was to frame Lee Harvey Oswald....then why were the architects of the "frame-up plot" so reckless? Did they think (on 11/21/63) they could make people believe Oswald could really do the impossible?

In reality, of course, the shots from Oswald's sniper's perch were not difficult shots at all. All of the shots were under 90 yards. And even if LHO didn't use the scope, so what? He was trained to use a rifle in the military. And he compiled some pretty decent shooting statistics (while firing at targets a lot farther away than 88 yards). And he certainly didn't have the benefit of a four-power telescope to aid him when he attained the ranking of Sharpshooter in the Marines in 1956. So why would shooting at a target that was barely in motion at all (JFK's head), from a distance of under 90 yards, be such an arduous chore for a former Marine like Oswald?

In short, the notion that Oswald's shooting performance in Dallas on November 22, 1963, was more difficult than building the Pyramids is yet another conspiracy myth that was disproven decades ago. And yet the myth persists." -- DVP; June 27, 2015

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: Quoting Common Sense

« Last post by David Von Pein on Today at 02:18:02 AM »

"Although the solutions proposed by [David] Lifton and [Michael] Eddowes are more farfetched than some, they use the same style of reasoning found in other conspiracy books. All these theories are based on unexplained discrepancies in the record. .... Alternative explanations and the overall pattern of the evidence are given little attention, if any." -- Jean Davison; Pages 274-275 of "Oswald's Game"

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: Quoting Common Sense

« Last post by David Von Pein on Today at 02:11:36 AM »

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops", with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "Evil Geniuses", with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry M. Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation Of The Kennedy Assassination"

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: JFK Hands Never Go To-Or Toward-His Throat

« Last post by Steve Barber on Today at 02:08:37 AM »

Quote from: David Von Pein on Today at 12:34:30 AM

Exactly! And Connally's necktie does a little dance too.

Lots more at these two links:

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html

Hi David! Hope you're doing well.

One other extremely important fact within the bottom gif that you've posted is that no one seems to notice (except for myself) that in this very gif , Mrs. Connally can clearly be seen looking straight ahead, and not at all at her husband as he's hit, like she said she did. It's easy to distinguish her forehead and hairline, as well as upper facial features, i.e. eyes and nose. She doesn't turn her head to her right until after her husband is struck.

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / How Mrs. Connally Described Her Husband Being Shot-HSCA

« Last post by Benjamin Cole on Today at 01:34:45 AM »

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0023a.htm

Mrs. Connally had the best seat in the house (pardon the flip expression) when it came to injuries sustained by her husband, Gov. JBC on 11.22.

Mrs. Connally's testimony flatly contradicts, and really obviates, the SBT-LNT theorizing.

After being shot, JBC was incapacitated, and she thought him "dead."

I rather suspect a man shot through the chest with a large high-powered slug would in fact be incapacitated. That is a reasonable assumption.

The SBT-LNT hypothesis is that after being shot through the chest, JBC makes a 180-degree turn in his seat to check on JFK. That is, the SBT-LNT theory posits, despite contradictory evidence, that JBC was shot ~Z-221.

The SBT-LNT hypothesis does not check out with the Z-film, or the testimony of both Connallys.

Connally: I was knocked over, just doubled over by the force of the bullet. It went in my back and came out my chest about 2 inches below and the left of my right nipple. The force of the bullet drove my body over almost double and when I looked, immediately I could see I was just drenched with blood. (1 HSCA 42)

My best guess is JBC is shot ~Z-295. After Z-221, JBC is bolt upright. Not doubled over.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: Quoting Common Sense

« Last post by Tom Scully on Today at 01:29:09 AM »

Quote from: Lance Payette on Today at 01:02:59 AM

Tom, having now dived into this I am perplexed at how little attention Adele receives. Everyone agrees that she had impeccable credentials, was absolutely lucid and credible, named names, and the information she gave that could be checked out did check out. The only alternatives are that (1) she was a complete and utter fraud from BEFORE THE JFKA (when she contacted the Secret Service) to her dying day or (2) she blows the LN narrative out of the water. There is really no in-between. And yet, she receives not much more attention than the Allright Parking Garage. What the heck, huh? Not only are there not 50 articles explaining all the ways she was a fraud (there really aren't any) but there doesn't seem to be any great enthusiasm within the CT community either.

FWIW, here are her 35 posts at the Ed Forum in the period 2004-2010. As always, she doesn't sound like a crackpot by any means.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/profile/631-adele-edisen/content/

The interesting part is, unlike JVB she really isn't central to her wild tale - she's not the "star." What is central is the stuff that Rivera dropped on her out of the blue months before the assassination - Oswald, Abt, the Trade Mart, the suicide of a close JFK friend (Stockdale). I can see why Michael B-C put a mystical spin on all this - it almost sounds like, rather than describing an assassination plot, Rivera was having a precognitive vision of the actual event.

What the heck, huh?

Lance, I'm attempting to PM you with some details she shared with me that seem too personal, even now, to post oublicly.
If you could please unblock me for a short window and I'll send them to you. It's been almost 16 years, but I think I
recovered relevant supporting links that existed in 2010.

Your POV as an attorney will be an advantage
to you, when you read what I'd like you to review.

The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: I've talked with several homicide cops. They don't believe in coincidence

« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 01:15:24 AM »

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 05:06:29 PM

Have you read Proctor's and Doudna's research on the phone call? How do you explain it? Answer: You don't. You just dismiss it without studying it.

No, and I don't go out on wild goose chases or snipe hunts either. One of us already knows who killed JFK and the other is named Michael T. Griffith.

Quote

Because you're slavishly devoted to the WC's lone-gunman theory, you have to find some excuse, no matter how lame, to reject every single item of evidence that shows or even suggests that Oswald had intelligence connections and/or that he was working with others.

I'm slavishly devoted to the evidence and that tells us unmistakably that Oswald was the assassin and there is no credible evidence that he had even a single accomplice. A few days ago I challenged you to present your three best pieces of evidence that someone other than Oswald was involved in the JFKA and you balked. I took that to mean you know of no such evidence.

Quote

For newcomers to the thread, here's the transcript of Dr. Grover Proctor's 12/21/2015 presentation on the phone call:

https://istoriaministries.com/oswaldslastphonecalltranscript/

I also recommend Greg Doudna's Education Forum thread "The Raleigh Phone Call Revisited":

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27552-the-raleigh-phone-call-revisited/

For those who would rather watch a video first, here are two videos by Dr. Proctor on the phone call:

"Oswald's Phone Call"

"Dr. Grover Proctor: Uncut Interview"

Newcomers to the thread might want to ask Michael T. Griffith where in that transcript is there evidence that someone other than Oswald took part in the assassination. He's never presented any such evidence even though I've challenged him to do so several times. All he does he point out anomalies and pretend those are reason enough to doubt the conclusions of the Warren Commission. He thinks he can prove something simply by raising these questions. He never bothers to try to find answers to his questions because he knows he will not like the answer.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10