Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Tom Graves on Today at 01:23:23 AM »
If you don't want me to respond to your half-assed posts, don't make any.

I told you he was a jerk.
12
;D
I posted my last REPLY expressing my disappointment at not being able to find the moment when Weigman makes his way from filming the Hesters to filming the Newmans, had a quick look at Malcom Couch's footage and instantly saw exactly what I was looking for.
The cropped still below is from Couch.
The focus is on the figure in the red circle.
This figure runs from point A to point B along the blue line.
It is Wegman running between the Hesters and the Newmans.
It takes him about 3 seconds to cover this distance.



He can be seen in the footage below starting around the 4 second mark:


    Where is Zapruder? The Bell Film shows Wiegman running across the stairs/directly toward Zapruder. He gets very close to Zapruder. Wiegman then hangs a (L) and runs down the knoll between the Stemmons Sign and the Newman Family. We should be able to see a trace of the lower body of Zapruder up atop the steps. We do Not. Why? Zapruder has moved during a "Time Gap" here. "Missing Time"! Maybe, Wiegman for whatever reason, Stopped up there before hanging a (L) and running down the knoll. Remember that in "Pictures Of The Pain" (1994), Wiegman said that he saw SA Lem Johns UP-The-Knoll. Maybe this time gap/lost time is when Wiegman saw SA Lem Johns up-the-knoll? Maybe Wiegman filmed SA Lem Johns during this "time gap"? SA Johns claimed that he Never left Elm St after he jumped out of the LBJ SS Car.  The FBI has always claimed that no agents were assigned a ground position inside Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63.
    The Yellow Circled Officer Hargis is also a problem. He gave WC Testimony that he ran to that little wall that runs down from Zapruder. Hargis thought a shooter had fired from atop the Triple Underpass. He wanted to get a good look at the top of the Triple Underpass while covered by the short wall. But Hargis being behind the short wall is not on any image.
     The Wiegman Film was claimed to have been shot "continuously" for 30+ years following the assassination. "Pictures Of The Pain" comes out 31 yrs after the assassination with Wiegman claiming to have seen SA Lem Johns "Up-The Knoll", and all the sudden the Wiegman Film is now claimed to NOT be filmed continuously. There is a connection.   
13
According to my list of witnesses, neither Siebert nor O'Neill were ever called to testify before the WC, the HSCA, or the ARRB. So where does that leave us determining what they meant by a missile?

A receipt made out to Captain J.H. Stover, Jr., Commanding Officer, U.S. Naval Medical School, National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
That clearly states (a) missile.  singular.  NOTHING about multiple fragments (2) - or "portion of the projectile" wording used in the autopsy report.

 Thumb1: I gotta go with a bullet was in the room, then it wasn't.
14
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 01:03:40 AM »
No offence John, but you are completely ignorant regarding the amount of evidence demonstrating a first shot at z222/z223.
Have a read through this thread to get yourself up to speed with the subject.

I've read through the arguments for a first shot strike and I don't find them the least bit compelling. You can make an argument for just about any scenario you want depending on the witnesses you choose to believe. I choose to believe the witnesses who are corroborated by the best witness available, Zapruder's camera.
Quote

For instance, you hold up Connally and Bennett as "ample" proof that there was a missed first shot. At his website, Pat Speer compiled a list of 44 witnesses who report JFK reacting to the first shot as we see in the Z-film - hands flying up towards his throat, slumping to his left etc
Are you familiar with the concept of 'weight of evidence'?

44 witnesses? Out of how many? There are many different versions of the shooting but there is only one correct one. I've weighed the evidence which convinces me there was a missed first shot. I find it far more likely that 44 people didn't recognize the first shot for what it was than that JBC and Bennett imagined hearing a shot that never happened, especially when we can see JBC doing exactly what he said he did in reaction to the first shot and that was several seconds before JFK and JBC were hit.
Quote

And just to clear up the worst of your cowardly misrepresentations - I have never claimed that my suspicions or assumptions are evidence of anything. If I am stating an assumption I will say so. Unlike you, I understand the difference between a fact and an assumption.
And no-one has said anything about a "positively" missed third shot.
Your deviousness reveals a lack of character.

Your assumption and suspicion were the only arguments you gave for a missed 3rd shot. Where is your evidence of that?
Quote

How can you be so sure the back shot wasn't his aiming point and the headshot struck high?

 :D :D :D
Do me a favour and don't ever respond to any of my posts. You're the worst kind of idiot and I really don't want to have to deal with you.  Thumb1:

If you don't want me to respond to your half-assed posts, don't make any.
15
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Today at 12:39:34 AM »
Yes, there is ample evidence that a bullet passed through those men at that time frame but there is also ample evidence that there was a shot before that. JBC insisted until his dying day that it was the second shot that hit him. He heard a shot before the one that hit him. Glenn Bennett also heard a shot before seeing the second shot strike JFK. We can see JBC turn to look over his right shoulder at Z164 which he said was his reaction upon hearing the first shot. Are we supposed to believe that both JBC and Bennett imagined hearing a shot before the shot that struck JFK and JBC, because that is what is required to believe the first shot was the single bullet. I can understand how you could be unconvinced of a first shot miss but I don't know how you can be so certain there wasn't a missed first shot. I think there is strong evidence the first shot was fired about Z147 but I wouldn't go so far as to declare that a certainty because the evidence is less than definitive. It seems completely illogical to me that you could rule out even the possibility of a missed first shot.
I don't know how anyone can say there was positively a missed third shot when there is practically no evidence of that and there is very strong evidence that the first shot missed. Tell us why you think a missed third shot is more likely than a missed first shot. What are you seeing that the rest of us can't?
How can you know what Oswald was aiming at. As a Marine, he would have been trained to shoot at center of mass. That doesn't prove he was aiming his first shot and JFK's torso, but it is certainly a possibility. How can you be so sure the back shot wasn't his aiming point and the headshot struck high? You seem to want to arbitrarily dismiss possibilities except the ones to your liking.
Your suspicions aren't evidence of anything, nor are your assumptions, but you seem to lean heavily upon them to establish your beliefs. It seems odd to me that Oswald would have even taken that shot once JFK fell over to his left which he did as soon as Jackie had climbed out onto the trunk, which she did just as Clint Hill was grabbing the handhold.

No offence John, but you are completely ignorant regarding the amount of evidence demonstrating a first shot at z222/z223.
Have a read through this thread to get yourself up to speed with the subject.

For instance, you hold up Connally and Bennett as "ample" proof that there was a missed first shot. At his website, Pat Speer compiled a list of 44 witnesses who report JFK reacting to the first shot as we see in the Z-film - hands flying up towards his throat, slumping to his left etc
Are you familiar with the concept of 'weight of evidence'?

And just to clear up the worst of your cowardly misrepresentations - I have never claimed that my suspicions or assumptions are evidence of anything. If I am stating an assumption I will say so. Unlike you, I understand the difference between a fact and an assumption.
And no-one has said anything about a "positively" missed third shot.
Your deviousness reveals a lack of character.

How can you be so sure the back shot wasn't his aiming point and the headshot struck high?

 :D :D :D
Do me a favour and don't ever respond to any of my posts. You're the worst kind of idiot and I really don't want to have to deal with you.  Thumb1:


16
Maybe Oswald thought there was coup de uh ta in progress and the Fascists ( whom Oswald hunted) were taking over. Thus , Oswald  being a Marxist, must go to fetch the revolver 1st before then searching for  another taxi to take him to the Paines house to retrieve his rifle which he must have  thought was still there in the garage right?

Come to think of it, why  didn’t Oswald just go 1st to the Paines garage get the rifle and also check on the kids and Marina to make sure they were safe?

Oswald knew where his rifle was. Right where he left it on the 6th floor of the TSBD. He probably knew it only had one bullet left in it.
17
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 12:22:07 AM »
My bad. I meant to say exited from below his right nipple. I've fixed it if you want to respond.
18
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Andrew Mason on Today at 12:10:16 AM »
The surgeon assumed the elongated entry wound on JBC's back was the result of a tangential strike without considering that it could have been the result of a yawing bullet. The geometry of the shot no matter what frame you theorize the bullet struck rules out a tangential strike. Only a moron could conclude a shot fired from behind, striking JBC in the back during the frames you posted, could have possibly entered below his right nipple. With this nonsense you post, you demonstrate you are not a person who should be taken seriously, but that was determined a long time ago.
I don’t know how you can post so much without reading the posts of those you are responding to. It would indeed be nonsense to suggest a bullet entered below JBC’s right nipple. That is where the bullet exited. “With this nonsense you post, you demonstrate you are not a person who should be taken seriously, but that was determined a long time ago.”

[Edit/apology: I was too quick to respond to John. I withdraw my comment. See my next post above.]
19
Does nothing to clarify the receipt dated 11/22/63
lame with a bit of mumbo-jumbo on the side



According to my list of witnesses, neither Siebert nor O'Neill were ever called to testify before the WC, the HSCA, or the ARRB. So where does that leave us determining what they meant by a missile?
20
The manhole did have a gouge in it did it not? Is not there a photo of the manhole cover showing there is a mark? ( or am I experiencing the Mandela effect?)

That was Foster's initial claim but when showed a picture of the manhole during his WC testimony, he couldn't point out any such gouge.

Mr. BALL - Did you see any marks on the street in anyplace?
Mr. FOSTER - No, a manhole cover. It was hit. they caught the manhole cover right on the corner and -
Mr. BALL - You saw a mark on the manhole cover did you?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes sir.
Mr. BALL - I show you a picture here of a concrete slab. or manhole cover. Do you recognize that picture?
Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Does the picture show - tell me what it shows there.
Mr. FOSTER - This looks like the corner here where it penetrated the turf right here [indicating].
Mr. BALL - See any mark on the manhole cover?
Mr. FOSTER - No, sir; I don't. not on the - well, it is on the turf, on the concrete, right in the corner.
Quote

If there is no photo then it’s just a witness having seen something but no actual physical evidence
on the manhole cover, and the bullet (or partial bullet with missing lead ) that caused the uprooted grass,   not in the archives or in WC documented items, means either it was not found or that there was  a post event conspiracy of avoiding introducing that bullet.

Why does it always wind up there being a possibility of conspiracy? The photo with the man reaching into that uprooted grass, where is his WC testimony?

Why is there never any actual evidence of a conspiracy?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10