JFK Assassination Forum

IDK why I keep asking questions. It may be akin to visiting a genius in the insane asylum and you ask questions that you think should convince the genius he’s wrong only to be surprised that he’s got another way of looking at the problem.

For example, the answer to my question about the hat position, persuaded the genius to post the Z268 frame which shows JC holding the hat being held by the right hand up near his chest.

The well of the hat is visible which means the right hand must have the palm facing away from the chest if the fingers are overlapping the rim and into the well. ( presuming Andrew agrees with my description of what I’m seeing in this Z268 frame.)

So if Andrew’s agrees with my description then the Z270 bullet exiting thru JCs chest is going to have to go thru the hat well if the bullet EXITS from the base of the palm of the hand.

This may be why Andrew’s last statement seems to me to suggest the bullet did NOT ENTER  the wrist bone from the top of the hand and exit from the base of the palm. Rather it did something else that’s not quite like  what average IQ people like myself seem to think the official conventional WC stated it did.

There are so many ludicrous elements to Andrew's scenario that the bullet missing the hat is the least problematic of them.

Yes, and it nicked the window pane in the process.


This is a good example of confirmation bias and faulty assumptions.

Apparently, it has not occurred to WC apologists that the fact that the bullet hit the window frame [...]


OK, Mr. Iron Logic. What part of "the bullet hit the window frame/pane" is fact, and what part is confirmation bias and faulty assumptions?

Oh, I can answer that! It's your confirmation bias and faulty assumptions that causes you to think that someone who shoots and misses must have simply shot and missed. If you weren't a victim of such faulty thinking, cold logic would tell you that he intentionally missed and that this was a staged effort to try to give the apperance of an attempt on Walker. This is Greg Doudna's scenario. It's not clear to me, victim of confirmation bias and faulty assumptions that I am, how one could be certain that a bullet glancing off a wooden window frame would actually miss. It seems like it would be much safer just to aim a couple of inches to the side of Walker and shoot through the glass.

A bullet that nicks a window frame "logically" suggests the gunman was trying to miss and the attempt was staged? There would be 100 ways to miss, but the gunman zeroed in on the edge of a window frame? This is Conspiracy Logic 101, a/k/a Alice In Wonderland logic, a/k/a Anti-Logic.

I waded through Gerg Doudna's Walker scenario just as I waded through his Tippit scenario. It is a clever but completely preposterous effort by someone almost pathethically desperate to make a mark in JFKA research. I believe it might have been Kevin Balch who characterized his Tippit effort as an "off-Broadway production" - i.e., an entire cast of not very talented actors with a not very believable script.

FL-

My condolences.

I had a reporter friend from the 1980-90s (we worked at the same small business newspaper, way back when) tell me about the Mossad-JFKA connection, and then talk about Epstein as a dark link to Israel to global cabals and so on. I changed the topic before 9/11 could could up.

When people like Tucker Carlson tirelessly beat the Israel Derangement Syndrome drum....

One million, may even two million are dead in Ukraine. The IRGC slaughters 40,000 in a few days. Haiti, pop. 8 million is a gang-ruled anarchy. One billion women live under Muslim law. I could go on.

But Israel and the US are the only bad guys. Yale astronomy course descriptions being up the "genocidal" Israelis.

"Gays4Hamas" and so on.

The Education Forum hosted a lot of this sort of excrement.

[/font]
Quote from: Kevin Balch on Yesterday at 04:19:07 AM
Didn’t the bullet fired at Walker hit part of the window frame?

Yes, and it nicked the window pane in the process.

[/font]

This is a good example of confirmation bias and faulty assumptions.

Apparently, it has not occurred to WC apologists that the fact that the bullet hit the window frame actually logically suggests that the gunman was not trying to hit Walker and that this was a staged shooting attempt, the scenario that Greg Doudna has developed with massive, ground-breaking research.

Even our supposed "Marine sharpshooter" would not have fired with the window frame anywhere near his point of aim, whether he was using the iron sights or the scope. He would have simply moved a foot or two to his right or left so that he had a clear shot at Walker, a shot in which the window frame was far from his point of aim.

The gunman was no more than 127 feet from Walker when he fired. That's barely 40 yards. That was a very, very easy shot, even with the iron sights, especially since Walker was sitting at his desk, and since the gunman had plenty of time to take aim.

Add to this the fact that Walker himself insisted that CE 573 was not the bullet that was recovered from his wall. He said he was certain of this. Mind you, Walker was a general and a combat veteran. He knew bullets.

I encourage interested readers to read Greg Doudna's ground-breaking research on the Walker shooting. You can find it here: https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1815.