Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
You do have to guess because the WC didn't spoon feed you this particular piece of information, which leaves you having to use your own brain to work something out by yourself, which leaves you in real difficulties.

OH Noes! Well that's it. You finally got us LNs cornered.  ::)
12
You do have to guess because the WC didn't spoon feed you this particular piece of information, which leaves you having to use your own brain to work something out by yourself, which leaves you in real difficulties.

This is the kind of asinine comment we have come to expect from you. Of course we have to guess when Oswald assembled the rifle because nobody would know that except Oswald. Do you need every last freaking thing proven to you? You really are moron. Sorry. Just being honest.
13
You are just being silly........AGAIN!

What difference does it make when Oswald made these preparations. We know he made the preparations which amounted to assembling the rifle and stacking a few boxes for a rifle rest and a seat. If I had to guess, i would say he probably didn't assemble the rifle until the other employees had left for lunch. Why risk exposing the rifle before then? Stacking the boxes would take about a minute, tops. Bonnie Ray Williams returning to the 6th floor could have been problematic had he remained there but since he didn't, that left Oswald with ample time to make final preparations. If you want to create imaginary problems for Oswald, those same problems would also apply to anyone else you want to imagine could have done the shooting, but that's academic. All the hard evidence tells us the shooter was Oswald.

Spoken like a true Nutter - we know Oswald made the preparations because Oswald did it therefore he made the preparations because he did it therefore...

Let's say a couple of minutes to go back and forth with the Rolling Reader boxes from a few aisles away, a couple of minutes to fetch his rifle from wherever it was stashed and 6 minutes to assemble his rifle. Let's say 10 minutes in total to make his preparations...do you know what...let's go crazy and just say 6 minutes to assemble his rifle.
When did he do that?

"If I had to guess, i would say he probably didn't assemble the rifle until the other employees had left for lunch. Why risk exposing the rifle before then?"

You do have to guess because the WC didn't spoon feed you this particular piece of information, which leaves you having to use your own brain to work something out by yourself, which leaves you in real difficulties.
And it's little wonder that you happen to suspect the same narrative the WC report is trying to suggest - at lunchtime everyone from the upper floors goes downstairs except for Oswald, who has business to take care of. Luckily Givens just happened to go back up to the 6th floor where he saw Oswald near the southeast corner and when he offered Oswald a ride downstairs he refused (because he had some preparing to do). He had some boxes to move, a disassembled rifle to fetch which he was then going to have to assemble. As luck would have it, he got all this done before Bonnie Ray Williams arrived on the 6th floor to have his lunch and watch the parade go by.
But he had to be quick because Bonnie Ray went down to the first floor, washed up, fetched his lunch, bought a bottle of Dr Pepper and made his way back up to the 6th floor. He was probably up on the 6th floor before 12 noon, maybe 11:55am.
So Oswald hid quiet as a mouse while Williams had his lunch a few yards away.

Except Oswald didn't go up to the 6th floor after everyone broke for lunch. This was a lie the WC put in the mouth of Givens
Oswald went down to the first floor, just as he told everyone involved in the elevator race he intended to do.
And he talked with Eddie Piper at 12 noon on the first floor, at the same time Bonnie Ray Williams was taking up his position on the 6th floor.

So, when did Oswald have time for all these preparations?







14
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Last post by Mitch Todd on Today at 12:58:08 AM »
No, he said he didn't see the two men behind the fence during the shooting. You guys brush them aside, but two of Bowers' friends said he didn't publicly reveal everything he saw. And, naturally, you dismiss journalist Penn Jones' report that Bowers' wife told him on the record that her husband was told not to talk.

LOL! Bowers certainly didn't think they were "looking for a place to park." They certainly didn't act like they were just "looking for place to park."

Have you actually read Bowers' account? Have you ever been in that parking lot? I have. There would have been no need to spend several minutes "probing," as Bowers put it, if they were merely looking for a parking spot. That lot is quite small. They could have spotted a parking place in a matter of seconds.

And never mind that the area had been sealed off since 11:00 and that there had been virtually no movement in the area since then, which is why the three cars' strange behavior caught Bowers' attention, right?

Oh, yeah, sure it is. You don't even know what you're talking about, and I can tell you've read next to nothing on the subject. The BBN acoustical scientists used the same methods and scientific principles in analyzing the DPD dictabelt that they used when they analyzed the audio recording of the 1970 Kent State shooting.

Nonsense. The military uses the same scientific principles and methodology to acoustically locate gunfire today that the HSCA's acoustical scientists used. In fact, Dr. Barger, as I've pointed out, developed patented new technology for the military and police forces to acoustically locate gunfire. 

BTW, the new research done by BBN scientists, including Dr. Barger, from 2015-2018 proves that the dictabelt's impulse patterns were recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination and debunks the NRC/NAS's claim that the Decker "hold everything" transmission is crosstalk.

I notice you haven't laid a finger on any of the evidence that the HSCA's acoustical scientists documented in support of their findings (the timing-movement correlations, the sonar analysis that verified the grassy knoll shot, the windshield-distortion correlations, and the presence of N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes in the correct order and interval and only when the microphone was in position to record them).   

You know that's not what I'm talking about. I'll let readers decide if this is a case of "every movement" being "a reaction to a gunshot" when they read my article "Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film."

I think one of the first things people will notice is that you ignore the fact that five of the reactions are supported by the recognized science of blur analysis (I only mention four blur events in the article because I don't mention that a marked blur episode occurs around the time of the Z313 headshot, since no one questions that Z313-317 shows a reaction to a shot).

Wow, you just can't admit anything, can you? What area do you suppose Curry wanted to "see what happened there" by ordering to "get a man on top of that triple underpass"? What area do you think Curry wanted the officer to look at from the triple underpass to "see what happened there"? Huh? The freeway?! The TSBD?! Huh? The obvious answer to anyone with a functioning brain and some integrity is that Curry believed shots came from the area behind the grassy knoll and that he ordered that an officer get on top of the underpass to "see what happened there."

And that's the same area, the rail yard behind the knoll, that Sheriff Decker ordered to be sealed off "to determine just what and where it happened down there."

LOL! They were just "guessing"?! They ordered men deployed to check out the same area because they were just "guessing"?! Of course this is just pure silliness. A police chief and a sheriff are not going to deploy their men after shots have been fired at a presidential motorcade in which they themselves were riding based on just a guess. You'll never admit it, but it's obvious that Curry and Decker deployed their men to check out the same general area because they clearly believed that gunfire had come from that area.
MG: No, he said he didn't see the two men behind the fence during the shooting. You guys brush them aside, but two of Bowers' friends said he didn't publicly reveal everything he saw. And, naturally, you dismiss journalist Penn Jones' report that Bowers' wife told him on the record that her husband was told not to talk.

Which side of the fence is "behind," from Bowers' perspective? Bowers told both Thompson and Lane that one of the men kept disappearing from his view behind the fence. The only way that would work was that the man was on the south side of the fence.  In his interview for Lane's film, in a bit left of the cutting room floor for some reason, Bowers is clear that he saw no one north of the fence at the time of the shooting. And (again!) if you've read Thompson's books, you know he gives short shrift to Bowers' "friends."


MG: LOL! Bowers certainly didn't think they were "looking for a place to park." They certainly didn't act like they were just "looking for place to park."
Have you actually read Bowers' account? Have you ever been in that parking lot? I have. There would have been no need to spend several minutes "probing," as Bowers put it, if they were merely looking for a parking spot. That lot is quite small. They could have spotted a parking place in a matter of seconds.


Bowers said that the first was driving around "as if he was searching for a way out, or was checking the area." Checking the area is indeed what someone would do if they were looking for a parking spot. Or, since this was one of the cars with out-of-state plates, it might have just been someone unfamiliar with Dallas streets taking a wrong turn and was looking for the way back to pavement. But, when you read Bowers' testimony, there's nothing more than three cars driving around in a parking lot. Nothing special at all in itself. To make anything more out of it, you have to project sinister motive. But that is just your own projection.


MG: And never mind that the area had been sealed off since 11:00 and that there had been virtually no movement in the area since then, which is why the three cars' strange behavior caught Bowers' attention, right?
 
The area was never "sealed off" until after the assassination. That is just Bowers' inference or yours. The officers stationed in and around Dealey Plaza said that they didn't stop traffic until a few minutes before the motorcade arrived. No one was going to split the downtown of a major American city in two for an hour and a half (beginning a half-hour before the President even landed!) for a motorcade.


MG: Oh, yeah, sure it is. You don't even know what you're talking about, and I can tell you've read next to nothing on the subject. T

I've read and written quite a bit on the acoustic analysis. Enough that I was name-checked in Michael O'Dell's response to Thomas. You're the guy who has no idea what he's talking about.


MG: The BBN acoustical scientists used the same methods and scientific principles in analyzing the DPD dictabelt that they used when they analyzed the audio recording of the 1970 Kent State shooting.

As far as I've ever been able to find, the BBN methodology used for the Dictabelt has never been thoroughly tested in a controlled environment, so we have no idea if it really works as well as Barger, et al, would have us believe. Just from the match data that Barger presented in HSCA exhibit F-367 implies that the BBN method isn't very sensitive to source location, which is of course critical to the analysis.


The military uses the same scientific principles and methodology to acoustically locate gunfire today that the HSCA's acoustical scientists used. In fact, Dr. Barger, as I've pointed out, developed patented new technology for the military and police forces to acoustically locate gunfire.

No, they don't! The HSCA analysis used a correlative methodology comparing a test recording against a library of recordings of test shots. Modern shot location detection systems use either epicentric methods, stereophonic methods, or a combination of stereophonic+shockwave detection and only operate on live acoustic input. Like  I said, you're the guy who doesn't know what he's talking about.


BTW, the new research done by BBN scientists, including Dr. Barger, from 2015-2018 proves that the dictabelt's impulse patterns were recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination and debunks the NRC/NAS's claim that the Decker "hold everything" transmission is crosstalk.

At best, the latest bit of face-saving from BBN shows that PCC is so dependent on the assumptions input into it that it can't prove or disprove anything. The heterodyning that accompanies and corresponds exactly with the channel 1 "I'll check it" proves that it's a native channel 1 transmission and not crosstalk.


MG: I notice you haven't laid a finger on any of the evidence that the HSCA's acoustical scientists documented in support of their findings (the timing-movement correlations, the sonar analysis that verified the grassy knoll shot, the windshield-distortion correlations, and the presence of N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes in the correct order and interval and only when the microphone was in position to record them).

I only have so much time to devote to these exchanges, and your dedicated posts on the matter are so full of misunderstandings, misapprehensions, and misrepresentations that I'd be pulling 24/7 shifts to devote justice to each and every one of your "points." By the way, an "N"-wave is a waveform so-named mererly because it is shaped like a capital letter "N," and are not unique to shock waves. 


MG: I think one of the first things people will notice is that you ignore the fact that five of the reactions are supported by the recognized science of blur analysis (I only mention four blur events in the article because I don't mention that a marked blur episode occurs around the time of the Z313 headshot, since no one questions that Z313-317 shows a reaction to a shot).

Is blur analysis actually a "recognized science" and who recognizes it as such?
15
In that photo, he is holding the rod above the chalk mark. He is demonstrating the right to left trajectory of the bullet. In the photo taken from the other side, he is holding the rod lower to the side of the chalk mark to show the downward angle of the shot. He couldn't shot both at the same time without skewering the agent.
The picture I posted shows the vertical angle. The picture you posted has the rod well above the entry point and is showing the right to left trajectory.

How can you tell by looking at my photo that Specter is demonstrating the right to left trajectory? I can't. I suspect that John Mytton would be able to tell.

Quote
There are other photos in which the jacket is not bunched. The question is whether it was bunched at the time the single bullet struck.

Can you link to some photos in which the jacket can be seen to not be lifted up at all?

Quote
The Croft photo was taken much earlier in the motorcade somewhere between Love Field and downtown. The photo I showed is of good enough quality to show there was no bunching of the jacket and it appears to be in front of the TSBD, just seconds before the first shot. That tells me the jacket was not bunched when the single bullet struck JFK in the back.

The Croft photo was taken on Elm street, at about the same time as Zapruder frame 160; 3.44 seconds before the single bullet shot.

Quote
You are trying to use the bunched jacket argument to show that the entry wound wasn't vertically 5 1/2 inches below the top of the jacket. The entry wound wasn't that low but not because of the bunched jacket. It was because the jacket was not vertical on JFK's back and the sloping angle made the vertical separation less than the 5 1/2 inch distance between the top of the collar and the bullet hole in the jacket. I would estimate the vertical separation would be about 4 inches.

I'm using the bunch jacket argument for two reasons. One, the jacket was bunched up. Two, the holes in the shirt and jacket are 5.5 inches below the tops of collars and the wound itself is about 2.5 inches below the tops of the collars. I don't believe that the curvature of JFK's back was anywhere near enough to make up for that 3 inches
16
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Last post by Tommy Shanks on Yesterday at 10:06:01 PM »

Your answer to this is to quote Curry's WC testimony given months later, after the government had bombarded the public with the story that all the shots came from behind the limo.


This is at least the second time in the past couple of days (Lee Bowers thread) that you've just thrown up your hands and offered the very lame excuse that the witness in question was somehow unduly influenced by some evil forces and "couldn't" testify truthfully about what they "actually" saw or heard -- as opposed to, you know, actually taking their words at face value.
17
Multicam of the copy of Zapruder (Not upscaled or interpolated with AI  BS: ) and Nix with the Dictabelt
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oceXQtX1F0Z22GfuepaeF-fPNX345jvQ/view?usp=drivesdk
And to top it off, here's what i believe are the approximate times when the 3 shots were fired, the silence in between the shots would be LHO cocking the rifle (oh no the theorists are gonna skin me alive for saying this)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MfmMfSGxtd3U5wN4XMMhRPJ9RkGCbpjs/view?usp=drivesdk

The first video isn't even close. It shows the first shot fired at the 0:01 mark and the second just before the timer turned to 0:03. Less than two seconds between the two and neither of those shots syncs up with JFK being hit while he was hidden behind the sign. I'd scrap that one altogether.

The second video is a little closer to reality but it shows only 3 seconds between the first and second shots. I believe there were almost 4 seconds between those two shots and others believe there was even more time than that. It's all academic because the recording is not of actual gunshots. The Dictabelt recorded impulses which some interpreted to be caused by gunshots.
18

I discovered one of the most important new evidence discoveries of our generation...


It can't be credibly avoided...

Sure it can! We can just ignore you, as everybody else seems to do.
19
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 09:51:36 PM »
You are among the hopeless causes, not I. I didn't make up anything. I quoted verbatim what Curry ordered his men to do seconds after the shots were fired.

 BS: Quoting someone verbatim means you quoted them word for word. This is how you described Curry's (and Decker's) orders:

"You surely know this is misleading. Decker ordered his officers to seal off the area of the railroad yard behind the knoll and the triple underpass. Curry ordered his officers to check the area of the triple underpass and said to get a man on top of the underpass to see what happened there. Anyone who looks at a map of Dealey Plaza and understands English can see that Decker and Curry sent their men to essentially the same area."

Is the above quote Curry's words or yours? That's a rhetorical question which pretty much answers itself.
Quote

Your answer to this is to quote Curry's WC testimony given months later, after the government had bombarded the public with the story that all the shots came from behind the limo.

At least he quoted Curry, something you didn't do.
Quote

Well, of course, by the time the WC rolled around, Curry was not about to admit that he had believed gunfire came from the front. Notice he never explained why he ordered a man be put on the triple underpass to "see what happened there," if he had no idea where the shots came from.

So when a witness gives testimony that is contrary to the narrative you are pushing, your answer is to insinuate the witness perjured himself. A fine example of trying to make the evidence fit your theory rather than making your theory fit the evidence.
Quote

I ask again, What area do you think Curry wanted the officer to look at from the triple underpass to "see what happened there"? Huh? The freeway?! The TSBD?! The obvious answer -- and yes, it is obvious -- is that Curry believed gunfire came from the area behind the grassy knoll and that he ordered that an officer get on top of the underpass to "see what happened there."

Curry thought a shot MIGHT HAVE come from the overpass. it makes sense he would send someone up there to find out. No gunman was found up there nor was one found in the railroad yard or the area behind the stockade fence. The only physical evidence of a gunman was on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
Quote

And, gee, I guess it's just yet another remarkable coincidence that this is the same area, the rail yard behind the knoll and right next to the triple underpass, that Sheriff Decker ordered to be sealed off "to determine just what and where it happened down there," the same area to which dozens of people, including some police officers, rushed after the shots were fired. I guess Corbett would say they were all just taking a wild guess. Right, it just couldn't be that they ran toward the knoll because they heard gunfire from there. Nah, forget it!

It wasn't a wild guess because the sound indicated a shot MIGHT HAVE come from that area, but it was a guess. At the time the men were ordered to those TWO areas, there was no hard evidence of a shot having been fired from either place. Just impressions based on the sound.
Quote

The fact that you make a big deal over Curry's belief that three shots were fired, as if this is more of your supposed evidence against the acoustical evidence, is just more silliness. What about the 58 witnesses who said they heard gunfire from the grassy knoll? Why don't you quote them? How about the fact that a number witnesses said they only heard two shots? Why don't you quote them? How about all the witnesses who said two of the shots came in very rapid succession, with virtually no interval between them? Why don't you quote them? Oh, that's right, because if two of the shots came that quickly, your theory of the shooting collapses.

What about the body of witnesses whose impression was that the shots they heard came from the direction of the TSBD. We even have Altgens 6 showing agents in the follow up car looking back in the direction of the TSBD. Do you think these two groups of witnesses heard a different set of shots or does it make more sense that they all heard the same shots and one group got it right and the other was mistaken?
Quote

But, oh, Curry says he heard three shots, and you act like you've made some grand discovery that refutes the acoustical evidence. It's always amateur hour with you guys.

Oh, the irony of you accusing others of amateurish analysis. If you threw out all your amatuer analysis, what would you be left with?
Quote

I can't help but notice that you guys aren't laying a finger on any of the scientific evidence that supports the HSCA's acoustical findings, because you have no answer for it and would never gather up enough objectivity to read the detailed explanations of that evidence in the reports submitted by the BBN and Queens College acoustical scientists. No, you'd rather cling for dear life to the NRC/NAS panel's refuted claims, many of which were based on embarrassing blunders or outright distortions, in addition to the fact that the panel did not even mention, much less address, much of the evidence that the HSCA's acoustical scientists documented.

A few days ago, I posted a litany of reasons for doubting the acoustical team's conclusion, the most compelling being the complete absence of corroborating physical evidence or eyewitness testimony. On top of that we have Bowers who had a perfect view of the area behind the stockade fence and so no gunman there during the shooting.
Quote

Finally, I would just point out for the sake of any newcomers and silent readers that Galbraith, Todd, Corbett, etc., belong to the decided minority of the Western world who still believe that a lone nut acting completely alone shot JFK.

MTG takes great comfort in the fact that a majority of a population that knows very little about the evidence in the JFK assassination agrees with him that JFK died as the result of a conspiracy. Since he has no real evidence on his side, it's the best he can do. He seems to think truth is subject to popular opinion.
20


I discovered one of the most important new evidence discoveries of our generation...


It can't be credibly avoided...
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10