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.
Recent Posts
If you don't want me to respond to your half-assed posts, don't make any.
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:
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?
I gotta go with a bullet was in the room, then it wasn't.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?
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.
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.
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?
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.”
Does nothing to clarify the receipt dated 11/22/63
lame with a bit of mumbo-jumbo on the side
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?)
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?
