Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
Two SBT wound-ballistics tests (one of Lattimer's tests and an Australian test) actually duplicated all the wounds posited by the SBT, but in both cases the bullets emerged visibly more damaged than CE 399.

And, of course, both of those tests assumed that JFK and Connally were aligned in a way to make the wounding possible in the first place, when in fact the most advanced, sophisticated SBT trajectory analysis ever done, the 2023 Knott Lab analysis, found that the two men were not aligned in a way that would make the SBT theoretically possible. In addition, the few pro-SBT trajectory analyses have had to make demonstrably invalid assumptions about the size of Connally's back wound (doubling its size), the size and nature of the wound path through Connally's chest (ignoring the fact that it was rather narrow), and JFK and Connally's positions and rotations (putting the men in positions and/or rotations that are wholly unsupported by the photographic evidence). 

I’m not aware of Lattimer duplicating the overall shot with dummies set up in the same relative positions as JFK and JBC as Alex Krstic (the Australian test) did on the Unsolved History episode.  Lattimer duplicated several elements of the SBT but if he did an overall reconstruction, I’d like to see his results if you can tell me where I could find it. 

The Krstic test actually set up the reconstruction pretty rigorously following the parameters of the shot with JFK and JBC in their relative positions.  They marked the entry point approximately 14 cm below the dummy’s mastoid process.  They shot from 60 feet up and hit just a little low and left of the aim point.  They showed a graphic from a side view showing the bullet exited in JFK’s chest, well below the throat.  They failed to show the actual exit point but through a narrator said the single bullet theory worked.  The bullet’s nose was flattened and the bullet shaft bent.  The narrator explained that the nose was flattened because the bullet struck two ribs in the test—otherwise it would have been very similar to 399.  They forgot to add that 399 struck JBC’s wrist bone. 

But you’re absolutely correct about the alignment issues. My testing on both the range and with a 1:1 model of the limousine using mannequins and stand ins, has revealed neither the vertical angle (slope), nor the horizontal angle (right to left direction) of the shot works.  The 17 degree slope of the shot exits 2 1/2 inches below the throat with an entry on the suit coat 5 3/8 inches below the top of the collar (with the coat bunched approximately 2 inches).  It gets further out of whack with the 13 degree right to left aspect of the shot.  My testing has revealed JBC’s midline sitting centered in a 20.5 inch wide jump seat placed 2.5 inches from the car door had to be moved 9 inches inboard for the shot to align.  This was done with string run through pre cut holes in the mannequins/stand ins clothes at the exact FBI measurements.  The string forces the geometry and I think is more compelling than animated reconstructions. 


12
Pat Speer is an idiot and anyone who believes him must be as well.

It wouldn't surprise me if the other LNs already know what an idiot you are and not worth the time it takes to respond to your moronic posts.

 :D :D :D
Do some research and stop making a fool out of yourself.
13
Do some actual research.
You can start with the links I gave you.
You too will be convinced that the Givens story is a fabrication.
And if you think that the WC Sham fabricating testimony is a nothing burger...

Meanwhile - ROLL UP, ROLL UP NUTTERS. LET'S HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. DON'T LEAVE POOR OLD CORBETT FLAPPING AROUND ON HIS OWN!

Pat Speer is an idiot and anyone who believes him must be as well.

It wouldn't surprise me if the other LNs already know what an idiot you are and not worth the time it takes to respond to your moronic posts.
14
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 12:32:38 AM »

"Now you are just plain lying. Why do you have to lie to make your points? This is what JBC actually said"

Your profound ignorance regarding anything outside what the WC Sham report states is making you look really idiotic.
That you imagine that Connally made his only statement about the shooting in his WC hearing is embarrassing for you.
Once again I would steer you to Pat Speer's website as a resource:

(12-13-63 FBI report on a 12-11 interview, CD188, p. 3-5) When Governor Connally was asked about the elapsed time between the first and last shot he remarked “Fast, my God it was fast. It seemed like a split second. Just that quick” and he snapped his fingers three times rapidly to illustrate the time and said “unbelievably quick…Governor Connally felt the shots were fired so fast the assassin had hit him by accident on the second shot.”.

"It seemed like a split second"
"Fast, my God it was fast."
"A very, very brief span of time"
"unbelievably quick"

You don't need to thank me for doing your research for you (once again).
Now, getting back to my question - Do you believe there were two shots a split second apart, like JBC says there was?

There is nothing in the Z-film that corroborates those 44 witnesses. It refutes them and corroborates JBC.

How do you know this? You don't have the first clue about these 44 witnesses and what they said.
Yet again, you are completely ignorant about an issue yet you wade in like you're some kind of expert. In a way it's quite impressive.

Glenn Bennett wasn't shot so what is your excuse for believing he imagined a missed first shot?


You are down to a single eyewitness to support your missed shot claim.
You are constantly harping on about the reliability of eyewitness testimony yet hear you are, pinning all your silly hopes on Bennett.
I think I'll stick with the observation of the 44 witnesses, including the majority of the agents riding in the same car as Bennet, that indicate JFK was hit by the first shot.

Not only is Pat Speer a moron, he is apparently a liar. In addition to his WC testimony, I've seen numerous videos of JBC describing the shooting and he always said there was a definite time lag from the time he heard the first shot until he felt the second shot hit him in the back. That was the reason he never accepted the single bullet theory because he knew the first shot had not hit him and for some reason believed the first shot had hit JFK, even though he couldn't see JFK when he turned to look over his right shoulder.

In addition to JBC and Bennett there are other witnesses who believed the first shot had not hit JFK and that the first two shots were closer together.
15
If you've convinced yourself that the WC fabricated Givens story, you really have gone off the rails. Givens couldn't have been less important to the WC's case against Oswald. All he contributed was that he saw Oswald on the 6th floor 35 minutes before the shooting. Why does that even matter? You could go from any location in the TSBD to any other location in the TSBD in less than 5 minutes, so why would it be at all important to the WC to establish that Oswald was seen on the 6th floor 35 minutes before the shooting? This is a big nothing burger.

Do some actual research.
You can start with the links I gave you.
You too will be convinced that the Givens story is a fabrication.
And if you think that the WC Sham fabricating testimony is a nothing burger...

Meanwhile - ROLL UP, ROLL UP NUTTERS. LET'S HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. DON'T LEAVE POOR OLD CORBETT FLAPPING AROUND ON HIS OWN!
16
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Today at 12:21:10 AM »
The one Andrew Mason is constantly relying on is that there are witnesses who say JFK reacted to being hit by the first shot.
It makes all the difference in the world whether JFK reacted to the first or second shot and that depends on whether the witnesses you are referring two could tell whether that was the first or second shot JFK reacted to. If they didn't recognize the first missed shot for what it was, then it would have seemed to them that JFK was hit by the first shot.
That's right he didn't. It's called information overload. The brain can only process so much input at a time. JBC was overwhelmed by the sensation of the bullet passing through his chest. It's an established phenomenon that a shooting victim won't always hear the shot that hits them.
https://biologyinsights.com/what-does-it-feel-like-to-get-shot-a-scientific-look/

"While the sound of the gunshot itself is loud, the individual may experience auditory exclusion, where hearing becomes muffled or temporarily lost due to the body’s heightened state of awareness."
Of course I am. I've heard JBC tell this story countless times.
There is nothing in the Z-film that corroborates those 44 witnesses. It refutes them and corroborates JBC.

Glenn Bennett wasn't shot so what is your excuse for believing he imagined a missed first shot?


"Now you are just plain lying. Why do you have to lie to make your points? This is what JBC actually said"

Your profound ignorance regarding anything outside what the WC Sham report states is making you look really idiotic.
That you imagine that Connally made his only statement about the shooting in his WC hearing is embarrassing for you.
Once again I would steer you to Pat Speer's website as a resource:

(12-13-63 FBI report on a 12-11 interview, CD188, p. 3-5) When Governor Connally was asked about the elapsed time between the first and last shot he remarked “Fast, my God it was fast. It seemed like a split second. Just that quick” and he snapped his fingers three times rapidly to illustrate the time and said “unbelievably quick…Governor Connally felt the shots were fired so fast the assassin had hit him by accident on the second shot.”.

"It seemed like a split second"
"Fast, my God it was fast."
"A very, very brief span of time"
"unbelievably quick"

You don't need to thank me for doing your research for you (once again).
Now, getting back to my question - Do you believe there were two shots a split second apart, like JBC says there was?

There is nothing in the Z-film that corroborates those 44 witnesses. It refutes them and corroborates JBC.

How do you know this? You don't have the first clue about these 44 witnesses and what they said.
Yet again, you are completely ignorant about an issue yet you wade in like you're some kind of expert. In a way it's quite impressive.

Glenn Bennett wasn't shot so what is your excuse for believing he imagined a missed first shot?


You are down to a single eyewitness to support your missed shot claim.
You are constantly harping on about the reliability of eyewitness testimony yet hear you are, pinning all your silly hopes on Bennett.
I think I'll stick with the observation of the 44 witnesses, including the majority of the agents riding in the same car as Bennet, that indicate JFK was hit by the first shot.
17

Maybe I'm the idiot for responding to it in the first place.

Maybe you were an idiot before responding to it.
Maybe that's why you can't follow the reasoning.
Maybe that's why you don't know what difference it makes if the Warren Commission Sham fabricated testimony.
What, exactly, is it you need explaining to you? Should I use smaller words or type more slowly?

As usual, you don't have the first clue about this issue yet you feel you have the authority to come wading in. A true Nutter trait.
As usual I will steer you to resources where you can actually learn something before you reveal the true depths of your ignorance. Start off with "The Curious Testimony of Mr Givens by Sylvia Meagher".

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Meagher%20Sylvia%20Clips/New%20Wave%201975%20Articles%20Mss/New%20Wave%2003.pdf

Then get into Pat Speer's analysis here:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter4-pinning-the-tale-on-the-oswald

Scroll down to "Step 4: The 4-8-64 Testimony of Charles Givens".

Enjoy.

Can anybody explain this nonsense to me?

Maybe some of your fellow Nutters would like to have a go  Thumb1:

If you've convinced yourself that the WC fabricated Givens story, you really have gone off the rails. Givens couldn't have been less important to the WC's case against Oswald. All he contributed was that he saw Oswald on the 6th floor 35 minutes before the shooting. Why does that even matter? You could go from any location in the TSBD to any other location in the TSBD in less than 5 minutes, so why would it be at all important to the WC to establish that Oswald was seen on the 6th floor 35 minutes before the shooting? This is a big nothing burger.

I do have one thing to thank you for. I'd heard the name Pat Speer for years but never had any reason to check out his work. I checked out the link you posted and I now know that Pat Speer is a real moron. His opening paragraph that Oswald needed to be an experienced sniper in order to have taken out JFK. The longest shot was only 88 yards and he missed with his first shot. Killing JFK at that distance didn't require any high level of skill. An experienced sniper could have made the kill shot at 4 times that range. I'd be embarrassed to let people know I was a disciple of Pat Speer.
18
So Lou ivon said ferrie said clay Shaw was clay Bertrand? Doesn't that back up orest penas account that these two used hang out together?
19
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Yesterday at 11:41:18 PM »
i don't even know where to start regarding Dan O''Meara's latest post in this thread. I can't even follow his reasoning or see any evidence he applied any reasoning at all. It's one of the dumbest post I've read on this forum. It shows no logic or common sense. I don't see how anything Givens had to say, whether true or false, does anything to either strengthen or weaken the case against Oswald. What the hell difference does it make whether or not Givens saw Oswald on the 6th floor 35 minutes before the shooting? Can anybody explain this nonsense to me?

Maybe I'm the idiot for responding to it in the first place.


Maybe I'm the idiot for responding to it in the first place.

Maybe you were an idiot before responding to it.
Maybe that's why you can't follow the reasoning.
Maybe that's why you don't know what difference it makes if the Warren Commission Sham fabricated testimony.
What, exactly, is it you need explaining to you? Should I use smaller words or type more slowly?

As usual, you don't have the first clue about this issue yet you feel you have the authority to come wading in. A true Nutter trait.
As usual I will steer you to resources where you can actually learn something before you reveal the true depths of your ignorance. Start off with "The Curious Testimony of Mr Givens by Sylvia Meagher".

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Meagher%20Sylvia%20Clips/New%20Wave%201975%20Articles%20Mss/New%20Wave%2003.pdf

Then get into Pat Speer's analysis here:

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter4-pinning-the-tale-on-the-oswald

Scroll down to "Step 4: The 4-8-64 Testimony of Charles Givens".

Enjoy.

Can anybody explain this nonsense to me?

Maybe some of your fellow Nutters would like to have a go  Thumb1:
20
                                                       ............. Since the above does Not matter to you ..................

           Are you using the YOU TUBE "Uncropped" Bothun Photo to help with your time stamping? I find the position of Altgens coming down the knoll toward Elm St and Wiegman having finished filming the Newman Family and now being physically down on the sidewalk filming Officer Haygood, to be important factors with respect to determining the Tick/Tock. Same goes for the Chism Family now being in position to begin their run across the Knoll. Trask "Pictures Of The Pain" gives this Bothun Photo a roughly "30 Seconds" after the kill shot time stamp.

The Bothun photo is of no use.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10