Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
11
It's a damn good finishing point as well.
This is where things go off the rails.
This is where the train has completely jumped the tracks.
This is where the train has gone down the embankment and is plowing through a cornfield.

Jim Marrs never met a conspiracy theory he didn't embrace. The guy was a charlatan.
Not the silliest conspiracy book ever written but one of the earliest. Even the title of the book is a faulty premise since the shooting took more than 6 seconds despite popular beliefs to the contrary.

The purpose of providing new students with a reading list should not be the indoctrination of the pupil and pushing any given narrative but to stimulate independent thinking and critical analyses of the subject matter. This is the reason I listed the reports of the two government bodies that investigated the case (and came to somewhat different conclusions), two critical analyses of the Warren Report and two books by conspiracy theorists. I think it is a nice balance of the various points of view on the case.
12
AM--

Thanks for your inquiry.

Well, more or less Greer's narrative lines up with the Connallys, if I understand it correctly.

Mrs. Connally's narrative supports the "first shot hit JFK, the second hit JBC, and third hit JFK." The Connallys have been solid on that from Day One. They are not lefties, or KGB assets, and appear to have no axes to grind. They are just calling a spade a spade.

What Mrs. JBC meant by the word "recoil" is hard to say, but likely that was JBC doubling over from the shot that struck him, which happens ~Z-295.

BTW, JBC getting shot ~Z-295 lines up neatly with the many witnesses who described a "bang....bang-bang" cadence of shots on 11.22.

13
  Nobody sits on anything for 62+ yrs just because they can. There's a reason.

In my pursuit of debunking the Greg Parker-originating Prayer Man theory I discovered, with Richard Gilbride, that one of the Prayer Man films was freely available at the Brooklyn Library in the 1970's...Also, Southern Methodist University film professor G William Jones managed to make a 1st generation film to film copy of Darnell that is now currently available at the 6th Floor Museum and, I am certain, would be sent by said institution to the Luna Task Force if requested...So the Prayer Man films were not tightly held in the past...The main bottleneck is the Prayer Man hijackers who have managed to channel everything through themselves and the crooked Mary Ferrell managers who work with them...

If we look at The Education Forum and JFK podcast community, they are very much trying to ignore the progress of the correct evidence on Prayer Man and are consciously using intentional censorship and persecution to avoid admitting the correct evidence...They are using banning (and false reasons for banning) to avoid allowing any discussion that practices the implied "debate" The Education Forum encourages...Any correct evidence that demands a response is met with shunning, ignoring, and silence - all achieved by the cowardly device of blocking/banning and organized group dishonesty...Although they claim to practice the highest level of academic discussion they have a mob that they turn you over to when you out-argue them on the evidence...Even when the main gate-keeper offending moderator is removed the Prayer Man gang and its proxies still maintain that censorship...

Before he died Sandy Larsen did the Prayer Man people a favor from his moderator position...Larsen managed to stymie the entire issue by means of the lie that the female dress neckline seen in the 6th Floor Museum 1st generation copy of Darnell was a CIA forgery designed to conceal Oswald's work shirt collar...This lie was strategic because it was meant to hang up the issue on the strawman that the only admissible evidence was the original films...But it also served the purpose of pre-emptive excuse-making for the obvious dress neckline that Larsen was aware refuted Oswald as Prayer Man...When I tried to argue this with Greg Doudna on "Jacks" I got banned...
14
You're the one who has his head buried in the sand, Griffith.
As you know, the Connally's both said they heard/felt three shots - JBC heard two and said he was hit by a third. Mrs. Connally said she heard three.

Not four, not five, not six.

And both said the shots came from behind them. Including the one that hit JFK in the head. From behind. Not in front, not from the fence, not from the overpass.

Griffith doesn't believe any of this. But he suddenly believes them when it suits his conspiracy claims.

Of course, he also says the Zapruder film was faked, altered and is unreliable. But suddenly when it supports his beliefs it becomes reliable.
15
This is just silly. Of course she wasn't looking at him in Z225-226, because he wasn't hit yet. Sheesh, how long are you guys going to bury your heads in the sand and ignore the fact that Connally himself, the guy who actually experienced the wounding, identified Z234 as the moment of impact, after carefully studying high-quality color prints of the relevant frames under high magnification? His identification of Z234 as the moment of impact dovetails perfectly with what forensic science tells us about how long it would have taken for his shoulder to be driven downward, for the air forced from his lungs to cause his cheeks to puff, and for a pained expression to appear on his face.

But you guys have to ignore this plain, obvious evidence because it destroys your SBT fantasy.

 You're the one who has his head buried in the sand, Griffith.
16
SB-

My view:

Well, sure Mrs JBC did not see Gov. JBC being shot at ~Z-221, as he was not shot then.

JBC was shot ~Z-295, maybe even a few frames later.

Just IMHO.

 I didn't say anything about Z-221!  Read my comment again, she is looking straight ahead in frames 225 and 226. And JBC was wounded at the same time JFK was shot as the Zapruder film clearly reveals..  You have a lot of explaining to do if you actually believe he wasn't hit until Z-295 or later!
17
Thanks for the info. As long as I've been at this, I should know better than to simply accept these claims made by the CTs at face value. In fairness to MTG, it appears this lie originated with O'Neill although from the passage he quoted, it doesn't sound like he was saying the FBI pressured O'Donnell into changing his story. It appears MTG embellished O'Neill's words a bit.
The O'Neill book came out in 1987 while the original claim that O'Donnell altered his testimony was first made in 1975. The Chicago Tribune story that quotes him denying he changed his testimony goes over this in greater detail. And Dave Powers, who was alive in 1987 when the book came out, also denied the story that he and O'Donnell told O'Neill they had changed their testimony.

In any case, according to several people quoted in the book O'Neill simply flat out made things up. He's simply not a credible source on this issue.

Bud called these "conspiracy trading cards", allegations that they continually pass around and repeat. It doesn't matter how many times you disprove them they continue to trade them around.

Here's the O'Neill account (he says it was in 1968) from his book (again, Powers denied the story, O'Donnell had died in 1977):

18
Ken O'Donnell denied the allegations that he changed his testimony under pressure from anyone. He told the Chicago Tribune in an interview that they were "an absolute, outright lie." And Dave Powers, also quoted by O'Neill, denied the story as well.

I'll be lazy here and quote Wikipedia on this:

"In their memoir of Kennedy, Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, both O'Donnell and David Powers reported hearing only three shots and did not offer any speculation as to their origin.[12] According to a June 15, 1975 report in the Chicago Tribune, an unnamed "Central Intelligence Agency liaison man" told Congressmen that O'Donnell and David Powers had initially told assassination investigators that the shots that struck Kennedy came from a location other than the Texas School Book Depository, but that the two men were convinced, reportedly by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover or his main aides, to alter their accounts to the Warren Commission to avoid the possibility of revealing the CIA's plots to kill Fidel Castro which might result in an international incident.[12] During a telephone interview, O'Donnell said he testified truthfully and called the allegations "an absolute, outright lie."[12] In his 1987 autobiography Man of the House, former House Speaker Tip O'Neill wrote that he had dinner with O'Donnell and Powers in 1968, and that both men indicated that two shots were fired from behind the fence on the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza.[13] According to O'Neill, he pointed out to O'Donnell that he gave different information to the Warren Commission, and O'Donnell replied: "I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family."[13] However, Dave Powers denied such conversation and claim occurred and criticized his autobiography.[14]

Again, O'Neill's allegations were denied by both men.

See here: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lQhIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TQANAAAAIBAJ&pg=1934%2C3948488&hl=en

This is another example of how Michael Griffith uncritically accepts information that supports his pre-determined conspiracy view. And it doesn't matter whether it contradicts other claims he believes. Remember again he believes in the acoustics evidence that concluded three shots were fired from the TSBD and another shot came from behind the fence. But he quotes allegations that O'Donnell said the shots came from in front of the limo. That is, of course, completely at odds with the acoustics analysis. But he doesn't care.

Thanks for the info. As long as I've been at this, I should know better than to simply accept these claims made by the CTs at face value. In fairness to MTG, it appears this lie originated with O'Neill although from the passage he quoted, it doesn't sound like he was saying the FBI pressured O'Donnell into changing his story. It appears MTG embellished O'Neill's words a bit.
19

You can believe that if you want to. It makes no difference to me.

The ballistics calculator indicates that using the fixed iron sights on that rifle with that ammo and at a distance of ~33-yards, the point of impact would be ~2.4” high relative to the point of aim.

Personally, I believe using the scope (if zeroed at the proper distance) would be a much better option. Again, it makes no sense to me that LHO would have spent extra money for the scope, practiced (and presumably zeroed the scope for the proper distance), and then for some inexplicable reason decided to use the fixed iron sights which would require a significant hold-under (2.4”) to be on target.

An alternative idea for why the shot might have hit the window sash is the recoil of the short rifle. It is significantly greater than a standard length rifle. If LHO didn’t hold the rifle steady during the follow-through, the recoil tends to raise the muzzle higher and this could have caused the miss. See the original post in this thread for the AI description of this effect.

Looking at the backyard photos, I don't see a scope on the rifle. It might be due to the camera angle but I don't think he had the scope on the rifle when those photos were taken. Whether he used the iron sights or the scope when he shot at Walker, a shot just 2.4" inches high might have made the difference between a clean shot at Walker's head and striking the sash. I think that is a far more likely explanation for the high shot than recoil. The amount of recoil that occurs before the bullet leaves the barrel is negligible and is mostly rearward, not upward. AI describes this much better than I would:

"Yes — a rifle does recoil before the bullet leaves the muzzle, and this movement can affect accuracy.

When the trigger is pulled, the expanding gases from the burning powder begin pushing the bullet down the barrel. By Newton’s Third Law of Motion, the rifle experiences an equal and opposite rearward force almost immediately

. High‑speed videos (100,000+ frames per second) have captured this: the barrel and rifle system move backward while the bullet is still traveling through the bore, even through a suppressor


The bullet’s barrel dwell time — the time it takes to travel from the chamber to the muzzle — is extremely short, often around 0.0006–0.0007 seconds for a 24‑inch barrel at ~3000 fps

. However, the rifle’s inertia means it accelerates more slowly than the bullet, but it still moves during that time. In one calculation, a rifle could move about 0.06 inches rearward during that dwell period

. This movement can cause the muzzle to point slightly off the initial aim point, especially if the rifle is not perfectly supported or if the shooter’s body shifts."

Recoil would have more effect on subsequent shots when firing rapidly but it would not explain Oswald's miss when he shot at Walker. The M-14 was a full-auto version of he M-1 Garand. They soon discovered the problem when firing it in full auto since it used the same .30-06 cartridge. Few soldiers could hold the weapon on target. They found that the first round would be on target, the second, slightly high, the third over the head of he target and by the fourth round, it was an anti-aircraft gun.

The BAR was also a fully automatic weapon that fired the .30-06 round but because it was so much heavier than the M-14, it was much easier to control the recoil.
20
Telling a witness he was wrong about his observation does not equate to pressuring him to change his story. The FBI knew the shots had not come from the GK and they told O'Donnell that. If he decided to alter his testimony, that is on him.

You don't quote Kenny O'Donnell. You quote Tip O'Neill quoting Kenny O'Donnell so we don't know how O'Donnel actually described the encounter. You are describing your impression of the impression O'Nell got from what O'Donnell said. A hearsay account hardly establishes that the FBI "pressured" O'Donnell to change his story. 

So I'll ask my question again. Why would the FBI pressure O'Donnell into changing his story.

The more fundamental question is, were any shots actually fired from the GK. There is no forensic evidence pointing to a shot from the GK. There were no eyewitness to a shot from the GK. There was an eyewitness who had a perfect view of the are behind the wooden fence when the shots were fired and he saw no one there. The only "evidence" of shots from the GK are the impressions of a group of earwitnesses who said all the shots came from the GK. They are contradicted by another group of witnesses who said all the shots came from the direction of the TSBD. The latter group is corroborated by 3 spent shell found in the sniper's nest and the murder weapon found elsewhere on the same floor. No corroboration for the earwitnesses who thought the shots came from the GK. That includes Kenny O'Donnell.

Ken O'Donnell denied the allegations that he changed his testimony under pressure from anyone. He told the Chicago Tribune in an interview that they were "an absolute, outright lie." And Dave Powers, also quoted by O'Neill, denied the story as well.

I'll be lazy here and quote Wikipedia on this:

"In their memoir of Kennedy, Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye, both O'Donnell and David Powers reported hearing only three shots and did not offer any speculation as to their origin.[12] According to a June 15, 1975 report in the Chicago Tribune, an unnamed "Central Intelligence Agency liaison man" told Congressmen that O'Donnell and David Powers had initially told assassination investigators that the shots that struck Kennedy came from a location other than the Texas School Book Depository, but that the two men were convinced, reportedly by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover or his main aides, to alter their accounts to the Warren Commission to avoid the possibility of revealing the CIA's plots to kill Fidel Castro which might result in an international incident.[12] During a telephone interview, O'Donnell said he testified truthfully and called the allegations "an absolute, outright lie."[12] In his 1987 autobiography Man of the House, former House Speaker Tip O'Neill wrote that he had dinner with O'Donnell and Powers in 1968, and that both men indicated that two shots were fired from behind the fence on the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza.[13] According to O'Neill, he pointed out to O'Donnell that he gave different information to the Warren Commission, and O'Donnell replied: "I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family."[13] However, Dave Powers denied such conversation and claim occurred and criticized his autobiography.[14]

Again, O'Neill's allegations were denied by both men.

See here: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=lQhIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TQANAAAAIBAJ&pg=1934%2C3948488&hl=en

This is another example of how Michael Griffith uncritically accepts information that supports his pre-determined conspiracy view. And it doesn't matter whether it contradicts other claims he believes. Remember again he believes in the acoustics evidence that concluded three shots were fired from the TSBD and another shot came from behind the fence. But he quotes allegations that O'Donnell said the shots came from in front of the limo. That is, of course, completely at odds with the acoustics analysis. But he doesn't care.




Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10