Recent Posts21
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Are CT'ers "Crazy"? Or LNT'ers?
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 07:48:16 PM »That finding alone invalidates the HSCA analysis since JFK showed no reaction to having been shot until after he reappeared from behind the sign about 2 seconds later when both he and JBC suddenly flipped their arms upward.
I guess you're unaware that the HSCA's photographic experts determined that JFK begins to react at Z200 and that Jackie starts to react to JFK's reaction just before Z207. Don Olson and Ralph Turner noted the same Z200-207 JFK reactions in their article "Photographic Evidence and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" published in the October 1971 edition of the Journal of Forensic Sciences (pp. pp. 399–419). You are once again years behind the information curve.
The acoustic "evidence" indicated that shot came from the sniper's nest so we are expected to believe Oswald fired at JFK through the foliage of the tree. Ridiculous.
Umm, no, the acoustical evidence indicated no such thing. You're referring to Blakey's forced, arbitrary matching of the gunshot impulses to certain Zapruder frames.
Furthermore, as I have explained several times, the HSCA's Dealey Plaza test firing did not fire any shots from a lower or upper window of the Dal-Tex Building, which was right next to the TSBD, even though researchers had long identified the Dal-Tex Building as a source of gunfire. The test firing also did not fire any shots from the south knoll area, even though researchers had identified that location as another source of gunfire. Even in its current edited state, the Zapruder film shows reactions to six shots ("Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film").
The acoustical evidence is solid with regard to the number and location of gunshot impulse patterns identified on the dictabelt in relation to the shots fired during the Dealey Plaza test firing, but the limitations imposed on the test firing and the possibility that one or two of the gunmen used a silencer or fired from a position that prevented the shot from being recorded by the patrolman's microphone mean (1) that the dictabelt cannot be assumed to contain all the gunshots that were fired, (2) that certain impulse patterns on the tape that were not identified as gunfire may have been gunfire that came from shooting locations that were not tested, and (3) make any matching of the dictabelt's impulse patterns with Zapruder frames questionable from the outset.
Additionally, given the scientific evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered, there is no way to confidently correlate the dictabelt's impulse patterns with Zapruder frames.
For those who might be interested, here are some sources on the evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered: Physicist Dr. John Costella's multi-part study "A Simple Introduction to the JFK Assassination Film Hoax"; Dr. David Mantik's 42-page article "The Zapruder Film Controversy" and his video presentation A Closer Look at the Zapruder Film: The Case for Alteration; and my article "Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder Film". Dr. Mantik points out that dozens of Hollywood film experts have found indications of alteration in the Zapruder film.
And did you forget that the HSCA FPP's findings about the back wound's location and upward trajectory prove that the back-wound bullet could not have come from the sixth-floor window, unless JFK had been leaning markedly forward when the bullet hit? Have you found a photo or frame that shows JFK leaning markedly forward between Z185 and Z224? If so, please share it. If not, just admit the shot could not have come from the sixth-floor window.