Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Last post by Steve Barber on Yesterday at 05:53:54 PM »
MTG's long winded posts seem to follow the adage, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with  B:"

He seems to try to bore people into not responding to him. Often, that works.

 Agreed.

 And MTG can't get it through his head that no matter what Thomas said in any of his writings or lectures, the radio transmission Thomas claims is "I'll check it" crosstalk on channel 1 is both bogus and nothing but a lie by Thomas.

 The fact that heterodyne tones accompany (Surround, if you will)  the speech by someone opening their microphone on channel 1 and speaking into the microphone is proof solid that it's not crosstalk.  The heterodyne tones prove this.  It is in no way, shape or form "crosstalk". End of story.
22
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 05:09:08 PM
I continue to insist that no shooting can be perfectly replicated and it is an unreasonable demand that such a thing is necessary. I know of no other case in which that was done. Individual elements of a shooting can be tested to show what is possible, but to expect every aspect of any shooting to be perfectly replicated is ridiculous.


Good Luck in your being seated on any jury involving a Shooting of any kind.

I know. His argument is so ridiculous.

When Corbett first began to engage me in this forum, he cited the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test as evidence that Oswald's alleged ammo was the ammo that hit JFK's head. But, when I proved that the WC's test shows the exact opposite, that's when he started peddling this line that wound-ballistics tests are essentially worthless because they can't "perfectly replicate" every aspect of a shooting.

Now, probably because of Stewart Fillmore's comments, Corbett has modestly modified this argument to say that "individual elements of a shooting can be tested" but that no test can "perfectly replicate" all aspects of a shooting.

Okay, then it should be noted that every single test that has tested "individual elements" of the SBT has produced results that directly contradict those elements. In the 1967 CBS SBT test, not one of the bullets managed to penetrate the simulated thigh after passing through a ballistics gelatin block and then hitting a cadaver wrist, even though they didn't have to hit a rib bone before hitting the wrist. In fact, many of the bullets didn't even leave the wrist.

In the 1992 AAT SBT test, a 6.5 mm FMJ bullet was fired into two gelatin blocks. The second gelatin block contained animal bones to simulate the shattering of a rib bone and the smashing of a wrist bone. The bullet transited the first gelatin block and struck the animal bones in the second block. It emerged markedly more deformed than CE 399.

What's more, four of the bullets in Lattimer's SBT test actually hit the simulated rib and wrist bones after passing through a simulated neck, and the only one of those bullets that Lattimer published a photo of was badly mangled (he admitted he threw away the three other bullets -- I wonder why).

The most fraudulent SBT test to date was arguably Dr. Martin Fackler's 1992 test. Fackler made no effort to simulate a human neck, a human chest, a rib bone, and a human thigh. He lowered the velocity of his bullets to 1100-1335 fps and fired them directly into cadaver wrists. Fackler said that the two bullets that went through the wrists emerged with no deformity ("absolutely undeformed").

In other words, he simply assumed that if the bullets had torn through a human neck and through a human chest, shattering 4 inches of rib bone in the process, the bullets would not have been deformed and would have had enough velocity to then penetrate a human thigh after smashing the wrist.

When I first read about Fackler's SBT test, I thought the article I was reading had to be mistaken, that no one would have conducted such an obviously bogus test, but then I found Fackler's own article on his test and saw that he admitted that the only part of CE 399's alleged journey that he simulated was the hit on the wrist and that he fired his reduced-velocity bullets directly into the wrists. Yet, some WC apologists in this forum continue to cite Fackler's bogus SBT test.



 
23
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Acoustic Evidence
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 04:55:43 PM »
MTG's long winded posts seem to follow the adage, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with  B:"

He seems to try to bore people into not responding to him. Often, that works.
24
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: How Do LNers Deal With Givens?
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Yesterday at 04:53:15 PM »
Are you trying to get people to take you seriously? It's not working.

Just another empty statement.
People can see the evidence that I have posted and how it supports the arguments I am making.
You are just posting petulant, childish statements that are completely meaningless.
I stand by what I have posted and am willing to debate at anytime.

You are just making snide, cowardly comments that lack any content.

I know which I would take more seriously.
25
   Funny that you would mention the "1st down line on the screen". That "line" is also Not, "Dead on balls accurate". Just like the game clock.
   And do Not get me started on the actual "spotting" of the football. That is "putzed" up very often. Sometimes on purpose. This was made obvious with this repeatedly being done in favor of the KC Chiefs during the NFL Playoffs.

I know that the first down line is not official. The officials on the field are not even aware of it. They spot the ball based on it's furthest forward progress point at the time the ball became dead. The problem is that putting that line down causes a brief discrepancy between the main camera and the other cameras and throws it out of sync with the scoreboard clock. I wasn't aware of that until this incident. Even though it is likely the main camera is the one that is off when there is a discrepancy between what the various cameras show, that is the one replay protocols should be accepted when there is a discrepancy of a fraction of a second. Replay was intended to correct obvious officiating errors. It was not intended to micro-manage the game down to the last fraction of a second. If two cameras show a different result, the call on the field is supposed to stand.

Officiating football is not an exact science. Often when the ball is spotted, the officials are taking an educated guess as to where the ball was when the runner was determined to be down. The same is true of timing issues. For sixty minutes, minor discrepancies in timing are not second guessed. Why should that be done at the end of the game? That is why replay protocols are created so that only obvious errors are corrected. Those protocols were not followed in the WM/UM game and WM was robbed of a victory their players had earned.
26
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Deep Politics Forum
« Last post by Mark A. Oblazney on Yesterday at 04:47:12 PM »
Oh dear, have got a lot of erasing to do, or maybe just leave it to remind me of how far I’ve come in this our life’s journey.  May all sentient beings be well +
27
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Yesterday at 04:42:37 PM »
Dear danny BOY o'meara,

Unfortunately, you (or some other knucklehead) have mislabeled Secret Service agent Glen Bennett as "Hickey" in this version of the Z-201 frame.

Why in the world did you do that?

-- Tom

PS George Hickey's washed-out image can be discerned behind (and slightly lower than) Clint Hill's (McIntyre is hidden behind Hill).

They are similarly situated in Z-150:

https://assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z150.jpg

Poor little tommy.

As with every single point you make regarding this issue you are wrong.
When you grow up you might think to question this unfortunate pattern.
Do yourself a favour and watch the Zapruder film some time. It's full of interesting information regarding the assassination of JFK.
If you do you will see Hickey look over the side of the limo and return to the position shown in the image below (the real clue is that the person you think is Bennett isn't in z150. Think about that).



The point being made with this image is that it is from z207. Believe it or not there are some idiots who believe that the first, extremely loud, shot was fired 4 - 5 seconds before this image was taken.
4 TO 5 SECONDS!!
Yet all three men are facing forward at z207.
The problem is that all three men reported immediately reacting to the first shot by looking to their right and rear:

Landis - "I heard what sounded like the report of a high-powered rifle from behind me, over my right shoulder...", "My first glance was at the President, as I was practically looking in his direction anyway...", "I immediately returned my gaze, over my right shoulder."

Ready - "I heard what appeared to be fire crackers going off from my position. I immediately turned to my right rear trying to locate the source but was not able to determine the exact location."

Hickey - "I heard what seemed to me that a firecracker exploded to the right and rear. I stood partially up and turned to the rear to see if I could observe anything. "

Funnily enough, this is exactly what all three men are shown doing in Altgens 6 (equivalent to z255):



To anyone with a grain of intelligence this is really strong evidence that the first shot is after z207 and before z255.

28
      BUMP - The above is about the ORIGINAL Darnell Film and ORIGINAL Wiegman Film.

Nobody cares.
29
they own the films and will only give them to, say, documentary directors or people in the industry wanting to license the film.

      BUMP - The above is about the ORIGINAL Darnell Film and ORIGINAL Wiegman Film.
30
You specialise in empty statements.
You daren't engage in debate because you're made to look a complete buffoon every time you try, so you come up with these nothing statements instead.

Are you trying to get people to take you seriously? It's not working.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10