Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 08:34:50 PM »
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 05:56:29 PM
Two important facts should be kept in mind: One, the four radiologists consulted by the HSCA medical panel (FPP) were unable to identify an exit point for the head shot on the autopsy skull x-rays.

Two, the FPP claimed the x-rays show no missing frontal bone, but the evidence is clear that they were wrong. The issue of the damage to the frontal bone has a direct bearing on the authenticity of the autopsy brain photos. [/quote]

Is that what David Lifton told you. That old turd was debunked decades ago. [/quote]

Lone-gunman theorists have virtually ignored the telling fact that the HSCA's four radiology consultants were unable to identify an exit point on the skull x-rays. The consultants were Dr. Gerald M. McDonnel, Dr. Norman Chase, Dr. William Seaman, and David O. Davis.[/quote]

If anyone doubts this, they can read the findings that the radiologists presented to the FPP. Here are links to them:

McDonnel (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0114a.htm)
Chase (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0146a.htm)
Seaman (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0166b.htm)
Davis (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0116b.htm)
[/quote]

I only needed to read the first one to know you did what you usually do. You parse your words to make it seem like the person you are citing said something different than was actually said.

  1. Contrary to your earlier statement , McDonnel stated there was a portion of the POSERIOR of the frontal bone was missing.
  2. The x-rays showed no evidence of manipulation.
  3. The report does not say McDonnel was unable to find a point of exit. His report didn't even mention an exit.

Did you actually read the reports you cited or did you deliberately misrepresent them?
Quote

Renowned researcher John Hunt commented on this important point:

Four radiologists were consulted by the FPP over a six-month period beginning in February 1978. None reported an identifiable exit point. The closest an HSCA radiology consultant came to claiming to identify an outshoot point was Dr. David Davis, who reported:

"It seems apparent that explosive impact occurred in this calvarium. It also seems reasonable to assume that the exit point is near the coronal suture on the right side, about 5 or 6, or perhaps slightly more, cm above the pterion. (7 HSCA 224)"

Why it “seem[ed] reasonable” to Davis “to assume that the exit point” was anywhere is left entirely to the imagination of the reader, for Davis never explained the rationale upon which he based his assumption. Davis’ unsupported and equivocal speculation not withstanding, the x-rays did not reveal any outshoot points. ("A Demonstrable Impossibility: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence," https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm#_edn2)

Again, most of the people you cited were silent on the issue of the exit wound. That is quite a bit different from them saying they "were unable to identify an exit point for the head shot on the autopsy skull x-rays." which is what you claimed in your opening sentence.
Quote

The FPP ignored this fact and claimed to have located the outshoot point in the frontal bone.

Because it wasn't a fact. It was your misrepresentation of what was said.
Quote

Also, incredibly, the FPP's final report claimed that no frontal bone was missing. They most likely made this claim (1) because JFK's forehead and the area just behind his front hairline appear intact in the autopsy head photos, and (2) because the autopsy brain photos do not show the damage or missing tissue that would have been caused when the bullet blew out a large piece of frontal bone.

-- Dr. McDonnel said the x-rays show missing frontal bone, observing that "a portion of the right frontal bone" is missing (7 HSCA 218, 228).

Now you are flat out lying. On page 218, item #1 of McDonnel's report which YOU cited, states there was "a portion of the posterior aspect of the right frontal bone" missing. You deliberately left out the words "posterior aspect" from your quote which significantly alters what McDonnel wrote.
Quote

-- Dr. Lawrence Angel, a forensic anthropologist who advised the FPP on the placement of the skull fragments, said frontal bone was missing. In fact, Dr. Angel said that the Delta skull fragment, i.e., the large triangular-shaped skull fragment, is "clearly frontal bone" (7 HSCA 229, 239).

I'm betting this is another one of your misrepresentations just like the one you made with McDonnel. Why don't you provide an exact quote of what Angel said, IN CONTEXT, rather than you dishonest paraphrasing of what was said.
Quote

-- Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, one of the autopsy doctors, diagrammed a sizable portion of missing frontal bone in his autopsy face sheet (17 H 46, CE 397, https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0036b.htm).

See above

-- Dr. Pierre Fink, the only one of the autopsy doctors who was a certified forensic pathologist, stated in his report to General Bloomberg that frontal bone was missing (see MD 28, p. 5, https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md28/html/Image04.htm).[/quote]

I got a 404 - Not Found on this reference. Probably a good thing for you.
Quote

-- Dr. John Lattimer, the first independent doctor to be allowed to see the autopsy x-rays and photos at the National Archives, said the x-rays show a large portion of the right frontal bone to be missing ("Observations Based on a Review of the Autopsy Photographs, X-rays, and Related Materials of the Late President John F. Kennedy, Medical Times, 1972, 100:6, p. 53.)

No link provided. No way to tell how much you misrepresented this claim.
Quote

-- Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser have confirmed that the skull x-rays show a sizable amount of missing frontal bone.

Again, no link provided.

When the bullet blasted out the Delta fragment from the frontal bone, it would have had to tear through the righthand side of the frontal lobe and naturally would have blasted out part of the right frontal lobe in the process. But, the brain photos show no missing issue in that area of the frontal lobe (nor in the lefthand side of the frontal lobe).
[/quote]

You are relying on many people not knowing what the frontal bone encompasses. It is not limited to the forehead. It extends to the front half of the top of the head and around the sides to the temples to use laymen's terms. The blow out along the upper right side of JFK's head did extend to the "POSTERIOR ASPECT" of the frontal bone, words you seem to have deliberately left out in your claims of damage to the frontal bone in order to misrepresent what these various sources had to say about the damage to JFK's skull. The following link shows the extent of the frontal bone:
https://www.theskeletalsystem.net/skull-bones/frontal-bone.html
22
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Applying Logic and Critical Thinking to the JFK Assassination
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 08:11:14 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 02:14:56 PM
Oswald's performance on 11/22/1963 proved he was capable of making the shots that killed JFK because the evidence he did that is overwhelming.

LOL! Look up the term "circular reasoning."

Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 02:14:56 PM
The burden of proof is on the CTs to provide the evidence that he was NOT capable of making he shots.

We've done that, in spades. You just won't admit it. Any credible, serious person would acknowledge that Oswald was not capable of performing his alleged feat given the fact that his alleged feat has never been duplicated in any halfway realistic Oswald rifle test. You keep ignoring the fact that virtually everyone who saw him shoot in the Marine Corps and in Russia said he was a poor shot.

Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 02:14:56 PM
A semi-auto like the M1 does automate the chambering of each round after the clip is inserted, but once the round is in the chamber, the fundamentals for making an accurate shot are pretty much the same. Both rifles have significant recoil which will require the shooter to reacquire the target and put the sight on the intended target. A bolt action rifle has the added step of manually operating the bolt to eject the spent round and chamber the next round in the clip.

IOW, you are so blindly biased that you can't even admit the self-evident, demonstrable fact that accurately firing a semi-automatic rifle is easier than accurately firing a bolt-action rifle.

Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 02:14:56 PM
A slow moving target moving almost directly away from the shooter is almost stationary in that there is very little movement in relation to the line of fire.

One, 11 mph is not a "slow moving target." If you ran 100 meters in 20 seconds, that would be 11 mph. 11 mph is a fairly rapid sprint. And you seem to forget that Elm Street sloped downward. I know you're just blindly repeating talking points you've read on lone-gunman sites, but you should have thought about this claim before repeating it.

Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 02:14:56 PM
That would have been true for Oswald's second and third shots but not for his first which is why that shot was by far the most difficult.

I've refuted this nonsense several times, but you just keep repeating it. Among the problems I've noted with this specious argument, I'll repeat the fact that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test missed the head and neck area of the target silhouettes 13 out of 14 times with their second and third shots, even though they were firing at stationary target boards from only 30 feet up.

Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 02:14:56 PM

The effect of firing at greater ranges effectively makes the target smaller. I guess during your critical thinking you failed to take that into account.

Gee, I had no idea! I guess you "failed to take into account" that using a 4-power scope, as Oswald allegedly did, makes targets seem much closer than they are because of the magnification.

Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 02:14:56 PM
Let me see if I can do the arithmetic without a calculator. Oswald had to hit 42 out of 50 shots to qualify. That's an 84% hit rate. When shooting at JFK, he hit his target 2 out or 3 times. That's a hit rate of 67%. Sounds like Oswald was a little sharper when shooting in the USMC, but let's cut him some slack. He was firing with a bolt action rifle.

It would be hard to dream up a worse example of grade-school-level faulty logic and evasion. As I proved in my reply, it is clearly invalid to use Oswald's Marine Corps rifle scores as evidence he could have performed the alleged lone-gunman shooting feat. Yet, here are you are doing exactly that, ignoring all the factors that I listed that show that scoring a 210 in Marine Corps rifle qualification back then would have been far, far, far easier than scoring 2 hits in 3 shots in a max of 11 seconds and scoring both hits in 5.6 seconds. 

Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 02:14:56 PM

When firing from a level position or an elevated position, gravity starts to take effect as soon as the bullet leaves the barrel. The shorter the distance, the less the bullet will drop while in flight.

You really should stop pretending to know anything about marksmanship. 

Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 02:14:56 PM
Oswald's longest shot was 88 yards, so gravity had less effect on his shot.

But it would have had some effect. You might want to read what former Marine Corps sniper Craig Roberts has said about Oswald's alleged shooting feat. Why do you suppose that the most legendary Marine Corps sniper in the modern era, Gunny Carlos Hathcock, scoffed at the idea that Oswald could have done the shooting feat that your side claims he did?

And I see you're still assuming a priori that Oswald fired the shots, yet you refuse to deal with the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used, that CE 543 could not have fired a bullet during the shooting, that acoustical science shows that at least 4 shots were fired, that a number of eyewitness accounts rule out Oswald being on the sixth-floor during the shooting, etc., etc. 

Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 02:14:56 PM
14 x 4 inch area? I didn't know JFK was a pinhead.

An area 14 inches high and 4 inches wide is hardly a pinhead. And we're actually probably talking about an area only 12-13 inches high, but I'm erring on the side of caution. Go look at the target silhouettes from the WC's rifle test. The WC's three Master-rated riflemen missed a larger area in the head-and-neck region 20 out of 21 times, but you say Oswald hit a smaller area twice in 5.6 seconds.

23
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Passing of Former HSCA Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey
« Last post by Lance Payette on Yesterday at 08:11:01 PM »
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 06:17:18 PM
It was clearly a Mob hit to silence a major loose end.

Sigh.

This makes no sense from any angle. Let’s put on our rational-thinking beanies:

1. Team A – think “Mission Impossible” – manages to alter JFK’s body, the Z film, the autopsy photos and X-rays and God knows what else the very night of the JFKA. Wow, these folks were pros!

2. Team B – think Carlos, Curly, Larry and Moe – cannot manage its little task of whacking the patsy at any time between 12:31 PM on November 22 and 11:20 AM on November 24. Even then, the best Team B can do is have him whacked on national TV, while surrounded by police and reporters, using a “hit man” with an erratic and volatile personality and more red flags than the Kremlin, so even your cousin Fudsy the potato farmer is screaming “Dat hadda be a Mafia hit, dood!” On top of which, Team B can’t even arrange for its “hit man” to be silenced then and there by a police revolver, which pretty much defeats the purpose of silencing the patsy since the “hit man” is nuttier and less reliable than the patsy.

Geniuses at steps 1-3-5-7-9, bumbling fools at steps 2-4-6-8-10. Mission Impossible and the Three Stooges.

Only in the lunatic fringe of Conspiracy World occupied by MTG and his ilk does this MAKE ANY SENSE. MTG just wants conspiracy factoids – they can be completely irreconcilable (as they are) and collectively make no sense whatsoever (as they don’t).

Plausibility, people, plausibility. Let this be your motto.

Mr. Niederwacky at the Ed Forum seemed to suggest in a recent post that MTG might be one of them there cognitive infiltrators. Far be it from me to endorse this view since Niederwacky fits the profile equally well, but I wonder how many folks know the sad tale of Paul Bennewitz? He observed strange lights and whatnot over the Defense Department's Sandia Labs as well as Kirtland Air Force Base and began aggressively monitoring radio communications. He ACTUALLY WAS the target of a disinformation campaign by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the intelligence community. Did that disinformation campaign try to convince him it was nothing out of the ordinary (i.e., "the LN narrative" in JFKA terms)? Hell, no! They fed him so much wild "alien" crap ("body alteration stuff" in JFKA terms) that he went off the deep end and was finally committed for psychiatric treatment. Really! If there are such things as cognitive infiltrators in the JFKA, they probably aren't the LN zealots you suspect. I'm just sayin' ...
24
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Summary of Some of the Major Problems with the JFK Medical Evidence
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 07:30:09 PM »
Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 06:48:26 PM
You look for any excuse to avoid dealing with evidence you can't explain.

I keep telling you this but it's like talking to a wall. I don't need to explain the medical evidence. I leave that to people who are qualified to do that. That doesn't include you, but that doesn't stop you from throwing your amateurish two cents into the conversation.
Quote

Obviously, Hay was summarizing the findings of Dr. Joseph N. Riley, a neuroscientist who specialized in neuroanatomy and neuropathology and who determined from the autopsy materials that two bullets hit JFK's head. Dr. Riley had several papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals dealing with neuroscience. He was a professor of neuroscience at the University of Florida. He wrote two articles that presented evidence that two bullets struck Kennedy's head.

You love to cite people who offer opinions outside their area of expertise. None of the people you cite are forensic medical examiners which is a specific branch of medicine which requires skill sets outside of the area of radiation oncology or neuroanatomy. Neither of these fields involve the examination of gunshot wounds or more specifically, gunshot wounds to the head. How many medico-legal autopsies has Dr. Mantik performed. How many has Dr. Riley performed. Without even looking it up I'm going to take a flyer and say combined, the total number is less than one.
Quote

Your side has never had anybody with Dr. Riley's qualification in neuroscience,

Why would my "side" need or want such a person?
Quote

just like your side has nobody with Dr. Mantik's qualifications in the science of optical-density analysis of skull x-rays,

Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist. That is quite different from a radiologist who is an expert in reading x-rays. In fact, a radiation oncologist will often consult with a radiologist in determining the best treatment for a cancer patient under their care. Cancer care is Mantik's area of expertise. The field of medicine has many different specialties and being an expert in one does not make one an expert ina another. You are always citing people offering opinions outside their area of expertise. When your toilet gets clogged, do you call in an electrician?
Quote

nor anybody with the qualifications of the HSCA's seven acoustical experts in acoustical science (an additional BBN acoustical scientist wrote one of the appendices for Dr. Josiah Thompson's 2021 book Last Second in Dallas). 

It never surprises me when a CT clings to the discredited acoustical analysis since they have no real evidence on their side.
Quote

Speaking of the NAS/NRC panel, are you aware that Dr. Thompson reveals in his book that when the NRC/NAS panel sent BBN acoustical scientist Dr. James Barger a draft of their report, Dr. Barger replied with an 8-page critique, but the panel declined to publish his critique and did not address, or even mention, his objections in their report? Humm. . . .

Barger's team only concluded there was a 50% probability that the recording showed a shot from the GK and that the impulses on the tape could not be proven to be gunshots. That's based solely on the acoustics and doesn't take into account the cross talk from channel 2 which indicated the shots were not made during the recording or the photo evidence that there was no motorcycle at the spot on Houston St. that Weiss and Aschkenasy presumed the motorcycle had to be.
25
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Summary of Some of the Major Problems with the JFK Medical Evidence
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 06:48:26 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on June 20, 2026, 04:39:13 PM
Since you have identified him as a research and not an expert in forensic pathology, I am going to assume he is not the latter. That means he is no more qualified to discuss the medical evidence than you or I.

You look for any excuse to avoid dealing with evidence you can't explain. Obviously, Hay was summarizing the findings of Dr. Joseph N. Riley, a neuroscientist who specialized in neuroanatomy and neuropathology and who determined from the autopsy materials that two bullets hit JFK's head. Dr. Riley had several papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals dealing with neuroscience. He was a professor of neuroscience at the University of Florida. He wrote two articles that presented evidence that two bullets struck Kennedy's head.

Your side has never had anybody with Dr. Riley's qualification in neuroscience, just like your side has nobody with Dr. Mantik's qualifications in the science of optical-density analysis of skull x-rays, nor anybody with the qualifications of the HSCA's seven acoustical experts in acoustical science (an additional BBN acoustical scientist wrote one of the appendices for Dr. Josiah Thompson's 2021 book Last Second in Dallas). 

Speaking of the NAS/NRC panel, are you aware that Dr. Thompson reveals in his book that when the NRC/NAS panel sent BBN acoustical scientist Dr. James Barger a draft of their report, Dr. Barger replied with an 8-page critique, but the panel declined to publish his critique and did not address, or even mention, his objections in their report? Humm. . . .


26
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Passing of Former HSCA Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 06:17:18 PM »
Quote from: Benjamin Cole on Yesterday at 01:22:28 AM
MTG--

You make good points.

True, LHO attended the air-school run by Ferrie. But after that, no firm evidence they knew each other.

Actually, we have good evidence that they associated with each other long after they met in the Civil Air Patrol. See the research of the HSCA, Dr. David Kaiser, Anthony Summers, Dr. David Scheim, Lamar Waldron, etc. etc.

Quote from: Benjamin Cole on Yesterday at 01:22:28 AM
I have to concede, Ruby was a low-level mob guy, who had run guns to Cuba.

He did a lot more than just run guns to Cuba, although that was no small thing.

Quote from: Benjamin Cole on Yesterday at 01:22:28 AM
Ruby waxing LHO remains a fishy event.

It was clearly a Mob hit to silence a major loose end.
27
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Undeniable Proof of Fraud: The Impossible JFK Autopsy Brain Photos
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 05:56:29 PM »
Two important facts should be kept in mind: One, the four radiologists consulted by the HSCA medical panel (FPP) were unable to identify an exit point for the head shot on the autopsy skull x-rays. Two, the FPP claimed the x-rays show no missing frontal bone, but the evidence is clear that they were wrong. The issue of the damage to the frontal bone has a direct bearing on the authenticity of the autopsy brain photos.

Lone-gunman theorists have virtually ignored the telling fact that the HSCA's four radiology consultants were unable to identify an exit point on the skull x-rays. The consultants were Dr. Gerald M. McDonnel, Dr. Norman Chase, Dr. William Seaman, and David O. Davis.

If anyone doubts this, they can read the findings that the radiologists presented to the FPP. Here are links to them:

McDonnel (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0114a.htm)
Chase (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0146a.htm)
Seaman (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0166b.htm)
Davis (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0116b.htm)

Renowned researcher John Hunt commented on this important point:

Four radiologists were consulted by the FPP over a six-month period beginning in February 1978. None reported an identifiable exit point. The closest an HSCA radiology consultant came to claiming to identify an outshoot point was Dr. David Davis, who reported:

"It seems apparent that explosive impact occurred in this calvarium. It also seems reasonable to assume that the exit point is near the coronal suture on the right side, about 5 or 6, or perhaps slightly more, cm above the pterion. (7 HSCA 224)"

Why it “seem[ed] reasonable” to Davis “to assume that the exit point” was anywhere is left entirely to the imagination of the reader, for Davis never explained the rationale upon which he based his assumption. Davis’ unsupported and equivocal speculation not withstanding, the x-rays did not reveal any outshoot points. ("A Demonstrable Impossibility: The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel’s Misrepresentation of the Kennedy Assassination Medical Evidence," https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm#_edn2)

The FPP ignored this fact and claimed to have located the outshoot point in the frontal bone.

Also, incredibly, the FPP's final report claimed that no frontal bone was missing. They most likely made this claim (1) because JFK's forehead and the area just behind his front hairline appear intact in the autopsy head photos, and (2) because the autopsy brain photos do not show the damage or missing tissue that would have been caused when the bullet blew out a large piece of frontal bone. However,

-- Dr. McDonnel said the x-rays show missing frontal bone, observing that "a portion of the right frontal bone" is missing (7 HSCA 218, 228).

-- Dr. Lawrence Angel, a forensic anthropologist who advised the FPP on the placement of the skull fragments, said frontal bone was missing. In fact, Dr. Angel said that the Delta skull fragment, i.e., the large triangular-shaped skull fragment, is "clearly frontal bone" (7 HSCA 229, 239).

-- Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, one of the autopsy doctors, diagrammed a sizable portion of missing frontal bone in his autopsy face sheet (17 H 46, CE 397, https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0036b.htm).

-- Dr. Pierre Fink, the only one of the autopsy doctors who was a certified forensic pathologist, stated in his report to General Bloomberg that frontal bone was missing (see MD 28, p. 5, https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md28/html/Image04.htm).

-- Dr. John Lattimer, the first independent doctor to be allowed to see the autopsy x-rays and photos at the National Archives, said the x-rays show a large portion of the right frontal bone to be missing ("Observations Based on a Review of the Autopsy Photographs, X-rays, and Related Materials of the Late President John F. Kennedy, Medical Times, 1972, 100:6, p. 53.)

-- Dr. David Mantik and Dr. Michael Chesser have confirmed that the skull x-rays show a sizable amount of missing frontal bone.

When the bullet blasted out the Delta fragment from the frontal bone, it would have had to tear through the righthand side of the frontal lobe and naturally would have blasted out part of the right frontal lobe in the process. But, the brain photos show no missing issue in that area of the frontal lobe (nor in the lefthand side of the frontal lobe).




28
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: When Was JBC Hit?
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Yesterday at 05:02:26 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 01:05:12 PM
It's the best I need in this case.
Yes I did. I noticed Sitzman was behind Zapruder.
So you think sound only travels in a vector?
Oh, goody. Another version of what happened from an ear witness. Just how many different ways do you think the JFKA happened?
Eye and earwitness accounts don't prove anything unless you can prove the witness' account is accurate. I trust people's observed reactions far more than I trust their recollections. The Newmans, who were not far from Zapruder reacted by pushing their kids on the ground and shielding them with their bodies.
You're so gullible you think one witness undermines a wealth of evidence which is contrary to their account. I always get a chuckle when somebody starts and argument with, "So-and-so said....." as if what so-and-so said. People choose to believe the witnesses who support what they want to believe. Because there are so many differing versions of what happened, it's not hard to find a witness who will support your argument. I don't accept any witness' account that can't be corroborated through other evidence. We have visual evidence that Zapruder's camera shook noticeably 7-8 frames after the second shot was fired and 7-8 frames after the third shot was fired. Is that just a coincidence? It would have taken about 4 frames for the sound of the muzzle blast to reach Zapruder's ears which leaves another 3-4 frames for a startle reaction, about what that should take.
That is one of the dumbest things I have read on this forum. It is silly to think the sound of the muzzle blast would have dissipated in just 90 yard. You want to be all your eggs in the Sitzman basket as if her account is the definitive story of the JFKA. Foolish.
Funny how his vertigo only kicked in 7-8 frames after the second and third shots.
As expected, a witness gives evidence undermining your naive understanding of this issue and she is totally dismissed.
This is no great shock.
Your post is full of the usual lunacy but this cannot be ignored:

You're so gullible you think one witness undermines a wealth of evidence which is contrary to their account.

The issue at hand is whether or not the sound of the shots were loud enough to startle Zapruder at his location and create 'jiggle' in the Z-film.
My approach has been to take the witness testimony of someone stood right next to Zapruder. This witness reports the sound of the shots was "far off" and a "far away sound". They were certainly not enough to create 'jiggle' in the film.
The distant nature of this sound might explain why neither Zapruder or Sitzman could confidently recall how many shots they heard.
This is evidence directly contradicting the reliability of Jiggle Analysis regarding the Z-film.
However, you insist there is a "wealth of evidence" countering Sitzman's testimony. This is utter nonsense. It's a falsehood. An untruth.
There is not a single scrap of evidence that the shots were loud enough to create a startle reflex at Zapruder's location - not a single scrap!

The problem is your delusion - you believe you are right no matter what. You believe this "wealth of evidence" must exist because you sooo believe you are right
But it does not.
There is not a chance in hell that you will retract the falsehood you have posted, which will make it a deliberate falsehood - a lie.

Please provide this "wealth of evidence" that the sound of the shots was loud enough to create a startle reflex from at Zapruder's position.

29
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT
« Last post by Lance Payette on Yesterday at 04:46:27 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 03:49:56 PM
Official time of death is not always stated precisely as evidenced by JFK's official time of death as 1:00pm CST. The priests who entered the ER to administer the last rights before that time said he was already covered with a sheet when the last rights were administered to the body.

The only reason that I know of why a precise time of death might be important is the provisions of some wills. As executor of my father's will, I know there was a provision that excluded the named heirs in the event they preceded him in death. It also stated that if the order of their deaths could not be determined, it was to be presumed they preceded him in death. I think it would be highly unusual that such a provision would come into play. Perhaps if the people question were both killed in a car or plane crash and both were declared dead at the scene. Hard to say from just a few examples but it looks to me like it might be a common practice to round off the time of death to the nearest 15 minute time frame.

Typically in wills we say "If my beloved but ne'er-do-well son Filbert does not survive me by 120 hours, then his share shall pass to my lovely but morally bankrupt daughter Gwendolyn" or something to that effect, which makes the exact time of death less critical. Some wills specify much longer periods - even up to a year. Almost all states have the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act whereby "if the devolution of property or donative provision in a governing instrument depends on one individual surviving another, and it cannot be established by clear and convincing evidence that the individual survived by 120 hours, such individual will be considered predeceased." It would be rare that the 120 hours would come down to the exact minute, but I suppose it could happen. That will be $342, please.
30
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT
« Last post by Lance Payette on Yesterday at 04:35:05 PM »
Say what you will about Harvey and Lee, the John Armstrong Collection at Baylor is a goldmine. The snippet I posted above is actually a transcript of an interview with Methodist Hospital ER nurse Lottie Thompson conducted by Earl Holz of the Dallas Morning News. The full transcript is here:

https://digitalcollections-baylor.quartexcollections.com/Documents/Detail/tippitt-shooting-nov.-22-1963-d.o.a.-at-methodist-hospital/690058?item=690059

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10