Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Today at 12:29:35 AM »
Projecting?

You choose to ignore 90+% of the witnesses who heard 3 shots and are corroborated by 3 spent shells in the sniper's nest.

As I have posted on many occasions, Pat Speer collected and analysed the statements of over 200 witnesses who described hearing the shots.
Over 160 witnesses, more than three quarters, stated they heard 3 audible shots.
You have zero knowledge regarding how my opinion has been formed by the mass of evidence regarding the issue of when the first shot occurred.
In some of my recent posts I have presented parts of this mass of evidence pointing towards a first shot that passed through both men at z222/z223.
You, on the other hand, have presented a single distorted observation from a single traumatised witness.
You are deluded and know nothing about this subject.


22
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Tom Graves on Today at 12:22:54 AM »
Taking the earlier difficult shot gave Oswald an extra chance to hit JFK. He  could still be able to take the easier later shots if he missed which he did. It could be argued that by taking the early first shot, he could have cost himself a chance at the later shots, but that didn't happen. That was a decision Oswald had to make and the fact someone else might have made a different choice proves nothing. Given that Oswald eventually succeeded in what he was trying to do, I see no reason to second guess his choice.

Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot, was at "Z-124," half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133, as evidenced by the fact that:

1) Secret Service Agent Glenn Bennett (who said he saw a bullet strike JFK in the back after he heard a "firecracker-like" sound) started leaning far to his right around Z-150 to see around Dave Powers to see if JFK was okay.

2) Secret Service Agent George Hickey started leaning over the side of the car and looking down at the pavement in Z-146.

3) Rosemary Willis glanced at the TSBD while she was running and looked in that direction after she stopped running.

4)  All five passengers of the limo quickly turned their heads (in different directions) between Z-140 and Z-150.

5) Mary Woodward said there were three shots, that the first shot sounded like a backfire, that JFK and Jackie turned their heads in response to it, and that the first shot missed everything. (JFK turned his head quickly to his left starting in Z-143; Jackie extended and accelerated her already left head turn to be "captured" in the Z-161 Robert Croft photo with a concerned look on her face.)

6) In Z-180 we see that John Connally has turned his head back far to his right in his futile attempt to catch a glimpse of JFK (who has turned his head far to his right and is waving to Mary Woodward) over his right shoulder.
23
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 12:06:50 AM »
No, it doesn't.
You have chosen a single observation from a traumatised memory and have convinced yourself you see this in the Z-film.
You completely ignore 90% of what Connally actually said about that shooting.
But because you think it then it must be a fact.
You're completely delusional.

Projecting?

You choose to ignore 90+% of the witnesses who heard 3 shots and are corroborated by 3 spent shells in the sniper's nest.
24
I can detect nothing about Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett's position from the Z-153 frame. The image is too small and blurry to decipher anything about his position.

Can you see the oblong-shaped, kinda vertically aligned flesh-colored object about the size of a football in the passenger's side back-seat of the Secret Service Follow-up car in Z-150 and Z-153?

Hint: That's Glen Bennett's face, and it's leaning much farther over to his right in Z-153 than it was in Z-150.

Why?

Because he was trying to see around Dave Powers in front of him to see if JFK was okay after Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot, at "Z-124," half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133.

PS Note that Secret Service Agent George Hickey, opposite Bennett in the back seat, leaned over the side of the car and looked down at the pavement (he evidently thought a firecracker had exploded there), in Z-150 and especially in Z-153.
25
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by Dan O'meara on Yesterday at 11:49:45 PM »
Zapruder corroborates Connally. That's what makes him credible.

No, it doesn't.
You have chosen a single observation from a traumatised memory and have convinced yourself you see this in the Z-film.
You completely ignore 90% of what Connally actually said about that shooting.
But because you think it then it must be a fact.
You're completely delusional.
26
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 11:45:20 PM »
Ironically, this is the same single witness Corbett bases the entirety of his opinion on.
A man who went into shock after suffering a life-threatening, massively traumatic gunshot injury through the torso.
There is copious research highlighting the effects such a traumatic injury can have on the memory recall of the victims.
There is ample evidence that Connally is suffering from a number of these effects.
He is possibly the most unreliable witness to the shooting in Dealey Plaza.
Researchers like yourself and Corbett treat him as if he were a bystander recalling what he witnessed. At no point do either of you acknowledge how the trauma and shock of his life-threatening injury may have affected his recall of events.

Zapruder corroborates Connally. That's what makes him credible.
27
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Things I don't care about
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 11:43:26 PM »
History would suggest - the UFO field being one notable example - that governmental disinformation agents and cognitive infiltrators would be far more likely to be promoting self-evident wackiness like Prayer Man or Harvey and Lee than trying to defend and prop up the LN narrative. It's odd that CTers seemingly never grasp this reality.

I will confess, why the LN zealots feel compelled to zealously defend the LN narrative as though it were their religion is a mystery to me, but it certainly isn't because they have been recruited by the CIA; there may have been some of that in the early days, but not 62 years later. A wacky CTer would be a far more likely candidate. On the other hand, every area of weirdness including the JFKA is rife with true wackos whose true wackiness has nothing to do with being a disiniformation agent or cognitive infiltrator - so separating the faux crazies from the genuine ones poses a bit of a challenge.

This is why, I imagine, the LN zealots tend to be the ones suspected of being cognitive infiltrators; zealously defending the LN narrative isn't self-evidently wacky, but on the other hand identifying a motive for this level of zealotry is rather difficult. To pick on John C since he started this thread, he claims to be a devout LNer who finds all this CT stuff beneath him, yet he haunts the forum like almost no one else. Why? Maybe he's being paid to do so, ya think? Some of the CTers here would fit the more likely profile of a cognitive infiltrator - but maybe they're just genuine wackos, ya think? Yep, it's a challenge.

At the Ed Forum, I always thought the CIA could not invent a better cognitive infiltrator than Dr. Niederwacky - a licensed psychiatrist who nevertheless spouts jaw-dropping nonsense about almost every topic while accusing anyone who disagrees (including little old me, for God's sake) of being a cognitive infiltrator! He has almost single-handedly destroyed the Ed Forum. He probably isn't one, but that's what a cognitive infiltrator would look like.

Why would the CIA have ever cared what goes on in forums such as this. At their peaks these forums might have reached a few hundred people and now the regular participants number in the dozens. If people have been getting paid for posting pro-LN material, somebody owes me a shitload of back pay.
28
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate / Re: Things I don't care about
« Last post by Lance Payette on Yesterday at 11:37:26 PM »

Why don't the "skeptics" ever attack the Prayer Man theory?...

Is it because some CT-ers are actually Agent Provocateurs trying to discredit the genuine CT community with crazy claims?...

History would suggest - the UFO field being one notable example - that governmental disinformation agents and cognitive infiltrators would be far more likely to be promoting self-evident wackiness like Prayer Man or Harvey and Lee than trying to defend and prop up the LN narrative. It's odd that CTers seemingly never grasp this reality.

I will confess, why the LN zealots feel compelled to zealously defend the LN narrative as though it were their religion is a mystery to me, but it certainly isn't because they have been recruited by the CIA; there may have been some of that in the early days, but not 62 years later. A wacky CTer would be a far more likely candidate. On the other hand, every area of weirdness including the JFKA is rife with true wackos whose true wackiness has nothing to do with being a disiniformation agent or cognitive infiltrator - so separating the faux crazies from the genuine ones poses a bit of a challenge.

This is why, I imagine, the LN zealots tend to be the ones suspected of being cognitive infiltrators; zealously defending the LN narrative isn't self-evidently wacky, but on the other hand identifying a motive for this level of zealotry is rather difficult. To pick on John C since he started this thread, he claims to be a devout LNer who finds all this CT stuff beneath him, yet he haunts the forum like almost no one else. Why? Maybe he's being paid to do so, ya think? Some of the CTers here would fit the more likely profile of a cognitive infiltrator - but maybe they're just genuine wackos, ya think? Yep, it's a challenge.

At the Ed Forum, I always thought the CIA could not invent a better cognitive infiltrator than Dr. Niederwacky - a licensed psychiatrist who nevertheless spouts jaw-dropping nonsense about almost every topic while accusing anyone who disagrees (including little old me, for God's sake) of being a cognitive infiltrator! He has almost single-handedly destroyed the Ed Forum. He probably isn't one, but that's what a cognitive infiltrator would look like.
29
How did Shelley and Lovelady get there within that time, you ask? By walking back into the building from the front steps where they were watching the motorcade?

How obvious is that!
They walked from the front steps, through the lobby, and towards the back of the first floor.
A distance of approximately 80 feet.
Strolling along at 3mph for 20 seconds covers 88 feet.

So, let's reverse engineer that.

Time after shots
 (seconds)

      60          Adams hits first floor where she sees Shelley and Lovelady as she races to the back door.
      40          Shelley and Lovelady enter front lobby door
      25          In Darnell we see Lovelady on the steps and Shelley stood at the bottom of the steps

That leaves Shelley and Lovelady 15 seconds to get from their positions in Darnell to the front door of the building.
There is plenty of time for Shelley and Lovelady to make it to the location Adams saw them within 60 seconds of the shooting.
However, how can those who have mistakenly identified Shelley and Lovelady as the men on the extension make this work?
30
How did Shelley and Lovelady get there within that time, you ask? By walking back into the building from the front steps where they were watching the motorcade?
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10