That might be a good topic...in the right thread.

It was you who brought up TDS.

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.

And yet:

You choose to ignore 80% of the witnesses who reported a 3 shot pattern ie. those who put the last two closer together. And that 80% is corroborated by 100% of the witnesses who observed JFK’s reaction to the first shot and 100% of the witnesses whose evidence allows us to place the location of JFK at the time of the first shot ie. the time conflicts with an early first shot (before z186).

There's still a problem for me - that was overlooked here - in that Zapruder himself said he heard two "bangs" or shots, two loud noises. If a third shot (which would have been the first in the sequence) caused a involuntary jiggle as he panned/filmed the assassination then it seems obvious that he would have recalled *hearing* that stimulus or noise that caused it. So he would have said he heard three shots/bangs. But again he didn't.

Is it conceivable Zapruder jiggled the camera in response to a loud noise, a gunshot, but not remembered hearing that noise?

We've gone round-and-round on this issue - as with many others - and it seems that this is more confirmation bias/motivated reasoning then anything reasonably objective. How do we distinguish between a response caused by a shot and one resulting from Zapruder simply jiggling the camera on his own as he wobbled on the pedestal?

A HSCA "blur analysis" (Hartman and Scott) came up with these results. They included Luis Alvarez's separate analysis. Question: What caused the circa 190 blur? The second largest?

A HSCA "blur analysis" (Hartman and Scott) came up with these results. They included Luis Alvarez's separate analysis. Question: What caused the circa 190 blur? The second largest?

The z-190 blur is at the beginning of a complex series of camera movements that continues until about Z-205. To me, it looks like Zapruder was reacting to the limo disappearing behind the sign, and pulling the aim up to traverse the upper part of the sign where the limo was still visible.

That might be a good topic...in the right thread.

Because I am (1) diligent and (2) exceedingly bored, I actually watched the 2004 C-SPAN presentation featuring Dr. Aguilar and Max Holland that TG keeps referencing in the context of Aguilar supposedly getting his butt kicked by Holland. It's definitely Inside Baseball sort of stuff, dealing with whether Garrison was a KGB dupe thanks to KGB-influenced articles about Shaw in the Italian Paese Sera magazine (as Holland asserted), but you may find it interesting: https://www.c-span.org/program/american-history-tv/warren-report-the-garrison-investigation/136882.

There was certainly no butt-kicking. The entire discussion was low-key and respectful, and Dr. Aguilar came off very well. The questioners, including Tink Thompson and other luminaries of the era, seemed uniformly skeptical of Holland. I can see why KGB-obsessed TG would like to think Aguilar got his butt kicked, but in fact the prevailing sentiment seems to be that Aguilar "dismantled" Holland's claims. I have no idea why this 22-year-old C-SPAN discussion looms so large in TG's thinking, or why he has such a hard on for Aguilar, but nothing here struck me as worthy of the attention TG has devoted to it on multiple threads here.

Dear FPR,

I didn't mean to imply that Gary Aguilar "got his butt kicked" by Max Holland in that C-Span debate.

https://www.c-span.org/program/american-history-tv/warren-report-the-garrison-investigation/136882

Why did you infer it?

I suggested that members watch it to get an idea of just how snide he is when he's trying to denigrate the CIA and/or Lone Gunman Advocates.

He did seem to gloat quite a bit over catching Richard Helms in a monster fib: Helms' testifying that in March 1967, "Paese Sera" already had a reputation of publishing KGB-written or KGB-approved articles, because in April 1961 it had published an anti-CIA article on the Algerian "General's Plot," when in fact a far-left French newspaper had beaten it to the punch by a day or two.

Wowie zowie.

It's interesting that Dr. Aguilar was dismissive of the fact that Garrison lied (he says he was "inaccurate") in his 1988 book On the Trail of the Assassins when he wrote that he didn't read the anti-CIA/anti-Clay Shaw "Paese Sera" article (or a French newspaper's knock-off version which had been translated into English and sent to him by Joan Mellen's ex-husband in London) until after the 1969 Shaw trial, even though we know from Richard Billings' diary that he read it shortly after he'd arrested Shaw in March of 1967.

Gasp . . . Tink Thompson and other anti-CIA JFKA luminaries of the era seemed to be skeptical of CIA-affiliated Max Holland?

Imagine that!

-- Tom

PS Regarding your beloved KGB (today's SVR and FSB), are you happy that the latter has invited Kash Patel to Moscow?

Are you hoping it will give him some Derkach-like "dirt" on Hunter Biden or [fill in the blank] so that MAGATS can win the midterm elections?