So you're another WC apologist who keeps repeating statements that you know are false. As I have told you previously, I have never said there was a shooter on the top of the linen truck. Do a search of all my articles and forum posts: you won't find one single sentence where I advance such an argument.
You say that like it's some wild idea,
You say that like you don't realize it is.
yet your embrace such genuine fantasies as the single-bullet theory and the the FMJ-ammo-headshot theory.
Both certainties to people who know the evidence and are capable of applying common sense. I'm not sure you meet either qualification on this one. You seem to think that one bullet hit JFK in the back and another hit him in the throat, both barely penetrated and then fell out. That requires two magic bullets.
Gun cameras were already a thing in the early 1960s. I am persuaded by Mary Haverstick's and Jeff Sundberg's research that the Babushka Lady may have fired at JFK with a gun camera.
Which speaks volumes about your gullibility.
Have you read their research? Are you aware that some OAS assassins used gun cameras? You can Google it.
I did google and the only thing that came up were killings that were CAUGHT on camera. Nothing about killings with gun cameras.
Then we have this AI response to gun cameras:
Yes, gun cameras do exist and are used to capture video or images from the perspective of a firearm, primarily for training, analysis, and documentation purposes.
Overview of Gun Cameras
Gun cameras are devices mounted on firearms that allow users to record their shooting experiences from the gun's perspective. They have been utilized in various contexts, including military applications, hunting, and training exercises. Historically, gun cameras were first used in military aircraft during World War I and became more common in World War II to document aerial combat and training
Modern Applications
Military and Tactical Use: Modern gun cameras are often integrated into military aircraft and attack helicopters, allowing for real-time recording of engagements without the need to fire the weapon. They are typically built into targeting pods rather than being standalone devices
Consumer Use: There are several models of gun-mounted cameras available for civilian use, designed for activities such as hunting and shooting sports. These cameras can be attached to rifles, shotguns, or handguns and are used to capture high-definition video of shooting activities
.Training and Analysis: Gun cameras serve as valuable tools for training, allowing shooters to review their performance and improve their skills. They can help identify shooting habits and provide feedback on technique
BTW, if we were to search the archives, would we find any posts by you in which you cited Beverly Oliver's claim that she was Babushka Lady.
I've already corrected you on this falsehood, but you just keep repeating it. My belief in a triangulated crossfire is not based on Garrison's claims, including his claim that Ferrie, Shaw, and Oswald developed such a plan.
By rogue elements of the CIA (without the knowledge of the director and his staff and most of the rest of the CIA) and elements of the Mafia, yes, absolutely. Plenty of other scholars share this view.
You seem to think a scholar is anybody who disagrees with the WCR.
And? Here, again, you act like you're describing some wild idea when in fact you're describing a perfectly credible scenario that's supported by the autopsy skull x-rays, by the ballistics evidence, by the Parkland 11/22/63 descriptions of the head and throat wounds, by accounts from several witnesses at the autopsy, and more.
Isn't it amazing that none of the forensic pathologists who reviewed the autopsy material could find any medical evidence of shots from any direction other than behind JFK. The only one of them who believed there was also a frontal shot didn't base that opinion on the medical evidence.
You guys are constantly labeling perfectly valid arguments as wild, crazy, nutty, fringe, etc.,
You are always labeling wild, crazy, nutty, fringe, etc arguments as valid. Like the one about the gun camera.
usually because you have no other answer to them. Yet, as mentioned, you turn around and float truly ridiculous theories such as the single-bullet theory and the FMJ-bullet-headshot theory.
The Single Bullet Fact has stood the test of time. It is the only plausible explanation JFK's non-fatal wounds and all of JBC's wounds. The few people who have tried to offer alternatives end up with scenarios that require multiple magic bullets. If you dispute that, give us your scenario of those wounds. I'm not even asking you to prove your theory. Just tell us another way it COULD HAVE happened. Tell us where the bullets were fired from, the wounds they caused, and where the bullet went after causing the wounds. Take your time. Do it right.
I've already explained this to you, but you again ignore my explanation. Again, given that the Dallas test firing only fired shots from two locations, the acoustical evidence does not prove that shots were only fired from the sixth-floor window and from the grassy knoll. It does indeed prove that at least four shots were fired, and that one of them came from the grassy knoll, but it does not prove that there were only four shots or that all the shots fired from the rear came from the sixth-floor window.
Does it make sense to you that conspirators who were trying to frame a lone gunman would shoot at JFK from three or four different places?
I again remind you that the committee required that the 140.3 impulse pattern be ruled a false alarm, even though it passed the echo-delay matching test, and even though 8 of its 10 impulses matched the impulses of one of the Dealey Plaza test shots. They required this because a shot at 140.3 on the dictabelt would mean there was another gunman firing from behind, and they found that conclusion unacceptable, in spite of the evidence for it.
Are you impeaching your own "experts".
One, this is a silly argument. Two, see above.
I'll say the same thing I said when you made this argument in another thread: the contradictory arguments are in your mind and are based on your distortions and misrepresentations of my research.
You don't seem to have a theory of what happened. You seem to have many. Anything different from what the WCR gains favor with you. You're like the guy who went to a roulette wheel and bet every number except the winning one.
Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists between the dictabelt and the recording of the Dallas test firing. Let me save you some time: Bugliosi didn't say a word about them.
Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the fact that even the NRC/NAS panel stated there was a 93% probability that timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists occurred because the dictabelt was recorded in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. Let me save you some time: Bugliosi didn't say a word about this.
Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the fact that the NRC/NAS panel stated there was a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern was indeed caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll. Let me save you some time: Bugliosi didn't say a word about this.
Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the windshield-distortion correlations on the dictabelt. Let me save you some time: Bugliosi didn't say a word about them.
Perhaps you could quote Bugliosi's explanation for the fact that N-waves from supersonic rifle fire occur on the dictabelt; that those N-waves occur only among the identified gunshot impulse patterns, and only in the two impulse patterns that were recorded when the motorcycle’s microphone was in position to record them; and that the dictabelt not only contains N-waves but also contains muzzle blasts and muzzle-
blast echoes, and those N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes occur in the correct order and interval.
Let me save you some time: Bugliosi's response to this evidence was to claim, citing the FBI TSD's farcical report, that detecting "shock waves accurately" is "very difficult" and that therefore any statements about "shock waves" (i.e., N-waves) on the dictabelt are "extremely questionable." He, following the TSD's lead, simply ignored the fact that the N-waves only occur in the two impulse patterns that were recorded when the motorcycle's mic was in position to record them, and that the N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes occur in the correct and interval, which debunks the speculation that these sounds were merely "some other sounds or electrical impulses produced internally” (
Reclaiming History, Endnotes, p. 199).
Bugliosi's book was only about 1600 pages. He couldn't possibly deal with every nutty argument the CT crowd had made over 4+ decades. Maybe if he had lived, he would have gotten around to writing Reclaiming History II. Then he might have had room to address your silliness.
Gary Cornwell, the deputy chief counsel for the HSCA, noted that the NRC/NAS panel ignored this and other evidence:
And the NRC essentially ignored, and never did explain how, if these impulse patterns were not gunfire, their timing, sequencing, and qualitative characteristics were so extensively corroborated by the other physical and scientific evidence in the case. Was all of the meshing of such evidence simply a coincidence? . . . Several witnesses testified that one shot came from the grassy knoll, just as the acoustics indicated. Just a coincidence? The shock waves and windshield distortions were present on the shots where they should have been, and absent on the others. One more coincidence? Since the NRC described their findings as conclusive and not subject to question, one must wonder why the NRC ignored all of this evidence that corroborated the Barger and Weiss findings, but is totally inconsistent with the NRC findings that these impulses are not the actual sounds of gunfire. One might also wonder why the NRC never addressed, never discussed, and never attempted to explain other "cross talk" on the Channel I tape that is totally inconsistent with the NRC conclusion that impulse patterns evidencing four shots occurred . . . after the actual assassination. (Real Answers: The John F. Kennedy Assassination, Spicewood, Texas: Paleface Press, 1998, pp. 112-114)
This is a completely illogical approach. There is no default position that says unexplained impulse patterns must mean they were gun shots. If the cause of the impulse patterns is not provable, it is illogical to assume they must be gunshots.
Recent Posts
