Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
51
The FBI re-enactment in May 1964 was with the Oak tree after spring growth and will full leaves.  They also used the wrong car.  Even then, it showed the whole back of the car to be visible at z210.

The Secret Service film 10 days after the assassination showed the tree closer to as it was on Nov. 22/63.  It showed that JFK was quite visible at all times when passing under the tree and completely clear when he had just passed the lamp post and before he pass the Thornton sign which is between z190 and z200:


The tree in front of the TBSD was a pin oak which typically hold onto their leaves until late winter and can even keep them until the new buds appear in the spring.

CE889 shows the view from the sniper's nest at frame 166 during the SS recreation. There is plenty of foliage on the tree and while JFK is partially visible,
it is not a clear shot. It also shows there is a brief gap in the tree at Z185 but there would no reason for Oswald to rush that shot knowing his target would be completely clear in less than 2 seconds. Oswald's training would have taught him to squeeze the trigger which he wouldn't have time to do if he rushed a shot when he briefly had a window. His target came clear at Z210 and his slow squeeze at that time would have fired his rifle about a half second later.
52
TG--

Seems to me, under your conspiracy theory, State Dep't man Snyder, former CIA, would have been obligated after the JFKA to come forward, even unasked, and tell what he knew of a CIA plan to send LHO to Russia. After all, the US president had just been assassinated. Snyder knew how LHO had ended up in Russia, if not why.

Yet the story for public consumption was that LHO went to Russia of his own volition.

Leonard V. McCoy and George Kisevalter knew nothing of the Solie plan?

How did Solie contact LHO? Directly (seems unlikely).

Through a cut-out? Then the cut-out would also have some information he/she should have made public.

You have crafted an interesting conspiracy theory regarding an aspect of the JFKA.

There are weaknesses...we have to assume Snyder never told anyone of his role in placing LHO into Russia, and the Solie-cutout-LHO individual also kept mum.

Forever, both of them. That's plausible.

53
JM-

The bullet was not tumbling when it struck JBC's back.
54
PJC--

Your crackpot theories on how the Zionists-Clean Towel Service team waxed JFK on 11.22 were warmly embraced by "moderator" William Niederhut and (the late) Ron Bulman at the (dis)Education Forum. And by many members, evidently eager to blame the Jews for the JFKA. 

Oh what a surprise that Niederhut, who espouses that Mossad placed exquisitely-timed explosives, thousands of them, into the WTC, to bring down the towers on 9.11...also points a boner at your Zionists of the Clean Towel  Service baloney. Niederhut also valorizes the feculent Ron Unz, and Laurent Guyénot.

Good luck at the (dis)Education Forum, you have found a loving home.

Yes...it is a fact the Oswalds lived a half-mile from the Clean Towel Service industrial HQ in Fort Worth, for three months, in 1962. 

That is your idea of a link between the JFKA and Zionists.









55
I don't know why I didn't think of that before but of course Oswald's view of JFK would have been blocked by the tree from Z166 until Z210 which make highly unlikely Oswald would have even attempted a shot at Z193. Why would he do that when he would have a clear shot at JFK if he just waited one more second. JFK cleared the tree at Z210 which is why the WC concluded that is the earliest time he could have fired the single bullet. In reality, he squeezed the shot off about a half second after JFK came into the clear. He might have been tracking is target while JFK was passing under the tree, but it would have been very stupid to try to force the shot before he had a clear line of fire.

This same line of thinking casts aspersions on the HSCA conclusion that the single bullet was fired at Z189. I don't know what they were sniffing when they came up with that one. I'll bet they based that conclusion on the flawed acoustics evidence and not on the genuine Z-film.
The FBI re-enactment in May 1964 was with the Oak tree after spring growth and will full leaves.  They also used the wrong car.  Even then, it showed the whole back of the car to be visible at z210.

The Secret Service film 10 days after the assassination showed the tree closer to as it was on Nov. 22/63.  It showed that JFK was quite visible at all times when passing under the tree and completely clear when he had just passed the lamp post and before he pass the Thornton sign which is between z190 and z200:
56
Wow, what a coincidence, like clockwork when Weidman's in trouble, here come his White Knight in Shining Armour! Hilarious! :D

JohnM

Weidman's in trouble?
 Thumb1: NO actually, he kicks your butt every time.


58
The truth is not up for a vote. There is only one truth whether a majority believe it or not. If a poll could decide these questions, we might as well drop this discussion now because a majority of people believe JFK died as a result of a conspiracy and that would make us both wrong.
You are right that it does not matter what people believe. But it does matter what people see. All I am asking is what they see.
Quote
I don't know what you are looking at. There is no question JBC's head is turned far more than his shoulders. His head/shoulder relation looks very similar to what we see in JFK whose head is turned sharply to his right while his shoulders are turned slightly left of Zapruder's sight line. We can see the left side of JBC's face and we'd even be able to see his ear if the overhead bar were not blocking the view. If his shoulders were turned that far, we'd be able to see the outside of his left arm. Instead we have a frontal view of his chest.
If JBC's shoulders were not turned we would not see the right side of his shirt collar. A collar doesn't change with the neck. It follows the shoulders. We can't see the outside of his left arm because it is blocked by Kellerman (green lines):
59
That's the nutter's  BS: right there.

Wow, what a coincidence, like clockwork when Weidman's in trouble, here come his White Knight in Shining Armour! Hilarious! :D

JohnM
60
This is what the CTs never understand. The case against Oswald never wasn't going to trial once he was pronounced dead. From a historical perspective, the only thing we should ask ourselves is whether a piece of evidence is the real deal. CTs act like they are trying to get Oswald off on technicalities. I've never understood that perspective. If you are interested in figuring out how JFK died and also Tippit, you shouldn't dismiss any evidence. You should simply be concerned with whether that piece of evidence helps to tell us what happened. On the other hand, if you are dedicated to arguing for Oswald's innocence in either murder, you just want excuses to disregard the evidence of his guilt. The problem with that approach is there is so damn much evidence you have to come up with lots of excuses. Sometimes you even have to invent excuses.

That's some nutter's  BS: right there.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10