Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10
51
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Gov. John Connally Grips His White Stetson Hat at Z-272
« Last post by Andrew Mason on Today at 12:09:16 AM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 10:13:47 PM
Did you miss this in another thread:

Eyewitness "Patricia Ann Donaldson" said that the Limo was in this position when she heard the first shot.

....

How does that fit with your theory the first shot was fired at Z193.How do you know what he is trying to do? So you say.
It's easy to corroborate your witnesses when you cherry pick the witnesses. How about providing some hard evidence to support your theory of the first shot at Z193.
If witnesses can corroborate other witnesses, they can also refute other witnesses. Why are your cherry picked witnesses more credible than my cherry picked witnesses.
Unfortunately, you picked the wrong witness.  This is the same Patricia Ann Donaldson who said that there was a pause after the first shot and the last two shots were fired rapidly "bam bam", as we see in the Youtube clip:
She describes the very short time the last two shots. So Donaldson must be mistaken about the placement of the President at the time of the first shot because the time between the last two shots that she describes does not permit JFK to have been hit in the neck by the second shot.

[Edit]See my later above in reply to Robin Unger. I was wrongly conflating the Ann Donaldsons so  my comments below, based on them being the same person are not correct]
But Donaldson's mistake about the car location is understandable because she is mistaken about where she was standing.   Patricia Ann Donaldson, known by "Ann" worked at the Dallas Morning News and was standing with Mary Woodward just to the west of the lamp post as shown in the Roberdeau map:


and as noted by Woodward in her DMN story written a few hours later: "Four of us from Women's News, Maggie Brown, Aurelia Alonzo, my roommate Ann Donaldson, and myself had decided to spend our lunch hour by going to see the President. ... The President was looking straight ahead and we were afraid we would not get to see his face. But we started clapping and cheering and both he and Mrs. Kennedy turned, and smiled and waved, directly at us, it seemed. .... [after talking about the second shot she says:] "This was followed rapidly by another shot."

I see that the photos and clip were made by Max Holland and that is him speaking with Donaldson.  That shows you how rigorous he was in placing the location of the first shot....
52
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Three evenly spaced shots, or "bang . . . . . . . . bang - bang"?
« Last post by John Corbett on Today at 12:05:28 AM »
Quote from: Tom Graves on Yesterday at 10:13:44 PM
There's a big difference between identifying a person seen at and/or leaving a crime scene and trying to say from which direction and at what frequency three (or more???) shots were fired in a large echo chamber like Dealey Plaza.

D'oh!

The important point is that the eyewitnesses who IDed Oswald as Tippit's murderer were corroborated by the fact Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon in his possession when arrested a short time later along with the same two makes of bullets that were recovered from Tippit's body. I'd call that damn good corroboration.

Without that corroboration, you could make a strong argument for reasonable doubt for Oswald in the Tippit murder. A majority of the wrongfully convicted inmates who were later freed by the innocence project by DNA evidence were convicted due to mistaken eyewitness testimony.

"According to the Innocence Project, as of January 2020, 375 convictions had been overturned through DNA exoneration since 1989. Mistaken identification by eyewitnesses played a role in 61% of those wrongful convictions."
53
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Three evenly spaced shots, or "bang . . . . . . . . bang - bang"?
« Last post by John Corbett on Yesterday at 11:58:01 PM »
Quote from: Andrew Mason on Yesterday at 10:59:58 PM
If you think that is a representative sample of the witnesses, you haven't read the evidence. What it doesn't show is that of the many witnesses who, without prompting of any kind, recalled a pattern to the shots, the vast majority distinctly stated that the last two were closer together.

I don't care if it is representative of the body of witnesses or not. It shows that people can watch the same event and remember it very differently which is why I don't put much faith in witnesses or corroboration of witnesses by other witnesses. People can make the same mistake, even large groups of people. That's why we have a large group of witnesses who said it sounded like the shots came from the GK.
54
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Three evenly spaced shots, or "bang . . . . . . . . bang - bang"?
« Last post by Tom Graves on Yesterday at 11:57:12 PM »
Quote from: Andrew Mason on Yesterday at 11:27:48 PM
Yes there is. Eyewitness IDENTIFICATION evidence is prone to error and much less reliable than observation of the number and pattern of three shots.  This is because it is not just about witness observation.  It is about forming an opinion that the person you saw was the same person seen in the line-up.  The famous case of Adolph Beck in England where several people misidentified Beck as the thief in an offence that occurred 17 years earlier. After serving his lengthy prison sentence, five women wrongly identified Beck again as the culprit in another fraud case and he was found guilty.  However, before sentencing, the real thief was found and, as it turns out, was the same person who had committed the first offence as well. This led to a public inquiry that established strict rules for admitting this kind of evidence.

On the other hand, simple witness observation of salient details (those recalled without prompting by most witnesses) is highly accurate as shown by the studies compiled by Eliz. Loftus in her book Eyewitness Testimony (1979), Harvard Press.

Having said all that, the eyewitness identification evidence that Oswald was the person who shot Officer Tippit is supported by a great deal of other evidence and, therefore, the conclusion that Oswald shot Tippit is reliable.

You've got it backwards.

The ten or so eyewitness' identification of the person who murdered Tippit and/or fled the scene was much easier than the hundred or so earwitnesses' trying to remember how many shots were fired at JFK in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza, not to mention how those (two? three? four? five? fifteen?) shots were distributed.

D'oh!
55
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Three evenly spaced shots, or "bang . . . . . . . . bang - bang"?
« Last post by Andrew Mason on Yesterday at 11:27:48 PM »
Quote from: Tom Graves on Yesterday at 10:13:44 PM
There's a big difference between identifying a person seen at and/or or leaving from a crime scene and trying to say from which direction and at what frequency three (or more???) shots were fired in a large echo chamber like Dealey Plaza.

D'oh!
Yes there is. Eyewitness IDENTIFICATION evidence is prone to error and much less reliable than observation of the number and pattern of three shots.  This is because it is not just about witness observation.  It is about forming an opinion that the person you saw was the same person seen in the line-up.  The famous case of Adolph Beck in England where several people misidentified Beck as the thief in an offence that occurred 17 years earlier. After serving his lengthy prison sentence, five women wrongly identified Beck again as the culprit in another fraud case and he was found guilty.  However, before sentencing, the real thief was found and, as it turns out, was the same person who had committed the first offence as well. This led to a public inquiry that established strict rules for admitting this kind of evidence.

On the other hand, simple witness observation of salient details (those recalled without prompting by most witnesses) is highly accurate as shown by the studies compiled by Eliz. Loftus in her book Eyewitness Testimony (1979), Harvard Press.

Having said all that, the eyewitness identification evidence that Oswald was the person who shot Officer Tippit is supported by a great deal of other evidence and, therefore, the conclusion that Oswald shot Tippit is reliable.
56
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Gov. John Connally Grips His White Stetson Hat at Z-272
« Last post by Tom Graves on Yesterday at 11:12:08 PM »
Quote from: Andrew Mason on Yesterday at 06:50:01 PM
We know that Croft took his photo at Z-161 and that it was taken before the first shot.

When one accepts the reality of the Single Bullet Theorem, i.e., that JFK and JBC were struck by CE-399 at approximately Z-222, then one can speculate on whether or not it was Oswald who had fired the earlier, missing-everything, shot, and if so, when he fired it.

Since three spent shells that had been fired from Oswald's Carcano were found in the Sniper's Nest about an hour after the assassination, since the Carcano, with Oswald's prints on it, was found on the sixth floor, and since Oswald was seen on the sixth floor near the Sniper's Nest by Charles Givens at about 12:05 and by Roy Truly and Officer Baker in the second floor lunchroom about 90 seconds after the final shot, we can reasonably assume that that it was Oswald who had fired all three shots.

Now the only remaining question is when he fired the missing-everything shot.

Brian Roselle and Kevin Scearce point out in their 2020 study that an involuntary "startle" reaction to a loud, unexpected sound like a gunshot does not involve a major L-R head rotation, but "flexion" movements (bending the head and neck forward and downward), instead.

They also point out that seven prime witnesses to the first, missing-everything, shot (including five passengers in the limo: JFK, Jackie, JBC, Nellie, and Kellerman) quickly turned their heads within half-a-second of each other between Z-142 and Z-149, indicating that Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot was at hypothetical Z-124, half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133 and 2.02 seconds before Croft took his photo at Z-161.

Rhetorical question: Can even three of those passengers be shown to have turned their heads quickly within half-a-second of each other in any other part of the Zapruder film up to Z-222?

I haven't looked yet, but I rather doubt it.

https://d7922adf-f499-4a26-96d4-8ab2d521fa35.usrfiles.com/ugd/d7922a_e280e26982b44f2c97c6e6e27026e385.pdf
57
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Three evenly spaced shots, or "bang . . . . . . . . bang - bang"?
« Last post by Andrew Mason on Yesterday at 10:59:58 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 05:43:11 PM
That little film clip demonstrates just how unreliable eye and ear witness testimony is. All those witnesses observed the same event and yet their accounts varied greatly. There was no consensus whatsoever. If all we had to go on was those accounts, we could conclude that most of them got it wrong. We wouldn't know which ones got it wrong and it's possible they could all be wrong but it is not possible they could all be right.
If you think that is a representative sample of the witnesses, you haven't read the evidence. What it doesn't show is that of the many witnesses who, without prompting of any kind, recalled a pattern to the shots, the vast majority distinctly stated that the last two were closer together.
58
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Education Forum: Clean Towel Service Zionists Waxed JFK!
« Last post by Bill Brown on Yesterday at 10:26:53 PM »
Quote from: Paul J Cummings on Yesterday at 06:40:34 PM
I guess I need to say it a THIRD time. Researchers or people who have followed this case weren't aware of this truck and where it was from or located. We gave LHO residence as backdrop knowing they would be familar with his time in Fort Worth. Can't make it any clearer. We've written 7 articles on the laundry truck and you're stuck on this one aspect.  ::)


Quote
Researchers or people who have followed this case weren't aware of this truck and where it was from or located.

Nonsense.

I saw discussion of this towel truck 20 years ago.
59
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Tippit Shooting At 1:15-1:16, FACT
« Last post by Michael Capasse on Yesterday at 10:22:51 PM »
Recall this to me in the jury room and she is OUT:

Mr. BALL - He brought it out. Now, I am---you have seen this shirt then before?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.

Mr. BALL - It was brought out by the Secret Service man and shown to you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes.

Mr. BALL - Had you ever seen the shirt before that?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well---

Mr. BALL - Have you?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; he had it on, though.
60
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Gunman in the pergola window...
« Last post by Jake Maxwell on Yesterday at 10:18:07 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on Yesterday at 10:16:53 PM
Correction. YOU can see the end of the barrel and the profile of a gunman. The rest of us, not so much.

Maybe colorization will help...
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10