Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61

Tague seems pretty clueless to me. He is all over the place. In his book he is adamant that the third shot missed. I personally have no problem discounting his ideas enough to believe that an early first shot could have been the one that missed.
I would agree that Tague’s later writings are not worth much as evidence and should be ignored.

Quote
BTW, here is what DPD motorcycle officer Stavis Ellis told Larry Sneed as shown on page 144 of his book “No More Silence”:

“We came west on Main Street to Houston Street and took a right, facing right into that building. The building with the window was looking right at us as we came up to Elm Street and made a left, heading back toward the Triple Underpass. Midway down Elm I remember waving at my wife’s niece and nephew, Bill and Gayle Newman, who had apparently come out to see the President. About the time I started on a curve on Elm, I had turned to my right to give signals to open up the intervals since we were fixing to get on the freeway a short distance away. That’s all I had on my mind. Just as I turned around, then the first shot went off. It hit back there. I hadn’t been able to see back where Chaney was because Curry was there, but I could see where the shot came down into the south side of the curb. It looked like it hit the concrete or grass there in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the concrete.



I drew a yellow circle around the location of the manhole cover apron (where it is believed that a bullet ricocheted) on the south side of Elm Street. I also drew a dashed yellow line to show that Curry’s car would have been close to the line of sight of Ellis trying to look back at the area of the limo where Cheney was. This is around the time that I believe an early first shot might have occurred. Stavis Ellis (-5 character in the animation) is just approaching the entrance to the triple overpass.
I find it difficult to believe that Ellis really saw what he described for the first time in a book published in 1998 and did not mention it in any statement to the WC or HSCA or to anyone else in the preceding 35 years.

And as far as his reliability as a witness, do you think his reported observation of a hole in the limo windshield was accurate? Ellis told interviewer Gil Toff in 1971: “There was a hole in the left front windshield…You could put a pencil through it…you could take a regular standard writing pencil…and stick [it] through there.”



62
   
The Davidson Enhancement of the clearest Wiegman frame came out in 2016 and should have ended the issue for anyone daring to sell himself as a Kennedy Assassination researcher worth listening to...The face was obviously female and therefore not Oswald...Once I managed to get Sarah Stanton's family photo showing her obesity the chubby-ness of the face in Davidson was obviously that of Stanton - not to mention the height that matched the 5 foot 4 Stanton was according to her grand daughter Wanda...Stanton can be seen looking down in to her purse (which appears as a black shape) in the Davidson Enhancement...That purse was recognized by her grand daughter Wanda who sent me a family photo of the purse she thought it was...This wasn't good enough for the Prayer Man people however who brought technical examination "expert" Andrej Stancak in to create made to order excuses for all this damning evidence...The Prayer Man people simply honored these rubbish claims by Stancak and ignored my undeniable proof...I was then shown the door and followed-through with destruction as a researcher...They don't stop at just banning...They come after you with personal destruction and intentional ignoring of your evidence...The Prayer Man world they created through ignoring and censorship is the same one DiEugenio deludes himself with in his quotes above...Knowing they were in trouble the Prayer Man group quickly formed the original films request strawman and stuck to it and nothing else...If they called for the originals they could avoid admitting to themselves that they had been out-argued on the already-available evidence...
63

Are you seriously asking if Miller corroborates Woodward or vice-versa?

No, I am saying neither corroborates the other because both could be wrong. There is no physical evidence that corroborates either.
64
Let me see if I understand the point MTG is trying to make. The wound in the center of JFK's throat could not be an exit wound because it didn't go through the knot in his tie but it could be an entrance wound without having gone through the knot in his tie.
65

Bugliosi blundered all over the place because he didn't understand what he was reading and was determined to reject the acoustical evidence no matter what.


You are determined to cling to the acoustics "evidence" no matter what. Not surprising given that you have no real evidence to support your cause.
66
1. McLain's bike was too far back.
2. According to the bike expert and actual rider, McClain, he said motor sound on the dictabelt is from a three wheeled bike.
3. Sheriff Bill Decker saying "hold everything secure" in the exact place where the shots supposedly occurred. Yet Decker was known to have said "hold everything secure" about a minute after the real shots in Dealey Plaza.

Once again you are years behind the information curve. Every one of those claims was refuted years ago.

Steve Barber as seen below is the actual expert on the dictabelt evidence and Steve's initial interest came from when he heard the "hold everything secure" from a recording of the dictabelt and these words were proven to have come way after Dealey Plaza! Go Steve, Go!

So Steve Barber, a drummer, is your "actual expert" on the acoustical evidence?!

How about the HSCA's acoustical experts: BBN's Dr. James Barger, Dr. Jared Wolf, Dr. Scott Robinson, and Dr. Edward Schmidt, and Queen's College's Dr. Mark Weiss and Professor Ernest Aschkenasy? How would you compare Barber's credentials in acoustical science with those of the six HSCA acoustical scientists?

Barber's responses to Dr. Don Thomas's articles on the acoustical evidence are downright laughable.

How about BBN acoustical scientist Dr. Richard Mullen? Dr. Mullen did new research on the acoustical evidence at the request of Dr. Josiah Thompson and proved conclusively with pattern-cross-correlation (PCC) analysis that the Decker "hold everything" transmission is not crosstalk but is an overdub created during the copying process, rendering it irrelevant, and that the Fisher "I'll check" transmission is genuine crosstalk, which proves the gunshot impulse patterns were recorded during the assassination.

Dr. Thompson devotes over 100 pages to this historic new research in his 2020 book Last Second in Dallas. Dr. Mullen wrote Appendix B, ​"Signal Processing Results for Both DPD Audio Files," in the book. Dr. Barger wrote Appendix A, "A​ Quantitative Analysis of Crosstalk Found in Audio Recorded During the JFK Assassination," in the book.

I have pointed out all these facts to you in other threads, but you just ignore and repeat your outdated claims about the acoustical evidence.

The following passages come from Reclaiming History and McClain the actual man behind the supposed Dealey Plaza recording, strongly refutes this deceptive "audio evidence".[SNIP]

Bugliosi blundered all over the place because he didn't understand what he was reading and was determined to reject the acoustical evidence no matter what.

You realize that not one of the members of the NRC/NAS panel that critiqued the acoustical evidence was an acoustical scientist, right? Right?

You realize that the NRC/NAS panel admitted that there's a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists between the dictabelt and the recording of the test firing in Dealey Plaza occurred because the dictabelt recorded gunfire in Dealey Plaza, right?

You realize that the NRC/NAS panel admitted there's a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern, identified by Weiss and Aschkenasy as gunfire from the grassy knoll, was in fact gunfire from the knoll, right?

All of this, and much more, flew right over Bugliosi's head, or he just chose to ignore it, just as you keep doing.

For those who want to read the other side of the story on the acoustical evidence, I highly recommend Dr. Thompson's book, and also the following online articles:

"The HSCA’s Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman in the JFK Assassination," by yours truly.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view

“Debugging Bugliosi,” by Dr. Don Thomas, https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-
_Debugging_Bugliosi.html.

“Overview and History of the Acoustical Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination Case,” by Dr. Don Thomas
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Acoustics_Overview_and_History.html
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Acoustics_Overview_and_History_-_part_2.html
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Acoustics_Overview_and_History_-_part_3.html

“Sabato, Sonalysts, and Sophistry,” 2014, by Dr. Don Thomas
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Sabato_Sonalysts_Sophistry.html.

Another excellent analysis of the acoustical evidence is Dr. David Kaiser's lengthy discussion on the subject in his highly acclaimed book The Road to Dallas (pp. 377-387).
67
Rod Stewart had a hit song titled "Reason to Believe". CTs should have an anthem titled Reason to Disbelieve. They seem to have no interest in figuring out who was responsible of the JFKA . Their whole focus seems to be on coming up with reasons not to believe the WCR. That's why we have so many inanities like Prayer Man, One Glove Cop, Huge Gates, etc. They search High and low for things for which there is no apparent explanation and to them, that is reason enough to dismiss the WC finding that Oswald fired the shots that killed JFK and that there was no credible evidence he had even a single accomplice. It's like they're panning for gold and they get really excited when they find one shiny little yellow flake, not realizing it is fool's gold.

What I never quite "get" is that there seems to be some unwritten rule whereby, no matter how wacky someone and his arguments may be, one must attempt to logically counter those arguments for the 494th time when the appropriate response is "That's absolute nonsense. If you believe that, there is something wrong with your cognitive faculties. You are NOT THINKING CLEARLY AND RATIONALLY." Yes, that does kind of shortcircuit the discussions, but many of them should be shortcircuited. Instead, the absolute worst nonsense, such as Royell's and even MTG's stuff, is humored to the tune of hundreds of responses. I guess that's the "game," and both sides must enjoy it or they wouldn't perpetuate it, but it's truly weird. "Let's go down to the institution and try to convince Fred he's not really Napoleon for the 494th time because ... well, because we have nothing better to do, I guess?" A grasp of the basics of epistemology, logic and logical fallacies, and the psychological literature regarding the conspiracy-prone mindset would make 97% of what CTers say on forums such as this simply go poof. The absurdity is that, just like Napoleonic Fred, they insist YOU are the one who can't think clearly and see the deep truths they see - even though this too is symptomatic of the conspiracy-prone mindset. I think I've now actually said all this 494 times! What the hell is the matter with ME???  :D
68
Just this year, the Patterson film has been pretty thoroughly debunked, to the extent that even True Believers have lot faith:

https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/documentarys-devastating-bigfoot-debunking/

Cryptozoology, as it's called, is one of the areas of weirdness that just never captured my attention.
69
Did the independent witness who thought all the shots came from the GK corroborate the other independent witnesses who thought all the shots came from the GK.
You need to provide a specific example to determine if there is a common observation.  From what I have seen there was no clear observation by anyone who reported the knoll as the source of the shots. They reported confusion as to the direction of the source of the shots.  For example Mary Woodward and Austin Miller are often listed as GK ear-witnesses, but here is what they actually said:

Mary Woodward (24 H 520):



Austin Miller s(6 H 225):



Are you seriously asking if Miller corroborates Woodward or vice-versa?
70
While reviewing some footage of the Dallas motorcade this morning, I came across more footage that shows JFK's tie knot was centered in the middle of the collar band. I'm referring to the AMIPA slow-motion version of the Yeargan film, from 00:53 to 00:56 in the film.

This is important evidence because Yeargan filmed JFK's limo shortly before it turned onto Houston Street and only about 80 seconds before it turned onto Elm Street.

His tie knot comes into clear view in the Yeargan film starting at 00:53 in the AMIPA version, after he has finished looking and waving to his left. Notice that the turning and the waving did not cause his tie knot to move from being centered in the middle of the collar band.

The issue of the position of JFK's tie knot is crucial, actually do-or-die, for the single-bullet theory (SBT). The SBT says that its alleged magic bullet exited the shirt slits below the inside collar band of JFK's shirt. The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that the SBT bullet exited “immediately behind” the tie. Any number of photos prove that the top of the shirt slits was at least at the level of 1/3 of the way up the tie knot from the bottom of the knot. Thus, there is no way the bullet could have avoided tearing through the bottom half of the tie knot if it had exited the shirt slits. 

Given the position of the tie knot in the collar band, there is also no way the alleged SBT bullet could have magically, like a guided missile, weaved its way around the body of the knot and nicked the top surface of the knot inward[/u] from the knot's left edge.

I have added screencaps from the Yeargan film to my article "Why JFK's Tie and Shirt Slits Destroy the Single-Bullet Theory," which is a supplement to my article "JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible."

"Why JFK's Tie and Shirt Slits Destroy the Single-Bullet Theory"
https://sites.google.com/view/jfkshirtandtiedestroysbt/home

"JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MAgWA0frOLVeWY6ok9nzdrgpRN4Wv1AL/view

Here's a link to the AMIPA slow-motion version of the Yeargan film's segment showing JFK in the limo before the limo starts to turn:


Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10