JFK Assassination Forum

I have asked the same basic question but asked it a little bit differently and obtained conflicting answers. AI isn’t the most reliable way to get answers, especially answers to obscure questions about obscure subjects.

I don't know why I ever thought this was a reliable way to get CORRECT answers. No matter how much they tout it, I cannot think for itself. It can only regurgitate the information it finds in a way it has been programmed to process that information. I don't understand people who fear it. If it gets out of hand, we can always do what Dorthy did to the wicked witch and throw water on it. I haven't seen an electrical device that can survive that. And no, putting the device in tub of rice is not going to bring it back to life.

That would be nice but it is wishful thinking. Politicians have figured out hyperbole works. It gets their base worked up which increases turnout and campaign contributions.

I forget who it was but someone on TV said a few days ago that the worst thing they ever did was allow cameras in the Senate and the House. Now the committee hearings are all about trying to get a 15 second sound bite rather than trying to get information from the person being questioned. Again, this drives turnout and contributions. As for what is said on the floors of the two houses, that's usually just for the cameras. Most of the time they are talking to an empty chamber. None of them want to sit around and listen to what each other has to say. The same thing used to happen before cameras and the members would make speeches just to get it in the Congressional Record. On big issues, there sometimes is actual floor debates but that's for show too.
They all know how they are going to vote and nobody is changing anybody's mind by what they say.

Wishful thinking it may well be. But perhaps one day, when the violent attacks against the candidates and the incumbent politicians becomes even more ridiculous, they just might realize that they themselves, and their advertisements that try to demonize their opponents are their greatest enemy.

I concede...
and we can only attribute our success to years of hard work!

            "The Dynamic Duo"

What I think is one of the biggest problems with politics these days is all the negative advertising that tries to make the other side to be evil. Both sides are guilty of this. Sadly there are way too many people who get way too caught up in this aspect. Some of the most vulnerable people get so caught up in things (LHO, Squeaky, etc) that they even resort to assassination attempts. I hope the candidates will eventually recognize this and try to tame down the negative stuff in their advertisements. I also hope that people who want to discuss these things online will do the same.

That would be nice but it is wishful thinking. Politicians have figured out hyperbole works. It gets their base worked up which increases turnout and campaign contributions.

I forget who it was but someone on TV said a few days ago that the worst thing they ever did was allow cameras in the Senate and the House. Now the committee hearings are all about trying to get a 15 second sound bite rather than trying to get information from the person being questioned. Again, this drives turnout and contributions. As for what is said on the floors of the two houses, that's usually just for the cameras. Most of the time they are talking to an empty chamber. None of them want to sit around and listen to what each other has to say. The same thing used to happen before cameras and the members would make speeches just to get it in the Congressional Record. On big issues, there sometimes is actual floor debates but that's for show too.
They all know how they are going to vote and nobody is changing anybody's mind by what they say.

That is an interesting comment.  We know from other evidence that Oswald was deeply involved and we know that there is very little likelihood of, and no evidence of, anyone else being involved. We also know from the three men just below the SN on the sixth floor that all shots came from the same location.  So we know that the was only one person shooting and that person was Oswald and no other.  We both agree on that.

Yes, we agree Oswald was the lone shooter which leaves us with the conclusion that the witnesses who said they heard two shots at the end that were almost right on top of each other with almost no time between them were wrong. They didn't hear two shots together at the end, They might have heard two sounds from the same shot, but they didn't hear two shots.

But the SBT scenario has many problems that feed conspiracy theories, so CTs persist.  And they convince many using just this argument: there is too much evidence that conflicts with the SBT and the only alternative is multiple shooters.   

It doesn't take much too feed conspiracy theories and there are no real problems with the SBT, only imagined ones.

And it is not just the shot pattern or the fact that JFK was reported by everyone watching him to have reacted to the first shot,

Not a true statement

or the many reports that do not fit a first shot before z186.

Reports are often wrong. The ones that don't fit a first shot before Z186 are definitely wrong.

It is also a problem with the condition of CE399 after allegedly pulverizing JBC's fifth rib and doing this to the forearm:

while still looking like this:

You actually believe that nonsense? The explanation for the condition of CE399 has been known for years. The nose of the bullet was not smashed because it never hit hard bone. The bullet had tumbled which is why the flattening is at the base, not the nose. It also explains the lead fragments found in JBC's wrist since the lead core was only exposed at the base.

And there's more.  The trajectory at z222 doesn't begin to work because even with JFK as far right as possible, the bullet exits 8 inches left of the wall of the car on JFK's right side and travels another 5 inches farther left before passing the plane of the jump seat.  So JBC's right armpit has to be 13 inches inside that wall.  The most extreme position proposed for JBC is 8 inches or 20 cm.  Not nearly enough. 

I don't know where you get those figures. With JBC sitting half a body width left of JFK and his shoulders rotated to the right, the entry wound on his back was in a direct line through JFK's exit and entry would back to Oswald's rifle. The bullet couldn't have missed JBC and it didn't. It struck him just below his right armpit, your silly manufactured drawings not withstanding.

And then you have the problem of z230-270 being the only time JBC makes any attempt to see JFK. Before then, he never turns his head to look at JFK.

He tried to look at JFK beginning at Z164 but didn't turn around far enough to see him. That doesn't mean he didn't try.

 

And then there is a the problem of a phantom missed first shot for which there is absolutely no physical evidence. There is also no clear witness evidence that it missed - and a lot of witness evidence that it did not miss.

Yes, there is no physical evidence of where the missed shot hit nor should we expect there to be. No one was looking for evidence of a missed shot because the initial belief was that JFK and JBC were hit by 3 separate shots with no misses. The SBT wasn't developed until months later.

And there's even more.  There is the problem with the evidence that Tague was struck by a fragment from the second shot (not the first, not the third) which is corroborated by Greer sensing an impact inside the car on the second shot and no other.

It has never been established which shot cause Tague's wound. It's an open question.

So for you to maintain that all of these independent bodies of evidence must be completely wrong and does not at least provide a consistent rational alternative to the SBT (although one with which you still can disagree) is difficult to understand. 

The evidence isn't wrong. It's the myths that have grown out of people's misunderstanding of the evidence that are wrong.

Is it not time to admit that there are at least two possible ways that Oswald could have fired all three shots? 

The time for that expired many years ago. We have solid evidence as to what happened and it only happened one way. This isn't a multiple choice exercise.

I guess it was the other John Corbett who said (April 19/post #30 in this thread):

• "I'm all for that. JBC's sworn testimony is evidence. I don't put complete faith in eye and earwitnesses unless they can be corroborated. JBC said he turned and looked over his right shoulder in reaction to a shot that sounded to him came from the right rear and from an elevated position. We see JBC start to turn to look over his right shoulder beginning at Z164. That's corroboration. That tells us the shot came before Z164."
• "He started his reaction at Z164. The first shot came before that unless you want to argue he was anticipating the first shot."

I just reread what i wrote and I stand by every word of it.

[/list]Again, this is not cherry picking. It is rational reasoning.  It is you who is cherry picking.  There are three possibilities of shot pattern. This is the witness distribution of those three possibilities:
,
So choosing the one with the least (6) witnesses is NOT cherry picking but choosing the one with by far the most (47) is? Explain that reasoning!
Yes, but he wasn't sure how he was facing. That is understandable.   So one looks to other evidence to see if JBC's vague recollection of where he thought he was facing was correct.  Not a single witness supports him facing forward at the time of the second shot.

Nellie said he was turned round to the right when hit by the second shot. Gayle Newman said JBC was turned sideways when the shot occurred.

And that, of course, fits with the recollection of 21+ witnesses who said that the first shot caused JFK to react.  Another 15 or 16 said that the first shot occurred at a time that is inconsistent with any time before z186, which means that JFK was hit by the first shot.  And the vast majority said that the last two shots were closer together and many said in rapid succession. Altgens said that his z255 photo was after the first and before any other shots. Hickey said he was turned forward looking at JFK for the last two shots, yet he is still facing rearward in Altgens z255 photo. etc.   So not only do no witnesses corroborate JBC's vague recollection of where he was facing when he felt the second shot, the witnesses say he was turned around sideways.  And those witnesses are supported by the shot timing evidence that put the second shot at a time when he WAS turned sideways.
Again, in what universe is choosing 6 out of 63 not cherry picking but choosing 47 out of 63 is? 
Yes. But also z270. Definitely NOT z222-230.

You continue to put your blind faith in the ability of witnesses to accurately recall with great detail an event that happened out of nowhere, lasted less than 10 seconds, and was completely horrifying. There's only one witness I trust to have been able to do that, Zapruder's camera. That witnesses was not surprised by the event, watched it dispassionately, and recorded it accurately. You couldn't say the same thing about any human witness in Dealey Plaza.
There were other cameras recording but none of them had the vantage point of Zapruder's camera. That's what makes that witness the best source to tell us what happened that day.