Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
71
The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: Quoting Common Sense
« Last post by John Corbett on July 07, 2026, 09:21:10 PM »
It's easy (I know, because I've done it) to lob "common sense" LN sound bites at CTers because of their love of fantastically complex JFKA and cover-up scenarios. The CT community is its own worst enemy in this regard. That's why my threshold question is always "Does that make any real-world sense at all?" Often, the answer is no.

But there are CT scenarios that the LN sound bites really don't fit. They aren't ridiculously implausible. They don't violate common sense. If the CT community would focus on these and the most problematical aspects of the LN narrative, it would do itself and serious research a big favor. Alas, it seems that many CTers just can't help themselves.

Likewise, it's easy to lob CT sound bites at those who think the JFKA starts and ends with the WC and Bugliosi. EVEN IF THE LN NARRATIVE IS CORRECT, the WC was a badly flawed, agenda-driven "investigation" that is almost entirely responsible for what has transpired ever since. For multiple reasons, it was nothing like an objective, fact-finding investigation. If I were a LN advocate who wanted to be taken seriously, I would banish the WC and Bugliosi from my vocabulary. Alas, it seems that many LNers just can't help themselves.

It is just astonishing how closely JFKA discussions parallel religious debates. They never go anywhere either, for precisely the same reasons. The fundamentalists, heretics. cultists and atheists just talk past each other.

Though both sides of a religious discussion will point to evidence, it largely comes down to a matter of faith which is why I never argue about religion with anyone. Whatever someone else wants to believe, if they are content with it, who am I to tell them they are wrong.

The JFKA has a wealth of evidence which needs to be looked at objectively. When I see people who start with a preconceived conclusion and then dismiss or accept the evidence based on whether the evidence fits their chosen conclusion, I have no problem telling those people they are wrong.
72

Looking at the backyard photos, I don't see a scope on the rifle.


The black shirt camouflages the black scope. But it is definitely there. It helps to be looking at a good quality photo. This one is from the Sixth Floor Museum.




OK. I see that now.
73
AM--

Thanks for your inquiry.

Well, more or less Greer's narrative lines up with the Connallys, if I understand it correctly.

Mrs. Connally's narrative supports the "first shot hit JFK, the second hit JBC, and third hit JFK." The Connallys have been solid on that from Day One. They are not lefties, or KGB assets, and appear to have no axes to grind. They are just calling a spade a spade.

What Mrs. JBC meant by the word "recoil" is hard to say, but likely that was JBC doubling over from the shot that struck him, which happens ~Z-295.

BTW, JBC getting shot ~Z-295 lines up neatly with the many witnesses who described a "bang....bang-bang" cadence of shots on 11.22.

Nothing in the Z-file indicates either of the Connallys were looking at JFK when either the first or second shot was fired so how could either know which bullet struck him?

JBC not being shot until Z295 doesn't remotely line up with anything in the Z-film. It's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen proposed regarding the JFKA.
74
I was driving home early this afternoon listening to the Clay and Buck Show on the radio and they were talking about the evidence being presented at preliminary hearing for Charlie Kirk's accused killer. Somebody called in proclaiming that Tyler Robinson was being set up as a patsy in the murder. He questioned the evidence being presented and claimed it was being falsified, blah, blah, blah. Clay Travis tried to reason with this clown but it wasn't working. First he asked the caller whether he had better credentials to analyze the ballistics than the agents at the FBI and BATFE and the guy immediately tried to deflect. He asked the guy why he thought all the law enforcement agencies would conspire to frame Tyler Robinson. More deflections. The caller claimed there was no way Robinson could have disassembled the rifle quick enough to escape the way he did. Where have we heard that before.

If they just changed the names I would have thought they were talking about the JFKA. In fact when I first turned on the radio and they were talking about the gunshot to the neck, I thought they were talking about the JFKA. It was only after they named the victim and the alleged assailant that I realized what they were talking about. One thing I will gladly wager is that no matter how much evidence is presented that Tyler Robinson committed the crime, there will be those who will refuse to accept that. Leftists will blame those on the right and those on the right will blame leftists and none of them will have any evidence to support their suspicions. Just like the JFKA CTs.
75
The Warren Commission said it was "not probable" that the shot to the back occurred "before Z210." (Not probable being another way to say "not impossible").

Dear FPR,

It's not impossible that [fill in the blank].

-- Tom
76
Because the proprietary copyrights still lay with NBC...

The real question here is why would a research community that is pretending to seek the best copies intentionally avoid the 6th Floor Museum copy when it is the best extant copy that has already proved its worth by showing the dress neckline?...And why are we not allowed to ask this question on The Education Forum?...

   Do you know if NBC has validated the Darnell Film copy that the Sixth Floor Museum currently has?  At this point, "Prof G. William Jones" claims to have made a Darnell Film "1st generation film-to-film copy" and the Sixth Floor Museum currently has that "1st generation film-to-film copy". One man's "word" regarding the bona fides of this Darnell Film copy inside the Sixth Floor Museum is simply Not sufficient.
77
It was 9 PM and this was presumably his first-ever assassination attempt. He ran after one shot. I would think that "darkness" and "nervousness" might be as relevant as any technical issue.

In a long thread about the damage to the window at the Ed Forum three years ago, Steve Roe also suggested the nervousness explanation, and Walker himself apparently suggested darkness was a factor:

My best guess is he felt pressured and may have rushed the shot somewhat. There were the two guys walking around in the LDS parking lot, and he might have noticed or heard them and rushed the shot, even though he used the lattice opening as a gun rest. Walker had his own explanation that through the scope with a lighted room background, he may not have seen the window frame clearly. Can't rule that out either.
78
We have estimates of the supposed first shot ocurring "not at all" and at umpteen different places after the turn into Elm. The Warren Commission said it was "not probable" that the shot to the back occurred "before Z210." (Not probable being another way to say "not impossible"). The HSCA: "Taken together with other evidence, the photographic and acoustical evidence led the committee to conclude that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were struck by one bullet at approximately Zapruder frame 190." The FBI said from the get-go and in its final report that JFK had been hit by two shots and JBC by a different third shot, and the Secret Service concurred. John Orr, Josiah Thompson and apparently the three Parkland doctors who treated JBC have him being struck around Z236. JBC himself seems like an extremely credible witness, yet he counts for nothing. As with so many aspects of the JFKA, this sounds suspiciously more like a Rorshach test than an objective analysis. How much of when people think JFK and JBC were hit is agenda-driven?
79
The JFK Assassination - Discussion & Debate / Re: Quoting Common Sense
« Last post by Lance Payette on July 07, 2026, 05:51:28 PM »
It's easy (I know, because I've done it) to lob "common sense" LN sound bites at CTers because of their love of fantastically complex JFKA and cover-up scenarios. The CT community is its own worst enemy in this regard. That's why my threshold question is always "Does that make any real-world sense at all?" Often, the answer is no.

But there are CT scenarios that the LN sound bites really don't fit. They aren't ridiculously implausible. They don't violate common sense. If the CT community would focus on these and the most problematical aspects of the LN narrative, it would do itself and serious research a big favor. Alas, it seems that many CTers just can't help themselves.

Likewise, it's easy to lob CT sound bites at those who think the JFKA starts and ends with the WC and Bugliosi. EVEN IF THE LN NARRATIVE IS CORRECT, the WC was a badly flawed, agenda-driven "investigation" that is almost entirely responsible for what has transpired ever since. For multiple reasons, it was nothing like an objective, fact-finding investigation. If I were a LN advocate who wanted to be taken seriously, I would banish the WC and Bugliosi from my vocabulary. Alas, it seems that many LNers just can't help themselves.

It is just astonishing how closely JFKA discussions parallel religious debates. They never go anywhere either, for precisely the same reasons. The fundamentalists, heretics. cultists and atheists just talk past each other.
80
Looking at the backyard photos, I don't see a scope on the rifle. It might be due to the camera angle but I don't think he had the scope on the rifle when those photos were taken. Whether he used the iron sights or the scope when he shot at Walker, a shot just 2.4" inches high might have made the difference between a clean shot at Walker's head and striking the sash. I think that is a far more likely explanation for the high shot than recoil. The amount of recoil that occurs before the bullet leaves the barrel is negligible and is mostly rearward, not upward. AI describes this much better than I would:

"Yes — a rifle does recoil before the bullet leaves the muzzle, and this movement can affect accuracy.

When the trigger is pulled, the expanding gases from the burning powder begin pushing the bullet down the barrel. By Newton’s Third Law of Motion, the rifle experiences an equal and opposite rearward force almost immediately

. High‑speed videos (100,000+ frames per second) have captured this: the barrel and rifle system move backward while the bullet is still traveling through the bore, even through a suppressor


The bullet’s barrel dwell time — the time it takes to travel from the chamber to the muzzle — is extremely short, often around 0.0006–0.0007 seconds for a 24‑inch barrel at ~3000 fps

. However, the rifle’s inertia means it accelerates more slowly than the bullet, but it still moves during that time. In one calculation, a rifle could move about 0.06 inches rearward during that dwell period

. This movement can cause the muzzle to point slightly off the initial aim point, especially if the rifle is not perfectly supported or if the shooter’s body shifts."

Recoil would have more effect on subsequent shots when firing rapidly but it would not explain Oswald's miss when he shot at Walker. The M-14 was a full-auto version of he M-1 Garand. They soon discovered the problem when firing it in full auto since it used the same .30-06 cartridge. Few soldiers could hold the weapon on target. They found that the first round would be on target, the second, slightly high, the third over the head of he target and by the fourth round, it was an anti-aircraft gun.

The BAR was also a fully automatic weapon that fired the .30-06 round but because it was so much heavier than the M-14, it was much easier to control the recoil.


Looking at the backyard photos, I don't see a scope on the rifle.


The black shirt camouflages the black scope. But it is definitely there. It helps to be looking at a good quality photo. This one is from the Sixth Floor Museum.




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