Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What about that dent?
« Last post by Jack Nessan on June 05, 2026, 03:39:45 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on June 05, 2026, 03:18:50 PM
I did not endorse or refute the AI answer to this question. I merely put it out there for discussion. The important question here is whether the sources AI turned to correctly documented the findings of the HSCA firearms panel on this subject. The source it used for that answer came from this forum so based on that information, the source might or might not have correctly stated the finding. Now if you want to explore this question further, I could delve deeper and find or more credible source but my belief is if the person who posted that had incorrectly stated the findings of the HSCA firearms panel, somebody would have refuted that and AI would have found the refutation as well and made note of that in its answer.

No. The dent in CE 543 is not remotely similar to the dent that the HSCA is referencing. It doesn't take an expert to look at them and see the dramatically visible difference. The HSCA dent is a rounded lip. CE 543 has a dent that looks like it was center punched in the middle. Nobody has duplicated it.
92
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What about that dent?
« Last post by John Corbett on June 05, 2026, 03:37:28 PM »
To follow up on my previous post on this subject, it appears the source for the AI response I cited was the from the OP of this thread posted by Tom Graves. If I understand correctly, he cited an AARC document so it's off to another source for further confirmation or refutation of the statement. My previous search of the HSCA Report did not find a mention of the dented shell in it's findings. It did conclude that CE543 and the other two shells had been fired by Oswald's rifle.
93
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What about that dent?
« Last post by Jack Nessan on June 05, 2026, 03:34:37 PM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on June 05, 2026, 01:07:20 PM
Well, there is irony for ya: The guy who complains about the use of AI turns around and uses it to bolster his position. When are people going to understand: AI is fine if you want to know some specific fact like the boiling point of water (323° F., my AI tells me) or the date of the JFKA (November 11, 1982). It is not some "separate mind" that analyzes data and reaches a reasoned conclusion. It just scans the internet and regurgitates what seems to be the prevailing opinion. Besides, AI is an alien plot to transform humanity into a non-biological life form, or something like that.

94
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What about that dent?
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on June 05, 2026, 03:32:00 PM »
This thread is a good example of the refusal of lone-gunman theorists to deal credibly and factually with hard physical evidence that refutes their theory.

One of the things that led firearms expert Howard Donahue to doubt the Warren Commission's version of the shooting was that he realized there was no way CE 543 could have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination. He also realized that the HSCA's firearms experts were blowing smoke when they falsely claimed they had produced shells that were as dented as CE 543 in their test firings (as I've mentioned, anyone can look at the HSCA's shells and see that not of them is dented as severely as CE 543).

A number of other firearms experts have studied the matter and have agreed with Donahue that CE 543 simply could not have been used to fire a bullet during the shooting. I discuss this fact in my article "The Dented Bullet Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination" (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ihue8a0GmN_Ptl38bPjpu1F99nqU0Z6f/view).

The evidence that CE 543 could not have fired a bullet on 11/22/63 is so strong that some anti-conspiracy researchers have actually acknowledged it and have proposed the theory that the alleged lone gunman only fired two shots. (However, this theory is rejected even by the vast majority of lone-gunman theorists.)

A few of these commentators have also theorized that the supposed single assassin did not fire the ammo that hit JFK's head but that Secret Service agent George Hickey, riding in the follow-up car, accidentally shot JFK in the head. This is the mortal error theory. It has few adherents, but it is partly based on sound forensic science.

Donahue was the first one to propose the mortal error theory. He did so because he knew there was no way that JFK's head was hit by the kind of ammo that Oswald allegedly used, i.e., FMJ ammo. He knew that the forensic evidence clearly showed that JFK's head was hit by high-velocity frangible ammo, not by low-/medium-velocity full-metal-jacketed (FMJ) ammo. This fact was confirmed by one of the world's leading forensic pathologists, Dr. Vincent DiMaio, in his highly acclaimed book Gunshot Wounds.

The ammo that hit JFK's head left dozens of tiny fragments in the right-frontal region of the skull, along with a few small fragments near the entry point in the back of the head. An FMJ bullet would have never behaved in this manner. Here's what DiMaio said about FMJ bullets leaving numerous fragments (a "snowstorm") inside a skull (which is what we see in the right front on JFK's lateral autopsy x-ray):

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.... In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a “lead snowstorm” [Figure 11.4]. In high-quality x-rays, the majority of the fragments visualized have a fine “dust-like” quality. Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999, p. 318, emphasis added).

For more information on the evidence that JFK's head must have been hit by high-velocity frangible ammo, see https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3641.0.html.

The mortal error theory has been debunked. Hickey never fired a shot during the assassination. All of his ammo was accounted for almost immediately after the shooting. No one in the follow-up car saw or heard him fire a shot. However, the mortal error theory at least acknowledges that JFK's head must have been bit by high-velocity frangible ammo.


95
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: What about that dent?
« Last post by John Corbett on June 05, 2026, 03:18:50 PM »
Quote from: Lance Payette on June 05, 2026, 01:07:20 PM
Well, there is irony for ya: The guy who complains about the use of AI turns around and uses it to bolster his position. When are people going to understand: AI is fine if you want to know some specific fact like the boiling point of water (323° F., my AI tells me) or the date of the JFKA (November 11, 1982). It is not some "separate mind" that analyzes data and reaches a reasoned conclusion. It just scans the internet and regurgitates what seems to be the prevailing opinion. Besides, AI is an alien plot to transform humanity into a non-biological life form, or something like that.

I did not endorse or refute the AI answer to this question. I merely put it out there for discussion. The important question here is whether the sources AI turned to correctly documented the findings of the HSCA firearms panel on this subject. The source it used for that answer came from this forum so based on that information, the source might or might not have correctly stated the finding. Now if you want to explore this question further, I could delve deeper and find or more credible source but my belief is if the person who posted that had incorrectly stated the findings of the HSCA firearms panel, somebody would have refuted that and AI would have found the refutation as well and made note of that in its answer.
96
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Gordon Arnold - The Man Who Claimed He Was Attacked By Badgeman
« Last post by John Corbett on June 05, 2026, 03:10:15 PM »
Quote from: Royell Storing on June 05, 2026, 03:01:52 PM
   So, you watched TMWKK 35 yrs ago and somehow YOU FORGOT that Gary Mack originated the Badgeman? You continue to discount your own opinions whatever the JFK Assassination subject matter might be.

Yes I did. Apparently I didn't think at the time it was important to remember who first came up with that turkey of an idea. I still don't. I've read so many silly ideas put forward over the past 35 years that it would impossible to remember all of them and who originated them.
97
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The First Shot
« Last post by John Corbett on June 05, 2026, 03:07:09 PM »
Quote from: Andrew Mason on June 05, 2026, 02:39:59 PM
OK.  Give us the witnesses who said the first shot missed and the witnesses who said the first shot occurred at a time before z180 e.g.:  when the VP car was still in the process of turning the corner; just as the VP security car was entering the intersection; before JFK turned to his right and waved.

Reactions themselves don’t necessarily tell you what they are reacting to.  You need to consider all the evidence.

No witness can tell us at what frame of the Z-film they saw or heard something. Your request is silly. They can tell us what they saw and we have to first either corroborate or refute what they have told us and then logically figure out when they heard or saw what they have related. JBC said he turned to his right upon hearing the first shot but could not see JFK when he turned. We see him making such a turn beginning at Z164. That is powerful evidence the first shot was fired prior to Z164.

SS Agent Glen Bennett who heard the first shot, then turned to look at JFK and SAW the second shot strike him high on his back. To believe that the first shot was not a miss by Bennett's account, one would have to believe only JBC was hit by the first shot, something JBC adamantly refuted.

JBC himself said he was hit by the second shot and since he and JFK reacted to being hit at exactly the same instant in the same manner, by suddenly raising their arms, it follows that the first shot was a miss. You can ignore the visual evidence in the Z-film that tells us that unmistakenly, but when you do that, you kill any chance you have at reaching the one and only correct conclusion.
98
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Gordon Arnold - The Man Who Claimed He Was Attacked By Badgeman
« Last post by Royell Storing on June 05, 2026, 03:01:52 PM »
Quote from: John Corbett on June 05, 2026, 02:22:46 PM
I saw TMWKK when it aired about 35 years ago and it was a bunch of crapola then and I have no reason to believe it has improved with age. Initially, it was produced by a UK production company. It was re-edited and if I remember right, was presented on The History Channel. When I saw that version was being hosted by Bill Kurtis, I knew his career had done a U-turn.

   So, you watched TMWKK 35 yrs ago and somehow YOU FORGOT that Gary Mack originated the Badgeman? You continue to discount your own opinions whatever the JFK Assassination subject matter might be.
99
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: Video: Gordon Arnold - The Man Who Claimed He Was Attacked By Badgeman
« Last post by Royell Storing on June 05, 2026, 02:59:23 PM »
Quote from: John Mytton on June 05, 2026, 06:14:39 AM
On top of all the other flaws and problems with Gordon Arnold's "recollections" is the location he decided to "film" from, a location from which part of the road was obscured by a wall and a tree. Arnold said that he did some panning tests(of this once in a lifetime opportunity), but he never figured out that there were much better filming positions that were not that far away? Doh!
It's no wonder after realizing his amateurish blunder, Arnold invented piles of dirt which would have to be very high to see over the wall but the higher he goes, the more the tree would hinder his view.
Of course the obvious solution would be to film closer to the full view of the road but then he loses his cover story of being hidden, deep in the shadows.
BTW the tree as seen in Duncan's post was there in 1963 and if anything the main bulk of leaves was lower and more dense.



JohnM

   JOHN - In Arnold's Q/A by the Sixth Floor, he mentions doing some kinda practice panning and having issues with "signage". (paraphrasing). I took this to be the Stemmons Sign and it blocking his view of Elm St just as it did Zapruder. This led to the higher ground/mound position that Arnold claimed to have taken. His "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" piece was done in 1988, 25 yrs after the assassination. Just my opinion, but 25 yrs later, I believe Gordon Arnold had his physical position off a bit. I believe he was closer to the large tree between the N-S Picket Fence and the walkway. And again, Sen Yarborough did verify seeing someone bouncing/diving around back there.
   Also, that picket fence had been repaired/rebuilt several times by the time Arnold did his TMWKK piece. There's no guarantee the fence was reconstructed in exactly the same position on the knoll that it was in on 11/22/63. Military individuals use landmarks to fix their position. If that picket fence was Not in the exact same position on the knoll when Arnold did his TMWKK piece, this may have thrown Arnold off with respect to exactly where he was standing and filming.   
100
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: "Overthinking" (or maybe not?) the Walker attempt
« Last post by John Corbett on June 05, 2026, 02:55:39 PM »
Quote from: Andrew Mason on June 05, 2026, 02:49:29 PM
Most witnesses said they were not sure where the shot sounds came from and expressed confusion. Only a few expressed confusion about the number of shots.   

The human ear and brain is not a reliable instrument for determining sound direction in the Dealey Plaza reverb chamber.  The human ear and brain is a reliable instrument for hearing and recalling three well spaced loud noises over several seconds.

I guess that's as good an excuse as any for you to cherry pick which of the earwitness accounts you choose to accept. I have a unique approach to eye and ear witness accounts. I look for evidence which either corroborates or refutes what those witnesses have told us.

The human brain is not equipped with a DVR. It does not perfectly record sights and sounds. It gets some things right and jumbles others. I agree with what Dale Meyers said on the recently aired ABC program Truth and Lies: The JFK Assassination. He said if you have three witnesses to an event, you will get three versions of that event.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]