Author Topic: Powell vs Dillard  (Read 55090 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9063
Re: Powell vs Dillard
« Reply #763 on: March 17, 2017, 11:15:18 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Deputy Mooney finds the shells before Fritz stupidly moves them. He says this, to the WC, about the accuracy of Studebaker's photo:

Are you agreeing that Fritz picked up the shells and put them back down before the Studebaker photos were taken?  Was he just lucky in getting them back in the right places?  You are sure putting a lot of blind faith in Mooney's "pretty close to right".  What does that even mean?

Quote
You only have two choices:

No, you don't only have two choices.

Quote
ONE
Conspirator plants bullets in a formation that, amazingly, are a good match for the "Lost Bullet" recreation that uses Zapruder film as it's guide - which is this scenario:
     far flung bullet = miss shot from sniper standing up

Foul.  What is your basis for determining that the first shot was taken standing up and when it happened?  The test angle depends on knowing that.  What is your criteria for calling the "Lost Bullet" test a good match while at the same time acknowledging that the Studebaker photo doesn't even show the original position of the shells?  What they did was they started with a pre-assumption about what happened, saw where the shells landed and said "close enough".  Did they try having a middle-aged police captain randomly bounce three shells off of some boxes in an area that's only a few square feet to begin with and say "close enough"?  Where's the control for this experiment?

Quote
TWO
Shells fell from rifle fired from 6th floow window at the motorcade, at 12.30.

Option 2 has the following supporting evidence to back it up:

Three loud reports ring out - many identify them as rifle shots. That would suggest the possibility that three shells might well be found after the attack.
Connally's wounds suggest there is a rear shooter aiming down onto the car
Brennan sees a man wielding what he takes to be a high power rifle from: sixth floor now infamous window. Aiming down at the motorcade.
Brennan thinks the shooter is standing but admits in WC testimony that he thought the workers were also standing - meaning he saw the shooter crouching in all likelihood.
Jackson sees what he takes to be a rifle being drawn into the same window that Brennan saw the shooter: (his colleagues recall him saying he saw this)
An expert-led laser experiment in Dealey Plaza narrows the shooter's likely position to either the 6th floor snipers nest window or the DalTex 2nd floor window.
Mooney finds three spent Carcano hulls on the floor of the 6th floor far east window where Brennan saw a gunman and Jackson saw a rifle.

None of that tells you that the shells on the floor on the TSBD (or the ones in evidence) were ejected from a rifle in the process of shooting the president.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2017, 11:22:51 PM
by John Iacoletti
»

Offline Stuart Hill

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Powell vs Dillard
« Reply #764 on: March 18, 2017, 12:20:35 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Are you agreeing that Fritz picked up the shells and put them back down before the Studebaker photos were taken?  Was he just lucky in getting them back in the right places?  You are sure putting a lot of blind faith in Mooney's "pretty close to right".  What does that even mean?

No, you don't only have two choices.

Foul.  What is your basis for determining that the first shot was taken standing up and when it happened?  The test angle depends on knowing that.  What is your criteria for calling the "Lost Bullet" test a good match while at the same time acknowledging that the Studebaker photo doesn't even show the original position of the shells?  What they did was they started with a pre-assumption about what happened, saw where the shells landed and said "close enough".  Did they try having a middle-aged police captain randomly bounce three shells off of some boxes in an area that's only a few square feet to begin with and say "close enough"?  Where's the control for this experiment?

None of that tells you that the shells on the floor on the TSBD (or the ones in evidence) were ejected from a rifle in the process of shooting the president.

Are you agreeing that Fritz picked up the shells and put them back down before the Studebaker photos were taken?  Was he just lucky in getting them back in the right places?  You are sure putting a lot of blind faith in Mooney's "pretty close to right".  What does that even mean?

If you recreated the same experiment as the "Lost Bullet" recreation you could never get the shells to eject in exactly the same place - but they will go into the two distinct areas, if the recreation follows the scenario put forward by the Warren Commission - a missed first shot as the car passes close by the shooter who must stand to take this shot, then a second shot at about the point the car has reached the sign, with the shooter now crouching, a third head shot at frame 313 Zapruder, with the shooter still crouching.

The standing shot causes a shell to be flung far to the shooter's right side.



The other two will be closer to reflect the stance change and the fact that the shooter is now aiming at a receding vehicle.



Mooney accepts Studebaker's photo, as a close match to his own recollection - he's happy with it so I am too. I suppose that means that when Fritz put the cartridges back, Mooney is saying to us that he felt they had been put back into those two distinct areas. That's all we need to get the match for the "Lost Bullet" - hulls in the distinct areas. So, the shells photographed are in the distinct areas that follow the Warren Commission scenario. Studebaker's photo is my proof that the first shot was taken whilst the shooter was standing. That stance will throw the shell into that distinct area, as we see recreated by the marine marksman in "The Lost Bullet". Mooney attests to this position:

"...I do know there was--one was further away, and these other two were relatively close together--on this particular area."

Regarding the two choices.
If you do NOT accept (and I do accept) that the shooter man pointing a rifle at the passing motorcade seen by Brennan, whose gun is also seen by Jackson, is shooting, then he's play-acting at being an assassin for a day. What else can he be doing? Then it follows that somebody has placed the shells into position in the snipers nest afterwards. A conspiracy. (and placed them into the two distinct areas in an amazing feat of foresight!).
« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 07:12:22 PM
by Stuart Hill
»

Offline Barry Pollard

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
Re: Powell vs Dillard
« Reply #765 on: March 18, 2017, 10:55:14 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Nicely presented though Stuart."

Thanks Barry.
Do you know when the photo I posted was taken that day? The man in the hard hat in the far right foreground looks like the hard hat man casually walking past the doorway in this clip here:

Start it at about 1min 39 - I think that is one of the 5th floor workers going back into the building (three year old memory on this I'm afraid). then you see the Hard Hat man appear from far left. That should help time the photo perhaps.

(can you help, I can't work out how to post video - do you use the flash button?)


You do use the flash button while highlighting the link yes Stuart and remove the "s" but on my last two visits I can't see any youtube videos here, can't even see ones I post but I got the link from quoting your post.

Anyway Murray said(perhaps to Trask) that he was on the scene shortly after the shooting and remembers taking that photo and why(the hysterical woman).
He reached the railroad yards pretty soon after that and one of his first images there is about 3 mins after the shooting, Euins for one is still walking around.
So that first image is somewhere around 2 minutes probably. Murray himself would have us believe that it is within a minute but although it's possible, I personally don't believe he got the news of something happening in the plaza that fast.
The Hughes scene you linked to is around 12:50pm we think and Brennan is in the doorway sheepishly pointing out Norman to the cops but yes the other HH man could have been to the RR Yards and back no problem.


Offline Stuart Hill

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Powell vs Dillard
« Reply #766 on: March 18, 2017, 12:52:42 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You do use the flash button while highlighting the link yes Stuart and remove the "s" but on my last two visits I can't see any youtube videos here, can't even see ones I post but I got the link from quoting your post.

Anyway Murray said(perhaps to Trask) that he was on the scene shortly after the shooting and remembers taking that photo and why(the hysterical woman).
He reached the railroad yards pretty soon after that and one of his first images there is about 3 mins after the shooting, Euins for one is still walking around.
So that first image is somewhere around 2 minutes probably. Murray himself would have us believe that it is within a minute but although it's possible, I personally don't believe he got the news of something happening in the plaza that fast.
The Hughes scene you linked to is around 12:50pm we think and Brennan is in the doorway sheepishly pointing out Norman to the cops but yes the other HH man could have been to the RR Yards and back no problem.



Great info, thanks, Barry. I've checked the photo in Robin Unger's excellent gallery - can't think why I didn't immediately go there!
« Last Edit: March 18, 2017, 06:22:35 PM
by Stuart Hill
»

Offline Stuart Hill

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Powell vs Dillard
« Reply #767 on: March 18, 2017, 11:30:52 PM »
VIDEO FIND FOR FORUM USERS:

I've stumbled across an amazing (and still shocking in terms of content) assassination video that puts you into Dealey Plaza with full 360 degree movement as the Zapruder film is replayed over the 360 panorama. It's interactive in the point of view,  so you can move your virtual "head" at will (as if you are Zapruder moving his head). It should work with a VR headset. If you don't have a headset, wait for the images to look sharp - perhaps giving time for the video to load - then click and hold and drag with your mouse arrow pointer on the screen, the view will change accordingly.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


If the video appears jerky, try watching directly on the Youtube page.


« Last Edit: March 19, 2017, 12:11:04 AM
by Stuart Hill
»

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9063
Re: Powell vs Dillard
« Reply #768 on: March 20, 2017, 10:20:38 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If you recreated the same experiment as the "Lost Bullet" recreation you could never get the shells to eject in exactly the same place - but they will go into the two distinct areas, if the recreation follows the scenario put forward by the Warren Commission - a missed first shot as the car passes close by the shooter who must stand to take this shot, then a second shot at about the point the car has reached the sign, with the shooter now crouching, a third head shot at frame 313 Zapruder, with the shooter still crouching.

There are several problems with your argument.  How do you know that there was a shot as the car passed close by the shooter?  How do you know that the shooter stood as he took this shot?  How do you know he was crouching as he took the second shot?  How do you know that there was a shot at about the point the car had reached the sign?  You don't know any of this, so your argument is circular.  You're assuming that the shooting happened the way the WC guessed it did in order to show that the shooting happened the way the WC guessed it did.  And no, the "two distinct areas" aren't impressive when you consider that you're talking about 3 shells in a tight area and a guy who said "looks about right".

Quote
If you do NOT accept (and I do accept) that the shooter man pointing a rifle at the passing motorcade seen by Brennan, whose gun is also seen by Jackson, is shooting, then he's play-acting at being an assassin for a day. What else can he be doing?

This is an argument from ignorance.  You can guess what he was doing, but that doesn't change the fact that Brennan didn't claim to see anybody shooting.  Euins did, however.

Quote
Then it follows that somebody has placed the shells into position in the snipers nest afterwards. A conspiracy. (and placed them into the two distinct areas in an amazing feat of foresight!).

No, that's not the amazing feat of foresight that you like to pretend it is.  This is a perfect example of making the evidence fit the theory instead of the other way around.

Offline Stuart Hill

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
Re: Powell vs Dillard
« Reply #769 on: March 21, 2017, 01:27:35 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There are several problems with your argument.  How do you know that there was a shot as the car passed close by the shooter?  How do you know that the shooter stood as he took this shot?  How do you know he was crouching as he took the second shot?  How do you know that there was a shot at about the point the car had reached the sign?  You don't know any of this, so your argument is circular.  You're assuming that the shooting happened the way the WC guessed it did in order to show that the shooting happened the way the WC guessed it did.  And no, the "two distinct areas" aren't impressive when you consider that you're talking about 3 shells in a tight area and a guy who said "looks about right".

This is an argument from ignorance.  You can guess what he was doing, but that doesn't change the fact that Brennan didn't claim to see anybody shooting.  Euins did, however.

No, that's not the amazing feat of foresight that you like to pretend it is.  This is a perfect example of making the evidence fit the theory instead of the other way around.

You ask very valid questions - in fact I could not ask better questions. Especially If I was standing in the sniper's nest on the 22nd, as Mooney was, looking at the shells that have landed in the two distinct areas. These are your questions, they bear repeating:

How do you know that there was a shot as the car passed close by the shooter? 
How do you know that the shooter stood as he took this shot? 
How do you know he was crouching as he took the second shot? 
How do you know that there was a shot at about the point the car had reached the sign?


These are the precisely the questions that a conspirator has to face in any attempt to place shells into positions that will match the physical evidence and film footage of the murder. Your very questions argue that the shell placement is no easy task if you are going to succeed in being convincing with a pattern that will stand up to future comparisons with laser angles and Zapruder frame analysis and such forth. So it becomes extremely unlikely that a conspirator could plant bullets, before the Zapruder film has been developed, in a pattern of two distinct areas consistent with a moments of trauma in the movie. Your questions underline that.

Comparing the Studebaker photo with the "Lost Bullet" results shows a good match. And to achieve that match - which they cannot know they will achieve before they do the experiment - the documentary makers had to use the Zapruder frames showing moments of trauma in the car:

Head shot at frame 313 (obvious)
A probable shot as car reaches sign or emerges from sign, when much distress starts in the in car around the moment the car reaches/passes the sign.


Clearly, these are plausible, sensible-to-argue key moments from the Zapruder film that show clues that shots have been fired at the motorcade and have hit their mark. The resulting shell pattern is a match with those key moments of trauma. The pattern of the two closer bullets matches the pattern seen in the Studebaker photo - two shells flung closer together at the wall. Yet there is a third shell flung further away. Mooney says this:

...I do know there was--one was further away, and these other two were relatively close together--on this particular area."

Since there were three shots, it's reasonable to argue that a shot missed. So the documentary makers have researched and know that there are proponents who claim a shot around the time the car is passing close by the shooters' window as it starts down Elm St. Reasonably, then, they test this hypothesis - and the result is a bullet shell that is flung into the far area which we see in the Studebaker photo and which Mooney described in the above quote. For that shot, their marine marksman is standing so he can aim downwards to get a good angle on Kennedy.

The later two shots, fired after this one in the recreation experiment show that the Marine is crouching. Now, Brennan, who witnessed the man brandishing a rifle, says this in his WC testimony:

Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot.

So it appears that the shooter was standing. But moments later Brennan also says this:

Mr. BELIN. I believe you said you thought the man was standing. What do you believe was the position of the people on the fifth floor that you saw--standing or sitting?
Mr. BRENNAN. I thought they were standing with their elbows on the window sill leaning out.


Now we know that the workmen were not standing on the lower floor, so Brennan has been misled by perspective. In all likelihood then, the shooter was crouching.