Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?  (Read 8118 times)

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 1320
Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #20 on: January 01, 2019, 02:25:23 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You mean how you've framed the evidence.

In a nutshell.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #20 on: January 01, 2019, 02:25:23 AM »

Offline Eddie Haymaker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #21 on: January 01, 2019, 02:58:45 AM »

I didnt frame anything

evidence is evidence

It stands by itself

and that picture SHOULD dispel this ridiculous MBT forever


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 1320
Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #22 on: January 01, 2019, 03:20:12 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I didnt frame anything

evidence is evidence

It stands by itself

and that picture SHOULD dispel this ridiculous MBT forever

The evidence does stand by itself. The scenario that you presented is of your own creation. It has little to do with reality.

The magic bullet theory is ridiculous. It was created by conspiracy screwballs. I reject it entirely.

The Single Bullet Theory remains standing, Firm and unchallengeable.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #22 on: January 01, 2019, 03:20:12 AM »

Offline Eddie Haymaker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #23 on: January 01, 2019, 04:23:44 AM »
firm?

The sitting president disagreed with it (& you)

and 1 commissioner refused to sign off on it

you guys...

are holier than the pope!

lol

is that the very best you can do?

a declaration?
« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 04:28:20 AM by Eddie Haymaker »

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 1320
Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #24 on: January 01, 2019, 04:33:16 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
firm?

The sitting president disagreed with it (& you)

and 1 commissioner refused to sign off on it

you guys...

are holier than the pope!

lol

is that the very best you can do?

It makes no difference to me whether a sitting President disagreed with it or not. If he disagreed with it then either he was ignorant of the facts surrounding it or he was an idiot. There are other possible reasons I suppose (Hi Andrew) but those are the usual ones.

1 commissioner did NOT refuse to sign off on it. All seven Commissioners signed off on it.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #24 on: January 01, 2019, 04:33:16 AM »

Offline Eddie Haymaker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #25 on: January 01, 2019, 04:39:45 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It makes no difference to me whether a sitting President disagreed with it or not. If he disagreed with it then either he was ignorant of the facts surrounding it or he was an idiot.

wow

Offline Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
    • SPMLaw
Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #26 on: January 01, 2019, 05:20:58 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Single Bullet Theory remains standing, Firm and unchallengeable.
A version of the SBT remains standing. It is firm only if you ignore the evidence against it. And it is certainly challengeable. 

The current version is not the version that the WC counsel were pushing, as the many references in the evidence to "first shot" being the one that struck JFK attest. John McCloy believed that JBC was struck by the first shot and did not feel it right away.  It was not until many years later that the second shot SBT gained acceptance. So much for a "firm" theory. 

The evidence against the second shot SBT is abundant:  over 20 witnesses said that JFK reacted to the first shot - not by smiling and waving for 3 seconds which is what the SBT requires.  No one said he continued to smile and wave after the first shot.  There is abundant evidence (from motorcade witnesses, photographers, witnesses along Elm) that the first shot was between z186-202.  There is evidence that JFK was visible to Oswald in the SN by z195 and likely visible all the time he was passing under the oak tree. There is also abundant evidence that the shot pattern was 1.......2...3 so there could only have been one shot by z225 when the President is seen to be reacting. That in itself contradicts the second shot SBT.

As far as being challengeable, I am not sure what you mean.  I challenge it.  That does not mean that Oswald did not fire all three shots. He most certainly did.

« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 05:22:43 PM by Andrew Mason »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #26 on: January 01, 2019, 05:20:58 PM »

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 615
    • Zapruder Frames
Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #27 on: January 01, 2019, 07:00:49 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A version of the SBT remains standing. It is firm only if you ignore the evidence against it. And it is certainly challengeable. 

The current version is not the version that the WC counsel were pushing, as the many references in the evidence to "first shot" being the one that struck JFK attest. John McCloy believed that JBC was struck by the first shot and did not feel it right away.  It was not until many years later that the second shot SBT gained acceptance. So much for a "firm" theory. 

The evidence against the second shot SBT is abundant:  over 20 witnesses said that JFK reacted to the first shot - not by smiling and waving for 3 seconds

Few among the "20 witnesses" in your paper were actually in a position to see the President smiling. Of those, some (ie: the Chisms, Jean Newman) were "two shot" witnesses who merely recalled the President "slumping" on the shot which occurred before the head shot. That means their "first shot" was the second in most three-shot scenarios.



Mary Woodward saw the President not react (other than look around) to the first shot and "slump" on the second shot, followed by the head shot.

Quote
which is what the SBT requires. 

It's "required" only to meet your arbitrary claim.

Quote
No one said he continued to smile and wave after the first shot. 

But your list of 20 witnesses have few who were in a position to see the President wave clearly and even more who were not positioned to see his face.

Quote
There is abundant evidence (from motorcade witnesses, photographers, witnesses along Elm) that the first shot was between z186-202.  There is evidence that JFK was visible to Oswald in the SN by z195 and likely visible all the time he was passing under the oak tree.



No evidence for the car clearing the oak tree by Z195 that you produced. Better-resolution film shows the branches were a considerable hindrance.

Quote
There is also abundant evidence that the shot pattern was 1.......2...3

Witnesses were more attentive to the shot span--if they were attentive to such a thing at all--only after hearing a second shot. They had no reason to expect a second loud report after hearing the first as many dismissed the first as a "backfire" or "firecracker". The first shot blended more readily into the normal behavior observed in the crowd and the motorcade. Only with the second shot came a wave of awareness and urgency.

Quote
so there could only have been one shot by z225 when the President is seen to be reacting. That in itself contradicts the second shot SBT.
As far as being challengeable, I am not sure what you mean.  I challenge it.  That does not mean that Oswald did not fire all three shots. He most certainly did.

Andrew Mason is a defense attorney and apparently will commit any lie, misrepresentation or distortion to "defend" his "client" (pet theory).
« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 07:08:42 PM by Jerry Organ »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #27 on: January 01, 2019, 07:00:49 PM »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 2371
  • 'Pristine', my butt
Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #28 on: January 01, 2019, 07:21:05 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Few among the "20 witnesses" in your paper were actually in a position to see the President smiling. Of those, some (ie: the Chisms, Jean Newman) were "two shot" witnesses who merely recalled the President "slumping" on the shot which occurred before the head shot. That means their "first shot" was the second in most three-shot scenarios.



Mary Woodward saw the President not react (other than look around) to the first shot and "slump" on the second shot, followed by the head shot.

It's "required" only to meet your arbitrary claim.

But your list of 20 witnesses have few who were in a position to see the President wave clearly and even more who were not positioned to see his face.



No evidence for the car clearing the oak tree by Z195 that you produced. Better-resolution film shows the branches were a considerable hindrance.

Witnesses were more attentive to the shot span--if they were attentive to such a thing at all--only after hearing a second shot. They had no reason to expect a second loud report after hearing the first as many dismissed the first as a "backfire" or "firecracker". The first shot blended more readily into the normal behavior observed in the crowd and the motorcade. Only with the second shot came a wave of awareness and urgency.

Andrew Mason is a defense attorney and apparently will commit any lie, misrepresentation or distortion to "defend" his "client" (pet theory).

'Witnesses were more attentive to the shot span--if they were attentive to such a thing at all--only after hearing a second shot. They had no reason to expect a second loud report after hearing the first as many dismissed the first as a "backfire" or "firecracker". The first shot blended more readily into the normal behavior observed in the crowd and the motorcade. Only with the second shot came a wave of awareness and urgency.'

 Thumb1:

Offline Eddie Haymaker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #29 on: January 01, 2019, 08:44:12 PM »

Explain this obvious bullet strike please


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #29 on: January 01, 2019, 08:44:12 PM »

 

Mobile View