Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?  (Read 24687 times)

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #24 on: January 01, 2019, 04:33:16 AM »
Advertisement
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: 241
Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #25 on: January 01, 2019, 04:39:45 AM »
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

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
    • SPMLaw
Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #26 on: January 01, 2019, 05:20:58 PM »
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: 2277
Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #27 on: January 01, 2019, 07:00:49 PM »
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 »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #28 on: January 01, 2019, 07:21:05 PM »
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:

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #28 on: January 01, 2019, 07:21:05 PM »


Offline Eddie Haymaker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #29 on: January 01, 2019, 08:44:12 PM »

Explain this obvious bullet strike please


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #30 on: January 01, 2019, 08:48:09 PM »

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. 

My recollection tells me that I've taken apart your "over 20 witnesses said that JFK reacted to the first shot" claim before. More than once.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #30 on: January 01, 2019, 08:48:09 PM »


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: The Magic Bullet - Fact or Fiction?
« Reply #31 on: January 01, 2019, 08:49:43 PM »
Explain this obvious bullet strike please



A fragment from the head shot.