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

Author Topic: The Fundamental Problem  (Read 10178 times)

Online Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 2899
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #130 on: January 27, 2019, 04:44:46 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
     You do the same thing to Walter. You "nitpick" at his Multiple Oswalds Theory. Where is his apology?

I do not have a multiple Oswald's theory....  That theory is utter nonsense....  However I do firmly believe that there was more than one gunman firing at JFK that day.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #130 on: January 27, 2019, 04:44:46 PM »

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #131 on: January 27, 2019, 05:06:32 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I do not have a multiple Oswald's theory....  That theory is utter nonsense....  However I do firmly believe that there was more than one gunman firing at JFK that day.

    Now you're getting touchy. Was only kidding.  Remember, "He who Excuses himself, Accuses himself".

Online Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 2899
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #132 on: January 27, 2019, 05:15:23 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    Now you're getting touchy. Was only kidding.  Remember, "He who Excuses himself, Accuses himself".

OK...  I thought that you truly believed that I believe in multiple "Oswalds" ...  There's no doubt in my mind that the outfit who Lee was working for ( or thought he was working for)  used other young men as decoys for the real Lee Oswald.   Those decoys signed in as "Lee Oswald" ( Museum registrar) or identified themselves as "Lee Oswald" ( Odio)     

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #132 on: January 27, 2019, 05:15:23 PM »

Offline Dale Nason

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #133 on: January 27, 2019, 10:09:11 PM »
Here's my theory. Now I'm getting myself into the mix....LOL. The Warren Commisssion ASSUMED that there were 3 shots fired from the TSBD in about 6 seconds. ( Give or take a second or two). No where in the WC reports is there any reference to the change of trajectory, the 'load" of the bullet. the difference in distance of the shots, the realigning of the sights, the fact that the " alleged shooter" had to account for an obstruction in his sights, and most importantly....that the gun he "allegedly fired" was capable of producing " 3 consecutive" shots with the same velocity and the same accuracy  as the previous ones, period. We  are asked to assume that the shooter from this sight could be an expert marksman with incredible skills who could outshoot any reasonable person with basic shooting skills and then, walk away and calmly hide his weapon and escape undetected. I DON
T BUY IT FOR ONE SECOND. Sorry. It makes no sense to me. 

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #134 on: January 27, 2019, 11:33:39 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here's my theory. Now I'm getting myself into the mix....LOL. The Warren Commisssion ASSUMED that there were 3 shots fired from the TSBD in about 6 seconds. ( Give or take a second or two). No where in the WC reports is there any reference to the change of trajectory, the 'load" of the bullet. the difference in distance of the shots, the realigning of the sights, the fact that the " alleged shooter" had to account for an obstruction in his sights, and most importantly....that the gun he "allegedly fired" was capable of producing " 3 consecutive" shots with the same velocity and the same accuracy  as the previous ones, period. We  are asked to assume that the shooter from this sight could be an expert marksman with incredible skills who could outshoot any reasonable person with basic shooting skills and then, walk away and calmly hide his weapon and escape undetected. I DON
T BUY IT FOR ONE SECOND. Sorry. It makes no sense to me.

     Very logical critique of the WC LN Theory.  The members of the WC followed their marching orders and in doing this were forced to insult the I.Q. of John Q. Public. They produced an unbelievable narrative that 55+ years later still renders head shaking from the masses.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #134 on: January 27, 2019, 11:33:39 PM »

Online Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 2899
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #135 on: January 28, 2019, 12:02:05 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here's my theory. Now I'm getting myself into the mix....LOL. The Warren Commisssion ASSUMED that there were 3 shots fired from the TSBD in about 6 seconds. ( Give or take a second or two). No where in the WC reports is there any reference to the change of trajectory, the 'load" of the bullet. the difference in distance of the shots, the realigning of the sights, the fact that the " alleged shooter" had to account for an obstruction in his sights, and most importantly....that the gun he "allegedly fired" was capable of producing " 3 consecutive" shots with the same velocity and the same accuracy  as the previous ones, period. We  are asked to assume that the shooter from this sight could be an expert marksman with incredible skills who could outshoot any reasonable person with basic shooting skills and then, walk away and calmly hide his weapon and escape undetected. I DON
T BUY IT FOR ONE SECOND. Sorry. It makes no sense to me.

I DON'T BUY IT FOR ONE SECOND. Sorry. It makes no sense to me.

Well Perhaps if you smoked some stuff, you could imagine that the tale is true....   I suspect that's what many of the LNer's do......

Offline Oscar Navarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 463
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #136 on: January 28, 2019, 12:19:35 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
OK...  I thought that you truly believed that I believe in multiple "Oswalds" ...  There's no doubt in my mind that the outfit who Lee was working for ( or thought he was working for)  used other young men as decoys for the real Lee Oswald.   Those decoys signed in as "Lee Oswald" ( Museum registrar) or identified themselves as "Lee Oswald" ( Odio)     

Silvia Odio never said Lee, she  said "Leon Oswald". That was probably the war name used by the third guy. She remembers one of the guys used Leopoldo but doesn't remember the name used by the other guy, or if he even used a name. These guys supposedly came from New Orleans and the Lee Oswald story was not a secret. The most probable scenario is that the guy who used, or was referred to as Leon Oswald by Leopoldo was using Leon Oswald as a cover. Another interesting case of a coincidence being turned into conspiracy involving anti-Castro Cubans.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #136 on: January 28, 2019, 12:19:35 AM »

Online Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 2899
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #137 on: January 28, 2019, 01:12:34 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Silvia Odio never said Lee, she  said "Leon Oswald". That was probably the war name used by the third guy. She remembers one of the guys used Leopoldo but doesn't remember the name used by the other guy, or if he even used a name. These guys supposedly came from New Orleans and the Lee Oswald story was not a secret. The most probable scenario is that the guy who used, or was referred to as Leon Oswald by Leopoldo was using Leon Oswald as a cover. Another interesting case of a coincidence being turned into conspiracy involving anti-Castro Cubans.


What a dishonest cretin you are Navarro.....

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #137 on: January 28, 2019, 01:12:34 AM »

Offline Oscar Navarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 463
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #138 on: January 28, 2019, 12:12:07 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here's my theory. Now I'm getting myself into the mix....LOL. The Warren Commisssion ASSUMED that there were 3 shots fired from the TSBD in about 6 seconds. ( Give or take a second or two). No where in the WC reports is there any reference to the change of trajectory, the 'load" of the bullet. the difference in distance of the shots, the realigning of the sights, the fact that the " alleged shooter" had to account for an obstruction in his sights, and most importantly....that the gun he "allegedly fired" was capable of producing " 3 consecutive" shots with the same velocity and the same accuracy  as the previous ones, period. We  are asked to assume that the shooter from this sight could be an expert marksman with incredible skills who could outshoot any reasonable person with basic shooting skills and then, walk away and calmly hide his weapon and escape undetected. I DON
T BUY IT FOR ONE SECOND. Sorry. It makes no sense to me.


You're really starting off on the wrong foot, Dale. For starters The WC didn't assume anything of the sort you're claiming but based their conclusion that three shots were fired based on the overwhelming earwitness testimony that three shots were fired, that three empty hulls were found on the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD (the SN) and that there was no credible evidence found that shots were fired from any other spot. That 6second timeline was based on the Z film were it was calculated that 3 shots could have been fired between zframes 210-25 and 313, so divide that by 18.3fps (as calculated by FBI experts) and you get a range of 4.8 seconds to 5.6 seconds if, and this is very important, the second shot missed. If either the first, or much less probably, the third shot missed then the time span of the shots would be expanded by at least 2.3 seconds (the time calculated for the bolt to be operated). This would increase the time span for three shots to 7.1 to 7.9 seconds. But the WC also indicated that the time span could have been greater for the three shots if it took longer for the shooter to work the bolt and aquire it's target. This is all in the WRpages 110 - 117.

The trajectory and distance were covered in the WR between pages 96 and 110. The load of the bullet was determined to be on average about 160 to 161 grains and the obstruction of the Oak tree was covered when it was found that branches began to obstruct the shooter by zframe 160.

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1041
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #139 on: January 28, 2019, 05:36:05 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You're really starting off on the wrong foot, Dale. For starters The WC didn't assume anything of the sort you're claiming but based their conclusion that three shots were fired based on the overwhelming earwitness testimony that three shots were fired, that three empty hulls were found on the 6th floor SE corner of the TSBD (the SN) and that there was no credible evidence found that shots were fired from any other spot. That 6second timeline was based on the Z film were it was calculated that 3 shots could have been fired between zframes 210-25 and 313, so divide that by 18.3fps (as calculated by FBI experts) and you get a range of 4.8 seconds to 5.6 seconds if, and this is very important, the second shot missed. If either the first, or much less probably, the third shot missed then the time span of the shots would be expanded by at least 2.3 seconds (the time calculated for the bolt to be operated). This would increase the time span for three shots to 7.1 to 7.9 seconds. But the WC also indicated that the time span could have been greater for the three shots if it took longer for the shooter to work the bolt and aquire it's target. This is all in the WRpages 110 - 117.

The trajectory and distance were covered in the WR between pages 96 and 110. The load of the bullet was determined to be on average about 160 to 161 grains and the obstruction of the Oak tree was covered when it was found that branches began to obstruct the shooter by zframe 160.

    What you are basically saying is the WC Guessed as to the time span of shots being fired. Of course this Guess Work was tied to an unrestricted sight line from their alleged LN Sniper's Nest. Wham-Bam Got You Man. You forgot to mention this entire fairy tale was Altered at least one time upon Tague popping up with his corroborated facial wound.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #139 on: January 28, 2019, 05:36:05 PM »

 

Mobile View