Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: The Fundamental Problem  (Read 11358 times)

Offline Oscar Navarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #140 on: January 29, 2019, 11:30:05 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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

You're upset because I corrected your claim in quotes that Silvia Odio said "Lee Oswald" when in fact she said "Leon Oswald".

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #140 on: January 29, 2019, 11:30:05 AM »

Offline Oscar Navarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #141 on: January 29, 2019, 12:00:08 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    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.


The WC associate members came up with the timeline by working backwards from the obvious head shot at z313 to the Z frame that shows JFK reacting to being shot through the neck, which corresponded to z225 to the Z frame that shows the sniper had a clear LOF beginning at Z frame z210. That's 88 to 103 frames divided by 18.3fps = 4.8 to 5.3 seconds. The reason the SN was used was due to the overwhelming evidence that pointed to the SN as to were the shots came from. The addition of 2.3 seconds was added due to test performed which showed that was how long it took to operate the bolt. Tague threw a monkey wrench into the original FBI conclusion that three shots had hit their mark with the first hitting JFK, the second JBC, and the third and last hitting JFK. IIRC, the SBT was already formulated before the Tague wounding became known to WC associate counsel investigators so it would not have affected the timeline of the shots because it  was already known they couldn't account for where the bullet that first hit JFK went. So it still would have gone first shot hit both JFK and JBC, second shot missed, third shot hit JFK thus the 4.8 to 5.6 second timeline became moot from the outset of the WR becoming public. Years of experiments trying to prove that three shots could have been fired to duplicate the alleged Oswald marksman feat were a waste of time and served only to mislead the public to the real circumstances that affected the correct timeline of the three shot sequence from the SN.

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1324
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #142 on: January 29, 2019, 03:30:57 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The WC associate members came up with the timeline by working backwards from the obvious head shot at z313 to the Z frame that shows JFK reacting to being shot through the neck, which corresponded to z225 to the Z frame that shows the sniper had a clear LOF beginning at Z frame z210. That's 88 to 103 frames divided by 18.3fps = 4.8 to 5.3 seconds. The reason the SN was used was due to the overwhelming evidence that pointed to the SN as to were the shots came from. The addition of 2.3 seconds was added due to test performed which showed that was how long it took to operate the bolt. Tague threw a monkey wrench into the original FBI conclusion that three shots had hit their mark with the first hitting JFK, the second JBC, and the third and last hitting JFK. IIRC, the SBT was already formulated before the Tague wounding became known to WC associate counsel investigators so it would not have affected the timeline of the shots because it  was already known they couldn't account for where the bullet that first hit JFK went. So it still would have gone first shot hit both JFK and JBC, second shot missed, third shot hit JFK thus the 4.8 to 5.6 second timeline became moot from the outset of the WR becoming public. Years of experiments trying to prove that three shots could have been fired to duplicate the alleged Oswald marksman feat were a waste of time and served only to mislead the public to the real circumstances that affected the correct timeline of the three shot sequence from the SN.

     Well, let's STOP the bus at the get-go with the selection of, " a frame that shows JFK reacting to being shot through the neck....".  This is once again Guess Work.  I could get into that Visual Black Hole where the Limo is out of sight behind the Stemmons Sign, but you already DQ'd yourself right out of the box. GUESS WORK don't cut it.  This is why this case remains Unsolved after 55+ years. People cavalierly accepting as fact that which has been spoon fed to them = Uncertainty amidst Confusion.   
« Last Edit: January 29, 2019, 03:31:48 PM by Royell Storing »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #142 on: January 29, 2019, 03:30:57 PM »

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1325
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #143 on: January 29, 2019, 08:24:03 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    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.

The WC never guessed. They didn't come to a conclusion as to the time span of the shots. They presented some possible scenarios for the shots. Two of those scenarios dealt with one of the three shots missing. If it was the second shot that missed, then the time span for the three shots was 5.6 seconds. If it was the first shot that missed, then the time span was 7 seconds or longer.

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1324
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #144 on: January 30, 2019, 05:13:05 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The WC never guessed. They didn't come to a conclusion as to the time span of the shots. They presented some possible scenarios for the shots. Two of those scenarios dealt with one of the three shots missing. If it was the second shot that missed, then the time span for the three shots was 5.6 seconds. If it was the first shot that missed, then the time span was 7 seconds or longer.

           Thanks for confirming what I said by proffering that the WC presented "POSSIBLE Scenarios". Obviously, this IS "Guess Work". A Fact = Singular.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #144 on: January 30, 2019, 05:13:05 PM »

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1325
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #145 on: January 30, 2019, 09:21:14 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
           Thanks for confirming what I said by proffering that the WC presented "POSSIBLE Scenarios". Obviously, this IS "Guess Work". A Fact = Singular.

Your claim was that the WC Guessed as to the time span of shots being fired. Presenting possible scenarios is not guessing. It's using the information they had available and applying it to come up with those scenarios.


Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1324
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #146 on: January 30, 2019, 09:51:43 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your claim was that the WC Guessed as to the time span of shots being fired. Presenting possible scenarios is not guessing. It's using the information they had available and applying it to come up with those scenarios.

            "Possible Scenarios" = Multiple Guesses. 

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #146 on: January 30, 2019, 09:51:43 PM »

Online Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2667
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #147 on: January 30, 2019, 10:43:24 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
            "Possible Scenarios" = Multiple Guesses.

Possible Scenarios = CSI = Taking Pains
« Last Edit: January 30, 2019, 11:00:03 PM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #147 on: January 30, 2019, 10:43:24 PM »

Online Jack Trojan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #148 on: January 30, 2019, 10:50:22 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
*Exact* location isn?t known. C7 is a proposed inshoot. Bullet didn?t hit spine, take it you didn?t understand Thomas? explanation (which?using my superhuman precognitive powers I predict?you?ll claim you did and/or it didn?t make sense or something else that makes you out to be the smart one).

 ::) Here we go again. A closet lone nutter posing as the devil's advocate making excuses and obfuscating about anything that suggests a conspiracy. So do you believe the following x-ray, supplied by the conspirators as authentic?



Looks like the bullet smashed thru C7 to me. How about you?


Quote
Also only like 4 of the Parkland staff actually said the throat wound was an entry; the vast majority said their observations were conclusive enough (others did say they thought it would turn out to be one).

How many witnesses do you need, anyway? Besides, only Dr Perry's actions mattered, otherwise, looking like an entry wound to Parkland staff isn't as significant as the staff that saw the hole in the back of JFK's head.

Quote
You can?t know whether it was planted or where it was ?meant? to be so.

If the MB was not the same bullet that caused 7 wounds to JFK and Connally then it was planted. EOS.

Quote
Yeah! It?s not like the skull is harder than other bones or anything; they?re all the same. Just inconsistency after inconsistency, is obvs a conspiracy!

You mean that smashing thru C7, a rib and the radius bones leave the MB pristine yet thru the skull disintegrates a FMJ bullet? If you say so.

Quote
Strange, I don?t recall saying about Oswald or what sights he was using.

You implied it. You assume that Oswald took the shots, so why would marksman Oswald have kept a useless scope on the rifle? He would have needed to use the iron sights to pull off a 2 for 3 including a dead center head shot, that exploded in JFK's head.

Quote
You psychic now? You don?t and can?t know why he did what he did.

LOL. Of course I don't. But maybe you can show me where it says in the SS manual that you are supposed to slow down the limo to a near stop once you hear gunshots.   

Quote
I robot. Preserve the crime scene. As we all know, 99.9% of all murders gonunsolved, so this obviously crucial.

Huh? Are you actually sticking with your assertion that the FBI was so distraught that they obliterated crucial evidence so they could get the limo back into service?

Quote
You. Don?t. Know. That! Fairly certain shoddy police activity was common in Dallas, 1963. Paranoid ideation: you?re seeing malicious intent or the part of everybody for no reason. The only possible explanation is that Fritz thought exactly this at exactly this nanosecond, because he and everyone else was horrible even conspirator man!

Clutching at straws now? There is NO excuse for Fritz to have done what he did to stage the crime scene. EOS.

Quote
There were 4, only 3 exist today. And no, nutjobs moaning about shadows means nothing. Read an actual analysis by actual experts.

I figured you were channeling Lamson via PM. And sorry, but I am a photogrammetrist that has done extensive analysis on the BYPs and I am more than willing to go over all my findings that suggest that the BYPs were part of Oswald's  sheep-dipping and the DPD had a heavy hand in them, including what photo eventually got "leaked" to the public. But that photo was NOT taken with Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera and I can prove it. So exactly what does that tell you about nutjobs moaning about shadows?

Quote
Because human memory is a flawless system far superior to mere photographers, x-rays and movies of the actual gunshot.

But what if this was a conspiracy and you couldn't trust the photos, x-rays and movies?

Quote
The majority don?t. Pretty sloppy surgery too.

What majority are you talking about? And what was sloppy about straight cut surgery to cover up a bullet entrance wound?

Quote
Again, half a point.

Good thing you aren't in charge of assigning points because you aren't qualified.

Quote
Read it.

I did, which is why I doubt it.

Quote
?Logic.? I award points for any point I think was good. Humes? little fire is expedition is a genuinely good point (he lied about he reason), and he shouldn?t have been let anywhere near JFK?s body.

Without a doubt, Humes was a conspirator, which even you seem to acknowledge.

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1324
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #149 on: January 30, 2019, 11:35:31 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Possible Scenarios = CSI = Taking Pains

     :D Yeah. Since when is the SBT anything remotely close to CSI?  You got: (1) Specter (2) A Stick (3) A Mock Limo Back Seat.  This qualifies as a Joke. Not CSI.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #149 on: January 30, 2019, 11:35:31 PM »

 

Mobile View