Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: The Fundamental Problem  (Read 35523 times)

Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2598
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #144 on: January 30, 2019, 05:13:05 PM »
Advertisement
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: 1824
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #145 on: January 30, 2019, 09:21:14 PM »
           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: 2598
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #146 on: January 30, 2019, 09:51:43 PM »
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 »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #147 on: January 30, 2019, 10:43:24 PM »
            "Possible Scenarios" = Multiple Guesses.

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

Offline Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #148 on: January 30, 2019, 10:50:22 PM »
*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.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #148 on: January 30, 2019, 10:50:22 PM »


Online Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2598
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #149 on: January 30, 2019, 11:35:31 PM »
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.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #150 on: January 31, 2019, 11:51:23 PM »
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.

Did he also just "coincidentally" look like Lee Oswald?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #150 on: January 31, 2019, 11:51:23 PM »


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: The Fundamental Problem
« Reply #151 on: February 01, 2019, 12:33:37 AM »
Did he also just "coincidentally" look like Lee Oswald?

Isn't it strange that it was the APPEARANCE ( the image) that Odio saw on TV that caused her near hysteria..... She saw the image on TV and recognized Lee Oswald as the man who had been to her apartment.....  But on the other hand several witnesses in Mexico City were just as certain that It was Lee Oswald they had seen in M C.

No wonder Hoover was trying to verify the voice.....Or at least he made the pretense ( or create confusion) of trying to determine if it was Oswald's voice.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 04:20:59 PM by Walt Cakebread »