Author Topic: The First Shot  (Read 8463 times)

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
Re: The First Shot
« Reply #540 on: January 14, 2021, 07:39:49 AM »
I am sorry you think that I am misrepresenting anything and/or avoiding the arguments you put forward. If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that the sudden apparent gagging action seen beginning at z226 or z227 is the beginning of any reaction. I strongly disagree and I am explaining why. I am saying that we simply cannot tell when his reaction began because when he first emerges from behind the sign he is already reacting.  I am not sure why you do not respond to this point.

 ;D

You're unbelievable. You start by apologising for misrepresenting and avoiding my arguments.
In the very next sentence you misrepresent and avoid my arguments - for the third time!!

"If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that the sudden apparent gagging action seen beginning at z226 or z227"

Nowhere have I mentioned an "apparent gagging action",
You have completely made this up (for the third time)
You then "strongly disagree" with this point you've just made up, avoiding the arguments I have presented (for the third time)

Earlier in the thread Jerry gave the impression you were some kind of slippery customer.
I thought it was harsh at the time but I'm starting to get it.

Offline Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
    • SPMLaw
Re: The First Shot
« Reply #541 on: January 14, 2021, 01:16:07 PM »
;D

You're unbelievable. You start by apologising for misrepresenting and avoiding my arguments.
In the very next sentence you misrepresent and avoid my arguments - for the third time!!

"If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that the sudden apparent gagging action seen beginning at z226 or z227"

Nowhere have I mentioned an "apparent gagging action",
You have completely made this up (for the third time)
You then "strongly disagree" with this point you've just made up, avoiding the arguments I have presented (for the third time)
First of all, I apologized if I did not make myself clear and left you the impression that I misrepresented something.  I never intended to misrepresent anything.  I did not apologize for intending to misrepresent what you said. 

Second, I assumed that the obvious gagging action that we see JFK doing beginning at z226 or z227 which you refer to as a "reflex" means that you were referring to a gag reflex.  If I am incorrect in this, it was not because I was trying to misrepresent what you said. It was my understanding based on what you had written. 

Quote
Earlier in the thread Jerry gave the impression you were some kind of slippery customer.
I thought it was harsh at the time but I'm starting to get it.
Jerry thinks all lawyers are slippery.  I am not sure what experience he has had with lawyers, probably very little.  I think you should look at my arguments and not try to resort to ad hominem epithets.  It gives the impression of a last resort in a losing argument.

Now if you would stop avoiding the very simple point that I am making that would contradict the point you are trying to make, it would be appreciated.  "How can you determine that JFK is NOT reacting before z224 when he is obviously reacting at z225, which is very similar to z224, and we cannot see him except his left hand in z223 and do not see him at all between z207 and z223?"  Simple question.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 04:45:00 PM by Andrew Mason »

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1247
  • Halifax - Canada
    • Plaza 3D
Re: The First Shot
« Reply #542 on: January 14, 2021, 05:18:31 PM »
Jerry thinks all lawyers are slippery.



Most successful defense attorneys are. However, Posner, Bugliosi and the lawyers on the WC are heads and shoulders above a spatially-challenged lawyer who vainly argues a failed Theory.



When people believe slime-ball attorneys or rally to their specious arguments that waste court time and resources.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8341
Re: The First Shot
« Reply #543 on: January 14, 2021, 06:03:44 PM »
Lawyer or not, an argument has to be judged on its merits, not manipulation through rhetoric.  Lawyers in general are more skilled in the latter than they are in the scientific method.  And that definitely applies to Bugliosi.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 06:04:35 PM by John Iacoletti »

Offline Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
    • SPMLaw
Re: The First Shot
« Reply #544 on: January 14, 2021, 09:48:29 PM »

Most successful defense attorneys are. However, Posner, Bugliosi and the lawyers on the WC are heads and shoulders above a spatially-challenged lawyer who vainly argues a failed Theory.

When people believe slime-ball attorneys or rally to their specious arguments that waste court time and resources.
I am collecting good examples of ad hominem statements for how not to weaken an argument. Can I use these? 

I have noticed that you do not agree with the point Dan is making which is that JFK is reacting to the first shot at z225. In fact, I agree with him more than you do.  I am just saying that the evidence as to when the first shot occurred indicates that it occurred a bit earlier than z223 - closer to z200 and likely between z195 and z200.
As I have said many times, my "theory" is that the following occurred:

1.  The first shot was after z186 and struck JFK in the back/neck.
2.  The shot pattern was 1...........2......3
3.  JBC was hit in the back on the second shot.
4.  The head shot was the third and last shot.

The evidence for each is very strong and the contrary evidence either weak or non-existent. 

Now, you agree with 3 and 4 but not 1 or 2.  Dan O'meara agrees with 1 and 2 but not 3 or 4. 

So my "specious", "sleezeball", "bat-shit crazy", "idiotic" etc. "theory" is simply to assert that two facts that you agree are correct and two facts that Dan agrees are correct, and on all of which there is abundant evidence, are, in fact, all correct. 

The only reason I my "spatially challenged" brain clings "vainly" to my "failed theory" that these four facts are correct is that it is the only explanation that does not require throwing out large bodies of consistent, independent evidence.  And, not surprisingly, it fits the only reasonable conclusion on all the rest of the evidence that Oswald fired all three shots. 
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 10:20:50 PM by Andrew Mason »

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
Re: The First Shot
« Reply #545 on: January 14, 2021, 11:13:13 PM »

Now if you would stop avoiding the very simple point that I am making that would contradict the point you are trying to make, it would be appreciated.  "How can you determine that JFK is NOT reacting before z224 when he is obviously reacting at z225, which is very similar to z224, and we cannot see him except his left hand in z223 and do not see him at all between z207 and z223?"  Simple question.

Firstly - I'm not avoiding anything.
Secondly - you still haven't dealt with the arguments I have presented
Thirdly - the answer to your "simple question" is in the arguments I have presented.



Offline Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
    • SPMLaw
Re: The First Shot
« Reply #546 on: January 15, 2021, 05:55:46 AM »
Firstly - I'm not avoiding anything.
Secondly - you still haven't dealt with the arguments I have presented
What arguments?  That the left hand is the only indicator of whether he is reacting?  That seems to be what it boils down to.  Based on your hunch, you assert that the stimulus for the motion of his left hand beginning in z225 occurred at z223. 

I have pointed out that there is no evidence that conflicts with a more gradual reaction to being shot at z195-200, which is when TE Moore, Jeanette Hooker (when the President was just almost to the Thornton Freeway sign), Phil Willis (just an instant before his z202 photo), as well as numerous motorcade and Elm St. witnesses put the first shot. 

I have dealt with it by pointing out that his face and his right arm and hand are showing signs of reacting by z224 and certainly by z225. I point out that we can't see all the rest of JFK before z223.  Other than your hunch that his left arm determines when he was hit, you really have not offered much evidence to support your view that the shot occurred at z223. 

Quote
Thirdly - the answer to your "simple question" is in the arguments I have presented.
Which is your hunch that the z225 left hand motion has to be within 2 frames of being shot. And I asked you how you can rule out that he was not already reacting behind the sign before z223.  To which you have never responded.

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
Re: The First Shot
« Reply #547 on: January 15, 2021, 10:13:10 PM »
Let's have a look at what you describe as my "hunch" concerning JFK's left arm.

It has already been established that for the full duration of the Z-film, from z133 (when we first see the presidential limo) until z225 (just after JFK emerges from behind the 'Stemmons' sign), JFK's left arm is down by his side. This is a fact, not a hunch.
Within approximately one third of a second JFK's left arm moves from this position (at z225)



To this position (at z232)



Within such a ridiculously small amount of time his left elbow goes from being down by his side at z225 to the unnaturally extended position we see in z232. This is a fact, it is not a hunch.
It would be difficult to achieve this speed of movement as a conscious action but JFK is doing it as a reflex reaction to being shot. It is reasonable to assume that prior to this moment he has no intention of raising his arm in such a fashion.

Is it a "hunch" to assume JFK is reacting to being shot?
JFK is shot through the throat. His reaction to being shot through the throat is to raise his hands up to his throat. This reaction begins at z225. This is not a hunch.
His left arm does not raise up before z225. This is not a hunch.
So if his reaction to being shot through the throat is to raise his hands to his throat, and if it can be clearly demonstrated from the Z-film that this reaction does not occur until z225 then what is this "hunch" you're talking about?
Maybe you are proposing that whilst JFK is behind the sign he has a "pre-reaction" to being shot. The problem with that is the extreme speed at which JFK moves which indicates a "reflex reaction" to being shot (NOT A GAGGING REFLEX  ::), A REFLEX REACTION). A Reflex Reaction would be his first response to such a traumatic injury. We don't need to guess about what's going on behind the sign as the Z-film shows us his first reaction.

So what is this "hunch"? - "That the left hand is the only indicator of whether he is reacting?"
Really? It's the only indicator?

Are there any other extreme and rapid reactions that occur at the same time as JFK's left arm movement?
At z223 both JFK and JBC are shot through with the same bullet. The close-up of the Z-film below focusses on JBC. It begins with him looking to his right, towards the people lining Elm St. He has a quick look to his left then resumes looking to his right. By z167 JBC has completed his turn to the left and is looking towards the crowds to his right. From this point on until he emerges from behind the Stemmons sign JBC stays in exactly this position!




The following frames from the Z-film (z222 and z223) show JBC after he has emerged from behind the sign. He shows no signs of distress and appears to look exactly the same as when he passed behind the sign:



From this seemingly relaxed position JBC undergoes a rapid and extreme reaction. He is holding his Stetson hat which is resting in his lap. Between frames z225 and z230 the Stetson suddenly leaps up to his face. This action takes approximately one quarter of a second. It is incredibly quick. Up to this point the hat has been resting in his lap then suddenly, at exactly the same moment JFK is making his incredibly rapid movements, JBC also "decides" to make an incredibly rapid movement of his own:



But this is not the only incredibly quick movement taking place at this time. As JFK emerges from behind the sign at z224 we can see his hand is in an open position (somewhere you have used the ridiculous expression "semi clenched" but you mean "open", although not fully extended open). I have presented a clear argument that we cannot use the position of JFK's right arm/hand at this point as a reliable indicator of when JFK first reacts to being shot. The reason we can't use it as a reliable indicator is because JFK is moving it around as he passes behind the Stremmons sign.
Even so, there is still a discernable and incredibly rapid reaction that takes place which I have described as the "Hand Snap". This is a post from earlier in the thread:

JFK's reaction to being shot seems strange in a couple of ways. Firstly, he doesn't 'clutch' at his throat as one might expect, instead his hands clench into fists which he seems to jam under his chin. Secondly is the way his elbows extend upwards in quite an extreme way. For a second or so he seems to go rigid, his elbows extended upwards. To me this seems more like a reflex than a straightforward reaction to an external stimulus. The difference being that a reflex is quicker than a reaction.

“The average reaction time for a visual stimulus is about 250 milliseconds. The average reaction time for an auditory stimulus is about 170 milliseconds and for a touch stimulus 150 milliseconds.” [https://www.onaverage.co.uk/other-averages/average-reaction-time]

If we assume the average reaction to a touch stimulus is 150 milliseconds we can use this to get a rough estimate of when JFK was first hit. Before that, it must be established when JFK first reacted to being shot. As I stated in an earlier post, as JFK begins to emerge from behind the Stemmons sign (z224) we can see his right hand in a slightly raised position. I argued that, as he was coming to the end of his last wave I couldn't draw anything conclusive about this hand position (ie: he was already reaching for his throat) and that the movement of his left arm/hand was a much truer indication of when he reacted to being shot. It appeared to me that the most obvious reaction began at z226 but there seemed to be a hint of movement at z225. In the clip below i would like to focus on JFK's right hand. It is known that after being shot his hands clench into fists which he thrusts under his chin. The clip below shows the moment his right hand clenches shut into a fist:



It seems clear to me that his hand is beginning to close in z225 and fully closes shut in z226. From this I conclude that his very first reaction to being shot can be seen in z225.
Each Zapruder frame represents, approximately, a timespan of 55 milliseconds. If we accept the reaction time to a touch stimulus as 150 milliseconds this means the stimulus (the shot) cannot have occurred more than 4 z-frames before the reaction. That is to say, the shot to which JFK is reacting cannot have occurred before z221, particularly if it is a reflex reaction. It is also worth noting that a reflex reaction is much quicker than a normal reaction to a stimulus. As such it can be expected that the first shot hit JFK z221 to z224.


At the same moment in the Z-film there are at least three unbelievably quick reflex reactions - JFK's left elbow shooting up from his side to a point of full extension (about one third of a second), JBC's Stetson suddenly flying up from his lap close to his face (one quarter of a second) and JFK's hand snapping shut (less than one fifth of a second).

Three extremely rapid reactions, all occurring at the same time. To postulate these are reactions to stimulus a couple of seconds earlier is absurd.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2021, 10:18:11 PM by Dan O'meara »

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
Re: The First Shot
« Reply #548 on: January 15, 2021, 10:38:01 PM »


Most successful defense attorneys are. However, Posner, Bugliosi and the lawyers on the WC are heads and shoulders above a spatially-challenged lawyer who vainly argues a failed Theory.



When people believe slime-ball attorneys or rally to their specious arguments that waste court time and resources.
I wouldn't include Dershowitz in that "slime ball" category. Giuliani, yes; I have no idea what's happened to him with Trump and this election nonsense. Slimy? Deranged? I don't know.

Dershowitz has been defending "unpopular" people for decades. And he's taught generations of lawyers at Harvard. This is no crank or sleazeball. He's always been one warning about a "mob mentality" that is too quick to find people guilty. And for this he should be credited. He defends liberals or conservatives, Democrats, Marxists, Republicans, anarchists. He defended Clinton when he was impeached. He favors no side; just, as he sees it, the law. As he explained it: "I am a liberal Democrat in politics, but a neutral civil libertarian when it comes to the Constitution." Hell, I'll wager that he would have defended Oswald and made sure that his rights were being protected.

We can counter his arguments - his views on what constitutes an impeachable offense are far too strict - but to call him a slime ball is unfair.

As to the WC lawyers: some of the top trial lawyers in the country advised the Commission. I mentioned Joseph Ball but we can add Albert Jenner. And John Hart Ely went on to a distinguished career. Norman Redlich founded the NYU law school.

I mean, for crissakes, anyone who thinks these men would willingly and knowingly coverup for the assassination of JFK is just thinking bizarre things. If you think they were wrong then state your case. But to accuse them of actively engaging in a coverup and framing an innocent man is simply absurd. But in conspiracy world - as we see with this nonsense about the election being stolen from Trump - absurdities are all conspiracists have.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2021, 11:16:37 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1247
  • Halifax - Canada
    • Plaza 3D
Re: The First Shot
« Reply #549 on: January 15, 2021, 11:40:11 PM »
I wouldn't include Dershowitz in that "slime ball" category. Giuliani, yes; I have no idea what's happened to him with Trump and this election nonsense. Slimy? Deranged? I don't know.

Dershowitz has been defending "unpopular" people for decades. And he's taught generations of lawyers at Harvard. This is no crank or sleazeball. He's always been one warning about a "mob mentality" that is too quick to find people guilty. And for this he should be credited. He defends liberals or conservatives, Democrats, Marxists, Republicans, anarchists. He defended Clinton when he was impeached. He favors no side; just, as he sees it, the law. As he explained it: "I am a liberal Democrat in politics, but a neutral civil libertarian when it comes to the Constitution." Hell, I'll wager that he would have defended Oswald and made sure that his rights were being protected.

We can counter his arguments - his views on what constitutes an impeachable offense are far too strict - but to call him a slime ball is unfair.

The reference to slime balls was for the attorneys supplying frivolous legal loopholes that gave Trump and his followers false hope that they could overturn the election or have states unilaterally decide to send GOP Electors. Obviously, Trump has no personal legal learning and got his ideas from a legal team. Defense attorneys split a hair (that is their forte) when they contend Giuliani is a "prosecutor" and not one of them, but, in recent years, he's been a de facto defense attorney for Trump.

I don't believe Dershowitz participated in the legal wrangling over election returns. He's enabling Trump and other celebrity crooks in other ways.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2021, 01:00:50 AM by Jerry Organ »

 

Mobile View