Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments  (Read 34385 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #64 on: January 26, 2023, 04:07:31 PM »
Advertisement
Everybody interprets the Z film as showing what it is they already believe. It’s a giant Rorschach test.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #64 on: January 26, 2023, 04:07:31 PM »


Online Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1667
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #65 on: January 27, 2023, 12:22:04 AM »

Everybody interprets the Z film as showing what it is they already believe. It’s a giant Rorschach test.

It's no use for science to analyze data. It's no use for use to look at the Zapruder film. The whole universe is just a Rorschach test. The Earth may appear to be spherical, or maybe that's just our bias kicking in. We can't learn anything from nature because we are only going to find what we expect to find. Except there are all kinds of examples where scientists saw things that they didn't expect, despite their biases. That is how science continuously evolves where old theories are replaced by better theories.

Any evidence against one's beliefs can be explained away as the other side bias is making them see things.

If I only had one opportunity to watch the Zapruder film, I would buy the notion that maybe I misremembered what I saw. Maybe my bias made me see it incorrectly. But not when I can view it over and over again. And see Connally's "soon to be hit" right shoulder move forward. And his "soon to be hit" coat move. And his "soon to be hit" right wrist shoot upwards.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #66 on: January 27, 2023, 06:33:45 AM »
It's no use for science to analyze data. It's no use for use to look at the Zapruder film. The whole universe is just a Rorschach test. The Earth may appear to be spherical, or maybe that's just our bias kicking in. We can't learn anything from nature because we are only going to find what we expect to find.

What is it that makes people think that sarcasm makes for good arguments?

Look all you like, but don’t pretend there’s anything objective about the “reactions” you think you see. People use what they think are “reactions” to justify shots in a whole bunch of different frames. Absent a recording turning up, there is no way to verify any of them.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #66 on: January 27, 2023, 06:33:45 AM »


Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
    • SPMLaw
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #67 on: January 28, 2023, 12:26:41 AM »
And see Connally's "soon to be hit" right shoulder move forward. And his "soon to be hit" coat move. And his "soon to be hit" right wrist shoot upwards.
According to the evidence (Gayle Newman and the Connallys in particular) JBC's shoulders did move like that before he was hit. He moved them in response to hearing the first shot, but not thinking he had been hit by it. So what you see in the zfilm fits with JBC and JFK reacting to the first shot.

Online Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1667
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #68 on: January 29, 2023, 02:12:33 AM »

According to the evidence (Gayle Newman and the Connallys in particular) JBC's shoulders did move like that before he was hit. He moved them in response to hearing the first shot, but not thinking he had been hit by it. So what you see in the zfilm fits with JBC and JFK reacting to the first shot.

As always, I'm not that interested in eyewitness testimony. Not when I can see for myself as many times as I like. Unlike the eyewitness who could only experience it once and were not expecting to see anything.

Question: Which Zapruder frames are you talking about where JBC's shoulders move like that before he was hit, in response to hearing the first shot?

The frames I am talking about are:
  z223- . . . : Where we can see the start of JBC's right shoulder moving forward.
  z223-z225: Where we can see JBC's coat move, the "lapel flip" or the "coat bulge" (I can't tell which) in frame z-224.
  z225- . . . : Where we can see JBC suddenly jerk his right hand upward, bring his hat into view by z-226.

Question: What frame numbers correspond to each of the shots you think were fired?

I believe the frame numbers that correspond to the three shots were:
  z153: First shot miss.
  z222: Second shot (SBT).
  z312: Third shot (head shot).

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #68 on: January 29, 2023, 02:12:33 AM »


Online Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1667
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #69 on: January 29, 2023, 02:30:30 AM »

What is it that makes people think that sarcasm makes for good arguments?

Look all you like, but don’t pretend there’s anything objective about the “reactions” you think you see. People use what they think are “reactions” to justify shots in a whole bunch of different frames. Absent a recording turning up, there is no way to verify any of them.

Sarcasm aside, what is the point of anyone looking at the evidence, so they can decide for themselves, if they are going to assume that they are seeing what they expect to see?

How LNers are different from most people, is that there are a lot of things that line up with a shot at z-222:

* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" right shoulder from z-223 forward.
* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" coat from z-223 through z-225.
* The jerking up of Connally's "soon to be hit" right wrist from z-226 through z-232.
* The jerking up of both of JFK's "hit well before" elbows starting at z226, where both elbows are held high (and more or less locked in place) through z-312.
* The Zapruder camera blurring at z-227.
* The alignment (as far as we can tell) of the sniper's nest, JFK's neck wounds and Connally's back wound right around z222.

A fantastic set of coincidences, if the SBT is false and a bullet did not strike both, right about at z-222.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #70 on: January 29, 2023, 06:36:59 AM »
There’s nothing coincidental about it. People who believe in a single bullet see what they consider simultaneous reactions, and people who believe in separate shots see separate reactions.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #70 on: January 29, 2023, 06:36:59 AM »


Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
    • SPMLaw
Re: LNers Can't Explain the Two Back-of-Head Bullet Fragments
« Reply #71 on: January 30, 2023, 12:14:39 AM »
Sarcasm aside, what is the point of anyone looking at the evidence, so they can decide for themselves, if they are going to assume that they are seeing what they expect to see?

How LNers are different from most people, is that there are a lot of things that line up with a shot at z-222:

* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" right shoulder from z-223 forward.
* The movement of Connally's "soon to be hit" coat from z-223 through z-225.
* The jerking up of Connally's "soon to be hit" right wrist from z-226 through z-232.
* The jerking up of both of JFK's "hit well before" elbows starting at z226, where both elbows are held high (and more or less locked in place) through z-312.
* The Zapruder camera blurring at z-227.
* The alignment (as far as we can tell) of the sniper's nest, JFK's neck wounds and Connally's back wound right around z222.

A fantastic set of coincidences, if the SBT is false and a bullet did not strike both, right about at z-222.
I don't see why it would be a coincidence for both men to react to the first shot. They are both reacting to the same stimulus. So they are not independent events. A coincidence would be events having independent causes occurring at the same time.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2023, 12:15:21 AM by Andrew Mason »