Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory  (Read 11187 times)

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #24 on: December 29, 2022, 03:25:57 PM »
Advertisement
Do you think the Willis photo of JFK waving to the TSBD secretaries at approximately Z202 was a hoax? It is known where the first shot occurred. Right in front of them. They said so, there were not any HSCA members standing beside them. To believe a shot at Z186 means he would have to go back waving to the crowd after being wounded. What a politician to be able to accomplish that.

You want to quote the HSCA, but seemingly forgetful when it comes to Mr. Canning’s analysis of the film and concluding the only possible explanation for the wound to have occurred in JBC’s back was a bullet having first passed through JFK. 

The eyewitnesses were unanimous in stating JFK reacted to the first shot. Only Elizabeth Woodward stated he reacted after the second shot, but she states it was after he turned back forward, which does not occur until after Z207.

The experts should have taken the time to talk to the eyewitnesses who were present at the time of the actual assassination.

What??? Holy cow. JFK is not waving at the crowd in Z202! What on earth are you talking about? Starting in Z200, he abruptly stops waving and starts moving his right hand toward his throat. At the same time, Z200-207, Jackie suddenly starts to turn her head to the right toward JFK. If you view this segment in slow motion, you cannot fail to see these movements.

Willis slide 5 is actually solid evidence that a shot was fired just before Z190, as Dr. David Wrone explains in his book The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination. Yes, Willis 5 corresponds to Z202, but you have to allow time  from the moment the shot was fired (1) to the moment Willis heard it, (2) to the moment Willis began his physiological reaction, and (3) to the moment when Willis's physiological reaction resulted in his snapping of the camera's shutter. Making a reasonable allowance for the time these events would have taken (just 12 frames, or 12/18th of a second), the shot that startled Willis into snapping the picture must have been fired "just prior to frame 190" (p. 192).

Of course, one reason this is crucial is that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the intervening oak tree from Z166 to Z210. Thus, whoever fired this shot was not the sixth-floor gunman.

I notice you simply ignored JFK's 226-232 movements and Connally's Z236-242 movements. I also notice you ignored the fact that the first Secret Service analysis of the Zapruder film found that JFK was hit before Z200.

Citing the witnesses as a group to establish the shooting sequence does not work because some of the witnesses did not notice the first shot and/or the second shot, and because at least two of the shots were so close together that they sounded like a single shot to many of the witnesses.

As for Canning, oh boy. Before you ever cite Canning again, you'd better do a little homework. I'm guessing that, for starters, you have not actually read Canning's analysis. You apparently don't realize that Canning concluded that JFK was hit by Z190, noting the same Z200-207 movements that I've discussed. Canning also admitted that his findings included a large margin of error. But Canning got himself into all sorts of nonsense when he tried to make the pre-Z190 shot fit the single-bullet theory. Dr. Michael Kurtz:

Quote
Further divorcing the committee's investigation from reliability was its
dependence upon the analysis of NASA expert Thomas Canning for determining the trajectory of the bullets that struck President Kennedy and Governor Connally. . . .

In permitting Canning to perform his trajectory analysis, the committee ignored the advice of the Pathology Panel. The panel cautioned that there is no reliable method of "determining the missile trajectory . . . particularly if precision within the range of a few degrees is required." This was illustrated by Canning's rejection of the objective medical evidence. Instead of using the true location of the entrance wound in Kennedy's back (approximately four inches below the shoulder), Canning arbitrarily raised it three inches in order to arrive at a trajectory consistent with the sixth-floor window [i.e., the window from which Oswald supposedly fired]. He also computed the angle of the wound as twenty-one degrees downward. This was nothing less than a blatant distortion of the medical evidence, which proved that the bullet entered the president's back at a "slightly upward" angle.

Despite similar distortions of other parts of the objective medical data, Canning's trajectory analysis resulted in margins of error, by his own admission, that would have permitted the assassins to have fired from such diverse locations as the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh floors, and the roof of the Depository, as well as from the two upper floors of the neighboring Dal-Tex building. (Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination from a Historian's Perspective, Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1982, pp. 179-180)

And, allow me to quote what I say about Canning and his analysis in my book Hasty Judgment:

Quote
Noticeably absent from Posner's alignment theory is any discussion of the incompatible angles at which the magic bullet would have had to travel. For example, according to chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. James Humes, the bullet that struck Kennedy in the back penetrated at a downward angle of 45 degrees to 60 degrees. The Select Committee's trajectory expert said the downward angle was 21 degrees. But the bullet that injured Connally entered at a downward angle of 27 degrees (2:63; 4:74-75). To further complicate matters, the HSCA's medical panel unanimously concluded that the magic bullet had a "slightly upward trajectory" as it allegedly transited JFK's neck and exited the throat (28:435, emphasis added; 2:390).

How could a bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Book Depository have transited the body and exited the neck at any kind of an upward angle (or even an even angle or an only slightly downward angle)? And how could a bullet exiting JFK's throat at a slightly upward angle have entered Connally's back at a downward angle of over 20 degrees? These are geometric impossibilities, unless one wants to assume that Kennedy was leaning far forward when he was hit and/or that his head was tilted markedly forward. Indeed, as was shown in the 1988 NOVA documentary Who Shot President Kennedy?, the only way to make the magic bullet's vertical trajectory work is to assume that JFK was leaning very far forward and that Connally was leaning noticeably backward at the same time. But the HSCA's own trajectory expert said Kennedy was leaning forward by no more than 18 degrees (he put JFK's forward lean at between 11 and 18 degrees), and the Warren Commission noted that Connally was sitting "erect."

Thomas Canning, the NASA scientist who prepared the Committee's trajectory analysis, found it necessary to, in effect, ignore the medical panel's finding about the magic bullet's trajectory, though I'm sure he would deny this. Canning assumed the missile's entry point was very close to the base of the neck. Canning had to employ these and other assumptions in order to make his trajectory analysis seem plausible.

Additionally, Canning found that he could not get his vertical trajectory lines to match up when he considered the back wound's location as determined by the Committee's medical panel--even that was too low. Canning brushed this problem aside as a meaningless "experimental error." In order to make the horizontal trajectory work, Canning had to assume that Connally was positioned so far to the left that his right shoulder was practically in the middle of the jump seat (see 8:item number 28). Frame 224 alone visibly refutes any attempt to move Connally that far to the left.

No magic-bullet alignment theory has yet explained how bullets coming from the alleged sniper's nest could have caused the damage that was done to the limousine's windshield. The windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a bullet coming down into the car from the sixth-floor window (8:248). The Select Committee speculated that the damage was caused by the supposed rear-head-shot bullet after it exited the skull, but Canning stated that the alleged vertical trajectory of this supposed bullet didn't line up well with the windshield damage (8:246).

There is also the fact that the chrome above the windshield was dented by a bullet (or by a very large fragment). If the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a fragment from the head shot, then it is especially hard to understand how a head-shot fragment could have caused the deep circular dent in the windshield's chrome (the dent was a good inch or two above the windshield damage). (pp. 67-68)
« Last Edit: December 29, 2022, 05:36:08 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #24 on: December 29, 2022, 03:25:57 PM »


Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 917
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #25 on: December 29, 2022, 07:36:27 PM »
What??? Holy cow. JFK is not waving at the crowd in Z202! What on earth are you talking about? Starting in Z200, he abruptly stops waving and starts moving his right hand toward his throat. At the same time, Z200-207, Jackie suddenly starts to turn her head to the right toward JFK. If you view this segment in slow motion, you cannot fail to see these movements.

Willis slide 5 is actually solid evidence that a shot was fired just before Z190, as Dr. David Wrone explains in his book The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination. Yes, Willis 5 corresponds to Z202, but you have to allow time  from the moment the shot was fired (1) to the moment Willis heard it, (2) to the moment Willis began his physiological reaction, and (3) to the moment when Willis's physiological reaction resulted in his snapping of the camera's shutter. Making a reasonable allowance for the time these events would have taken (just 12 frames, or 12/18th of a second), the shot that startled Willis into snapping the picture must have been fired "just prior to frame 190" (p. 192).

Of course, one reason this is crucial is that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the intervening oak tree from Z166 to Z210. Thus, whoever fired this shot was not the sixth-floor gunman.

I notice you simply ignored JFK's 226-232 movements and Connally's Z236-242 movements. I also notice you ignored the fact that the first Secret Service analysis of the Zapruder film found that JFK was hit before Z200.

Citing the witnesses as a group to establish the shooting sequence does not work because some of the witnesses did not notice the first shot and/or the second shot, and because at least two of the shots were so close together that they sounded like a single shot to many of the witnesses.

As for Canning, oh boy. Before you ever cite Canning again, you'd better do a little homework. I'm guessing that, for starters, you have not actually read Canning's analysis. You apparently don't realize that Canning concluded that JFK was hit by Z190, noting the same Z200-207 movements that I've discussed. Canning also admitted that his findings included a large margin of error. But Canning got himself into all sorts of nonsense when he tried to make the pre-Z190 shot fit the single-bullet theory. Dr. Michael Kurtz:

And, allow me to quote what I say about Canning and his analysis in my book Hasty Judgment:

In Willis #5, JFK has not been wounded and is still waving at Z202. Kind of makes the rest of your post a moot point.

Zapruder Frames - Costella Combined Edit (assassinationresearch.com)

=================
 
The really obvious observation is JFK is not quite directly opposite from the TSBD secretaries. Which is where they state the first shot occurred. The Chism’s stated the first shot took place right before the car reached their location. Jean Newman stated the first shot happened right after the car passed her. 

=====================

Canning is very clear as to the shot that went through JFK’s neck is the only possible explanation for the wound in Gov Connally’s back. 


Canning’s Trajectory Analysis of the wounds clearly places the origin of the shots as having come from the 6th floor of the TSBD. As far as some imaginary shooters from other locations, provide locations and proof they caused some type of wounds. Cannings Analysis explains all of them.

 ====================

Quoting yourself or Kurz is probably of very limited value.

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #26 on: January 02, 2023, 11:09:41 AM »
In Willis #5, JFK has not been wounded and is still waving at Z202. Kind of makes the rest of your post a moot point.

Zapruder Frames - Costella Combined Edit (assassinationresearch.com)

=================
 
The really obvious observation is JFK is not quite directly opposite from the TSBD secretaries. Which is where they state the first shot occurred. The Chism’s stated the first shot took place right before the car reached their location. Jean Newman stated the first shot happened right after the car passed her. 

=====================

Canning is very clear as to the shot that went through JFK’s neck is the only possible explanation for the wound in Gov Connally’s back. 

Canning’s Trajectory Analysis of the wounds clearly places the origin of the shots as having come from the 6th floor of the TSBD. As far as some imaginary shooters from other locations, provide locations and proof they caused some type of wounds. Cannings Analysis explains all of them.

 ====================

Quoting yourself or Kurz is probably of very limited value.

This is just silliness. You did not address a single point that Dr. Kurtz made. Nor did you explain any of the points that I made. You did nothing but repeat the same talking points you've been peddlng here for years.

Specifically, I notice you ignored the point that Willis 5 must have been snapped in reaction to a shot fired before Z190 and that Canning said JFK was hit by Z190, which means you have to believe that your sixth-floor gunman fired at JFK while his view of JFK was obstructed by the oak tree. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.

Did you look at Z200-207 in slow motion yet? If you do, you can't help but see that starting in Z200, JFK suddenly freezes his waving motion, starts to bring his right hand toward his throat, and starts to rapidly turn his head to the left. You will also see that during this same time frame, Jackie suddenly starts to turn her head from left to right to look at JFK. Even most of the HSCA experts who analyzed the Zapruder film acknowledged that these movements meant that JFK must have been shot before Z190.

In fact, let's read what the HSCA analysis says about these actions:

Quote
At approximately Zapruder frame 200, Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a waving motion and his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by the time the President goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is evidencing some kind of reaction to a severe external stimulus. By the time he emerges from behind the sign at Zapruder frame 225, the President makes a clutching motion with his hands toward his neck, indicating clearly that he has been shot. (6 HSCA 17)

Obviously, this clutching motion could not have been in reaction to a Z224 shot, since we can see in Z224 that JFK's left hand is already clutching at his throat. Clearly, this clutching motion began well before Z224. It takes humans time to bring their hands up into a clutching motion. This motion clearly seems to start in Z200-206 when we see that JFK freezes his waving motion and starts to bring his right hand toward his throat.

The HSCA experts also noted that there is a strong blur episode from Z189-197, which of course indicates a shot was fired a few frames earlier (6 HSCA 27).

I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning said the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.

I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning found it necessary to ignore the HSCA medical panel's placement of the back wound to get his SBT trajectory to work, which was a damning and revealing admission.

Have you looked at Canning's diagrams? Find me one photo or frame that shows Connally as far left as Canning had to put him to make the SBT trajectory work. Let's see it. Z224 destroys, utterly destroys, the fiction that Connally was that far to the left.

By the way, are you aware that Canning told Blakey that he was surprised that his study of the photographic evidence "revealed major discrepancies in the Warren Commission findings"?:

Quote
When I was asked to participate in analysis of the physical evidence regarding the assassination of John Kennedy, I welcomed the opportunity to help set the record straight. I did not anticipate that study of the photographic record of itself would reveal major discrepancies in the Warren Commission findings. Such has turned out to be the case. (Letter from Thomas Canning to G. Robert Blakey, January 5, 1978, https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/canning-s-letter-to-blakey)

Of course, one of those "major discrepancies" was the discovery that the Zapruder film shows that a shot was fired at JFK at around Z186 and that he begins to show visible reactions to being hit by Z200. Obviously, the sixth-floor gunman did not fire this shot, since his view of JFK was obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210.

I further notice that you are still ignoring JFK's dramatic reactions that start in Z226, when he is jolted forward and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. These actions show that JFK was hit in the back a frame or two earlier. But WC apologists are caught between a rock and a hard place by these Z226-232 reactions and the Z200-207 reactions, because they obviously could not have been caused by the same bullet. That's why you guys either ignore one or both of these reaction sequences.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2023, 11:49:50 AM by Michael T. Griffith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #26 on: January 02, 2023, 11:09:41 AM »


Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 917
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #27 on: January 02, 2023, 04:53:31 PM »
This is just silliness. You did not address a single point that Dr. Kurtz made. Nor did you explain any of the points that I made. You did nothing but repeat the same talking points you've been peddlng here for years.

Specifically, I notice you ignored the point that Willis 5 must have been snapped in reaction to a shot fired before Z190 and that Canning said JFK was hit by Z190, which means you have to believe that your sixth-floor gunman fired at JFK while his view of JFK was obstructed by the oak tree. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.

Did you look at Z200-207 in slow motion yet? If you do, you can't help but see that starting in Z200, JFK suddenly freezes his waving motion, starts to bring his right hand toward his throat, and starts to rapidly turn his head to the left. You will also see that during this same time frame, Jackie suddenly starts to turn her head from left to right to look at JFK. Even most of the HSCA experts who analyzed the Zapruder film acknowledged that these movements meant that JFK must have been shot before Z190.

In fact, let's read what the HSCA analysis says about these actions:

Obviously, this clutching motion could not have been in reaction to a Z224 shot, since we can see in Z224 that JFK's left hand is already clutching at his throat. Clearly, this clutching motion began well before Z224. It takes humans time to bring their hands up into a clutching motion. This motion clearly seems to start in Z200-206 when we see that JFK freezes his waving motion and starts to bring his right hand toward his throat.

The HSCA experts also noted that there is a strong blur episode from Z189-197, which of course indicates a shot was fired a few frames earlier (6 HSCA 27).

I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning said the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.

I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning found it necessary to ignore the HSCA medical panel's placement of the back wound to get his SBT trajectory to work, which was a damning and revealing admission.

Have you looked at Canning's diagrams? Find me one photo or frame that shows Connally as far left as Canning had to put him to make the SBT trajectory work. Let's see it. Z224 destroys, utterly destroys, the fiction that Connally was that far to the left.

By the way, are you aware that Canning told Blakey that he was surprised that his study of the photographic evidence "revealed major discrepancies in the Warren Commission findings"?:

Of course, one of those "major discrepancies" was the discovery that the Zapruder film shows that a shot was fired at JFK at around Z186 and that he begins to show visible reactions to being hit by Z200. Obviously, the sixth-floor gunman did not fire this shot, since his view of JFK was obstructed by the oak tree from Z166 to Z210.

I further notice that you are still ignoring JFK's dramatic reactions that start in Z226, when he is jolted forward and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. These actions show that JFK was hit in the back a frame or two earlier. But WC apologists are caught between a rock and a hard place by these Z226-232 reactions and the Z200-207 reactions, because they obviously could not have been caused by the same bullet. That's why you guys either ignore one or both of these reaction sequences.


Z190 was chosen for Mr. Canning by none other than the acoustics panel. What acoustics were they referring to? Dictabelt? You cannot actually still be a believer in that tripe?

 

It would be best if you would quote Canning discussing the fragment hitting the windshield. The whole thought seems suspect and outside his area of expertise.

 

==========================================

Here is what Mr Canning thought of the placement of JBC in the car.

 

“Mr. CANNING. Thank you.
I would like to make just one point that has occurred to me that may not have been amply clear, and, that is, in the case of the single bullet theory, we established with high reliability and precision, I believe, the rightmost position which Governor Connally could have been sitting in at the time that he was wounded. We did not establish how far to the left he could, with comparable of quantitative certainty. And with that in mind, there may be some small change that might come about in where the error circle for this case would lie if we were able to determine, for instance, that he was several centimeters to the left of where I placed him in that drawing, and what that would do is, that it would move the lefthand margin of the smallest ellipse, of that black ellipse, it would move it somewhat to the left, as we see it. It would move it to the west. But that change is not in my view an important change in the overall result.”

 

======================================================

Thomas Canning did not testify until Sept. 12th of 1978. This imaginary letter is dated Jan.5th 1978, A full 8 months before he actually testified. Quite a feat to see into the future and complain about the conditions of his own testimony before they even occur. The whole letter is just a complete fake. In it he is supposedly referencing the congressman questioning him.

January 5, 1978

Professor Robert Blakely [sic]

Chief Counsel,

House Select Committee on Assassinations

U.S. House of Representatives

House Office Bldg.

Annex No. 2

Washington D.C. 20515

 

Dear Professor Blakely: [sic]

 

Canning letter: “I needn't remind you of the importance of managing time when many expensive people are participating and particularly when millions are watching. To allow staff and witnesses to overrun their planned allotments to the detriment of the whole planned presentation indicates that either the plan or its execution has been weak.

Clearly the participation of the Congressmen in subsequent questioning, though necessary, uses time somewhat inefficiently; even here enough experience must have accumulated to anticipate the problem and lead you and Chairman Stokes to deal with it.

Much of this rather negative reaction to the hearings themselves stems from my being strongly persuaded to rush through a difficult analysis at the last minute, abandon my regular pursuits for two days, try to boil down forty-five minutes of testimony to thirty, and then listen and watch while two hours' excellent testimony is allowed to dribble out over most of a day.”

 

AARC Public Library - HSCA Hearings - Volume II (aarclibrary.org)


It is safe to assume this supposed letter is just nonsense.

 

=========================

 

Don’t forget jiggle analysis was performed on Zapruder, who thought there were only two shots. Ignoring what the eyewitnesses stated occurred seems like folly. 

 

Garland Slack heard the two shots and referenced them to the sound of the bullets striking JFK. All the supposed shots are interesting but did not actually happen. There were just the two shots.

 

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS

Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Garland Glenwill Slack, Address: 4130 Deely [sp?] St., Dallas, Age 59, Phone No. EV 1 2950
Deposes and says:

Today, I was standing on Houston Street, just below the window to Sheriff Decker's office waiting for the parade. I was standing there when the President's car passed and just after they rounded the corner from Houston onto Elm Street, I heard a report and I knew at once it was a high-powered rifle shot. I am a [cross-out] big game hunter and am familiar with the sound of hi [sic] powered rifles and I knew when I heard the retort [sic] that the shot had hit something. Within a [cross-out] few seconds I heard another retort [sic] and knew it also had hit something and all I could see was the highly colored hat that Mrs. Kennedy had on. I couldn't see anything else. I was so sick that I went back to my office but after thinking it over, I came back as a citizen to offer my statement if it could help in any way. During the time I was standing there I did look up into the building where the Texas Book Depository is and saw some people, maybe 12 or 14, hanging out of windows, but I didn't see anyone with a gun.

When the sound of this shot came, it sounded to me like this shot came from away back or from within a building. I have heard this same sort of sound when a shot has come from within a cave, as I have been on many big game hunts.

/s/ G. G. Slack

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963

/s/ Rosemary Allen
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas

 

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #28 on: January 06, 2023, 02:42:30 PM »

Z190 was chosen for Mr. Canning by none other than the acoustics panel. What acoustics were they referring to? Dictabelt? You cannot actually still be a believer in that tripe? 

It would be best if you would quote Canning discussing the fragment hitting the windshield. The whole thought seems suspect and outside his area of expertise.

==========================================

Here is what Mr Canning thought of the placement of JBC in the car.

“Mr. CANNING. Thank you.
I would like to make just one point that has occurred to me that may not have been amply clear, and, that is, in the case of the single bullet theory, we established with high reliability and precision, I believe, the rightmost position which Governor Connally could have been sitting in at the time that he was wounded. We did not establish how far to the left he could, with comparable of quantitative certainty. And with that in mind, there may be some small change that might come about in where the error circle for this case would lie if we were able to determine, for instance, that he was several centimeters to the left of where I placed him in that drawing, and what that would do is, that it would move the lefthand margin of the smallest ellipse, of that black ellipse, it would move it somewhat to the left, as we see it. It would move it to the west. But that change is not in my view an important change in the overall result.”

======================================================

Thomas Canning did not testify until Sept. 12th of 1978. This imaginary letter is dated Jan.5th 1978, A full 8 months before he actually testified. Quite a feat to see into the future and complain about the conditions of his own testimony before they even occur. The whole letter is just a complete fake. In it he is supposedly referencing the congressman questioning him.

January 5, 1978

Professor Robert Blakely [sic]

Chief Counsel,

House Select Committee on Assassinations

U.S. House of Representatives

House Office Bldg.

Annex No. 2

Washington D.C. 20515
 
Dear Professor Blakely: [sic]

Canning letter: “I needn't remind you of the importance of managing time when many expensive people are participating and particularly when millions are watching. To allow staff and witnesses to overrun their planned allotments to the detriment of the whole planned presentation indicates that either the plan or its execution has been weak.

Clearly the participation of the Congressmen in subsequent questioning, though necessary, uses time somewhat inefficiently; even here enough experience must have accumulated to anticipate the problem and lead you and Chairman Stokes to deal with it.

Much of this rather negative reaction to the hearings themselves stems from my being strongly persuaded to rush through a difficult analysis at the last minute, abandon my regular pursuits for two days, try to boil down forty-five minutes of testimony to thirty, and then listen and watch while two hours' excellent testimony is allowed to dribble out over most of a day.”

 
AARC Public Library - HSCA Hearings - Volume II (aarclibrary.org)

It is safe to assume this supposed letter is just nonsense.

=========================

Don’t forget jiggle analysis was performed on Zapruder, who thought there were only two shots. Ignoring what the eyewitnesses stated occurred seems like folly. 

Garland Slack heard the two shots and referenced them to the sound of the bullets striking JFK. All the supposed shots are interesting but did not actually happen. There were just the two shots.

SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS

[SNIP]


Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963

This is your answer to all the points I presented to you in my two previous replies? No, Canning did not get the pre-Z190 shot from the acoustical evidence. He got it from his own analysis and from most of the HSCA photographic experts. You still have not read his analysis, have you?

You seem to be making the bizarre argument that we can reconstruct the shooting solely from the eyewitness accounts. You're the first person I've seen propose such a bogus approach. Again, the witnesses were situated all over the plaza and many of them did not notice one or more of the shots, which is only natural. You cannot seriously believe that you can establish the shooting events just by using the witness accounts.

Again, I notice you ignored the point that Willis 5 must have been snapped in reaction to a shot fired before Z190, which means you have to believe that your sixth-floor gunman fired at JFK while his view of JFK was obstructed by the oak tree. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.

Did you look at Z200-207 in slow motion yet? If you do, you can't help but see that starting in Z200, JFK suddenly freezes his waving motion, starts to bring his right hand toward his throat, and starts to rapidly turn his head to the left. You will also see that during this same time frame, Jackie suddenly starts to turn her head from left to right to look at JFK. Even most of the HSCA experts who analyzed the Zapruder film acknowledged that these movements mean that JFK must have been shot before Z190.

The HSCA experts also noted that there is a strong blur episode from Z189-197, which of course indicates a shot was fired a few frames earlier (6 HSCA 27).

I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning said the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. If you doubt that he said this, go read his analysis/testimony. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.

I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning found it necessary to ignore the HSCA medical panel's placement of the back wound to get his SBT trajectory to work, which was a damning and revealing admission.

Have you looked at Canning's diagrams? Go look at his diagram that shows his placement of JBC in the limo, and then, again, find me one photo or frame that shows Connally as far left as Canning shows him to be. Let's see it. Z224 destroys, utterly destroys, the fiction that Connally was that far to the left.

I further notice that you are still ignoring JFK's dramatic reactions that start in Z226, when he is jolted forward and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. These actions show that JFK was hit in the back a frame or two earlier, clearly after he had begun to react to the Z186 shot in Z200-207. WC apologists are caught between a rock and a hard place by these Z226-232 reactions and the Z200-207 reactions, because they obviously could not have been caused by the same bullet. That's why you guys either ignore one or both of these reaction sequences.

And, yes, I most certainly believe in the HSCA acoustical evidence Are you aware that Dr. Thompson arranged for new testing to be done on the acoustical evidence by BBN scientists and that this testing confirmed the HSCA experts' findings? Here's my own humble article on the acoustical evidence:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view


« Last Edit: January 06, 2023, 02:50:34 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #28 on: January 06, 2023, 02:42:30 PM »


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #29 on: January 06, 2023, 03:35:08 PM »

I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning said the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.

Canning didn't say that. Repeating falsehoods doesn't imbue them with any credibility.

Mr. FITHIAN. Mr. Canning, were you able to project the path of the bullet or the major fragments of the bullet that struck the President's head, that is, on into where they would be imbedded or wherever they were actually located in the car?
Mr. CANNING. I made no attempt to do anything exact along those lines. I noted qualitatively that damage to the windshield of the car appeared to be in reasonable directional alinement but did not appear to be particularly in good slope alinement. But I did no quantitative work in that line.

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2281
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #30 on: January 06, 2023, 07:05:37 PM »
I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning said the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. If you doubt that he said this, go read his analysis/testimony. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.

To which Tim replied:

Quote
Canning didn't say that. Repeating falsehoods doesn't imbue them with any credibility.

Mr. FITHIAN. Mr. Canning, were you able to project the path of the bullet or the major fragments of the bullet that struck the President's head, that is, on into where they would be imbedded or wherever they were actually located in the car?
Mr. CANNING. I made no attempt to do anything exact along those lines. I noted qualitatively that damage to the windshield of the car appeared to be in reasonable directional alinement but did not appear to be particularly in good slope alinement. But I did no quantitative work in that line.


There may be a reason why Griffith doesn't show any graphics. He think his cut-n-paste word-dump "scripture" is enough. Probably talks in tongues at church.



(I'm not saying the Tague fragment came from the head shot; it's an unknown. I'm just showing a fragment send in his direction could have gotten over the windshield.}

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #30 on: January 06, 2023, 07:05:37 PM »


Offline Jack Nessan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 917
Re: Obvious Facts that Refute the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #31 on: January 06, 2023, 07:56:39 PM »
This is your answer to all the points I presented to you in my two previous replies? No, Canning did not get the pre-Z190 shot from the acoustical evidence. He got it from his own analysis and from most of the HSCA photographic experts. You still have not read his analysis, have you?

You seem to be making the bizarre argument that we can reconstruct the shooting solely from the eyewitness accounts. You're the first person I've seen propose such a bogus approach. Again, the witnesses were situated all over the plaza and many of them did not notice one or more of the shots, which is only natural. You cannot seriously believe that you can establish the shooting events just by using the witness accounts.

Again, I notice you ignored the point that Willis 5 must have been snapped in reaction to a shot fired before Z190, which means you have to believe that your sixth-floor gunman fired at JFK while his view of JFK was obstructed by the oak tree. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.

Did you look at Z200-207 in slow motion yet? If you do, you can't help but see that starting in Z200, JFK suddenly freezes his waving motion, starts to bring his right hand toward his throat, and starts to rapidly turn his head to the left. You will also see that during this same time frame, Jackie suddenly starts to turn her head from left to right to look at JFK. Even most of the HSCA experts who analyzed the Zapruder film acknowledged that these movements mean that JFK must have been shot before Z190.

The HSCA experts also noted that there is a strong blur episode from Z189-197, which of course indicates a shot was fired a few frames earlier (6 HSCA 27).

I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning said the windshield damage was too high to have been caused by a fragment from the head shot. If you doubt that he said this, go read his analysis/testimony. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.

I also notice that you ignored the fact that Canning found it necessary to ignore the HSCA medical panel's placement of the back wound to get his SBT trajectory to work, which was a damning and revealing admission.

Have you looked at Canning's diagrams? Go look at his diagram that shows his placement of JBC in the limo, and then, again, find me one photo or frame that shows Connally as far left as Canning shows him to be. Let's see it. Z224 destroys, utterly destroys, the fiction that Connally was that far to the left.

I further notice that you are still ignoring JFK's dramatic reactions that start in Z226, when he is jolted forward and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward. These actions show that JFK was hit in the back a frame or two earlier, clearly after he had begun to react to the Z186 shot in Z200-207. WC apologists are caught between a rock and a hard place by these Z226-232 reactions and the Z200-207 reactions, because they obviously could not have been caused by the same bullet. That's why you guys either ignore one or both of these reaction sequences.

And, yes, I most certainly believe in the HSCA acoustical evidence Are you aware that Dr. Thompson arranged for new testing to be done on the acoustical evidence by BBN scientists and that this testing confirmed the HSCA experts' findings? Here's my own humble article on the acoustical evidence:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view

Looks to be clearly stated. The frame was chosen by the accoustics panel.

 

Mr. GOLDSMITH, Thank you.
Why was this specific frame used to determine the trajectory of the back neck shot?
Mr. CANNING. During the investigation several weeks ago, there were indications that suggested this would be a proper time to consider for a first wound, in particular the investigations of the acoustics panel led to selection of this for our study at that time.

 

=========================

You seem to be making the bizarre argument that we can reconstruct the shooting solely from the eyewitness accounts. You're the first person I've seen propose such a bogus approach. Again, the witnesses were situated all over the plaza and many of them did not notice one or more of the shots, which is only natural. You cannot seriously believe that you can establish the shooting events just by using the witness accounts.
 
Again, I notice you ignored the point that Willis 5 must have been snapped in reaction to a shot fired before Z190, which means you have to believe that your sixth-floor gunman fired at JFK while his view of JFK was obstructed by the oak tree. Ignoring facts that you can't explain won't make them go away.
 
Did you look at Z200-207 in slow motion yet? If you do, you can't help but see that starting in Z200, JFK suddenly freezes his waving motion, starts to bring his right hand toward his throat, and starts to rapidly turn his head to the left. You will also see that during this same time frame, Jackie suddenly starts to turn her head from left to right to look at JFK. Even most of the HSCA experts who analyzed the Zapruder film acknowledged that these movements mean that JFK must have been shot before Z190.
 

HUH. Everything you post is based on your personal interpretation of people’s reactions based on the Zapruder film. Now you are questioning the Eyewitnesses explaining what they saw and heard. Is there any doubt why so little importance is placed on your opinion?

 
==========================

 
You were asked to post Canning’s explanation of the fragment and the windshield. It appears you cannot.


===============

JFK’s reaction at Z226 is the result of the first shot. Exactly what the eyewitnesses described.

==================================


And, yes, I most certainly believe in the HSCA acoustical evidence Are you aware that Dr. Thompson arranged for new testing to be done on the acoustical evidence by BBN scientists and that this testing confirmed the HSCA experts' findings? Here's my own humble article on the acoustical evidence:

 
There is the problem. Believing in the dictabelt as having value.

============================

You have the right answer with there just having been two shots. It answers all the questions. Why embellish the answer with useless nonsense.