Why we have so many conspiracy books
bigdog
Simply put, conspiracy theories have a very short shelf life. The make a
lot of noise and often get a great deal of praise when they first come
out, but they can't stand up to any scrutiny. They get shot down, making
way for the next conspiracy theory. Essentially they are clay pigeons.
Good for target practice. Compare that with the LN position. It was staked
out by the WC in 1964 and the few LN books which have been published since
for the most part are supporting works for the original theory. They serve
to bolster rather than revise the work of the WC. I can think of one
exception to that which was Jim Moore's Conspiracy of One. His unique take
was that JFK had not been struck when he reapears at Z-225 but was merely
taking a defensive posture in reaction to a missed shot, about Z188 if
memory serves. He accepted the SBT but had it coming later in the
sequence. The most famous of the LN works, Posner's Case Closed and
Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, do not disagree with the WCR's fundamental
findings. Oswald was the assassin, the SBT is valid, and there is no
credible evidence Oswald was acting on behalf of anyone except himself.
That, in itself speaks volumes. The LN position has remained fundamentally
unchanged since the WCR was released in 1964. There have been some
refinements as to the shot sequence, but modern LN thinking is completely
compatible with what the WC first proposed. Why do we not have any such
Holy Grail in the CT world. Why are there hundreds, if not thousands of
conspiracy theories, many diametrically opposed to the others. Why can't
the CT's agree on whether Oswald was a shooter, a non-shooting
participant, or an innocent patsy. Why hasn't someone come up with a basic
theory that the rest of the CT's could rally behind and build on. Why does
each conspriacy theory have to put its own unique spin on the
assassination. One would think that if there ever had been a conspiracy
theory with merit, those thirsting for an alternative to the WCR could say
latch onto it and say that's it. Somebody is on to something here. But of
course, that hasn't happeened and unlikely ever will, CT authors will
continue to fire aimlessly in all sorts of different directions. CT
readers will continue to buy up the latest offerings. They will continue
to disperse in many different directions. The phrase wild goose chase
comes to mind.
tomnln
Commission's Basic Findings.
From the ARRB Report Chapter 1, page 11, footnote 17.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/arrb.htm
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:db297a06-e5cb-42c9...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Grizzlie Antagonist
news:db297a06-e5cb-42c9...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
I am very impressed with the work of not only Jim Moore but also with the
verboten work of the much-maligned Howard Donahue.
Their conclusions independently coincide in many -- though obviously not
all -- respects, which in itself impresses me.
Both postulate a first shot miss in the late 180's, striking the pavement
behind the right rear of the automobile, creating debris which strikes
Kennedy on the scalp -- and so in the 220's, he is reacting, not to a
strike and not so much to a missed shot as he is to being sprayed with the
non-lethal but mildly painful debris of hot lead and concrete.
Donahue is more bold and I think more correct in that he goes one step
further. He accepts Roy Kellerman's testimony that he heard Kennedy
state, "My God; I am hit." It is consistent with a non-lethal hit at this
point.
Most LN'ers reject this because the others in the car didn't hear it, but
it's more likely that they were simply wrong and that Kellerman was right.
Both Moore and Donahue have the spent fragment traveling past the limo
down Elm Street and striking the curb below James Tague, causing more
debris which strikes him. Moore has the fragment bounding low underneath
the limo and Donahue has it bounding OVER the limo. Here again, I think
that Donahue is more likely to be correct.
And both Moore and Donahue have single-bullet hits occurring later than
those conventional LN theory allows for. Donahue notes dramatic movement
by Kennedy at frame 237 ("Kennedy's body pitches forward and his elbows
shoot up dramatically"), and both Moore and Donahue note the drastic drop
in Connally's shoulder occurring in frames 237-238 and (correctly, I am
convinced) have the single-bullet strike take place at this point -- which
is, in fact, consistent with what Connally's own doctors determined
regarding the timing of their patient's wound.
--
"Aetas parentum pejor avis tulit nos nequiores, mox daturos progenium
vitiosiorem" ("Our parents, viler than our grandparents, begot us who are
even viler, and we shall bring forth a progeny more degenerate still") -
Horace, Odes, III, 6
Peter Fokes
The US intelligence agencies are thinking about conspiracy 24 hours a
day.
The SS has conspiracies uppermost in their minds.
Should we be surpised that mere mortals have a moderate amount of
interest in this topic as well?
Conspiracies have played a major role in recent American history.
9/11 was the work of conspirators.
Then again, perhaps bigdog thinks otherwise.
Maybe he thinks it was two guys and two planes.
Both Helms and Hoover felt the JFK case would remain open for all
time.
We are still waiting for the Joannides files from the CIA.
Why?
There are really not that many conspiracy books when compared to other
topics. For example, "How To Motivate Yourself" books are a dime a
dozen.
Only someone with a narrow perspective and perhaps obsession with the
assassination would fail to see how other topics provoke many many
more books than this topic.
WW II, for example.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Peter Fokes
>Why are there hundreds, if not thousands of
>conspiracy theories, many diametrically opposed to the others.
Lol! Sounds like you are talking about theories on JFK's head wounds
by LNs.
But maybe it's not about their theories but the authors. Each LN
author needs a slightly new slant to attract any interest.
Take Holland's "shot hit the signal street fixture" theory ... a
recent addition to the growing LN canon of literature!
Is this the exponential theory of conspiracy theories?
You seem to have no idea of how many conspiracy theories there are.
Perhaps you should start with LN theories. Easier math... I'll give
you that!
Cow lick, EOP, etc., etc.
Actually CT theories have been fairly consistent from Nov 1963.
Scholars have grouped them into less than a dozen or so.
Whereas bigdoog starts with 100 and then adds an exponent!
How many days, weeks and years has he spent studying these "thousands"
of theories? My goodness, does he even have time to EAT?
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
yeuhd
> Why hasn't someone come up with a basic
> theory that the rest of the CT's could rally behind and build on.
Good point. The assassination of JFK, whether it was the work of one
man or a vast conspiracy, happened only one way, not multiple ways.
The passage of time, the accumulation of research, and the accretion
of detail should have pared away the theories until coming closer and
closer to a unified theory of what actually happened. But on the
conspiracy side, this has not happened. To the contrary, the theories
have only multiplied into an ever-growing mess of incompatible
scenarios. It's Occam's razor reversed.
yeuhd
> FOUR (4) members of the Warren Commission did NOT believe the Warren
> Commission's Basic Findings.
>
> From the ARRB Report Chapter 1, page 11, footnote 17.
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/arrb.htm
>
The footnote's "some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic
findings" becomes changed in your inaccurate words to "did not
believe".
"Some level of skepticism" is not the same thing as "did not believe".
A juror must find a murder defendant guilty "beyond a reasonable
doubt", not "beyond all doubt". For other offenses, a juror must find
simply that is is "more likely than not" (a preponderance of evidence)
that the defendant committed the crime. Both standards allow some
level of skepticism.
bigdog
Actually, preponderance of evidence applies to civil trials. All
levels of criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
tomnln
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9ba9730-1fe8-4968...@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
When giving views (beliefs) of "Multiple" people one uses collective
language.
EXAMPLE:
Every LN'r does NOT have the samer understanding of the evidence/testimony.
If you think you're smarter than McAdams on the subject, maybe YOU should
debate me next time.
The point being, FOUR (4) members of the Commission had their independant
Reservations of the "Basic Findings".
That's why the Warren Commission "SCREWED THEIR OWN" !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/screw_your.htm
yeuhd
> Commission's Basic Findings.
Vincent Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History":
A point that never, ever is mentioned by the conspiracy theorists who
speak about the division among the Warren Commission over the single-
bullet theory is that although a minority of members found the theory
hard to accept, the report that all seven Commission members signed
off on said, "There was no question in the mind of any member of the
Commission that all the shots which caused the President's and
Governor Connally's wounds were fired from the sixth floor window of
the Texas School Book Depository."
bigdog
wrote:
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I had forgotten about Mortal Error based on Donohue's findings. It
falls somewhere between the LN and CT camps with the fatal shot being
an accidental discharge from the SS followup car. I haven't read the
book but the premise sounds preposterous. I have the same feelings
about it that I do about a conspiracy to kill JFK, wildly speculative,
theoretically possible, and totally lacking in evidence. I did read
Conspiracy of One. Moore states his case well but his premise is
flawed. There is simply no way I can buy the fact that JFK had not
been hit by Z225. The argument that Connally's first visible reaction
occurs at Z237 when his shoulder dips is simply wrong. It ignores the
obvious flipping of his right arm which becomes apparent at Z226 when
we see his Stetson suddenly and rapidly rise above the side of the car
and just as quickly it drops back down. If there is a more likely
explaination for this movement than a reflexive and involuntary
response to his right wrist being shattered, I'd love to hear it. This
movement coincides perfectly with JFK's reaction has his right arm
moves rapidly upward from Z225 to Z226. The dipping of Connally's
shoulder came immeidately after the right arm flip and was a secondary
reaction.
bigdog
Some crimes are committed by individuals and some are the result of
conspiracies. The evidence tells us which is which. There is no way to
logically rule out the theoretical possibility that JFK died as a result
of a conspiracy. There is simply no credible evidence to indicate there
was such a conspiracy. Until there is, I see no reason to believe there
was one.
If some want to regard this case as perpetually open, fine. If they really
think there is a possibility that after all these years they are going to
actually find the evidence that to date has been lacking, they are free to
pursue that. Until then, we can say the Oswald was without a doubt, the
shooter of JFK and there is no credible evidence he had any cohorts. And
unless someone actually uncovers compelling evidence of conspiracy, that
will be the verdict of history. Reclaiming History may be a financial
bust, but it is my belief that along with the WCR itself and the
supporting volumes, it will be where future historians go to when
researching the JFK assassination. If they read any of the hundreds of
conspiracy books, it will be for giggles.
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
It doesn't very long to see through them, on logical and/or evidential
grounds, thus obviating the need for further "study."
Sandy
bigdog
The disagreements among the LN community are minor compared to those on
the CT side. Arguing about a few inches in the placement of the head wound
or a few frames of the Z-film are minor in relation to what the CTs offer.
We agree on one shooter, from a specific location, a specific number of
shots with a specific weapon. With few exceptions, LNs accept the SBT, the
cornerstone of the single assassin theory. Compare that with what the CTs
have given us, or more precisely, have failed to give us. No consensus on
who was behind the plot. No consensus on the shooter(s). No consensus on
the number of shots. No consensus on the weapon(s) used. No consensus on
the location(s). No consensus whether Oswald was a shooter, a non-shooting
participant, or a framed patsy. No consensus on whether he killed Tippit.
In short, conspiracy theories are all over the map. There are literally
hundreds of published works offering various conspiracy theories. To claim
there are only a dozen different theories is to say there is a tremendous
amount of redundancy among these works. Even if we generously concede that
there are really only a dozen or so different conspiracies, that in itself
is remarkable. The fact that after 45 years you've narrowed it down to
"only" a dozen or so theories doesn't say much for the CT side. Any idea
when you guys are going to zero in on just two or three?
Steve
The plethora of conspiracy books simply reflect the "shotgun" effect of
writing conspiracy theories. This shotgun relies on writing SUCH A
STAGGARING quantity of conspiracy balony that the public will soon believe
that there MUST be something to the conspiracy theories since so much has
been written on it. But serving people multiple servines of a bad
casserole doesn't make it taste any better. For instance:
1. Michael Eddows writes his book claiming a double Oswald theory and an
imposter in the grave. But after the 1981 autopsy Eddows and his
followers were forced to say, "OOOPS!....Nevermind."
2. David Lifton hatches perhaps the most ridiculous theory of all with
his body alteratioin theory, But after virtually EVERY reputable forensic
expert in the country laughed at his theory and his evidence was 100%
discredited the Lifton followers were forced to say, "OOOPS! Nevermind."
3. George O'Toole's "Assassination Tapes" made use of the silly PSE
(Psychological Stress Evaluator) in which he claimed that a tape recording
of Oswald's denials PROVED he was not guilty. NO ONE holds to this innane
theory today. ("OOOPS....Nevermind!)
4. Penn Jones silly claims of mysterious deaths that first appeared in
"Forgive My Grief" have now been meticulously researched and virtually
everyone of his mysterious deaths have sensible and logical explanations.
("OOOPS....nevermind!"
And on and on and on. Every few months another conspiracy book muddies
the waters more. Conspiracy nuts always claim that Lone Nut books never
uncover anything new--but why would they? The evidence was uncovered
forty-six years ago and nothing new has surfaced to point to anyone else.
Often the truth is simply boring.
curtjester1
It's called evidence and with all the potential views of dealey plaza
evidence vs. medical evidence vs. non dealey-plaza people that knew lots
of people in dealey plaza vs. evidence not sought after by authorities,
potential evidence that was lost, destroyed, fabricated; people are going
by any piece of logic differing opinions on the assassination. People
that rely on not looking at or building strawman sandcastles or just limit
themselves to a preset small view of the evidence like the LNT people
don't publish anything that has any merit except to placate themselves.
And if they do dare go farther, any witness or issue becomes
'non-evidence' or 'discredited' evidence, automatically.
CJ
tomnln
bigdog forgot that byeuhd is on your side !
tomnln
Vincent Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History":
NOT true yeuhd;
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/screw_your.htm
Proof that they "Screwed" their own
tomnln
HERE is why bigdog is at a BIG Disadvantage by NOT knowing his own
official records.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/you_asked_for_it.htm
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:79ef703c-9d6c-4c9d...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/you_asked_for_it.htm
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:84e23449-cd3c-4dd3...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
It can take many years for the evidence to come out which clarifies
which it is.
Grizzlie Antagonist
You may want to read it.
> but the premise sounds preposterous.
An intentional kill shot from Greer -- which is NOT shown on the Z film --
while in the immediate presence of everyone else in the vehicle sounds
preposterous to me
But I have never understood why the notion of an accidental misfire is
regarded by so many as a priori "preposterous".
> I have the same feelings about it that I do about a conspiracy to kill
> JFK, wildly speculative,
> theoretically possible, and totally lacking in evidence.
While there is no "smoking gun", so to speak, I disagree that it is
totally lacking in evidence. I still regard it as the scenario most
consistent with the evidence.
> I did read Conspiracy of One. Moore states his case well but his premise
> is
> flawed. There is simply no way I can buy the fact that JFK had not
> been hit by Z225. The argument that Connally's first visible reaction
> occurs at Z237 when his shoulder dips is simply wrong.
It's not his first visible reaction. It's his first visible reaction to
being struck with a bullet.
> It ignores the
> obvious flipping of his right arm which becomes apparent at Z226 when
> we see his Stetson suddenly and rapidly rise above the side of the car
> and just as quickly it drops back down. If there is a more likely
> explaination for this movement than a reflexive and involuntary
> response to his right wrist being shattered, I'd love to hear it.
Probably a reaction to the first shot. He may have also been showered
with some of the same debris which Kennedy was showered with. After he
was struck with CE 399, the memory of this superficial "hit" was wiped
from his mind.
> This
> movement coincides perfectly with JFK's reaction has his right arm
> moves rapidly upward from Z225 to Z226.
Also a reaction to the first shot miss and the debris which resulted.
> The dipping of Connally's
> shoulder came immeidately after the right arm flip and was a secondary
> reaction.
Hardly. It's a very drastic declination in angle. At the same time, his
cheeks puff out as he exhales air. These reactions must have been nearly
instantaneous. They were not delayed for almost a full second.
Anthony Marsh
> On May 18, 12:23 am, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> FOUR (4) members of the Warren Commission did NOT believe the Warren
>> Commission's Basic Findings.
>>
>> From the ARRB Report Chapter 1, page 11, footnote 17.
>>
>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/arrb.htm
>>
>
>
> The footnote's "some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic
> findings" becomes changed in your inaccurate words to "did not
> believe".
>
Specifically, many Commission members did not buy Specter's SBT.
Edward Jay Epstein, Journalist: At a certain point, the Warren Commission
decided to do a reconstruction of how Oswald could have fired three
bullets in a very brief period of less than six seconds. So, they set up a
rifle where that rifle was, and they drove a car at the same speed by the
same secret servicemen. And when they finished photographing it they found
that the foliage on the trees blocked a few seconds of the window of
opportunity that Oswald had to fire the bullets. And so at this point
Arlen Specter, who was the junior council on the Warren Commission, came
up with a theory of how it could be done by one bullet going through the
president and continuing on and hitting John Connally. This was all a
hypothesis and people later referred to it as the Single Bullet Theory or
the Magic Bullet Theory. A number of Commissioners like John McCloy and
Allen Dulles didn't accept that there was any evidence backing this
hypothesis, but they didn't have any alternative. All of the Commissioners
felt that Oswald had fired the bullets that had killed Kennedy, they
didn't have any doubts about that.
Richard Russell: The Commission believes that the same bullet that hit
Kennedy hit Connally. Well I don't believe it.
Lyndon Johnson: I don't either.
Richard Russell: And so I couldn't sign it. And I said that Governor
Connally testified directly to the contrary and I'm not going to approve
of that. So I finally made them say that there was difference in the
Commission in that. Part of them believed that that wasn't so. But anyhow
that is just a little thing ...
___________
Now explain to everyone how Oswald could be the lone shooter without any
Single-Bullet Theory. This should be funny!
Anthony Marsh
You have allowed it to become that way by covering up the evidence all
these years. The crime could have been solved in hours by honest people.
Anthony Marsh
> On 17 May 2009 22:52:44 -0400, bigdog<jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Why are there hundreds, if not thousands of
>> conspiracy theories, many diametrically opposed to the others.
>
>
> Lol! Sounds like you are talking about theories on JFK's head wounds
> by LNs.
>
> But maybe it's not about their theories but the authors. Each LN
> author needs a slightly new slant to attract any interest.
>
> Take Holland's "shot hit the signal street fixture" theory ... a
> recent addition to the growing LN canon of literature!
>
I had written about the traffic light support bar many years earlier.
> Is this the exponential theory of conspiracy theories?
>
I don't see that as conspiratorial any more than Posner's Magic Twig
Theory.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
If "limit themselves to a preset small view of the evidence" you mean
we base our beliefs on the available evidence, then I plead guilty. I
see no reason to believe something for which I see no credible
evidence. I am not going to believe something is true just because it
is theoretically possible. The JFK assassination has been the most
investigated, the most researched crime in history, yet after 45+
years, the CTs can't even settle on one plausible theory. That is
because there are no plausible theories to settle on. The WC cornered
the market on the truth. That left nothing for the CT authors to do
except tell tall tales which they discovered sold very well, no matter
how ridiculous. So naturally they keep writing them, coming up with
more and more myths. That is the way it works in a capitalist society.
Where there are buyers, there will be sellers, even if the commodity
is BS.
bigdog
cardinal rules of gun safety is that you don't put your finger on the
trigger until you have located your target and are ready to fire. So
you have to believe the agent violated this cardinal rule. Then, of
all the places an accidental discharge could have gone, this one goes
straight to the back of JFK's head. I'm sorry, but I can't buy this
double longshot. The recovered bullets were traceable to one weapon,
Oswald's MC.
> > I have the same feelings about it that I do about a conspiracy to kill
> > JFK, wildly speculative,
> > theoretically possible, and totally lacking in evidence.
>
> While there is no "smoking gun", so to speak, I disagree that it is
> totally lacking in evidence. I still regard it as the scenario most
> consistent with the evidence.
>
> > I did read Conspiracy of One. Moore states his case well but his premise
> > is
> > flawed. There is simply no way I can buy the fact that JFK had not
> > been hit by Z225. The argument that Connally's first visible reaction
> > occurs at Z237 when his shoulder dips is simply wrong.
>
> It's not his first visible reaction. It's his first visible reaction to
> being struck with a bullet.
>
> > It ignores the
> > obvious flipping of his right arm which becomes apparent at Z226 when
> > we see his Stetson suddenly and rapidly rise above the side of the car
> > and just as quickly it drops back down. If there is a more likely
> > explaination for this movement than a reflexive and involuntary
> > response to his right wrist being shattered, I'd love to hear it.
>
> Probably a reaction to the first shot. He may have also been showered
> with some of the same debris which Kennedy was showered with. After he
> was struck with CE 399, the memory of this superficial "hit" was wiped
> from his mind.
>
and then suddenly flips his right arm up. What kind of reaction time
is that?
> > This
> > movement coincides perfectly with JFK's reaction has his right arm
> > moves rapidly upward from Z225 to Z226.
>
> Also a reaction to the first shot miss and the debris which resulted.
>
Again, two seconds after the shot. Even a guy plastered to the gills
would have quicker reactions than that.
> > The dipping of Connally's
> > shoulder came immeidately after the right arm flip and was a secondary
> > reaction.
>
> Hardly. It's a very drastic declination in angle. At the same time, his
> cheeks puff out as he exhales air. These reactions must have been nearly
> instantaneous. They were not delayed for almost a full second.
>
No, these reactions did not have to be instantaneous. There is nothing
that indicates the cheek puffing occured at the moment of impact. The
twisting and dipping of the torso followed immediately after the flip
of the right arm. It was not a delayed reaction but a continuation of
the reaction.
thali...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
So a few Cters have made claims that turned out to be wrong, means
that, therefore, all evidence pointing to conspiracy (and there is
mountains of it) must be wrong? Contrare to your argument, I see a
big consensus amongst serious, scholarly conspiracy reseachers: that
there was more than one gunmen, and that the conspiracy orginated
within the deep "national security" apparatus of the US Govt. The
situation with Oswald is less obvious, however most CT researchers
believe that Oswald was working for the US govt in some capacity (most
likely the CIA), and was set up as the fall guy. As we are dealing
with the spy industry and the "national security" industry, who are
not voted in or out, things appear slightly muddled. But fantastic
inroads are being made - I am re-reading "Deep Politics." The idea
that Oswald was working for an industrial detective agency and being
loaned out to various government agencies for specific tasks (such as
investigating rifle sales through the post, partcularly from Kleins,
which the Dodd Committee was targetting in their research) makes
complete sense.
bigdog
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
No I didn't, Rossley. Even somebody misstates a fact, I'm not going to
let it pass just because that person is on my side. We all make
mistakes. If I make one, I hope somebody points that out, even if it
is a fellow LN.
bigdog
> HERE is why bigdog is at a BIG Disadvantage by NOT knowing his own
> official records.
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/you_asked_for_it.htm
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
WOW, what an honor. I got my own page on Rossley's website, even if it
is just a temporary one. Of course Rossley doesn't bother to explain
(he never does) how the statement I made conflicts with the passage he
cites. He thinks just posting something on his website amounts to a
logical argument.
bigdog
> On 5/18/2009 6:25 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > Some crimes are committed by individuals and some are the result of
> > conspiracies. The evidence tells us which is which. There is no way to
>
> It can take many years for the evidence to come out which clarifies
> which it is.
>
>
Is this evidence going to come out sometime before Doomsday?
bigdog
You assume there is evidence that has been covered up, but have
produced none.
Anthony Marsh
So you think the most simplistic explanation is the best?
gwmcc...@earthlink.net
And as a matter of fact, it was.
Sandy
Anthony Marsh
Then why don't you call it an accidental shot? You could say that he was
cleaning his gun and it accidentally went off. Cops use that excuse all
the time.
> But I have never understood why the notion of an accidental misfire is
> regarded by so many as a priori "preposterous".
>
Maybe because you lack common sense.
Anthony Marsh
> On May 18, 9:33 am, yeuhd<NeedlesWax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 18, 12:23 am, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> FOUR (4) members of the Warren Commission did NOT believe the Warren
>>> Commission's Basic Findings.
>>
>>> From the ARRB Report Chapter 1, page 11, footnote 17.
>>
>>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/arrb.htm
>>
>> The footnote's "some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic
>> findings" becomes changed in your inaccurate words to "did not
>> believe".
>>
>> "Some level of skepticism" is not the same thing as "did not believe".
>> A juror must find a murder defendant guilty "beyond a reasonable
>> doubt", not "beyond all doubt". For other offenses, a juror must find
>> simply that is is "more likely than not" (a preponderance of evidence)
>> that the defendant committed the crime. Both standards allow some
>> level of skepticism.
>
> The plethora of conspiracy books simply reflect the "shotgun" effect of
> writing conspiracy theories. This shotgun relies on writing SUCH A
> STAGGARING quantity of conspiracy balony that the public will soon believe
> that there MUST be something to the conspiracy theories since so much has
> been written on it. But serving people multiple servines of a bad
> casserole doesn't make it taste any better. For instance:
>
As if no one had written any books about other assassinations,
especially the Lincoln assassination.
> 1. Michael Eddows writes his book claiming a double Oswald theory and an
> imposter in the grave. But after the 1981 autopsy Eddows and his
> followers were forced to say, "OOOPS!....Nevermind."
>
> 2. David Lifton hatches perhaps the most ridiculous theory of all with
> his body alteratioin theory, But after virtually EVERY reputable forensic
> expert in the country laughed at his theory and his evidence was 100%
> discredited the Lifton followers were forced to say, "OOOPS! Nevermind."
>
Not many Lifton followers abandoned his theory.
> 3. George O'Toole's "Assassination Tapes" made use of the silly PSE
> (Psychological Stress Evaluator) in which he claimed that a tape recording
> of Oswald's denials PROVED he was not guilty. NO ONE holds to this innane
> theory today. ("OOOPS....Nevermind!)
>
Then why does the CIA use the same technology today?
> 4. Penn Jones silly claims of mysterious deaths that first appeared in
> "Forgive My Grief" have now been meticulously researched and virtually
> everyone of his mysterious deaths have sensible and logical explanations.
Sure, like murder.
> ("OOOPS....nevermind!"
>
> And on and on and on. Every few months another conspiracy book muddies
> the waters more. Conspiracy nuts always claim that Lone Nut books never
> uncover anything new--but why would they? The evidence was uncovered
No, we don't say that. Some LNer books DO uncover new things. But few
are significant and obviously they would never uncover anything
suggesting conspiracy.
> forty-six years ago and nothing new has surfaced to point to anyone else.
> Often the truth is simply boring.
>
Often the truth is too scary for you to look at.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, it was. Conspiracy. Three shots, three hits.
That was the official conclusion of everyone in Washington until Specter
realized there was a timing problem.
> Sandy
>
Anthony Marsh
Faulty logic. How can I show you the evidence if it has been destroyed?
Well, here's one example. The WC destroyed the transcripts of one Top
Secret Executive Session. But we were able to find the stenographer's tape
and reconstruct that devastating transcript. We. Not YOU.
Anthony Marsh
It keeps coming out every year. But you put your blinders on.
Anthony Marsh
But you falsely assume that the two large fragments could only have come
from the head shot.
He is not proposing a SBT at Z-188. The HSCA proposed one at Z-190.
Why didn't you tell them about this arm flip?
>>> This
>>> movement coincides perfectly with JFK's reaction has his right arm
>>> moves rapidly upward from Z225 to Z226.
>>
>> Also a reaction to the first shot miss and the debris which resulted.
>>
> Again, two seconds after the shot. Even a guy plastered to the gills
> would have quicker reactions than that.
>
Are you talking about Kennedy or Connally? Kennedy was drugged up at the
time.
Anthony Marsh
We mean that you put blinders on and refuse to look at ALL the evidence.
Osprey
> I am very impressed with the work of not only Jim Moore
> but also with the verboten work of the much-maligned
> Howard Donahue.
Donahue's SBT analysis--incorporating the singular work of HSCA trajectory
consultant Thomas Canning--was on point. Donahue erred fatally with his
assumption that jacketed bullets--of the type used according to the
evidence--were designed to pass through the human body. And so a
higher-powered rifle, like the kind held up by Hickey, must have been the
source of the fragmentary bullet debris seen in the skull x-rays.
The foil is that jacketed bullets were designed to remain intact while
passing through soft (flesh, muscle) tissue, but not hard (bone, skull,
blacktop). So, Donahue need not have looked beyond the Mannlicher-Carcano
scenario. (The Bronson film of the assassination, which would have
resolved Hickey's position at the moment of fatal impact, was not readily
available in 1992.)
<snip>
> Both postulate a first shot miss in the late 180's, striking
> the pavement behind the right rear of the automobile,
> creating debris which strikes Kennedy on the scalp --
> and so in the 220's, he is reacting, not to a strike and
> not so much to a missed shot as he is to being sprayed
> with the non-lethal but mildly painful debris of hot lead
> and concrete.
Moore's scenario appears to have been appropriated from Jim Bishop's 1968
book "The Day Kennedy was Shot." Moore utilized the work throughout his
own book, though Moore's first mention of the Bishop book is inauspicious:
"morass of inaccuracies."
In his shooting reconstruction, Bishop writes: "Diagonally down from the
sixth floor window, the gleaming car moved toward an open V in the
branches of a piney oak on the sidewalk ... Then the crosshairs of the
telescope sight and the smiling face met, for an instant, in the space
between the big branches..."
"Tiny chips of concrete sprayed upward from the right rear of the car. On
the sidewalk, Mrs. Donald s. Baker saw the spray and pulled back. A
jacketed bullet, striking the pavement at 1, 902 feet per second-- almost
three times the speed of sound--was defected slightly upward, headed
diagonaly across Dealey Plaza, hit a curb and broke the shell into
fragments, and the spent grains peppered James Tague on the cheek..."
"Royce Skelton, on the trestle, saw grains of concrete arc upward from the
right rear of the big automobile. Tague felt a burst of sand hit his
cheek. The President of the United States, feeling the tiny grains hit his
face, began to lift both hands upward in fright ... In slow motion, a
stunned expression replaced the boyish grin."
> Donahue is more bold and I think more correct in that
> he goes one step further. He accepts Roy Kellerman's
> testimony that he heard Kennedy state, "My God; I am
> hit." It is consistent with a non-lethal hit at this point.
Bishop writes: "Roy Kellerman, in the front seat of the President's car,
thought he heard Kennedy speak and turned to see both hands coming up
towards the face."
Unaccountably, the Zapruder film shows Kellerman looking towards Zapruder
until well after the President hands have made their way to his throat.
While Kellerman is so turned, Gov. Connally can be seen voicing something,
perhaps similar to what Kellerman thought he heard.
Still, Agent Kellerman was confident he heard Kennedy's distinctive
Brahminic pitch. Thompson, in his 1967 book "Six Sconds in Dallas"
utilized the Kellerman assertion to sanction his own "shallow wound"
bullet to Kennedy's back, a "first shot, first hit" in the range of
Z210-224. It failed to transit the neck (a fragment from the skull strike,
Thompson envisioned, exited the throat) and thus spake Kennedy his
pitieous malady.
<snip>
> both Moore and Donahue note the drastic drop in
> Connally's shoulder occurring in frames 237-238
> and (correctly, I am convinced) have the single-bullet
> strike take place at this point -- which is, in fact,
> consistent with what Connally's own doctors
> determined regarding the timing of their patient's wound.
Thompson was drawn to the Governor's conspicuous shoulder collapse at
Z238. He proposed a second shot (likely from the Records Building and
striking Connally only) at Z234-238.
Moore proposes the SBT strike at Z235 because he believed the President's
clothing must be first raised several inches on the upper back before
Kennedy is struck there. Since the clothing holes are some distance
further from the top of the collar than the wound site in the back, the
clothing is either bunched near the collars or the autopsy record is
suspect.
Moore doesn't accept that the President's clothing was already displaced
as the car turned onto Elm, as the HSCA suggested. Moore's spray in the
face occurance, causing Kennedy to elevate his elbows, affords the
clothing being sufficiently elevated just before the SBT.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
I most certainly do. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck,
and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
You just answered your own question. If evidence is destroyed, there
should be evidence of the destruction and you gave a perfect example.
Why do you assume that there was evidence of a conspiracy if you cannot
produce it or prove it was destroyed. Did you ever stop to ask yourself if
the reason there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy is because there
was no conspiracy. All CT theories are base on assumptions. You assume you
would have evidence if that evidence hadn't been covered up, altered, or
destroyed.
bigdog
> On 5/19/2009 12:38 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 12:38 am, "Grizzlie Antagonist"<lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> But I have never understood why the notion of an accidental misfire is
> >> regarded by so many as a priori "preposterous".
>
> > This theory requires two unlikely events. First of all, one of the
> > cardinal rules of gun safety is that you don't put your finger on the
> > trigger until you have located your target and are ready to fire. So
> > you have to believe the agent violated this cardinal rule. Then, of
> > all the places an accidental discharge could have gone, this one goes
> > straight to the back of JFK's head. I'm sorry, but I can't buy this
> > double longshot. The recovered bullets were traceable to one weapon,
> > Oswald's MC.
>
> But you falsely assume that the two large fragments could only have come
> from the head shot.
>
No, I don't assume that. I deduce that. There is a difference.
No, he proposed a missed shot at about Z188. Try to follow along. The HSCA
placed the SB at Z190, an idea that doesn't sync with anything observable
in the Z-film. But they had no choice. If the accepted the accoustical
evidence, they had to sync up the head shot with a specific impulse on the
Dictabelt. That put the SB at Z190. That fact in itself should have caused
them to doubt the validity of the accoustical evidence.
> >>> This
> >>> movement coincides perfectly with JFK's reaction has his right arm
> >>> moves rapidly upward from Z225 to Z226.
>
> >> Also a reaction to the first shot miss and the debris which resulted.
>
> > Again, two seconds after the shot. Even a guy plastered to the gills
> > would have quicker reactions than that.
>
> Are you talking about Kennedy or Connally? Kennedy was drugged up at the
> time.
>
They both reacted at the same time so if one had a delayed reaction, the
other did too. Your suggestion that JFK was in a drug induced stupor is
absurd.
bigdog
> On 5/19/2009 12:38 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> > If "limit themselves to a preset small view of the evidence" you mean
> > we base our beliefs on the available evidence, then I plead guilty. I
>
> We mean that you put blinders on and refuse to look at ALL the evidence.
>
How would you know. You've never presented any.
Grizzlie Antagonist
And until 11/22/63, this rule had obviously never before been violated by
anyone. The agent's violation of this rule ran contrary to an otherwise
flawless performance by the Secret Service on that day.
> Then, of all the places an accidental discharge could have gone, this one
> goes
> straight to the back of JFK's head. I'm sorry, but I can't buy this
> double longshot.
You are thinking like a conspiracy theorist, refusing to accept the very
legitimate role that happenstance plays and has played in the history of
human affairs.
Oswald's opportunity to shoot Kennedy and Ruby's opportunity to shoot
Oswald were not only the result of design, but it was sheer happenstance
that those opportunities presented themselves in the first place. You
might just as well dismiss these opportunities as an untenable "double
longshot" and declare that they must be the result of a conspiracy, as
others have done, of course.
A stray bullet must go SOMEWHERE. This one did not go "straight to the
back of JFK's head", at least not to the middle which an assassin would
target but struck high on the rear of the skull and came close to missing
it altogether.
Given that the damage sustained was high on the right side of the skull, a
strong argument can be made for the proposition that this is inconsistent
with the TSBD (above and to the right) as a point of origin and much more
consistent a point of origin from above and to the LEFT.
> The recovered bullets were traceable to one weapon,
> Oswald's MC.
The exploding frangible AR-15 round would have left no measurable traces.
Actually his reactions are not visible from Z200 to Z224 or so.
> > This
> > movement coincides perfectly with JFK's reaction has his right arm
> > moves rapidly upward from Z225 to Z226.
>
> Also a reaction to the first shot miss and the debris which resulted.
>
> Again, two seconds after the shot. Even a guy plastered to the gills
> would have quicker reactions than that.
Rosemary Willis stops running at frame 190, and Kennedy himself stops
waving at about frame 200. Both are consistent with a first missed shot
in the late 180's. Again, Connally's reaction at frame 200 isn't really
visible. But at 225 and 226, he seems to be completing the
turn-to-the-right-and-back which he says that he underwent before being
struck.
Connally was always adamant that he was not wounded by the first shot,
which is what your scenario seems to require.
> > The dipping of Connally's
> > shoulder came immeidately after the right arm flip and was a secondary
> > reaction.
>
> Hardly. It's a very drastic declination in angle. At the same time, his
> cheeks puff out as he exhales air. These reactions must have been nearly
> instantaneous. They were not delayed for almost a full second.
>
> No, these reactions did not have to be instantaneous. There is nothing
> that indicates the cheek puffing occured at the moment of impact.
His doctor largely disagrees with you, stating that the delay could have
been for no more than 1/4 to 1/2 second. This does not accommodate a
strike at Z225. Again, Connally's doctor estimated that his client was
struck at Z236.
> The
> twisting and dipping of the torso followed immediately after the flip
> of the right arm. It was not a delayed reaction but a continuation of
> the reaction.
It is much more feasible that the twisting and dipping of the torso result
from the force of the impact of CE 399.
Grizzlie Antagonist
news:4a12bb44$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
The driver of the limousine was cleaning a gun that doesn't show up on the
Z-film? While his hands are on the steering wheel?
Is that what you believe? It sounds preposterous to me.
>> But I have never understood why the notion of an accidental misfire is
>> regarded by so many as a priori "preposterous".
>>
>
> Maybe because you lack common sense.
I leave common sense to the paranoids.
Grizzlie Antagonist
news:008879ab-e183-4637...@k9g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> "Grizzlie Antagonist" wrote:
>
>> I am very impressed with the work of not only Jim Moore
>> but also with the verboten work of the much-maligned
>> Howard Donahue.
>
> Donahue's SBT analysis--incorporating the singular work of HSCA trajectory
> consultant Thomas Canning--was on point. Donahue erred fatally with his
> assumption that jacketed bullets--of the type used according to the
> evidence--were designed to pass through the human body.
He "erred fatally" with that "assumption"?
It is an "assumption" that every LN SBT theorist has ever made! It has been
used to explain the relatively undamaged nature of CE 399.
> And so a
> higher-powered rifle, like the kind held up by Hickey, must have been the
> source of the fragmentary bullet debris seen in the skull x-rays.
>
> The foil is that jacketed bullets were designed to remain intact while
> passing through soft (flesh, muscle) tissue, but not hard (bone, skull,
> blacktop). So, Donahue need not have looked beyond the Mannlicher-Carcano
> scenario.
This is dealt with in "Mortal Error".
Donahue disputes that the jacketed bullet would have disintegrated to the
extent that the bullet causing the fatal head shot disintegrated.
He acknowledges that contact with the president's skull would cause more
damage than contact with soft tissue, and he opines that an MC round hitting
the president's skull might have broken it into three or four pieces but
should not have disintegrated it altogether.
The sum and substance of his discussion is the incompatibility of the type
of tensile strength demonstrated by CE 399 and the utter LACK of tensile
strength demonstrated by the head-shot bullet.
> (The Bronson film of the assassination, which would have
> resolved Hickey's position at the moment of fatal impact, was not readily
> available in 1992.)
The Bronson film resolves nothing. I am always astounded that anyone would
claim that it does. That anyone would claim that it does is a demonstration
of just how much subjectivity there is in an approach to this topic.
Well, it's a Big End Little End argument at this point.
Anthony Marsh
Jeez, pay attention. I have said exactly what you just said.
I was being sarcastic and offering someone else a ridiculous idea to one
up their ridiculous idea.
Anthony Marsh
Yet you don't explain where the WC's stray bullet went.
> back of JFK's head", at least not to the middle which an assassin would
> target but struck high on the rear of the skull and came close to missing
> it altogether.
>
> Given that the damage sustained was high on the right side of the skull, a
> strong argument can be made for the proposition that this is inconsistent
> with the TSBD (above and to the right) as a point of origin and much more
> consistent a point of origin from above and to the LEFT.
>
Wrong. JFK's head was tilted to the left then.
>
>> The recovered bullets were traceable to one weapon,
>> Oswald's MC.
>
>
>
> The exploding frangible AR-15 round would have left no measurable traces.
>
Are you talking about a specially designed CIA exploding frangible bullet?
The stock ammo for the AR-15 was not an exploding frangible bullet. Not
that the SS had to abide by the Hague Convention, it's just that the
standard ammo they used was designed for the military.
Anthony Marsh
Thousands of documents. You have produced nothing.
Anthony Marsh
That fact in itself should have indicated to them that the grassy knoll
shot was at Z-313. Which places the Kennedy hit at Z-210, which fits the
Anthony Marsh
I already have.
bigdog
If LHO was the only disturbed person in the country who would be inclined
to shoot JFK if presented with the opportunity, it would have been the
most remarkable of coincidences that JFK would happen to ride right past
that one person's place of work. However we don't know how many potential
assassins may have been lurking in the country who would have done what
Oswald did if given the chance. It could be dozens. Hundreds. Thousdands.
Whatever the number was, it would greatly increase the chances that a
President who traveled frequently around the country and liked to ride in
an open car would expose himself to one of these disturbed folks.
> A stray bullet must go SOMEWHERE. This one did not go "straight to the
> back of JFK's head", at least not to the middle which an assassin would
> target but struck high on the rear of the skull and came close to missing
> it altogether.
>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection of this theory is that Hickey
had stood up in the follow up car with weapon raised, lost his balance,
fell backward, and discharged the weapon. If he was falling backward, this
would naturally raise the barrel of the weapon so he would be shooting
into the air, not on the level.
> Given that the damage sustained was high on the right side of the skull, a
> strong argument can be made for the proposition that this is inconsistent
> with the TSBD (above and to the right) as a point of origin and much more
> consistent a point of origin from above and to the LEFT.
>
OK, let's look at this from a different angle. I believe you have said you
accept the SBT. That means one bullet caused all the wounds to JFK and JBC
except for the fatal head shot. But we have two bullets recovered that are
traceable to Oswald's MC. How did we end up with two bullets from his gun?
> > The recovered bullets were traceable to one weapon,
> > Oswald's MC.
>
> The exploding frangible AR-15 round would have left no measurable traces.
>
And so no evidence of a frangible round.
Rosemary Willis begins to slow down in in the Z170s. She did not make
an abrupt stop.
> Connally was always adamant that he was not wounded by the first shot,
> which is what your scenario seems to require.
>
How did you determine I believe in a first shot hit. I believe the first
shot missed around Z160 and JBC turns to look over his right shoulder
about a quarter of a second later at Z164. I believe the SB hit around
Z223 with JFK and JBC reacting simultaneously about 3 frames later.
> > > The dipping of Connally's
> > > shoulder came immeidately after the right arm flip and was a secondary
> > > reaction.
>
> > Hardly. It's a very drastic declination in angle. At the same time, his
> > cheeks puff out as he exhales air. These reactions must have been nearly
> > instantaneous. They were not delayed for almost a full second.
>
> > No, these reactions did not have to be instantaneous. There is nothing
> > that indicates the cheek puffing occured at the moment of impact.
>
> His doctor largely disagrees with you, stating that the delay could have
> been for no more than 1/4 to 1/2 second. This does not accommodate a
> strike at Z225. Again, Connally's doctor estimated that his client was
> struck at Z236.
>
I've never found this opinion to be very compelling. Just what forensic
training did Shaw have to offer an expert opinion on this matter. His job
was to patch people up, not determine what caused their wounds.
> > The
> > twisting and dipping of the torso followed immediately after the flip
> > of the right arm. It was not a delayed reaction but a continuation of
> > the reaction.
>
> It is much more feasible that the twisting and dipping of the torso result
> from the force of the impact of CE 399.
>
The arm flip did not cause the torso twist, it preceded it. Since you are
acknowledging CE399 was the single bullet, how do you explain the
fragmented bullet in the front of the limo.
Osprey
<snip>
> Donahue disputes that the jacketed bullet would have
> disintegrated to the extent that the bullet causing
> the fatal head shot disintegrated.
Donahue, the sagacious sharpshooter from the seedy seaport, would seem to
think the debris trail on the skull x-rays constituted the remnants of a
bullet inclusive. But it's really much of the missing portion of Oswald's
skull strike bullet, of which two large fragments were recovered to the
front of the unfortunate.
> He acknowledges that contact with the president's
> skull would cause more damage than contact with soft
> tissue, and he opines that an MC round hitting the
> president's skull might have broken it into three or
> four pieces but should not have disintegrated it
> altogether.
That's approximately what happened to the Oswald bullet. On impact--or
immediately thereafter-- it broke into the two large recovered pieces;
much of the rest was left behind in the corrupted missile track in the
brain. There's not enough debris material to justify the remnants being
from a whole bullet.
> The sum and substance of his discussion is the
> incompatibility of the type of tensile strength
> demonstrated by CE 399 and the utter LACK of tensile
> strength demonstrated by the head-shot bullet.
After Oswald's bullet broke apart, the portions no longer surrounded
by jacketed material likely behaved like an unjacketed bullet.
>> (The Bronson film of the assassination, which would
>> have resolved Hickey's position at the moment of fatal
>> impact, was not readily available in 1992.)
>
> The Bronson film resolves nothing. I am always
> astounded that anyone would claim that it does.
> That anyone would claim that it does is a demonstration
> of just how much subjectivity there is in an approach
> to this topic.
The Bronson footage of Elm would seem to resolve Hickey's position (per
Donahue, the agent has to be standing with a rifle) at the time of the
fatal shot.
Donahue posited Oswald's first shot struck the pavement just behind the
limousine; it disintegrated, senting a ricocheted fragment into the upper
rear of Kennedy's skull. It did not penetrate the bone--just sat there and
sort of burned, causing the startled one to naturally seize his chin. Most
signs of that fantastic bullet strike were later obscured or blasted away
by the Hickey shot, no less fantastic.
Maryland has certainly seen its share of Baltimorons. Spiro Agnew and
Sargent Shriver hail from those parts. Harold Weisberg and Harrison Edward
Livingstone were famously, perhaps competitively, boorish and obtuse. The
superficially-sane Howard Donahue can trace his own departure from reality
with his visits to the dean's farmstead asylum.
Grizzlie Antagonist
You are the one who needs to pay attention.
You haven't said anything even remotely close to what I have said.
Now, try to imagine that I'm going ballistic as you inevitably do when you
posture as one who has been misinterpreted.
> I was being sarcastic and offering someone else a ridiculous idea to one
> up their ridiculous idea.
Whatever it was you had in mind, you failed miserably.
>>>> But I have never understood why the notion of an accidental misfire is
>>>> regarded by so many as a priori "preposterous".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe because you lack common sense.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I leave common sense to the paranoids.
--
Grizzlie Antagonist
Which WC "stray bullet" are you talking about?
>> back of JFK's head", at least not to the middle which an assassin would
>> target but struck high on the rear of the skull and came close to missing
>> it altogether.
>>
>> Given that the damage sustained was high on the right side of the skull,
>> a
>> strong argument can be made for the proposition that this is inconsistent
>> with the TSBD (above and to the right) as a point of origin and much more
>> consistent a point of origin from above and to the LEFT.
>>
>
> Wrong. JFK's head was tilted to the left then.
Very slightly.
>>> The recovered bullets were traceable to one weapon,
>>> Oswald's MC.
>>
>>
>>
>> The exploding frangible AR-15 round would have left no measurable traces.
>>
>
> Are you talking about a specially designed CIA exploding frangible bullet?
> The stock ammo for the AR-15 was not an exploding frangible bullet. Not
> that the SS had to abide by the Hague Convention, it's just that the
> standard ammo they used was designed for the military.
Really? What do you understand was the "stock ammo" for the AR-15 at the
time?
Grizzlie Antagonist
Isn't it the same situation with every president? Especially the last few
presidents that we have had, who have been described as very polarizing.
Yet how many actual assassination attempts are there, and how many of them
have been successful?
LHO appears to have been the only disturbed person in the country who not
only had the motive, means, and opportunity to shoot Kennedy but the WILL
to follow through on it -- so yes, it could very well be argued that
Kennedy's passing within LHO's range was a matter of happenstance.
> A stray bullet must go SOMEWHERE. This one did not go "straight to the
> back of JFK's head", at least not to the middle which an assassin would
> target but struck high on the rear of the skull and came close to missing
> it altogether.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection of this theory is that Hickey
> had stood up in the follow up car with weapon raised, lost his balance,
> fell backward, and discharged the weapon. If he was falling backward, this
> would naturally raise the barrel of the weapon so he would be shooting
> into the air, not on the level.
I really don't see the problem here. The barrel could have been pointing
low to begin with (so Hickey may actually have started out being more
safety-conscious than you gave him credit for) and falling backwards
simply lifted the barrel to where it WAS pointed on the level.
> Given that the damage sustained was high on the right side of the skull, a
> strong argument can be made for the proposition that this is inconsistent
> with the TSBD (above and to the right) as a point of origin and much more
> consistent a point of origin from above and to the LEFT.
>
> OK, let's look at this from a different angle. I believe you have said you
> accept the SBT.
Of course. As far as I'm concerned, it long ago graduated to an
established fact.
>That means one bullet caused all the wounds to JFK and JBC
> except for the fatal head shot. But we have two bullets recovered that are
> traceable to Oswald's MC. How did we end up with two bullets from his gun?
The splinters found in the limo that were traced to the MC are residue
from the first shot miss which struck the curb behind the limo.
> > The recovered bullets were traceable to one weapon,
> > Oswald's MC.
>
> The exploding frangible AR-15 round would have left no measurable traces.
>
> And so no evidence of a frangible round.
And no evidence that the splinters found in the limousine had any traces
of cranial residue consistent with having struck Kennedy's head.
His reaction at Z226 is simply not severe enough to suppose that he has
been "punched in the back"; that his rib has been broken; that his lung
has been punctured; and that his wrist has been shattered.
> > > The dipping of Connally's
> > > shoulder came immeidately after the right arm flip and was a secondary
> > > reaction.
>
> > Hardly. It's a very drastic declination in angle. At the same time, his
> > cheeks puff out as he exhales air. These reactions must have been nearly
> > instantaneous. They were not delayed for almost a full second.
>
> > No, these reactions did not have to be instantaneous. There is nothing
> > that indicates the cheek puffing occured at the moment of impact.
>
> His doctor largely disagrees with you, stating that the delay could have
> been for no more than 1/4 to 1/2 second. This does not accommodate a
> strike at Z225. Again, Connally's doctor estimated that his client was
> struck at Z236.
>
> I've never found this opinion to be very compelling. Just what forensic
> training did Shaw have to offer an expert opinion on this matter. His job
> was to patch people up, not determine what caused their wounds.
That may well be, but why would he not be qualified to offer an expert
opinion on how long it would take for his patient -- or any patient -- to
react to a punctured lung?
> > The
> > twisting and dipping of the torso followed immediately after the flip
> > of the right arm. It was not a delayed reaction but a continuation of
> > the reaction.
>
> It is much more feasible that the twisting and dipping of the torso result
> from the force of the impact of CE 399.
>
> The arm flip did not cause the torso twist, it preceded it. Since you are
> acknowledging CE399 was the single bullet, how do you explain the
> fragmented bullet in the front of the limo.
See above.
Grizzlie Antagonist
"Grizzlie Antagonist" wrote:
<snip>
> Donahue disputes that the jacketed bullet would have
> disintegrated to the extent that the bullet causing
> the fatal head shot disintegrated.
> Donahue, the sagacious sharpshooter from the seedy seaport,
Baltimore? It was probably not as seedy in his day.
> would seem to think the debris trail on the skull x-rays constituted the
> remnants of a
> bullet inclusive.
> But it's really much of the missing portion of Oswald's
> skull strike bullet, of which two large fragments were recovered to the
> front of the unfortunate.
Really? Can you prove that?
> He acknowledges that contact with the president's
> skull would cause more damage than contact with soft
> tissue, and he opines that an MC round hitting the
> president's skull might have broken it into three or
> four pieces but should not have disintegrated it
> altogether.
> That's approximately what happened to the Oswald bullet. On impact--or
> immediately thereafter-- it broke into the two large recovered pieces;
> much of the rest was left behind in the corrupted missile track in the
> brain. There's not enough debris material to justify the remnants being
> from a whole bullet.
Too much debris material to suppose that it came from a jacketed MC round.
> The sum and substance of his discussion is the
> incompatibility of the type of tensile strength
> demonstrated by CE 399 and the utter LACK of tensile
> strength demonstrated by the head-shot bullet.
> After Oswald's bullet broke apart, the portions no longer surrounded
> by jacketed material likely behaved like an unjacketed bullet.
Donahue/Menninger talk about a visit to Dr. Alfred Olivier, who had
conducted experiments as part of the original investigation by firing MC
rounds into human skulls filled with gelatin.
Dr. Oliver confirmed to Donahue that his experiments resulted in no
disintegration or explosion of the MC round replicating what Oswald's MC
round was supposed to have done on 11/22/63.
>> (The Bronson film of the assassination, which would
>> have resolved Hickey's position at the moment of fatal
>> impact, was not readily available in 1992.)
>
> The Bronson film resolves nothing. I am always
> astounded that anyone would claim that it does.
> That anyone would claim that it does is a demonstration
> of just how much subjectivity there is in an approach
> to this topic.
> The Bronson footage of Elm would seem to resolve Hickey's position (per
> Donahue, the agent has to be standing with a rifle) at the time of the
> fatal shot.
There's an old joke about a passenger who peers out of the window of an
airplane and says, "Look how high up we are! Those people look like ants."
And the passenger next to him replies, "Those ARE ants. We haven't left the
ground yet."
And that about summarizes the vantage point of the Bronson film.
People cannot even agree on what the Zapruder film shows or on what the
amazingly clear Altgens pictures show.
To try to glean anything from the Bronson film and its worms-eye viewpoint
is madness.
By comparison, Tom Stoppard once wrote a version of Hamlet as seen from the
perspectives of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. That's another example of
madness, but at least Stoppard was TRYING to be funny.
> Donahue posited Oswald's first shot struck the pavement just behind the
> limousine; it disintegrated, senting a ricocheted fragment into the upper
> rear of Kennedy's skull. It did not penetrate the bone--just sat there and
> sort of burned, causing the startled one to naturally seize his chin.
In fact, it was Russell Fisher, who sat on the Ramsey Clark panel, who told
Donahue that he and other panel members thought that the fragment to which
you refer was likely a ricochet fragment.
So that wasn't Hickey's invention, and the pedigree for it isn't a bad one.
> Most signs of that fantastic bullet strike were later obscured or blasted
> away
> by the Hickey shot, no less fantastic.
You've lost me here, as the evidence for that ricochet wasn't blasted away
at all.
> Maryland has certainly seen its share of Baltimorons. Spiro Agnew and
> Sargent Shriver hail from those parts. Harold Weisberg and Harrison Edward
> Livingstone were famously, perhaps competitively, boorish and obtuse. The
> superficially-sane Howard Donahue can trace his own departure from reality
> with his visits to the dean's farmstead asylum.
Donahue owes nothing to Harold Weisberg or Harrison Livingstone.
The fact that his POV never got the fair hearing that it should have gotten
during his lifetime might be traceable to the progressive declination in the
quality of our generations.
Anthony Marsh
Exactly how many assassination attempts were made against George W. Bush,
not counting his dog?
> LHO appears to have been the only disturbed person in the country who not
> only had the motive, means, and opportunity to shoot Kennedy but the WILL
> to follow through on it -- so yes, it could very well be argued that
> Kennedy's passing within LHO's range was a matter of happenstance.
>
Several people had the motive, means, and opportunity. And there were
other plots.
>
>
>> A stray bullet must go SOMEWHERE. This one did not go "straight to the
>> back of JFK's head", at least not to the middle which an assassin would
>> target but struck high on the rear of the skull and came close to missing
>> it altogether.
>>
>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection of this theory is that Hickey
>> had stood up in the follow up car with weapon raised, lost his balance,
>> fell backward, and discharged the weapon. If he was falling backward, this
>> would naturally raise the barrel of the weapon so he would be shooting
>> into the air, not on the level.
>
>
>
> I really don't see the problem here. The barrel could have been pointing
> low to begin with (so Hickey may actually have started out being more
> safety-conscious than you gave him credit for) and falling backwards
> simply lifted the barrel to where it WAS pointed on the level.
>
Yeah, pointed so low that the bullet could not get over the car's
windshield.
>
>
>> Given that the damage sustained was high on the right side of the skull, a
>> strong argument can be made for the proposition that this is inconsistent
>> with the TSBD (above and to the right) as a point of origin and much more
>> consistent a point of origin from above and to the LEFT.
>>
>
>> OK, let's look at this from a different angle. I believe you have said you
>> accept the SBT.
>
>
> Of course. As far as I'm concerned, it long ago graduated to an
> established fact.
>
>
>> That means one bullet caused all the wounds to JFK and JBC
>> except for the fatal head shot. But we have two bullets recovered that are
>> traceable to Oswald's MC. How did we end up with two bullets from his gun?
>
>
>
> The splinters found in the limo that were traced to the MC are residue
> from the first shot miss which struck the curb behind the limo.
>
Which splinters found exactly where? You seem a little confused about
this.
>
>
>>> The recovered bullets were traceable to one weapon,
>>> Oswald's MC.
>>
>> The exploding frangible AR-15 round would have left no measurable traces.
>>
>> And so no evidence of a frangible round.
>
>
>
> And no evidence that the splinters found in the limousine had any traces
> of cranial residue consistent with having struck Kennedy's head.
>
Why should we expect any? No human residue at all although they must
have gone through somebody.
He did not remember being hit in the wrist. He remembers when he was hit
in the back. Frame 230.
Anthony Marsh
The shot they said missed. Now answer the damn question.
>
>>> back of JFK's head", at least not to the middle which an assassin would
>>> target but struck high on the rear of the skull and came close to missing
>>> it altogether.
>>>
>>> Given that the damage sustained was high on the right side of the skull,
>>> a
>>> strong argument can be made for the proposition that this is inconsistent
>>> with the TSBD (above and to the right) as a point of origin and much more
>>> consistent a point of origin from above and to the LEFT.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong. JFK's head was tilted to the left then.
>
>
> Very slightly.
>
Enough that your trajectory would not work.
>
>
>>>> The recovered bullets were traceable to one weapon,
>>>> Oswald's MC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The exploding frangible AR-15 round would have left no measurable traces.
>>>
>>
>> Are you talking about a specially designed CIA exploding frangible bullet?
>> The stock ammo for the AR-15 was not an exploding frangible bullet. Not
>> that the SS had to abide by the Hague Convention, it's just that the
>> standard ammo they used was designed for the military.
>
>
>
> Really? What do you understand was the "stock ammo" for the AR-15 at the
> time?
>
Ball.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> "Grizzlie Antagonist" wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> Donahue disputes that the jacketed bullet would have
>> disintegrated to the extent that the bullet causing
>> the fatal head shot disintegrated.
>
> Donahue, the sagacious sharpshooter from the seedy seaport, would seem to
> think the debris trail on the skull x-rays constituted the remnants of a
> bullet inclusive. But it's really much of the missing portion of Oswald's
> skull strike bullet, of which two large fragments were recovered to the
> front of the unfortunate.
>
>> He acknowledges that contact with the president's
>> skull would cause more damage than contact with soft
>> tissue, and he opines that an MC round hitting the
>> president's skull might have broken it into three or
>> four pieces but should not have disintegrated it
>> altogether.
>
> That's approximately what happened to the Oswald bullet. On impact--or
> immediately thereafter-- it broke into the two large recovered pieces;
> much of the rest was left behind in the corrupted missile track in the
> brain. There's not enough debris material to justify the remnants being
> from a whole bullet.
>
You are entitled to your theory, but you then need to consider the
implications. Where did the two large fragments go? You'd need to plot
the trajectories after leaving the head. Which one hit the chrome
topping? I hope you realize that one of the recovered fragments was only
the copper jacket. The lead core had been squeezed out of the base.
Where did that go? Could that lead core be what hit the curb near Tague?
And your fragmentation of the bullet would then not allow you to plot
any backwards trajectory accurately.
>> The sum and substance of his discussion is the
>> incompatibility of the type of tensile strength
>> demonstrated by CE 399 and the utter LACK of tensile
>> strength demonstrated by the head-shot bullet.
>
> After Oswald's bullet broke apart, the portions no longer surrounded
> by jacketed material likely behaved like an unjacketed bullet.
>
Ok, expand on that.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Sorry, but before I could give this longshot possibility any credence
whatsoever, I would need to see hard physical evidence that the bullet
that struck JFK's skull came from an AR-15 and not Oswald's MC. I
would also need an explaination for how a fragmented bullet from
Oswald's rifle ended up on the floor of the limo if it was not the one
that struck JFK in the head. We also need to account for the chip on
the inside of the windshield.
Anthony Marsh
>
> Sorry, but before I could give this longshot possibility any credence
> whatsoever, I would need to see hard physical evidence that the bullet
> that struck JFK's skull came from an AR-15 and not Oswald's MC. I
Let me give you an example. The WCC M-C bullets Oswald used had very
unhardened lead cores, which left behind fragments having antimony
levels in the middle hundreds ppm. The AR-15 lead cores are probably
more hardened and would leave behind fragments with antimony levels in
the low thousands.
> would also need an explaination for how a fragmented bullet from
> Oswald's rifle ended up on the floor of the limo if it was not the one
> that struck JFK in the head. We also need to account for the chip on
> the inside of the windshield.
>
I think that those fragments came from the bullet which hit Connally's
wrist.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On 5/21/2009 12:34 AM, Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>>> If LHO was the only disturbed person in the country who would be
>>> inclined
>>> to shoot JFK if presented with the opportunity, it would have been the
>>> most remarkable of coincidences that JFK would happen to ride right past
>>> that one person's place of work. However we don't know how many
>>> potential
>>> assassins may have been lurking in the country who would have done what
>>> Oswald did if given the chance. It could be dozens. Hundreds.
>>> Thousdands.
>>> Whatever the number was, it would greatly increase the chances that a
>>> President who traveled frequently around the country and liked to ride
>>> in
>>> an open car would expose himself to one of these disturbed folks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Isn't it the same situation with every president? Especially the last
>> few
>> presidents that we have had, who have been described as very polarizing.
>> Yet how many actual assassination attempts are there, and how many of
>> them
>> have been successful?
>>
>
>
> Exactly how many assassination attempts were made against George W. Bush,
> not counting his dog?
None. Isn't that my point?
>> LHO appears to have been the only disturbed person in the country who not
>> only had the motive, means, and opportunity to shoot Kennedy but the WILL
>> to follow through on it -- so yes, it could very well be argued that
>> Kennedy's passing within LHO's range was a matter of happenstance.
>>
>
> Several people had the motive, means, and opportunity. And there were
> other plots.
No one else shot at him.
>>> A stray bullet must go SOMEWHERE. This one did not go "straight to the
>>> back of JFK's head", at least not to the middle which an assassin would
>>> target but struck high on the rear of the skull and came close to
>>> missing
>>> it altogether.
>>>
>>
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection of this theory is that
>>> Hickey
>>> had stood up in the follow up car with weapon raised, lost his balance,
>>> fell backward, and discharged the weapon. If he was falling backward,
>>> this
>>> would naturally raise the barrel of the weapon so he would be shooting
>>> into the air, not on the level.
>>
>>
>>
>> I really don't see the problem here. The barrel could have been pointing
>> low to begin with (so Hickey may actually have started out being more
>> safety-conscious than you gave him credit for) and falling backwards
>> simply lifted the barrel to where it WAS pointed on the level.
>>
>
> Yeah, pointed so low that the bullet could not get over the car's
> windshield.
Looks like it DID get over the car's windshield.
>>> That means one bullet caused all the wounds to JFK and JBC
>>> except for the fatal head shot. But we have two bullets recovered that
>>> are
>>> traceable to Oswald's MC. How did we end up with two bullets from his
>>> gun?
>>
>>
>>
>> The splinters found in the limo that were traced to the MC are residue
>> from the first shot miss which struck the curb behind the limo.
>>
>
> Which splinters found exactly where? You seem a little confused about
> this.
CE 567 and 569.
>>>> The recovered bullets were traceable to one weapon,
>>>> Oswald's MC.
>>>
>>> The exploding frangible AR-15 round would have left no measurable
>>> traces.
>>>
>>> And so no evidence of a frangible round.
>>
>>
>>
>> And no evidence that the splinters found in the limousine had any traces
>> of cranial residue consistent with having struck Kennedy's head.
>>
>
> Why should we expect any? No human residue at all although they must have
> gone through somebody.
Not at all.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On 5/20/2009 11:41 PM, Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A stray bullet must go SOMEWHERE. This one did not go "straight to the
>>>
>>> Yet you don't explain where the WC's stray bullet went.
>>
>>
>>
>> Which WC "stray bullet" are you talking about?
>>
>>
>
> The shot they said missed. Now answer the damn question.
I've discussed it elsewhere. I've decided that you don't deserve a polite
answer here.
>>>> back of JFK's head", at least not to the middle which an assassin would
>>>> target but struck high on the rear of the skull and came close to
>>>> missing
>>>> it altogether.
>>>>
>>>> Given that the damage sustained was high on the right side of the
>>>> skull,
>>>> a
>>>> strong argument can be made for the proposition that this is
>>>> inconsistent
>>>> with the TSBD (above and to the right) as a point of origin and much
>>>> more
>>>> consistent a point of origin from above and to the LEFT.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong. JFK's head was tilted to the left then.
>>
>>
>> Very slightly.
>>
>
> Enough that your trajectory would not work.
I'm quite sure that it does.
>>>>> The recovered bullets were traceable to one weapon,
>>>>> Oswald's MC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The exploding frangible AR-15 round would have left no measurable
>>>> traces.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you talking about a specially designed CIA exploding frangible
>>> bullet?
>>> The stock ammo for the AR-15 was not an exploding frangible bullet. Not
>>> that the SS had to abide by the Hague Convention, it's just that the
>>> standard ammo they used was designed for the military.
>>
>>
>>
>> Really? What do you understand was the "stock ammo" for the AR-15 at the
>> time?
>>
>
> Ball.
Everything that I've read about the AR-15 says that the .223 Remington is
standard.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Sorry, but before I could give this longshot possibility any credence
> whatsoever, I would need to see hard physical evidence that the bullet
> that struck JFK's skull came from an AR-15 and not Oswald's MC.
Why isn't it incumbent upon you to provide hard physical evidence that the
bullet came from Oswald's MC?
> I would also need an explaination for how a fragmented bullet from
> Oswald's rifle ended up on the floor of the limo if it was not the one
> that struck JFK in the head.
Shot #1 struck Elm Street and splintered. Hot lead sprinkled over Kennedy
causing him to react in 225ff. Some of the bullet fragments ended up in the
limousine.
> We also need to account for the chip on
> the inside of the windshield.
Also a fragment from the first missed shot.
Anthony Marsh
Those were not splinters. Those were large fragments.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On 5/21/2009 11:47 PM, Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>
>
>
Fine. Fine.
They were not splinters. They were large fragments.
I deserve an oak leaf cluster for making such a magnanimous
concession.
bigdog
Two reasons. One, I don't have the bullet. Two, I don't have the equipment
or the expertise to determine if a bullet came from particular gun. I
therefore must defer to those who had the bullet, the equipment, and the
expertise to determine that the bullet came from Oswald's rifle. I know of
no qualified experts who have ever refuted that finding.
> > I would also need an explaination for how a fragmented bullet from
> > Oswald's rifle ended up on the floor of the limo if it was not the one
> > that struck JFK in the head.
>
> Shot #1 struck Elm Street and splintered. Hot lead sprinkled over Kennedy
> causing him to react in 225ff. Some of the bullet fragments ended up in the
> limousine.
>
Sorry, but that explaination makes this theory sound even more incredible.
I just don't see a bullet striking the pavement near the limo bouncing up
and landing inside the limo. Bouncing off the side of the car seems far
more probable. The angles are just wrong for the fragments entering the
limo. Unless they struck a good distance from the car, which requires an
incredibly wild shot, there is no way to make this work. You are trying to
force fit the evidence to a theory for which there is no evidence. This is
the tactic more typical of the CT community.
> > We also need to account for the chip on
> > the inside of the windshield.
>
> Also a fragment from the first missed shot.
>
To make this work, you need a fragment to bounce off the pavement with
just enough velocity left so that it will travel in an arc into the limo.
How does such a fragment have enough force to dent the chrome and chip the
glass. This just makes no sense. There is a much simpler explaination that
doesn't require any such ballistic gymnastics. A guy by the name of Lee
Harvey Oswald stuck a cheap Italian war surplus rifle out of a building
and fired three shots at JFK. His first shot missed to the right. The next
shot found the target, passing through JFK's upper torso, exited from his
throat striking the person directly in front of JFK. The last shot hit JFK
in the head, blowing out a large section of the upper right side of his
head, fragmented upon striking the dense bone and pieces of this bullet
chipped the windshield and dented the chrome. Not only is that a much
simpler explaination, there is actually evidence for that.
Grizzlie Antagonist
Why trouble me? Am I more likely to have these things than you are?
> I therefore must defer to those who had the bullet, the equipment, and
> the
> expertise to determine that the bullet came from Oswald's rifle. I know of
> no qualified experts who have ever refuted that finding.
I think that you're a little confused about antecedents.
Beyond doubt, CE Exhibts 399, 567, and 569 came from Oswald's MC. But for
the purpose of this discussion, it's incumbent upon you to show that the
last two were the product of the head shot.
> > I would also need an explaination for how a fragmented bullet from
> > Oswald's rifle ended up on the floor of the limo if it was not the one
> > that struck JFK in the head.
>
> Shot #1 struck Elm Street and splintered. Hot lead sprinkled over Kennedy
> causing him to react in 225ff. Some of the bullet fragments ended up in
> the
> limousine.
>
> Sorry, but that explaination makes this theory sound even more incredible.
> I just don't see a bullet striking the pavement near the limo bouncing up
> and landing inside the limo.
You just don't see it? You just said that you don't have the expertise to
determine if a particular bullet came from a particular gun.
Do you have the expertise to determine the likely angle or arc at which a
bullet rebounding off of a hard surface should travel?
> Bouncing off the side of the car seems far
> more probable. The angles are just wrong for the fragments entering the
> limo.
Why?
> Unless they struck a good distance from the car, which requires an
> incredibly wild shot, there is no way to make this work.
Well, consider that last remark in relation to the scenario that you set
forth below. You'll see what I mean in a minute.
> You are trying to force fit the evidence to a theory for which there is no
> evidence.
Mr. HOLMES. As it came out of Main Street, the President was sitting on
the right in the back seat. His wife was on the left. Governor Connally,
whom I also recognized, was sitting on the right of the middle seat.
Mr. BELIN. Were you looking with the aid of any optical instrument?
Mr. HOLMES. I had a pair of 7 1/2 x 50 binoculars. They were acknowledging
the applause of the crowd and kind of waving, but not standing up. This is
a short block.
Mr. BELIN. From Main to Elm?
Mr. HOLMES. To Elm is really not more than a good full block, but the
motorcade turned north on Houston and went to Elm and turned left on Elm
where it started on a downgrade to what we refer to as a triple underpass.
As it turned in front of the School Book Depository, I heard what to me
sounded like firecrackers, and it was my recollection that there were
three of them. I had my binoculars on this car, on the Presidential car
all the time. I realized something was wrong, but I thought they were
dodging somebody throwing things at the car like firecrackers or
something, but I did see dust fly up like a firecracker had burst up in
the air.
Mr. BELIN. Where did you see the dust?
Mr. HOLMES. Off of President Kennedy and I couldn't tell you which one of
the cracks of the firecracker resulted in this.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holmes1.htm
Mr. KELLERMAN. As we turned off Houston onto Elm and made the short little
dip to the left going down grade, as I said, we were away from buildings,
and were there was a sign on the side of the road which I don't recall
what it was or what it said, but we no more than passed that and you are
out in the open, and there is a report like a firecracker, pop. And I
turned my head to the right because whatever this noise was I was sure
that it came from the right and perhaps into the rear, and as I turned my
head to the right to view whatever it was or see whatever it was, I heard
a voice from the back seat and I firmly believe it was the President's,
"My God, I am hit," and I turned around and he has got his hands up here
like this.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kellerma.htm (this is strongly
suggestive of a superficial hit arising from the first shot BEFORE Kennedy
has been struck in the throat, which presumably rendered him speechless)
> This is
> the tactic more typical of the CT community.
In addition to that, Menninger/Donahue recount a conversation that Donahue
had with one of the members of the Ramsey Clark panel who told Donahue
that they found evidence of a ricochet fragment -- 6.5 mm in diameter
(i.e., from Oswald's rifle) embedded on the outer table of Kennedy's skull
below the entrance wound.
It was expressly described as A RICOCHET fragment, mind you, not a
fragment resulting from a direct shot to the head.
> > We also need to account for the chip on
> > the inside of the windshield.
>
> Also a fragment from the first missed shot.
>
> To make this work, you need a fragment to bounce off the pavement with
> just enough velocity left so that it will travel in an arc into the limo.
I don't understand your problem with that.
> How does such a fragment have enough force to dent the chrome and chip the
> glass.
You're asking about a bullet traveling at the speed of 2200 feet per
second before striking hard pavement and rebounding. I really don't see
the problem.
> This just makes no sense. There is a much simpler explaination that
> doesn't require any such ballistic gymnastics.
You've got another think coming.
> A guy by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald stuck a cheap Italian war surplus
> rifle out of a building
> and fired three shots at JFK.
Two shots.
> His first shot missed to the right.
AHA! And where did it go?
You can't tell me, can you?
Up above, you express skepticism about a shot that misses so wildly that a
portion of it ricochets into the limo.
Yet, in THIS scenario of yours, you simply state that "his first shot
missed to the right" without stating where it landed because YOU CAN'T SAY
where it landed. THAT'S how wildly the first shot misses in YOUR
scenario.
> The next shot found the target, passing through JFK's upper torso, exited
> from his
> throat striking the person directly in front of JFK.
At Z236-238
> The last shot hit JFK
> in the head, blowing out a large section of the upper right side of his
> head, fragmented upon striking the dense bone and pieces of this bullet
> chipped the windshield and dented the chrome. Not only is that a much
> simpler explaination, there is actually evidence for that.
Nonsense. You don't have the bullet. You don't have the equipment or the
expertise to determine if a bullet came from particular gun.
--
bigdog
No I can't. There is no proof of where it went and I won't make
assumptions. There is circumstantial evidencence that this bullet or a
fragment of it MIGHT have been what cause the cut on Tague's cheek, either
directly or indirectly, but that is far from certain. I don't need to know
where the missed shot went to know where the other two shots went.
> Up above, you express skepticism about a shot that misses so wildly that a
> portion of it ricochets into the limo.
>
> Yet, in THIS scenario of yours, you simply state that "his first shot
> missed to the right" without stating where it landed because YOU CAN'T SAY
> where it landed. THAT'S how wildly the first shot misses in YOUR
> scenario.
>
The first shot did not have to be that wild. JFK was sitting in the far
right of the car. His center line would have been about 1 foot from the
side of the car. A shot slightly more than a foot to the right could have
missed completely. We both theorize a shot completely missing the limo.
The difference is that yours MUST miss far enough right that it could
bounce over the side of the car and into the limo. Under mine, the bullet
could have missed by just inches. The amount of the miss isn't critical to
my scenario. It is to yours.
> > The next shot found the target, passing through JFK's upper torso, exited
> > from his
> > throat striking the person directly in front of JFK.
>
> At Z236-238
>
At Z223, or perhaps a frame or two earlier. The arm flip beginning at Z226
refutes a later strike. If as you theorize this flip of the arm was in
reaction to the missed shot 2 seconds earlier, why does he bring his arm
down as rapidly as he brought it up. The up and down movement of the arm
is so rapid the Stetson is visible for just 9 frames. A half a second.
> > The last shot hit JFK
> > in the head, blowing out a large section of the upper right side of his
> > head, fragmented upon striking the dense bone and pieces of this bullet
> > chipped the windshield and dented the chrome. Not only is that a much
> > simpler explaination, there is actually evidence for that.
>
> Nonsense. You don't have the bullet. You don't have the equipment or the
> expertise to determine if a bullet came from particular gun.
>
No, but the FBI had all three and determined that it did come from
Oswald's gun.
Anthony Marsh
In other words you always argue with a double standard. You demand that
conspiracy believers account for their missed shots and fragments, yet
you can't.
> assumptions. There is circumstantial evidencence that this bullet or a
> fragment of it MIGHT have been what cause the cut on Tague's cheek, either
> directly or indirectly, but that is far from certain. I don't need to know
> where the missed shot went to know where the other two shots went.
Well, in fact if you are a good little WC defender then you should think
that a fragment from the head shot caused the Tague injury, so you don't
need a missed shot to do that. So, where did the missed shot go?
>
>> Up above, you express skepticism about a shot that misses so wildly that a
>> portion of it ricochets into the limo.
>>
>> Yet, in THIS scenario of yours, you simply state that "his first shot
>> missed to the right" without stating where it landed because YOU CAN'T SAY
>> where it landed. THAT'S how wildly the first shot misses in YOUR
>> scenario.
>>
>
> The first shot did not have to be that wild. JFK was sitting in the far
> right of the car. His center line would have been about 1 foot from the
> side of the car. A shot slightly more than a foot to the right could have
> missed completely. We both theorize a shot completely missing the limo.
> The difference is that yours MUST miss far enough right that it could
> bounce over the side of the car and into the limo. Under mine, the bullet
> could have missed by just inches. The amount of the miss isn't critical to
> my scenario. It is to yours.
>
Ok, even a shot missing by a few feet at that closest distance would
still have to hit the limousine or something in it, or hitting the
ground would ricochet into the side of the limousine.
>>> The next shot found the target, passing through JFK's upper torso, exited
>>> from his
>>> throat striking the person directly in front of JFK.
>>
>> At Z236-238
>>
>
> At Z223, or perhaps a frame or two earlier. The arm flip beginning at Z226
> refutes a later strike. If as you theorize this flip of the arm was in
> reaction to the missed shot 2 seconds earlier, why does he bring his arm
> down as rapidly as he brought it up. The up and down movement of the arm
> is so rapid the Stetson is visible for just 9 frames. A half a second.
>
>>> The last shot hit JFK
>>> in the head, blowing out a large section of the upper right side of his
>>> head, fragmented upon striking the dense bone and pieces of this bullet
>>> chipped the windshield and dented the chrome. Not only is that a much
>>> simpler explaination, there is actually evidence for that.
>>
>> Nonsense. You don't have the bullet. You don't have the equipment or the
>> expertise to determine if a bullet came from particular gun.
>>
> No, but the FBI had all three and determined that it did come from
> Oswald's gun.
The FBI had all three bullets? That's news to us. How did you find out
about this secret information? The SS found two large fragments and the
FBI had the Magic Bullet. So, who found the third bullet, the one you
think missed? Where is it hiding now?
Grizzlie Antagonist
If Tague wasn't hit by the "missed shot", what was he hit by?
> I don't need to know where the missed shot went to know where the other
> two shots went.
I think you do. I really do.
I also think that you've been "shifting the goalposts".
On the one hand you say that a scenario involving Kennedy being hit by
bullet spray resulting from an errant first shot (which, contrary to your
earlier assertion IS supported by the facts, as I have shown) requires one
to assume that the shot was just TOO wild.
On the other hand, your scenario involves a shot that was SO wild, you
can't find any trace of it. I don't think that you can have it both ways.
> Up above, you express skepticism about a shot that misses so wildly that a
> portion of it ricochets into the limo.
>
> Yet, in THIS scenario of yours, you simply state that "his first shot
> missed to the right" without stating where it landed because YOU CAN'T SAY
> where it landed. THAT'S how wildly the first shot misses in YOUR
> scenario.
>
> The first shot did not have to be that wild. JFK was sitting in the far
> right of the car. His center line would have been about 1 foot from the
> side of the car. A shot slightly more than a foot to the right could have
> missed completely. We both theorize a shot completely missing the limo.
> The difference is that yours MUST miss far enough right that it could
> bounce over the side of the car and into the limo.
Again, if you're not claiming to be an expert on how a rebounding bullet
should act after striking a hard surface, who are you to say?
> Under mine, the bullet
> could have missed by just inches. The amount of the miss isn't critical to
> my scenario. It is to yours.
No, it's critical to yours, as well.
As long as you're POSTURING as an expert on the trajectory of a rebounding
bullet -- without actually claiming to be one -- use your own reasoning.
If it missed by "inches" to the right, then its rebound should have been
smothered by the limo and there would presumably be traces of it found on
the right outside surface of the limo. And, having been smothered by the
limo, it could not have struck Tague standing by the triple underpass.
The Tague hit is consistent with a shot that missed the limo by a large
enough margin -- if you must insist on one -- to have a portion of it
rebound all the way down to him.
> > The next shot found the target, passing through JFK's upper torso,
> > exited
> > from his
> > throat striking the person directly in front of JFK.
>
> At Z236-238
> At Z223, or perhaps a frame or two earlier. The arm flip beginning at Z226
> refutes a later strike. If as you theorize this flip of the arm was in
> reaction to the missed shot 2 seconds earlier, why does he bring his arm
> down as rapidly as he brought it up. The up and down movement of the arm
> is so rapid the Stetson is visible for just 9 frames. A half a second.
Again, we don't know what Connally was doing or how he was reacting from
Z200 - 224.
If we did, we would have a better perspective on what his movements in
Z226 mean.
But the notion of an SB strike as early as Z223-226 is contrary to the
overwhelming bulk of evidence.
Connally stated that he heard the first shot, turned to his right, didn't
see anything, turned back and was in the process of starting to the turn
to the left when he was struck in the back.
That's not consistent with his posture at Z226 when he is still completing
his turnback from his original right-hand turn. And at Z226, there is no
reason to suppose that his rib has been broken, his lung has been
punctured, and his wrist has been shattered. His reaction simply isn't
great enough to suppose that.
He starts to make his left hand turn in Z230 or thereabouts and, of
course, his expression becomes contorted with pain in the late Z230's.
Connally himself apparently told LIFE Magazine that he was POSTIVE that he
had not yet been hit by Z230. He placed the hit at Z234, and his doctors
placed it between Z234 and Z238.
For the most part, I think that it is conspiracy theorists who have their
heads in the sand. Yet it is remarkable to me how many LN theorists
insist upon an SB strike in the Z220's to accommodate a comfortable
scenario when this comfortable scenario is not supported by the evidence.
Given such a knee-jerk reaction to such a technical issue, it really
shouldn't amaze me that there is SO MUCH ingrained resistance to the
notion of an errant Secret Service shot. That there is such ingrained
resistance always does amaze me and it really shouldn't.
> > The last shot hit JFK
> > in the head, blowing out a large section of the upper right side of his
> > head, fragmented upon striking the dense bone and pieces of this bullet
> > chipped the windshield and dented the chrome. Not only is that a much
> > simpler explaination, there is actually evidence for that.
>
> Nonsense. You don't have the bullet. You don't have the equipment or the
> expertise to determine if a bullet came from particular gun.
>
> No, but the FBI had all three and determined that it did come from
> Oswald's gun.
There is no doubt that the Commission Exhibits came from Oswald's gun. But
that still begs the larger question.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, if you claim to be arguing from a position of moral superiority.
>
>> I therefore must defer to those who had the bullet, the equipment, and
>> the
>> expertise to determine that the bullet came from Oswald's rifle. I know of
>> no qualified experts who have ever refuted that finding.
>
>
>
> I think that you're a little confused about antecedents.
>
> Beyond doubt, CE Exhibts 399, 567, and 569 came from Oswald's MC. But for
> the purpose of this discussion, it's incumbent upon you to show that the
> last two were the product of the head shot.
>
We can't even prove that CE 567 and 569 came from the same bullet. It is
just a convenient assumption we make. I have trouble getting both
fragments into the same area if they come from different shots.
>
>
>>> I would also need an explaination for how a fragmented bullet from
>>> Oswald's rifle ended up on the floor of the limo if it was not the one
>>> that struck JFK in the head.
>>
>> Shot #1 struck Elm Street and splintered. Hot lead sprinkled over Kennedy
>> causing him to react in 225ff. Some of the bullet fragments ended up in
>> the
>> limousine.
>>
>
>> Sorry, but that explaination makes this theory sound even more incredible.
>> I just don't see a bullet striking the pavement near the limo bouncing up
>> and landing inside the limo.
>
>
>
> You just don't see it? You just said that you don't have the expertise to
> determine if a particular bullet came from a particular gun.
>
> Do you have the expertise to determine the likely angle or arc at which a
> bullet rebounding off of a hard surface should travel?
>
Yes.
>
>> Bouncing off the side of the car seems far
>> more probable. The angles are just wrong for the fragments entering the
>> limo.
>
>
>
> Why?
>
Because the side of the limo is so high that fragments would just hit it
or fly over it and beyond, not drop into it.
So, as a literalist you assume that Holmes really saw dust coming off of
President Kennedy's head or something?
And he was talking about a firecracker, not a bullet. He thought he saw
debris from a firecracker bouncing off Kennedy.
And you think that's a good witness?
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holmes1.htm
>
>
> Mr. KELLERMAN. As we turned off Houston onto Elm and made the short little
> dip to the left going down grade, as I said, we were away from buildings,
> and were there was a sign on the side of the road which I don't recall
> what it was or what it said, but we no more than passed that and you are
> out in the open, and there is a report like a firecracker, pop. And I
> turned my head to the right because whatever this noise was I was sure
> that it came from the right and perhaps into the rear, and as I turned my
> head to the right to view whatever it was or see whatever it was, I heard
> a voice from the back seat and I firmly believe it was the President's,
> "My God, I am hit," and I turned around and he has got his hands up here
> like this.
>
Impossible.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kellerma.htm (this is strongly
> suggestive of a superficial hit arising from the first shot BEFORE Kennedy
> has been struck in the throat, which presumably rendered him speechless)
>
>
>
>> This is
>> the tactic more typical of the CT community.
>
>
>
> In addition to that, Menninger/Donahue recount a conversation that Donahue
> had with one of the members of the Ramsey Clark panel who told Donahue
> that they found evidence of a ricochet fragment -- 6.5 mm in diameter
> (i.e., from Oswald's rifle) embedded on the outer table of Kennedy's skull
> below the entrance wound.
>
No, he did not. No one said that.
> It was expressly described as A RICOCHET fragment, mind you, not a
> fragment resulting from a direct shot to the head.
>
>
>
>>> We also need to account for the chip on
>>> the inside of the windshield.
>>
>> Also a fragment from the first missed shot.
>>
>
>> To make this work, you need a fragment to bounce off the pavement with
>> just enough velocity left so that it will travel in an arc into the limo.
>
>
>
> I don't understand your problem with that.
>
Physically impossible.
>
>
>> How does such a fragment have enough force to dent the chrome and chip the
>> glass.
>
>
>
> You're asking about a bullet traveling at the speed of 2200 feet per
> second before striking hard pavement and rebounding. I really don't see
> the problem.
>
Which bullet had a speed of 2200 fps? You mean a second rifle, not
Oswald's?
>
>
>> This just makes no sense. There is a much simpler explaination that
>> doesn't require any such ballistic gymnastics.
>
>
>
> You've got another think coming.
>
>
>> A guy by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald stuck a cheap Italian war surplus
>> rifle out of a building
>> and fired three shots at JFK.
>
>
>
> Two shots.
>
Oh, so now you have a different conspiracy theory and Oswald firing only
two shots? Then why the third empty shell?
How does that relate to the overwhelming recollections of witnesses that
THREE shots came from the TSBD? Your only way out how is to claim that ALL
the witnesses in Dealey Plaza were lying because they were in on the
conspiracy?
>
>
>> His first shot missed to the right.
>
>
>
> AHA! And where did it go?
>
> You can't tell me, can you?
>
You can shove your demands that we prove where the missed shot went. The
WC defenders never prove where their missed shot went.
> Up above, you express skepticism about a shot that misses so wildly that a
> portion of it ricochets into the limo.
>
Physically impossible.
> Yet, in THIS scenario of yours, you simply state that "his first shot
> missed to the right" without stating where it landed because YOU CAN'T SAY
> where it landed. THAT'S how wildly the first shot misses in YOUR
> scenario.
>
>
>
>> The next shot found the target, passing through JFK's upper torso, exited
>> from his
>> throat striking the person directly in front of JFK.
>
>
>
> At Z236-238
Impossible. Kennedy is seen to be hit before Z-236 and his hands are up
in front of his throat by then which would block any bullet coming out
of his throat from hitting Connally. Your idea is just plain wacky.
Anthony Marsh
And your wild miss would be coming in from the wrong angle and need to
be considerably behind the limousine.
>>> We also need to account for the chip on
>>> the inside of the windshield.
>>
>> Also a fragment from the first missed shot.
>>
>
> To make this work, you need a fragment to bounce off the pavement with
> just enough velocity left so that it will travel in an arc into the limo.
> How does such a fragment have enough force to dent the chrome and chip the
> glass. This just makes no sense. There is a much simpler explaination that
> doesn't require any such ballistic gymnastics. A guy by the name of Lee
> Harvey Oswald stuck a cheap Italian war surplus rifle out of a building
> and fired three shots at JFK. His first shot missed to the right. The next
> shot found the target, passing through JFK's upper torso, exited from his
> throat striking the person directly in front of JFK. The last shot hit JFK
> in the head, blowing out a large section of the upper right side of his
> head, fragmented upon striking the dense bone and pieces of this bullet
> chipped the windshield and dented the chrome. Not only is that a much
> simpler explaination, there is actually evidence for that.
>
Except that is not what either the FBI or WC said. That is YOUR theory.
You then need to prove it by plotting the trajectories.
Anthony Marsh
Exactly which fragments and show us where they were found.
>
>
>
>> We also need to account for the chip on
>> the inside of the windshield.
>
>
>
> Also a fragment from the first missed shot.
>
>
Strange angles you have there.
>
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh"<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4a15...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> On 5/20/2009 11:41 PM, Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> A stray bullet must go SOMEWHERE. This one did not go "straight to the
>>>>
>>>> Yet you don't explain where the WC's stray bullet went.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Which WC "stray bullet" are you talking about?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The shot they said missed. Now answer the damn question.
>
>
>
> I've discussed it elsewhere. I've decided that you don't deserve a polite
> answer here.
>
Because you can't answer. That's why you played dumb and asked which
stray bullet.
Donahue claims the caliber was 5.56 mm. Nowhere in Mortal Error or any
document is it claimed that Hickey's AR-15 used anything but standard
ammunition.
The standard ammo then for the 5.56 mm AR-15 was the old M193, 55-grain
FMJ ball.
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/rifle/556mm_ammo.html
Again, I do not claim that the SS is bound by the Hague Convention, but
I think they just used standard ammunition.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On 5/23/2009 12:30 AM, Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>>> Why isn't it incumbent upon you to provide hard physical evidence that
>>> the
>>> bullet came from Oswald's MC?
>>>
>>
>>> Two reasons. One, I don't have the bullet. Two, I don't have the
>>> equipment
>>> or the expertise to determine if a bullet came from particular gun.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why trouble me? Am I more likely to have these things than you are?
>>
>>
>
> Yes, if you claim to be arguing from a position of moral superiority.
I'm not claiming to argue a technical issue from a position of moral
superiority.
But of course, now that you mention it, I'm not afraid to engage in
comparisons of my moral worth with most people, if it comes to that.
>>> I therefore must defer to those who had the bullet, the equipment, and
>>> the
>>> expertise to determine that the bullet came from Oswald's rifle. I know
>>> of
>>> no qualified experts who have ever refuted that finding.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think that you're a little confused about antecedents.
>>
>> Beyond doubt, CE Exhibts 399, 567, and 569 came from Oswald's MC. But
>> for
>> the purpose of this discussion, it's incumbent upon you to show that the
>> last two were the product of the head shot.
>>
>
> We can't even prove that CE 567 and 569 came from the same bullet. It is
> just a convenient assumption we make. I have trouble getting both
> fragments into the same area if they come from different shots.
And so?
>>>> I would also need an explaination for how a fragmented bullet from
>>>> Oswald's rifle ended up on the floor of the limo if it was not the one
>>>> that struck JFK in the head.
>>>
>>> Shot #1 struck Elm Street and splintered. Hot lead sprinkled over
>>> Kennedy
>>> causing him to react in 225ff. Some of the bullet fragments ended up in
>>> the
>>> limousine.
>>>
>>
>>> Sorry, but that explaination makes this theory sound even more
>>> incredible.
>>> I just don't see a bullet striking the pavement near the limo bouncing
>>> up
>>> and landing inside the limo.
>>
>>
>>
>> You just don't see it? You just said that you don't have the expertise
>> to
>> determine if a particular bullet came from a particular gun.
>>
>> Do you have the expertise to determine the likely angle or arc at which a
>> bullet rebounding off of a hard surface should travel?
>>
>
> Yes.
Oh you do, do you?
>>> Bouncing off the side of the car seems far
>>> more probable. The angles are just wrong for the fragments entering the
>>> limo.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> Because the side of the limo is so high that fragments would just hit it
> or fly over it and beyond, not drop into it.
Why then, you must believe that CE 567 and 569 entered into the limousine
as a result of LHO's shooting JFK in the head.
And here I thought that you were a conspiracy theorist and a member of the
Lee Harvey Oswald Marching and Chowder Society.
I think that it's pretty clear that he is talking about debris from a
bullet landing on Kennedy.
> And he was talking about a firecracker, not a bullet. He thought he saw
> debris from a firecracker bouncing off Kennedy.
No, he said "like a firecracker". He said "like firecrackers".
I think that we can presume that he knew he was a witness to an
assassination by gunfire and that he really hadn't observed a firecracker
going off.
> And you think that's a good witness?
Man, YOU'VE got no business accusing ME of literalism.
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holmes1.htm
>>
>>
>> Mr. KELLERMAN. As we turned off Houston onto Elm and made the short
>> little
>> dip to the left going down grade, as I said, we were away from buildings,
>> and were there was a sign on the side of the road which I don't recall
>> what it was or what it said, but we no more than passed that and you are
>> out in the open, and there is a report like a firecracker, pop. And I
>> turned my head to the right because whatever this noise was I was sure
>> that it came from the right and perhaps into the rear, and as I turned my
>> head to the right to view whatever it was or see whatever it was, I heard
>> a voice from the back seat and I firmly believe it was the President's,
>> "My God, I am hit," and I turned around and he has got his hands up here
>> like this.
>>
>
> Impossible.
Thank you, Anthony Marsh. Next time I see him, I'll tell him that you
think that what he said was "impossible".
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kellerma.htm (this is strongly
>> suggestive of a superficial hit arising from the first shot BEFORE
>> Kennedy
>> has been struck in the throat, which presumably rendered him speechless)
>>
>>
>>
>>> This is
>>> the tactic more typical of the CT community.
>>
>>
>>
>> In addition to that, Menninger/Donahue recount a conversation that
>> Donahue
>> had with one of the members of the Ramsey Clark panel who told Donahue
>> that they found evidence of a ricochet fragment -- 6.5 mm in diameter
>> (i.e., from Oswald's rifle) embedded on the outer table of Kennedy's
>> skull
>> below the entrance wound.
>>
>
> No, he did not. No one said that.
I'm afraid that someone did.
>> It was expressly described as A RICOCHET fragment, mind you, not a
>> fragment resulting from a direct shot to the head.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> We also need to account for the chip on
>>>> the inside of the windshield.
>>>
>>> Also a fragment from the first missed shot.
>>>
>>
>>> To make this work, you need a fragment to bounce off the pavement with
>>> just enough velocity left so that it will travel in an arc into the
>>> limo.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't understand your problem with that.
>>
>
> Physically impossible.
As always, Anthony Marsh, your pat commentary has me in the crushing grip
of reason.
But it never seems to win my heart.
>>> How does such a fragment have enough force to dent the chrome and chip
>>> the
>>> glass.
>>
>>
>>
>> You're asking about a bullet traveling at the speed of 2200 feet per
>> second before striking hard pavement and rebounding. I really don't see
>> the problem.
>>
>
> Which bullet had a speed of 2200 fps? You mean a second rifle, not
> Oswald's?
Oh, what's your estimate of how fast a bullet fired from an MC travels?
>>> This just makes no sense. There is a much simpler explaination that
>>> doesn't require any such ballistic gymnastics.
>>
>>
>>
>> You've got another think coming.
>>
>>
>>> A guy by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald stuck a cheap Italian war surplus
>>> rifle out of a building
>>> and fired three shots at JFK.
>>
>>
>>
>> Two shots.
>>
>
> Oh, so now you have a different conspiracy theory and Oswald firing only
> two shots? Then why the third empty shell?
HOLY GOOD NIGHT!
Have you paid ANY ATTENTION to ANYTHING THAT I'VE SAID over the past three
years?
If you haven't, why do you even bother arguing with it?
What do you think that I've been saying for three years? Two shots from
Oswald and one shot from Hickey.
CE 543 had a dent in its casing and probably wasn't fired on 11/22/63.
CT's have been arguing that for years. Sometimes the blind pig finds an
acorn.
> How does that relate to the overwhelming recollections of witnesses that
> THREE shots came from the TSBD? Your only way out how is to claim that ALL
> the witnesses in Dealey Plaza were lying because they were in on the
> conspiracy?
What the devil do you think that you're talking about now?
>>> His first shot missed to the right.
>>
>>
>>
>> AHA! And where did it go?
>>
>> You can't tell me, can you?
>>
>
> You can shove your demands that we prove where the missed shot went. The
> WC defenders never prove where their missed shot went.
Boy, are you off the beam!
Whose this "we" that you're talking about?
Just to set you straight, I'm arguing with bigdog, who is a WC defender,
and I'm asking him to tell me where the missed shot went.
I mean, is this a ploy on your part? Are you doing this on purpose?
>> Up above, you express skepticism about a shot that misses so wildly that
>> a
>> portion of it ricochets into the limo.
>>
>
> Physically impossible.
There it is again, that crushing grip of reason!
>> Yet, in THIS scenario of yours, you simply state that "his first shot
>> missed to the right" without stating where it landed because YOU CAN'T
>> SAY
>> where it landed. THAT'S how wildly the first shot misses in YOUR
>> scenario.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The next shot found the target, passing through JFK's upper torso,
>>> exited
>>> from his
>>> throat striking the person directly in front of JFK.
>>
>>
>>
>> At Z236-238
>
> Impossible. Kennedy is seen to be hit before Z-236 and his hands are up in
> front of his throat by then which would block any bullet coming out of his
> throat from hitting Connally. Your idea is just plain wacky.
Right. Right.
And it was impossible for Randy Johnson to strike out Wladimir Balentein
in the first inning last night.
Balentein was swinging his bat in an arc that traversed the path of the
baseball where Johnson threw it at 90 miles per hour. The notation in the
box score that Johnson actually struck out Balentein in the first inning
by throwing it past him is just plain wacky.
And Kennedy should have been able to catch the bullet coming out of his
throat.
Grizzlie Antagonist
CE 567 and 569.
As for where they were found, 'twere to consider too curiously to
consider so.
> >> We also need to account for the chip on
> >> the inside of the windshield.
>
> > Also a fragment from the first missed shot.
>
> Strange angles you have there.
Everyone has "strange angles" in his own way.
The people who know me best tolerate mine.
bigdog
No I don't. I just ask for evidence that there was a missed shot other
than one fired by Oswald. In the case of Oswald, we have two recovered
bullets, CE-399 and the fragmented limo bullet (ya, ya, I know the
fragments could have been from two bullets theoretically). We have the
vast majority of witnesses who stated there were three shots which
dovetails with three spent shells found in the SN. Yes, it is also
theoretically possible an empty shell was ejected before two shots were
fired, but do you really want to go there. Do you really think that makes
any sense at all?
> > assumptions. There is circumstantial evidencence that this bullet or a
> > fragment of it MIGHT have been what cause the cut on Tague's cheek, either
> > directly or indirectly, but that is far from certain. I don't need to know
> > where the missed shot went to know where the other two shots went.
>
> Well, in fact if you are a good little WC defender then you should think
> that a fragment from the head shot caused the Tague injury, so you don't
> need a missed shot to do that. So, where did the missed shot go?
>
I've never reached any conclusion regarding the Tague injury because there
are several plausible possibilities, one being it had nothing to do with
the shooting. To the best of my knowledge, no one has provided definitive
proof for the cause of this wound so it remains an open question to me. It
is a side issue and not necessary to resolve the central question of who
fired the shots that killed JFK.
>
>
> >> Up above, you express skepticism about a shot that misses so wildly that a
> >> portion of it ricochets into the limo.
>
> >> Yet, in THIS scenario of yours, you simply state that "his first shot
> >> missed to the right" without stating where it landed because YOU CAN'T SAY
> >> where it landed. THAT'S how wildly the first shot misses in YOUR
> >> scenario.
>
> > The first shot did not have to be that wild. JFK was sitting in the far
> > right of the car. His center line would have been about 1 foot from the
> > side of the car. A shot slightly more than a foot to the right could have
> > missed completely. We both theorize a shot completely missing the limo.
> > The difference is that yours MUST miss far enough right that it could
> > bounce over the side of the car and into the limo. Under mine, the bullet
> > could have missed by just inches. The amount of the miss isn't critical to
> > my scenario. It is to yours.
>
> Ok, even a shot missing by a few feet at that closest distance would
> still have to hit the limousine or something in it, or hitting the
> ground would ricochet into the side of the limousine.
>
Not necessarily. With the down slope of the street, it is possible it
skipped low like a stone on the water and went under the limo. Again,
numerous possibilities for which there is no definitive answer.
> >>> The next shot found the target, passing through JFK's upper torso, exited
> >>> from his
> >>> throat striking the person directly in front of JFK.
>
> >> At Z236-238
>
> > At Z223, or perhaps a frame or two earlier. The arm flip beginning at Z226
> > refutes a later strike. If as you theorize this flip of the arm was in
> > reaction to the missed shot 2 seconds earlier, why does he bring his arm
> > down as rapidly as he brought it up. The up and down movement of the arm
> > is so rapid the Stetson is visible for just 9 frames. A half a second.
>
> >>> The last shot hit JFK
> >>> in the head, blowing out a large section of the upper right side of his
> >>> head, fragmented upon striking the dense bone and pieces of this bullet
> >>> chipped the windshield and dented the chrome. Not only is that a much
> >>> simpler explaination, there is actually evidence for that.
>
> >> Nonsense. You don't have the bullet. You don't have the equipment or the
> >> expertise to determine if a bullet came from particular gun.
>
> > No, but the FBI had all three and determined that it did come from
> > Oswald's gun.
>
> The FBI had all three bullets?
Show me where I said "three bullets".
bigdog
Connally was only partially obscured for some of that sequence and he
was back in full view at Z222.
> If we did, we would have a better perspective on what his movements in
> Z226 mean.
>
His right arm went from a stationary position to suddenly moving
rapidly up and down in about a half a second.
> But the notion of an SB strike as early as Z223-226 is contrary to the
> overwhelming bulk of evidence.
>
A Z223 strike is not contrary to anything in the Z-film and is
compatible the bulge of Connally's jacket and the arm movements of
both him and JFK beginning at Z225-226.
> Connally stated that he heard the first shot, turned to his right, didn't
> see anything, turned back and was in the process of starting to the turn
> to the left when he was struck in the back.
>
Exactly what he was doing at Z223.
> That's not consistent with his posture at Z226 when he is still completing
> his turnback from his original right-hand turn. And at Z226, there is no
> reason to suppose that his rib has been broken, his lung has been
> punctured, and his wrist has been shattered. His reaction simply isn't
> great enough to suppose that.
>
I'm still waiting to hear a plausible alternative.
> He starts to make his left hand turn in Z230 or thereabouts and, of
> course, his expression becomes contorted with pain in the late Z230's.
>
No, he began turning back to his left well before Z230.
> Connally himself apparently told LIFE Magazine that he was POSTIVE that he
> had not yet been hit by Z230. He placed the hit at Z234, and his doctors
> placed it between Z234 and Z238.
>
And he would be wrong.
> For the most part, I think that it is conspiracy theorists who have their
> heads in the sand. Yet it is remarkable to me how many LN theorists
> insist upon an SB strike in the Z220's to accommodate a comfortable
> scenario when this comfortable scenario is not supported by the evidence.
>
Simply because it fits with every observable event in the Z-film, the
only one that does.
> Given such a knee-jerk reaction to such a technical issue, it really
> shouldn't amaze me that there is SO MUCH ingrained resistance to the
> notion of an errant Secret Service shot. That there is such ingrained
> resistance always does amaze me and it really shouldn't.
>
I have a choice between a simple explaination that is consistent with
all the available evidence and a fantastic one for which there is no
supporting evidence. I choose the former.
> > > The last shot hit JFK
> > > in the head, blowing out a large section of the upper right side of his
> > > head, fragmented upon striking the dense bone and pieces of this bullet
> > > chipped the windshield and dented the chrome. Not only is that a much
> > > simpler explaination, there is actually evidence for that.
>
> > Nonsense. You don't have the bullet. You don't have the equipment or the
> > expertise to determine if a bullet came from particular gun.
>
> > No, but the FBI had all three and determined that it did come from
> > Oswald's gun.
>
> There is no doubt that the Commission Exhibits came from Oswald's gun. But
> that still begs the larger question.
>
There is no doubt that no evidence has been produced for any other
missiles.
Grizzlie Antagonist
And he can be seen turning back from the right-hand turn that he says that
he made before being hit.
> If we did, we would have a better perspective on what his movements in
> Z226 mean.
>
> His right arm went from a stationary position to suddenly moving
> rapidly up and down in about a half a second.
You're talking about half a second as though it were no time at all.
Fact is that a half a second is an ETERNITY in this context.
"His right arm moves rapidly up and down". Is that how one responds to
being "punched in the back"? To having a rib broken? To having a lung
punctured? To having a wrist shattered?
Connally's right shoulder COLLAPSES between Z237 and Z238. Because it's
being DRIVEN down by an outside force. "I felt like someone had hit me in
the back."
AND his cheeks puff out at this point. This happens in about 1/18 of a
second. For some reason, this isn't significant to you. But his right
arm moving "in about half a second" is.
> But the notion of an SB strike as early as Z223-226 is contrary to the
> overwhelming bulk of evidence.
>
> A Z223 strike is not contrary to anything in the Z-film and is
> compatible the bulge of Connally's jacket and the arm movements of
> both him and JFK beginning at Z225-226.
Oh, the "bulge in his jacket", is it? Whatever happened to "the lapel
flip"?
> Connally stated that he heard the first shot, turned to his right, didn't
> see anything, turned back and was in the process of starting to the turn
> to the left when he was struck in the back.
>
> Exactly what he was doing at Z223.
What are you talking about? In 223, he is clearly still turned to the
right. He could be reading the Stemmons Freeway sign.
"So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left
shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got
about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the
left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."
He is NOT looking "a little bit to the left of center" in Z223.
> That's not consistent with his posture at Z226 when he is still completing
> his turnback from his original right-hand turn. And at Z226, there is no
> reason to suppose that his rib has been broken, his lung has been
> punctured, and his wrist has been shattered. His reaction simply isn't
> great enough to suppose that.
>
> I'm still waiting to hear a plausible alternative.
''Scuse me,' said the Elephant's Child, 'but my nose is badly out of shape,
and I am waiting for it to shrink.'
'Then you will have to wait a long time,' said the
Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake. 'Some people do not know what is good for
them.'
- Rudyard Kipling, "The Elephant's Child", Just So Stories
> He starts to make his left hand turn in Z230 or thereabouts and, of
> course, his expression becomes contorted with pain in the late Z230's.
>
> No, he began turning back to his left well before Z230.
I promise you that whatever version of the Zapruder film you are looking
at differs from everyone else's.
I defy you to tell me that he is "turning to his left" in this frame.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z223.jpg
> Connally himself apparently told LIFE Magazine that he was POSTIVE that he
> had not yet been hit by Z230. He placed the hit at Z234, and his doctors
> placed it between Z234 and Z238.
>
> And he would be wrong.
This reminds of an old Lite Beer commercial that they used to broadcast.
Nick Buoniconti, the old middle linebacker from the Miami Dolphins, is
sitting in a bar, and a fan comes up to him and say, "Hey, I know you!
You're...you're..."
"Nick Buoniconti," Buoniconti explains.
"No," says the fan. "That's not it."
> For the most part, I think that it is conspiracy theorists who have their
> heads in the sand. Yet it is remarkable to me how many LN theorists
> insist upon an SB strike in the Z220's to accommodate a comfortable
> scenario when this comfortable scenario is not supported by the evidence.
>
> Simply because it fits with every observable event in the Z-film, the
> only one that does.
Obviously, it doesn't. It doesn't fit in with the injuries that Connally
is known to have suffered; it doesn't fit with Connally's reactions; and
it doesn't fit with his own opinion or that of his doctors based on their
having reviewed the film.
None of this changes just to conform with your statement that "he would be
wrong"
> Given such a knee-jerk reaction to such a technical issue, it really
> shouldn't amaze me that there is SO MUCH ingrained resistance to the
> notion of an errant Secret Service shot. That there is such ingrained
> resistance always does amaze me and it really shouldn't.
>
> I have a choice between a simple explaination that is consistent with
> all the available evidence and a fantastic one for which there is no
> supporting evidence. I choose the former.
In some other setting, I would commend you.
You obviously believe that complex problems have simple solutions.
I'm a great believer in the idea that complex problems have simple
solutions. That idea governs my politics. It largely governs my
philosophy towards life.
In this particular setting, however, where the issue is not how to solve a
problem but where the issue is "what is the objective truth about a
particular incident", the simplest solution -- or your perception of it --
isn't necessarily the best one.
You're reminding me of the story of the guy who looks for his missing keys
across the street from where he actually lost them and explains, "The
lighting is better on this side".
> > > The last shot hit JFK
> > > in the head, blowing out a large section of the upper right side of
> > > his
> > > head, fragmented upon striking the dense bone and pieces of this
> > > bullet
> > > chipped the windshield and dented the chrome. Not only is that a much
> > > simpler explaination, there is actually evidence for that.
>
> > Nonsense. You don't have the bullet. You don't have the equipment or the
> > expertise to determine if a bullet came from particular gun.
>
> > No, but the FBI had all three and determined that it did come from
> > Oswald's gun.
>
> There is no doubt that the Commission Exhibits came from Oswald's gun. But
> that still begs the larger question.
> There is no doubt that no evidence has been produced for any other
> missiles.
Actually, there has been.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On 5/22/2009 7:40 PM, Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> "Anthony Marsh"<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:4a15...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>> On 5/20/2009 11:41 PM, Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A stray bullet must go SOMEWHERE. This one did not go "straight to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet you don't explain where the WC's stray bullet went.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which WC "stray bullet" are you talking about?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The shot they said missed. Now answer the damn question.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've discussed it elsewhere. I've decided that you don't deserve a
>> polite
>> answer here.
>>
>
> Because you can't answer. That's why you played dumb and asked which stray
> bullet.
I asked "which stray bullet" because I wasn't sure that your "stray
bullet" was the same as mine. You have a habit of confusing antecedents.
I have discussed the shot that missed on numerous occasions. I just
decided not to answer you on this occasion.
"Answer the damn question", indeed!
Sometimes, with you, boundaries have to be set.
If the Secret Service was using non-frangible ammuntion on 11/22/63, then
it should have been very easy to answer Donahue with that fact when the
issue first arose.
But the Secret Service itself has never said or shown that it was using
non-frangible ammunition on that day.
bigdog
> > Z200 - 224.
>
> > Connally was only partially obscured for some of that sequence and he
> > was back in full view at Z222.
>
> And he can be seen turning back from the right-hand turn that he says that
> he made before being hit.
>
> > If we did, we would have a better perspective on what his movements in
> > Z226 mean.
>
> > His right arm went from a stationary position to suddenly moving
> > rapidly up and down in about a half a second.
>
> You're talking about half a second as though it were no time at all.
>
> Fact is that a half a second is an ETERNITY in this context.
>
You are hypothesizing a two second delay in this reaction from the time of
a first shot miss. A half second is not an eternity for this rapid UP AND
DOWN movement.
> "His right arm moves rapidly up and down". Is that how one responds to
> being "punched in the back"? To having a rib broken? To having a lung
> punctured? To having a wrist shattered?
>
The last one. It is a hot stove type of reaction. Completely
involuntary and reflexive.
> Connally's right shoulder COLLAPSES between Z237 and Z238. Because it's
> being DRIVEN down by an outside force. "I felt like someone had hit me in
> the back."
>
Yes it was, but this followed the first reaction beginning at Z226.
> AND his cheeks puff out at this point. This happens in about 1/18 of a
> second. For some reason, this isn't significant to you. But his right
> arm moving "in about half a second" is.
>
I have read the opinions of a medical professional that this is consistent
with JBC's first attempt to draw a breath following the puncturing of his
lung.
> > But the notion of an SB strike as early as Z223-226 is contrary to the
> > overwhelming bulk of evidence.
>
> > A Z223 strike is not contrary to anything in the Z-film and is
> > compatible the bulge of Connally's jacket and the arm movements of
> > both him and JFK beginning at Z225-226.
>
> Oh, the "bulge in his jacket", is it? Whatever happened to "the lapel
> flip"?
>
I don't care what you call it, the jacket moves noticeably. You want
to ignore both this and the arm flip which follows immediately.
> > Connally stated that he heard the first shot, turned to his right, didn't
> > see anything, turned back and was in the process of starting to the turn
> > to the left when he was struck in the back.
>
> > Exactly what he was doing at Z223.
>
> What are you talking about? In 223, he is clearly still turned to the
> right. He could be reading the Stemmons Freeway sign.
>
He is turned to his right but his rotation is leftward. You make the same
mistake so many CTs have in analyzing the Z-film. You attempt to interpret
a single frame without looking at it in the context of what came before
and after. JBC began his rotation to the right beginning at Z164. Unable
to see anything, including JFK he began turning back to his left but had
not yet reached a square position when struck at or about Z223.
> "So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left
> shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got
> about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the
> left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."
>
> He is NOT looking "a little bit to the left of center" in Z223.
>
You ignore the part where he says he never got that far. He did eventually
get to a square position but that was after he had been hit. It is
understandable that in the distress he was in he would not have perfect
recall of exactly what position he was in when he felt the bullet hit him
in the back.
> > That's not consistent with his posture at Z226 when he is still completing
> > his turnback from his original right-hand turn. And at Z226, there is no
> > reason to suppose that his rib has been broken, his lung has been
> > punctured, and his wrist has been shattered. His reaction simply isn't
> > great enough to suppose that.
>
Still claiming the rapid arm flip is a delayed reaction to a missed shot
two seconds early. He delayed two seconds than made this rapid movement.
Yes, that makes a a lot of sense.
> > I'm still waiting to hear a plausible alternative.
>
> ''Scuse me,' said the Elephant's Child, 'but my nose is badly out of shape,
> and I am waiting for it to shrink.'
>
> 'Then you will have to wait a long time,' said the
> Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake. 'Some people do not know what is good for
> them.'
>
> - Rudyard Kipling, "The Elephant's Child", Just So Stories
>
Relevance?
> > He starts to make his left hand turn in Z230 or thereabouts and, of
> > course, his expression becomes contorted with pain in the late Z230's.
>
> > No, he began turning back to his left well before Z230.
>
> I promise you that whatever version of the Zapruder film you are looking
> at differs from everyone else's.
>
> I defy you to tell me that he is "turning to his left" in this frame.
>
I already explained, he his rotating to his left at Z223. He is not turned
to his left at Z223. It is not a difficult concept. You are starting to
sound like Marsh.
> http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z223.jpg
>
> > Connally himself apparently told LIFE Magazine that he was POSTIVE that he
> > had not yet been hit by Z230. He placed the hit at Z234, and his doctors
> > placed it between Z234 and Z238.
>
> > And he would be wrong.
>
> This reminds of an old Lite Beer commercial that they used to broadcast.
>
> Nick Buoniconti, the old middle linebacker from the Miami Dolphins, is
> sitting in a bar, and a fan comes up to him and say, "Hey, I know you!
> You're...you're..."
>
> "Nick Buoniconti," Buoniconti explains.
>
> "No," says the fan. "That's not it."
>
Relevance?
> > For the most part, I think that it is conspiracy theorists who have their
> > heads in the sand. Yet it is remarkable to me how many LN theorists
> > insist upon an SB strike in the Z220's to accommodate a comfortable
> > scenario when this comfortable scenario is not supported by the evidence.
>
> > Simply because it fits with every observable event in the Z-film, the
> > only one that does.
>
> Obviously, it doesn't. It doesn't fit in with the injuries that Connally
> is known to have suffered; it doesn't fit with Connally's reactions; and
> it doesn't fit with his own opinion or that of his doctors based on their
> having reviewed the film.
>
Why does anyone think his doctors could pinpoint the frame he was
struck at. As photographic analysts, they are amateurs. Now you are
starting to sound like Rossley. He makes this same argument.
> None of this changes just to conform with your statement that "he would be
> wrong"
>
He was wrong.
> > Given such a knee-jerk reaction to such a technical issue, it really
> > shouldn't amaze me that there is SO MUCH ingrained resistance to the
> > notion of an errant Secret Service shot. That there is such ingrained
> > resistance always does amaze me and it really shouldn't.
>
> > I have a choice between a simple explaination that is consistent with
> > all the available evidence and a fantastic one for which there is no
> > supporting evidence. I choose the former.
>
> In some other setting, I would commend you.
>
> You obviously believe that complex problems have simple solutions.
>
It is not a complex problem. It is very simple. A bullet passed through
two bodies in a few milliseconds. JFK and JBC were both struck at or about
Z223 and began reacting almost immediately and simultaneously a few frames
later.
> I'm a great believer in the idea that complex problems have simple
> solutions. That idea governs my politics. It largely governs my
> philosophy towards life.
>
> In this particular setting, however, where the issue is not how to solve a
> problem but where the issue is "what is the objective truth about a
> particular incident", the simplest solution -- or your perception of it --
> isn't necessarily the best one.
>
It certainly is.
> You're reminding me of the story of the guy who looks for his missing keys
> across the street from where he actually lost them and explains, "The
> lighting is better on this side".
>
At least I am on the right street.
> > > > The last shot hit JFK
> > > > in the head, blowing out a large section of the upper right side of
> > > > his
> > > > head, fragmented upon striking the dense bone and pieces of this
> > > > bullet
> > > > chipped the windshield and dented the chrome. Not only is that a much
> > > > simpler explaination, there is actually evidence for that.
>
> > > Nonsense. You don't have the bullet. You don't have the equipment or the
> > > expertise to determine if a bullet came from particular gun.
>
> > > No, but the FBI had all three and determined that it did come from
> > > Oswald's gun.
>
> > There is no doubt that the Commission Exhibits came from Oswald's gun. But
> > that still begs the larger question.
> > There is no doubt that no evidence has been produced for any other
> > missiles.
>
> Actually, there has been.
>
No, there is your misinterpretation of this evidence. There is no evidence
that any bullet was fired from Hickey's AR-15. No witness testimony. No
physical evidence. You simply assume the metal fragments came from an
AR-15 round. You couldn't be more wrong.
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On May 24, 2:47 pm, "Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Again, we don't know what Connally was doing or how he was reacting from
> > > Z200 - 224.
>
> > > Connally was only partially obscured for some of that sequence and he
> > > was back in full view at Z222.
>
> > And he can be seen turning back from the right-hand turn that he says that
> > he made before being hit.
>
> > > If we did, we would have a better perspective on what his movements in
> > > Z226 mean.
>
> > > His right arm went from a stationary position to suddenly moving
> > > rapidly up and down in about a half a second.
>
> > You're talking about half a second as though it were no time at all.
>
> > Fact is that a half a second is an ETERNITY in this context.
>
> You are hypothesizing a two second delay in this reaction from the time of
> a first shot miss.
Not at all. Having struck the pavement, it would take a little time for
the bullet to spray upward and land on one or more of the occupants of the
limo.
By that time, the limo is behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, and we can't
see how the occupants of the limo are behaving.
Connally's actions at Z223 are a continuation of whatever they were from
Z200 - Z222.
> A half second is not an eternity for this rapid UP AND
> DOWN movement.
Yes, it is. You don't need the stress of being the victim of gunfire
to make such a movement in a half second.
> > "His right arm moves rapidly up and down". Is that how one responds to
> > being "punched in the back"? To having a rib broken? To having a lung
> > punctured? To having a wrist shattered?
>
> The last one. It is a hot stove type of reaction. Completely
> involuntary and reflexive.
What's that supposed to mean?
> > Connally's right shoulder COLLAPSES between Z237 and Z238. Because it's
> > being DRIVEN down by an outside force. "I felt like someone had hit me in
> > the back."
>
> Yes it was, but this followed the first reaction beginning at Z226.
It is not reasonable to think that this could have happened.
If his shoulder was DRIVEN DOWN by the bullet, how could such a
reaction be delayed? It simply isn't reasonable.
It's contrary to Newton's Third Law of Motion.
> > AND his cheeks puff out at this point. This happens in about 1/18 of a
> > second. For some reason, this isn't significant to you. But his right
> > arm moving "in about half a second" is.
>
> I have read the opinions of a medical professional that this is consistent
> with JBC's first attempt to draw a breath following the puncturing of his
> lung.
And did the medical professional say that this could be delayed for
almost a full second? Connally's doctors said that it couldn't.
> > > But the notion of an SB strike as early as Z223-226 is contrary to the
> > > overwhelming bulk of evidence.
>
> > > A Z223 strike is not contrary to anything in the Z-film and is
> > > compatible the bulge of Connally's jacket and the arm movements of
> > > both him and JFK beginning at Z225-226.
>
> > Oh, the "bulge in his jacket", is it? Whatever happened to "the lapel
> > flip"?
>
> I don't care what you call it, the jacket moves noticeably. You want
> to ignore both this and the arm flip which follows immediately.
The reactions at Z237-238, which you want to ignore, are considerably
more violent.
> > > Connally stated that he heard the first shot, turned to his right, didn't
> > > see anything, turned back and was in the process of starting to the turn
> > > to the left when he was struck in the back.
>
> > > Exactly what he was doing at Z223.
>
> > What are you talking about? In 223, he is clearly still turned to the
> > right. He could be reading the Stemmons Freeway sign.
>
> He is turned to his right but his rotation is leftward.
But he is not FACING LEFT.
He said -- not merely that he was turning towards the left when he was
struck -- but that he was FACING LEFT at the time.
He never got to complete the turn over his left shoulder, but he was
ALREADY FACING LEFT when he was struck.
That's what he SAID. Read below. And he is NOT FACING LEFT at Z223.
> You make the same
> mistake so many CTs have in analyzing the Z-film. You attempt to interpret
> a single frame without looking at it in the context of what came before
> and after.
Irrelevant to the point that you're trying to make.
And you are doing the same thing. You are interpreting his motions in
Z223 without reference to whatever he may have been doing when his
motions were hidden by the Stemmons Freeway sign.
> JBC began his rotation to the right beginning at Z164.
Utterly fantastic. There has been no shot fired at Z 164. Why would
there be?
Kennedy's hand continues to relax on the open window after that, and
Connally is simply looking at the crowd.
> Unable
> to see anything, including JFK he began turning back to his left but had
> not yet reached a square position when struck at or about Z223.
And you've completely ignored Connally's statement, set forth below.
> > "So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left
> > shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got
> > about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the
> > left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."
"Looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like
someone had hit me in the back."
"Looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like
someone had hit me in the back."
"Looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like
someone had hit me in the back."
"Looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like
someone had hit me in the back."
Understand? When he's hit in the back, he's not just THINKING of
turning to the left. He has ALREADY turned to the left..."a little
bit to the left of center".
In Z223, he is still turned to the right.
> > He is NOT looking "a little bit to the left of center" in Z223.
>
> You ignore the part where he says he never got that far.
YOU ignore the part where he explicitly says that he DID get that far.
"Looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like
someone had hit me in the back."
> He did eventually
> get to a square position but that was after he had been hit. It is
> understandable that in the distress he was in he would not have perfect
> recall of exactly what position he was in when he felt the bullet hit him
> in the back.
Oh, so now it's just more of "He's wrong".
> > > That's not consistent with his posture at Z226 when he is still completing
> > > his turnback from his original right-hand turn. And at Z226, there is no
> > > reason to suppose that his rib has been broken, his lung has been
> > > punctured, and his wrist has been shattered. His reaction simply isn't
> > > great enough to suppose that.
>
> Still claiming the rapid arm flip is a delayed reaction to a missed shot
> two seconds early. He delayed two seconds than made this rapid movement.
> Yes, that makes a a lot of sense.
Two seconds is your count, based on your own interpretation.
> > > I'm still waiting to hear a plausible alternative.
>
> > ''Scuse me,' said the Elephant's Child, 'but my nose is badly out of shape,
> > and I am waiting for it to shrink.'
>
> > 'Then you will have to wait a long time,' said the
> > Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake. 'Some people do not know what is good for
> > them.'
>
> > - Rudyard Kipling, "The Elephant's Child", Just So Stories
>
> Relevance?
Like the "Elephant's Child", you're trying to abandon something that
is very worthwhile; something that is GOOD for you (i.e. the TRUTH in
this matter); by pretending that it hasn't been provided to you, and
you're doing that simply because it hurts.
> > > He starts to make his left hand turn in Z230 or thereabouts and, of
> > > course, his expression becomes contorted with pain in the late Z230's.
>
> > > No, he began turning back to his left well before Z230.
>
> > I promise you that whatever version of the Zapruder film you are looking
> > at differs from everyone else's.
>
> > I defy you to tell me that he is "turning to his left" in this frame.
>
> I already explained, he his rotating to his left at Z223. He is not turned
> to his left at Z223. It is not a difficult concept. You are starting to
> sound like Marsh.
That's right. He is not turned to his left at Z223. So, by his own
reckoning, he has not yet been struck. It's not a difficult concept.
"Rotating" is a concept that you have invented for this context because it
is nebulous enough for your purpose.
You might just as well argue that an infant born today is an old man
because he is "aging" as we speak. You're putting "rotating" to the same
use.
And you're more inventive than Marsh and at least as good as he is at
finding a specially-designed lense in which to see all this. You're
making his analyses look relentlessly empirical, by comparison.
> >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z223.jpg
>
> > > Connally himself apparently told LIFE Magazine that he was POSTIVE that he
> > > had not yet been hit by Z230. He placed the hit at Z234, and his doctors
> > > placed it between Z234 and Z238.
>
> > > And he would be wrong.
>
> > This reminds of an old Lite Beer commercial that they used to broadcast.
>
> > Nick Buoniconti, the old middle linebacker from the Miami Dolphins, is
> > sitting in a bar, and a fan comes up to him and say, "Hey, I know you!
> > You're...you're..."
>
> > "Nick Buoniconti," Buoniconti explains.
>
> > "No," says the fan. "That's not it."
>
> Relevance?
Telling Connally when he was hit instead of allowing him to tell you
requires a similar level of presumptuousness on your part.
> > > For the most part, I think that it is conspiracy theorists who have their
> > > heads in the sand. Yet it is remarkable to me how many LN theorists
> > > insist upon an SB strike in the Z220's to accommodate a comfortable
> > > scenario when this comfortable scenario is not supported by the evidence.
>
> > > Simply because it fits with every observable event in the Z-film, the
> > > only one that does.
>
> > Obviously, it doesn't. It doesn't fit in with the injuries that Connally
> > is known to have suffered; it doesn't fit with Connally's reactions; and
> > it doesn't fit with his own opinion or that of his doctors based on their
> > having reviewed the film.
>
> Why does anyone think his doctors could pinpoint the frame he was
> struck at. As photographic analysts, they are amateurs. Now you are
> starting to sound like Rossley. He makes this same argument.
As doctors, they confirmed that he received all of his wounds from one
bullet. As doctors, they are in a position to observe the positions that
he was in and compare each position with the wounds that they have
examined and determine which of those positions conforms with what they
observed while treating him.
> > None of this changes just to conform with your statement that "he would be
> > wrong"
>
> He was wrong.
Utterly fantastic!
> > > Given such a knee-jerk reaction to such a technical issue, it really
> > > shouldn't amaze me that there is SO MUCH ingrained resistance to the
> > > notion of an errant Secret Service shot. That there is such ingrained
> > > resistance always does amaze me and it really shouldn't.
>
> > > I have a choice between a simple explaination that is consistent with
> > > all the available evidence and a fantastic one for which there is no
> > > supporting evidence. I choose the former.
>
> > In some other setting, I would commend you.
>
> > You obviously believe that complex problems have simple solutions.
>
> It is not a complex problem. It is very simple.
Again, in some other setting, I would commend you for simplifying the
complex.
> A bullet passed through two bodies in a few milliseconds. JFK and JBC were both > struck at or about Z223 and began reacting almost immediately and
> simultaneously a few frames later
And you alluded earlier to another reason, why they could not have
been struck at Z223 -- because that would require the first shot to
have taken place at Z182 or beforehand. And jeez, you've got the
first shot at Z164!
Ridiculously early. Are you sure that you don't really think that
Oswald fired the first shot at Love Field?
> > I'm a great believer in the idea that complex problems have simple
> > solutions. That idea governs my politics. It largely governs my
> > philosophy towards life.
>
> > In this particular setting, however, where the issue is not how to solve a
> > problem but where the issue is "what is the objective truth about a
> > particular incident", the simplest solution -- or your perception of it --
> > isn't necessarily the best one.
>
> It certainly is.
> > You're reminding me of the story of the guy who looks for his missing keys
> > across the street from where he actually lost them and explains, "The
> > lighting is better on this side".
>
> At least I am on the right street.
But you will never never never find your keys. You will only enjoy
the relative comfort of looking for them in a place where it is easier
to search.
> > > > > The last shot hit JFK
> > > > > in the head, blowing out a large section of the upper right side of
> > > > > his
> > > > > head, fragmented upon striking the dense bone and pieces of this
> > > > > bullet
> > > > > chipped the windshield and dented the chrome. Not only is that a much
> > > > > simpler explaination, there is actually evidence for that.
>
> > > > Nonsense. You don't have the bullet. You don't have the equipment or the
> > > > expertise to determine if a bullet came from particular gun.
>
> > > > No, but the FBI had all three and determined that it did come from
> > > > Oswald's gun.
>
> > > There is no doubt that the Commission Exhibits came from Oswald's gun. But
> > > that still begs the larger question.
> > > There is no doubt that no evidence has been produced for any other
> > > missiles.
>
> > Actually, there has been.
>
> No, there is your misinterpretation of this evidence. There is no evidence
> that any bullet was fired from Hickey's AR-15.
Incorrect.
> No witness testimony.
Incorrect.
> No
> physical evidence.
Incorrect.
> You simply assume the metal fragments came from an
> AR-15 round.
Incorrect again.
> You couldn't be more wrong.
There is no "smoking gun", so to speak. There is no evidence that is so
sure and certain that everyone would HAVE to acknowledge that the last
shot came from Hickey's gun. Beyond the fact of Oswald's obvious guilt in
the matter, there is no evidence that would support ANY particular
scenario.
I'm not as dogmatic about a Hickey misfire as I used to be. But there IS
evidence and testimony on all of the points to which you refer, and I'm
confident -- if not dogmatic -- that the weight of the evidence supports
this scenario.
Some of it I have already gone over with you. But if you're going to
disregard or misconstrue Connally's statements and if you're going to
ignore other indicia that I have provided to you, then I have to be
careful about how I budget my time to discuss the matter with you in more
depth.
bigdog
wrote:
had been hit in the wrist until he came out of surgery. A reflexive
response differs from a cognitive one in that the external stimulus to
the nerves triggers a muscular response with no interaction from the
brain. The hot stove reference was not entirely accurate because that
is a cognitive response but it produces a similarly rapid movement. If
the arm flip were a cognitive response to Connally being showered with
pavement material, why would he put the arm back down as rapidly as he
brought it up?
> > > Connally's right shoulder COLLAPSES between Z237 and Z238. Because it's
> > > being DRIVEN down by an outside force. "I felt like someone had hit me in
> > > the back."
>
> > Yes it was, but this followed the first reaction beginning at Z226.
>
> It is not reasonable to think that this could have happened.
>
> If his shoulder was DRIVEN DOWN by the bullet, how could such a
> reaction be delayed? It simply isn't reasonable.
>
> It's contrary to Newton's Third Law of Motion.
>
Now you are making the same argument the CTs make for a frontal head
shot. Bullets do not drive bodies any appreciable distance. They are
much to small and a bullet passing through a body only transfers a
small amount of its momentum. The downward movement of JBC's shoulder
was a cognitive response to a painful blow to his right side.
> > > AND his cheeks puff out at this point. This happens in about 1/18 of a
> > > second. For some reason, this isn't significant to you. But his right
> > > arm moving "in about half a second" is.
>
> > I have read the opinions of a medical professional that this is consistent
> > with JBC's first attempt to draw a breath following the puncturing of his
> > lung.
>
> And did the medical professional say that this could be delayed for
> almost a full second? Connally's doctors said that it couldn't.
>
They are again dealing in photographic analysis. In that regard they
are amateurs.
> > > > But the notion of an SB strike as early as Z223-226 is contrary to the
> > > > overwhelming bulk of evidence.
>
> > > > A Z223 strike is not contrary to anything in the Z-film and is
> > > > compatible the bulge of Connally's jacket and the arm movements of
> > > > both him and JFK beginning at Z225-226.
>
> > > Oh, the "bulge in his jacket", is it? Whatever happened to "the lapel
> > > flip"?
>
> > I don't care what you call it, the jacket moves noticeably. You want
> > to ignore both this and the arm flip which follows immediately.
>
> The reactions at Z237-238, which you want to ignore, are considerably
> more violent.
>
I don't ignore them. I recognize they are the reaction to a bullet
strike, but not the initial reaction. The first reaction, was the
reflexive flipping of the right arm followed by the cognitive response
of the dipping of the shoulder. You want to dismiss the flipping of
the right arm as a reaction to being showered by debris from the
missed shot. JBC never said he felt this so why are you arguing he was
reacting to it.
> > > > Connally stated that he heard the first shot, turned to his right, didn't
> > > > see anything, turned back and was in the process of starting to the turn
> > > > to the left when he was struck in the back.
>
> > > > Exactly what he was doing at Z223.
>
> > > What are you talking about? In 223, he is clearly still turned to the
> > > right. He could be reading the Stemmons Freeway sign.
>
> > He is turned to his right but his rotation is leftward.
>
> But he is not FACING LEFT.
>
Who said he was facing left. I said he was turning to the left. He had
started the turn back to the left which we stated he was doing.
> He said -- not merely that he was turning towards the left when he was
> struck -- but that he was FACING LEFT at the time.
>
> He never got to complete the turn over his left shoulder, but he was
> ALREADY FACING LEFT when he was struck.
>
At what frame do you see JBC facing left. At Z236-237, where you are
proposing the bullet hit him, he has already reversed direction again
and is twisting back to his right. You are impeaching your own
argument. The twisting of JBC's torso back to the right immediately
followed the dropping of his right arm and was in fact the two motions
were continuous.
> That's what he SAID. Read below. And he is NOT FACING LEFT at Z223.
>
And he is not facing left at Z236-237 when you argue he was hit.
> > You make the same
> > mistake so many CTs have in analyzing the Z-film. You attempt to interpret
> > a single frame without looking at it in the context of what came before
> > and after.
>
> Irrelevant to the point that you're trying to make.
>
No, it is tremendously relevant. I can point to a number of individual
frames where you could look at JBC and it would not be apparently that
he was hit but when you put them together and see the motions he is
making, it becomes evidence when he begins reacting to being shot.
> And you are doing the same thing. You are interpreting his motions in
> Z223 without reference to whatever he may have been doing when his
> motions were hidden by the Stemmons Freeway sign.
>
You are simply guessing at what he may have been doing when hidden. I
don't need to know what he was doing while hidden. He was struck at
almost the very instant he reappeared and reacted immediately to the
shot.
> > JBC began his rotation to the right beginning at Z164.
>
> Utterly fantastic. There has been no shot fired at Z 164. Why would
> there be?
>
Because that's when Oswald chose to fire. Probably about Z160 and a
quarter second later at Z164, JBC who was looking left suddenly
snapped his head around to the right and looked over his right
shoulder, exactly what he said his reaction was to the first shot.
> Kennedy's hand continues to relax on the open window after that, and
> Connally is simply looking at the crowd.
>
> > Unable
> > to see anything, including JFK he began turning back to his left but had
> > not yet reached a square position when struck at or about Z223.
>
> And you've completely ignored Connally's statement, set forth below.
>
> > > "So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left
> > > shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got
> > > about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to the
> > > left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."
>
> "Looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like
> someone had hit me in the back."
>
> "Looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like
> someone had hit me in the back."
>
> "Looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like
> someone had hit me in the back."
>
> "Looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like
> someone had hit me in the back."
>
Did your mouse get stuck while you were clicking paste.
> Understand? When he's hit in the back, he's not just THINKING of
> turning to the left. He has ALREADY turned to the left..."a little
> bit to the left of center".
>
I understand that JBC was in motion when the bullet hit and it is a
little unreasonable to assume he could pinpoint to the fraction of a
second exactly when the bullet hit him. He knew he was rotating back
to his left and he knew he got to a forward facing position but to
expect him to say precisely what position he was in the instant this
bullet passed through his torso and his wrist is a little absurd.
> In Z223, he is still turned to the right.
>
> > > He is NOT looking "a little bit to the left of center" in Z223.
>
> > You ignore the part where he says he never got that far.
>
> YOU ignore the part where he explicitly says that he DID get that far.
>
> "Looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like
> someone had hit me in the back."
>
> > He did eventually
> > get to a square position but that was after he had been hit. It is
> > understandable that in the distress he was in he would not have perfect
> > recall of exactly what position he was in when he felt the bullet hit him
> > in the back.
>
> Oh, so now it's just more of "He's wrong".
>
Yes, he was wrong. You expect someone who has suffered a devastating
wound to have perfect recall?
> > > > That's not consistent with his posture at Z226 when he is still completing
> > > > his turnback from his original right-hand turn. And at Z226, there is no
> > > > reason to suppose that his rib has been broken, his lung has been
> > > > punctured, and his wrist has been shattered. His reaction simply isn't
> > > > great enough to suppose that.
>
> > Still claiming the rapid arm flip is a delayed reaction to a missed shot
> > two seconds early. He delayed two seconds than made this rapid movement.
> > Yes, that makes a a lot of sense.
>
> Two seconds is your count, based on your own interpretation.
>
Let's figure this out. If you have the missed shot at Z190 and the arm
flip becomes evidenct at Z226, I believe that amounts to 36 frames.
How many frames per second did Zapruder's camera take?
> > > > I'm still waiting to hear a plausible alternative.
>
> > > ''Scuse me,' said the Elephant's Child, 'but my nose is badly out of shape,
> > > and I am waiting for it to shrink.'
>
> > > 'Then you will have to wait a long time,' said the
> > > Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake. 'Some people do not know what is good for
> > > them.'
>
> > > - Rudyard Kipling, "The Elephant's Child", Just So Stories
>
> > Relevance?
>
> Like the "Elephant's Child", you're trying to abandon something that
> is very worthwhile; something that is GOOD for you (i.e. the TRUTH in
> this matter); by pretending that it hasn't been provided to you, and
> you're doing that simply because it hurts.
>
If you think that cockamamie theory about agent Maxwell Smart
accidentally blasting JFK in the back of the head amounts to the
truth, you are the one who is out of touch with reality. The truth was
provided to me. It was provided in 1964 by the Warren Commision. I
have not heard a single plausible alternative to that truth in the 45
years since, and that includes the ridiculous Mortal Error scenario
which you swallowed hook, line, and sinker. That makes many of the
conspiracy theories seem reasonable by comparison. This one is about
as a absurd as the "Greer did it" theory.
> > > > He starts to make his left hand turn in Z230 or thereabouts and, of
> > > > course, his expression becomes contorted with pain in the late Z230's.
>
> > > > No, he began turning back to his left well before Z230.
>
> > > I promise you that whatever version of the Zapruder film you are looking
> > > at differs from everyone else's.
>
> > > I defy you to tell me that he is "turning to his left" in this frame.
>
> > I already explained, he his rotating to his left at Z223. He is not turned
> > to his left at Z223. It is not a difficult concept. You are starting to
> > sound like Marsh.
>
> That's right. He is not turned to his left at Z223. So, by his own
> reckoning, he has not yet been struck. It's not a difficult concept.
>
> "Rotating" is a concept that you have invented for this context because it
> is nebulous enough for your purpose.
>
Rotating is a nebulous concept? Now that's an interesting take.
> You might just as well argue that an infant born today is an old man
> because he is "aging" as we speak. You're putting "rotating" to the same
> use.
>
Rossley, did you sneak on Grizzlie's computer and start posting stuff?
> And you're more inventive than Marsh and at least as good as he is at
> finding a specially-designed lense in which to see all this. You're
> making his analyses look relentlessly empirical, by comparison.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z223.jpg
>
> > > > Connally himself apparently told LIFE Magazine that he was POSTIVE that he
> > > > had not yet been hit by Z230. He placed the hit at Z234, and his doctors
> > > > placed it between Z234 and Z238.
>
> > > > And he would be wrong.
>
> > > This reminds of an old Lite Beer commercial that they used to broadcast.
>
> > > Nick Buoniconti, the old middle linebacker from the Miami Dolphins, is
> > > sitting in a bar, and a fan comes up to him and say, "Hey, I know you!
> > > You're...you're..."
>
> > > "Nick Buoniconti," Buoniconti explains.
>
> > > "No," says the fan. "That's not it."
>
> > Relevance?
>
> Telling Connally when he was hit instead of allowing him to tell you
> requires a similar level of presumptuousness on your part.
>
Connally is a witness. He has a unique perspective but like any other
witness, it makes no sense to assume that he recalls every detail
perfectly. Witnesses get some things right and some things wrong and
corroborating evidence is needed to determine which is which. The Z-
film corroborates much of what Connally said is true but also shows he
got some details wrong.
>
>
> > > > For the most part, I- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh"<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:4a187aee$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> On 5/22/2009 7:40 PM, Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>>> "Anthony Marsh"<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4a15...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>> On 5/20/2009 11:41 PM, Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A stray bullet must go SOMEWHERE. This one did not go "straight to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet you don't explain where the WC's stray bullet went.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which WC "stray bullet" are you talking about?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The shot they said missed. Now answer the damn question.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've discussed it elsewhere. I've decided that you don't deserve a
>>> polite
>>> answer here.
>>>
>>
>> Because you can't answer. That's why you played dumb and asked which stray
>> bullet.
>
>
>
> I asked "which stray bullet" because I wasn't sure that your "stray
> bullet" was the same as mine. You have a habit of confusing antecedents.
>
You knew damn well which bullet we were discussing. None of the other
bullets could be described as a stray bullet.
> I have discussed the shot that missed on numerous occasions. I just
> decided not to answer you on this occasion.
>
No, you can't answer. You can never answer my questions.
No one said anything about frangible. Even the M193 will break up as
Fackler demonstrates. I said we assume they used standard ammunition.
Anthony Marsh
> On May 24, 3:16 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 24, 2:47 pm, "Grizzlie Antagonist"<lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "bigdog"<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> Again, we don't know what Connally was doing or how he was reacting from
>>>> Z200 - 224.
>>
>>>> Connally was only partially obscured for some of that sequence and he
>>>> was back in full view at Z222.
>>
>>> And he can be seen turning back from the right-hand turn that he says that
>>> he made before being hit.
>>
>>>> If we did, we would have a better perspective on what his movements in
>>>> Z226 mean.
>>
>>>> His right arm went from a stationary position to suddenly moving
>>>> rapidly up and down in about a half a second.
>>
>>> You're talking about half a second as though it were no time at all.
>>
>>> Fact is that a half a second is an ETERNITY in this context.
>>
>> You are hypothesizing a two second delay in this reaction from the time of
>> a first shot miss.
>
>
>
> Not at all. Having struck the pavement, it would take a little time for
> the bullet to spray upward and land on one or more of the occupants of the
> limo.
>
Nonsense. And how do you have all these fragments escaping from a
jacketed bullet and only one hitting only JFK?
> By that time, the limo is behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, and we can't
> see how the occupants of the limo are behaving.
>
> Connally's actions at Z223 are a continuation of whatever they were from
> Z200 - Z222.
>
>
>> A half second is not an eternity for this rapid UP AND
>> DOWN movement.
>
>
>
> Yes, it is. You don't need the stress of being the victim of gunfire
> to make such a movement in a half second.
>
>
>
>
>>> "His right arm moves rapidly up and down". Is that how one responds to
>>> being "punched in the back"? To having a rib broken? To having a lung
>>> punctured? To having a wrist shattered?
>>
>> The last one. It is a hot stove type of reaction. Completely
>> involuntary and reflexive.
>
>
>
> What's that supposed to mean?
>
You never heard of the hot stove reaction?
>
>
>>> Connally's right shoulder COLLAPSES between Z237 and Z238. Because it's
>>> being DRIVEN down by an outside force. "I felt like someone had hit me in
>>> the back."
>>
>> Yes it was, but this followed the first reaction beginning at Z226.
>
>
>
>
> It is not reasonable to think that this could have happened.
>
> If his shoulder was DRIVEN DOWN by the bullet, how could such a
> reaction be delayed? It simply isn't reasonable.
>
> It's contrary to Newton's Third Law of Motion.
>
But you believe that a bullet does not have the force to move a body.
You are contradicting yourself.
No, he said that he was facing forward when he was hit.
> That's what he SAID. Read below. And he is NOT FACING LEFT at Z223.
>
>
>
>
>
>> You make the same
>> mistake so many CTs have in analyzing the Z-film. You attempt to interpret
>> a single frame without looking at it in the context of what came before
>> and after.
>
>
>
> Irrelevant to the point that you're trying to make.
>
> And you are doing the same thing. You are interpreting his motions in
> Z223 without reference to whatever he may have been doing when his
> motions were hidden by the Stemmons Freeway sign.
>
>
>
>> JBC began his rotation to the right beginning at Z164.
>
>
>
> Utterly fantastic. There has been no shot fired at Z 164. Why would
> there be?
>
Even some WC defenders believe there was a shot fired before Z-164.
Connally carefully studied the Zapruder film and determined that he was
hit at about frame 230.
There could be a first shot which missed.
Anthony Marsh
Fine, then ask someone who proposes that. I did not.
> bullets, CE-399 and the fragmented limo bullet (ya, ya, I know the
> fragments could have been from two bullets theoretically). We have the
> vast majority of witnesses who stated there were three shots which
> dovetails with three spent shells found in the SN. Yes, it is also
> theoretically possible an empty shell was ejected before two shots were
> fired, but do you really want to go there. Do you really think that makes
> any sense at all?
>
Well, if you need it to support your wacky theories, go for it. Then it
will be impossible to prove a negative.
>>> assumptions. There is circumstantial evidencence that this bullet or a
>>> fragment of it MIGHT have been what cause the cut on Tague's cheek, either
>>> directly or indirectly, but that is far from certain. I don't need to know
>>> where the missed shot went to know where the other two shots went.
>>
>> Well, in fact if you are a good little WC defender then you should think
>> that a fragment from the head shot caused the Tague injury, so you don't
>> need a missed shot to do that. So, where did the missed shot go?
>>
>
> I've never reached any conclusion regarding the Tague injury because there
> are several plausible possibilities, one being it had nothing to do with
> the shooting. To the best of my knowledge, no one has provided definitive
One WC defender proposed that the mark on the curb came from wheel
weights. Another WC defender claimed that Tague had no cut on his face.
Another WC defender claimed that Tague cut himself shaving the morning
and waited until after the shooting to start bleeding.
> proof for the cause of this wound so it remains an open question to me. It
> is a side issue and not necessary to resolve the central question of who
> fired the shots that killed JFK.
>
Sure, sure. And yet you demand absolute proof of every element from
conspiracy believers.
>>
>>
>>>> Up above, you express skepticism about a shot that misses so wildly that a
>>>> portion of it ricochets into the limo.
>>
>>>> Yet, in THIS scenario of yours, you simply state that "his first shot
>>>> missed to the right" without stating where it landed because YOU CAN'T SAY
>>>> where it landed. THAT'S how wildly the first shot misses in YOUR
>>>> scenario.
>>
>>> The first shot did not have to be that wild. JFK was sitting in the far
>>> right of the car. His center line would have been about 1 foot from the
>>> side of the car. A shot slightly more than a foot to the right could have
>>> missed completely. We both theorize a shot completely missing the limo.
>>> The difference is that yours MUST miss far enough right that it could
>>> bounce over the side of the car and into the limo. Under mine, the bullet
>>> could have missed by just inches. The amount of the miss isn't critical to
>>> my scenario. It is to yours.
>>
>> Ok, even a shot missing by a few feet at that closest distance would
>> still have to hit the limousine or something in it, or hitting the
>> ground would ricochet into the side of the limousine.
>>
>
> Not necessarily. With the down slope of the street, it is possible it
> skipped low like a stone on the water and went under the limo. Again,
> numerous possibilities for which there is no definitive answer.
>
New theory, eh? Well, it is possible, but the slope was only 3 degrees
and supposedly no other damage to the limousine was found. Ignore the
rumors about a hole in the floor. That must have been perpetrated by the
terrorists to destabilize the US.
>>>>> The next shot found the target, passing through JFK's upper torso, exited
>>>>> from his
>>>>> throat striking the person directly in front of JFK.
>>
>>>> At Z236-238
>>
>>> At Z223, or perhaps a frame or two earlier. The arm flip beginning at Z226
>>> refutes a later strike. If as you theorize this flip of the arm was in
>>> reaction to the missed shot 2 seconds earlier, why does he bring his arm
>>> down as rapidly as he brought it up. The up and down movement of the arm
>>> is so rapid the Stetson is visible for just 9 frames. A half a second.
>>
>>>>> The last shot hit JFK
>>>>> in the head, blowing out a large section of the upper right side of his
>>>>> head, fragmented upon striking the dense bone and pieces of this bullet
>>>>> chipped the windshield and dented the chrome. Not only is that a much
>>>>> simpler explaination, there is actually evidence for that.
>>
>>>> Nonsense. You don't have the bullet. You don't have the equipment or the
>>>> expertise to determine if a bullet came from particular gun.
>>
>>> No, but the FBI had all three and determined that it did come from
>>> Oswald's gun.
>>
>> The FBI had all three bullets?
>
> Show me where I said "three bullets".
>
I was talking about bullets. Then you said the FBI had all three.
If you meant fragments then you should have said fragments. One bullet
and two large fragments, positively linked ballistically to Oswald's rifle.
Anthony Marsh
You don't know, do you? That's why you can never answer my questions.
You run on and on about evidence, but you don't know the evidence.
Anthony Marsh
No. From the bullet which hit Connally's wrist at Z-330.
Yeah, dust from a firecracker. Not bullet fragments. He would not even
be able to see bullet fragments of that size.
>
>
>> And he was talking about a firecracker, not a bullet. He thought he saw
>> debris from a firecracker bouncing off Kennedy.
>
>
>
> No, he said "like a firecracker". He said "like firecrackers".
>
> I think that we can presume that he knew he was a witness to an
> assassination by gunfire and that he really hadn't observed a firecracker
> going off.
>
Many people thought the first sound was a firecracker even though
afterwards they saw that it was an assassination.
No.
>
>
>
>>> It was expressly described as A RICOCHET fragment, mind you, not a
>>> fragment resulting from a direct shot to the head.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> We also need to account for the chip on
>>>>> the inside of the windshield.
>>>>
>>>> Also a fragment from the first missed shot.
>>>>
>>>
>>>> To make this work, you need a fragment to bounce off the pavement with
>>>> just enough velocity left so that it will travel in an arc into the
>>>> limo.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand your problem with that.
>>>
>>
>> Physically impossible.
>
>
>
>
> As always, Anthony Marsh, your pat commentary has me in the crushing grip
> of reason.
>
> But it never seems to win my heart.
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> How does such a fragment have enough force to dent the chrome and chip
>>>> the
>>>> glass.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You're asking about a bullet traveling at the speed of 2200 feet per
>>> second before striking hard pavement and rebounding. I really don't see
>>> the problem.
>>>
>>
>> Which bullet had a speed of 2200 fps? You mean a second rifle, not
>> Oswald's?
>
>
>
>
> Oh, what's your estimate of how fast a bullet fired from an MC travels?
>
Oswald's rifle and ammunition was tested and the average was 2165 fps.
It is not a matter of MY estimate. It is a matter of knowing the facts.
>
>
>>>> This just makes no sense. There is a much simpler explaination that
>>>> doesn't require any such ballistic gymnastics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You've got another think coming.
>>>
>>>
>>>> A guy by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald stuck a cheap Italian war surplus
>>>> rifle out of a building
>>>> and fired three shots at JFK.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Two shots.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, so now you have a different conspiracy theory and Oswald firing only
>> two shots? Then why the third empty shell?
>
>
>
>
> HOLY GOOD NIGHT!
>
> Have you paid ANY ATTENTION to ANYTHING THAT I'VE SAID over the past three
> years?
>
> If you haven't, why do you even bother arguing with it?
>
> What do you think that I've been saying for three years? Two shots from
> Oswald and one shot from Hickey.
>
And what about the witnesses who said there were three shots from the TSBD?
> CE 543 had a dent in its casing and probably wasn't fired on 11/22/63.
No, that is stupid conspiracy talk. The dent could ONLY happen AFTER the
bullet had been fired.
> CT's have been arguing that for years. Sometimes the blind pig finds an
> acorn.
>
>
>
>
>> How does that relate to the overwhelming recollections of witnesses that
>> THREE shots came from the TSBD? Your only way out how is to claim that ALL
>> the witnesses in Dealey Plaza were lying because they were in on the
>> conspiracy?
>
>
>
>
> What the devil do you think that you're talking about now?
>
Your wacky theory has Oswald firing only two shots from the TSBD.
It is a simple physical fact.
>
Anthony Marsh
TOO wild? You mean like the WC's missed shot with hit nothing on this
planet?
Grizzlie Antagonist
It's an insufficient response to the injuries that you think that he has
received by this time.
> The hot stove reference was not entirely accurate because that
> is a cognitive response but it produces a similarly rapid movement.
Then his simply reacting to the sound of the bullet would produce a
"similarly rapid movement" and is analagous to your "hot stove" reference.
> If the arm flip were a cognitive response to Connally being showered with
> pavement material, why would he put the arm back down as rapidly as he
> brought it up?
That is speculation on my part. He might just be reacting to the sound of
the first shot. Or FINISHING his reaction to it, rather, since his
movements are generally not visible in Z200-222.
> > > Connally's right shoulder COLLAPSES between Z237 and Z238. Because
> > > it's
> > > being DRIVEN down by an outside force. "I felt like someone had hit me
> > > in
> > > the back."
>
> > Yes it was, but this followed the first reaction beginning at Z226.
>
> It is not reasonable to think that this could have happened.
>
> If his shoulder was DRIVEN DOWN by the bullet, how could such a
> reaction be delayed? It simply isn't reasonable.
>
> It's contrary to Newton's Third Law of Motion.
>
> Now you are making the same argument the CTs make for a frontal head
> shot.
Entirely different. There is no ballistic or forensic evidence for a
frontal head shot. If Kennedy had ever been able to describe the head
shot and if he'd said, "I felt like someone punched me in the forehead",
it might still be necessary to consider the possibility of a frontal shot.
But he never did, so there's no need to consider it, since there is no
evidence for a frontal shot and since there are a number of explanations
for his backward movement.
Connally said that he felt as if he had been punched or hit in the back.
There's no reason to disbelieve that -- as you apparently do -- and no
reason to suppose that his body didn't respond as if it had been struck in
the back -- which it does in Z236-238.
> Bullets do not drive bodies any appreciable distance. They are much to
> small and a bullet passing through a body only transfers a
> small amount of its momentum. The downward movement of JBC's shoulder was
> a cognitive response to a painful blow to his right > side.
Bullets certainly drive bodies a NOTICEABLE distance, if not an
appreciable one. Your argument that Connally's body didn't move at all in
response to being struck in the back is nonsensical.
To take your head shot analogy a little further, you can certainly see
Kennedy's head initially being driven FORWARD slightly but noticeably by
the impact of the bullet in Z313. Connally's right shoulder behaves the
same way in in Z237-238.
> > > AND his cheeks puff out at this point. This happens in about 1/18 of a
> > > second. For some reason, this isn't significant to you. But his right
> > > arm moving "in about half a second" is.
>
> > I have read the opinions of a medical professional that this is
> > consistent
> > with JBC's first attempt to draw a breath following the puncturing of
> > his
> > lung.
>
> And did the medical professional say that this could be delayed for
> almost a full second? Connally's doctors said that it couldn't.
>
> They are again dealing in photographic analysis. In that regard they
> are amateurs.
That's not a photographic analysis argument.
How long it would take for Connally's body to respond is a medical
opinion, not a photographic one.
> > > > But the notion of an SB strike as early as Z223-226 is contrary to
> > > > the
> > > > overwhelming bulk of evidence.
>
> > > > A Z223 strike is not contrary to anything in the Z-film and is
> > > > compatible the bulge of Connally's jacket and the arm movements of
> > > > both him and JFK beginning at Z225-226.
>
> > > Oh, the "bulge in his jacket", is it? Whatever happened to "the lapel
> > > flip"?
>
> > I don't care what you call it, the jacket moves noticeably. You want
> > to ignore both this and the arm flip which follows immediately.
His jacket moving -- even if that was truly visible -- is inconsequential
and could just as easily be explained by agitation in response to the
first shot as the arm flip is -- and both motions are taken out of the
context of what took place in the "missing" frames of Z200-222.
Neither of them suggest that he has suffered -- at this point -- the
injuries that he would eventually suffer.
I don't even see the "jacket moving" that you are talking about, and the
"arm flip" does not even strike me as a particularly violent reaction and
may, in fact, have nothing to do with the shooting.
> The reactions at Z237-238, which you want to ignore, are considerably
> more violent.
>
> I don't ignore them. I recognize they are the reaction to a bullet
> strike, but not the initial reaction. The first reaction, was the
> reflexive flipping of the right arm followed by the cognitive response
> of the dipping of the shoulder. You want to dismiss the flipping of
> the right arm as a reaction to being showered by debris from the
> missed shot. JBC never said he felt this so why are you arguing he was
> reacting to it.
JFK clearly received debris from the missed first shot. Connally may or
may not have received such debris. I don't swear by that. He might just
as easily be reacting to the sound of the first shot that missed.
Referring to the dipping of the shoulder as a "cognitive response" is just
plain nonsense. "I've just been punched in the back so I'd better dip my
shoulder".
> > > > Connally stated that he heard the first shot, turned to his right,
> > > > didn't
> > > > see anything, turned back and was in the process of starting to the
> > > > turn
> > > > to the left when he was struck in the back.
>
> > > > Exactly what he was doing at Z223.
>
> > > What are you talking about? In 223, he is clearly still turned to the
> > > right. He could be reading the Stemmons Freeway sign.
>
> > He is turned to his right but his rotation is leftward.
>
> But he is not FACING LEFT.
>
> Who said he was facing left.
HE did. CONNALLY did. Apparently, you still haven't gotten the message.
> I said he was turning to the left. He had
> started the turn back to the left which we stated he was doing.
> He said -- not merely that he was turning towards the left when he was
> struck -- but that he was FACING LEFT at the time.
>
> He never got to complete the turn over his left shoulder, but he was
> ALREADY FACING LEFT when he was struck.
>
> At what frame do you see JBC facing left. At Z236-237, where you are
> proposing the bullet hit him, he has already reversed direction again
> and is twisting back to his right.
At Z234, Connally's posture is facing frontward and his eyes are looking
left.
It is considerably closer to his description of what he was doing when he
was struck than is his posture at Z223.
> You are impeaching your own argument. The twisting of JBC's torso back to
> the right immediately
> followed the dropping of his right arm and was in fact the two motions
> were continuous.
> That's what he SAID. Read below. And he is NOT FACING LEFT at Z223.
>
> And he is not facing left at Z236-237 when you argue he was hit.
He said, " I got about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a
little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me
in the back."
He told the WC that he was "looking a little bit to the left of center".
That's what he is doing from Z234-Z237 when his reaction is the most
visible.
And by the way, while he is looking right at Z164, he NEVER looks over his
right shoulder in the frames immediately following, which is how he says
that he responded to the first shot.
> > You make the same
> > mistake so many CTs have in analyzing the Z-film. You attempt to
> > interpret
> > a single frame without looking at it in the context of what came before
> > and after.
>
> Irrelevant to the point that you're trying to make.
>
> No, it is tremendously relevant. I can point to a number of individual
> frames where you could look at JBC and it would not be apparently that
> he was hit but when you put them together and see the motions he is
> making, it becomes evidence when he begins reacting to being shot.
The motions that he is making in Z223-233 are nowhere nearly as consistent
with his "being shot" as they are in Z234ff.
> And you are doing the same thing. You are interpreting his motions in
> Z223 without reference to whatever he may have been doing when his
> motions were hidden by the Stemmons Freeway sign.
>
> You are simply guessing at what he may have been doing when hidden.
And so are you. You are arguing that his reaction at Z223 is a reaction
to having been struck and that his reaction at Z234-238 is a
"continuation" of that.
So you are just GUESSING that his reaction at Z233 is NOT a "continuation"
of what he was doing when hidden.
However, since he is never SEEN to turn to look over his right shoulder,
it seems very likely that that's among the things that he was doing while
hidden. So it's not entirely guesswork on my part.
> I
> don't need to know what he was doing while hidden.
There seems to be a great deal that you feel that you "don't need to
know". You "don't need to know" exactly where the first shot landed. You
"don't need to know" what he was doing while hidden.
In order to arrive at a pre-ordained conclusion, you have clearly decided
to disregard some things and you have also decided that "you don't need to
know" others.
> He was struck at almost the very instant he reappeared and reacted
> immediately to the shot.
Obviously, that's not what happened.
> > JBC began his rotation to the right beginning at Z164.
>
> Utterly fantastic. There has been no shot fired at Z 164. Why would
> there be?
>
> Because that's when Oswald chose to fire.
> Probably about Z160 and a quarter second later at Z164
Ridiculous. There's been no break in the foliage of the tree at this
point and absolutely no evidence that gunfire has taken place at this
point.
None.
No one is responding to any.
> JBC who was looking left suddenly snapped his head around to the right and
> looked over his right
> shoulder, exactly what he said his reaction was to the first shot.
He NEVER snaps his head from Z164 to Z200. Never. He NEVER looks over
his right shoulder in these frames. Never. He is looking at the crowd
and nothing more.
'Faith, I have been a truant in the law," the Duke of Suffolk exclaims in
the first part of Shakespeare's Henry VI. "And never yet could frame my
will to it ; And, therefore, frame the law unto my will."
At this point, I really am starting to believe that you are similarly
neglecting the facts and simply framing them unto your will.
> Kennedy's hand continues to relax on the open window after that, and
> Connally is simply looking at the crowd.
>
> > Unable
> > to see anything, including JFK he began turning back to his left but had
> > not yet reached a square position when struck at or about Z223.
>
> And you've completely ignored Connally's statement, set forth below.
>
> > > "So I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my
> > > left
> > > shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I
> > > got
> > > about in the position I am in now facing you, looking a little bit to
> > > the
> > > left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back."
>
> "Looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like
> someone had hit me in the back."
>
> "Looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like
> someone had hit me in the back."
>
> "Looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like
> someone had hit me in the back."
>
> "Looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like
> someone had hit me in the back."
>
> Did your mouse get stuck while you were clicking paste.
It doesn't matter. Whether repeating it four times was intentional or
accidental on my part, it's what he said, and apparently you are determined
not to read it no matter how many opportunities you are given to do so.
> Understand? When he's hit in the back, he's not just THINKING of
> turning to the left. He has ALREADY turned to the left..."a little
> bit to the left of center".
>
> I understand that JBC was in motion when the bullet hit and it is a
> little unreasonable to assume he could pinpoint to the fraction of a
> second exactly when the bullet hit him. He knew he was rotating back
> to his left and he knew he got to a forward facing position but to
> expect him to say precisely what position he was in the instant this
> bullet passed through his torso and his wrist is a little absurd.
It's NOT absurd to expect that he would remember his posture at the time
that he was "punched in the back".
> In Z223, he is still turned to the right.
>
> > > He is NOT looking "a little bit to the left of center" in Z223.
>
> > You ignore the part where he says he never got that far.
>
> YOU ignore the part where he explicitly says that he DID get that far.
>
> "Looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like
> someone had hit me in the back."
>
> > He did eventually
> > get to a square position but that was after he had been hit. It is
> > understandable that in the distress he was in he would not have perfect
> > recall of exactly what position he was in when he felt the bullet hit
> > him
> > in the back.
>
> Oh, so now it's just more of "He's wrong".
>
> Yes, he was wrong. You expect someone who has suffered a devastating
> wound to have perfect recall?
Connally is an exceptionally good witness. As his opinion concerning when
he was hit conforms with that of his doctors and conforms with the
objective evidence provided by the Z film, in terms of his reaction in the
Z230's, there is no reason to disbelieve him on this point.
> > > > That's not consistent with his posture at Z226 when he is still
> > > > completing
> > > > his turnback from his original right-hand turn. And at Z226, there
> > > > is no
> > > > reason to suppose that his rib has been broken, his lung has been
> > > > punctured, and his wrist has been shattered. His reaction simply
> > > > isn't
> > > > great enough to suppose that.
>
> > Still claiming the rapid arm flip is a delayed reaction to a missed shot
> > two seconds early. He delayed two seconds than made this rapid movement.
> > Yes, that makes a a lot of sense.
>
> Two seconds is your count, based on your own interpretation.
>
> Let's figure this out. If you have the missed shot at Z190 and the arm
> flip becomes evidenct at Z226, I believe that amounts to 36 frames.
> How many frames per second did Zapruder's camera take?
Doesn't matter. You're STILL taking that arm flip -- which again is not
particularly indicative of anything -- out of the context of what he was
doing beforehand.
> > > > I'm still waiting to hear a plausible alternative.
>
> > > ''Scuse me,' said the Elephant's Child, 'but my nose is badly out of
> > > shape,
> > > and I am waiting for it to shrink.'
>
> > > 'Then you will have to wait a long time,' said the
> > > Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake. 'Some people do not know what is good
> > > for
> > > them.'
>
> > > - Rudyard Kipling, "The Elephant's Child", Just So Stories
>
> > Relevance?
>
> Like the "Elephant's Child", you're trying to abandon something that
> is very worthwhile; something that is GOOD for you (i.e. the TRUTH in
> this matter); by pretending that it hasn't been provided to you, and
> you're doing that simply because it hurts.
>
> If you think that cockamamie theory about agent Maxwell Smart accidentally
> blasting JFK in the back of the head amounts to the
> truth, you are the one who is out of touch with reality.
Is there a reason why you are changing the subject? This particular aspect
of the conversation had been about the timing of the single-bullet strike
and not about the Hickey head shot.
Have you decided that you are on firmer ground with respect to the latter
than you are with respect to the former?
I don't think that you have the ability to discuss either of them myself.
> The truth was provided to me. It was provided in 1964 by the Warren
> Commision.
Oh? Did you have to go to the top of the mountain to receive it?
> I have not heard a single plausible alternative to that truth in the 45
> years since
Well, yeah. You've made it a point not to hear it.
> and that includes the ridiculous Mortal Error scenario which you swallowed
> hook, line, and sinker.
No. But it's the most plausible explanation of the facts and, to date, it
has resisted all efforts to discredit it. In fact, those efforts have only
strengthened it. Doesn't mean that the last word has yet been heard.
> That makes many of the conspiracy theories seem reasonable by comparison.
Why?
> This one is about as a absurd as the "Greer did it" theory.
Why?
> > > > He starts to make his left hand turn in Z230 or thereabouts and, of
> > > > course, his expression becomes contorted with pain in the late
> > > > Z230's.
>
> > > > No, he began turning back to his left well before Z230.
>
> > > I promise you that whatever version of the Zapruder film you are
> > > looking
> > > at differs from everyone else's.
>
> > > I defy you to tell me that he is "turning to his left" in this frame.
>
> > I already explained, he his rotating to his left at Z223. He is not
> > turned
> > to his left at Z223. It is not a difficult concept. You are starting to
> > sound like Marsh.
>
> That's right. He is not turned to his left at Z223. So, by his own
> reckoning, he has not yet been struck. It's not a difficult concept.
>
> "Rotating" is a concept that you have invented for this context because it
> is nebulous enough for your purpose.
>
> Rotating is a nebulous concept? Now that's an interesting take.
> You might just as well argue that an infant born today is an old man
> because he is "aging" as we speak. You're putting "rotating" to the same
> use.
>
> Rossley, did you sneak on Grizzlie's computer and start posting stuff?
The Reverend James Hamilton, minister of Liverpool, while on a holiday in
Scotland, had a narrow escape from drowning. Accompanied by a boy, Mr.
Hamilton was fishing for sea trout, when he slipped on a stone, lost
balance, and being encumbered with heavy wading boots, had great
difficulty in keeping his head above water. Finally he managed to get
back to the shore, although in a very exhausted state, and said to the
boy, "I noticed that you never tried to help me."
"Na," was the deliberate response. "But I was thinkin' o' it."
That's akin to your reasoning -- suggesting that Connally was "rotating"
to his left in Z223 -- although he is clearly turned to the right --
because as far as you are concerned, at that point, Connally might have
been thinking of turning to his left.
Your statement about witnesses in general is not untrue.
However, Connally is an exceptionally good witness for several reasons.
First of all, he was a VICTIM of gunfire and not merely an
eyewitness/earwitness to it. But he was a victim who recovered fully.
He wasn't struck in the head, and his mental faculties were not affected.
There's no reason to think that he wouldn't remember how he was situated
at the time when he was punched or hit or struck in the back.
Second of all, he had experience with guns and the sound of gunfire.
Third of all, he doggedly stuck to his story for the remainder of his
life. He always expressed his belief in the official version of events.
But when the first generation of LN theorists insisted that he was struck
by the first shot and that he was mistaken if he believed otherwise -- in
other words, posturing themselves in a way analagous to the way that you
are posturing now -- he resisted.
He regarded the single-bullet scenario as a possibility. But as far as he
was concerned, he was struck by the second shot and that's all there was
to it.
Eventually, LN theory moved to accommodate the truth of what Connally
said, and now LN theory is more correct than it was before, acknowledging
a first-shot miss. At least many LN theorists do.
Why should I think that it's any different with the timing of the
single-bullet strike? Connally insisted that he wasn't yet hit at Z230.
He placed it at Z234. At least two single-assassin theorists have agreed
with them. Why should I think that LN theory isn't going to eventually
move to accommodate him on this point?
And fourth of all, although you want to disregard it, the medical evidence
is on his side. Connally's doctors placed it at Z234-Z238. That's
medical evidence, which you want to misconstrue as "photographic analysis"
evidence. Why should I think that LN theory won't eventually move to
accommodate them as well?
Grizzlie Antagonist
You don't own me, Anthony Marsh. I am not a trained seal doing my tricks
at your command.
Do you think that the AR-15 was loaded with frangible ammunition on that
day? Yes or no?
I think that I forgot something.
Oh yes, I remember now.
"Answer the damn question."
Grizzlie Antagonist
Again, I am at your mercy every time that you say "Nonsense".
> And how do you have all these fragments escaping from a jacketed bullet
> and only one hitting only JFK?
Why not? He was at the right rear of the limo.
>>>
>>> The last one. It is a hot stove type of reaction. Completely
>>> involuntary and reflexive.
>>
>>
>>
>> What's that supposed to mean?
>>
>
> You never heard of the hot stove reaction?
I did not initially understand what he was saying in context.
>>>> Connally's right shoulder COLLAPSES between Z237 and Z238. Because
>>>> it's
>>>> being DRIVEN down by an outside force. "I felt like someone had hit me
>>>> in
>>>> the back."
>>>
>>> Yes it was, but this followed the first reaction beginning at Z226.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It is not reasonable to think that this could have happened.
>>
>> If his shoulder was DRIVEN DOWN by the bullet, how could such a
>> reaction be delayed? It simply isn't reasonable.
>>
>> It's contrary to Newton's Third Law of Motion.
>>
>
> But you believe that a bullet does not have the force to move a body. You
> are contradicting yourself.
I do? I believe that a bullet does not have the force to move a body? Is
that really what I believe?
Fancy that!
> No, he said that he was facing forward when he was hit.
He says at one juncture that he is looking "a little bit to the left of
center" when he got hit.
At another point, he said that he "got no more than substantially looking
forward, a little bit to the left of forward" when he was hit.
These descriptions are fairly consistent with his posture in the Z230's.
It's not at all his posture at Z223.
>> That's what he SAID. Read below. And he is NOT FACING LEFT at Z223.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> You make the same
>>> mistake so many CTs have in analyzing the Z-film. You attempt to
>>> interpret
>>> a single frame without looking at it in the context of what came before
>>> and after.
>>
>>
>>
>> Irrelevant to the point that you're trying to make.
>>
>> And you are doing the same thing. You are interpreting his motions in
>> Z223 without reference to whatever he may have been doing when his
>> motions were hidden by the Stemmons Freeway sign.
>>
>>
>>
>>> JBC began his rotation to the right beginning at Z164.
>>
>>
>>
>> Utterly fantastic. There has been no shot fired at Z 164. Why would
>> there be?
>>
>
> Even some WC defenders believe there was a shot fired before Z-164.
Wow! I guess that they're incredibly wrong!
> Connally carefully studied the Zapruder film and determined that he was
> hit at about frame 230.
No. He told LIFE Magazine Z234. He told the WC between Z231 and Z234.
bigdog
I'm sure there have been plenty of wacky arguments from our side over the
years and I don't feel any obligation to defend them. I'm too busy
refuting the wacky claims from the CT side.
> > proof for the cause of this wound so it remains an open question to me. It
> > is a side issue and not necessary to resolve the central question of who
> > fired the shots that killed JFK.
>
> Sure, sure. And yet you demand absolute proof of every element from
> conspiracy believers.
>
No I don't. Why would I? I recognize that there are some elements for
which we have no answer and which we will probably never get an answer to.
That doesn't mean we can't reach a conclusion based on what we do have
answers for. The demands for absolute proof usually come from the CT side.
They insist that every element be proven beyond all doubt.
>
> >>>> Up above, you express skepticism about a shot that misses so wildly that a
> >>>> portion of it ricochets into the limo.
>
> >>>> Yet, in THIS scenario of yours, you simply state that "his first shot
> >>>> missed to the right" without stating where it landed because YOU CAN'T SAY
> >>>> where it landed. THAT'S how wildly the first shot misses in YOUR
> >>>> scenario.
>
> >>> The first shot did not have to be that wild. JFK was sitting in the far
> >>> right of the car. His center line would have been about 1 foot from the
> >>> side of the car. A shot slightly more than a foot to the right could have
> >>> missed completely. We both theorize a shot completely missing the limo.
> >>> The difference is that yours MUST miss far enough right that it could
> >>> bounce over the side of the car and into the limo. Under mine, the bullet
> >>> could have missed by just inches. The amount of the miss isn't critical to
> >>> my scenario. It is to yours.
>
> >> Ok, even a shot missing by a few feet at that closest distance would
> >> still have to hit the limousine or something in it, or hitting the
> >> ground would ricochet into the side of the limousine.
>
> > Not necessarily. With the down slope of the street, it is possible it
> > skipped low like a stone on the water and went under the limo. Again,
> > numerous possibilities for which there is no definitive answer.
>
> New theory, eh? Well, it is possible, but the slope was only 3 degrees
> and supposedly no other damage to the limousine was found. Ignore the
> rumors about a hole in the floor. That must have been perpetrated by the
> terrorists to destabilize the US.
>
Not a theory. A possibility. I don't pretend to know where that bullet
went.
> >>>>> The next shot found the target, passing through JFK's upper torso, exited
> >>>>> from his
> >>>>> throat striking the person directly in front of JFK.
>
> >>>> At Z236-238
>
> >>> At Z223, or perhaps a frame or two earlier. The arm flip beginning at Z226
> >>> refutes a later strike. If as you theorize this flip of the arm was in
> >>> reaction to the missed shot 2 seconds earlier, why does he bring his arm
> >>> down as rapidly as he brought it up. The up and down movement of the arm
> >>> is so rapid the Stetson is visible for just 9 frames. A half a second.
>
> >>>>> The last shot hit JFK
> >>>>> in the head, blowing out a large section of the upper right side of his
> >>>>> head, fragmented upon striking the dense bone and pieces of this bullet
> >>>>> chipped the windshield and dented the chrome. Not only is that a much
> >>>>> simpler explaination, there is actually evidence for that.
>
> >>>> Nonsense. You don't have the bullet. You don't have the equipment or the
> >>>> expertise to determine if a bullet came from particular gun.
>
> >>> No, but the FBI had all three and determined that it did come from
> >>> Oswald's gun.
>
> >> The FBI had all three bullets?
>
> > Show me where I said "three bullets".
>
> I was talking about bullets. Then you said the FBI had all three.
I don't care what you were talking about. I know what I was talking about
when I was responding to Grizzlie. The FBI had all three, the bullet, the
equipment, and the expertise to determine the weapon that fired the
bullet.
> If you meant fragments then you should have said fragments.
If I meant fragments, I would have said fragments.
Anthony Marsh
Cognitive? No, reflex.
> the arm flip were a cognitive response to Connally being showered with
> pavement material, why would he put the arm back down as rapidly as he
> brought it up?
>
>>>> Connally's right shoulder COLLAPSES between Z237 and Z238. Because it's
>>>> being DRIVEN down by an outside force. "I felt like someone had hit me in
>>>> the back."
>>
>>> Yes it was, but this followed the first reaction beginning at Z226.
>>
>> It is not reasonable to think that this could have happened.
>>
>> If his shoulder was DRIVEN DOWN by the bullet, how could such a
>> reaction be delayed? It simply isn't reasonable.
>>
>> It's contrary to Newton's Third Law of Motion.
>>
> Now you are making the same argument the CTs make for a frontal head
> shot. Bullets do not drive bodies any appreciable distance. They are
> much to small and a bullet passing through a body only transfers a
> small amount of its momentum. The downward movement of JBC's shoulder
> was a cognitive response to a painful blow to his right side.
>
That's right. So WC defenders should never say that a shot from behind
thrust Kennedy's head forward.
Not unreasonable at all when he carefully studied the Zapruder film. Do
you really think he could name the frame during that weekend when he was
recovering?
>> read more �
>
>
Grizzlie Antagonist
(Cheerfully) I don't care. It's enough that they were found in the
limousine.
> That's why you can never answer my questions.
Oh, I think I do OK at that when I decide to trouble myself. Certainly, I
give your questions more consideration than you give mine. It must be
some rare beauty in my nature.
> You run on and on about evidence, but you don't know the evidence.
Well then, I must talk a good game. It's my legal training.