Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion Book including Oswald
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Bud  
View profile  
 More options Oct 1 2012, 8:54 pm
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
From: Bud <sirsl...@fast.net>
Date: 1 Oct 2012 20:54:22 -0400
Local: Mon, Oct 1 2012 8:54 pm
Subject: Re: Book including Oswald
On Oct 1, 1:57 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 9/30/2012 10:57 PM, Bud wrote:

> > On Sep 29, 9:54 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 9/29/2012 4:32 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:

> >>> On 9/28/12 4:33 PM, Richard Ferguson wrote:

> >>>   >snip<

> >>>> It's a
> >>>> fact that Kennedy bounced off the back seat after he was shot.  I tried
> >>>> looking at the film frame by frame and couldn't see his head move forward
> >>>> after the shot.

> >>> You need to compare frame 312, just before he was shot, to frame 313,
> >>> right after he was shot. He has continued to move forward. Whether any
> >>> added impetus to his already commenced forward motion can be attributed
> >>> to the bullet may harder to determine, but what is clear is that the
> >>> impact of the bullet did not move him backward (not that the mere impact
> >>> of a bullet could have done that anyway).

> >>> /sandy

> >> No, you need to compare all the frames from Z-300 to Z-320.

> >    Why not z-170?

> Because the limo did not start slowing down until after Z-300.

> >> You are committing the Fallacy of False Cause by only looking at two
> >> frames and assuming they are the only ones relevant to what caused the
> >> motion.

> >    They are the only two relevant to how Kennedy`s position changed
> > when hit by the bullet.

> CAUSE. The cause does not have to be what you assumed.

  Then you should show that Kennedy`s head was going forward at
generally the same rate every frame leading up to the headshot.

> >> No one argues that the IMPACT of the bullet moves his whole body
> >> backward.

> >    You should familiarize yourself with the discussions you enter. the
> > original poster wrote...

> >    "For me, that has never been satisfactorily explained, that and the
> > incontrovertible fact that Kennedy was knocked back by the head shot
> > hard enough that he bounced off the back seat cushion."

> He never mentions the word IMPACT.

  Is that why you couldn`t figure out that people had taken the
position you claimed no one had. Because they didn`t use the word
IMPACT?

> >> That is a straw man argument.

> >    An actual position someone took is the opposite of a strawman.

> No one took that actual position. That is what a straw man argument is.

   Actually the poster was putting forth the idea that it was the force of
the bullet that threw Kennedy back. Not a strawman, an actual position
expressed by someone.
> >> And yet some WC defenders try to argue that just the IMPACT of a bullet
> >> threw his head forward violently.

> >    Yes, the impact of the bullet pushed Kennedy`s head forward
> > slightly. Equal and opposite reaction means that Kennedy`s head was
> > pushed forward by as much force as was exerted on Oswald when he shot.

> >> Hypocrisy, thy name is WC defender.

> >    Misrepresentation, your name is Marsh.


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.