Question for LNers, about CTers
WhiskyJoe
Question for LNers, about CTers
I sometimes make posts that are not
serious, but this one is.
As I understand it, the Flat Earth
Society largely, perhaps entirely,
consists of people who pretend to
believe that the Earth is flat.
The Society is just a big joke.
It's members are not really sincere.
Could something similar be true for
at least some CTers?
That is, do LNers at this board think
the CTers on this board are sincere?
Now, I do know from poles, that the
majority of the people believe it is
likely to very likely that their was
a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
But, I am limiting this discussion to
the group of people who have read up
on the subject a lot.
Sometimes, I find it difficult to believe
that all the CTers here are sincere.
It's been pointed out the major problems
with many of the prominent Anti-SBT diagrams
over the years:
* Dr. Wecht's diagram, as presented to
the HSCA in 1978 and in the mock trail
in England in 1986:
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0173a.htm
* Diagram from "High Treason" :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
* The Diagram in the movie JFK which is
seen by more people then all the other
SBT diagrams combined:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100sbt.html
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100sbth.html
And yet, I never ran into a CTer who has
a major problem with this. They say
it is no big deal. Or they say that
there is nothing wrong with these diagrams.
If the situation was reversed, if I
believed Oswald shot JFK by himself,
wounded JFK with the first shot,
wounded Connally with the second and
killed JFK With the third, I would be
very perplexed if the WC, Posner and Myers,
all insisted that the SBT was true and
used diagrams that were obviously false.
For instance, if they showed the
horizontal angle from Oswald off of
being straight behind was 5 or 10
degrees, which allows the SBT to work,
when clearly (in my example) the true
angle was 25 to 30 degrees. It would
be difficult for me to believe there
was not a conspiracy and even if I
still concluded it was Oswald alone,
I would still be very perplexed about
these false diagrams.
And yet, I never hear from a CTer who
says:
"Yes, these false Anti-SBT diagrams are
perplexing. I don't know why Wecht, Stone,
Groden, etc. chose to go with them. Still
the evidence for conspiracy is so strong
that it's clear that there was a conspiracy
and Wecht, Stone and Groden about just
being very stupid in the way they decide
to argue for conspiracy, lying when they
don't have to."
Instead, without exception, every CTer
seems to feel these diagram are no
big deal.
Could it be there just pretending the
CT side is rock solid? I certainly do
wonder.
***************************************
Anyhow, what do the other LNers think?
Are the CTers on this board sincere?
Bud
>
> * Diagram from "High Treason" :
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
>
> * The Diagram in the movie JFK which is
> seen by more people then all the other
> SBT diagrams combined:
>
Oh, I believe they are sincere enough. I have to be careful about what I
see are the causes of this phenomenon if I don`t want this response to be
rejected. I think adopting the CTer position reflects poorly on anyone who
takes it. For the most part, I see what the CTers engage in as a kind of
game. There are strong indicators in evidence about what had occurred. The
game is to collect things that can be claimed as indications of something
other than the official conclusions. What the Cters have amassed is a
collection of "objections", which can`t lead anywhere, or be put together
to form any recognizable shape. I think what they do could probably be
done in any event where there are a mass of information (especially
supplied by eyewitnesses), and an intense desire to see an outcome
different than the evident one. You see the same approach being adopted
in the 9-11 event. A CTer will say "I see a poof of smoke from the side of
the building as it collapsed, I say it is an explosive device, prove me
wrong" (similar to the early "I see a figure in photos on the grassy
knoll, I say it is a shooter, prove me wrong"). "The Game" is
self-defeating, because it can never amass the kinds of evidence needed to
support what the allege occurred (nor could it, because nothing like what
they claim did occur). The best it can hope to do is amass a lot of
"objections" (which they have).
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> * Diagram from "High Treason" :
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
>
> * The Diagram in the movie JFK which is
> seen by more people then all the other
> SBT diagrams combined:
>
For this CTer, the impossibility of the SBT has way less to do with how
the bodies are arranged than that one "pristine" bullet did everything the
SBT requires it to do. It's just not logical and wasn't even invented
until the WC realized they had a timing problem because of the z-film and
the time required to reload the M-C, which then led to guys like Posner
speculating that Oswald fired through a tree with his first shot. And I
guess missed and hit Tague. The other illogical premise of the SBT is the
large number of witnesses who heard the shots in a bang.....bang bang
sequence. Yes earwitnesses are not reliable. Yes you can find others who
heard something else. But to have so many people remember the shots "the
wrong way" also stretches credulity.
Burgundy
bigdog
>
> * Diagram from "High Treason" :
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
>
> * The Diagram in the movie JFK which is
> seen by more people then all the other
> SBT diagrams combined:
>
I have no doubt that most if not all of them are sincere. They convinced
themselves a long time ago that there was a conspiracy and are too
emotionally committed to that position to ever admit they were wrong, not
matter how much evidence they are confronted with. They will continue to
deny, deny, deny. Dr. Cyril Wecht is a perfect example. The guy is no
dummy. He is a recognized expert in his field. But a long time ago, he was
taken in by the arguments against the SBT and in favor of a GK shooter. No
matter how often those old arguments have been debunked, Wecht publicly
committed himself to his position and he simply cannot bring himself to
reverse his position. I think deep down, he knows he was wrong but can't
even admit that to himself.
Anthony Marsh
>
> Question for LNers, about CTers
>
> I sometimes make posts that are not
> serious, but this one is.
>
> As I understand it, the Flat Earth
> Society largely, perhaps entirely,
> consists of people who pretend to
> believe that the Earth is flat.
> The Society is just a big joke.
> It's members are not really sincere.
> Could something similar be true for
> at least some CTers?
>
Could something similar be true for the WC defenders?
Proclaiming publicly that there was no conspiracy,
but secretly believing that Castro was behind it?
Wrong. I and others have discussed those errors many times.
You just like to make up false positions and ascribe them to ALL
conspiracy believers.
> If the situation was reversed, if I
> believed Oswald shot JFK by himself,
> wounded JFK with the first shot,
> wounded Connally with the second and
> killed JFK With the third, I would be
> very perplexed if the WC, Posner and Myers,
> all insisted that the SBT was true and
> used diagrams that were obviously false.
> For instance, if they showed the
> horizontal angle from Oswald off of
> being straight behind was 5 or 10
> degrees, which allows the SBT to work,
> when clearly (in my example) the true
> angle was 25 to 30 degrees. It would
> be difficult for me to believe there
> was not a conspiracy and even if I
> still concluded it was Oswald alone,
> I would still be very perplexed about
> these false diagrams.
>
Well, in fact the WC defender diagrams are false and I point it out all
the time.
> And yet, I never hear from a CTer who
> says:
>
> "Yes, these false Anti-SBT diagrams are
> perplexing. I don't know why Wecht, Stone,
> Groden, etc. chose to go with them. Still
> the evidence for conspiracy is so strong
> that it's clear that there was a conspiracy
> and Wecht, Stone and Groden about just
> being very stupid in the way they decide
> to argue for conspiracy, lying when they
> don't have to."
>
Why do we have to play YOUR game, divide and conquer?
> Instead, without exception, every CTer
> seems to feel these diagram are no
> big deal.
>
Wrong.
tomnln
<WBurg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f864ec2b-b7a9-44c4...@u10g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
Burgundy
JFK's back wound had an "Upward Trajectory".
HSCA VII page 175.
Pretty hard to do if the shooter was sixty feet above the victim.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
The fact that there is so much disagreement among the witnesses as to the
direction and timing of the shots is proof that a lot of people got it
wrong. The question is, who got it wrong. It would be nice if we could
just assume that majority rules in this case, but that is not the logical
way to proceed. The logical way to determine which witnesses were right
and which were wrong is to compare their accounts with the corroborating
physical evidence. That all points in one direction. The shots were fired
from above and behind JFK. The shots were fired from a specific rifle
which was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Three shots were fired and
three spent shells were found by the very window where an eyewitness saw a
rifle being fired.
A very plausible explaination for the condition of CE399 has been offered
and is supported by experimental evidence. It has been demonstrated that a
bullet could pass through two torsos without the nose being flattened. It
requires a bullet tumbling so that the nose never strikes a hard surface.
The SBT is the only explaination which is resolves all the evidence. No
other plausible theory has ever been presented which is compatible with
the physical evidence.
WBurg...@aol.com
You put all your faith in the physical evidence. And it does point in one
direction. But if Oswald was set up, that physical evidence does not mean
much. If the physical evidence would end this once and for all, why are so
many records still locked? Why is there a 2029 deadline or whatever it is
this week on releasing EVERYTHING. So the physical evidence has as much
believability that Oswald was framed as he did it. That's it you know. If
the government got scared and wanted to just flat out blame Oswald --
which the Assistant Attorney General and the new President mandated ---
and said don't open any new doors, just rush this through, Oswald is dead
-- if you are running a biased investigation, where both the FBI and CIA
are withholding information which has still not seen the light of day ---
what good is the physical evidence? It's meaningless.
That all points in one direction. The shots were fired
> from above and behind JFK. The shots were fired from a specific rifle
> which was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Three shots were fired and
> three spent shells were found by the very window where an eyewitness saw a
> rifle being fired.
>
> A very plausible explaination for the condition of CE399 has been offered
> and is supported by experimental evidence.
You say it's plausible. You say the SBT is the only THEORY that resolves
all the evidence. But if the evidence is incompolete, or missing, or
forced through a specific set of lens in which we accept only evidence
"that Oswald did it" and bury any evidence "that he was framed and others
were involved" --- what good is the evidence. It's meaningless.
It has been demonstrated that a
> bullet could pass through two torsos without the nose being flattened. It
> requires a bullet tumbling so that the nose never strikes a hard surface.
> The SBT is the only explaination which is resolves all the evidence. No
> other plausible theory has ever been presented which is compatible with
> the physical evidence.- Hide quoted text -
WhiskyJoe
wburgha...@aol.com May 10, 11:57 am
> For this CTer, the impossibility of
> the SBT has way less to do with how
> the bodies are arranged than that
> one "pristine" bullet did everything
> the SBT requires it to do. It's just
> not logical and wasn't even invented
> until the WC realized they had a
> timing problem because of the z-film
> and the time required to reload the
> M-C, which then led to guys like
> Posner speculating that Oswald fired
> through a tree with his first shot.
You seem to imply, that it does not
matter if the prominent CTers lie about
the geometry of the SBT and produce
diagrams that show that Oswald is
25 to 35 horizontal degrees away from
being straight behind the limousine,
when it's clear that he was really
5 to 10 degrees off. The bottom line
is that the bullet could not be that
pristine so the bullet must have been
planted.
But, if they had a cracker jack
argument, they would not be foolish
enough to use lies. If the bullet
could not be pristine, they would just
stick to that argument. They wouldn't
go with diagrams showing Oswald was
25 to 35 degrees off the line
of travel.
There are only two claims that CTers
make, that I and most people, are
competent to judge on. The geometry
of the limousine and it's occupants
as it emerged from the freeway sign
and whether JFK and Connally are
reacting at the same time.
* CTers claim the geometry of the SBT
is way off, since the bullet comes in
at an angle of 25 to 35 degrees.
Looking at maps and photographs of
Dealey Plaza, I can see that this
argument is an obvious lie.
* CTers claim that clearly JFK and
Connally were wounded 0.5 to 1.5 seconds
apart (depending on the CTer).
Looking at the Zapruder film, I can see
that this argument is an obvious lie.
It looks like they react at the same
time. Granted, one may have a delayed
reaction, so they could have been
wounded at different times. But they
are, never the less, lying about their
claim that it is "obvious" that JFK and
Connally are wounded at different times.
Now, there are many other claims.
CTer claim the bullet could not have
been pristine. I cannot judge this.
I have not shot dead (nor live) animals
and dug out the bullets to see what the
bullets look like. Certainly not with
Carcano rifles using WCC bullets.
But, Larry Sturdivan, a ballistic expert
and LNer claims:
* WCC bullets are full metal jacketed
bullets, a military bullet, designed
to comply with the Hague convention.
This makes the bullet extra sturdy and
it resists fragmenting and even
deforming. Generally, CTers do not
deny this.
* WCC bullets can fired through
47 inches of softwood and over
20 inches of hardwood, and come out
pristine. Generally, CTers do not
deny this.
(This, by the way, shows one reason,
besides the Hague Convention, why
military bullets are built to be sturdy,
because if the bullet did deform, it
would fragment and it would fail to
penetrate as far as it does.
And soldiers do sometimes take cover
behind trees.)
* WCC bullets can be fired through any
amount of soft animal tissue and will
come out pristine, even if the bullet
strikes the animal at muzzle velocity.
Generally, CTers do not deny this.
* The only animal tissue that can deform
a WCC bullet, is bone. But even here,
the bullet must be traveling at about
65% of it's muzzle velocity or higher.
If it's going slower, the bullet will
come out pristine. And, since the
"Stretcher bullet" penetrated about
18 inches of tissue, altogether,
before stopping in Connally's thigh
and did not hit significant about
of bone until Connally's rib after
penetrating 7 inches of soft tissue,
it sounds plausible to me that the
bullet may have been slowed to about
65% of it's muzzle velocity when it
stuck the rib. After about 35% of
human tissue, it sounds plausible
that the bullet had lost 35% of
it's speed.
Of course, CTers dispute this last point.
They have to, or give up their objections
to the "Pristine" bullet.
As I said, I can't judge this, not without
a good deal of experience of shooting
animals. But, since CTers have clearly
lied about the geometry and timing of
the SBT, it is only reasonable to guess
that they are the ones lying about the
expected condition of a bullet after
passing through JFK and Connally.
But, of course, the arguments are ever
shifting. They argue the geometry is off.
When one starts to show that their
arguments are off, they shift to arguing
the different timing of the JFK and
Connally wounds. When that argument
begins to fall apart, they shift to
arguing about the impossibility of the
"Pristine" bullet. And on and on it goes
without ever stopping.
If they had a valid argument, they
wouldn't need any dubious arguments
but could just stick to and hammer
away on their one killer point.
But they do not have a killer point.
So they use quantity to make up for
a lack of quality.
****************************************
The SBT is a very good theory. Points in
it's favor, just off the top of my head.
* The close positions of six people in a
confined space, combined with the ability
of rifle bullets to penetrate a large
amount of organic material. If three shots
were fired at JFK and no bullet passed
though him and another occupant, it would
be a minor miracle. Many sight lines,
particularly the "Down the line of travel"
sight lines that a shooter would want,
would intersect another person.
* The, at least, pretty good, possibly
very good (even Myers can't measure
the torso positions any closer than
an inch), alignment of JFK's and
Connally's wounds, an alignment that
is so good that many prominent CTers
have felt compelled to lie greatly
about the horizontal angle of the
bullet (25-35 degrees).
* The difficulty of having the bullet
that stuck Connally not hitting JFK
first.
* The even worst difficulty of having
the bullet that struck JFK not
continuing on to hit at least
somewhere on Connally's torso.
* The simultaneous reactions of JFK
and Connally, particularly Connally's
"Shoulder hitch" of his "Soon to be
hit" torso, the "Coat bulge" of his
"Soon to be hit" coat at Z224 and
the flying up of his "Soon to be hit"
right wrist during Z226-Z230.
* The apparent disappearance of the
bullet, and the failure of the bullet
to wound anyone else in the limousine
nor damage the limousine itself,
after the separate bullet emerged
from JFK's neck.
****************************************
> For this CTer, the impossibility of
> the SBT has way less to do with how
> the bodies are arranged than that
> one "pristine" bullet did everything
> the SBT requires it to do.
I wonder, if I did have extensive
experience with shooting the dead
carcasses of animals and found that
animal bones could be broken by bullets
that remained pristine, would I be told:
"The impossibility of the SBT has way
less to do with the condition of the
bullet and more to do with the zigzag
path the bullet would have had to take
to cause those wounds".
if CTers guessed that I was
knowledgeable about the condition of
bullets, but ignorant about the geometry
of Dealey Plaza?
****************************************
****************************************
****************************************
tomnln May 10, 4:59 pm
> JFK's back wound had an
> "Upward Trajectory".
> HSCA VII page 175.
> Pretty hard to do if the shooter was
> sixty feet above the victim.
Also pretty hard to do from a forward
position, with the windshield in the
way, with the windshield still undamaged
at Z255 (Altgens photograph) and no high
buildings in front of the limousine.
The Triple Overpass was not nearly high
enough for a bullet to clear the
windshield and strike the neck.
Maybe the Goodyear company was involved.
Maybe they though that their blimps
would make good gun platforms in the
coming Vietnam war but it turned out
helicopters were better.
Or maybe the HSCA succumb to the
"Sherlock Holmes" syndrome and made an
unwarranted (and unwarrented) find
- the back wound was lower than the
neck wound -
as evidenced by the following:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/sbt/hsca.jpg
Question: Why is it that CTers never
refer people to this webpage when they
wish to argue that the back wound was
higher than the neck wound?
Steve
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have wondered about this very question for years. It is hard to
believe that otherwise educated individuals, individuals that appear
to be able to logically process information, recognize coincidences
for what they are, and piece together complicated events should know
better than to claim support for any, as yet unproven, conspiracy
plot. WHY they believe in conspiracies is more fascinating to me and
I have five reasons my expereience has revealed as to WHY conspiracy
theorists hold so tightly to their beliefs:
1. It is a matter of pride. Years ago, many as early as 1975 when
the Kennedty assassination received renewed media attention, sides
were selected and arguments were embraced and being human it makes it
difficult to switch later even in the face of hard evidence. A GREAT
example is the Zapruder film. From 1963 until 1975 conspiracy
believers were CONVINCED that the Z-film had been suppressed because
it revealed evidence of multiple gunmen. Then after Robert Groden
leaked a bootleg copy and the HSCA made the film more readily
accessible it became clear that the Z-film actually fully supported
only a rear gunman firing from above and behind. If the conspiracy
nuts were sincerely trying to solve this case they would have then
altered their theory to fit the hard evidence and moved on from
there. But instead they chose to alter the evidence to fit their
theory and as a result were diverted on a bizarre sidetrack of Z-film
alteration. Never has there been a more clear example of "Don't
confuse me with the fact--I know what I know." And hence was born the
practice of NEVER altering your theory, just alter the evidence. This
has been the MO of the CT for thirty years now. Back in 1975 I too
was a devoted conspiracy believer until the HSCA results came out and
it appeared that the conspiracy press had nothing of substance to
offer. I, like a few others, switched sides and have never looked
back. However I don't know of ANY noted LN advocates that have jumped
ship and switched to the CT side. But individuals like Steve Barber,
Gus Russo, and Gary Mack who were die-hard conspiracy supporters have
softened the edge on their conspiracy swords considerably in the face
of no supporting evidence.
2. It is more fun to chase after conspiracies than to admit the
obvious. Plain and simple. Conspiracy lovers love ALL
conspiracries. Show me a conspiracy believer in the Kennedy case and
I will show you a moon landing doubter, a 9-11 conspiracy believer, a
Vince Foster murder believer, and an RFK and MLK conspiracy believer.
Conspiracy beliefs act like a brain disease and before long they
detach their adherants from reality. Exhibit A--Jack White. Where is
there a nuttier human on the planet than Jack White? No sane or
marginally-educated person could carry on a reasonable conversation
with Jack White for more than five seconds without looking for an
exit.
3. As William Manchester wrote, people falsely believe that horrible
results must have had horrible causes.
4. We live in a TV and motion picture world of altered reality. Life
doesn't have a lot of surprise endings. Sadly for the CT in reality
if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and swims like a
duck, it IS a duck and not a government altered pigeon made to look
like a duck.
5. Oswald looks TOO guilty. I have had poor misguided students say
to me, "But Mr. Anderson there is SO MUCH evidence against Oswald he
has to be innocent. I mean...NOBODY looks that guilty. It has to be
a frame-up." I stand with a stunned look on my face, and I ask them
if they would go to a doctor who advocated that sort of twisted
logic? If they went to their doctor and he/she said "Elizabeth, you
haven't had a period in four months, your tummy is getting bigger,
your blood and urine tests all reflect the fact that you are pregnant,
you have strange food cravings, and you have to pee all the time.
Therefore it is my professional opinion that you are NOT pregnant."
Welcome inside the mind of conspiracy logic.
bigdog
I certainly do. What do you put your faith in?
> But if Oswald was set up, that physical evidence does not mean
> much.
And what is there to indicate that Oswald was set up? Since the physical
evidence was gathered by numerous entities, for all of it to be
fraudulent, you would need massive conclusion. This would include the
FBI(Department of Justice), the SS(Department of the Treasury) , the Army
and Navy(Department of Defense), the DPD and the Dallas sheriff's office.
All of these participated in the collection of the physical evidence. Do
you really believe they were all acting to cover up a crime?
> If the physical evidence would end this once and for all, why are so
> many records still locked? Why is there a 2029 deadline or whatever it is
> this week on releasing EVERYTHING. So the physical evidence has as much
> believability that Oswald was framed as he did it. That's it you know. If
> the government got scared and wanted to just flat out blame Oswald --
> which the Assistant Attorney General and the new President mandated ---
> and said don't open any new doors, just rush this through, Oswald is dead
> -- if you are running a biased investigation, where both the FBI and CIA
> are withholding information which has still not seen the light of day ---
> what good is the physical evidence? It's meaningless.
>
You speak of the government as if it is monolithic. Do you really believe
everyone in the Federal Government acts with a unity of purpose?
> That all points in one direction. The shots were fired
>
> > from above and behind JFK. The shots were fired from a specific rifle
> > which was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Three shots were fired and
> > three spent shells were found by the very window where an eyewitness saw a
> > rifle being fired.
>
> > A very plausible explaination for the condition of CE399 has been offered
> > and is supported by experimental evidence.
>
> You say it's plausible. You say the SBT is the only THEORY that resolves
> all the evidence. But if the evidence is incompolete, or missing, or
> forced through a specific set of lens in which we accept only evidence
> "that Oswald did it" and bury any evidence "that he was framed and others
> were involved" --- what good is the evidence. It's meaningless.
>
What evidence related to the SBT is missing? What evidence that he was
framed do you think has been buried? Why do you believe there is such
evidence?
Anthony Marsh
>
> wburgha...@aol.com May 10, 11:57 am
>
>> For this CTer, the impossibility of
>> the SBT has way less to do with how
>> the bodies are arranged than that
>> one "pristine" bullet did everything
>> the SBT requires it to do. It's just
>> not logical and wasn't even invented
>> until the WC realized they had a
>> timing problem because of the z-film
>> and the time required to reload the
>> M-C, which then led to guys like
>> Posner speculating that Oswald fired
>> through a tree with his first shot.
>
> You seem to imply, that it does not
> matter if the prominent CTers lie about
> the geometry of the SBT and produce
> diagrams that show that Oswald is
> 25 to 35 horizontal degrees away from
> being straight behind the limousine,
> when it's clear that he was really
> 5 to 10 degrees off. The bottom line
Then I guess you don't mind misrepresenting them by claiming that they
were off by 5 to 10 degrees when you yourself do not know the correct
desgrees.
> is that the bullet could not be that
> pristine so the bullet must have been
> planted.
>
Not exactly. COULD have been planted. COULD be genuine but no do what
you think it did.
> But, if they had a cracker jack
> argument, they would not be foolish
> enough to use lies. If the bullet
If the WC actually had a theory which worked they would not have
needed to lie about the details.
> could not be pristine, they would just
> stick to that argument. They wouldn't
> go with diagrams showing Oswald was
> 25 to 35 degrees off the line
> of travel.
>
You falsely assume they said it was Oswald.
> There are only two claims that CTers
> make, that I and most people, are
> competent to judge on. The geometry
> of the limousine and it's occupants
> as it emerged from the freeway sign
> and whether JFK and Connally are
> reacting at the same time.
>
No, you aren't.
> * CTers claim the geometry of the SBT
> is way off, since the bullet comes in
> at an angle of 25 to 35 degrees.
> Looking at maps and photographs of
> Dealey Plaza, I can see that this
> argument is an obvious lie.
>
Woopie for you. Then you go and make up your own incorrect angles.
> * CTers claim that clearly JFK and
> Connally were wounded 0.5 to 1.5 seconds
> apart (depending on the CTer).
Not quite. I say Z-210 then Z-230.
> Looking at the Zapruder film, I can see
> that this argument is an obvious lie.
> It looks like they react at the same
> time. Granted, one may have a delayed
> reaction, so they could have been
> wounded at different times. But they
> are, never the less, lying about their
> claim that it is "obvious" that JFK and
> Connally are wounded at different times.
>
So you claim that Connally was a liar.
Why am I not surprising that this is your ONLY way out of dealing with
facts.
> Now, there are many other claims.
>
> CTer claim the bullet could not have
> been pristine. I cannot judge this.
> I have not shot dead (nor live) animals
> and dug out the bullets to see what the
> bullets look like. Certainly not with
> Carcano rifles using WCC bullets.
No. Plenty of hunters have retrieved nearly pristine bullets from the
animals they killed using similar FMJ ammo. It is designed to stay intact.
> But, Larry Sturdivan, a ballistic expert
> and LNer claims:
>
> * WCC bullets are full metal jacketed
> bullets, a military bullet, designed
> to comply with the Hague convention.
> This makes the bullet extra sturdy and
> it resists fragmenting and even
> deforming. Generally, CTers do not
> deny this.
>
> * WCC bullets can fired through
> 47 inches of softwood and over
> 20 inches of hardwood, and come out
> pristine. Generally, CTers do not
> deny this.
>
But the same bullet mushroomed just from hitting a test wrist.
All WC defenders deny this simple fact produced by their beloved WC.
> (This, by the way, shows one reason,
> besides the Hague Convention, why
> military bullets are built to be sturdy,
> because if the bullet did deform, it
> would fragment and it would fail to
Not that it makes a lot of difference, but that bullet can deform quite
a bit and not fragment. Other bullets are designed for maximum
deformation without fragmentation.
> penetrate as far as it does.
> And soldiers do sometimes take cover
> behind trees.)
>
> * WCC bullets can be fired through any
> amount of soft animal tissue and will
> come out pristine, even if the bullet
> strikes the animal at muzzle velocity.
> Generally, CTers do not deny this.
>
Your SBT did not involve ONLY soft tissue.
Apples and oranges.
> * The only animal tissue that can deform
> a WCC bullet, is bone. But even here,
> the bullet must be traveling at about
> 65% of it's muzzle velocity or higher.
Says who?
> If it's going slower, the bullet will
> come out pristine. And, since the
> "Stretcher bullet" penetrated about
> 18 inches of tissue, altogether,
> before stopping in Connally's thigh
> and did not hit significant about
> of bone until Connally's rib after
> penetrating 7 inches of soft tissue,
> it sounds plausible to me that the
> bullet may have been slowed to about
> 65% of it's muzzle velocity when it
> stuck the rib. After about 35% of
> human tissue, it sounds plausible
> that the bullet had lost 35% of
> it's speed.
>
Funny how you require an extremely narrow range of conditions to get it
to work, but you can't prove they happened. Unnecessarily complex. Ever
hear of Occam's Razor? Reject overly complicated explanations.
> Of course, CTers dispute this last point.
> They have to, or give up their objections
> to the "Pristine" bullet.
>
> As I said, I can't judge this, not without
> a good deal of experience of shooting
> animals. But, since CTers have clearly
> lied about the geometry and timing of
> the SBT, it is only reasonable to guess
> that they are the ones lying about the
> expected condition of a bullet after
> passing through JFK and Connally.
>
No, CE 399 could have gone through Connally.
> But, of course, the arguments are ever
> shifting. They argue the geometry is off.
Not shifting. The problems with the SBT are legion.
> When one starts to show that their
> arguments are off, they shift to arguing
> the different timing of the JFK and
> Connally wounds. When that argument
> begins to fall apart, they shift to
> arguing about the impossibility of the
> "Pristine" bullet. And on and on it goes
> without ever stopping.
>
> If they had a valid argument, they
> wouldn't need any dubious arguments
> but could just stick to and hammer
> away on their one killer point.
We have not proposed additional arguments which could be classified as
dubious.
> But they do not have a killer point.
> So they use quantity to make up for
> a lack of quality.
>
> ****************************************
>
> The SBT is a very good theory. Points in
> it's favor, just off the top of my head.
>
> * The close positions of six people in a
> confined space, combined with the ability
> of rifle bullets to penetrate a large
> amount of organic material. If three shots
> were fired at JFK and no bullet passed
> though him and another occupant, it would
> be a minor miracle. Many sight lines,
> particularly the "Down the line of travel"
> sight lines that a shooter would want,
> would intersect another person.
>
And yet you think a bullet fragmented in his head and none of those
fragments hit anyone else in the path in front of him.
> * The, at least, pretty good, possibly
> very good (even Myers can't measure
> the torso positions any closer than
> an inch), alignment of JFK's and
> Connally's wounds, an alignment that
> is so good that many prominent CTers
> have felt compelled to lie greatly
> about the horizontal angle of the
> bullet (25-35 degrees).
>
> * The difficulty of having the bullet
> that stuck Connally not hitting JFK
> first.
>
No problem. CE 903 shows there is enough room for bullet to miss JFK
and hit Connally.
> * The even worst difficulty of having
> the bullet that struck JFK not
> continuing on to hit at least
> somewhere on Connally's torso.
>
So, you wouldn't care where it hit.
Doesn't have to be where Connally was actually hit.
Anywhere will do.
> * The simultaneous reactions of JFK
> and Connally, particularly Connally's
> "Shoulder hitch" of his "Soon to be
> hit" torso, the "Coat bulge" of his
> "Soon to be hit" coat at Z224 and
> the flying up of his "Soon to be hit"
> right wrist during Z226-Z230.
>
Myth.
> * The apparent disappearance of the
> bullet, and the failure of the bullet
> to wound anyone else in the limousine
> nor damage the limousine itself,
> after the separate bullet emerged
> from JFK's neck.
>
You don't prove where your missed shot went.
Why is it that the WC defenders never
refer people to the WC document where Rankin explains
that the back wound was LOWER than the neck wound?
Anthony Marsh
The 2039 restriction was standard National Archives policy for
investigative files based on the average human lifespan of 75 years after
the event. That has largely been reversed.
jblubaugh
Why was this allowed to be posted? He accuses prominent CTs of being
liars. I had a post rejected last week for referring to LN "madness".
JB
John McAdams
We would reject stuff that implied that all LNers are "mad."
"The prominent Cters" is not all CTers, and not necessarily anybody
here. The most likely interpretation is that he means high-profile
conspiracy authors, people like Oliver Stone, etc.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. That is not how you chose. You don't chose at all. You only use it
as a clue to investigate. Which is what the HSCA did and found a shot from
the grassy knoll.
And guess what? The acoustical evidence found exactly three shots from the
sniper's nest. How do you explain those odds if it is just junk science?
> A very plausible explaination for the condition of CE399 has been offered
> and is supported by experimental evidence. It has been demonstrated that a
> bullet could pass through two torsos without the nose being flattened. It
Sure, if that's all your SBT requires. Leave out the bones and you might
have something that works. Add the wrist and you lose.
Anthony Marsh
You do realize, I hope, that the HSCA "solved" this by imagining that JFK
was leaning over by 18 degrees? That changes the zero angle to 18 degrees
down.
Anthony Marsh
Poisoning the Well.
> game. There are strong indicators in evidence about what had occurred. The
> game is to collect things that can be claimed as indications of something
> other than the official conclusions. What the Cters have amassed is a
> collection of "objections", which can`t lead anywhere, or be put together
> to form any recognizable shape. I think what they do could probably be
> done in any event where there are a mass of information (especially
> supplied by eyewitnesses), and an intense desire to see an outcome
> different than the evident one. You see the same approach being adopted
> in the 9-11 event. A CTer will say "I see a poof of smoke from the side of
> the building as it collapsed, I say it is an explosive device, prove me
> wrong" (similar to the early "I see a figure in photos on the grassy
> knoll, I say it is a shooter, prove me wrong"). "The Game" is
You won't even admit there is a person there.
Anthony Marsh
No, the release of the Zapruder film is what convinced many people that
it was a conspiracy.
> nuts were sincerely trying to solve this case they would have then
> altered their theory to fit the hard evidence and moved on from
> there. But instead they chose to alter the evidence to fit their
> theory and as a result were diverted on a bizarre sidetrack of Z-film
> alteration. Never has there been a more clear example of "Don't
Except for some of us rabid conspiracy types who have actually proved
that the Zapruder film is authentic. And BTW it proves conspiracy.
> confuse me with the fact--I know what I know." And hence was born the
> practice of NEVER altering your theory, just alter the evidence. This
> has been the MO of the CT for thirty years now. Back in 1975 I too
You are the guys whose tactic has always been to suppress evidence.
> was a devoted conspiracy believer until the HSCA results came out and
> it appeared that the conspiracy press had nothing of substance to
> offer. I, like a few others, switched sides and have never looked
> back. However I don't know of ANY noted LN advocates that have jumped
> ship and switched to the CT side. But individuals like Steve Barber,
> Gus Russo, and Gary Mack who were die-hard conspiracy supporters have
> softened the edge on their conspiracy swords considerably in the face
> of no supporting evidence.
>
Oh please, don't start this nonsense again. Gary Mack claims to believe
it was a conspiracy. Gus Russo thinks Castro was behind it. Steve Barber
still secretly believes it was a conspiracy. And so do you.
> 2. It is more fun to chase after conspiracies than to admit the
> obvious. Plain and simple. Conspiracy lovers love ALL
> conspiracries. Show me a conspiracy believer in the Kennedy case and
Painting with a broad brush again, eh? Anything to slander.
> I will show you a moon landing doubter, a 9-11 conspiracy believer, a
Very few JFK researchers intersect with moon landing doubters.
And 9/11 WAS a conspiracy, unless you think it was just a coincidence
that 19 Arab hijackers all picked the same planes on the same day to
hijack a plane.
FYI, I am one of the leading opponents of the 9/11 was an inside job
theory. It was a well planned conspiracy by terrorists.
> Vince Foster murder believer, and an RFK and MLK conspiracy believer.
Vince Foster? It is the right wing nuts who think Vince Foster was killed.
> Conspiracy beliefs act like a brain disease and before long they
> detach their adherants from reality. Exhibit A--Jack White. Where is
> there a nuttier human on the planet than Jack White? No sane or
> marginally-educated person could carry on a reasonable conversation
> with Jack White for more than five seconds without looking for an
> exit.
>
> 3. As William Manchester wrote, people falsely believe that horrible
> results must have had horrible causes.
>
The old CIA example of comparing on a scale the magnitude of Kennedy on
one side versus the miserable little Oswald on the other. Nice way to
avoid looking at any evidence.
> 4. We live in a TV and motion picture world of altered reality. Life
> doesn't have a lot of surprise endings. Sadly for the CT in reality
> if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and swims like a
> duck, it IS a duck and not a government altered pigeon made to look
> like a duck.
>
Ruby killing Oswald while he was in police custody didn't look like a
surprise ending to you? You saw nothing suspicious there?
> 5. Oswald looks TOO guilty. I have had poor misguided students say
> to me, "But Mr. Anderson there is SO MUCH evidence against Oswald he
> has to be innocent. I mean...NOBODY looks that guilty. It has to be
> a frame-up." I stand with a stunned look on my face, and I ask them
> if they would go to a doctor who advocated that sort of twisted
> logic? If they went to their doctor and he/she said "Elizabeth, you
> haven't had a period in four months, your tummy is getting bigger,
> your blood and urine tests all reflect the fact that you are pregnant,
> you have strange food cravings, and you have to pee all the time.
> Therefore it is my professional opinion that you are NOT pregnant."
>
> Welcome inside the mind of conspiracy logic.
>
Welcome inside the mind of the Central Intelligence Agency, where
White is Black and Black is White.
jblubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Chances are? This post is hogwash and just downright dishonest, John. If
you let someone call a group liars, then allow someone else to opine that
LNs are "mad".
JB
John McAdams
>> here. =A0The most likely interpretation is that he means high-profile
>> conspiracy authors, people like Oliver Stone, etc.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Chances are? This post is hogwash and just downright dishonest, John. If
>you let someone call a group liars, then allow someone else to opine that
>LNs are "mad".
>
>
Let me try once more to explain it.
Anything that is necessarily construed as an insult to people on the
group we reject.
Therefore, broad brush attacks on "LNs" or "CTs" we reject.
But attacks on subsets of LNs or CTs, that don't *necessarily* include
anybody on the group, we allow to be attacked.
So an attack on "crazy conspiracists just out to make a buck" we would
allow. An attack on "Judyth supporters" we would not.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
Yah, that was the plan, to fire shots impossibly close for one
shooter to be responsible in front of the filming crowd.
bigdog
Wrong. The nose of the bullet never struck bone. It didn't strike JBC's
rib nor his wrist. The fact that lead fragments were found in JBC's wrist
indicates the bullet was traveling almost backward when it struck the
wrist bone. The only place lead is exposed is at the base of the bullet.
Not only had the bullet tumbled end-over-end before it struck wrist bone,
it had been slowed significantly by passing through soft tissue of two
torsos and then smashing throuhg JBC's rib. There is nothing in the SBT
which is incompatible with the shattering of JBC's wrist.
>
>
> > requires a bullet tumbling so that the nose never strikes a hard surface.
> > The SBT is the only explaination which is resolves all the evidence. No
> > other plausible theory has ever been presented which is compatible with
> > the physical evidence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
H
yeuhd
> JFK's back wound had an "Upward Trajectory".
>
> HSCA VII page 175.
>
> Pretty hard to do if the shooter was sixty feet above the victim.
The bullet had an upward trajectory only when the body was positioned in
the so-called "anatomical position", i.e., the upper back, shoulders, neck
and head are rigidly upright, in a vertical line. Even then, there's not
much "upward" to the trajectory -- the throat wound was only slightly
above the upper back wound.
But in real life, no one sits that way. If JFK's upper back and shoulders
were sloped as little as 12 to 18 degrees forward, what was an upward
trajectory in the anatomical position now becomes a downward trajectory --
the upper back wound is higher than the throat wound. And indeed, in
photos of JFK taken during the motorcade, including the Croft photo taken
seconds before he was first shot, his upper back and shoulders are
slouching forward.
Trajectory of bullet through JFK's body:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0055b.htm
Slope of single bullet theory trajectory:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0031b.htm
Croft photo:
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/croft.jpg
bigdog
> On 5/11/2009 12:29 PM, Steve wrote:
>
> > 1. It is a matter of pride. Years ago, many as early as 1975 when
> > the Kennedty assassination received renewed media attention, sides
> > were selected and arguments were embraced and being human it makes it
> > difficult to switch later even in the face of hard evidence. A GREAT
> > example is the Zapruder film. From 1963 until 1975 conspiracy
> > believers were CONVINCED that the Z-film had been suppressed because
> > it revealed evidence of multiple gunmen. Then after Robert Groden
> > leaked a bootleg copy and the HSCA made the film more readily
> > accessible it became clear that the Z-film actually fully supported
> > only a rear gunman firing from above and behind. If the conspiracy
>
> No, the release of the Zapruder film is what convinced many people that
> it was a conspiracy.
>
> > nuts were sincerely trying to solve this case they would have then
> > altered their theory to fit the hard evidence and moved on from
> > there. But instead they chose to alter the evidence to fit their
> > theory and as a result were diverted on a bizarre sidetrack of Z-film
> > alteration. Never has there been a more clear example of "Don't
>
> Except for some of us rabid conspiracy types who have actually proved
> that the Zapruder film is authentic. And BTW it proves conspiracy.
>
Wrong again. There is nothing in the Zapruder film that indicates a
conspiracy. If you want to prove conspiracy, you will have to work a
little harder. You will have to prove Oswald had an accomplice.
> > confuse me with the fact--I know what I know." And hence was born the
> > practice of NEVER altering your theory, just alter the evidence. This
> > has been the MO of the CT for thirty years now. Back in 1975 I too
>
> You are the guys whose tactic has always been to suppress evidence.
>
There is not one piece of evidence ever presented that LNs would want to
suppress. Not all evidence is probative, but it should be available for
all to see. That's why the WC issued the 26 volumes in addition to their
report.
> > was a devoted conspiracy believer until the HSCA results came out and
> > it appeared that the conspiracy press had nothing of substance to
> > offer. I, like a few others, switched sides and have never looked
> > back. However I don't know of ANY noted LN advocates that have jumped
> > ship and switched to the CT side. But individuals like Steve Barber,
> > Gus Russo, and Gary Mack who were die-hard conspiracy supporters have
> > softened the edge on their conspiracy swords considerably in the face
> > of no supporting evidence.
>
> Oh please, don't start this nonsense again. Gary Mack claims to believe
> it was a conspiracy. Gus Russo thinks Castro was behind it. Steve Barber
> still secretly believes it was a conspiracy. And so do you.
>
So mind reading is another of your skills. I'm impressed.
> > 2. It is more fun to chase after conspiracies than to admit the
> > obvious. Plain and simple. Conspiracy lovers love ALL
> > conspiracries. Show me a conspiracy believer in the Kennedy case and
>
> Painting with a broad brush again, eh? Anything to slander.
>
> > I will show you a moon landing doubter, a 9-11 conspiracy believer, a
>
> Very few JFK researchers intersect with moon landing doubters.
> And 9/11 WAS a conspiracy, unless you think it was just a coincidence
> that 19 Arab hijackers all picked the same planes on the same day to
> hijack a plane.
> FYI, I am one of the leading opponents of the 9/11 was an inside job
> theory. It was a well planned conspiracy by terrorists.
>
> > Vince Foster murder believer, and an RFK and MLK conspiracy believer.
>
> Vince Foster? It is the right wing nuts who think Vince Foster was killed.
>
> > Conspiracy beliefs act like a brain disease and before long they
> > detach their adherants from reality. Exhibit A--Jack White. Where is
> > there a nuttier human on the planet than Jack White? No sane or
> > marginally-educated person could carry on a reasonable conversation
> > with Jack White for more than five seconds without looking for an
> > exit.
>
> > 3. As William Manchester wrote, people falsely believe that horrible
> > results must have had horrible causes.
>
> The old CIA example of comparing on a scale the magnitude of Kennedy on
> one side versus the miserable little Oswald on the other. Nice way to
> avoid looking at any evidence.
>
>
>
> > 4. We live in a TV and motion- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Anthony Marsh
You don't know that for a fact. Some bullet went through Connally's
wrist and the sizes of the wounds indicate its orientation was nearly
perpendicular.
> indicates the bullet was traveling almost backward when it struck the
> wrist bone. The only place lead is exposed is at the base of the bullet.
Or could indicate that a bullet broke up when it hit the wrist. What you
cite are assumptions.
tomnln
AGAIN>>>
HSCA VII page 175.
Pretty hard to do if the shooter was sixty feet above the victim.
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:961c8aea-40dc-468a...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On May 10, 6:59 pm, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> JFK's back wound had an "Upward Trajectory".
>>
>> HSCA VII page 175.
>>
>> Pretty hard to do if the shooter was sixty feet above the victim.
>
>
>
> The bullet had an upward trajectory only when the body was positioned in
> the so-called "anatomical position", i.e., the upper back, shoulders, neck
> and head are rigidly upright, in a vertical line. Even then, there's not
> much "upward" to the trajectory -- the throat wound was only slightly
> above the upper back wound.
>
> But in real life, no one sits that way. If JFK's upper back and shoulders
> were sloped as little as 12 to 18 degrees forward, what was an upward
> trajectory in the anatomical position now becomes a downward trajectory --
> the upper back wound is higher than the throat wound. And indeed, in
> photos of JFK taken during the motorcade, including the Croft photo taken
> seconds before he was first shot, his upper back and shoulders are
> slouching forward.
>
So, you think JFK was hit at the time of the Croft photo? Then what does
that do to your SBT?
And you think that the Croft photo shows JFK leaning over by 18 degrees?
It matches the HSCA drawing which shows JFK leaning over by 18 degrees?
Anthony Marsh
FYI conspiracy is proven just by having too many shots or shots from two
different directions. You don't even have to know how many shooters were
involved or whether the shooter was paid.
>>> confuse me with the fact--I know what I know." And hence was born the
>>> practice of NEVER altering your theory, just alter the evidence. This
>>> has been the MO of the CT for thirty years now. Back in 1975 I too
>>
>> You are the guys whose tactic has always been to suppress evidence.
>>
>
> There is not one piece of evidence ever presented that LNs would want to
> suppress. Not all evidence is probative, but it should be available for
> all to see. That's why the WC issued the 26 volumes in addition to their
> report.
>
That's why the WC did not release all its evidence in the 26 volumes.
>>> was a devoted conspiracy believer until the HSCA results came out and
>>> it appeared that the conspiracy press had nothing of substance to
>>> offer. I, like a few others, switched sides and have never looked
>>> back. However I don't know of ANY noted LN advocates that have jumped
>>> ship and switched to the CT side. But individuals like Steve Barber,
>>> Gus Russo, and Gary Mack who were die-hard conspiracy supporters have
>>> softened the edge on their conspiracy swords considerably in the face
>>> of no supporting evidence.
>>
>> Oh please, don't start this nonsense again. Gary Mack claims to believe
>> it was a conspiracy. Gus Russo thinks Castro was behind it. Steve Barber
>> still secretly believes it was a conspiracy. And so do you.
>>
>
> So mind reading is another of your skills. I'm impressed.
>
Every time I have been proven correct.
>> read more �
>
>
Bud
Don`t be silly. Conspiracy is proven when you can show conspiring.
> You don't even have to know how many shooters were
> involved or whether the shooter was paid.
Two problems with this are your inability to establish shots too close
together for one shooter to manage, and a lack of imagination that
prevents you from considering two people who never met firing at Kennedy
at the same time as a possibility.
> >> read more »
tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:QSlOl.28046$BZ3....@newsfe12.iad...
David Von Pein
>>> "The bullet had an upward trajectory only when the body was positioned
in the so-called "anatomical position"." <<<
Impossible.
This turned-sideways autopsy photo (below) is vividly informing any
reasonable person that the upper-back wound was located ABOVE the throat
wound "ANATOMICALLY" (or is JFK supposedly NOT in an "anatomic" position
here--or darn close to it at any rate?):
I just cannot believe that anyone (including the HSCA members) could look
at the above photo of JFK and conclude that the UPPER-BACK wound was
anatomically LOWER on Kennedy's body than the visible throat wound in that
photo.
And I can only assume that the HSCA/FPP did, indeed, look at that photo,
in conjunction with the photo that shows the wound to JFK's upper back
(linked below), in order to help them resolve this "higher vs. lower"
controversy.
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
These recent posts have gone to great lengths to supposedly apply
scholarly research to a subject that really has no basis for scholarly
research due to the manipulation of the evidence.
The Cters have the angle/alignment wrong and therefore cannot accept
the obvious fact that the SBT is now the SBF (Theory for fact). And
not only that, we Cters (who, I will remind you do not agree as a unit
on a lot of things) are somehow off in a world of delusion. I submit
to you that there are numerous possibilities of multiple shots, and
Connaly's observation on timing, etc. and just because it's not
provable according to your logic, therefore it is untrue. But again,
if the intent of the WC is to make Oswald the lone assassin and not
open any new doors (many WC legal cousels, Libeler et al, have
acknowledged this is true) what good is the the so called "evidence?"
Your arrogance is insulting. If we dare question anything, we are off
on some wild goose hunt. Yet, the same can be turned back on the other
side, to wit:
* Oswald ran down from the sniper's nest in time to connect with Baker
though the likeliness of this is "unlikely"
* Fritz wrote down Oswald's alibi as in the lunchroom and seeing
Junior and Jarman enter which happenned but he could have predicted
that from previous lunch hour habits.
*Carolyn Walther's testimony which has been discussed ad naueseam here
AND THE WC NEVER CALLED HER.
*The Mexico city CIA tapes were flown to Dallas the night of the
assassination and everyone realized they had a major problem when they
realized the "Oswald on tape" was not the "Oswald in custody" and
acted accordingly
*The Autopsy and the Dallas/Bethesda controversy...much has been
stated about this, but, hey we can make it work. Key point: Humes said
"cerebellum". Ooops. And the witnesses who saw no brain in the head
and the recent posts about Humes removing the brain with no surgery
needed. And the brain weighed... well. we don't know because it wasn't
there.
*Oswald's wallets... all five of them I guess...and two with Alek
Hidell IDs...who ordered the rifle I guess...that's what I'd do if I
was gonna shoot the President
Well, there's a lot more but the question is.....
WHO'S TWISTING? WHO'S MANIPULATING?
Burgundy
Anthony Marsh
No. Two shooters equals conspiracy. Firing from different locations
indicates conspiracy. You do not need to name the conspirators.
>> You don't even have to know how many shooters were
>> involved or whether the shooter was paid.
>
> Two problems with this are your inability to establish shots too close
> together for one shooter to manage, and a lack of imagination that
> prevents you from considering two people who never met firing at Kennedy
> at the same time as a possibility.
>
Lack of imagination? Why, because I am sane and reject the stupid idea
of two lone nuts coincidentally picking the same time and place? You may
be able to trick a kindergardener into believing that. Don't try it here.
>>>> read more �
>
>
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>>>> "The bullet had an upward trajectory only when the body was positioned
> in the so-called "anatomical position"."<<<
>
> Impossible.
>
> This turned-sideways autopsy photo (below) is vividly informing any
> reasonable person that the upper-back wound was located ABOVE the throat
> wound "ANATOMICALLY" (or is JFK supposedly NOT in an "anatomic" position
> here--or darn close to it at any rate?):
>
> http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/009.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO?gda=eh4il0gAAADr6tC8UyTBgT86VBHer5Z9TsAIB-eM2T7F3Z1abwuk1nVHd7P92WQT_OogFubXGiaDH7k_HBP_EtyS7XaNp0ALGjVgdwNi-BwrUzBGT2hOzg&gsc=luaiQhYAAADLwHPEhOhU2QIdxGozgGx_iZdYpI8bFqLfSPVWzjihew
>
>
> I just cannot believe that anyone (including the HSCA members) could look
> at the above photo of JFK and conclude that the UPPER-BACK wound was
> anatomically LOWER on Kennedy's body than the visible throat wound in that
> photo.
>
You are talking about the top forensic pathologists working for the HSCA
who unanimously made that determination. You got any forensic
pathologists of your own who say differently? I didn't think so.
tomnln
<WBurg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b25ff9ed-b8c6-46be...@s20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Burgundy
Hi Burgundy;
The ONLY ones in Total Control of the evidence were the Authorities.
Bud
> On 5/12/2009 9:09 PM,Budwrote:
Don`t be silly. Two shooters working together equals conspiracy.
> Firing from different locations
> indicates conspiracy.
Firing from multiple directions indicate multiple shooters.
>You do not need to name the conspirators.
Apparently you think you don`t even have to show any conspiring. You
seem satisfied just making the claim..
> >> You don't even have to know how many shooters were
> >> involved or whether the shooter was paid.
>
> > Two problems with this are your inability to establish shots too close
> > together for one shooter to manage, and a lack of imagination that
> > prevents you from considering two people who never met firing at Kennedy
> > at the same time as a possibility.
>
> Lack of imagination? Why, because I am sane and reject the stupid idea
> of two lone nuts coincidentally picking the same time and place?
How meaningful; is it that you reject the idea out of hand?
If I was of a mind to shoot Kennedy, and had no access to a building
along the route, I think that if I drove the motorcade route, I would
likely select this area to shoot from. Oswald, of course, lucked out
with front row seats.
>You may
> be able to trick a kindergardener into believing that. Don't try it here.
I`m sure I`d have better luck explaining the concept to a
kindergardener than some here.
> >>>> read more »
WhiskyJoe
> We would reject stuff that implied
> that all LNers are "mad."
> "The prominent CTers" is not all
> CTers, and not necessarily anybody
> here. The most likely interpretation
> is that he means high-profile
> conspiracy authors, people like
> Oliver Stone, etc.
To clarify what I meant. Some prominent
CTers, like Wecht, Harrison,
Livingstone, Groden, Stone, are,
I think, clearly lying about some
things. Namely, the horizontal angle
from Oswald's sniper's perch with the
line of travel of the limousine.
The films and pictures show the
limousine sticking to the middle of
the street. Clearly, looking at maps,
looking at photographs, etc., show the
angle is no where near 25-35 degrees
but is more like 5-10 degrees.
I don't need to know if it was
5.1 or 8.7 degrees. That would
depend on the exact path of the
limousine, which could be turned
left or right by a couple of degrees,
but not 15-30 degrees without the
limousine leaving the center lane.
As far as CTers who post here, I was
suggesting that some of them may be
lying. Not all of them are definitely
lying. Not some of them are definitely
lying. Not all of them might be lying.
But, instead, that, perhaps some of
them may be lying.
I have no proof, I am not a mind reader.
It was just a hunch. I just find it
difficult that people can look at these
diagrams and see that they are obvious
lies. I find it difficult that people
could think that these prominent CTers
are lying, but it's no big deal.
Of course, I could be wrong about this,
likely am. Most of the LNers here think
CTers are sincere. And if some were not
sincere, one would think that from time
to time a CTer would confess that they
were just joking and of course they
knew it was Oswald alone.
The true explanation probably is not
that some CTers are joking, but instead
could be as simple as that it is a
necessary attribute of a serious CTer
who has been exposed to many arguments,
that they see the lies of some prominent
CTers as not important. The bottom
line is that there definitely was a
conspiracy, there definitely were
multiple shooters, so the fact that
some prominent CTers choose to lie may
be an unimportant quirky fact, indeed,
it has to be an unimportant quirky fact.
All that matters is that there definitely
was a conspiracy. Without this attribute,
they will not remain as CTers.
To me, the bottom line is that if there
was a conspiracy, if the evidence for
this was "obvious" then there is no
way so may prominent CTers would use
these false diagrams. Why use a false
argument when one could use perfectly
good, perfectly convincing, arguments?
Why give a weapon to LNers who can
truly point out such major lies from
the CT side? To me the reason is
obvious. They just wouldn't do that.
They would stick to the truth, if they
had the truth on their side.
If you believe, that sometimes, both
sides lie, you are making yourself
unnecessarily vulnerable to people
who lie. They can use lies, which
are a powerful tool, to convince
one of an overall lie. Later, when
one finds out they lied, instead of
turning against them, one still
believes the overall lies. They just
use the excuse that both sides are
lying. This means, that with such a
person, they can lie without risk.
The lie can convince them of the
overall lie and once the lie is
uncovered, the person will still
believe the overall lie.
So, they can use false diagrams to
"prove" the SBT is impossible.
A person becomes convinced from this
of the overall lie, there were multiple
shooters. Later, they find out the
diagrams are false. But they believe
that sometimes, both sides lie.
So they still believe the overall
lie, there were multiple shooters.
I think that deep down they do see a
problem. They are reluctant to admit
right out loud that these diagrams are
way off and likely lies. These lies are
perplexing but still, they know there
were multiple shooters.
Instead, they try changing the subject.
They say "We know from other facts that
the SBT is impossible. Like the condition
of the stretcher bullet. Clearly
impossible." This, despite the fact
that we have ballistic experts on both
sides of the issue, single shooter
versus multiple shooters, Larry Sturdivan
and Howard Donahue, who both say the SBT
is perfectly possible and the condition
of the stretcher bullet is consistent
with what one would expect from a bullet
that was slowed by JFK's neck before
breaking Connally's rib and wrist.
Indeed, I can't recall CTers
mentioning a real ballistic expert
who says the good condition of the
stretcher bullet is highly suspect.
I can't recall a quote from a
ballistic expert who was willing
to put his reputation on the line
and say that bullet could not be
in that condition, even after being
slowed by JFK's neck. Instead, I an
merely told, time after time, that
it's obvious that the bullet couldn't
have been that pristine. No experiments
showing that these bullets cannot break
bone without heavy damage to the bullet.
Just the same claim made over and over
again.
At a minimum, I would like to see an
experiment where a bullet goes though
3 inches of pine wood, then 6 inches,
then 9 inches, etc., up to 48 inches,
before striking a bone. Then have the
bullet "captured" in more wood. Is it
really impossible to break bone and
still have the bullet in "pristine"
shape? Is the only time the bullet
comes out in "pristine" shape when
the bullet is slowed to the point it
can no longer break bone? If this
experiment can be done, why hasn't it
been done and reported?
But no more claims that it's "obvious"
the bullet could not have come out
"pristine". No more examples of if a
bullet is fired directly into a wrist
bone, the bullet fragments. Of course
it fragments. It's still going a near
top speed. I need an example where the
bullet is significantly slowed, as it
would be by JFK's neck, and cannot
strike bone without heavy damage to
the bullet.
Anthony Marsh
>
>> We would reject stuff that implied
>> that all LNers are "mad."
>
>> "The prominent CTers" is not all
>> CTers, and not necessarily anybody
>> here. The most likely interpretation
>> is that he means high-profile
>> conspiracy authors, people like
>> Oliver Stone, etc.
>
> To clarify what I meant. Some prominent
> CTers, like Wecht, Harrison,
> Livingstone, Groden, Stone, are,
> I think, clearly lying about some
> things. Namely, the horizontal angle
> from Oswald's sniper's perch with the
> line of travel of the limousine.
> The films and pictures show the
> limousine sticking to the middle of
> the street. Clearly, looking at maps,
> looking at photographs, etc., show the
> angle is no where near 25-35 degrees
> but is more like 5-10 degrees.
SO, what do you call it when the WC defenders are misrepresenting the
actual angle? Clearly _____?
Your 5 degree angle is impossible. 10 degrees is close. But it is more
like 11-1/2 degrees depending on which frame you pick today.
> I don't need to know if it was
> 5.1 or 8.7 degrees. That would
You don't need to know because you don't care.
> depend on the exact path of the
> limousine, which could be turned
> left or right by a couple of degrees,
> but not 15-30 degrees without the
> limousine leaving the center lane.
>
It is not dependent on how far to the left or right the limo was. A few
degrees change can be caused by the orientation of how the limo is
facing in the lane.
> As far as CTers who post here, I was
> suggesting that some of them may be
> lying. Not all of them are definitely
> lying. Not some of them are definitely
> lying. Not all of them might be lying.
> But, instead, that, perhaps some of
> them may be lying.
>
> I have no proof, I am not a mind reader.
> It was just a hunch. I just find it
> difficult that people can look at these
> diagrams and see that they are obvious
> lies. I find it difficult that people
> could think that these prominent CTers
> are lying, but it's no big deal.
>
Some of the earliest drawings were done by researchers who had not
carefully plotted the angles. And some are based on ridiculing the WC
assumptions.
> Of course, I could be wrong about this,
> likely am. Most of the LNers here think
> CTers are sincere. And if some were not
> sincere, one would think that from time
> to time a CTer would confess that they
> were just joking and of course they
> knew it was Oswald alone.
>
Some even state quite clearly that they leave open the possibility that
Oswald was involved.
> The true explanation probably is not
> that some CTers are joking, but instead
> could be as simple as that it is a
> necessary attribute of a serious CTer
> who has been exposed to many arguments,
> that they see the lies of some prominent
> CTers as not important. The bottom
Some CTers constantly complain about the lies of other CTers.
And that makes them kooks in the eyes of the WC defenders.
> line is that there definitely was a
> conspiracy, there definitely were
> multiple shooters, so the fact that
> some prominent CTers choose to lie may
> be an unimportant quirky fact, indeed,
> it has to be an unimportant quirky fact.
> All that matters is that there definitely
> was a conspiracy. Without this attribute,
> they will not remain as CTers.
>
Wow, is that like high school logic or something?
I am impressed. A CTer believes it was a conspiracy of some type.
What a revelation.
> To me, the bottom line is that if there
> was a conspiracy, if the evidence for
> this was "obvious" then there is no
> way so may prominent CTers would use
> these false diagrams. Why use a false
If the SBT is valid why would the WC defenders keep using false diagrams
and lying about the wound locations?
If it were a proven fact then why wouldn't there be one official diagram
that all WC defenders agree on? There are as many SBT diagrams as there
are WC defenders.
> argument when one could use perfectly
> good, perfectly convincing, arguments?
> Why give a weapon to LNers who can
> truly point out such major lies from
> the CT side? To me the reason is
Why do the WC defenders give such a potent weapon to the CTers when they
constantly lie about the facts? Shooting themselves in the foot.
> obvious. They just wouldn't do that.
> They would stick to the truth, if they
> had the truth on their side.
>
WC defenders wouldn't know the truth if they stepped in it.
> If you believe, that sometimes, both
> sides lie, you are making yourself
> unnecessarily vulnerable to people
> who lie. They can use lies, which
> are a powerful tool, to convince
> one of an overall lie. Later, when
> one finds out they lied, instead of
> turning against them, one still
> believes the overall lies. They just
> use the excuse that both sides are
> lying. This means, that with such a
> person, they can lie without risk.
> The lie can convince them of the
> overall lie and once the lie is
> uncovered, the person will still
> believe the overall lie.
>
> So, they can use false diagrams to
> "prove" the SBT is impossible.
> A person becomes convinced from this
> of the overall lie, there were multiple
> shooters. Later, they find out the
Prove that the SBT is necessary and that it MUST be a conspiracy without
it. The WC couldn't. The FBI didn't need a SBT. Show that your shooter
could not have wounded both men with separate shots.
> diagrams are false. But they believe
> that sometimes, both sides lie.
> So they still believe the overall
> lie, there were multiple shooters.
>
> I think that deep down they do see a
> problem. They are reluctant to admit
> right out loud that these diagrams are
> way off and likely lies. These lies are
> perplexing but still, they know there
> were multiple shooters.
>
They could not possibly have been accurate at the time.
> Instead, they try changing the subject.
> They say "We know from other facts that
> the SBT is impossible. Like the condition
> of the stretcher bullet. Clearly
> impossible." This, despite the fact
> that we have ballistic experts on both
> sides of the issue, single shooter
> versus multiple shooters, Larry Sturdivan
> and Howard Donahue, who both say the SBT
> is perfectly possible and the condition
> of the stretcher bullet is consistent
> with what one would expect from a bullet
> that was slowed by JFK's neck before
> breaking Connally's rib and wrist.
A bullet going through Kennedy's neck is not slowed down enough to make
a critical difference.
> Indeed, I can't recall CTers
> mentioning a real ballistic expert
> who says the good condition of the
> stretcher bullet is highly suspect.
> I can't recall a quote from a
> ballistic expert who was willing
> to put his reputation on the line
> and say that bullet could not be
> in that condition, even after being
> slowed by JFK's neck. Instead, I an
The WC's own ballistics expert, Dr. Olivier.
> merely told, time after time, that
> it's obvious that the bullet couldn't
> have been that pristine. No experiments
> showing that these bullets cannot break
> bone without heavy damage to the bullet.
The WC's own tests.
> Just the same claim made over and over
> again.
>
> At a minimum, I would like to see an
> experiment where a bullet goes though
> 3 inches of pine wood, then 6 inches,
> then 9 inches, etc., up to 48 inches,
> before striking a bone. Then have the
> bullet "captured" in more wood. Is it
> really impossible to break bone and
> still have the bullet in "pristine"
> shape? Is the only time the bullet
> comes out in "pristine" shape when
> the bullet is slowed to the point it
> can no longer break bone? If this
> experiment can be done, why hasn't it
> been done and reported?
>
It depends on what assumptions you make. In every case the test bullets
fired into wrist came out deformed.
> But no more claims that it's "obvious"
> the bullet could not have come out
> "pristine". No more examples of if a
> bullet is fired directly into a wrist
> bone, the bullet fragments. Of course
> it fragments. It's still going a near
> top speed. I need an example where the
> bullet is significantly slowed, as it
> would be by JFK's neck, and cannot
> strike bone without heavy damage to
> the bullet.
>
More misinformation. Going through Kennedy's neck did not
"significantly" slow the bullet. Tests show that it would be slowed only
about 139 fps.
tomnln
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:723b995f-d4f7-46fe...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> The WCR describes the angle from the window to the Limo as 45-60 degrees..
>
>
>
No, it doesn't. Stop making up crap.
WhiskyJoe
> Your 5 degree angle is impossible.
> 10 degrees is close. But it is more
> like 11-1/2 degrees depending on
> which frame you pick today.
Let's go with your 11.5 degrees.
The Pro LN diagrams of 5-10 degrees
would only be off by 1.5 to 6.5
degrees. Not an impossible error.
The Anti SBT diagrams of 25, 30 to 35
degrees would be off by 13.5 to 23.5
degrees.
Over the years, who has given us the
more accurate diagrams, CTers, off by
up to 23.5 degrees or LNers, off by
up to 6.5 degrees?
And that 11.5 degree estimate may
be off. Likely is. If CTers have given
estimates that are off by over 13.5
degrees, they could surely be off by
1.5 degrees or more.
> Some of the earliest drawings were
> done by researchers who had not
> carefully plotted the angles.
Even someone with no surveying training,
with no surveying instruments, could not
come up with drawings as far of as these.
They cannot be the result of honest error
but of active deception.
And the Anti SBT diagram that is seen
by more people than all others together,
the one with the close up with Kevin
Costner using his pointer to "prove"
the impossibility of the SBT is off by
at least 13 degrees, likely more.
And that was made over 27 years after
the assassination.
> And some are based on ridiculing the
> WC assumptions.
But that is the excuse they would use
if the prominent CTers were lying.
They would go with the "Big Lie",
because that is what works best.
When caught, they just say they were
ridiculing the SBT.
***************************************
***************************************
***************************************
***************************************
The bottom line is, like 99% of the
population, like over 90% of the
posters here, I have no special
training in investigating criminal
matters. I cannot check out most of
the CT claims.
The stretcher bullet could not be
"Pristine"? I don't know if a bullet
hitting bone will always fragment
into one hundred pieces or always
come out pristine. I have no
experience with the rifle and
ammunition.
But there are two things I can make
an informed decision on. The geometry
of the SBT and when JFK and Connally
first react from the gunshots.
The CTers claim that the geometry if
off by over ten degrees, that the
bullet will miss Connally's armpit
by over a foot. And that Connally
clearly does not react for 0.5 to
1.5 seconds after JFK. And on both
points, they are clearly lying.
So, on points I have no expertise in,
like the expected condition of a
bullet, I will not go with the CT
claims. And it's their own fault
if I am mistaken.
Anthony Marsh
>
>> Your 5 degree angle is impossible.
>> 10 degrees is close. But it is more
>> like 11-1/2 degrees depending on
>> which frame you pick today.
>
> Let's go with your 11.5 degrees.
> The Pro LN diagrams of 5-10 degrees
> would only be off by 1.5 to 6.5
> degrees. Not an impossible error.
>
Yes, an impossible error. Why are you spreading misinformation?
Whose interest does that serve? Certainly not the public's nor history.
> The Anti SBT diagrams of 25, 30 to 35
> degrees would be off by 13.5 to 23.5
> degrees.
>
If you falsely assume that they were intended to be highly accurate
depictions instead of criticism.
> Over the years, who has given us the
> more accurate diagrams, CTers, off by
> up to 23.5 degrees or LNers, off by
> up to 6.5 degrees?
>
You want high levels of accuracy? Then check out Bob Cutler's diagrams
or mine.
> And that 11.5 degree estimate may
> be off. Likely is. If CTers have given
Likely is? You don't know what you are talking about.
> estimates that are off by over 13.5
> degrees, they could surely be off by
> 1.5 degrees or more.
>
>> Some of the earliest drawings were
>> done by researchers who had not
>> carefully plotted the angles.
>
> Even someone with no surveying training,
> with no surveying instruments, could not
> come up with drawings as far of as these.
Wrong. They could easily make up angles to ridicule the WC assumptions.
> They cannot be the result of honest error
> but of active deception.
>
They are criticism, sarcasm.
None of the original artists actually think the real bullet twisted and
turned in midair. They are ridiculing the WC SBT by saying that is what
the bullet would have to do.
> And the Anti SBT diagram that is seen
> by more people than all others together,
> the one with the close up with Kevin
> Costner using his pointer to "prove"
> the impossibility of the SBT is off by
> at least 13 degrees, likely more.
> And that was made over 27 years after
> the assassination.
>
I do not believe that drawing was made 27 years later. In case you
didn't figure it out yet, the movie JFK is about events only a few years
after the assassination. That is the time period being depicted. Notice
the old cars?
>> And some are based on ridiculing the
>> WC assumptions.
>
> But that is the excuse they would use
> if the prominent CTers were lying.
> They would go with the "Big Lie",
> because that is what works best.
> When caught, they just say they were
> ridiculing the SBT.
>
You picked up some tidbit about how propaganda works and now you think
you can apply it wherever you want.
The conspiracy drawings were never intended to depict what the
conspiracy believers think actually happened. Only to show the flaws of
the WC's SBT.
> ***************************************
> ***************************************
> ***************************************
> ***************************************
>
> The bottom line is, like 99% of the
> population, like over 90% of the
> posters here, I have no special
> training in investigating criminal
> matters. I cannot check out most of
> the CT claims.
>
That has been painfully obvious. You can't even check out the specific
angles. You don't even have a good map of Dealey Plaza. You can't even
measure the angles off WC defender drawings. You can't even pay
attention when Dale Myers tells you exactly what the angles are.
> The stretcher bullet could not be
> "Pristine"? I don't know if a bullet
No, the stretcher bullet was not pristine. So what?
A bullet could go through someone and come out looking as good as CE 399
does. The problem is expecting it to do all the damage that the WC
defenders claim for it.
> hitting bone will always fragment
> into one hundred pieces or always
No one said always fragment into one hundred pieces.
Olivier said always mushroom the tip as his tests showed.
> come out pristine. I have no
> experience with the rifle and
> ammunition.
>
Painfully obvious. Which is why you make such ridiculous claims.
> But there are two things I can make
> an informed decision on. The geometry
> of the SBT and when JFK and Connally
> first react from the gunshots.
>
No, you can't. You do not have the geometry. You do not know simple
geometry. You can't measure the angles. You can't read the documents.
> The CTers claim that the geometry if
> off by over ten degrees, that the
> bullet will miss Connally's armpit
> by over a foot. And that Connally
Various CTers have various theories about how a bullet can miss
Connally. The most important thing is that the angles as proposed so far
do not make the bullet hit Connally where we know he was hit.
> clearly does not react for 0.5 to
> 1.5 seconds after JFK. And on both
> points, they are clearly lying.
>
Oh really? You mean like the HSCA's SBT which has both men being hit at
Z-190? So you'd see Connally reacting at Z-224 to a hit at Z-190?
But it is still a SBT so you should be happy with it.
> So, on points I have no expertise in,
> like the expected condition of a
> bullet, I will not go with the CT
> claims. And it's their own fault
> if I am mistaken.
>
Since you have no facts, you have no basis to reject the claims.
WhiskyJoe
> Your 5 degree angle is impossible.
> 10 degrees is close. But it is more
> like 11-1/2 degrees depending on
> which frame you pick today.
Myers claimed the angle was 10 degrees.
By making it 10 degrees, he was able
to get the SBT geometry to work.
But you claim the angle was really
11.5 degrees. If that is correct,
the conspirators were incredibly
lucky. Depending on where locations
of the wounds are on JFK and
Connally, they might need a limousine
angle of anywhere between 0 and 45
degrees, to make the geometry work.
But as luck would have it, they needed
an angle of 10.0 degrees, which just
happened to be within a 1.5 degrees
of the true angle of the limousine,
11.5 degrees. What a great stroke
of luck.
Maybe since one side has made claims
all over the place, from 11.5 to 35
degrees, but the other side has
consistently gone with 5 to 10
degrees, we should go with the side
that has been the most consistent.
And all LNers believe that Myers
has come up with the best estimate,
10 degrees. We should go with
10 degrees.
And I wonder if in the future you
will go with a bigger angle than
11.5 degrees.
yeuhd
> On 5/12/2009 4:04 PM, yeuhd wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 6:59 pm, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> JFK's back wound had an "Upward Trajectory".
>
> >> HSCA VII page 175.
>
> >> Pretty hard to do if the shooter was sixty feet above the victim.
>
> > The bullet had an upward trajectory only when the body was positioned in
> > the so-called "anatomical position", i.e., the upper back, shoulders, neck
> > and head are rigidly upright, in a vertical line. Even then, there's not
> > much "upward" to the trajectory -- the throat wound was only slightly
> > above the upper back wound.
>
> > But in real life, no one sits that way. If JFK's upper back and shoulders
> > were sloped as little as 12 to 18 degrees forward, what was an upward
> > trajectory in the anatomical position now becomes a downward trajectory --
> > the upper back wound is higher than the throat wound. And indeed, in
> > photos of JFK taken during the motorcade, including the Croft photo taken
> > seconds before he was first shot, his upper back and shoulders are
> > slouching forward.
>
> So, you think JFK was hit at the time of the Croft photo? Then what does
> that do to your SBT?
What part of "the Croft photo taken seconds before he was first shot"
do you not understand?
tomnln
You continue to Impeach your own official records.
"yeuhd" <Needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:612650a9-1b1c-465c...@g19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Then don't cite it for anything.
Anthony Marsh
>
>> Your 5 degree angle is impossible.
>> 10 degrees is close. But it is more
>> like 11-1/2 degrees depending on
>> which frame you pick today.
>
> Myers claimed the angle was 10 degrees.
> By making it 10 degrees, he was able
> to get the SBT geometry to work.
>
As I said before it depends on which frame you claim for your SBT.
He appears to be assuming Z-224.
BTW, look at his depiction of the open window in the sniper's nest.
Notice how he has it halfway open, wider than the measured 13 inches.
> But you claim the angle was really
> 11.5 degrees. If that is correct,
> the conspirators were incredibly
> lucky. Depending on where locations
The conspirators did not need a specific angle because they never
intended to intentionally wound both men with one shot.
"My God, they are going to kill us all."
> of the wounds are on JFK and
> Connally, they might need a limousine
> angle of anywhere between 0 and 45
> degrees, to make the geometry work.
> But as luck would have it, they needed
> an angle of 10.0 degrees, which just
> happened to be within a 1.5 degrees
> of the true angle of the limousine,
> 11.5 degrees. What a great stroke
> of luck.
>
Your flights of fantasy have nothing to do with the specific angles
involved.
> Maybe since one side has made claims
> all over the place, from 11.5 to 35
> degrees, but the other side has
No, this side has not claimed 35 degrees.
That is what you say.
> consistently gone with 5 to 10
No one else has gone with 5 degrees. Only you.
> degrees, we should go with the side
> that has been the most consistent.
> And all LNers believe that Myers
> has come up with the best estimate,
> 10 degrees. We should go with
> 10 degrees.
>
No, they don't. Each WC defender picks a different frame.
If you agree with Dale Myers then by all means claim frame Z-224 and 10
degrees.
> And I wonder if in the future you
> will go with a bigger angle than
> 11.5 degrees.
>
Well, considering the fact that I don't have a SBT, I have no incentive
to pick another angle. My hit to JFK is at Z-210.
WhiskyJoe
> Some of the earliest drawings were
> done by researchers who had not
> carefully plotted the angles.
> And some are based on ridiculing
> the WC assumptions.
Of course, if they were lying, if there
lie was too big to be true, they would
claim they were merely making diagrams
to ridicule the other side. What else
would we expect of big time liars.
If all else fails, they will fall back
on that excuse.
The true is, that these diagram that
are off by 15 to 25 degrees. They were
wildly off because big lies are
effective. No one expects one would
lie more than they have to. By the time
people find out about the lie, hopefully
the belief in conspiracy will be so
strong it won't matter.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
http://www.geocities.com/verisimus101/sbt.htm
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100sbt.html
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0173a.htm
Anthony Marsh
>
>> Some of the earliest drawings were
>> done by researchers who had not
>> carefully plotted the angles.
>> And some are based on ridiculing
>> the WC assumptions.
>
> Of course, if they were lying, if there
> lie was too big to be true, they would
> claim they were merely making diagrams
> to ridicule the other side. What else
> would we expect of big time liars.
> If all else fails, they will fall back
> on that excuse.
>
> The true is, that these diagram that
> are off by 15 to 25 degrees. They were
Oh, you mean like the Big Lie when someone says the angle was really 5
degrees? You mean like that?