A Common-Sense Approach To The Single-Bullet Theory
David VP
TO IT.........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just felt the need to interject a few more thoughts regarding the
Single-Bullet Theory (and the likelihood that ANY CT alternative to the
SBT could be MORE credible, given the known wounds and the known
evidence, than the SBT conclusion reached by the Warren Commission).
If the SBT is indeed incorrect, then we are forced to believe that not
just ONE, but TWO, rifle bullets failed to penetrate all the way
through the neck and back of JFK -- from probably high-powered weapons,
because WHY would any plotters trying to kill the President -- and no
doubt wanting to MAKE SURE THEY KILL HIM AT ALL COSTS -- utilize
anything BUT high-powered weaponry in such a murder attempt?
Logical? I say no, it is not.
If you wish to argue that perhaps ONE of the shots was a "dum-dum" of
some type, or that ONE shot was a misfire and therefore the velocity
entering Kennedy was severely reduced -- OK. But TWO such shots of this
kind that do not transit the soft flesh of JFK in the throat AND upper
back regions?
Odds please?
Even if you want to argue (and you have and shall again no doubt) that
the "angles" are not PRECISELY dead-on correct for the SBT to "work" or
"align" properly back to the "Oswald window" in the Texas School Book
Depository -- in my considered viewpoint, ANY conspiracy theory that
we're forced to "substitute" for the official SBT falls apart on many,
many different levels.
For example -- Here's what certainly MUST have occurred (via the CT
account) INSTEAD of the SBT:
1.) Three shots must "replace" the one single shot known as the "SBT".
There IS no way around this first point here. Because LACKING the SBT
to explain the throat wound to JFK and both of the victims' separate
back wounds, CTers are forced to postulate that one of the two
following things occurred........
A.) The bullet that struck JFK did go all the way through him but,
somehow spectacularly, MISSED the man sitting right in front of him who
was in direct line to receive this bullet and this bullet was then
scooped up from inside the limo by plotters after the fact and disposed
of AND the damage to the inside of the limousine that was no doubt
caused by this bullet was completely eradicated in very short order
after the event. Likely (even in a CT world)? Hardly. Especially in
light of this WC testimony from Robert Frazier of the FBI......
Mr. SPECTER -- "Did your examination of the President's limousine
disclose any other holes or markings which could have conceivably been
caused by a bullet striking the automobile or any part of the
automobile?"
Mr. FRAZIER -- "No, sir."
-- Or: --
B.) Lacking the T&T shot through JFK, we're left to accept a 3-Shot
scenario to explain these wounds to the two victims -- fired by THREE
separate gunmen as well (two from the rear and one from the front).
Given the very tight timeline (even per CTers, who have JFK hit in the
throat with Shot #1 at Z195 to Z200 approx.), I'd like to know how
there could have possibly been LESS than three gunmen utilized to
inflict all these wounds in the allowable timeframe?
2.) All three of these (supposedly) entry wounds on JFK & JBC line
themselves up in such a fashion on the bodies to give the APPEARANCE
that they could have ALL been "in line" so as to have been caused by
just a single missile passing through both men simultaneously. .... I
have yet to hear any reasonable and believable CT explanation that
logically rationalizes and defends this amazing "wound placement"
occurrence on TWO different victims. Even CTers must admit that the
likelihood of these wounds aligning in such a fashion on two victims is
pretty remote at best. For, if THREE gunmen managed to pull that
shooting feat off with three different bullets, then it's a
marksmanship accomplishment that should be featured prominently at
Ripley's Believe-It-Or-Not Museum, IMHO.
3.) ALL THREE bullets that are replacing the SBT via a CTer's alternate
theory now ALL get lost! Or are ALL disposed of by evil plotters! In
either instance, all three bullets that peppered Kennedy & Connally are
never entered into any kind of Official record representing this murder
case. Odds please? Is this a logical conclusion to come to?
For one thing: Why didn't Dr. Malcolm Perry (or Dr. Carrico or Dr.
Jenkins or Dr. McClelland) physically SEE the bullet that only ventured
part way through Mr. Kennedy's throat? It seems logical to me, given
the HANDS-ON circumstances we're dealing with here re. Perry's having
to make an actual incision into this VERY wound in the throat for
tracheostomy purposes, that Perry (or others) might very well have been
able to see the bullet in JFK's throat, seeing as how it did not exit,
per this theory.
In short, how could the "plotters" have possibly gotten THAT LUCKY so
that all three of those whole bullets, in 2 bodies, were never
recovered by anyone at Parkland Hospital, and so lucky to NOT have even
ONE of these three bullets enter the official record at any time?
Especially with regard to the Connally AWOL bullet. Here's a bullet
that enters a man who LIVED through the ordeal, and whose body could
not be "controlled" later at some "fixed" or "phonied" autopsy by the
conspirators (as many CTers believe occurred with respect to JFK's
autopsy at Bethesda).
This Connally bullet, IMO, is the KEY bullet that shows beyond any
reasonable doubt that no foul play was afoot with respect to the
bullets. This unexpected SECOND victim of the assassination attempt
(JBC), and yet ANOTHER (THIRD) bullet that is "conveniently missing",
makes it FAR more difficult to believe in a vast conspiracy and
cover-up in this case (overall). I ask: What are the odds that the
plotters could have "controlled" all the trace evidence within TWO
victims in such a plot, one of whom survived the shooting?
4.) With respect to TWO separate bullets that BOTH fail to transit the
body of President Kennedy -- I'll ask again the same recurring inquiry
here -- What Are The Odds? What is the likelihood that these
conspirators would have had TWO "dud" rounds fired into JFK? -- TWO
non-lethal missiles that pierce his body only a LITTLE BIT, and fail to
kill him OR to penetrate the soft tissues of his neck and upper back?
Doesn't this sound the slightest bit GOOFY to anyone else but me?
But perhaps a better question here might be -- WHY would killers, bent
on having a dead President by the end of November 22nd, have utilized
such low-powered weaponry in a Presidential assassination attempt?
Shouldn't they have wanted, and insisted, on the MAXIMUM firepower
possible here? And if not, why not? Why would ANY "Pre-Kill" shots NEED
to be fired at the President? Just...why? Does this add up at all?
It would also be very interesting to know the odds of JFK having NO
metal fragments or trace evidence of bullets left inside his neck &
back regions IF he had been, in fact, shot TWICE in these areas of the
body AND if these bullets had remained in him for several hours after
he was shot by these non-transiting missiles.
I'm not entirely sure how valid this argument might be on my LN behalf
-- but isn't it a little more than likely that at least one of these
bullets that somehow just came to a dead STOP in JFK's neck & back
would have left at least a tiny bit of trace evidence behind? (Or do
the CTers that espouse this theory also theorize that every last tiny
grain of metal fragments that either of these bullets MIGHT have left
inside JFK's body was somehow completely eradicated, too, prior to
autopsy and prior to the X-rays being taken?)
When combined all together, don't ALL of these CT points that would
have HAD to have occurred in order to explain the "SBT wounds" AND lack
of bullets entering the official record seem just a tad far-fetched and
unrealistic?
To me, they're more than just a "tad" far-fetched and unreasonable --
they're downright illogical from every point-of-view. It seems to me
that any attempts to explain those wounds that were sustained at
virtually an identical time by John Kennedy and John Connally in a "CT
light" fail to hold up the least little bit when held up to the bright
light of scrutiny.
If the only way to "explain away" the SBT to "fit" a conspiracy
scenario is to come up with a "plot" that includes THREE different
shooters, firing THREE bullets into two different victims, from THREE
different locations, and incredibly have all three of these missiles
pepper the victims in just such a pattern so that it looks like it
COULD (even remotely so) be reconciled into a "SBT", and THEN (on top
of this miracle bit of shooting by three different gunmen) to get ALL
THREE of these separate bullets to vanish and to never enter the
official record -- then, from where I sit, plain ol' common sense is
telling me that something's just a bit screwy about this "CT" plot
which perfectly worked out to appease the WC and its loyal followers.
And -- Any such "multi-shooter" scenario is also very unlikely
(probability-wise alone) from the popular "Frame The Patsy Oswald"
standpoint. Would these plotters have deliberately been so foolhardy
and utterly reckless as to fire three separate shots into JFK's body
(including the head shot), from varying angles (some of them non-"SN"
angles), and yet STILL, incredibly, expect every last scrap of
ballistic evidence to get traced back to ONLY Lee Oswald's rifle AND
get traced back to only Oswald's "Sniper's Nest" window in the
Depository? They couldn't POSSIBLY have thought that this
"Multi-Shooter Patsy Plan" could succeed on its BEST day! Could they?
(I think not.)
Whereas, the "LN alternative" rests (IMO) on the very logical and sound
shoulders of the "SBT" -- a theory in which all of the following is
thoroughly explained.......
1.) Every bullet (totalling 'one' in number) is recovered and enters
the official record (Bullet #CE399). There are no mysteries as to any
"missing" missiles.
2.) The fact that no bullets were found inside JFK or JBC is perfectly
logical and to be expected via the SBT. Plus the very important fact
that no bullet holes or similar missile damage was done to the limo's
interior in the back seat areas of the automobile.
3.) All wounds to both men are perfectly consistent with the SBT. The
downward, back-to-front and slightly right-to-left "alignment" of the
wounds suffered by JFK & JBC are, IMO, wholly indicative of a single
shot that passed through both men (esp. when factoring in the oblong
wound in the back sustained by JBC, plus the lack of bullets found in
the bodies, AND the fact that no one ELSE was hit by gunfire in the
limousine, AND the fact that no damage was done to the car's rear or
jump seats by any missiles during the shooting).
4.) Via the Zapruder Film, the SBT "holds up" under intense scrutiny as
well (IMO), with both victims reacting to external (bullet) stimulus at
virtually an identical time on the film. People will no doubt argue
this point until the cows come home, but I still defy ANYONE to look at
the Z-Film (running at regular, real-time speed) and tell me they can
say with certainty that President Kennedy and Governor Connally are NOT
reacting to being hit by a bullet at the very same point in time.
------------
Many CTers don't think it's necessary at all to come up with any kind
of logical "alternative" scenario to explain all the wounds to JFK and
JBC -- let alone a full, complete version of the pre-Head Shot event
which would tie up all or most of the "loose ends" with regard to this
event. They just seem to KNOW that the SBT is dead wrong based on the
angles being slightly off or the reactions of the two victims being far
enough apart to make the SBT an impossibility.
But any CT substitute "answers" to reconcile all these wounds in two
victims (when such "answers" occasionally are provided, always in the
form of pure out-&-out guesses by the CT community) are FAR less
credible and less substantive and far less BELIEVABLE (IMO) than is the
official version of the event -- the SBT.
In fact, even the majority of CTers (from what I've seen anyway) cannot
even agree with EACH OTHER on some of the most essential and basic
things that occurred on Elm Street on 11-22-63.
IOW -- Why should I place any faith in any of a wide variety of
unsupportable theories coming from a horde of self-appointed "experts"
in the CT community who berate the Official WC version of events
sometimes without even FULLY knowing what the WC conclusions are? (This
comment isn't really directed at Lancer Forum members, but is aimed
mostly at other people I've encountered in this regard.)
But, IMO, the critics have done little to disprove the SBT. But, on the
flip-side of that coin, there have been true-to-life and animated tests
performed over the years that have backed up (concretely) the validity
of the Single-Bullet Theory. But these tests, too, have been ridiculed
as being "inaccurate", with "manufactured" angles and results, and
incorrect measurements utilized. I, naturally, completely and fervently
disagree.
>From what I've seen re. these "tests" (the FAA simulation, Mr. Myers'
project, and the 2004 Discovery Channel SBT re-creation, which should,
in my view, be VERY convincing to any critic of the theory, but, of
course, is not), they've been conducted in an open and wholly
above-board and honest manner, with re-creations that are as close to
being as accurate as humanly possible (esp. given the "unknowns"
regarding some measurements -- like the EXACT positioning of Mr.
Connally's wrist at the moment the bullet hit him, plus the EXACT
positioning of JFK and JBC to each other in the car during the
shooting; these things can only be "guesses" to a certain extent, no
matter which side of the debate you reside on, as I'm sure even all
CTers will concur).
What I'd like to see are similar "Discovery Channel"-like tests done by
the CT side, in order to PROVE once and for all their belief that the
SBT is so full of holes you could drive the President's X-100 Lincoln
convertible through them! Thus far, I've seen NO such tests that would
PROVE that either Mr. Myers or The Discovery Channel people got it
completely wrong.
Until such proof can be reasonably demonstrated, I truly cannot see how
anyone can totally dismiss the possibility (or probability, IMO) that
the Single-Bullet Theory is the CORRECT THEORY in the JFK murder case.
Even when viewed at a slower speed, I still challenge anyone watching
this top clip (below) of the Zapruder Film to provide one shred of
verifiable proof that the Single-Bullet Theory is a Lone-Nutter's wild
fantasy.
Tell me the truth, what do you see here? ..........
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif
www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=28318
David Von Pein
May 2005
WhiskyJoe
If one just looks at the Zapruder film as the limousine emerges from
behind the sign, one can clearly seen that both Kennedy and Connally are
reacting strongly to being shot. Connally's reactions don't start in the
230's frames. He is clearly reacting by 224, when he becomes fully
visible, just as strongly as Kennedy is reacting.
Most CTers are oblivious to how lucky the conspirators were in the SBT is
false.
And it would be amazing that the wounds on Kennedy and Connally would line
up so well if caused by two different bullets. Even CTers admit that the
bullet wounds are within a few inches of being in the correct locations,
even if one goes with the holes in the bunched up clothes and not with the
wound locations on the bodies.
It would be fantastic luck that two different bullets hit so near the
perfect locations, near simultaneously, so one could claim the wounds were
caused by just one bullet. Weren't those conspirators the luckiest devils
around. They even got a lucky puff of wind at the perfect time to puff out
Connally's lapel. And somehow the bullet that hit Kennedy did not go on to
hit Connally. And somehow the bullet that that struck Connally was not
blocked by Kennedy. And one of those bullets just disappeared. Indeed, I
guess both of those bullets disappeared since the Parkland bullet was
supposedly planted.
And so many people are impressed by the fact that the Parkland bullet was
so "pristine", but think nothing of the fact that such a bullet can and
will penetrate 39 inches of wood with less damage than the Parkland
bullet. And for the record, the Parkland bullet was not pristine, it's
base was squeezed so much that instead of having a circular base, the
narrow (minor) axis was half as wide as the wide (major) axis.
And people speak of the SBT as being "ridiculous".
Glenn Sarlitto
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144557445.1...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY: AN ANTI-CONSPIRACIST'S COMMON-SENSE APPROACH
> TO IT.........
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I just felt the need to interject a few more thoughts regarding the
> Single-Bullet Theory (and the likelihood that ANY CT alternative to the
> SBT could be MORE credible, given the known wounds and the known
> evidence, than the SBT conclusion reached by the Warren Commission).
David,
Perhaps I've misinterpreted the WCR...
My take is that the WC reported an SBP (Single Bullet Probability).
Exactly where in the report do you find that the WC concluded that it was
strictly a single bullet and excluded all other possibilities?
JPC (Just Plain Curious),
Glenn Sarlitto
David VP
Oh, not just TWO bullets, Joe -- CTers need THREE of 'em (without
fail).
A two-shot "alternative" to the SBT won't cut it at all....that'd mean
a T&T shot through JFK that not only magically misses the man right in
front of JFK -- which IS impossible, IMO...and in Dale Myers' opinion
too....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
....it also would mean a T&T shot that did no damage at all to the limo
after exiting Kennedy's neck.
CTers must therefore think, via this version of the theory, that the
limo was stitched up real quick by Martha Stewart & Associates on 11/22
PM...right? Yeah, that's the answer! How silly of me. ~slaps forehead~
And Martha collected the stray bullet too, and put it in her purse.
Either that....or -- Robert Frazier is one of THE MAIN co-plotters in
the cover-up when he said "no damage" to the inside of the limo...and,
equally as important, NO WHOLE BULLET found there either which could be
attributed to a JFK T&T neck shot.
So, CTers NEED 3 separate bullets AND three separate SHOOTERS too to
"replace" the SBT. No way just two killers could create all those
wounds given the available time per the Z-Film. Even CTers will admit
this is true. Timeline's too tight. JFK & JBC could not possibly have
been hit in the back with separate shots from the SAME gunman (unless
said shooter is using a machine gun or other automatic weapon). And I
know of ZERO total CTers that believe that.
Peter Makres
"WhiskyJoe" <jr...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:1144629093.7...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Makres
"Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4439...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1144557445.1...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY: AN ANTI-CONSPIRACIST'S COMMON-SENSE APPROACH
>> TO IT.........
>>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I just felt the need to interject a few more thoughts regarding the
>> Single-Bullet Theory (and the likelihood that ANY CT alternative to the
>> SBT could be MORE credible, given the known wounds and the known
>> evidence, than the SBT conclusion reached by the Warren Commission).
>
>
>
> David,
>
> Perhaps I've misinterpreted the WCR...
>
> My take is that the WC reported an SBP (Single Bullet Probability).
Glenn,
I'm glad you pointed this out. Somewhere along the line it
was coined as a "Theory", no doubt by one of the early critics. Then of
course came the "magic bullet" nickname. I could be wrong but I think
Wecht may have been the one to come up with that one.
But it has stood the test of time very well, despite the denials from the
CT camp.
Dale Myers had a better was to describe it, IMO. Nothing "magic" about it,
it's not even a "theory". It's a single bullet FACT. (quote off).
Peter M.
David VP
Yes, you are technically correct in your remark here. I cannot deny that.
The WC said that "two bullets probably caused all the wounds to JFK and
JBC".
But, let's face it, all other "possibilities" fail to stand up to any of
the physical evidence (i.e., if three bullets did the SBT damage -- WHERE
THE HELL ARE THE BULLETS??! And: Where the heck is the damage inside
Kennedy's neck that resulted from TWO stopped-on-a-dime bullets?) ... and
any other "possibility" certainly fails the "common-sense" test, as I've
rattled on about endlessly in previous posts. (3 shooters create
perfect-looking "SBT"-like wounds? Get real.)
And then we have Arlen Specter saying the following on BBC television in
the mid-1960s, shortly after the Warren Report was officially released to
the masses (probably doesn't mean much to staunch CTers...but I'll toss it
out here anyway)......
"You call it the theory; I call it the conclusion; it was a theory until
we found the facts; that's why I refer to it as the Single-Bullet
Conclusion" -- Arlen Specter; circa 1965; Via BBC-TV documentary, "The
Death Of Kennedy"
David Wimp
> Way to go David.
>
>
>
> If one just looks at the Zapruder film as the limousine emerges from
> behind the sign, one can clearly seen that both Kennedy and Connally are
> reacting strongly to being shot. Connally's reactions don't start in the
> 230's frames. He is clearly reacting by 224, when he becomes fully
> visible, just as strongly as Kennedy is reacting.
>
How do you know that JBC isn't reacting to the shot but not actually shot?
In all accounts that I know of, JBC said that he heard a shot, immediately
thought somebody was shooting at the President, and started trying to turn
around and see him. You seem mighty sure that you can determine that
JBC's reaction is from actually being shot. I don't think it is at all
clear.
tomnln
That Original 3 shot 3 hit scenario drawing was put forth by "The USIA".
"United States Information Service".
"James K. Olmstead" <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4439...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1144557445.1...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY: AN ANTI-CONSPIRACIST'S COMMON-SENSE APPROACH
>> TO IT.........
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>
> Since I don't have time or desire to address each and every point
> presented in this thread the sections of interest were snip and pasted
> here. The rest of the post follows my comments.
>
>>
>> Even if you want to argue (and you have and shall again no doubt) that
>> the "angles" are not PRECISELY dead-on correct for the SBT to "work" or
>> "align" properly back to the "Oswald window" in the Texas School Book
>> Depository -- in my considered viewpoint, ANY conspiracy theory that
>> we're forced to "substitute" for the official SBT falls apart on many,
>> many different levels.
>>
>> For example -- Here's what certainly MUST have occurred (via the CT
>> account) INSTEAD of the SBT:
>>
>> 1.) Three shots must "replace" the one single shot known as the "SBT".
>> There IS no way around this first point here. Because LACKING the SBT
>> to explain the throat wound to JFK and both of the victims' separate
>> back wounds, CTers are forced to postulate that one of the two
>> following things occurred........
>>
>
> I only address this because you use:
>
> quote on
>
> "MUST have occured (via the CT account INSTEAD of the SBT"
>
> quote off
>
> Attached you will find the Original 3 shot scenerio presented by the USG.
> It is not a "CT account" but the offical account of the shots fired.
>
> It takes into consideration all three shots and all presented wounds and
> removes conflicts surrounding the needed SBT aliginment problems.
>
> jko
Spence
concentrate on a 4th shot from the sewer drain with a silenced handgun
with a disappearing mercury load. Ala Bob Harris
James K. Olmstead
line with the Z film suspected points of impact and can account for all
the shots/wounds,
The main arguement against this 3 shot 3 hit sequence deals with the
fragments, since the fragments recovered were not propoperly
documented...ie photos/drawings/notes of where in the limo they were
exactly found. If all the larger fragments were properly recorded at the
time of discovery, one would be able to tell where all the bullets went,
with a greater level of certainty.
However, the counter arguement on this is that the SBT requires a miss,
that can't be accounted for with factual evidence.
This sequence also removes the conflict over the seating of JFK and JC,
which could never be properly illustrated by the FBI or SS to make the SBT
work, nor by any re-creation ever conducted on site or by computer.
Dale should have taken the footage available from the FBI and SS and used
his computer skills to adjust for the car used, when making his animation,
there would have been very little adjustments needed to be made, if one
was dealing with a straightline trajectory.
jko
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message news:9mj_f.11097$gE.1622@dukeread06...
tomnln
>>>"Exactly where in the report do you find that the WC concluded that it
>>>was strictly a single bullet and excluded all other possibilities?"
>
> Yes, you are technically correct in your remark here. I cannot deny that.
> The WC said that "two bullets probably caused all the wounds to JFK and
> JBC".
>
> But, let's face it, all other "possibilities" fail to stand up to any of
> the physical evidence (i.e., if three bullets did the SBT damage --
===================================================================
WHERE
> THE HELL ARE THE BULLETS??!
Did you ever think of the possibility that they might be WITH the note the
Oswald delivered to the Dallas FBI Office???
======================================================================
tomnln
Volume IV page 145.
"David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
news:4439d0f6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Chad Zimmerman
he reacted, then look at the Zapruder film. His actions immediately
following 223
are not anywhere near what he demonstrated or described.
Chad
"David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
news:4439d0f6$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
David Wimp
> You might want to look at his video recantations of what happened and how
> he reacted, then look at the Zapruder film. His actions immediately
> following 223
> are not anywhere near what he demonstrated or described.
So the great critic of eyewitness testimony puts great faith in a
witness's memory of all his twists and turns while he was trying to see
something, and top posts while doing it.
Chad Zimmerman
you.
The CT's are usually the one's that tote out JBC's testimony as proof of
something, but when I ask you to watch him describe his motion then
correlate it to the Zapruder film, you jump all over me. Are you more
interested in figuring this out or jumping all over LN's over their
opinions?
So, are you a critic of Brennan's testimony, or is it just LN's that are
testimonial critics? Are we all critics because witness testimony is the
most unreliable form of evidence?
Chad
"David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
news:443b08bc$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
David Wimp
> Actually, I can top post anytime I want, because it means less scrolling for
> you.
>
> The CT's are usually the one's that tote out JBC's testimony as proof of
> something, but when I ask you to watch him describe his motion then
> correlate it to the Zapruder film, you jump all over me. Are you more
> interested in figuring this out or jumping all over LN's over their
> opinions?
So it is all about you being persecuted for your LN beliefs? It starts
to sound a bit like conspiratorial thinking. You are always saying that
eyewitness testimony is not reliable. Now you are putting a lot of
stock in what a witness says his body movements were while his whole
focus was on trying to see something. If what witnesses see is not
reliable, how reliable can what they do to see something be? How much
attention was JBC really paying to how he was moving around when his
whole focus was on seeing JFK? Then there is the issue of JBC changing
his story for the WC where he said he never saw JFK. In his early
accounts, he says he did. I still remember him saying on Larry King,
"maybe it didn't happen just like they said, but that's no reason to
blame the government". He was more concerned with not breeding public
mistrust of government than telling the truth. That's my
interpretation. How much else did he change? It seems to me that you
are relying on about the least reliable evidence around.
>
> So, are you a critic of Brennan's testimony, or is it just LN's that are
> testimonial critics?
I think my favorite part of Brennan's testimony is the part where he
says he didn't hear the second shot. That's not possible from his own
observations.
Are we all critics because witness testimony is the
> most unreliable form of evidence?
There, you said it again.
Glenn Sarlitto
"Peter Makres" <pmak...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> "Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4439...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>
>> "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1144557445.1...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>>> THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY: AN ANTI-CONSPIRACIST'S COMMON-SENSE APPROACH
>>> TO IT.........
>>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> I just felt the need to interject a few more thoughts regarding the
>>> Single-Bullet Theory (and the likelihood that ANY CT alternative to the
>>> SBT could be MORE credible, given the known wounds and the known
>>> evidence, than the SBT conclusion reached by the Warren Commission).
>>
>>
>>
>> David,
>>
>> Perhaps I've misinterpreted the WCR...
>>
>> My take is that the WC reported an SBP (Single Bullet Probability).
>
> Glenn,
> I'm glad you pointed this out. Somewhere along the line it was
> coined as a "Theory", no doubt by one of the early critics. Then of course
> came the "magic bullet" nickname. I could be wrong but I think Wecht may
> have been the one to come up with that one.
Peter,
This certainly is an interesting Trivia question as to who first coined
the terms.
>
> But it has stood the test of time very well, despite the denials from the
> CT camp.
>
It has stood the test of time due to the problems with attempting to prove
a negative.
> Dale Myers had a better was to describe it, IMO. Nothing "magic" about it,
> it's not even a "theory". It's a single bullet FACT. (quote off).
Dale certainly has contributed in better understanding the Single Bullet,
especially for those who don't have the heart to watch the Z-film. As far
as proving it to be a Fact? Although I believe in the Single Bullet
myself, I don't believe his animation proved it to be fact. I sincerely
believe it is impossible to prove. I believe it to be the most probable
and logical as to what ocurred.
Glenn Sarlitto
Glenn Sarlitto
If I'm not mistaken, Specter has been calling it a Single Bullet Fact for
a few years now.
Glenn Sarlitto
Chad Zimmerman
"David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>> Actually, I can top post anytime I want, because it means less scrolling
>> for you.
>>
>> The CT's are usually the one's that tote out JBC's testimony as proof of
>> something, but when I ask you to watch him describe his motion then
>> correlate it to the Zapruder film, you jump all over me. Are you more
>> interested in figuring this out or jumping all over LN's over their
>> opinions?
>
> So it is all about you being persecuted for your LN beliefs?
Now, I'm trying to stay on topic. If you'd review your posts, you're the
one that strayed into unrelated fields of thought.
It starts
> to sound a bit like conspiratorial thinking.
Everyone suffers from that once in a while. I, myself, used to be a CT.
You are always saying that
> eyewitness testimony is not reliable.
Always? I've made many posts that don't say that, and many involving
witness testimony. However, the fact remains that witness testimony is the
most unreliable form of evidence, and requires a lot of thought and energy
to sort the good from the bad. Any trial attorney will tell you similar.
Now you are putting a lot of
> stock in what a witness says his body movements were while his whole focus
> was on trying to see something.
Yes, that's correct. However, you've posited that his jump and flail post
Z224 was him turning to look at something.
If what witnesses see is not
> reliable, how reliable can what they do to see something be?
I don't think that I said that all witness testimony is bad, David. As a
whole, it is the worst form of evidence. Some is good, some is not.
JBC's testimony is usually regarded as the gold standard when it comes to
this discussion- on both sides.
How much
> attention was JBC really paying to how he was moving around when his whole
> focus was on seeing JFK?
Rhetorical, I imagine. Nobody can answer that question.
Then there is the issue of JBC changing
> his story for the WC where he said he never saw JFK. In his early
> accounts, he says he did.
Maybe he thought he did, then decided he didn't. You have just accused JBC
of changing his story for the WC, but have no real proof of it. The
formation of memories does not involve a camera lens. They are products of
the brain's rationale process after the fact, thus the ever changing
memories of almost every single witness to this event.
I still remember him saying on Larry King,
> "maybe it didn't happen just like they said, but that's no reason to blame
> the government". He was more concerned with not breeding public mistrust
> of government than telling the truth.
Really? It sounds like your own personal beliefs are overriding other
possibilities, which is quite common. JBC was never a big proponent of the
SBT. He thought JFK was hit first, him second and JFK third. Thus, he
always wondered if it hadn't happened differently, but that LHO was still
the sole assassin. You have him deliberately lying, which is a stretch.
That's my
> interpretation. How much else did he change? It seems to me that you are
> relying on about the least reliable evidence around.
I should discount every witnesses opinion? I hope you never cite a witness
as evidence, David.
His testimony is important because he says that:
1. He heard a shot and recognized as a shot.
2. He had time to think and time to react.
3. He turned to his right, then was starting back forward when he was hit.
4. He felt and immediate impact and felt like a punch to the back.
Now, just where in the Z film do you see a movement most consistent with
being shot?
>
>>
>> So, are you a critic of Brennan's testimony, or is it just LN's that are
>> testimonial critics?
>
> I think my favorite part of Brennan's testimony is the part where he says
> he didn't hear the second shot. That's not possible from his own
> observations.
Hearing and recollection of hearing are two different things. You seem to
have little grasp on the human memory and the faults that it possesses.
Lots of people were in a position to hear all three shots, but many
didn't. However, you fault Brennan for something that is quite common.
How many times have you repeated what your wife or other said, only to
have that person say, "That's NOT what I said!"
It happens all of the time. Your brain has to process information before
it is stored. Once it is stored, it undergoes more cognitive processing,
which ultimately changes it.
>
>
> Are we all critics because witness testimony is the
>> most unreliable form of evidence?
>
> There, you said it again.
It is. If you think otherwise, then prove it.
Chad
David Wimp
> "David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
> news:443c0604$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>>> Actually, I can top post anytime I want, because it means less scrolling
>>> for you.
>>>
>>> The CT's are usually the one's that tote out JBC's testimony as proof of
>>> something, but when I ask you to watch him describe his motion then
>>> correlate it to the Zapruder film, you jump all over me. Are you more
>>> interested in figuring this out or jumping all over LN's over their
>>> opinions?
>> So it is all about you being persecuted for your LN beliefs?
>
> Now, I'm trying to stay on topic. If you'd review your posts, you're the
> one that strayed into unrelated fields of thought.
From your previous post.
"Are you more interested in figuring this out or jumping all over LN's
over their opinions?"
You made being an LN an issue.
>
> It starts
>> to sound a bit like conspiratorial thinking.
>
> Everyone suffers from that once in a while. I, myself, used to be a CT.
And becoming and LN cured you, did it?
>
> You are always saying that
>> eyewitness testimony is not reliable.
>
> Always?
How about often. That's what I meant and this usage is quite common if
not strictly correct.
I've made many posts that don't say that, and many involving
> witness testimony. However, the fact remains that witness testimony is the
> most unreliable form of evidence, and requires a lot of thought and energy
> to sort the good from the bad. Any trial attorney will tell you similar.
I can't see how eyewitness testimony could be generally less reliable
than what a person remembers about his body positions while urgently
trying to see something. He isn't really tracking it. Your position
seems a bit ironic.
>
> Now you are putting a lot of
>> stock in what a witness says his body movements were while his whole focus
>> was on trying to see something.
>
> Yes, that's correct. However, you've posited that his jump and flail post
> Z224 was him turning to look at something.
Where did I say he was turning to look at something in 224 and who is
jumping and flailing?
>
> If what witnesses see is not
>> reliable, how reliable can what they do to see something be?
>
> I don't think that I said that all witness testimony is bad, David. As a
> whole, it is the worst form of evidence. Some is good, some is not.
>
> JBC's testimony is usually regarded as the gold standard when it comes to
> this discussion- on both sides.
I am well aware that people with vastly different views on the JFK
assassination think so but I can't for the life of me see why. So why
are you assuming this started because you are an LN? I was pointing out
what I think is the great irony of you being highly critical of
eyewitness testimony and yet thinking a witness' memory of what he did
while trying to see is very reliable.
>
> How much
>> attention was JBC really paying to how he was moving around when his whole
>> focus was on seeing JFK?
>
> Rhetorical, I imagine. Nobody can answer that question.
>
> Then there is the issue of JBC changing
>> his story for the WC where he said he never saw JFK. In his early
>> accounts, he says he did.
>
> Maybe he thought he did, then decided he didn't.
Maybe, but that is quite a stretch. He said he saw the President was
slumped, which he was, he then saw the Zapruder film which showed the
President was indeed slumped. After that, according to you, he just
decided that he hadn't seen the President slumped after all. Pretty
weak, in my view.
You have just accused JBC
> of changing his story for the WC, but have no real proof of it.
He said he saw the President slumped and then told the WC that he never
saw the President. What exactly do you think constitutes proof? Do you
have proof that he just changed his mind? In fact, you have no evidence
or even a reasonable case.
The
> formation of memories does not involve a camera lens. They are products of
> the brain's rationale process after the fact, thus the ever changing
> memories of almost every single witness to this event.
>
> I still remember him saying on Larry King,
>> "maybe it didn't happen just like they said, but that's no reason to blame
>> the government". He was more concerned with not breeding public mistrust
>> of government than telling the truth.
>
> Really? It sounds like your own personal beliefs are overriding other
> possibilities, which is quite common.
As I believe you demonstrate here.
JBC was never a big proponent of the
> SBT. He thought JFK was hit first, him second and JFK third. Thus, he
> always wondered if it hadn't happened differently, but that LHO was still
> the sole assassin. You have him deliberately lying, which is a stretch.
It's a stretch to say that he just decided he didn't see the President
after all.
>
> That's my
>> interpretation. How much else did he change? It seems to me that you are
>> relying on about the least reliable evidence around.
>
> I should discount every witnesses opinion? I hope you never cite a witness
> as evidence, David.
Try to read more carefully.
>
> His testimony is important because he says that:
>
> 1. He heard a shot and recognized as a shot.
> 2. He had time to think and time to react.
> 3. He turned to his right, then was starting back forward when he was hit.
> 4. He felt and immediate impact and felt like a punch to the back.
>
> Now, just where in the Z film do you see a movement most consistent with
> being shot?
When did he say he had time to think and react? You are leaving out a
left turn.
>
>>> So, are you a critic of Brennan's testimony, or is it just LN's that are
>>> testimonial critics?
>> I think my favorite part of Brennan's testimony is the part where he says
>> he didn't hear the second shot. That's not possible from his own
>> observations.
>
> Hearing and recollection of hearing are two different things. You seem to
> have little grasp on the human memory and the faults that it possesses.
> Lots of people were in a position to hear all three shots, but many
> didn't. However, you fault Brennan for something that is quite common.
You know, you have completely missed the point. He said he didn't hear
the second shot. How could he possibly know, based his own observation,
which shot he didn't hear? Think about it. Yeah, I know. I have such
little grasp.
>
> How many times have you repeated what your wife or other said, only to
> have that person say, "That's NOT what I said!"
"That's NOT what I said" is an appropriate response right here.
>
> It happens all of the time. Your brain has to process information before
> it is stored. Once it is stored, it undergoes more cognitive processing,
> which ultimately changes it.
>
>>
>> Are we all critics because witness testimony is the
>>> most unreliable form of evidence?
>> There, you said it again.
>
> It is. If you think otherwise, then prove it.
>
How about you proving that people accurately track their body movements
when their attention is focused on something else. You are very long on
asking for proof and very short on providing it.
Anthony Marsh
I am not sure which side of what debate you are on regarding this issue.
But one important thing for you to consider is WHEN Connally made that
statement about seeing the President slump. Before or after he saw the
Zapruder film.
http://home.comcast.net/~the-puzzle-palace/Connally.htm
I don't even know for sure which shots he heard. But he heard a shot and
then he was hit. But he did not hear the shot that hit him. I suppose he
might not have heard a shot before the first one he heard.
>>
>> How many times have you repeated what your wife or other said, only to
>> have that person say, "That's NOT what I said!"
>
> "That's NOT what I said" is an appropriate response right here.
>
>
>>
>> It happens all of the time. Your brain has to process information
>> before it is stored. Once it is stored, it undergoes more cognitive
>> processing, which ultimately changes it.
>>
>>>
>>> Are we all critics because witness testimony is the
>>>> most unreliable form of evidence?
>>> There, you said it again.
>>
>> It is. If you think otherwise, then prove it.
>>
>
> How about you proving that people accurately track their body movements
> when their attention is focused on something else. You are very long on
> asking for proof and very short on providing it.
>
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Chad Zimmerman
"David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>> "David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
>> news:443c0604$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>>>> Actually, I can top post anytime I want, because it means less
>>>> scrolling for you.
>>>>
>>>> The CT's are usually the one's that tote out JBC's testimony as proof
>>>> of something, but when I ask you to watch him describe his motion then
>>>> correlate it to the Zapruder film, you jump all over me. Are you more
>>>> interested in figuring this out or jumping all over LN's over their
>>>> opinions?
>>> So it is all about you being persecuted for your LN beliefs?
>>
>> Now, I'm trying to stay on topic. If you'd review your posts, you're the
>> one that strayed into unrelated fields of thought.
>
> From your previous post.
>
> "Are you more interested in figuring this out or jumping all over LN's
> over their opinions?"
>
> You made being an LN an issue.
You made top posting an issue...
>
>>
>> It starts
>>> to sound a bit like conspiratorial thinking.
>>
>> Everyone suffers from that once in a while. I, myself, used to be a CT.
>
> And becoming and LN cured you, did it?
Of course not. Do I disbelieve in conspiracy in general? No. Do I believe
there was a conspiracy of sorts with the handling of the investigation?
Yes. Do I think that makes Oswald innocent? No. Do I think others put him
up to it? No.
>
>>
>> You are always saying that
>>> eyewitness testimony is not reliable.
>>
>> Always?
>
> How about often. That's what I meant and this usage is quite common if
> not strictly correct.
>
> I've made many posts that don't say that, and many involving
>> witness testimony. However, the fact remains that witness testimony is
>> the most unreliable form of evidence, and requires a lot of thought and
>> energy to sort the good from the bad. Any trial attorney will tell you
>> similar.
>
> I can't see how eyewitness testimony could be generally less reliable than
> what a person remembers about his body positions while urgently trying to
> see something. He isn't really tracking it. Your position seems a bit
> ironic.
Read what I said, David. You keep trying to take a whole and reduce it to
one item, but apply the rationale of the whole.
The problem here is that what he described doing is exactly what you can
see in the Zapruder film, totally unlike what you are suggesting.
Could he be wrong? Yes. Do I think so? No. I think the most obvious point
of JBC's wounding and reacting occurred just past Z223.
>
>>
>> Now you are putting a lot of
>>> stock in what a witness says his body movements were while his whole
>>> focus was on trying to see something.
>>
>> Yes, that's correct. However, you've posited that his jump and flail post
>> Z224 was him turning to look at something.
>
> Where did I say he was turning to look at something in 224 and who is
> jumping and flailing?
JBC's arms jump and flail just after Z224. His hat flips in the air, his
right shoulder drops significantly, he starts to shout.
"How do you know that JBC isn't reacting to the shot but not actually
shot? In all accounts that I know of, JBC said that he heard a shot,
immediately thought somebody was shooting at the President, and started
trying to turn around and see him. You seem mighty sure that you can
determine that JBC's reaction is from actually being shot. I don't think
it is at all clear."
That indicates to me that you think his actions past Z224 are simply JBC's
reaction to a shot- turning and looking, as I suggested.
>
>>
>> If what witnesses see is not
>>> reliable, how reliable can what they do to see something be?
>>
>> I don't think that I said that all witness testimony is bad, David. As a
>> whole, it is the worst form of evidence. Some is good, some is not.
>>
>> JBC's testimony is usually regarded as the gold standard when it comes to
>> this discussion- on both sides.
>
> I am well aware that people with vastly different views on the JFK
> assassination think so but I can't for the life of me see why. So why are
> you assuming this started because you are an LN?
Because you're not and you chastized me for being a critic of witness
testimony, although everyone in this debate is, because it ranges all over
the spectrum.
All theories regarding this have a strong foundation in witness testimony,
yet there are so many theories.
I was pointing out
> what I think is the great irony of you being highly critical of eyewitness
> testimony and yet thinking a witness' memory of what he did while trying
> to see is very reliable.
Some witness testimony is reliable, some is not. You have this idea that
any belief as a whole has to be utilized when looking at pieces of the
whole...apparently, hence the alleged irony. However, as you'll probably
agree, the entire spectrum of witness testimony involves good and bad
testimony, and the selectivity of each is quite subjective.
>
>>
>> How much
>>> attention was JBC really paying to how he was moving around when his
>>> whole focus was on seeing JFK?
>>
>> Rhetorical, I imagine. Nobody can answer that question.
>>
>> Then there is the issue of JBC changing
>>> his story for the WC where he said he never saw JFK. In his early
>>> accounts, he says he did.
>>
>> Maybe he thought he did, then decided he didn't.
>
> Maybe, but that is quite a stretch.
Really? You do realize that those types of inconsistencies happen all of
the time, right?
You also realize that the only position he was in to SEE JFK was well
after Z223, when he turns 90 degrees and slumps back towards Nellie. So,
how could he have seen JFK at Z223ish, then lie about not seeing him?
He said he saw the President was > slumped, which he was, he then saw the
Zapruder film which showed the > President was indeed slumped. After
that, according to you, he just > decided that he hadn't seen the
President slumped after all. Pretty weak, > in my view.
I'd have to review what you've been looking at, it's been a while since
I've combed through all of his stuff. However, he couldn't possibly see
JFK prior to JFK's being hit. He was in no position to see JFK until well
after Z223 when he was hit, imo. He testifies to NOT seeing JFK after
hearing the first shot, which is corroborated with his position in the
Zfilm, whether you believe in a Z160 shot, a Z189 shot or a Z223 shot.
>
> You have just accused JBC
>> of changing his story for the WC, but have no real proof of it.
>
> He said he saw the President slumped and then told the WC that he never
> saw the President. What exactly do you think constitutes proof? Do you
> have proof that he just changed his mind? In fact, you have no evidence
> or even a reasonable case.
Perhaps he saw him slumped after he had turned 90 degrees and had his head
turned to the right- after he was shot, but didn't see him when he made
his first turn. He did turn twice.
I'll pull out my tape of his interview tonight. I think there was one that
took place while he was still in the hospital bed where he goes over his
memory of what happened.
>
> The
>> formation of memories does not involve a camera lens. They are products
>> of the brain's rationale process after the fact, thus the ever changing
>> memories of almost every single witness to this event.
>>
>> I still remember him saying on Larry King,
>>> "maybe it didn't happen just like they said, but that's no reason to
>>> blame the government". He was more concerned with not breeding public
>>> mistrust of government than telling the truth.
>>
>> Really? It sounds like your own personal beliefs are overriding other
>> possibilities, which is quite common.
>
> As I believe you demonstrate here.
Except I've been on both sides of the fence, David. I've looked at things
from two directions.
>
> JBC was never a big proponent of the
>> SBT. He thought JFK was hit first, him second and JFK third. Thus, he
>> always wondered if it hadn't happened differently, but that LHO was still
>> the sole assassin. You have him deliberately lying, which is a stretch.
>
> It's a stretch to say that he just decided he didn't see the President
> after all.
He didn't see the President immediately after the first shot when he
turned to his right. The Z film confirms that.
>
>>
>> That's my
>>> interpretation. How much else did he change? It seems to me that you
>>> are relying on about the least reliable evidence around.
>>
>> I should discount every witnesses opinion? I hope you never cite a
>> witness as evidence, David.
>
> Try to read more carefully.
I did, particularly the part where I am the great critic of witness
testimony and how ironic it is that I quote eyewitness testimony as being
valid.
>
>>
>> His testimony is important because he says that:
>>
>> 1. He heard a shot and recognized as a shot.
>> 2. He had time to think and time to react.
>> 3. He turned to his right, then was starting back forward when he was
>> hit.
>> 4. He felt and immediate impact and felt like a punch to the back.
>>
>> Now, just where in the Z film do you see a movement most consistent with
>> being shot?
>
> When did he say he had time to think and react? You are leaving out a
> left turn.
He said that he heard a shot. He had time to think, he had time to react.
He said that he immediately recognized it as a shot and thought that they
were under attack. He said he turned to his right to see if he could get a
glimpse of the President, didn't, and began turning back to the left when
he was hit.
His exact quote is: "I had time to think, I had time to react." That was
in a video interview, the specifics of which escape me.
>
>>
>>>> So, are you a critic of Brennan's testimony, or is it just LN's that
>>>> are testimonial critics?
>>> I think my favorite part of Brennan's testimony is the part where he
>>> says he didn't hear the second shot. That's not possible from his own
>>> observations.
>>
>> Hearing and recollection of hearing are two different things. You seem to
>> have little grasp on the human memory and the faults that it possesses.
>> Lots of people were in a position to hear all three shots, but many
>> didn't. However, you fault Brennan for something that is quite common.
>
> You know, you have completely missed the point. He said he didn't hear
> the second shot. How could he possibly know, based his own observation,
> which shot he didn't hear? Think about it. Yeah, I know. I have such
> little grasp.
Gee, do you think he'd followed any reporting or other witness statements
as to which shot did what and made the decision it was the second that he
didn't hear?
What the heck would be the point of stating that you didn't hear the
second shot if you actually did? There isn't one.
>
>>
>> How many times have you repeated what your wife or other said, only to
>> have that person say, "That's NOT what I said!"
>
> "That's NOT what I said" is an appropriate response right here.
>
>
>>
>> It happens all of the time. Your brain has to process information before
>> it is stored. Once it is stored, it undergoes more cognitive processing,
>> which ultimately changes it.
>>
>>>
>>> Are we all critics because witness testimony is the
>>>> most unreliable form of evidence?
>>> There, you said it again.
>>
>> It is. If you think otherwise, then prove it.
>>
>
> How about you proving that people accurately track their body movements
> when their attention is focused on something else. You are very long on
> asking for proof and very short on providing it.
Interesting study. I'd love to. Do you have a few thousand dollars to get
started on something that nobody has ever tested? However, all you really
need to do is listen to his early interviews and watch the damned Z film
to see if he is accurate.
Chad
David Wimp
He made the statement about the President being slumped before he saw the
Zapruder film. That's why I think he actually did see the President. He
also saw slides of the Zapruder film afterwards and must have noticed the
President was indeed slumped. That's why I find it hard to believe that,
at that point, he just decided he hadn't seen the President after all.
Notice that his WC testimony contradicts his earlier statement in that he
then said he didn't see the President. He told the HSCA that the shot
doubled him over. Where does that happen? Whether he was sanitizing his
testimony for the WC or just forgot, his accounts seem to become
unreliable. I don't think his accounts of the details of how he was
moving were ever reliable. He wasn't paying attention and he didn't see
himself. Maybe he would remember what he did first, but after that, I
don't think he necessarily would.
This is about Brennan.
David Wimp
> "David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
> news:443de98f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>>Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>>
>>>"David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
>>>news:443c0604$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>
>>>>Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Actually, I can top post anytime I want, because it means less
>>>>>scrolling for you.
>>>>>
>>>>>The CT's are usually the one's that tote out JBC's testimony as proof
>>>>>of something, but when I ask you to watch him describe his motion then
>>>>>correlate it to the Zapruder film, you jump all over me. Are you more
>>>>>interested in figuring this out or jumping all over LN's over their
>>>>>opinions?
>>>>
>>>>So it is all about you being persecuted for your LN beliefs?
>>>
>>>Now, I'm trying to stay on topic. If you'd review your posts, you're the
>>>one that strayed into unrelated fields of thought.
>>
>>From your previous post.
>>
>>"Are you more interested in figuring this out or jumping all over LN's
>>over their opinions?"
>>
>>You made being an LN an issue.
>
>
> You made top posting an issue...
I made a comment about it. I don't like top posting because it makes
the thread hard to follow. It also has a dismissive air about it. You
brought up Brennan. How was that staying on topic?
>
>
>>> It starts
>>>
>>>>to sound a bit like conspiratorial thinking.
>>>
>>>Everyone suffers from that once in a while. I, myself, used to be a CT.
>>
>>And becoming and LN cured you, did it?
>
>
> Of course not. Do I disbelieve in conspiracy in general? No. Do I believe
> there was a conspiracy of sorts with the handling of the investigation?
> Yes. Do I think that makes Oswald innocent? No. Do I think others put him
> up to it? No.
You said, "Everyone suffers from that [conspiratorial thinking] once in
a while, I, myself, used to be a CT". The obvious interpretation is
that you think being a CT is the result of conspiratorial thinking, at
least for you.
>
>
>>>You are always saying that
>>>
>>>>eyewitness testimony is not reliable.
>>>
>>>Always?
>>
>>How about often. That's what I meant and this usage is quite common if
>>not strictly correct.
>>
>>I've made many posts that don't say that, and many involving
>>
>>>witness testimony. However, the fact remains that witness testimony is
>>>the most unreliable form of evidence, and requires a lot of thought and
>>>energy to sort the good from the bad. Any trial attorney will tell you
>>>similar.
>>
>>I can't see how eyewitness testimony could be generally less reliable than
>>what a person remembers about his body positions while urgently trying to
>>see something. He isn't really tracking it. Your position seems a bit
>>ironic.
>
>
> Read what I said, David. You keep trying to take a whole and reduce it to
> one item, but apply the rationale of the whole.
Say what?
>
> The problem here is that what he described doing is exactly what you can
> see in the Zapruder film, totally unlike what you are suggesting.
I don't know what you think I am suggesting, but JBC is turning to the
left at or shortly after 224. I am just saying that both men reaction
at near the same time does not mean both were hit.
>
> Could he be wrong? Yes. Do I think so? No. I think the most obvious point
> of JBC's wounding and reacting occurred just past Z223.
JBC looked at the film and decided he was hit at 234. Somehow, you
think you can take his description of what happened and do a better job
of picking the frame where he was hit from the same film.
>
>
>>> Now you are putting a lot of
>>>
>>>>stock in what a witness says his body movements were while his whole
>>>>focus was on trying to see something.
>>>
>>>Yes, that's correct. However, you've posited that his jump and flail post
>>>Z224 was him turning to look at something.
>>
>>Where did I say he was turning to look at something in 224 and who is
>>jumping and flailing?
>
>
> JBC's arms jump and flail just after Z224. His hat flips in the air, his
> right shoulder drops significantly, he starts to shout.
There is a bright spot that you are calling a hat. It looks nothing
like a hat, but somehow you conclude that it is. To me, this is a lot
like an alterationist argument. They see something that they think is
out of the ordinary and claim it is due to alteration. You see
something that you think is out of the ordinary and claim it is evidence
of JBC being hit. I think the bright spot is just a reflection off the
glass coming from the outside rearview.
>
> "How do you know that JBC isn't reacting to the shot but not actually
> shot? In all accounts that I know of, JBC said that he heard a shot,
> immediately thought somebody was shooting at the President, and started
> trying to turn around and see him. You seem mighty sure that you can
> determine that JBC's reaction is from actually being shot. I don't think
> it is at all clear."
>
> That indicates to me that you think his actions past Z224 are simply JBC's
> reaction to a shot- turning and looking, as I suggested.
I think the turning of his body and head that start at 230 are from him
turning and looking back at JFK, yes. I think a lot of his "actions"
between 222 and 230 are just a light show.
>
>
>
>>>If what witnesses see is not
>>>
>>>>reliable, how reliable can what they do to see something be?
>>>
>>>I don't think that I said that all witness testimony is bad, David. As a
>>>whole, it is the worst form of evidence. Some is good, some is not.
>>>
>>>JBC's testimony is usually regarded as the gold standard when it comes to
>>>this discussion- on both sides.
>>
>>I am well aware that people with vastly different views on the JFK
>>assassination think so but I can't for the life of me see why. So why are
>>you assuming this started because you are an LN?
>
>
> Because you're not and you chastized me for being a critic of witness
> testimony, although everyone in this debate is, because it ranges all over
> the spectrum.
You are missing the point again.
>
> All theories regarding this have a strong foundation in witness testimony,
> yet there are so many theories.
>
> I was pointing out
>
>>what I think is the great irony of you being highly critical of eyewitness
>>testimony and yet thinking a witness' memory of what he did while trying
>>to see is very reliable.
>
>
> Some witness testimony is reliable, some is not. You have this idea that
> any belief as a whole has to be utilized when looking at pieces of the
> whole...apparently, hence the alleged irony. However, as you'll probably
> agree, the entire spectrum of witness testimony involves good and bad
> testimony, and the selectivity of each is quite subjective.
You are being very selective about JBC's statements. You are going with
his WC testimony that he never saw JFK and ignoring his earlier statement
that he did and saw him slumped. How would JBC even know that JFK was
slumped at that time if he did not see him? Do you think JBC's memory got
better with time?
>
>
>>> How much
>>>
>>>>attention was JBC really paying to how he was moving around when his
>>>>whole focus was on seeing JFK?
>>>
>>>Rhetorical, I imagine. Nobody can answer that question.
>>>
>>>Then there is the issue of JBC changing
>>>
>>>>his story for the WC where he said he never saw JFK. In his early
>>>>accounts, he says he did.
>>>
>>>Maybe he thought he did, then decided he didn't.
>>
>>Maybe, but that is quite a stretch.
>
>
> Really? You do realize that those types of inconsistencies happen all of
> the time, right?
First, the first account is generally considered the most accurate. How
does memory improve with time? Second, you are assuming that his early
memory of seeing JFK was a hallucination or something but that his
memory of what he was doing while having this hallucination was
accurate. That was my point to begin with. You seem to think his
memory of what he was doing while trying to see something was better
than what he saw. Why is that?
>
> You also realize that the only position he was in to SEE JFK was well
> after Z223, when he turns 90 degrees and slumps back towards Nellie. So,
> how could he have seen JFK at Z223ish, then lie about not seeing him?
I don't think he did see JFK at 223. He saw him well after that.
>
>
> He said he saw the President was > slumped, which he was, he then saw the
> Zapruder film which showed the > President was indeed slumped. After
> that, according to you, he just > decided that he hadn't seen the
> President slumped after all. Pretty weak, > in my view.
>
> I'd have to review what you've been looking at, it's been a while since
> I've combed through all of his stuff. However, he couldn't possibly see
> JFK prior to JFK's being hit. He was in no position to see JFK until well
> after Z223 when he was hit, imo. He testifies to NOT seeing JFK after
> hearing the first shot, which is corroborated with his position in the
> Zfilm, whether you believe in a Z160 shot, a Z189 shot or a Z223 shot.
>
>
>>You have just accused JBC
>>
>>>of changing his story for the WC, but have no real proof of it.
>>
>>He said he saw the President slumped and then told the WC that he never
>>saw the President. What exactly do you think constitutes proof? Do you
>>have proof that he just changed his mind? In fact, you have no evidence
>>or even a reasonable case.
>
>
> Perhaps he saw him slumped after he had turned 90 degrees and had his head
> turned to the right- after he was shot, but didn't see him when he made
> his first turn. He did turn twice.
When JBC is first visible after coming out from behind the sign, he is
already turned to the right. If he turned right twice after he heard a
shot, and turned a second time and saw JFK after the shot that hit him,
then his memory is all wrong so why would you be putting in stock in
what he said?
I saw a video interview where he said he turned to his right, couldn't
see JFK, then tried to turn left, and then tried to turn right again.
His story changed.
>
>
>>>>>So, are you a critic of Brennan's testimony, or is it just LN's that
>>>>>are testimonial critics?
>>>>
>>>>I think my favorite part of Brennan's testimony is the part where he
>>>>says he didn't hear the second shot. That's not possible from his own
>>>>observations.
>>>
>>>Hearing and recollection of hearing are two different things. You seem to
>>>have little grasp on the human memory and the faults that it possesses.
>>>Lots of people were in a position to hear all three shots, but many
>>>didn't. However, you fault Brennan for something that is quite common.
>>
>>You know, you have completely missed the point. He said he didn't hear
>>the second shot. How could he possibly know, based his own observation,
>>which shot he didn't hear? Think about it. Yeah, I know. I have such
>>little grasp.
>
>
> Gee, do you think he'd followed any reporting or other witness statements
> as to which shot did what and made the decision it was the second that he
> didn't hear?
What would he have heard that would have allowed him to have decided he
heard the first and third shot? I think his testimony shows that he
knew what the story was supposed to be and he tried to accommodate it
with his own testimony. If I took Brennan seriously, I would consider
him good evidence that one shot did not come from the SN. He said he
was looking right at the man in the window aiming a rifle when he heard
a shot and saw no discharge or recoil. I don't know if he would see any
discharge, but the jolt of a "high powered" rifle is pretty hard to miss
if you are looking right at it.
>
> What the heck would be the point of stating that you didn't hear the
> second shot if you actually did? There isn't one.
What is the point of saying there was a shot between the two you heard
if you didn't hear it?
>
>
>>>How many times have you repeated what your wife or other said, only to
>>>have that person say, "That's NOT what I said!"
>>
>>"That's NOT what I said" is an appropriate response right here.
>>
>>
>>
>>>It happens all of the time. Your brain has to process information before
>>>it is stored. Once it is stored, it undergoes more cognitive processing,
>>>which ultimately changes it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Are we all critics because witness testimony is the
>>>>
>>>>>most unreliable form of evidence?
>>>>
>>>>There, you said it again.
>>>
>>>It is. If you think otherwise, then prove it.
>>>
>>
>>How about you proving that people accurately track their body movements
>>when their attention is focused on something else. You are very long on
>>asking for proof and very short on providing it.
>
>
> Interesting study. I'd love to. Do you have a few thousand dollars to get
> started on something that nobody has ever tested? However, all you really
> need to do is listen to his early interviews and watch the damned Z film
> to see if he is accurate.
I have. My judgment is the same as JBC's. He was hit after JFK was.
Of course, finding something that matches what he said in the film does
not mean that what he said was accurate if his account was not accurate.
David Wimp
>
> "David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@spamex.com
> <mailto:SpamMeT...@spamex.com>> wrote in message
> news:4442...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > Chad Zimmerman wrote:
> >> "David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com
> >> news:443de98f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>
> >>>Chad Zimmerman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>"David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com
> >>>>news:443c0604$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>>>
> >>>>>Chad Zimmerman wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Actually, I can top post anytime I want, because it means less
> >>>>>>scrolling for you.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The CT's are usually the one's that tote out JBC's testimony as proof
> >>>>>>of something, but when I ask you to watch him describe his motion
> then
> >>>>>>correlate it to the Zapruder film, you jump all over me. Are you more
> >>>>>>interested in figuring this out or jumping all over LN's over their
> >>>>>>opinions?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So it is all about you being persecuted for your LN beliefs?
> >>>>
> >>>>Now, I'm trying to stay on topic. If you'd review your posts,
> you're the
> >>>>one that strayed into unrelated fields of thought.
> >>>
> >>>From your previous post.
> >>>
> >>>"Are you more interested in figuring this out or jumping all over LN's
> >>>over their opinions?"
> >>>
> >>>You made being an LN an issue.
> >>
> >>
> >> You made top posting an issue...
> >
> > I made a comment about it. I don't like top posting because it makes
> > the thread hard to follow. It also has a dismissive air about it. You
> > brought up Brennan. How was that staying on topic?
>
> Thus, I
> brought up a witness and asked you if you were critical of his testimony.
>
> Funny how talking about the subject of witness testimony leads
> to...well, uh...witness
> testimony.
One more time. I said that it was ironic that you are very critical of
eyewitness testimony and yet put great stock in JBC's descriptions of
how he was moving around trying to see JFK. I don't see how that leads
to Brennan.
>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> It starts
> >>>>
> >>>>>to sound a bit like conspiratorial thinking.
> >>>>
> >>>>Everyone suffers from that once in a while. I, myself, used to be a CT.
> >>>
> >>>And becoming and LN cured you, did it?
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course not. Do I disbelieve in conspiracy in general? No. Do I
> believe
> >> there was a conspiracy of sorts with the handling of the investigation?
> >> Yes. Do I think that makes Oswald innocent? No. Do I think others
> put him
> >> up to it? No.
> >
> > You said, "Everyone suffers from that [conspiratorial thinking] once in
> > a while, I, myself, used to be a CT". The obvious interpretation is
> > that you think being a CT is the result of conspiratorial thinking, at
> > least for you.
>
> Well, for me, David, it is hard to think about a conspiracy without having
> conspiratorial thinking, isn't it?
I can't say for you, but in general thinking about a possible conspiracy
is not conspiratorial thinking.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>>You are always saying that
> >>>>
> >>>>>eyewitness testimony is not reliable.
> >>>>
> >>>>Always?
> >>>
> >>>How about often. That's what I meant and this usage is quite common if
> >>>not strictly correct.
> >>>
> >>>I've made many posts that don't say that, and many involving
> >>>
> >>>>witness testimony. However, the fact remains that witness testimony is
> >>>>the most unreliable form of evidence, and requires a lot of thought and
> >>>>energy to sort the good from the bad. Any trial attorney will tell you
> >>>>similar.
> >>>
> >>>I can't see how eyewitness testimony could be generally less
> reliable than
> >>>what a person remembers about his body positions while urgently
> trying to
> >>>see something. He isn't really tracking it. Your position seems a bit
> >>>ironic.
> >>
> >>
> >> Read what I said, David. You keep trying to take a whole and reduce
> it to
> >> one item, but apply the rationale of the whole.
> >
> > Say what?
>
> Read it again.
>
> On a whole, witness testimony is the worst form of evidence. HOWEVER,
> some witness
> testimony is good. You are trying to invoke the relationship of the
> WHOLE to one person (which could
> be good), but dismiss it because it is part of the whole.
>
> See what I'm saying?
No. I also don't see how it applies to anything that I am saying.
>
> No sweat, we all do that occassionally, especially when replying without
> thinking about the merits of
> individual testimony.
I think you have completely missed the point again.
>
> >
> >>
> >> The problem here is that what he described doing is exactly what you
> can
> >> see in the Zapruder film, totally unlike what you are suggesting.
> >
> > I don't know what you think I am suggesting, but JBC is turning to the
> > left at or shortly after 224. I am just saying that both men reaction
> > at near the same time does not mean both were hit.
>
> Of course not. However, there is no other obvious point of dismay more
> apparent
> than that particular point in the Zapruder film. If you had to isolate
> the most probable
> point of JBC's wounding based upon the entire Zapruder film, that'd be
> the point in
> time.
Careful with that "you". It is you who believes you can isolate that
point in time, not me.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Could he be wrong? Yes. Do I think so? No. I think the most obvious
> point
> >> of JBC's wounding and reacting occurred just past Z223.
> >
> > JBC looked at the film and decided he was hit at 234.
>
> He looked at individual frames of the film and picked that frame.
>
> >Somehow, you
> > think you can take his description of what happened and do a better job
> > of picking the frame where he was hit from the same film.
>
> Yes, I do. So have numerous others...including every major investigation
> into
> this that had to make that determination.
Can you cite anything that indicates that they used JBC's statements to
determine when he was hit they way you are?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Now you are putting a lot of
> >>>>
> >>>>>stock in what a witness says his body movements were while his whole
> >>>>>focus was on trying to see something.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes, that's correct. However, you've posited that his jump and
> flail post
> >>>>Z224 was him turning to look at something.
> >>>
> >>>Where did I say he was turning to look at something in 224 and who is
> >>>jumping and flailing?
> >>
> >>
> >> JBC's arms jump and flail just after Z224. His hat flips in the air,
> his
> >> right shoulder drops significantly, he starts to shout.
> >
> > There is a bright spot that you are calling a hat.
> It looks nothing
> > like a hat, but somehow you conclude that it is. To me, this is a lot
> > like an alterationist argument.
>
> Not really. Almost everyone except you can see the hat. It is almost
> plain as day.
>
> They see something that they think is
> > out of the ordinary and claim it is due to alteration. You see
> > something that you think is out of the ordinary and claim it is evidence
> > of JBC being hit. I think the bright spot is just a reflection off the
> > glass coming from the outside rearview.
>
> Nope, it is without a doubt his hat. Here it is. He's either holding
> onto a gray
> steering wheel, or it is his gray Stetson cowboy hat with the top facing his
> chest...and the *hole* facing Zapruder.
>
>
> Now, which is it?
>
> A. a gray steering wheel
> B. JBC's gray Stetson hat
> C. One of Pamela's reflections off of the Stemmons sign
> D. a reflection from the rearview
You said he started to flail his hat just after 224. I was assuming you
were claiming the bright blobs visible in 225-229 were his hat as you
have in the past. 230 definitely shows his hat. Now compare what is in
230 with what is in the previous frames. See any resemblance? 230
shows a hat with no motion blurring. If you aren't claiming to see his
hat before 230, how in the world do you think you see him flailing his
hat? It looks like it is just sitting there to me. Even if he were
"flailing" his hat, it's quite a stretch to claim that as evidence of
his being hit by a bullet.
>
> >
> >>
> >> "How do you know that JBC isn't reacting to the shot but not actually
> >> shot? In all accounts that I know of, JBC said that he heard a shot,
> >> immediately thought somebody was shooting at the President, and started
> >> trying to turn around and see him. You seem mighty sure that you can
> >> determine that JBC's reaction is from actually being shot. I don't
> think
> >> it is at all clear."
> >>
> >> That indicates to me that you think his actions past Z224 are simply
> JBC's
> >> reaction to a shot- turning and looking, as I suggested.
> >
> > I think the turning of his body and head that start at 230 are from him
> > turning and looking back at JFK, yes. I think a lot of his "actions"
> > between 222 and 230 are just a light show.
>
> Light and shadows, eh? You and Pamela should have a talk. Can you tell
> me what
> you base that on?
1) The bright reflections coming off the handhold in front of JBC in the
early part of the film.
2) An outside rearview that, if adjusted for the driver, would be in
about the right orientation to reflect light from the handhold
approximately back in the direction from which it came.
3) The little bright spots on JBC's chest in 222 and 223 which appear to
move from his left to right from 222 to 223 as does the whole bright
area on his chest.
4) The appearance of the bright blobs on or through the small window
beside JBC after the bright spots and bright area disappears from JBC's
chest.
5) Just sitting back and looking at the film and not paying close
attention to what is going on in the limo, the "hat flip" looks like a
reflection moving on the glass.
6) A slight right turn by the limo would cause a reflection off the
outside rearview to move from JBC's left to his right and then onto the
pane of glass.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>If what witnesses see is not
> >>>>
> >>>>>reliable, how reliable can what they do to see something be?
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't think that I said that all witness testimony is bad, David.
> As a
> >>>>whole, it is the worst form of evidence. Some is good, some is not.
> >>>>
> >>>>JBC's testimony is usually regarded as the gold standard when it
> comes to
> >>>>this discussion- on both sides.
> >>>
> >>>I am well aware that people with vastly different views on the JFK
> >>>assassination think so but I can't for the life of me see why. So
> why are
> >>>you assuming this started because you are an LN?
> >>
> >>
> >> Because you're not and you chastized me for being a critic of witness
> >> testimony, although everyone in this debate is, because it ranges
> all over
> >> the spectrum.
> >
> > You are missing the point again.
>
> Perhaps I'm awaiting it.
I have stated it many times so I won't again.
>
> >>
> >> All theories regarding this have a strong foundation in witness
> testimony,
> >> yet there are so many theories.
> >>
> >> I was pointing out
> >>
> >>>what I think is the great irony of you being highly critical of
> eyewitness
> >>>testimony and yet thinking a witness' memory of what he did while trying
> >>>to see is very reliable.
> >>
> >>
> >> Some witness testimony is reliable, some is not. You have this idea
> that
> >> any belief as a whole has to be utilized when looking at pieces of the
> >> whole...apparently, hence the alleged irony. However, as you'll
> probably
> >> agree, the entire spectrum of witness testimony involves good and bad
> >> testimony, and the selectivity of each is quite subjective.
> >
> > You are being very selective about JBC's statements. You are going with
> > his WC testimony that he never saw JFK and ignoring his earlier
> statement
> > that he did and saw him slumped.
>
> I think he didn't SEE JFK just after JFK was hit. I think he saw JFK
> well after they
> had both been hit. It depends on what portion of the 8.3 seconds he's
> referring to.
You state 8.3 as if it is some accurately determined number.
>
> How would JBC even know that JFK was
> > slumped at that time if he did not see him? Do you think JBC's
> memory got
> > better with time?
>
> I think:
>
> A. Immediately following JFK's wounding, he did not see him. And,
> B. That he saw him well AFTER he was hit.
>
> So, when he says that he turned to see JFK after hearing the FIRST shot
> and didn't see
> him, I think that is accurate. I think, however, that after the second
> shot, he did eventually
> turn and see him.
>
> Thus, it appears that he didn't see JFK at one point, then saw him
> later. Now, which point in
> time was he referring to when describing these events?
He said in his earliest statement that he turned and saw JFK slumped and
then was hit as he started to turn back around. If it happened like you
are saying, then JBC had it all wrong. How then can you expect to match
what he said to the film?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>> How much
> >>>>
> >>>>>attention was JBC really paying to how he was moving around when his
> >>>>>whole focus was on seeing JFK?
> >>>>
> >>>>Rhetorical, I imagine. Nobody can answer that question.
> >>>>
> >>>>Then there is the issue of JBC changing
> >>>>
> >>>>>his story for the WC where he said he never saw JFK. In his early
> >>>>>accounts, he says he did.
> >>>>
> >>>>Maybe he thought he did, then decided he didn't.
> >>>
> >>>Maybe, but that is quite a stretch.
> >>
> >>
> >> Really? You do realize that those types of inconsistencies happen
> all of
> >> the time, right?
> >
> > First, the first account is generally considered the most accurate. How
> > does memory improve with time?
>
> Memories improve only when the rationale that is used is correct.
>
> Second, you are assuming that his early
> > memory of seeing JFK was a hallucination or something but that his
> > memory of what he was doing while having this hallucination was
> > accurate.
>
> Nope. Not at all. See above.
>
> That was my point to begin with. You seem to think his
> > memory of what he was doing while trying to see something was better
> > than what he saw. Why is that?
>
> See above. You have me confused with somebody else.
>
> Consider:
>
> 1. One early shot prior to Z223.
> 2. JBC turns but does not see JFK.
> 3. Second shot, JBC and JFK both hit.
> 4. JBC turns a couple of seconds later and sees JFK slumped over.
>
> Now, depending on what point in time he is referring to, he is correct
> on both accounts.
>
> >
> >>
> >> You also realize that the only position he was in to SEE JFK was well
> >> after Z223, when he turns 90 degrees and slumps back towards Nellie.
> So,
> >> how could he have seen JFK at Z223ish, then lie about not seeing him?
> >
> > I don't think he did see JFK at 223. He saw him well after that.
>
> Right, but he could NOT have seen him after an earlier shot, which is
> what he
> always said- that he heard ONE shot, then turned, did not see JFK...then
> was hit.
>
> Perhaps you should quote the exact passage where he says he saw JFK. Was it
> immediately after the FIRST shot that he is referring to?
We heard a shot. I turned to my left -- I was sitting in the jump seat.
I turned to my left to look in the back seat. The President was slumped.
Ah, he had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit,
and I knew I'd been hit badly.
If he really meant left and did not mistakenly say left for right, then
all bets are off. He had no chance to see JFK slumped before 224 if JFK
was hit just before that unless he slumped before he was hit. He wasn't
in a position to see JFK until after 230 at the earliest.
> David, this is what most are accustomed to. The popular story is:
>
> Shot #1 rings out but hits nobody. JBC turns to his right. He does not
> see the President.
> He starts to turn to his left when he is hit. Then, after turning to his
> right again, he sees
> President Kennedy slumped over. So, if he's referring to the first turn,
> he didnt' see JFK. If
> he's later in time on the second turn, then he did.
Then his account is fundamentally wrong and there is not much reason to
put any stock in it.
> No, I think you're trying to attribute two different points in time as
> the same
> point in time. Is that possible?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>So, are you a critic of Brennan's testimony, or is it just LN's that
> >>>>>>are testimonial critics?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I think my favorite part of Brennan's testimony is the part where he
> >>>>>says he didn't hear the second shot. That's not possible from his own
> >>>>>observations.
> >>>>
> >>>>Hearing and recollection of hearing are two different things. You
> seem to
> >>>>have little grasp on the human memory and the faults that it possesses.
> >>>>Lots of people were in a position to hear all three shots, but many
> >>>>didn't. However, you fault Brennan for something that is quite common.
> >>>
> >>>You know, you have completely missed the point. He said he didn't hear
> >>>the second shot. How could he possibly know, based his own observation,
> >>>which shot he didn't hear? Think about it. Yeah, I know. I have such
> >>>little grasp.
> >>
> >>
> >> Gee, do you think he'd followed any reporting or other witness
> statements
> >> as to which shot did what and made the decision it was the second
> that he
> >> didn't hear?
> >
> > What would he have heard that would have allowed him to have decided he
> > heard the first and third shot?
>
> If he had heard that one shot missed and the last hit him in the head.
> It's hard to
> tell what he might've heard, David. He might've heard that the first
> shot happened
> at one particular point and the third at another. I don't know. Maybe he
> thinks the
> first shot he heard didn't create any reaction around him and that was
> the first one.
> Hell, nobody can answer that.
That's because there is no answer.
However, it is hardly a reason to discount
> his testimony
> of seeing someone shooting from the same window that several others saw
> someone
> shooting from.
Hardly a reason to discount his testimony? Hardly. He seems to be
fitting his testimony to some external model. I think he probably saw
somebody in the window and probably saw a rifle. Whether he actually
witnessed the person shooting is questionable.
>
> I think his testimony shows that he
> > knew what the story was supposed to be and he tried to accommodate it
> > with his own testimony.
>
> Supposed to be? Have you read the WR? They didn't know what it was *supposed
> to be*. They speculated as to what happened and admitted as much.
How did Brennan "know" there were three shots? He heard two. How did
he know there were three and not four and he didn't hear two of them?
>
> If I took Brennan seriously, I would consider
> > him good evidence that one shot did not come from the SN. He said he
> > was looking right at the man in the window aiming a rifle when he heard
> > a shot and saw no discharge or recoil. I don't know if he would see any
> > discharge, but the jolt of a "high powered" rifle is pretty hard to miss
> > if you are looking right at it.
>
> The jolt would be based upon how well the gun is braced at the time the
> trigger
> is pulled. I had a rifle just like it. It didn't knock me backwards
> unless I let it.
I know that you think shooting a rifle is the mother of all knowledge,
but common sense says the way to see what one sees when a rifle is fired
is to see it. I have watched people firing at a rifle range who were
seated with their elbows on a table and very well braced. There is a
very noticeable jolt followed by the sound.
>
> >
> >>
> >> What the heck would be the point of stating that you didn't hear the
> >> second shot if you actually did? There isn't one.
> >
> > What is the point of saying there was a shot between the two you heard
> > if you didn't hear it?
>
> Apparently none, because many others didn't hear 3 shots either. Jackie
> only heard 2. JBC
> only heard 2.
That does not explain why he thought he didn't hear a particular shot.
>
> He probably heard the news accounts about 3 shots and decided it was the
> second one
> that missed...for whatever reason.
And he thought he should not hear a shot that missed?
He was testifying to something he had know way of actually knowing. He
was reading something in. Do you not think he could have done the same
with Oswald? He could have "seen" Oswald in the window because that was
how he thought it was supposed to be. He could have "seen" Oswald for
the same reason that said he didn't hear the second shot for all you know.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>>How many times have you repeated what your wife or other said, only to
> >>>>have that person say, "That's NOT what I said!"
> >>>
> >>>"That's NOT what I said" is an appropriate response right here.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>It happens all of the time. Your brain has to process information
> before
> >>>>it is stored. Once it is stored, it undergoes more cognitive
> processing,
> >>>>which ultimately changes it.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Are we all critics because witness testimony is the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>most unreliable form of evidence?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>There, you said it again.
> >>>>
> >>>>It is. If you think otherwise, then prove it.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>How about you proving that people accurately track their body movements
> >>>when their attention is focused on something else. You are very long on
> >>>asking for proof and very short on providing it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Interesting study. I'd love to. Do you have a few thousand dollars
> to get
> >> started on something that nobody has ever tested? However, all you
> really
> >> need to do is listen to his early interviews and watch the damned Z
> film
> >> to see if he is accurate.
> >
> > I have. My judgment is the same as JBC's. He was hit after JFK was.
>
> Based on what that you see in the Zapruder film? I know it isn't the hat
> flip, since
> you can't see that.
>
> > Of course, finding something that matches what he said in the film does
> > not mean that what he said was accurate if his account was not accurate.
>
> Sure, it could be speculative and a lucky guess. Anything is possible.
>
> It is also possible that I'm seeing a reflection and not the underside
> of JBC's
> hat held firmly in his hand.
Put the hat in 230 side by side with the bright spots before that and
see if you see any resemblance whatsoever. Show those bright blobs to
people and see if they identify them as a hat.
Chad Zimmerman
"David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
news:4447...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Of course you don't. You also dont' understand how I can critique witness
testimony AND
find one person's testimony valid. All or nothing with you, I guess.
And, since we were talking about witness testimony, I asked you what you
thought about
a witness and their witness testimony. That's how conversations flow. You'd
think that I
just popped Brennan out for no reason.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>> It starts
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>to sound a bit like conspiratorial thinking.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Everyone suffers from that once in a while. I, myself, used to be a
>> CT.
>> >>>
>> >>>And becoming and LN cured you, did it?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Of course not. Do I disbelieve in conspiracy in general? No. Do I
>> believe
>> >> there was a conspiracy of sorts with the handling of the
>> investigation?
>> >> Yes. Do I think that makes Oswald innocent? No. Do I think others put
>> him
>> >> up to it? No.
>> >
>> > You said, "Everyone suffers from that [conspiratorial thinking] once
>> in
>> > a while, I, myself, used to be a CT". The obvious interpretation is
>> > that you think being a CT is the result of conspiratorial thinking, at
>> > least for you.
>> Well, for me, David, it is hard to think about a conspiracy without
>> having
>> conspiratorial thinking, isn't it?
>
> I can't say for you, but in general thinking about a possible conspiracy
> is not conspiratorial thinking.
Really? What is it then?
Figures. Try and read your own words, particularly the part where I am
talking
about ONE witness and you bring up the compendium of criticism about witness
testimony in general.
>
>> No sweat, we all do that occassionally, especially when replying without
>> thinking about the merits of
>> individual testimony.
>
> I think you have completely missed the point again.
No, I haven't. I've read and understood the words you've written and replied
in kind. If I missed a point, you failed to make it adequately.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The problem here is that what he described doing is exactly what you
>> can
>> >> see in the Zapruder film, totally unlike what you are suggesting.
>> >
>> > I don't know what you think I am suggesting, but JBC is turning to the
>> > left at or shortly after 224. I am just saying that both men reaction
>> > at near the same time does not mean both were hit.
>> Of course not. However, there is no other obvious point of dismay more
>> apparent
>> than that particular point in the Zapruder film. If you had to isolate
>> the most probable
>> point of JBC's wounding based upon the entire Zapruder film, that'd be
>> the point in
>> time.
>
> Careful with that "you". It is you who believes you can isolate that
> point in time, not me.
Then you have your blinders on. It is the single quickest and largest gross
movement
by JBC in the entire film...and it immediately follows JFK's motions, which
is why so
many people other than you feel he was hit there.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Could he be wrong? Yes. Do I think so? No. I think the most obvious
>> point
>> >> of JBC's wounding and reacting occurred just past Z223.
>> >
>> > JBC looked at the film and decided he was hit at 234. He looked at
>> individual frames of the film and picked that frame.
>> >Somehow, you
>> > think you can take his description of what happened and do a better
>> job
>> > of picking the frame where he was hit from the same film.
>> Yes, I do. So have numerous others...including every major investigation
>> into
>> this that had to make that determination.
>
> Can you cite anything that indicates that they used JBC's statements to
> determine when he was hit they way you are?
You mean that he heard a shot, turned to his right, then was hit? Read the
HSCA volumes.
Watch ITEK's presentation on the Bugliosi 'On Trial' segment.
The investigations relied on JBC's testimony about hearing one shot prior to
being hit and
the Zapruder film to make that determination, same as I.
Not sure what you mean by "bright blobs".
230 definitely shows his hat. Now compare what is in
> 230 with what is in the previous frames. See any resemblance? 230 shows
> a hat with no motion blurring.
No kidding. The vast majority of any blurring was due to Zapruder, not JBC.
If you aren't claiming to see his
> hat before 230, how in the world do you think you see him flailing his
> hat?
I am. Unless you think that the hat magically appeared in 230, yet was not
part of the
"bright blobs" between 224 and 230. In 6 frames (less than 1/3 of a second),
you see
nothing and end up seeing his hat. In between 224 and 230, you see a gray
"blob" appear,
followed by a clear frame at 230 clearly showing his hat.
So, are you going to state that you don't think it is his hat?
It looks like it is just sitting there to me. Even if he were
> "flailing" his hat, it's quite a stretch to claim that as evidence of his
> being hit by a bullet.
Jesus, watch it in real time and tell me that he looks like he's just
sitting there
from 224-230.
You are doing the same thing that Tink has done on programs. Look at 224 and
230, ignore
all parts in between.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "How do you know that JBC isn't reacting to the shot but not actually
>> >> shot? In all accounts that I know of, JBC said that he heard a shot,
>> >> immediately thought somebody was shooting at the President, and
>> started
>> >> trying to turn around and see him. You seem mighty sure that you can
>> >> determine that JBC's reaction is from actually being shot. I don't
>> think
>> >> it is at all clear."
>> >>
>> >> That indicates to me that you think his actions past Z224 are simply
>> JBC's
>> >> reaction to a shot- turning and looking, as I suggested.
>> >
>> > I think the turning of his body and head that start at 230 are from
>> him
>> > turning and looking back at JFK, yes. I think a lot of his "actions"
>> > between 222 and 230 are just a light show.
>> Light and shadows, eh? You and Pamela should have a talk. Can you tell
>> me what
>> you base that on?
>
> 1) The bright reflections coming off the handhold in front of JBC in the
> early part of the film.
So a reflection somewhere else in the film is the same reflection you see in
those frames, eh? What analysis have you actually completed on that? Perhaps
you could highlight that on another frame sometime.
> 2) An outside rearview that, if adjusted for the driver, would be in about
> the right orientation to reflect light from the handhold approximately
> back in the direction from which it came.
Where's the sun, David?
> 3) The little bright spots on JBC's chest in 222 and 223 which appear to
> move from his left to right from 222 to 223 as does the whole bright area
> on his chest.
The bright spots move? What's making them move? The mirror isn't projecting
anything in a different place. The sun hasn't changed position. The limo has
moved
about .88 feet in one frame. So, what is causing the light to move around on
his chest?
> 4) The appearance of the bright blobs on or through the small window
> beside JBC after the bright spots and bright area disappears from JBC's
> chest.
Are you suggesting that it disappeared from JBC's chest and is now seen
through the window?
> 5) Just sitting back and looking at the film and not paying close
> attention to what is going on in the limo, the "hat flip" looks like a
> reflection moving on the glass.
Reflection moving on the glass? Reflection of what? Coming from what light
source? How is it moving if the sun hasn't moved and the mirror and windows
haven't moved, yet the limo has only moved .88 feet?
Just can't be that hat, eh. It's not there in 224, but it shows up in
230...without
leaving a trace of its appearance in between. It sure sounds like we've gone
from
magic bullets to magic hats...
The problem with all lights and shadows, as Pamela might attest to, is that
you have
to have something move significantly, such as a light source (the sun) or
the reflective
device (the mirror). Now, which moved? If neither moved in 1/18.3 of a
second or
in .88 feet of the limo's travel, then it has to be something else.
> 6) A slight right turn by the limo would cause a reflection off the
> outside rearview to move from JBC's left to his right and then onto the
> pane of glass.
Holy stretch, batman. Now, just how much did the limo turn in one frame,
David?
Just can't be the damned hat, could it?
8.3 represents the maximum that anyone has speculated. Would you prefer a
range of
5.6-8.3? Fine, it depends on which portion of the 5.6-8.3 seconds he was
referring to.
Now, care to address the concern?
>
>> How would JBC even know that JFK was
>> > slumped at that time if he did not see him? Do you think JBC's memory
>> got
>> > better with time?
>> I think:
>> A. Immediately following JFK's wounding, he did not see him. And,
>> B. That he saw him well AFTER he was hit.
>> So, when he says that he turned to see JFK after hearing the FIRST shot
>> and didn't see
>> him, I think that is accurate. I think, however, that after the second
>> shot, he did eventually
>> turn and see him.
>> Thus, it appears that he didn't see JFK at one point, then saw him
>> later. Now, which point in
>> time was he referring to when describing these events?
>
> He said in his earliest statement that he turned and saw JFK slumped and
> then was hit as he started to turn back around.
Can you provide the quotation, David?
If it happened like you
> are saying, then JBC had it all wrong. How then can you expect to match
> what he said to the film?
All wrong or one part? Is this more of your all or nothing phenomenon?
Well after 230, imo.
None whatsoever, apparently. Nothing he said is valid, apparently.
Major gross speculation, David. It's a conspiracy!!! Somebody fed him the
information!!!
He reported seeing somebody shooting from that window minutes after the
shooting. So did
several others. Somebody was shooting from that window, David.
I think he probably saw
> somebody in the window and probably saw a rifle. Whether he actually
> witnessed the person shooting is questionable.
Yeah, and the hat that isn't seen in 224 magically appears in 230 without
any trace.
Now, we have a magical person with a gun...in a window...being seen...but
not being seen shooting
the gun that was brought for no reason...
>
>> I think his testimony shows that he
>> > knew what the story was supposed to be and he tried to accommodate it
>> > with his own testimony. Supposed to be? Have you read the WR? They
>> didn't know what it was *supposed
>> to be*. They speculated as to what happened and admitted as much.
>
> How did Brennan "know" there were three shots? He heard two.
Couldn't be that he talked to one of the dozens of people immediately after
the shooting
and was informed of 3 shots, could it? Why is it that everyone that is LN
has to have had
information fed to them?
How did
> he know there were three and not four and he didn't hear two of them?
Because very, very few people heard 4, David.
Almost 90% heard 3 or fewer shots.
>
>> If I took Brennan seriously, I would consider
>> > him good evidence that one shot did not come from the SN. He said he
>> > was looking right at the man in the window aiming a rifle when he
>> heard
>> > a shot and saw no discharge or recoil. I don't know if he would see
>> any
>> > discharge, but the jolt of a "high powered" rifle is pretty hard to
>> miss
>> > if you are looking right at it.
>> The jolt would be based upon how well the gun is braced at the time the
>> trigger
>> is pulled. I had a rifle just like it. It didn't knock me backwards
>> unless I let it.
>
> I know that you think shooting a rifle is the mother of all knowledge,
No, but when you're commenting about it, it certainly helps. Don' you agree?
> but common sense says the way to see what one sees when a rifle is fired
> is to see it.
But "common sense says the way to see what one sees when a rifle is fired is
to
see it"?
There's the quote of the day, David.
Are you suggesting he saw someone in the window just holding a gun...like a
distractor...
put in place to make people think shots came from there?
I have watched people firing at a rifle range who were
> seated with their elbows on a table and very well braced. There is a very
> noticeable jolt followed by the sound.
Well, to match your quote above:
It would only be noticed if it were noticed...
There could've been a jolt that he didn't pay much attention to. Thus, when
asked,
he said no...because he didn't pay any attention to that. When I'm at a
range, I don't
pay attention to that because we all know that some jolt occurs. There are
big
jolts and small jolts. Not noticing one doesn't mean that there wasn't one.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> What the heck would be the point of stating that you didn't hear the
>> >> second shot if you actually did? There isn't one.
>> >
>> > What is the point of saying there was a shot between the two you heard
>> > if you didn't hear it?
>> Apparently none, because many others didn't hear 3 shots either. Jackie
>> only heard 2. JBC
>> only heard 2.
>
> That does not explain why he thought he didn't hear a particular shot.
No, and I assume nothing will adequately explain that.
>
>> He probably heard the news accounts about 3 shots and decided it was the
>> second one
>> that missed...for whatever reason.
>
> And he thought he should not hear a shot that missed?
If he thought he should, he would've testified to that, David.
>
> He was testifying to something he had know way of actually knowing. He
> was reading something in. Do you not think he could have done the same
> with Oswald?
David, inconsistencies exist in EVERY witnesses testimony. If you prefer to
make the leap that if one exists then everything is bogus, feel free. You
will have
a very short list of witnesses to refer to.
He could have "seen" Oswald in the window because that was
> how he thought it was supposed to be. He could have "seen" Oswald for the
> same reason that said he didn't hear the second shot for all you know.
He SAW someone with a gun, David. The gun found on that floor had Oz's print
on
it, was Oz's gun, was in Oz's workplace, found near 3 shell casings that
matched Oz's gun...
Yet, his description of Oz was off, wasn't it. If he was being fed, they fed
him wrong.
Someone was up there shooting. The evidence fits Oz above and beyond anyone
else. Period.
Something in motion doesn't have to look the same in every frame, David.
224- No hat seen.
230- Hat seen.
225-229: Reflections; not of a hat.
Therefore, the hat magically appeared in 1/18.3 of a second without leaving
a trace.
Good argument, David.
Tell me, other than Pamela, are there any other takers on that?
Chad
>
David Wimp
Since the prosecutors in the Enron case brought charges of conspiracy,
were they guilty of conspiratorial thinking? If so, then you are not
using the term as is usually is.
One more time and this is positively the last. I was pointing out that
you were putting great stock in the memories of a witness's body movements
while he was becoming an eyewitness. That seems to me to be considerably
less reliable than what he actually saw.
>
>>> No sweat, we all do that occassionally, especially when replying without
>>> thinking about the merits of
>>> individual testimony.
>> I think you have completely missed the point again.
>
> No, I haven't. I've read and understood the words you've written and replied
> in kind. If I missed a point, you failed to make it adequately.
I have stated it about six times now. If you don't get it then you
never will.
>
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> The problem here is that what he described doing is exactly what you
>>> can
>>> >> see in the Zapruder film, totally unlike what you are suggesting.
>>> >
>>> > I don't know what you think I am suggesting, but JBC is turning to the
>>> > left at or shortly after 224. I am just saying that both men reaction
>>> > at near the same time does not mean both were hit.
>>> Of course not. However, there is no other obvious point of dismay more
>>> apparent
>>> than that particular point in the Zapruder film. If you had to isolate
>>> the most probable
>>> point of JBC's wounding based upon the entire Zapruder film, that'd be
>>> the point in
>>> time.
>> Careful with that "you". It is you who believes you can isolate that
>> point in time, not me.
>
> Then you have your blinders on. It is the single quickest and largest gross
> movement
> by JBC in the entire film...and it immediately follows JFK's motions, which
> is why so
> many people other than you feel he was hit there.
And you have yet to say how you can determine that what you see is the
result of his being hit as opposed to reacting to being shot at.
The blobs are not anywhere near the size of his hat. That means that
most of his hat is not visible even if they are part of his hat. If he
is flailing his hat around, then why is only small part visible in any
given frame?
>
> So, are you going to state that you don't think it is his hat?
If you are talking about the blobs, yes.
>
> It looks like it is just sitting there to me. Even if he were
>> "flailing" his hat, it's quite a stretch to claim that as evidence of his
>> being hit by a bullet.
>
> Jesus, watch it in real time and tell me that he looks like he's just
> sitting there
> from 224-230.
Read more carefully. I said "it" which referred to the hat and I was
talking about 230.
>
> You are doing the same thing that Tink has done on programs. Look at 224 and
> 230, ignore
> all parts in between.
I have not ignored them. I have not come to the conclusion that a
relatively small, amorphous blob is a hat.
>
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> "How do you know that JBC isn't reacting to the shot but not actually
>>> >> shot? In all accounts that I know of, JBC said that he heard a shot,
>>> >> immediately thought somebody was shooting at the President, and
>>> started
>>> >> trying to turn around and see him. You seem mighty sure that you can
>>> >> determine that JBC's reaction is from actually being shot. I don't
>>> think
>>> >> it is at all clear."
>>> >>
>>> >> That indicates to me that you think his actions past Z224 are simply
>>> JBC's
>>> >> reaction to a shot- turning and looking, as I suggested.
>>> >
>>> > I think the turning of his body and head that start at 230 are from
>>> him
>>> > turning and looking back at JFK, yes. I think a lot of his "actions"
>>> > between 222 and 230 are just a light show.
>>> Light and shadows, eh? You and Pamela should have a talk. Can you tell
>>> me what
>>> you base that on?
>> 1) The bright reflections coming off the handhold in front of JBC in the
>> early part of the film.
>
> So a reflection somewhere else in the film is the same reflection you see in
> those frames, eh? What analysis have you actually completed on that? Perhaps
> you could highlight that on another frame sometime.
Look in the early frames. You can't miss the bright reflections off the
handhold.
>
>> 2) An outside rearview that, if adjusted for the driver, would be in about
>> the right orientation to reflect light from the handhold approximately
>> back in the direction from which it came.
>
> Where's the sun, David?
In the sky, Chad.
>
>> 3) The little bright spots on JBC's chest in 222 and 223 which appear to
>> move from his left to right from 222 to 223 as does the whole bright area
>> on his chest.
>
> The bright spots move? What's making them move? The mirror isn't projecting
> anything in a different place. The sun hasn't changed position. The limo has
> moved
> about .88 feet in one frame. So, what is causing the light to move around on
> his chest?
See 6)
>
>
>> 4) The appearance of the bright blobs on or through the small window
>> beside JBC after the bright spots and bright area disappears from JBC's
>> chest.
>
> Are you suggesting that it disappeared from JBC's chest and is now seen
> through the window?
On the window.
>
>> 5) Just sitting back and looking at the film and not paying close
>> attention to what is going on in the limo, the "hat flip" looks like a
>> reflection moving on the glass.
>
> Reflection moving on the glass? Reflection of what? Coming from what light
> source?
From the sun to the handhold to the mirror.
How is it moving if the sun hasn't moved and the mirror and windows
> haven't moved, yet the limo has only moved .88 feet?
The car is turning. I think it is a little more than 0.88 feet. Right
outside rear views are usually convex. That amplifies the movement. How
far it moves across JBC depends on the angle of his chest to the limo.
>
> Just can't be that hat, eh. It's not there in 224, but it shows up in
> 230...without
> leaving a trace of its appearance in between. It sure sounds like we've gone
> from
> magic bullets to magic hats...
You have it descending about a foot in 1/9th second and stopping on a dime
as it shows no motion blurring in 230. That seem pretty magical to me.
>
> The problem with all lights and shadows, as Pamela might attest to, is that
> you have
> to have something move significantly, such as a light source (the sun) or
> the reflective
> device (the mirror). Now, which moved? If neither moved in 1/18.3 of a
> second or
> in .88 feet of the limo's travel, then it has to be something else.
All this is answered above.
>> 6) A slight right turn by the limo would cause a reflection off the
>> outside rearview to move from JBC's left to his right and then onto the
>> pane of glass.
>
> Holy stretch, batman. Now, just how much did the limo turn in one frame,
> David?
>
> Just can't be the damned hat, could it?
Not unless it shrunk to about 1/5th its former size.
What concern is that?
Which would mean he was hit well after 230 by the above statement.
Could be, but I think you are being mighty selective to assume that his
description of his body movements are accurate but that he is just wrong
about seeing the President or that he actually turned to see him after
he was shot.
He said there were three shots and he only heard two so he had to get
some information from an external source. Your above statement is an
example of conspiratorial thinking.
>
> He reported seeing somebody shooting from that window minutes after the
> shooting. So did
> several others. Somebody was shooting from that window, David.
They reported seeing a rifle in the window. That's not quite the same
as seeing somebody shooting.
>
> I think he probably saw
>> somebody in the window and probably saw a rifle. Whether he actually
>> witnessed the person shooting is questionable.
>
> Yeah, and the hat that isn't seen in 224 magically appears in 230 without
> any trace.
A hat shrinking to a small fraction of its former size and then suddenly
reinflating isn't?
>
> Now, we have a magical person with a gun...in a window...being seen...but
> not being seen shooting
> the gun that was brought for no reason...
Do you think seeing somebody with a rifle but not seeing him shoot is
magical?
>
>>> I think his testimony shows that he
>>> > knew what the story was supposed to be and he tried to accommodate it
>>> > with his own testimony. Supposed to be? Have you read the WR? They
>>> didn't know what it was *supposed
>>> to be*. They speculated as to what happened and admitted as much.
>> How did Brennan "know" there were three shots? He heard two.
>
> Couldn't be that he talked to one of the dozens of people immediately after
> the shooting
> and was informed of 3 shots, could it? Why is it that everyone that is LN
> has to have had
> information fed to them?
Ah. So Brennan was LN. Don't you think that adhering to a particular
theory of the assassination could perhaps affect how he perceived things?
>
> How did
>> he know there were three and not four and he didn't hear two of them?
>
> Because very, very few people heard 4, David.
>
> Almost 90% heard 3 or fewer shots.
He went around and questioned them?
>
>>> If I took Brennan seriously, I would consider
>>> > him good evidence that one shot did not come from the SN. He said he
>>> > was looking right at the man in the window aiming a rifle when he
>>> heard
>>> > a shot and saw no discharge or recoil. I don't know if he would see
>>> any
>>> > discharge, but the jolt of a "high powered" rifle is pretty hard to
>>> miss
>>> > if you are looking right at it.
>>> The jolt would be based upon how well the gun is braced at the time the
>>> trigger
>>> is pulled. I had a rifle just like it. It didn't knock me backwards
>>> unless I let it.
>> I know that you think shooting a rifle is the mother of all knowledge,
>
> No, but when you're commenting about it, it certainly helps. Don' you agree?
In this case, no.
>
>> but common sense says the way to see what one sees when a rifle is fired
>> is to see it.
>
> But "common sense says the way to see what one sees when a rifle is fired is
> to
> see it"?
>
> There's the quote of the day, David.
I tried to be very clear at the expense of refined sentence structure.
I am sure that you would say that shooting a gun is the way to see what
a person shooting a gun looks like, right?
>
> Are you suggesting he saw someone in the window just holding a gun...like a
> distractor...
> put in place to make people think shots came from there?
Let me try it again more slowly. If he was seen not shooting while the
sound of a gunshot was heard, then at least one shot came from somewhere
else.
>
> I have watched people firing at a rifle range who were
>> seated with their elbows on a table and very well braced. There is a very
>> noticeable jolt followed by the sound.
>
> Well, to match your quote above:
>
> It would only be noticed if it were noticed...
and like I said, it is hard not to notice.
>
> There could've been a jolt that he didn't pay much attention to. Thus, when
> asked,
> he said no...because he didn't pay any attention to that. When I'm at a
> range, I don't
> pay attention to that because we all know that some jolt occurs. There are
> big
> jolts and small jolts. Not noticing one doesn't mean that there wasn't one.
I see it without looking for it. There is no cue as the sight precedes
the sound.
>
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> What the heck would be the point of stating that you didn't hear the
>>> >> second shot if you actually did? There isn't one.
>>> >
>>> > What is the point of saying there was a shot between the two you heard
>>> > if you didn't hear it?
>>> Apparently none, because many others didn't hear 3 shots either. Jackie
>>> only heard 2. JBC
>>> only heard 2.
>> That does not explain why he thought he didn't hear a particular shot.
>
> No, and I assume nothing will adequately explain that.
>
>>> He probably heard the news accounts about 3 shots and decided it was the
>>> second one
>>> that missed...for whatever reason.
>> And he thought he should not hear a shot that missed?
>
> If he thought he should, he would've testified to that, David.
You seem to know this witness very well.
>
>> He was testifying to something he had know way of actually knowing. He
>> was reading something in. Do you not think he could have done the same
>> with Oswald?
>
> David, inconsistencies exist in EVERY witnesses testimony. If you prefer to
> make the leap that if one exists then everything is bogus, feel free. You
> will have
> a very short list of witnesses to refer to.
Show me examples of other witnesses testifying to something they had no
way of knowing.
>
> He could have "seen" Oswald in the window because that was
>> how he thought it was supposed to be. He could have "seen" Oswald for the
>> same reason that said he didn't hear the second shot for all you know.
>
> He SAW someone with a gun, David. The gun found on that floor had Oz's print
> on
> it, was Oz's gun, was in Oz's workplace, found near 3 shell casings that
> matched Oz's gun...
And none of that means he saw Oswald or anybody else actually shoot the
rifle. How is that not clear?
>
> Yet, his description of Oz was off, wasn't it. If he was being fed, they fed
> him wrong.
Hey, his description was off. Now there's a solid reason to believe he
was a reliable witness. Have you ever heard of coaching witnesses? It
has been in the news lately. It happens.
>
> Someone was up there shooting. The evidence fits Oz above and beyond anyone
> else. Period.
Maybe it was Oswald, but Brennan is no reason to think it was. That's
the point.
No, but it doesn't shrink when it moves.
>
> 224- No hat seen.
> 230- Hat seen.
>
> 225-229: Reflections; not of a hat.
>
> Therefore, the hat magically appeared in 1/18.3 of a second without leaving
> a trace.
230 - hat seen clearly with no sign of motion. Hand seen on hat.
Reflection from cuff also seen.
229 - part of hand seen in about the same position as in 230 with no
obvious motion blurring. "Hat" (according to Chad) is very bright spot
which is at least a foot from JBC's hand. Nothing but what appears to be
JBC's jacket is visible between the "hat" and the hand. Cuff is about in
the same place.
228 - "hat" extends almost up to JBC's nose, but is much smaller than the
hat in 230 and doesn't extend nearly to the level of the hand and cuff in
230. Hand not visible but something that looks something like the cuff in
230 and 229 is visible in about the same place. There are vague bright
areas in the region where the hat is seen in 230, but nothing else between
the cuff and the "hat".
I've got it! JBC had a yo-yo hat. He was entertaining the Dealey crowd
with his around-the-world trick.
Unless you can somehow see hat between JBC's hand and the bright spot in
229, his hat is not in his hand. If you can't see it there, why do you
think you should see it elsewhere?
> Tell me, other than Pamela, are there any other takers on that?
Any takers on Chad's yo-yo hat theory?
Anthony Marsh
>
> "David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@spamex.com
> <mailto:SpamMeT...@spamex.com>> wrote in message
> news:4442...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >> "David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com
> >> news:443de98f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>
> >>>Chad Zimmerman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>"David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com
> >>>>news:443c0604$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >>>>
> >>>>>Chad Zimmerman wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Actually, I can top post anytime I want, because it means less
> >>>>>>scrolling for you.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The CT's are usually the one's that tote out JBC's testimony as proof
> >>>>>>of something, but when I ask you to watch him describe his motion
> then
> >>>>>>correlate it to the Zapruder film, you jump all over me. Are you more
> >>>>>>interested in figuring this out or jumping all over LN's over their
> >>>>>>opinions?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>So it is all about you being persecuted for your LN beliefs?
> >>>>
> >>>>Now, I'm trying to stay on topic. If you'd review your posts,
> you're the
> >>>>one that strayed into unrelated fields of thought.
> >>>
> >>>From your previous post.
> >>>
> >>>"Are you more interested in figuring this out or jumping all over LN's
> >>>over their opinions?"
> >>>
> >>>You made being an LN an issue.
> >>
> >>
> >> You made top posting an issue...
> >
> > I made a comment about it. I don't like top posting because it makes
> > the thread hard to follow. It also has a dismissive air about it. You
> > brought up Brennan. How was that staying on topic?
>
> Thus, I
> brought up a witness and asked you if you were critical of his testimony.
>
> Funny how talking about the subject of witness testimony leads
> to...well, uh...witness
> testimony.
>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>to sound a bit like conspiratorial thinking.
> >>>>
> >>>>Everyone suffers from that once in a while. I, myself, used to be a CT.
> >>>
> >>>And becoming and LN cured you, did it?
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course not. Do I disbelieve in conspiracy in general? No. Do I
> believe
> >> there was a conspiracy of sorts with the handling of the investigation?
> >> Yes. Do I think that makes Oswald innocent? No. Do I think others
> put him
> >> up to it? No.
> >
> > You said, "Everyone suffers from that [conspiratorial thinking] once in
> > a while, I, myself, used to be a CT". The obvious interpretation is
> > that you think being a CT is the result of conspiratorial thinking, at
> > least for you.
>
> conspiratorial thinking, isn't it?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>eyewitness testimony is not reliable.
> >>>>
> >>>>Always?
> >>>
> >>>How about often. That's what I meant and this usage is quite common if
> >>>not strictly correct.
> >>>
> >>>I've made many posts that don't say that, and many involving
> >>>
> >>>>witness testimony. However, the fact remains that witness testimony is
> >>>>the most unreliable form of evidence, and requires a lot of thought and
> >>>>energy to sort the good from the bad. Any trial attorney will tell you
> >>>>similar.
> >>>
> >>>I can't see how eyewitness testimony could be generally less
> reliable than
> >>>what a person remembers about his body positions while urgently
> trying to
> >>>see something. He isn't really tracking it. Your position seems a bit
> >>>ironic.
> >>
> >>
> >> Read what I said, David. You keep trying to take a whole and reduce
> it to
> >> one item, but apply the rationale of the whole.
> >
> > Say what?
>
>
> On a whole, witness testimony is the worst form of evidence. HOWEVER,
> some witness
> testimony is good. You are trying to invoke the relationship of the
> WHOLE to one person (which could
> be good), but dismiss it because it is part of the whole.
>
> See what I'm saying?
>
> thinking about the merits of
> individual testimony.
>
> >
> >>
> can
> >> see in the Zapruder film, totally unlike what you are suggesting.
> >
> > I don't know what you think I am suggesting, but JBC is turning to the
> > left at or shortly after 224. I am just saying that both men reaction
> > at near the same time does not mean both were hit.
>
> apparent
> than that particular point in the Zapruder film. If you had to isolate
> the most probable
> point of JBC's wounding based upon the entire Zapruder film, that'd be
> the point in
> time.
>
> >
> >>
> point
> >> of JBC's wounding and reacting occurred just past Z223.
> >
> > JBC looked at the film and decided he was hit at 234.
>
>
> > think you can take his description of what happened and do a better job
> > of picking the frame where he was hit from the same film.
>
> into
> this that had to make that determination.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>stock in what a witness says his body movements were while his whole
> >>>>>focus was on trying to see something.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes, that's correct. However, you've posited that his jump and
> flail post
> >>>>Z224 was him turning to look at something.
> >>>
> >>>Where did I say he was turning to look at something in 224 and who is
> >>>jumping and flailing?
> >>
> >>
> >> JBC's arms jump and flail just after Z224. His hat flips in the air,
> his
> >> right shoulder drops significantly, he starts to shout.
> >
> > There is a bright spot that you are calling a hat.
> It looks nothing
> > like a hat, but somehow you conclude that it is. To me, this is a lot
> > like an alterationist argument.
>
> plain as day.
>
> > out of the ordinary and claim it is due to alteration. You see
> > something that you think is out of the ordinary and claim it is evidence
> > of JBC being hit. I think the bright spot is just a reflection off the
> > glass coming from the outside rearview.
>
> onto a gray
> steering wheel, or it is his gray Stetson cowboy hat with the top facing his
> chest...and the *hole* facing Zapruder.
>
Given the way he is holding his hat, why isn't there a bullet hole in it?
>
> Now, which is it?
>
> A. a gray steering wheel
> B. JBC's gray Stetson hat
> C. One of Pamela's reflections off of the Stemmons sign
> D. a reflection from the rearview
>
> >
> >>
> >> "How do you know that JBC isn't reacting to the shot but not actually
> >> shot? In all accounts that I know of, JBC said that he heard a shot,
> >> immediately thought somebody was shooting at the President, and started
> >> trying to turn around and see him. You seem mighty sure that you can
> >> determine that JBC's reaction is from actually being shot. I don't
> think
> >> it is at all clear."
> >>
> >> That indicates to me that you think his actions past Z224 are simply
> JBC's
> >> reaction to a shot- turning and looking, as I suggested.
> >
> > I think the turning of his body and head that start at 230 are from him
> > turning and looking back at JFK, yes. I think a lot of his "actions"
> > between 222 and 230 are just a light show.
>
> Light and shadows, eh? You and Pamela should have a talk. Can you tell
> me what
> you base that on?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>If what witnesses see is not
> >>>>
> >>>>>reliable, how reliable can what they do to see something be?
> >>>>
> >>>>I don't think that I said that all witness testimony is bad, David.
> As a
> >>>>whole, it is the worst form of evidence. Some is good, some is not.
> >>>>
> >>>>JBC's testimony is usually regarded as the gold standard when it
> comes to
> >>>>this discussion- on both sides.
> >>>
> >>>I am well aware that people with vastly different views on the JFK
> >>>assassination think so but I can't for the life of me see why. So
> why are
> >>>you assuming this started because you are an LN?
> >>
> >>
> >> Because you're not and you chastized me for being a critic of witness
> >> testimony, although everyone in this debate is, because it ranges
> all over
> >> the spectrum.
> >
> > You are missing the point again.
>
> Perhaps I'm awaiting it.
>
> >>
> >> All theories regarding this have a strong foundation in witness
> testimony,
> >> yet there are so many theories.
> >>
> >> I was pointing out
> >>
> >>>what I think is the great irony of you being highly critical of
> eyewitness
> >>>testimony and yet thinking a witness' memory of what he did while trying
> >>>to see is very reliable.
> >>
> >>
> >> Some witness testimony is reliable, some is not. You have this idea
> that
> >> any belief as a whole has to be utilized when looking at pieces of the
> >> whole...apparently, hence the alleged irony. However, as you'll
> probably
> >> agree, the entire spectrum of witness testimony involves good and bad
> >> testimony, and the selectivity of each is quite subjective.
> >
> > You are being very selective about JBC's statements. You are going with
> > his WC testimony that he never saw JFK and ignoring his earlier
> statement
> > that he did and saw him slumped.
>
> I think he didn't SEE JFK just after JFK was hit. I think he saw JFK
> well after they
> had both been hit. It depends on what portion of the 8.3 seconds he's
> referring to.
>
> How would JBC even know that JFK was
> > slumped at that time if he did not see him? Do you think JBC's
> memory got
> > better with time?
>
> I think:
>
> A. Immediately following JFK's wounding, he did not see him. And,
> B. That he saw him well AFTER he was hit.
>
> So, when he says that he turned to see JFK after hearing the FIRST shot
> and didn't see
> him, I think that is accurate. I think, however, that after the second
> shot, he did eventually
> turn and see him.
>
> Thus, it appears that he didn't see JFK at one point, then saw him
> later. Now, which point in
> time was he referring to when describing these events?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>> How much
> >>>>
> >>>>>attention was JBC really paying to how he was moving around when his
> >>>>>whole focus was on seeing JFK?
> >>>>
> >>>>Rhetorical, I imagine. Nobody can answer that question.
> >>>>
> >>>>Then there is the issue of JBC changing
> >>>>
> >>>>>his story for the WC where he said he never saw JFK. In his early
> >>>>>accounts, he says he did.
> >>>>
> >>>>Maybe he thought he did, then decided he didn't.
> >>>
> >>>Maybe, but that is quite a stretch.
> >>
> >>
> >> Really? You do realize that those types of inconsistencies happen
> all of
> >> the time, right?
> >
> > First, the first account is generally considered the most accurate. How
> > does memory improve with time?
>
> Memories improve only when the rationale that is used is correct.
>
> Second, you are assuming that his early
> > memory of seeing JFK was a hallucination or something but that his
> > memory of what he was doing while having this hallucination was
> > accurate.
>
> Nope. Not at all. See above.
>
> That was my point to begin with. You seem to think his
> > memory of what he was doing while trying to see something was better
> > than what he saw. Why is that?
>
> See above. You have me confused with somebody else.
>
> Consider:
>
> 1. One early shot prior to Z223.
> 2. JBC turns but does not see JFK.
> 3. Second shot, JBC and JFK both hit.
> 4. JBC turns a couple of seconds later and sees JFK slumped over.
>
> Now, depending on what point in time he is referring to, he is correct
> on both accounts.
>
> >
> >>
> >> You also realize that the only position he was in to SEE JFK was well
> >> after Z223, when he turns 90 degrees and slumps back towards Nellie.
> So,
> >> how could he have seen JFK at Z223ish, then lie about not seeing him?
> >
> > I don't think he did see JFK at 223. He saw him well after that.
>
> Right, but he could NOT have seen him after an earlier shot, which is
> what he
> always said- that he heard ONE shot, then turned, did not see JFK...then
> was hit.
>
> Perhaps you should quote the exact passage where he says he saw JFK. Was it
> immediately after the FIRST shot that he is referring to?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> David, this is what most are accustomed to. The popular story is:
>
> Shot #1 rings out but hits nobody. JBC turns to his right. He does not
> see the President.
> He starts to turn to his left when he is hit. Then, after turning to his
> right again, he sees
> President Kennedy slumped over. So, if he's referring to the first turn,
> he didnt' see JFK. If
> he's later in time on the second turn, then he did.
>
>
> >
> >>
> No, I think you're trying to attribute two different points in time as
> the same
> point in time. Is that possible?
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>So, are you a critic of Brennan's testimony, or is it just LN's that
> >>>>>>are testimonial critics?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I think my favorite part of Brennan's testimony is the part where he
> >>>>>says he didn't hear the second shot. That's not possible from his own
> >>>>>observations.
> >>>>
> >>>>Hearing and recollection of hearing are two different things. You
> seem to
> >>>>have little grasp on the human memory and the faults that it possesses.
> >>>>Lots of people were in a position to hear all three shots, but many
> >>>>didn't. However, you fault Brennan for something that is quite common.
> >>>
> >>>You know, you have completely missed the point. He said he didn't hear
> >>>the second shot. How could he possibly know, based his own observation,
> >>>which shot he didn't hear? Think about it. Yeah, I know. I have such
> >>>little grasp.
> >>
> >>
> >> Gee, do you think he'd followed any reporting or other witness
> statements
> >> as to which shot did what and made the decision it was the second
> that he
> >> didn't hear?
> >
> > What would he have heard that would have allowed him to have decided he
> > heard the first and third shot?
>
> If he had heard that one shot missed and the last hit him in the head.
> It's hard to
> tell what he might've heard, David. He might've heard that the first
> shot happened
> at one particular point and the third at another. I don't know. Maybe he
> thinks the
> first shot he heard didn't create any reaction around him and that was
> the first one.
> Hell, nobody can answer that. However, it is hardly a reason to discount
> his testimony
> of seeing someone shooting from the same window that several others saw
> someone
> shooting from.
>
> I think his testimony shows that he
> > knew what the story was supposed to be and he tried to accommodate it
> > with his own testimony.
>
> Supposed to be? Have you read the WR? They didn't know what it was *supposed
> to be*. They speculated as to what happened and admitted as much.
>
> If I took Brennan seriously, I would consider
> > him good evidence that one shot did not come from the SN. He said he
> > was looking right at the man in the window aiming a rifle when he heard
> > a shot and saw no discharge or recoil. I don't know if he would see any
> > discharge, but the jolt of a "high powered" rifle is pretty hard to miss
> > if you are looking right at it.
>
> The jolt would be based upon how well the gun is braced at the time the
> trigger
> is pulled. I had a rifle just like it. It didn't knock me backwards
> unless I let it.
>
> >
> >>
> >> What the heck would be the point of stating that you didn't hear the
> >> second shot if you actually did? There isn't one.
> >
> > What is the point of saying there was a shot between the two you heard
> > if you didn't hear it?
>
> Apparently none, because many others didn't hear 3 shots either. Jackie
> only heard 2. JBC
> only heard 2.
>
> He probably heard the news accounts about 3 shots and decided it was the
> second one
> that missed...for whatever reason.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>>How many times have you repeated what your wife or other said, only to
> >>>>have that person say, "That's NOT what I said!"
> >>>
> >>>"That's NOT what I said" is an appropriate response right here.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>It happens all of the time. Your brain has to process information
> before
> >>>>it is stored. Once it is stored, it undergoes more cognitive
> processing,
> >>>>which ultimately changes it.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Are we all critics because witness testimony is the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>most unreliable form of evidence?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>There, you said it again.
> >>>>
> >>>>It is. If you think otherwise, then prove it.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>How about you proving that people accurately track their body movements
> >>>when their attention is focused on something else. You are very long on
> >>>asking for proof and very short on providing it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Interesting study. I'd love to. Do you have a few thousand dollars
> to get
> >> started on something that nobody has ever tested? However, all you
> really
> >> need to do is listen to his early interviews and watch the damned Z
> film
> >> to see if he is accurate.
> >
> > I have. My judgment is the same as JBC's. He was hit after JFK was.
>
> Based on what that you see in the Zapruder film? I know it isn't the hat
> flip, since
> you can't see that.
>
> > Of course, finding something that matches what he said in the film does
> > not mean that what he said was accurate if his account was not accurate.
>
> Sure, it could be speculative and a lucky guess. Anything is possible.
>
> It is also possible that I'm seeing a reflection and not the underside
> of JBC's
> hat held firmly in his hand.
>
> Chad
>
>
> >
> >
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
"David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
Yes, they had to identify the conspiracy via conspiratorial thinking. If
they were thinking about it in a non-conspiratorial way, how could they
find a conspiracy?
Funny how your words change, David. You first pointed out that I was some
great critic of witness testimony, then laid into me over believing
anything that JBC said.
That's a far cry from what you just explained. Your first post reads
nothing like that.
>
>>
>>>> No sweat, we all do that occassionally, especially when replying
>>>> without thinking about the merits of
>>>> individual testimony.
>>> I think you have completely missed the point again.
>>
>> No, I haven't. I've read and understood the words you've written and
>> replied
>> in kind. If I missed a point, you failed to make it adequately.
>
> I have stated it about six times now. If you don't get it then you never
> will.
You keep saying different things, David.
>
>>
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The problem here is that what he described doing is exactly what
>>>> you can
>>>> >> see in the Zapruder film, totally unlike what you are suggesting.
>>>> >
>>>> > I don't know what you think I am suggesting, but JBC is turning to
>>>> the
>>>> > left at or shortly after 224. I am just saying that both men
>>>> reaction
>>>> > at near the same time does not mean both were hit.
>>>> Of course not. However, there is no other obvious point of dismay more
>>>> apparent
>>>> than that particular point in the Zapruder film. If you had to isolate
>>>> the most probable
>>>> point of JBC's wounding based upon the entire Zapruder film, that'd be
>>>> the point in
>>>> time.
>>> Careful with that "you". It is you who believes you can isolate that
>>> point in time, not me.
>>
>> Then you have your blinders on. It is the single quickest and largest
>> gross movement
>> by JBC in the entire film...and it immediately follows JFK's motions,
>> which is why so
>> many people other than you feel he was hit there.
>
> And you have yet to say how you can determine that what you see is the
> result of his being hit as opposed to reacting to being shot at.
IT IS THE SINGLE LARGEST GROSS MOVEMENT AND OBVIOUSLY A REACTION TO AN
EXTERNAL STIMULUS. That is why most believe he was hit there. CT's simply
ignore it and point to any other reason why he couldn't have been hit
there...even by omitting what really happens in the frames between 224 and
230.
I've never seen anyone react to a gunshot the way you have JBC reacting to
a gunshot that he felt immediately.
Why don't you point out what you are calling blobs, David. The word itself
doesn't really describe anything in particular on the film.
>>
>> So, are you going to state that you don't think it is his hat?
>
> If you are talking about the blobs, yes.
Post your blobs. Nobody knows what the heck you're talking about.
>
>>
>> It looks like it is just sitting there to me. Even if he were
>>> "flailing" his hat, it's quite a stretch to claim that as evidence of
>>> his being hit by a bullet.
>>
>> Jesus, watch it in real time and tell me that he looks like he's just
>> sitting there
>> from 224-230.
>
> Read more carefully. I said "it" which referred to the hat and I was
> talking about 230.
So, it is absent in 224 and magically appears in 230 without a single frame
between capturing it, eh?
>>
>> You are doing the same thing that Tink has done on programs. Look at 224
>> and 230, ignore
>> all parts in between.
>
> I have not ignored them. I have not come to the conclusion that a
> relatively small, amorphous blob is a hat.
It magically appears, right?
So, now its a reflection off of the handhold, but nowhere near the
handhold? I think you need to highlight what you're looking at.
>
>>
>>> 2) An outside rearview that, if adjusted for the driver, would be in
>>> about the right orientation to reflect light from the handhold
>>> approximately back in the direction from which it came.
>>
>> Where's the sun, David?
>
> In the sky, Chad.
No kidding. Way to really nail that one down.
>>
>>> 3) The little bright spots on JBC's chest in 222 and 223 which appear to
>>> move from his left to right from 222 to 223 as does the whole bright
>>> area on his chest.
>>
>> The bright spots move? What's making them move? The mirror isn't
>> projecting
>> anything in a different place. The sun hasn't changed position. The limo
>> has moved
>> about .88 feet in one frame. So, what is causing the light to move around
>> on his chest?
>
> See 6)
Oy. The slight turn hypothesis that occurred in one frame, right? Tell me,
how much angular movement can happen in .88 feet, David?
>>
>>
>>> 4) The appearance of the bright blobs on or through the small window
>>> beside JBC after the bright spots and bright area disappears from JBC's
>>> chest.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that it disappeared from JBC's chest and is now seen
>> through the window?
>
> On the window.
Is this being caused by some major angular movement that happened in .88
feet and is wholely unobserved in the film?
>
>>
>>> 5) Just sitting back and looking at the film and not paying close
>>> attention to what is going on in the limo, the "hat flip" looks like a
>>> reflection moving on the glass.
>>
>> Reflection moving on the glass? Reflection of what? Coming from what
>> light
>> source?
>
> From the sun to the handhold to the mirror.
Oy.
>
> How is it moving if the sun hasn't moved and the mirror and windows
>> haven't moved, yet the limo has only moved .88 feet?
>
> The car is turning. I think it is a little more than 0.88 feet.
11 mph times 5260 feet per mile, divided by 60 minutes per hour, divided
by 60 seconds per minute, divided by 18.3 frames per second equals .88
feet. Now, if you have evidence that the limo was going more than 11 mph,
then post it here.
Right
> outside rear views are usually convex. That amplifies the movement. How
> far it moves across JBC depends on the angle of his chest to the limo.
So, is JBC moving a lot in 1/18.3 seconds?
David, you have a problem. Nothing was really moving much in those two
frames.
>
>>
>> Just can't be that hat, eh. It's not there in 224, but it shows up in
>> 230...without
>> leaving a trace of its appearance in between. It sure sounds like we've
>> gone from
>> magic bullets to magic hats...
>
> You have it descending about a foot in 1/9th second and stopping on a dime
> as it shows no motion blurring in 230. That seem pretty magical to me.
THE MAJORITY OF ALL THE BLURRING IN THE FILM IS DUE TO ZAPRUDER, not JBC.
How the hell is it that a limo going 11mph can be seen so crisply in some
frames, yet blurry in others?
Zapruder.
The hat would've shown up better in other frames had Zapruder not messed
up panning at that point. Jesus, you can't hardly discern Jackie in some
of those frames, but she's not moving.
And, I never mentioned anything about descending, you did.
>
>>
>> The problem with all lights and shadows, as Pamela might attest to, is
>> that you have
>> to have something move significantly, such as a light source (the sun) or
>> the reflective
>> device (the mirror). Now, which moved? If neither moved in 1/18.3 of a
>> second or
>> in .88 feet of the limo's travel, then it has to be something else.
>
> All this is answered above.
YEah, by some angular movement of the limo that isn't seen in the footage
whatsoever.
Interesting.
>
>>> 6) A slight right turn by the limo would cause a reflection off the
>>> outside rearview to move from JBC's left to his right and then onto the
>>> pane of glass.
>>
>> Holy stretch, batman. Now, just how much did the limo turn in one frame,
>> David?
>>
>> Just can't be the damned hat, could it?
>
> Not unless it shrunk to about 1/5th its former size.
Show your method for making that determination, David.
Nevermind.
Yes, and in stark contrast to the majority of all other recollections that
he has ever made.
I suppose anything is possible.
YEah, and totally in jest, just as it should be. He could've talked to a
witness at the scene seconds after the shooting.
>
>>
>> He reported seeing somebody shooting from that window minutes after the
>> shooting. So did
>> several others. Somebody was shooting from that window, David.
>
> They reported seeing a rifle in the window. That's not quite the same as
> seeing somebody shooting.
What the hell is the point of sticking a gun out of the window if you're
not going to shoot it?
You have someone sticking a gun out of a window, not shooting it...and
someone else that was never seen shooting from some other unknown
location.
Yeah, that's highly logical.
Euins saw the shooting, David.
>
>>
>> I think he probably saw
>>> somebody in the window and probably saw a rifle. Whether he actually
>>> witnessed the person shooting is questionable.
>>
>> Yeah, and the hat that isn't seen in 224 magically appears in 230 without
>> any trace.
>
> A hat shrinking to a small fraction of its former size and then suddenly
> reinflating isn't?
How the hell can you tell that by looking at extremely blurred frames,
David?
You can tell the exact size of a blurred object?
>
>>
>> Now, we have a magical person with a gun...in a window...being seen...but
>> not being seen shooting
>> the gun that was brought for no reason...
>
> Do you think seeing somebody with a rifle but not seeing him shoot is
> magical?
No, I think that a guy standing on the 6th floor, sticking a gun out of
the window on a day where two people were wounded is magical.
>
>>
>>>> I think his testimony shows that he
>>>> > knew what the story was supposed to be and he tried to accommodate
>>>> it
>>>> > with his own testimony. Supposed to be? Have you read the WR? They
>>>> didn't know what it was *supposed
>>>> to be*. They speculated as to what happened and admitted as much.
>>> How did Brennan "know" there were three shots? He heard two.
>>
>> Couldn't be that he talked to one of the dozens of people immediately
>> after the shooting
>> and was informed of 3 shots, could it? Why is it that everyone that is LN
>> has to have had
>> information fed to them?
>
> Ah. So Brennan was LN. Don't you think that adhering to a particular
> theory of the assassination could perhaps affect how he perceived things?
I think Brennan heard 3 shots from one location which pretty much makes
this a lone gunman situation, David.
I think he was adhering to what he knew were the facts. One shooter, one
location, 3 shots.
>
>>
>> How did
>>> he know there were three and not four and he didn't hear two of them?
>>
>> Because very, very few people heard 4, David.
>>
>> Almost 90% heard 3 or fewer shots.
>
> He went around and questioned them?
>
How the hell am I supposed to know? You're the one trying to figure out
why he said he didn't hear the middle shot.
>>
>>>> If I took Brennan seriously, I would consider
>>>> > him good evidence that one shot did not come from the SN. He said
>>>> he
>>>> > was looking right at the man in the window aiming a rifle when he
>>>> heard
>>>> > a shot and saw no discharge or recoil. I don't know if he would see
>>>> any
>>>> > discharge, but the jolt of a "high powered" rifle is pretty hard to
>>>> miss
>>>> > if you are looking right at it.
>>>> The jolt would be based upon how well the gun is braced at the time
>>>> the trigger
>>>> is pulled. I had a rifle just like it. It didn't knock me backwards
>>>> unless I let it.
>>> I know that you think shooting a rifle is the mother of all knowledge,
>>
>> No, but when you're commenting about it, it certainly helps. Don' you
>> agree?
>
> In this case, no.
Why is that, David?
>
>>
>>> but common sense says the way to see what one sees when a rifle is fired
>>> is to see it.
>>
>> But "common sense says the way to see what one sees when a rifle is fired
>> is to
>> see it"?
>>
>> There's the quote of the day, David.
>
> I tried to be very clear at the expense of refined sentence structure. I
> am sure that you would say that shooting a gun is the way to see what a
> person shooting a gun looks like, right?
Is that what your point is?
>
>>
>> Are you suggesting he saw someone in the window just holding a gun...like
>> a distractor...
>> put in place to make people think shots came from there?
>
> Let me try it again more slowly. If he was seen not shooting while the
> sound of a gunshot was heard, then at least one shot came from somewhere
> else.
Okay, but nobody said that they heard a shot and the guy in the window
wasn't shooting. Therefore, this is a fantastical scenario devised to
exonerate the window shooter from shooting.
>
>>
>> I have watched people firing at a rifle range who were
>>> seated with their elbows on a table and very well braced. There is a
>>> very noticeable jolt followed by the sound.
>>
>> Well, to match your quote above:
>>
>> It would only be noticed if it were noticed...
>
> and like I said, it is hard not to notice.
It's real easy not to notice it if you don't really want to pay attention
to recoil, David.
>
>>
>> There could've been a jolt that he didn't pay much attention to. Thus,
>> when asked,
>> he said no...because he didn't pay any attention to that. When I'm at a
>> range, I don't
>> pay attention to that because we all know that some jolt occurs. There
>> are big
>> jolts and small jolts. Not noticing one doesn't mean that there wasn't
>> one.
>
> I see it without looking for it. There is no cue as the sight precedes
> the sound.
Seeing something and pay attention enough to remember it later are two
different things.
Because you seem to remember the character of every rifle jolt you've ever
witnessed doesn't mean that others do.
>
>>
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> What the heck would be the point of stating that you didn't hear
>>>> the
>>>> >> second shot if you actually did? There isn't one.
>>>> >
>>>> > What is the point of saying there was a shot between the two you
>>>> heard
>>>> > if you didn't hear it?
>>>> Apparently none, because many others didn't hear 3 shots either.
>>>> Jackie only heard 2. JBC
>>>> only heard 2.
>>> That does not explain why he thought he didn't hear a particular shot.
>>
>> No, and I assume nothing will adequately explain that.
>>
>>>> He probably heard the news accounts about 3 shots and decided it was
>>>> the second one
>>>> that missed...for whatever reason.
>>> And he thought he should not hear a shot that missed?
>>
>> If he thought he should, he would've testified to that, David.
>
> You seem to know this witness very well.
About as well as you do.
>
>>
>>> He was testifying to something he had know way of actually knowing. He
>>> was reading something in. Do you not think he could have done the same
>>> with Oswald?
>>
>> David, inconsistencies exist in EVERY witnesses testimony. If you prefer
>> to
>> make the leap that if one exists then everything is bogus, feel free. You
>> will have
>> a very short list of witnesses to refer to.
>
> Show me examples of other witnesses testifying to something they had no
> way of knowing.
Look at Nellie Connally's testimony and then watch the Zapruder film and
see if it all matches up.
>
>>
>> He could have "seen" Oswald in the window because that was
>>> how he thought it was supposed to be. He could have "seen" Oswald for
>>> the same reason that said he didn't hear the second shot for all you
>>> know.
>>
>> He SAW someone with a gun, David. The gun found on that floor had Oz's
>> print on
>> it, was Oz's gun, was in Oz's workplace, found near 3 shell casings that
>> matched Oz's gun...
>
> And none of that means he saw Oswald or anybody else actually shoot the
> rifle. How is that not clear?
David, he told a police officer minutes after the shooting that he saw a
white male shooting out of that window. How the hell was he supposed to
know the *story* within minutes of the assassination?
Now, I didn't know this turned into a he saw Oswald scenario. I didn't say
he saw Oswald. He saw someone shooting and told an officer minutes after
the shots. Thus, someone was up there with a gun. Euins saw the guy
shooting. The rest is common sense:
1. Oz's prints on the gun.
2. Fibers matching his shirt wedged in the butt plate.
3. Fiber matching his blanket found in the sack.
4. 90% of witnesses hearing 3 or fewer shots, 3 shell casings found within
minutes of the shooting.
5. Those same shell casings matched the gun found on that floor.
6. That gun was linked to LHO's PO Box and his known alias.
7. He was found with forged ID's with that name on it.
8. He worked at the TSBD.
9. He was seen carrying a long brown package, later to be found with his
prints and fibers matching the blanket
that held the rifle.
10. Pictures of Oswald with the same type of rifle.
11. All of Lee's lies told to the DPD.
On and on and on...
>
>>
>> Yet, his description of Oz was off, wasn't it. If he was being fed, they
>> fed him wrong.
>
> Hey, his description was off. Now there's a solid reason to believe he
> was a reliable witness. Have you ever heard of coaching witnesses? It
> has been in the news lately. It happens.
So, they said: "Hey, Brennan, make the guy too old and too heavy to be
Oswald. That'll really make 'em think that it was Oswald, which is what we
need. You are the key to this case."
Right.
>
>>
>> Someone was up there shooting. The evidence fits Oz above and beyond
>> anyone else. Period.
>
> Maybe it was Oswald, but Brennan is no reason to think it was. That's the
> point.
I never said that Brennan was the reason to think it was Oswald. Thus,
your point appears to be pointless.
Show your analysis of those wonderfully blurred frames.
>
>>
>> 224- No hat seen.
>> 230- Hat seen.
>>
>> 225-229: Reflections; not of a hat.
>>
>> Therefore, the hat magically appeared in 1/18.3 of a second without
>> leaving
>> a trace.
>
> 230 - hat seen clearly with no sign of motion.
Motion blurs on film primarily due to Zapruder. Hat is allowed to slow
down enough to be captured by a camera with that shutter speed. The simple
fact that it isn't blurred should be enough to tell you that the hat
wasn't instanteously accelerated to that point and should realistically
leave a blur of itself in Zapruder's blurred frames.
Hand seen on hat.
> Reflection from cuff also seen.
>
> 229 - part of hand seen in about the same position as in 230 with no
> obvious motion blurring. "Hat" (according to Chad) is very bright spot
> which is at least a foot from JBC's hand. Nothing but what appears to be
> JBC's jacket is visible between the "hat" and the hand. Cuff is about in
> the same place.
Therefore, in the span of 1/18th of a second, the hand doesn't move and
the hat magically appears!
>
> 228 - "hat" extends almost up to JBC's nose, but is much smaller than the
> hat in 230 and doesn't extend nearly to the level of the hand and cuff in
> 230. Hand not visible but something that looks something like the cuff in
> 230 and 229 is visible in about the same place. There are vague bright
> areas in the region where the hat is seen in 230, but nothing else between
> the cuff and the "hat".
>
> I've got it! JBC had a yo-yo hat. He was entertaining the Dealey crowd
> with his around-the-world trick.
David, if the hand hadn't moved from 229-230...how'd the hat get there?
After all, you said you can see the hat in 230. You just professed that a
hand is seen in 229 in about the same position as 230 and without obvious
motion blurring...so how'd the hat get in his hand?
>
>
> Unless you can somehow see hat between JBC's hand and the bright spot in
> 229, his hat is not in his hand. If you can't see it there, why do you
> think you should see it elsewhere?
Because you said you can see it in 230...
>
>> Tell me, other than Pamela, are there any other takers on that?
>
> Any takers on Chad's yo-yo hat theory?
Yep, plenty. It's not a yo-yo, you just can't apparently see what everyone
else sees.
You have a hat magically jumping into his hand in 230, yet is entirely
invisible in 229.
That's real magic, David.
Chad
David Wimp
> "David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
> news:4448...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>>> "David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4447...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>>>>> "David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@spamex.com
>>>>> <mailto:SpamMeT...@spamex.com>> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4442...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>>> > Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>>>>> >> "David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com
>>>>> <mailto:SpamMeT...@Spamex.com>> wrote in message
>>>>> >> news:443de98f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>>Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>>"David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com
>>>>> <mailto:SpamMeT...@Spamex.com>> wrote in message
>>>>> >>>>news:443c0604$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>>Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>
I am tired of eyewitnesses and Brennan. So major snip.
>>>>>
>>> If you aren't claiming to see his
>>>> hat before 230, how in the world do you think you see him flailing his
>>>> hat?
>>> I am. Unless you think that the hat magically appeared in 230, yet was
>>> not part of the
>>> "bright blobs" between 224 and 230. In 6 frames (less than 1/3 of a
>>> second), you see
>>> nothing and end up seeing his hat. In between 224 and 230, you see a gray
>>> "blob" appear,
>>> followed by a clear frame at 230 clearly showing his hat.
>> The blobs are not anywhere near the size of his hat. That means that most
>> of his hat is not visible even if they are part of his hat. If he is
>> flailing his hat around, then why is only small part visible in any given
>> frame?
>
> Why don't you point out what you are calling blobs, David. The word itself
> doesn't really describe anything in particular on the film.
How about the bright spots that you are calling a hat.
>
>>> So, are you going to state that you don't think it is his hat?
>> If you are talking about the blobs, yes.
>
> Post your blobs. Nobody knows what the heck you're talking about.
That's interesting because you have been talking about them. Nobody can
miss the bright spots on or behind the glass. Why don't you post where
you see the hat flailing.
>
>>> It looks like it is just sitting there to me. Even if he were
>>>> "flailing" his hat, it's quite a stretch to claim that as evidence of
>>>> his being hit by a bullet.
>>> Jesus, watch it in real time and tell me that he looks like he's just
>>> sitting there
>>> from 224-230.
>> Read more carefully. I said "it" which referred to the hat and I was
>> talking about 230.
>
> So, it is absent in 224 and magically appears in 230 without a single frame
> between capturing it, eh?
It has to appear in some frame. For some reason, the hat is hard to
see. You have most of it invisible. You have it a foot from the hand
in 229 and then in the hand at 230. Why is that any less magical?
>
>>> You are doing the same thing that Tink has done on programs. Look at 224
>>> and 230, ignore
>>> all parts in between.
>> I have not ignored them. I have not come to the conclusion that a
>> relatively small, amorphous blob is a hat.
>
> It magically appears, right?
Or it magically jumps into JBC's hand.
What in the hell are you talking about? Light propagates through space.
If it reflects off something, it goes somewhere else. So yes, it
starts in the sun, then hits the handhold somewhere, which by the way
is nowhere near the sun, and reflects off it to the mirror, which is
several feet from the handhold, and then reflects off the mirror.
>
>
>>>> 2) An outside rearview that, if adjusted for the driver, would be in
>>>> about the right orientation to reflect light from the handhold
>>>> approximately back in the direction from which it came.
>>> Where's the sun, David?
>> In the sky, Chad.
>
> No kidding. Way to really nail that one down.
You tee them up and I will drive them.
>
>>>> 3) The little bright spots on JBC's chest in 222 and 223 which appear to
>>>> move from his left to right from 222 to 223 as does the whole bright
>>>> area on his chest.
>>> The bright spots move? What's making them move? The mirror isn't
>>> projecting
>>> anything in a different place. The sun hasn't changed position. The limo
>>> has moved
>>> about .88 feet in one frame. So, what is causing the light to move around
>>> on his chest?
>> See 6)
>
> Oy. The slight turn hypothesis that occurred in one frame, right? Tell me,
> how much angular movement can happen in .88 feet, David?
If the car was turning on a 100 foot radius, which is not much of a
turn, 0.5 degrees. If the mirror is 44" in front of the handhold and
JBC is 24" behind it, that would move a spot 1" across JBC's chest with
a flat mirror if he was perpendicular to the reflected beam. If he
rotated 45 degrees, which I think is about right, 1.4". If he was
rotated 60 degrees, 2". Of course, the proper interval would be from the
start of the exposure of 222 to the end of the exposure of 223, so those
numbers should be multiplied by about 1.5. A convex mirror would move it
considerably more depending on the curvature. With a 100 foot turn
radius, JBC rotated 45 degrees, 1.32 feet traveled for 1.5 frames, and a
convex mirror with a 36" radius of curvature the spot would move about
5.4" across JBC's chest.
>
>>>
>>>> 4) The appearance of the bright blobs on or through the small window
>>>> beside JBC after the bright spots and bright area disappears from JBC's
>>>> chest.
>>> Are you suggesting that it disappeared from JBC's chest and is now seen
>>> through the window?
>> On the window.
>
> Is this being caused by some major angular movement that happened in .88
> feet and is wholely unobserved in the film?
I think the car might need to turn 1 to 2 degrees. Can you find that in
the film?
>
>
>>>> 5) Just sitting back and looking at the film and not paying close
>>>> attention to what is going on in the limo, the "hat flip" looks like a
>>>> reflection moving on the glass.
>>> Reflection moving on the glass? Reflection of what? Coming from what
>>> light
>>> source?
>> From the sun to the handhold to the mirror.
>
> Oy.
Double reflections happen.
>
>> How is it moving if the sun hasn't moved and the mirror and windows
>>> haven't moved, yet the limo has only moved .88 feet?
>> The car is turning. I think it is a little more than 0.88 feet.
>
> 11 mph times 5260 feet per mile, divided by 60 minutes per hour, divided
> by 60 seconds per minute, divided by 18.3 frames per second equals .88
> feet. Now, if you have evidence that the limo was going more than 11 mph,
> then post it here.
Would you like to post your calculations that show 11 mph?
>
> Right
>> outside rear views are usually convex. That amplifies the movement. How
>> far it moves across JBC depends on the angle of his chest to the limo.
>
> So, is JBC moving a lot in 1/18.3 seconds?
I don't think so.
>
> David, you have a problem. Nothing was really moving much in those two
> frames.
The limo was.
>
>>> Just can't be that hat, eh. It's not there in 224, but it shows up in
>>> 230...without
>>> leaving a trace of its appearance in between. It sure sounds like we've
>>> gone from
>>> magic bullets to magic hats...
>> You have it descending about a foot in 1/9th second and stopping on a dime
>> as it shows no motion blurring in 230. That seem pretty magical to me.
>
> THE MAJORITY OF ALL THE BLURRING IN THE FILM IS DUE TO ZAPRUDER, not JBC.
> How the hell is it that a limo going 11mph can be seen so crisply in some
> frames, yet blurry in others?
What the hell are you talking about? If the hat was moving as you would
have it, it would be motion blurred. Because the hat isn't blurred,
that means it isn't moving. You have the hat moving quite a distance
and then stopping very abruptly. Don't you think it would flop around a
bit?
>
> Zapruder.
>
> The hat would've shown up better in other frames had Zapruder not messed
> up panning at that point. Jesus, you can't hardly discern Jackie in some
> of those frames, but she's not moving.
>
> And, I never mentioned anything about descending, you did.
Then the hat is right where it is in 230.
>
>>> The problem with all lights and shadows, as Pamela might attest to, is
>>> that you have
>>> to have something move significantly, such as a light source (the sun) or
>>> the reflective
>>> device (the mirror). Now, which moved? If neither moved in 1/18.3 of a
>>> second or
>>> in .88 feet of the limo's travel, then it has to be something else.
>> All this is answered above.
>
> YEah, by some angular movement of the limo that isn't seen in the footage
> whatsoever.
>
> Interesting.
Just how small a turn do you think you can eyeball?
>
>>>> 6) A slight right turn by the limo would cause a reflection off the
>>>> outside rearview to move from JBC's left to his right and then onto the
>>>> pane of glass.
>>> Holy stretch, batman. Now, just how much did the limo turn in one frame,
>>> David?
>>>
>>> Just can't be the damned hat, could it?
>> Not unless it shrunk to about 1/5th its former size.
>
> Show your method for making that determination, David.
Show me what you are calling a hat other than in 230 where everybody can
see it.
>>>>> Perhaps you should quote the exact passage where he says he saw JFK.
>>>>> Was it
>>>>> immediately after the FIRST shot that he is referring to?
>>>> We heard a shot. I turned to my left -- I was sitting in the jump seat.
>>>> I turned to my left to look in the back seat. The President was slumped.
>>>> Ah, he had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit,
>>>> and I knew I'd been hit badly.
>>>>
>>>> If he really meant left and did not mistakenly say left for right, then
>>>> all bets are off. He had no chance to see JFK slumped before 224 if JFK
>>>> was hit just before that unless he slumped before he was hit. He wasn't
>>>> in a position to see JFK until after 230 at the earliest.
>>> Well after 230, imo.
>> Which would mean he was hit well after 230 by the above statement.
>
> Yes, and in stark contrast to the majority of all other recollections that
> he has ever made.
I guess his memory got better with time.
>>>> However, it is hardly a reason to discount
>>>>> his testimony
>>>>> of seeing someone shooting from the same window that several others saw
>>>>> someone
>>>>> shooting from.
>>>> Hardly a reason to discount his testimony? Hardly. He seems to be
>>>> fitting his testimony to some external model.
>>> Major gross speculation, David. It's a conspiracy!!! Somebody fed him the
>>> information!!!
>> He said there were three shots and he only heard two so he had to get some
>> information from an external source. Your above statement is an example
>> of conspiratorial thinking.
>
> YEah, and totally in jest, just as it should be. He could've talked to a
> witness at the scene seconds after the shooting.
Then he was being influenced by external sources.
>
>>> He reported seeing somebody shooting from that window minutes after the
>>> shooting. So did
>>> several others. Somebody was shooting from that window, David.
>> They reported seeing a rifle in the window. That's not quite the same as
>> seeing somebody shooting.
>
> What the hell is the point of sticking a gun out of the window if you're
> not going to shoot it?
Who said he didn't shoot?
>
> You have someone sticking a gun out of a window, not shooting it...and
> someone else that was never seen shooting from some other unknown
> location.
> Yeah, that's highly logical.
>
> Euins saw the shooting, David.
The WC didn't ask Euins if he saw any evidence that the rifle was
actually fired. I checked that out long ago. I know you don't care
because you have your theory, but I would like to know things like that.
Exactly.
>
>>> Are you suggesting he saw someone in the window just holding a gun...like
>>> a distractor...
>>> put in place to make people think shots came from there?
>> Let me try it again more slowly. If he was seen not shooting while the
>> sound of a gunshot was heard, then at least one shot came from somewhere
>> else.
>
> Okay, but nobody said that they heard a shot and the guy in the window
> wasn't shooting. Therefore, this is a fantastical scenario devised to
> exonerate the window shooter from shooting.
Brennan said that he heard a shot while looking at the man with the
rifle in the window. He said he saw no discharge from the rifle and no
recoil. Unless he had good sound location, I'm pretty sure you have no
idea, and the environment allowed sounds to be located, he didn't
actually know the rifle he saw fired the shot he heard. From personal
experience, I think he should have seen some direct evidence that the
rifle he was looking at was actually discharged. You are just reading a
lot in. Did I say that rifle never fired? No, I didn't. I said if
Brennan was looking at the rifle while it was not firing and heard a
shot, then at least one shot came from somewhere else. That is, if I
considered him a reliable witness.
>
>>> I have watched people firing at a rifle range who were
>>>> seated with their elbows on a table and very well braced. There is a
>>>> very noticeable jolt followed by the sound.
>>> Well, to match your quote above:
>>>
>>> It would only be noticed if it were noticed...
>> and like I said, it is hard not to notice.
>
> It's real easy not to notice it if you don't really want to pay attention
> to recoil, David.
That's not my experience at all, Chad.
>
>>> There could've been a jolt that he didn't pay much attention to. Thus,
>>> when asked,
>>> he said no...because he didn't pay any attention to that. When I'm at a
>>> range, I don't
>>> pay attention to that because we all know that some jolt occurs. There
>>> are big
>>> jolts and small jolts. Not noticing one doesn't mean that there wasn't
>>> one.
>> I see it without looking for it. There is no cue as the sight precedes
>> the sound.
>
> Seeing something and pay attention enough to remember it later are two
> different things.
>
> Because you seem to remember the character of every rifle jolt you've ever
> witnessed doesn't mean that others do.
Remember the character of every rifle jolt? I said that I see an
obvious jolt. I don't know what would constitute the character.
>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> What the heck would be the point of stating that you didn't hear
>>>>> the
>>>>> >> second shot if you actually did? There isn't one.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > What is the point of saying there was a shot between the two you
>>>>> heard
>>>>> > if you didn't hear it?
>>>>> Apparently none, because many others didn't hear 3 shots either.
>>>>> Jackie only heard 2. JBC
>>>>> only heard 2.
>>>> That does not explain why he thought he didn't hear a particular shot.
>>> No, and I assume nothing will adequately explain that.
>>>
>>>>> He probably heard the news accounts about 3 shots and decided it was
>>>>> the second one
>>>>> that missed...for whatever reason.
>>>> And he thought he should not hear a shot that missed?
>>> If he thought he should, he would've testified to that, David.
>> You seem to know this witness very well.
>
> About as well as you do.
I don't claim to know what he would or would not testify to so you must
think you know him a lot better than I.
>
>>>> He was testifying to something he had know way of actually knowing. He
>>>> was reading something in. Do you not think he could have done the same
>>>> with Oswald?
>>> David, inconsistencies exist in EVERY witnesses testimony. If you prefer
>>> to
>>> make the leap that if one exists then everything is bogus, feel free. You
>>> will have
>>> a very short list of witnesses to refer to.
>> Show me examples of other witnesses testifying to something they had no
>> way of knowing.
>
> Look at Nellie Connally's testimony and then watch the Zapruder film and
> see if it all matches up.
I didn't say show me a case of a witness being wrong, I said show me a
case where a witness was testifying to something he had no way of
knowing. Not the same thing.
>
>>> He could have "seen" Oswald in the window because that was
>>>> how he thought it was supposed to be. He could have "seen" Oswald for
>>>> the same reason that said he didn't hear the second shot for all you
>>>> know.
>>> He SAW someone with a gun, David. The gun found on that floor had Oz's
>>> print on
>>> it, was Oz's gun, was in Oz's workplace, found near 3 shell casings that
>>> matched Oz's gun...
>> And none of that means he saw Oswald or anybody else actually shoot the
>> rifle. How is that not clear?
>
> David, he told a police officer minutes after the shooting that he saw a
> white male shooting out of that window. How the hell was he supposed to
> know the *story* within minutes of the assassination?
The issue was Brennan telling the WC that he didn't hear the second
shot. I don't see how your previous statement is relevant to anything.
>
> Now, I didn't know this turned into a he saw Oswald scenario. I didn't say
> he saw Oswald.
I don't see how Brennan has much relevance, otherwise. He was the only
one that said he actually saw Oswald in the window.
He saw someone shooting and told an officer minutes after
> the shots.
I have to disagree. He said he saw somebody with a rifle and heard
shots. He said nothing to indicate that he actually saw the rifle fire.
He also said he saw the man pull back after the last shot and look.
If I thought Brennan was a reliable witness, I would say the guy in the
window was preparing to shoot but didn't because somebody else did and
he saw JFK's head blow up.
Thus, someone was up there with a gun. Euins saw the guy
> shooting. The rest is common sense:
>
> 1. Oz's prints on the gun.
> 2. Fibers matching his shirt wedged in the butt plate.
> 3. Fiber matching his blanket found in the sack.
> 4. 90% of witnesses hearing 3 or fewer shots, 3 shell casings found within
> minutes of the shooting.
There could have been a spent cartridge left in the rifle that got
ejected when the first shell was chambered. It wouldn't be all that
unusual.
> 5. Those same shell casings matched the gun found on that floor.
> 6. That gun was linked to LHO's PO Box and his known alias.
> 7. He was found with forged ID's with that name on it.
He was carrying a phony ID with the name Alek Hidell and his picture on
it. The problem was, it was a draft card and draft cards didn't have
pictures on them. This was in a time before driver's licenses had
pictures on them. Photo ID was somewhat rare and rarely required. When
it was required, there were just a few types of ID that would be
accepted. On the other hand, draft cards were extremely common. The
card would have been a viable fake ID if only it did not have the
picture on it. Why would anybody go to the extra trouble to put a
picture on an ID when it would only reveal it as a fake? It would in
the USA, anyway. Did Oswald always carry around this worthless phony ID
or just when he was shooting the President with the rifle it would link
him to? That fake ID convinces me more than any single item that
something else was going on.
> 8. He worked at the TSBD.
> 9. He was seen carrying a long brown package, later to be found with his
> prints and fibers matching the blanket
> that held the rifle.
> 10. Pictures of Oswald with the same type of rifle.
> 11. All of Lee's lies told to the DPD.
If somebody lies, does that mean he shot the President? It means he had
something to hide.
> On and on and on...
>
>>> Yet, his description of Oz was off, wasn't it. If he was being fed, they
>>> fed him wrong.
Who is "they"?
>> Hey, his description was off. Now there's a solid reason to believe he
>> was a reliable witness. Have you ever heard of coaching witnesses? It
>> has been in the news lately. It happens.
>
> So, they said: "Hey, Brennan, make the guy too old and too heavy to be
> Oswald. That'll really make 'em think that it was Oswald, which is what we
> need. You are the key to this case."
>
> Right.
I would say wrong. I think a better explanation is that he realized he
could be a star and maybe make some big bucks if he said he saw Oswald.
>
>>> Someone was up there shooting. The evidence fits Oz above and beyond
>>> anyone else. Period.
>> Maybe it was Oswald, but Brennan is no reason to think it was. That's the
>> point.
>
> I never said that Brennan was the reason to think it was Oswald. Thus,
> your point appears to be pointless.
So why did you bring up Brennan? If was off the subject to begin with.
So where is your evidence that the hat is "flailing". You are now
attributing the whole thing to motion blurring on the part of Zapruder.
Now, how was it that you interpret this as evidence that JBC was shot?
It seems like an incredible stretch to me.
>
> Hand seen on hat.
>> Reflection from cuff also seen.
>>
>> 229 - part of hand seen in about the same position as in 230 with no
>> obvious motion blurring. "Hat" (according to Chad) is very bright spot
>> which is at least a foot from JBC's hand. Nothing but what appears to be
>> JBC's jacket is visible between the "hat" and the hand. Cuff is about in
>> the same place.
>
> Therefore, in the span of 1/18th of a second, the hand doesn't move and
> the hat magically appears!
So are you saying his hand isn't visible in 229 or 230 or that they
aren't in very nearly the same spot or what?
>
>> 228 - "hat" extends almost up to JBC's nose, but is much smaller than the
>> hat in 230 and doesn't extend nearly to the level of the hand and cuff in
>> 230. Hand not visible but something that looks something like the cuff in
>> 230 and 229 is visible in about the same place. There are vague bright
>> areas in the region where the hat is seen in 230, but nothing else between
>> the cuff and the "hat".
>>
>> I've got it! JBC had a yo-yo hat. He was entertaining the Dealey crowd
>> with his around-the-world trick.
>
> David, if the hand hadn't moved from 229-230...how'd the hat get there?
So are you saying his hand isn't visible in 229 or 230 or that they
aren't in very nearly the same spot or what?
>
> After all, you said you can see the hat in 230. You just professed that a
> hand is seen in 229 in about the same position as 230 and without obvious
> motion blurring...so how'd the hat get in his hand?
>
>>
>> Unless you can somehow see hat between JBC's hand and the bright spot in
>> 229, his hat is not in his hand. If you can't see it there, why do you
>> think you should see it elsewhere?
>
> Because you said you can see it in 230...
>
>>> Tell me, other than Pamela, are there any other takers on that?
>> Any takers on Chad's yo-yo hat theory?
>
> Yep, plenty. It's not a yo-yo, you just can't apparently see what everyone
> else sees.
1) No, I don't see it.
2) I don't think you speak for everyone. Show me where YOU see the hat.
You now have said that you don't see the hat due to camera motion
blurring. Make up your mind.
>
> You have a hat magically jumping into his hand in 230, yet is entirely
> invisible in 229.
No, you have that.
curtj...@webtv.net
WhiskyJoe wrote:
> Way to go David.
>
>
>
> If one just looks at the Zapruder film as the limousine emerges from
> behind the sign, one can clearly seen that both Kennedy and Connally are
> reacting strongly to being shot. Connally's reactions don't start in the
> 230's frames. He is clearly reacting by 224, when he becomes fully
> visible, just as strongly as Kennedy is reacting.
>
>
>
> false.
>
> And it would be amazing that the wounds on Kennedy and Connally would line
> up so well if caused by two different bullets. Even CTers admit that the
> bullet wounds are within a few inches of being in the correct locations,
> even if one goes with the holes in the bunched up clothes and not with the
> wound locations on the bodies.
>
> It would be fantastic luck that two different bullets hit so near the
> perfect locations, near simultaneously, so one could claim the wounds were
> caused by just one bullet. Weren't those conspirators the luckiest devils
> around. They even got a lucky puff of wind at the perfect time to puff out
> Connally's lapel. And somehow the bullet that hit Kennedy did not go on to
> hit Connally. And somehow the bullet that that struck Connally was not
> blocked by Kennedy. And one of those bullets just disappeared. Indeed, I
> guess both of those bullets disappeared since the Parkland bullet was
> supposedly planted.
>
> And so many people are impressed by the fact that the Parkland bullet was
> so "pristine", but think nothing of the fact that such a bullet can and
> will penetrate 39 inches of wood with less damage than the Parkland
> bullet. And for the record, the Parkland bullet was not pristine, it's
> base was squeezed so much that instead of having a circular base, the
> narrow (minor) axis was half as wide as the wide (major) axis.
>
Can you provide any verification for such an experiment?
How do you account for the doctor's that said that there was more
fragmentation left in JBC's body than was accounted for in missing
grains from the Parkland bullet?
CJ
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
references in the post.)
"David Wimp" <SpamMeT...@Spamex.com> wrote in message
news:4449...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Okay, don't point it out...
>
>>
>>>> So, are you going to state that you don't think it is his hat?
>>> If you are talking about the blobs, yes.
>>
>> Post your blobs. Nobody knows what the heck you're talking about.
>
> That's interesting because you have been talking about them. Nobody can
> miss the bright spots on or behind the glass. Why don't you post where
> you see the hat flailing.
I see. This is turning into a 'let's see who succumbs to the idiocy first'
argument.
If I could find my disc with all the Zap frames in it, then I would.
Unfortunately, I did just move a few months ago and not everything is in
order. Some are boxed, some are at work, etc.
Of course, all one has to do is watch the clip from 224-230 to see
it...except you.
>
>>
>>>> It looks like it is just sitting there to me. Even if he were
>>>>> "flailing" his hat, it's quite a stretch to claim that as evidence of
>>>>> his being hit by a bullet.
>>>> Jesus, watch it in real time and tell me that he looks like he's just
>>>> sitting there
>>>> from 224-230.
>>> Read more carefully. I said "it" which referred to the hat and I was
>>> talking about 230.
>>
>> So, it is absent in 224 and magically appears in 230 without a single
>> frame
>> between capturing it, eh?
>
> It has to appear in some frame. For some reason, the hat is hard to
> see. You have most of it invisible.
No, that's you, David. I'm the guy that claims he can see it. You're the
guy that can't.
You have it a foot from the hand
> in 229 and then in the hand at 230. Why is that any less magical?
If you would post what you are calling a hand in those frames, I could
possibly address your concerns. However, since we're not quite on the same
page, it'd be nice to actually see what you are looking at, David. Or, we
could just continue blowing bandwidth under the assumption that we are
looking at the same exact "blob".
If I can find my larger captures of those frames, I'll see what I can do.
However, I'm not having much luck thus far.
>
>>
>>>> You are doing the same thing that Tink has done on programs. Look at
>>>> 224
>>>> and 230, ignore
>>>> all parts in between.
>>> I have not ignored them. I have not come to the conclusion that a
>>> relatively small, amorphous blob is a hat.
>>
>> It magically appears, right?
>
> Or it magically jumps into JBC's hand.
Or there isn't magic and you're getting confused looking at a blurry frame.
That's a whole hell of a lot of reflecting going on, David. Oh, it's
obviously just light from the sun hitting the handhold, bouncing off and
into a mirror and from the mirror to...
Can't be a hat. It has to be the more complicated of the two. I'd imagine
that you've garnered some good information about the angle the mirrors
were set at in order to make light from the handhold reflect to the mirror
and from the mirror to wherever you have it ending up. This would be an
interesting experiment. Angle of incidence and angle of relection related
to the position of the mirror and the handhold. I wonder if it is even
possible. Heck, at least we could come up with an idea of where the mirror
was set.
Of course, you have light moving around, which means that the reflective
material has to be changing its position somehow. I know you tried out the
old 'Limo abruptly turned' bit, but unfortunately that is not
substantiated by the film itself...particularly in .88 feet.
What is the cars radius, instead of a hypothetical radius, David?
If the mirror is 44" in front of the handhold and
> JBC is 24" behind it, that would move a spot 1" across JBC's chest with
> a flat mirror if he was perpendicular to the reflected beam. If he
> rotated 45 degrees, which I think is about right, 1.4". If he was
> rotated 60 degrees, 2".
Rotated in relation to what? His torso is facing almost straight ahead,
but his head is turned slightly to the right.
Of course, the proper interval would be from the
> start of the exposure of 222 to the end of the exposure of 223, so those
> numbers should be multiplied by about 1.5. A convex mirror would move it
> considerably more depending on the curvature.
Was the mirror convex?
With a 100 foot turn
> radius, JBC rotated 45 degrees, 1.32 feet traveled for 1.5 frames, and a
> convex mirror with a 36" radius of curvature the spot would move about
> 5.4" across JBC's chest.
And how many of those number are based upon real numbers?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> 4) The appearance of the bright blobs on or through the small window
>>>>> beside JBC after the bright spots and bright area disappears from
>>>>> JBC's
>>>>> chest.
>>>> Are you suggesting that it disappeared from JBC's chest and is now seen
>>>> through the window?
>>> On the window.
>>
>> Is this being caused by some major angular movement that happened in .88
>> feet and is wholely unobserved in the film?
>
> I think the car might need to turn 1 to 2 degrees. Can you find that in
> the film?
Not in those frames. However, I don't know how you could come up with any
of those numbers from above with that film either...
>>
>>
>>>>> 5) Just sitting back and looking at the film and not paying close
>>>>> attention to what is going on in the limo, the "hat flip" looks like a
>>>>> reflection moving on the glass.
>>>> Reflection moving on the glass? Reflection of what? Coming from what
>>>> light
>>>> source?
>>> From the sun to the handhold to the mirror.
>>
>> Oy.
>
> Double reflections happen.
Yeah, they do. Nothing like taking the more complicated approach.
>
>>
>>> How is it moving if the sun hasn't moved and the mirror and windows
>>>> haven't moved, yet the limo has only moved .88 feet?
>>> The car is turning. I think it is a little more than 0.88 feet.
>>
>> 11 mph times 5260 feet per mile, divided by 60 minutes per hour, divided
>> by 60 seconds per minute, divided by 18.3 frames per second equals .88
>> feet. Now, if you have evidence that the limo was going more than 11 mph,
>> then post it here.
>
> Would you like to post your calculations that show 11 mph?
Typo, David. 5260 should read 5280.
It equals .88 feet per frame if traveling at 11mph.
The film study for the HSCA had the limo traveling at approximately 11mph.
Look at their calculations. Or, read:
http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/hearnoevil.htm
>
>>
>> Right
>>> outside rear views are usually convex. That amplifies the movement. How
>>> far it moves across JBC depends on the angle of his chest to the limo.
>>
>> So, is JBC moving a lot in 1/18.3 seconds?
>
> I don't think so.
>>
>> David, you have a problem. Nothing was really moving much in those two
>> frames.
>
> The limo was.
But your angular hypothesis can't be supported by anything. It is a guess.
>
>>
>>>> Just can't be that hat, eh. It's not there in 224, but it shows up in
>>>> 230...without
>>>> leaving a trace of its appearance in between. It sure sounds like we've
>>>> gone from
>>>> magic bullets to magic hats...
>>> You have it descending about a foot in 1/9th second and stopping on a
>>> dime
>>> as it shows no motion blurring in 230. That seem pretty magical to me.
>>
>> THE MAJORITY OF ALL THE BLURRING IN THE FILM IS DUE TO ZAPRUDER, not JBC.
>> How the hell is it that a limo going 11mph can be seen so crisply in some
>> frames, yet blurry in others?
>
> What the hell are you talking about? If the hat was moving as you would
> have it, it would be motion blurred.
Yeah, it is.
Because the hat isn't blurred,
IN ONE FRAME, David. The limo is moving in some frames and looks nice and
clear. JFK and the other occupants look nice and clear in frames. However,
in other frames, they don't...which is more often a product of the camera
and its holder, not the motion in the car.
In 230, the car is moving, which means the hat is moving, the occupants
are moving, but the frame is clear. In addition, just because the hat
moved in the previous frames doesn't mean that it had to continue moving.
Eventually, you'll end up with a clear frame. In my opinion (and that of
most others), the hat can be seen moving as a flash of gray and white,
depending on how it is reflecting the sun. You, however, can't see that
and prefer to call it a reflection of a reflection.
In my opinion, the hat is first seen in frame 226 as a white "blob"
because it is reflecting light directly at Zapruder. In 227, it is
slightly higher up and is a gray blur. In 228, it is reflecting primarily
white. In 229, it drops down. You can see JBC's right hand a few inches
below his chin. The hat, which shows up clearly in 230, is in that hand
which can be seen in 229.
I've attached a slow motion file of 223-231.
> that means it isn't moving.
No, it means it isn't moving fast enough to be seen as a blur given the
shutter speed of the camera.
My camera has a shutter speed of 1/15,000th of a second. I've shot pop
cans and the explosion is stopped in mid air- the soda looks like droplets
frozen in the air.
That's what is going on here. In the earlier frames, Zapruder blurs the
frames - in addition to the hat movement- but at 230, the camera's shutter
speed can pick up the subject material without a blur. That' doesn't mean
it isn't moving. In fact, it moves from 229-230 and 230-231. According to
you, it instantaneously stopped at 230 (of course, you can't see it in
229).
You have the hat moving quite a distance
> and then stopping very abruptly. Don't you think it would flop around a
> bit?
I don't have it doing that. Your rationale has it doing that.
>
>>
>> Zapruder.
>>
>> The hat would've shown up better in other frames had Zapruder not messed
>> up panning at that point. Jesus, you can't hardly discern Jackie in some
>> of those frames, but she's not moving.
>>
>> And, I never mentioned anything about descending, you did.
>
> Then the hat is right where it is in 230.
Yeah, and it isn't in 224....?!?
So, David...why did it not register as a blip in previous frames, but did
in 230...but allegedly isn't moving at all?
Magic?
>
>>
>>>> The problem with all lights and shadows, as Pamela might attest to, is
>>>> that you have
>>>> to have something move significantly, such as a light source (the sun)
>>>> or
>>>> the reflective
>>>> device (the mirror). Now, which moved? If neither moved in 1/18.3 of a
>>>> second or
>>>> in .88 feet of the limo's travel, then it has to be something else.
>>> All this is answered above.
>>
>> YEah, by some angular movement of the limo that isn't seen in the footage
>> whatsoever.
>>
>> Interesting.
>
> Just how small a turn do you think you can eyeball?
Just how many frames do you think a small turn would take? Would the car
move closer to the camera? Away?
>
>>
>>>>> 6) A slight right turn by the limo would cause a reflection off the
>>>>> outside rearview to move from JBC's left to his right and then onto
>>>>> the
>>>>> pane of glass.
>>>> Holy stretch, batman. Now, just how much did the limo turn in one
>>>> frame,
>>>> David?
>>>>
>>>> Just can't be the damned hat, could it?
>>> Not unless it shrunk to about 1/5th its former size.
>>
>> Show your method for making that determination, David.
>
> Show me what you are calling a hat other than in 230 where everybody can
> see it.
I included the video. One should be able to see what is going on by
watching it in motion.
>
>
>>>>>> Perhaps you should quote the exact passage where he says he saw JFK.
>>>>>> Was it
>>>>>> immediately after the FIRST shot that he is referring to?
>>>>> We heard a shot. I turned to my left -- I was sitting in the jump
>>>>> seat.
>>>>> I turned to my left to look in the back seat. The President was
>>>>> slumped.
>>>>> Ah, he had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was
>>>>> hit,
>>>>> and I knew I'd been hit badly.
>>>>>
>>>>> If he really meant left and did not mistakenly say left for right,
>>>>> then
>>>>> all bets are off. He had no chance to see JFK slumped before 224 if
>>>>> JFK
>>>>> was hit just before that unless he slumped before he was hit. He
>>>>> wasn't
>>>>> in a position to see JFK until after 230 at the earliest.
>>>> Well after 230, imo.
>>> Which would mean he was hit well after 230 by the above statement.
>>
>> Yes, and in stark contrast to the majority of all other recollections
>> that
>> he has ever made.
>
> I guess his memory got better with time.
Who knows.
Could be, which doesn't really alter the materiality of what he
witnessed...which is the important thing.
>
>>
>>>> He reported seeing somebody shooting from that window minutes after the
>>>> shooting. So did
>>>> several others. Somebody was shooting from that window, David.
>>> They reported seeing a rifle in the window. That's not quite the same
>>> as
>>> seeing somebody shooting.
>>
>> What the hell is the point of sticking a gun out of the window if you're
>> not going to shoot it?
>
> Who said he didn't shoot?
"They reported seeing a rifle in the window. That's not quite the same as
seeing somebody shoot it."
You made the insinuation.
>
>>
>> You have someone sticking a gun out of a window, not shooting it...and
>> someone else that was never seen shooting from some other unknown
>> location.
>> Yeah, that's highly logical.
>
>
>
>>
>> Euins saw the shooting, David.
>
> The WC didn't ask Euins if he saw any evidence that the rifle was
> actually fired. I checked that out long ago. I know you don't care
> because you have your theory, but I would like to know things like that.
Mr. EUINS. Then I was standing here, and as the motorcade turned the
corner, I was facing, looking dead at the building. And so I seen this
pipe thing sticking out the window. I wasn't paying too much attention to
it. Then when the first shot was fired, I started looking around, thinking
it was a backfire. Everybody else started looking around. Then I looked up
at the window, and he shot again. So--you know this fountain bench here,
right around here. Well, anyway, there is a little fountain right here. I
got behind this little fountain, and then he shot again. So after he shot
again, he just started looking down this, you know.
Mr. SPECTER. Who started looking down that way?
Mr. EUINS. The man in the window. I could see his hand, and I could see
his other hand on the trigger, and one hand was on the barrel thing.
Mr. SPECTER. All right.
Now, at the time the second shot was fired, where were you looking then?
Mr. EUINS. I was still looking at the building, you know, behind this--I
was looking at the building.
Mr. SPECTER. Looking at anything special in the building?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir. I was looking where the barrel was sticking out.
Mr. SPECTER. How many shots did you hear altogether?
Mr. EUINS. I believe there was four, to be exact.
Does he say he was looking at the window with the barrel sticking out of
it when the second shot was fired?
Yes, he does.
Mr. EUINS. And then as I looked up there, you know, he fired another shot,
you know, as I was looking. So I got behind this fountain thing right in
there, at this point B.
Mr. SPECTER. At point B, on 365?
Mr. EUINS. I got behind there. And then I watched, he did fire again. Then
he started looking down towards my way, and then he fired again.
Again, you have a guy sticking a gun out of the window and searching for
evidence that it wasn't shot.
And only you pay attention to the recoil and make sure you remember it
every time you see it...
Unless he had good sound location, I'm pretty sure you have no
> idea, and the environment allowed sounds to be located, he didn't
> actually know the rifle he saw fired the shot he heard. From personal
> experience, I think he should have seen some direct evidence that the
> rifle he was looking at was actually discharged.
Yeah, in your opinion. He may have seen something, but paying attention to
it and recalling it months later are two different things. In fact, it is
just about pointless. More importantly, he saw a gun, heard shots and
didn't think the shots were coming from some other place.
You are just reading a
> lot in.
I'm not the one micro-dissecting every single word to find a way.
Did I say that rifle never fired? No, I didn't. I said if
> Brennan was looking at the rifle while it was not firing and heard a
> shot, then at least one shot came from somewhere else. That is, if I
> considered him a reliable witness.
Funny how that didn't seem to register to him as being odd...
You have created an alternate scenario of the the lack of a witness
noticing something that you think people should take note of...but no
evidence that such a thing should be commonly noted. It is a trivial
detail that most would not pay much attention to. Try and do a search of
witness testimony where they describe the kick of the gun. They don't
usually. They describe seeing the gun being shot, no the redundant and
pointless kick of a gun.
>
>>
>>>> I have watched people firing at a rifle range who were
>>>>> seated with their elbows on a table and very well braced. There is a
>>>>> very noticeable jolt followed by the sound.
>>>> Well, to match your quote above:
>>>>
>>>> It would only be noticed if it were noticed...
>>> and like I said, it is hard not to notice.
>>
>> It's real easy not to notice it if you don't really want to pay attention
>> to recoil, David.
>
> That's not my experience at all, Chad.
I've been shooting guns my whole life and pay no particular significance
or detail to the recoil of a gun after the fact. It happens. Everyone
knows it, few pay any attention to it.
>>
>>>> There could've been a jolt that he didn't pay much attention to. Thus,
>>>> when asked,
>>>> he said no...because he didn't pay any attention to that. When I'm at a
>>>> range, I don't
>>>> pay attention to that because we all know that some jolt occurs. There
>>>> are big
>>>> jolts and small jolts. Not noticing one doesn't mean that there wasn't
>>>> one.
>>> I see it without looking for it. There is no cue as the sight precedes
>>> the sound.
>>
>> Seeing something and pay attention enough to remember it later are two
>> different things.
>>
>> Because you seem to remember the character of every rifle jolt you've
>> ever
>> witnessed doesn't mean that others do.
>
> Remember the character of every rifle jolt? I said that I see an
> obvious jolt. I don't know what would constitute the character.
Okay, split hairs. You seem to think you remember the recoil of every shot
you've ever seen. Most don't. Most don't care to pay significant attention
to it...mostly because we all know that guns recoil when shot. It is
something that does not require noticing.
It is very odd that you seem to think that Brennan should recall such a
thing.
>
>>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> What the heck would be the point of stating that you didn't hear
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> >> second shot if you actually did? There isn't one.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > What is the point of saying there was a shot between the two you
>>>>>> heard
>>>>>> > if you didn't hear it?
>>>>>> Apparently none, because many others didn't hear 3 shots either.
>>>>>> Jackie only heard 2. JBC
>>>>>> only heard 2.
>>>>> That does not explain why he thought he didn't hear a particular shot.
>>>> No, and I assume nothing will adequately explain that.
>>>>
>>>>>> He probably heard the news accounts about 3 shots and decided it was
>>>>>> the second one
>>>>>> that missed...for whatever reason.
>>>>> And he thought he should not hear a shot that missed?
>>>> If he thought he should, he would've testified to that, David.
>>> You seem to know this witness very well.
>>
>> About as well as you do.
>
> I don't claim to know what he would or would not testify to so you must
> think you know him a lot better than I.
You seem to think that he should notice certain things and testify to
them...
>>
>>>>> He was testifying to something he had know way of actually knowing.
>>>>> He
>>>>> was reading something in. Do you not think he could have done the
>>>>> same
>>>>> with Oswald?
>>>> David, inconsistencies exist in EVERY witnesses testimony. If you
>>>> prefer
>>>> to
>>>> make the leap that if one exists then everything is bogus, feel free.
>>>> You
>>>> will have
>>>> a very short list of witnesses to refer to.
>>> Show me examples of other witnesses testifying to something they had no
>>> way of knowing.
>>
>> Look at Nellie Connally's testimony and then watch the Zapruder film and
>> see if it all matches up.
>
> I didn't say show me a case of a witness being wrong, I said show me a
> case where a witness was testifying to something he had no way of
> knowing. Not the same thing.
Will have to think about that one.
>
>>
>>>> He could have "seen" Oswald in the window because that was
>>>>> how he thought it was supposed to be. He could have "seen" Oswald for
>>>>> the same reason that said he didn't hear the second shot for all you
>>>>> know.
>>>> He SAW someone with a gun, David. The gun found on that floor had Oz's
>>>> print on
>>>> it, was Oz's gun, was in Oz's workplace, found near 3 shell casings
>>>> that
>>>> matched Oz's gun...
>>> And none of that means he saw Oswald or anybody else actually shoot the
>>> rifle. How is that not clear?
>>
>> David, he told a police officer minutes after the shooting that he saw a
>> white male shooting out of that window. How the hell was he supposed to
>> know the *story* within minutes of the assassination?
>
> The issue was Brennan telling the WC that he didn't hear the second
> shot. I don't see how your previous statement is relevant to anything.
I don't see how your problem with Brennan has any relevance or materiality
to what he reported seeing minutes after the shooting. It may be an
oddity, but it certainly doesn't seem to be of much import.
>
>>
>> Now, I didn't know this turned into a he saw Oswald scenario. I didn't
>> say
>> he saw Oswald.
>
> I don't see how Brennan has much relevance, otherwise. He was the only
> one that said he actually saw Oswald in the window.
You mean he was the only one that pinpointed the person as Oswald, right?
>
> He saw someone shooting and told an officer minutes after
>> the shots.
>
> I have to disagree. He said he saw somebody with a rifle and heard
> shots. He said nothing to indicate that he actually saw the rifle fire.
Big deal. Jesus. Again you are positing that some guy was sticking a rifle
out of a window and not shooting it.
> He also said he saw the man pull back after the last shot and look.
> If I thought Brennan was a reliable witness, I would say the guy in the
> window was preparing to shoot but didn't because somebody else did and
> he saw JFK's head blow up.
Where'd that fantasy come from?
>
> Thus, someone was up there with a gun. Euins saw the guy
>> shooting. The rest is common sense:
>>
>> 1. Oz's prints on the gun.
>> 2. Fibers matching his shirt wedged in the butt plate.
>> 3. Fiber matching his blanket found in the sack.
>> 4. 90% of witnesses hearing 3 or fewer shots, 3 shell casings found
>> within
>> minutes of the shooting.
>
> There could have been a spent cartridge left in the rifle that got
> ejected when the first shell was chambered. It wouldn't be all that
> unusual.
No, it wouldn't...and...woulda, coulda, shoulda....
>
>> 5. Those same shell casings matched the gun found on that floor.
>> 6. That gun was linked to LHO's PO Box and his known alias.
>> 7. He was found with forged ID's with that name on it.
>
> He was carrying a phony ID with the name Alek Hidell and his picture on
> it. The problem was, it was a draft card and draft cards didn't have
> pictures on them. This was in a time before driver's licenses had
> pictures on them. Photo ID was somewhat rare and rarely required. When
> it was required, there were just a few types of ID that would be
> accepted.
Speculation?
On the other hand, draft cards were extremely common. The
> card would have been a viable fake ID if only it did not have the
> picture on it.
Nevermind that it was an ID, that it had his picture on it with someone
else's name.
Why would anybody go to the extra trouble to put a
> picture on an ID when it would only reveal it as a fake? It would in
> the USA, anyway. Did Oswald always carry around this worthless phony ID
> or just when he was shooting the President with the rifle it would link
> him to? That fake ID convinces me more than any single item that
> something else was going on.
LOL! Yeah, Lee lived in a fantasy world of his own creation. I would
imagine it all depended on who he was showing the ID.
>
>
>
>> 8. He worked at the TSBD.
>> 9. He was seen carrying a long brown package, later to be found with his
>> prints and fibers matching the blanket
>> that held the rifle.
>> 10. Pictures of Oswald with the same type of rifle.
>> 11. All of Lee's lies told to the DPD.
>
> If somebody lies, does that mean he shot the President? It means he had
> something to hide.
No kidding.
I made a list of things, you want to talk about one of them. This is an
additive adventure, David. Since we don't have a video of him shooting,
you have to look at it all on the whole. CT's like to look at each little
tiny bit and try to explain away each of it, usually with diametrically
different things that paint a laughable conspiracy of complexity that
defies reason.
>
>
>
>
>> On and on and on...
>>
>>>> Yet, his description of Oz was off, wasn't it. If he was being fed,
>>>> they
>>>> fed him wrong.
>
> Who is "they"?
Whoever you think was feeding information. It is a figure of speech.
>>> Hey, his description was off. Now there's a solid reason to believe he
>>> was a reliable witness. Have you ever heard of coaching witnesses? It
>>> has been in the news lately. It happens.
>>
>> So, they said: "Hey, Brennan, make the guy too old and too heavy to be
>> Oswald. That'll really make 'em think that it was Oswald, which is what
>> we
>> need. You are the key to this case."
>>
>> Right.
>
> I would say wrong. I think a better explanation is that he realized he
> could be a star and maybe make some big bucks if he said he saw Oswald.
Well, gee, David. He saw someone in a window with a gun. That window was
in the place of LHO's work. It was found to be his, with is prints and
shirt fibers on it. The sack contained fibers matching LHO's preferred
guncase. The casings matched that gun.
It just might...just might....have actually been Oswald he saw.
Nothing like immediately thinking the guy is a louse and just wanted to
make money off of his place in history- which is undoubtedly why his book
was published well after his death- so he could enjoy all of those riches.
>
>>
>>>> Someone was up there shooting. The evidence fits Oz above and beyond
>>>> anyone else. Period.
>>> Maybe it was Oswald, but Brennan is no reason to think it was. That's
>>> the
>>> point.
>>
>> I never said that Brennan was the reason to think it was Oswald. Thus,
>> your point appears to be pointless.
>
> So why did you bring up Brennan? If was off the subject to begin with.
No, it wasn't off the subject. Go read the post again. You'll no doubt
refamiliarize yourself with the actual point.
No, mostly due to Zapruder- which is why everything else in the damned
frame was blurred.
Figure it out.
> Now, how was it that you interpret this as evidence that JBC was shot?
Read my other posts which you allegedly have already read.
> It seems like an incredible stretch to me.
Everything from a LN is a stretch to you.
>
>>
>> Hand seen on hat.
>>> Reflection from cuff also seen.
>>>
>>> 229 - part of hand seen in about the same position as in 230 with no
>>> obvious motion blurring. "Hat" (according to Chad) is very bright spot
>>> which is at least a foot from JBC's hand. Nothing but what appears to
>>> be
>>> JBC's jacket is visible between the "hat" and the hand. Cuff is about
>>> in
>>> the same place.
>>
>> Therefore, in the span of 1/18th of a second, the hand doesn't move and
>> the hat magically appears!
>
> So are you saying his hand isn't visible in 229 or 230 or that they
> aren't in very nearly the same spot or what?
No, Jesus. You said the hand is seen in 229. You also say you see the hat
in 230. That hand is holding the hat.You said you also see the hand. Thus,
if you can't see the hat in 229 near the hand, then you have a magic hat
jumping into his hand in 230.
You just disproved you own hypothesis for 229. By your own observations,
the hat has to be there. And, since you think the hat can't be moving in
230, I'd also say it has to be there in 229.
Which is the issue at 'hand'.
> 2) I don't think you speak for everyone. Show me where YOU see the hat.
Lemme dig up the better frames that I have somewhere.
> You now have said that you don't see the hat due to camera motion
> blurring. Make up your mind.
Why don't you quote what I said, DAvid. I certainly didn't say that I
can't see it. I may have said that it is hard to see or that I need to
take time to look at it closer, but I did not say that I couldn't see it.
>
>>
>> You have a hat magically jumping into his hand in 230, yet is entirely
>> invisible in 229.
>
> No, you have that.
No, you're the guy that can't see it, David...not I. I don't have it
magically appearing.
Watch it in slow motion. If you can't see it, then you're blinded by the
'light'.
Chad
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:44485541$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
If he was holding the hat in his right hand, but the hat was to his left
side..as if his right hand was lying in his lap, perhaps on his left
leg...then there wouldnt' be a hole in the hat, since it was left of the
bullet's path. However, at the time of the probable wounding point, we
don't know exactly where the hat was, do we?
Tell me, Tony...couldn't you figure that out on your own?
Chad