Found a very good blog

[bigdog]

I discovered this while googling for information for another thread.

http://dyingwords.net/missing-bullet-jfk-assassination/#sthash.OIBZ9cWb.dpbs

It contains a well written and well reasoned analysis of Oswald's three
shots by a retired homicide detective.

He has a theory similar to Max Holland's which is that Oswald's first shot
missed because it hit the traffic light. While I believe that is a
possibility, it is only one possibility and virtually unproveable.

In reply to someone else's comment, he did make one mistake which I see so
many others make in response to someone else's suggestion that the first
shot hit the pavement directly. He wrote:

"I still have a problem on how LHO could have completely missed that
monstrous target of the limo from that distance (approx 75-80′)
while he struck JFK accurately from 189′ on the second shot and
265 on the third."

I think we can safely say that Oswald's target was not "that monstrous
target of the limo". His intended target seems to have been that guy who
was sitting in the extreme right hand corner of the back seat. If Oswald's
shot missed him slightly to the right, it would not have hit the limo. If
Oswald had intended to shoot the limo, I'm fairly confident he would have
succeeded.

[David Von Pein]

The author of that blog piece, Garry Rodgers, has a big problem in
promoting the "traffic light defect" theory. Max Holland did promote such
a theory in 2011 in the TV documentary "JFK: The Lost Bullet", but even
Max now knows (via his *own* investigation into this matter in mid-2011,
PRIOR to the "Lost Bullet" special ever airing) that the defect in the
traffic light is almost certainly NOT the result of a bullet striking
it.

More here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/jfk-lost-bullet.html

[claviger]

Sound reasoning. My theory is LHO had a bad case of nerves on the first
shot and simply yanked the trigger too hard. We don't know how unsteady
his stance might have been which might contribute to a missed first shot.
As experienced rifleman know the first shot makes all the butterflies go
away and the next shot is pure instinct. If the scope was off high to the
right even more reason to miss the first shot to the right side of the
target.

What we do know is the first shot missed and hit the curb, then the next
shot hit the President in the back. DPD Sgt Stavis Ellis saw the first
shot hit the curb and the President's reaction to it. He said it left a
mark on the curb and later showed it to some of his fellow DPD officers.

[mainframetech]

A very flawed batch of guesswork. But I can see how your gullibility
would let you think it was well reasoned. As with many LNs the guy was
stuck with using only 3 bullets, and yet even he mentioned the bullet that
hit near James Tague, making a 4th bullet. He was also a sucker for the
'Single bullet' theory and depended on it for his guesswork, even though
it's a dead issue. He also decided to use the traffic light to stop the
missing bullet, though there was a tree there that might have done it just
as well.

He seems to have forgotten that the limo had a hard shot to the
overhead that was a primary strike, and not a ricochet. And what of the
bullet that Steve Ellis saw strike the curb on the right side of Elm
street? Oh, and then we have the bullet hole in the windshield too. And
since the SBT is dead, there is an extra bullet that hit Connally, so
we've got a lot more bullets than this guy started out with.

I think this fellow has gone off the LN deep end.

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

I found a very good dog. Want to trade? Because I already have a dog.

[bigdog]

I didn't find the photo of the alleged defect to be that compelling
although I don't think that invalidates the theory the traffic light
deflected the first shot. It is still a possiblity although I don't think
I lean toward it.

[OZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ]

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 10:55:34 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

Brian Williams, Bill O'Reilly, and now Max Holland's opus.

[Anthony Marsh]

But the point was that a staunch WC defender actually tried to do some
real research. That was a first.

Of course the bullet did not hit the traffic light, but when I mentioned
it 30 years ago, all the WC defenders here denied that there was any
traffic light in the way. So we are making progress.

My point which none of you got was the seeing the traffic light pop up
into view on his scope made him take the first shot much too early.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you think some intended to shoot the chrome topping? Or the curb near
Tague?

[bigdog]

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 2:14:24 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> A very flawed batch of guesswork. But I can see how your gullibility
> would let you think it was well reasoned.

Anybody who believes the crap Doug Horne writes ought not to be calling
other people gullible.

[tom...@cox.net]

MAX HOLLAND IS A CIA ASSET ! ! ! !
===========================================================================
===

claviger <histori...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 8:45:49 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
> > I discovered this while googling for information for another thread.

> >=20
> > http://dyingwords.net/missing-bullet-jfk-assassination/#sthash.OIBZ9cWb
> > .d=
> pbs
> >=20

> > It contains a well written and well reasoned analysis of Oswald's

> > three=
> =20

> > shots by a retired homicide detective.

> >=20

> > He has a theory similar to Max Holland's which is that Oswald's first

> > sho=
> t=20
> > missed because it hit the traffic light. While I believe that is a=20

> > possibility, it is only one possibility and virtually unproveable.

> >=20

> > In reply to someone else's comment, he did make one mistake which I see

> > s=
> o=20

> > many others make in response to someone else's suggestion that the

> > first=
> =20

> > shot hit the pavement directly. He wrote:

> >=20
> > "I still have a problem on how LHO could have completely missed that=20

> > monstrous target of the limo from that distance (approx

> > 75-80=E2=80=B2)=
> =20
> > while he struck JFK accurately from 189=E2=80=B2 on the second shot
> > and=
> =20
> > 265 on the third."
> >=20

> > I think we can safely say that Oswald's target was not "that

> > monstrous=20 target of the limo". His intended target seems to have
> > been that guy who=
> =20

> > was sitting in the extreme right hand corner of the back seat. If

> > Oswald'=
> s=20

> > shot missed him slightly to the right, it would not have hit the limo.

> > If=
> =20

> > Oswald had intended to shoot the limo, I'm fairly confident he would

> > have=
> =20

> > succeeded.
>
> Sound reasoning. My theory is LHO had a bad case of nerves on the first
> shot and simply yanked the trigger too hard. We don't know how unsteady
> his stance might have been which might contribute to a missed first shot.
> As experienced rifleman know the first shot makes all the butterflies go
> away and the next shot is pure instinct. If the scope was off high to
> the right even more reason to miss the first shot to the right side of
> the target.
>
> What we do know is the first shot missed and hit the curb, then the next
> shot hit the President in the back. DPD Sgt Stavis Ellis saw the first
> shot hit the curb and the President's reaction to it. He said it left a
> mark on the curb and later showed it to some of his fellow DPD officers.

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
======HOLY COW CORBETT ! ! ! JUST HOW MANY "THEORIES" DO YOU FOLKS HAVE ?
? ? ?
===========================================================================

[mainframetech]

It sure leaves a lot of bullet strikes left all over the place, it just
reduces them by one.

Chris

[mainframetech]

And what do you attribute the second curb strike to? The one that was
close to James Tague, but a long way across the center green? Those 2
along with 2 shots to hit JFK makes 4...:) And then we have the primary
strike on the chrome overhead of the limo, that's 5. And plenty more
attested to by onlookers. For instance Wayne and Edna Hartman who saw 2
gouges in the dirt and grass of the center green, that a cop told them
were from bullets...both of which pointed back to the grassy knoll! And
then we have the bullet hole in the windshield. And since the SBT is
dead, we have a bullet that hit Connally too. Plenty of bullets to
account for. And as you often have said, Tell me all the locations of the
shooters based on the trajectories of the shots...:)

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Where ya been? We've discussed it before.

[Anthony Marsh]

Something like that. Deflecting rather than go through. I originally
suggested the possibility that a shot was deflected by the support bar.

[slats]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:441dfde5-7c76-421d...@googlegroups.com:

Wouldn't a bullet striking or passing through a metal object create a
REALLY loud noise that would have alerted the SS to trouble long before
the second shot? That's why I don't buy the street light theory.

Also, in the Hughes film, Oswald is not seen preparing for the first shot,
even though the limo has already turned the corner and is only two or
three seconds away from passing under the traffic light. He must have
REALLY rushed that first shot if the light was the culprit.

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> The author of that blog piece, Garry Rodgers, has a big problem in
> promoting the "traffic light defect" theory. Max Holland did promote such
> a theory in 2011 in the TV documentary "JFK: The Lost Bullet", but even
> Max now knows (via his *own* investigation into this matter in mid-2011,
> PRIOR to the "Lost Bullet" special ever airing) that the defect in the
> traffic light is almost certainly NOT the result of a bullet striking
> it.

There might have been an early shot, fired during the Towner film, but
it could not possibly have come from Oswald. Nor could any of the shots
fired prior to frame 285.

Oswald's rifle generated sound levels at street level, of 130 decibels -
16 times greater than the level which will provoke involuntary startle
reactions. We see clear startle reactions by the limo passengers,
following both 285 and 313, but nothing even remotely like that, earlier.

I find it amazing that you guys refuse to address these facts, blithely
pretending that high powered rifle shots can go completely unnoticed, or
barely noticed.

Do you understand the fallacy of wanting so badly for your theory to be
true, that you deliberately ignore the evidence which you have to know,
proves that you are wrong.


Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

How about if the shooter couldn't see the traffic light until it
appeared in his scope and caused him to panic and take the first shot
too soon?

> As experienced rifleman know the first shot makes all the butterflies go
> away and the next shot is pure instinct. If the scope was off high to the
> right even more reason to miss the first shot to the right side of the
> target.
>

But miss the entire limo?
The curb was way to the left.

> What we do know is the first shot missed and hit the curb, then the next

A direct hit on the curb? There was no copper found in the mark on the curb.

> shot hit the President in the back. DPD Sgt Stavis Ellis saw the first
> shot hit the curb and the President's reaction to it. He said it left a
> mark on the curb and later showed it to some of his fellow DPD officers.
>

Nonsense. Show me.

>
>
>

[Bud]

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 2:14:24 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

A flawed bunch of guesswork. The usual blanks you shoot off because you
like the sound.

> I think this fellow has gone off the LN deep end.

It doesn`t matter what you think.

> Chris

[claviger]

Oh goody. Another shot from nowhere that ends up nowhere close to the
Limousine. So who was this sniper aiming at waaaay over there? Maybe
trying to drop Tague as a diversion, or could be a sniper with a sense of
humor, "Hey, you guys shoot at the motorcade, while I surprise that
sumbich standing alone by the other underpass. The FBI will spend the
next 50 years trying to figure out what that was all about."

Since it was such a tiny fragment it probably came from the first shot
miss off the curb. We know tiny pieces peppered the President on the
right side of his face so fragments did spray in that direction.

> He was also a sucker for the 'Single bullet' theory and depended on it for
> his guesswork, even though it's a dead issue.

You got that part right. The SBT is a dead issue since there is no
rational alternative. The Carcano 6.5 FMJ bullet was notorious for
maximum penetration of soldiers, whales, big game, solid wood, and
telephone poles. It was voted "Most Likely to Succeed" in penetration
competition by all other military bullets.

> He also decided to use the traffic light to stop the missing bullet, though
> there was a tree there that might have done it just as well.
> He seems to have forgotten that the limo had a hard shot to the
> overhead that was a primary strike, and not a ricochet.

Could be a ricochet by a large fragment.

> And what of the bullet that Steve Ellis saw strike the curb on the right side
> of Elm street? Oh, and then we have the bullet hole in the windshield too.

Yes indeedy, where did that little BB come from?

> And since the SBT is dead, there is an extra bullet that hit Connally, so
> we've got a lot more bullets than this guy started out with.

More bullets from more snipers, where o where could they all be hiding?
Were they all gathered behind the wooden fence? Craig Roberts said that
was the best place to be.

> I think this fellow has gone off the LN deep end.
>
> Chris

At least there's water in the LN pool. Most of the time CT pool dry as a
bone. Other days full of Jello. The diving part is OK, but the swimming
part is hilarious!

[BOZ]

OSWALD WAS A CIA ASSET> GOOD
MAX HOLLAND IS A CIA ASSET> BAD

[bigdog]

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 10:58:49 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:

> MAX HOLLAND IS A CIA ASSET ! ! ! !
> ===========================================================================

Right. He was Charles Calthrop's partner.

[bigdog]

Just one. Oswald did it. It's you conspiracy hobbyists who have scores of
suspects.

[bigdog]

Why would there be bullet strikes all over the place. Why wouldn't they
all be close to JFK.

[bigdog]

Nobody knows what caused that injury to Tague. Not the LNs. Not the
conspiracy hobbyists. There are a number of possibilities. None has ever
been prove.

> And then we have the primary
> strike on the chrome overhead of the limo, that's 5. And plenty more
> attested to by onlookers. For instance Wayne and Edna Hartman who saw 2
> gouges in the dirt and grass of the center green, that a cop told them
> were from bullets

Oh, a cop told them they were bullets? And how did the cop know? Did he
dig them up? If so, who did he give them to? Was this cop part of the
cover up?

> ...both of which pointed back to the grassy knoll!

OK, so your grassy knoll shooter fired three shots. He missed twice and
hit JFK in the head with one. Why do you suppose with his target moving
across his line of fire he would have fired the two misses in the same
direction.

> And
> then we have the bullet hole in the windshield.

Right. The one that would have to have been fired from ground level on Elm
St. in front of the limo if it was aimed at JFK.

> And since the SBT is
> dead, we have a bullet that hit Connally too.

Attaboy. Keep inventing more shots. Why stop at 9.

> Plenty of bullets to
> account for. And as you often have said, Tell me all the locations of the
> shooters based on the trajectories of the shots...:)
>

Since these shots are figments of your imagination, you'll have to tell me
where your imaginary shooters were. Google can't tell me what is going on
inside your head.

[mainframetech]

Amazing! Look who's talking about Gullible! A WCR believer! And here
comes Douglas Horne telling folks only what he knows from official
records, and telling exactly what actually happens, and not talking
'theories' like an LN, and the fellow insults him! Is there no justice in
the world? :))

Chris

[Bud]

Another ironic blurtation from Robert Harris.

>
> Robert Harris

[bigdog]

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 11:02:26 PM UTC-5, slats wrote:
> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:441dfde5-7c76-421d...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 10:55:34 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein
> > wrote:
> >> The author of that blog piece, Garry Rodgers, has a big problem in
> >> promoting the "traffic light defect" theory. Max Holland did promote
> >> such a theory in 2011 in the TV documentary "JFK: The Lost Bullet",
> >> but even Max now knows (via his *own* investigation into this matter
> >> in mid-2011, PRIOR to the "Lost Bullet" special ever airing) that the
> >> defect in the traffic light is almost certainly NOT the result of a
> >> bullet striking it.
> >>
> >> More here:
> >> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/jfk-lost-bullet.html
> >
> > I didn't find the photo of the alleged defect to be that compelling
> > although I don't think that invalidates the theory the traffic light
> > deflected the first shot. It is still a possiblity although I don't
> > think I lean toward it.
> >
> >
>
> Wouldn't a bullet striking or passing through a metal object create a
> REALLY loud noise that would have alerted the SS to trouble long before
> the second shot? That's why I don't buy the street light theory.
>

Probably so although that sound would have been almost simulataneous with
the muzzle blast right above it so witnesses might have heard it as one
sound. As I say, I don't lean toward a strike on the traffic light, but I
don't think it can be completely ruled out. My own belief is that Oswald
simply missed to the right of JFK and the bullet or a fragment of it, went
on to cause the injury to Tague. That's nothing more than a guess since it
is unproveable.

> Also, in the Hughes film, Oswald is not seen preparing for the first shot,
> even though the limo has already turned the corner and is only two or
> three seconds away from passing under the traffic light. He must have
> REALLY rushed that first shot if the light was the culprit.

That is a good point and one that hadn't occurred to me before. That would
indicate that Oswald would not have had a lot of time to bring his weapon
to bear before his target passed under the tree. This would indicate the
first shot would have been rushed and might be one reason why he missed
it. Not much time to acquire the target and squeeze the trigger.

[bigdog]

On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 11:03:34 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:

> David Von Pein wrote:
> > The author of that blog piece, Garry Rodgers, has a big problem in
> > promoting the "traffic light defect" theory. Max Holland did promote such
> > a theory in 2011 in the TV documentary "JFK: The Lost Bullet", but even
> > Max now knows (via his *own* investigation into this matter in mid-2011,
> > PRIOR to the "Lost Bullet" special ever airing) that the defect in the
> > traffic light is almost certainly NOT the result of a bullet striking
> > it.
>
> There might have been an early shot, fired during the Towner film, but
> it could not possibly have come from Oswald. Nor could any of the shots
> fired prior to frame 285.
>

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

> Oswald's rifle generated sound levels at street level, of 130 decibels -
> 16 times greater than the level which will provoke involuntary startle
> reactions. We see clear startle reactions by the limo passengers,
> following both 285 and 313, but nothing even remotely like that, earlier.
>

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

> I find it amazing that you guys refuse to address these facts, blithely
> pretending that high powered rifle shots can go completely unnoticed, or
> barely noticed.
>

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

> Do you understand the fallacy of wanting so badly for your theory to be
> true, that you deliberately ignore the evidence which you have to know,
> proves that you are wrong.
>

IRONY ALERT!!! IRONY ALERT!!! IRONY ALERT!!! IRONY ALERT!!! IRONY ALERT!!!

Excuse me. I was just awaken by the sound of my irony alert monitor. Damn,
that thing is loud.

[David Emerling]

On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 8:45:49 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
> I discovered this while googling for information for another thread.
>
> http://dyingwords.net/missing-bullet-jfk-assassination/#sthash.OIBZ9cWb.dpbs
>
> It contains a well written and well reasoned analysis of Oswald's three
> shots by a retired homicide detective.
>
> He has a theory similar to Max Holland's which is that Oswald's first shot
> missed because it hit the traffic light. While I believe that is a
> possibility, it is only one possibility and virtually unproveable.
>
> In reply to someone else's comment, he did make one mistake which I see so
> many others make in response to someone else's suggestion that the first
> shot hit the pavement directly. He wrote:
>
> "I still have a problem on how LHO could have completely missed that
> monstrous target of the limo from that distance (approx 75-80′)
> while he struck JFK accurately from 189′ on the second shot and
> 265 on the third."
>
> I think we can safely say that Oswald's target was not "that monstrous
> target of the limo". His intended target seems to have been that guy who
> was sitting in the extreme right hand corner of the back seat. If Oswald's
> shot missed him slightly to the right, it would not have hit the limo. If
> Oswald had intended to shoot the limo, I'm fairly confident he would have
> succeeded.

I have always considered the 1st shot the most difficult for several
reasons:

What made the shot difficult are the following four reasons:

1. I think Oswald was probably *most* nervous prior to taking the first
shot. Once that shot was taken, it was a like a burden had been lifted
from his shoulders. There was no turning back now. I have heard that
stabbing somebody with a knife is difficult to do - but once you have
plunged the knife into their body, continuing to stab them comes easier. I
don't know, maybe it's that way with shooting at somebody.

2. I think he *did* take an early shot while there were multiple
obstructions. It could have hit one of those obstructions.

3. Keeping the sites on the target (whether using the iron sights or the
crosshairs of the scope) would have been more difficult for the 1st shot
than the subsequent shots because of the high relative motion of the
target. As the target moved out from beneath the building and continued
down Elm Street, the relative rate of movement of the target continually
reduced to the point that Oswald was essentially shooting at a
"stationary" target. Consequently, it's not that surprising that each
subsequent shot got better and better despite the increased range. Range
was never the problem.

4. I think the first shot was at an awkwardly steep downward angle not
affording Oswald a comfortable shooting posture. It may also have
prevented him from resting the rifle on the box which would have provided
a more stable platform.

Of course, it's impossible to know *exactly* why the first shot was a
miss. It could have been deflected by an oak tree branch. Very plausible.
It may have hit the traffic light support beam. Again, very plausible. He
may have used *neither* site and just pointed the rifle in the general
direction of the limousine as it passed directly beneath his perch. Who
knows?

What is pretty clear, however - is that he *did* miss. And it was a
*complete* miss.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

What you're missing is that we're saying "We're not sure" - something CTs
are much less prone to admit. When we speculate - we say so. When you guys
speculate - you're not even aware of it.

The bottom line is this: It really doesn't matter WHY Oswald had such a
gross miss. It's interesting to speculate. There are some plausible
reasons. But, in the end, it doesn't really matter. It's like discussing
Oswald's motivation. I think I can pretty much figure out WHY he decided
to kill Kennedy - but it's impossible for me to know with 100% certainty.
Again, it doesn't really matter WHY he did it - only that he DID do it.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

DOug Horne has been telling silly conspiracy hobbyists what he knows they
want to hear and will be willing to fork over their money for the
privilage.

[David Von Pein]

CLAVIGER SAID:

We know tiny pieces peppered the President on the right side of his

face...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

We do? And how do we "know" any such thing?

Answer --- We don't.

That theory seems so silly to me, mainly because in order for it to be
true, the bullet fragments and/or concrete fragments would have had to
pepper JUST the face of the intended victim, and NOBODY ELSE in the
limousine.

Nobody else in the car felt any "peppering" of fragments. And, of course,
JFK probably didn't either. It's just the work of people who, for some
reason, are pretending to "know" something that only the dead man could
possibly confirm.

It started with Jim Bishop. Jim wrote a great book, except for the
silliness about the fragments "peppering
JFK"....http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/day-kennedy-was-shot.html

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
=== ihave never expressed a single "theory" I limit my posts to official
evidence/testimony it is you (yours) that reject the official records !
! ! has aton batey contacted you yet about your invitation to me to have
another debate ? ? ? ?

[Robert Harris]

No it isn't. If it were, you would have been specific.

But you can't be specific, can u Bud? You ran out of ammunition a long
time ago:-)




Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

No, not impossible. Only for little minds.

> miss. It could have been deflected by an oak tree branch. Very plausible.

Show me the mark. Show me the bullet.

> It may have hit the traffic light support beam. Again, very plausible. He

Funny how when I said that you all called me a kook. But I am not
allowed to call you a kook for saying the same thing. That's how the
rules work here.

> may have used *neither* site and just pointed the rifle in the general

Which SITE do you claim he used? The TSBD or the grassy knoll.
We don't know the condition of the scope, but it may be easier to use
the iron SIGHTS.

> direction of the limousine as it passed directly beneath his perch. Who
> knows?
>

It's very difficult to shoot at the limo from that half closed window
when the limousine when it is DIRECTLY under the window.

> What is pretty clear, however - is that he *did* miss. And it was a
> *complete* miss.
>

Says who? You? Then you must believe in the FBI's 3 shots, 3 hits scenario.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/28/2015 9:11 PM, David Emerling wrote:

> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 8:45:49 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
>> I discovered this while googling for information for another thread.
>>
>> http://dyingwords.net/missing-bullet-jfk-assassination/#sthash.OIBZ9cWb.dpbs
>>
>> It contains a well written and well reasoned analysis of Oswald's three
>> shots by a retired homicide detective.
>>
>> He has a theory similar to Max Holland's which is that Oswald's first shot
>> missed because it hit the traffic light. While I believe that is a
>> possibility, it is only one possibility and virtually unproveable.
>>
>> In reply to someone else's comment, he did make one mistake which I see so
>> many others make in response to someone else's suggestion that the first
>> shot hit the pavement directly. He wrote:
>>
>> "I still have a problem on how LHO could have completely missed that

>> monstrous target of the limo from that distance (approx 75-80???)
>> while he struck JFK accurately from 189??? on the second shot and

I think the limo going under the traffic light support bar blocked the
shot.

> Of course, it's impossible to know *exactly* why the first shot was a

But you just said you don't believe in the first shot miss.

[Anthony Marsh]

You are only imagining an impossible trajectory.

> don't think it can be completely ruled out. My own belief is that Oswald
> simply missed to the right of JFK and the bullet or a fragment of it, went
> on to cause the injury to Tague. That's nothing more than a guess since it
> is unproveable.
>
>> Also, in the Hughes film, Oswald is not seen preparing for the first shot,
>> even though the limo has already turned the corner and is only two or
>> three seconds away from passing under the traffic light. He must have
>> REALLY rushed that first shot if the light was the culprit.
>
> That is a good point and one that hadn't occurred to me before. That would
> indicate that Oswald would not have had a lot of time to bring his weapon
> to bear before his target passed under the tree. This would indicate the
> first shot would have been rushed and might be one reason why he missed
> it. Not much time to acquire the target and squeeze the trigger.
>

Silly. Oswald can not be seen in the Hughes film at all. I said the first
shot was rushed and you guys called me a kook. Now that YOU say it you're
a hero.

[Anthony Marsh]

Horne is a kook and you believe his kooky theories.

[bigdog]

It sounds like you and I are of like minds regarding that first shot and
for the same reasons. On top of the things you have pointed out, somebody
else mentioned something that hadn't occurred to me before. The Hughes
film shows the limo rounding the corner but it also has the sniper's nest
window in view and Oswald is nowhere to be seen. That means he hasn't
brought his weapon to bear until after the limo has made the turn. That
gave him little time to acquire the target and put a smooth squeeze on the
trigger before his target disappeared behind the tree. The small window
for that first show may well have contributed to the miss.

[Robert Harris]

Well, don't be bashful. Tell everyone what I said that I haven't proven
with verifiable documentation.

You CAN do that, can't you John?

John?

The simple fact is, that high powered rifles are very, very loud.
Oswald's generated 130 decibels and provoked highly visible,
simultaneous startle reactions following 285 and 313 - exactly as we
would expect.

But the early shots were MUCH different. They startled no one and only
one of them was even noticed by most witnesses.

I'm sorry that you choose to evade these facts. They are not my theory,
or speculation. They are absolute facts, beyond dispute.


Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

Hoe did your shooter miss everything on the planet with HIS missed shot?

> trying to drop Tague as a diversion, or could be a sniper with a sense of

Oh goody, another wacky conspiracy theory. So your missed shot was only
a diversionary hit of Tague?

> humor, "Hey, you guys shoot at the motorcade, while I surprise that
> sumbich standing alone by the other underpass. The FBI will spend the
> next 50 years trying to figure out what that was all about."
>
> Since it was such a tiny fragment it probably came from the first shot
> miss off the curb. We know tiny pieces peppered the President on the
> right side of his face so fragments did spray in that direction.
>

No, we don't. That's only a kook theory. How can they hit JFK in the
face and then hit the curbe near Tague?

>> He was also a sucker for the 'Single bullet' theory and depended on it for
>> his guesswork, even though it's a dead issue.
>
> You got that part right. The SBT is a dead issue since there is no
> rational alternative. The Carcano 6.5 FMJ bullet was notorious for
> maximum penetration of soldiers, whales, big game, solid wood, and
> telephone poles. It was voted "Most Likely to Succeed" in penetration
> competition by all other military bullets.
>
>> He also decided to use the traffic light to stop the missing bullet, though
>> there was a tree there that might have done it just as well.
>> He seems to have forgotten that the limo had a hard shot to the
>> overhead that was a primary strike, and not a ricochet.
>
> Could be a ricochet by a large fragment.
>

And where did the bullet fragment?

[bigdog]

David, thanks for shedding some light on another well known factoid. I
should know better but even I sometimes am taken in by reading things so
many times I accept them as true. I believe this spray-of-debris theory
was also accepted in William Manchester's The Death of a President and Jim
Moore's Conspiracy of One. While I never bought into the argument that the
posture JFK assumes after emerging from the sign was a defensive action to
shield himself from debris, I long believed that debris was found on the
back of JFK's head at autopsy. I'm guessing this too is factoid. Can you
shed any light on that aspect of it?

[bigdog]

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 8:58:04 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/28/2015 9:11 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> >
> > Of course, it's impossible to know *exactly* why the first shot was a
>
> No, not impossible. Only for little minds.
>

Tony, please share with those of us with little minds how through your
vast intellect you are able to determine exactly why the first shot was a
miss.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 8:58:28 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/28/2015 9:11 PM, David Emerling wrote:
>
> > Of course, it's impossible to know *exactly* why the first shot was a
>
> But you just said you don't believe in the first shot miss.
>

Once again you put your poor reading comprehension skills on display.

[Bud]

I suppose that most people who read what I wrote knew exactly what I was
talking about. Or I could write 10,000 words and you still wouldn`t.

> But you can't be specific, can u Bud? You ran out of ammunition a long
> time ago:-)

I don`t need ammunition, I win without firing a shot. The world is no
different from how it would be if you never advanced your ideas. Your
ideas are uncompelling, ineffectual and impotent, not because of anything
I have written but because of what you have. You can`t even convince
people who have spent their whole lives (or at least their hobby time)
dedicated to showing that Kennedy`s assassination was the result of a
conspiracy that your ideas are valid. A pet theory is like any other pet,
when the owner dies it means the end for the pet.


>
>
>
> Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

In article <5b2d860a-c527-41bf...@googlegroups.com>,

Strange, that you and Bud make the same accusation. But it's even
stranger than neither of you can be specific about where I went wrong.

Is it possible that you know all too well, that I have documented every
factual claim I have made, and so you can only pretend that I have not
supported what I said?

Please don't dodge this one, John.



Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/27/2015 11:03 PM, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
>> The author of that blog piece, Garry Rodgers, has a big problem in
>> promoting the "traffic light defect" theory. Max Holland did promote such
>> a theory in 2011 in the TV documentary "JFK: The Lost Bullet", but even
>> Max now knows (via his *own* investigation into this matter in mid-2011,
>> PRIOR to the "Lost Bullet" special ever airing) that the defect in the
>> traffic light is almost certainly NOT the result of a bullet striking
>> it.
>
> There might have been an early shot, fired during the Towner film, but
> it could not possibly have come from Oswald. Nor could any of the shots
> fired prior to frame 285.
>

> Oswald's rifle generated sound levels at street level, of 130 decibels -

Prove it. Stop guessing.

> 16 times greater than the level which will provoke involuntary startle
> reactions. We see clear startle reactions by the limo passengers,
> following both 285 and 313, but nothing even remotely like that, earlier.
>

> I find it amazing that you guys refuse to address these facts, blithely
> pretending that high powered rifle shots can go completely unnoticed, or
> barely noticed.
>

> Do you understand the fallacy of wanting so badly for your theory to be
> true, that you deliberately ignore the evidence which you have to know,
> proves that you are wrong.
>

Mumbo jumbo.

>
> Robert Harris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/27/2015 11:02 PM, slats wrote:
> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:441dfde5-7c76-421d...@googlegroups.com:
>

>> On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 10:55:34 AM UTC-5, David Von Pein

>> wrote:
>>> The author of that blog piece, Garry Rodgers, has a big problem in
>>> promoting the "traffic light defect" theory. Max Holland did promote
>>> such a theory in 2011 in the TV documentary "JFK: The Lost Bullet",
>>> but even Max now knows (via his *own* investigation into this matter
>>> in mid-2011, PRIOR to the "Lost Bullet" special ever airing) that the
>>> defect in the traffic light is almost certainly NOT the result of a
>>> bullet striking it.
>>>

>>> More here:
>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/jfk-lost-bullet.html
>>
>> I didn't find the photo of the alleged defect to be that compelling
>> although I don't think that invalidates the theory the traffic light
>> deflected the first shot. It is still a possiblity although I don't
>> think I lean toward it.
>>
>>
>
> Wouldn't a bullet striking or passing through a metal object create a
> REALLY loud noise that would have alerted the SS to trouble long before
> the second shot? That's why I don't buy the street light theory.
>

It did, but the fragment hitting chrome topping came after the head shot.

Arguendo, if most people did not hear the first shot, maybe they heard
what it hit.

> Also, in the Hughes film, Oswald is not seen preparing for the first shot,
> even though the limo has already turned the corner and is only two or
> three seconds away from passing under the traffic light. He must have
> REALLY rushed that first shot if the light was the culprit.
>

Irrelevant. We can't see anybody up there in the Hughes film.
Are you claiming to see Oswald?

Anyone could rush the first shot if they didn't notice the traffic
light support bar.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/27/2015 11:01 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 2:13:08 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:

>> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 8:45:49 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
>>> I discovered this while googling for information for another thread.
>>>
>>> http://dyingwords.net/missing-bullet-jfk-assassination/#sthash.OIBZ9cWb.dpbs
>>>
>>> It contains a well written and well reasoned analysis of Oswald's three
>>> shots by a retired homicide detective.
>>>
>>> He has a theory similar to Max Holland's which is that Oswald's first shot
>>> missed because it hit the traffic light. While I believe that is a
>>> possibility, it is only one possibility and virtually unproveable.
>>>
>>> In reply to someone else's comment, he did make one mistake which I see so
>>> many others make in response to someone else's suggestion that the first
>>> shot hit the pavement directly. He wrote:
>>>
>>> "I still have a problem on how LHO could have completely missed that
>>> monstrous target of the limo from that distance (approx 75-80′)
>>> while he struck JFK accurately from 189′ on the second shot and
>>> 265 on the third."
>>>
>>> I think we can safely say that Oswald's target was not "that monstrous
>>> target of the limo". His intended target seems to have been that guy who
>>> was sitting in the extreme right hand corner of the back seat. If Oswald's
>>> shot missed him slightly to the right, it would not have hit the limo. If
>>> Oswald had intended to shoot the limo, I'm fairly confident he would have
>>> succeeded.
>>

>> Sound reasoning. My theory is LHO had a bad case of nerves on the first
>> shot and simply yanked the trigger too hard. We don't know how unsteady
>> his stance might have been which might contribute to a missed first shot.
>> As experienced rifleman know the first shot makes all the butterflies go
>> away and the next shot is pure instinct. If the scope was off high to the
>> right even more reason to miss the first shot to the right side of the
>> target.
>>
>> What we do know is the first shot missed and hit the curb, then the next
>> shot hit the President in the back. DPD Sgt Stavis Ellis saw the first
>> shot hit the curb and the President's reaction to it. He said it left a
>> mark on the curb and later showed it to some of his fellow DPD officers.
>
>
>
> And what do you attribute the second curb strike to? The one that was
> close to James Tague, but a long way across the center green? Those 2

> along with 2 shots to hit JFK makes 4...:) And then we have the primary

> strike on the chrome overhead of the limo, that's 5. And plenty more
> attested to by onlookers. For instance Wayne and Edna Hartman who saw 2
> gouges in the dirt and grass of the center green, that a cop told them

> were from bullets...both of which pointed back to the grassy knoll! And
> then we have the bullet hole in the windshield. And since the SBT is
> dead, we have a bullet that hit Connally too. Plenty of bullets to

> account for. And as you often have said, Tell me all the locations of the
> shooters based on the trajectories of the shots...:)
>

You can imagine lots of points of damage and need a separate bullet for
each. It is a fun game.

> Chris
>

[bigdog]

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 5:07:33 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >
> >> Also, in the Hughes film, Oswald is not seen preparing for the first shot,
> >> even though the limo has already turned the corner and is only two or
> >> three seconds away from passing under the traffic light. He must have
> >> REALLY rushed that first shot if the light was the culprit.
> >
> > That is a good point and one that hadn't occurred to me before. That would
> > indicate that Oswald would not have had a lot of time to bring his weapon
> > to bear before his target passed under the tree. This would indicate the
> > first shot would have been rushed and might be one reason why he missed
> > it. Not much time to acquire the target and squeeze the trigger.
> >
>
>
> Silly. Oswald can not be seen in the Hughes film at all.

Yeah, that's what I said. Try reading for comprehension next time instead
of speed.

> I said the first
> shot was rushed and you guys called me a kook.

But not because you said the first shot was rushed.

> Now that YOU say it you're
> a hero.

But not because I said the first shot was rushed.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/1/2015 8:50 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
> CLAVIGER SAID:
>
> We know tiny pieces peppered the President on the right side of his
> face...
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> We do? And how do we "know" any such thing?
>
> Answer --- We don't.
>
> That theory seems so silly to me, mainly because in order for it to be
> true, the bullet fragments and/or concrete fragments would have had to
> pepper JUST the face of the intended victim, and NOBODY ELSE in the
> limousine.
>
> Nobody else in the car felt any "peppering" of fragments. And, of course,

Not true. The Connallys said they were peppered with debris. Like spent
buckshot.

Mrs. Connally went on, "but, I felt something falling all over me. My
sensation was of spent buckshot.

> JFK probably didn't either. It's just the work of people who, for some
> reason, are pretending to "know" something that only the dead man could
> possibly confirm.
>

That's what a mortician does.

> It started with Jim Bishop. Jim wrote a great book, except for the
> silliness about the fragments "peppering
> JFK"....http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/day-kennedy-was-shot.html
>

He was just peppering the story to spice it up.

[David Von Pein]

BIGDOG SAID:

I long believed that debris was found on the back of JFK's head at
autopsy. I'm guessing this too is factoid. Can you shed any light on that
aspect of it?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's just a factoid, AFAIK. I've never seen any official verification of
it anyway.

But Claviger, in this thread, wasn't saying anything about fragments

striking "the back of JFK's head". Claviger said:

"We know tiny pieces peppered the President on the right side of his
face..."

So maybe there's even a factoid within the factoid ("face" vs. "back of
head")???

Anyway, I don't think you'll find verification anywhere about fragments
peppering any portion of John Kennedy's body.

[LANCE O MEADOWS]

Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor was so loud that it was heard by men on
the fifth floor. Speculation: There was a shot at Z-285. Fact: There was
no shot at Z-285. Fact: The Zapruder film recorded pictures of the
assassination and it did not record sound.

[bigdog]

Pretty much everything you have written that I have read.

> You CAN do that, can't you John?
>

I just did.

> John?
>

That's my name.

> The simple fact is, that high powered rifles are very, very loud.
> Oswald's generated 130 decibels and provoked highly visible,
> simultaneous startle reactions following 285 and 313 - exactly as we
> would expect.
>

There you go again.

> But the early shots were MUCH different. They startled no one and only
> one of them was even noticed by most witnesses.
>

They startled Connally. They startled Rosemary Willis. Agent Bennett heard
it. Just about everyone heard it. Not everyone realized it was a gun shot.
Some didn't even realize the second sound was a gun shot.

> I'm sorry that you choose to evade these facts. They are not my theory,
> or speculation. They are absolute facts, beyond dispute.
>

Then why does everyone here dispute them?

[bigdog]

Who said he did. Strawman.

[slats]

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:54f37b76$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu:

What part of "Oswald is not seen" did you not understand?

Was I supposed to say "shooter" to placate the ABO whackjobs?

[David Von Pein]

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Not true. The Connallys said they were peppered with debris. Like spent
buckshot.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good job, Tony. Just pretend that I was talking about the Connallys being
showered with debris after the HEAD SHOT, instead of what I was obviously
referring to---people in the car being peppered by the MISSED shot. (Why
do you do that, Anthony?)

[bigdog]

Oh, that's easy. When you came up with the idea that there was a gunshot
at Z285.

> Is it possible that you know all too well, that I have documented every
> factual claim I have made, and so you can only pretend that I have not
> supported what I said?
>
> Please don't dodge this one, John.
>

You have supported your factoids with false observations. Garbage in,
garbage out

[Robert Harris]

John?

Make I take your silence to be an admission that cannot support your
accusation?





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

I think everyone knows what "you were talking about" :-)

You accused me of making a statement that I have not or cannot support.
But you knew all too well, that your accusation was false.

>
>
>> But you can't be specific, can u Bud? You ran out of ammunition a long
>> time ago:-)
>
> I don`t need ammunition,

You need to stop making phony accusations that you could not justify if
your life depended on it.

> I win without firing a shot. The world is no
> different from how it would be if you never advanced your ideas.

More nonsense.

With more than 12 million views, and mostly positive responses, I think
I've more than done my share of contributing to the large majority of
people who realize that this was a conspiracy. More importantly, I have
increased the number who realize that for the right reasons.

Other than a lot of trash talk and BS accusations, what have you
contributed, Mr. Bud?



Robert Harris

[Anthony Marsh]

You guys never have absolute facts, only guesses.

[Anthony Marsh]

So far you are saying nothing.
People in the same room can hear a shot from a silence equipped gun.

> the fifth floor. Speculation: There was a shot at Z-285. Fact: There was
> no shot at Z-285. Fact: The Zapruder film recorded pictures of the
> assassination and it did not record sound.
>

But it did record jiggles which tell us when there were shots.

[Bud]

It`s not strange at all, there are probably dozens of people who have
engaged you in discussions who would find what you wrote to be ironic.
What is strange is that you find it strange.

[Bud]

Everyone but you.

> You accused me of making a statement that I have not or cannot support.

No, I didn`t.

> But you knew all too well, that your accusation was false.

I made an observation, I didn`t make an accusation.

>
> >
> >
> >> But you can't be specific, can u Bud? You ran out of ammunition a long
> >> time ago:-)
> >
> > I don`t need ammunition,
>
> You need to stop making phony accusations that you could not justify if
> your life depended on it.

I made an accurate observation, not phony accusations.

> > I win without firing a shot. The world is no
> > different from how it would be if you never advanced your ideas.
>
> More nonsense.

This is the reality. Have you met?

> With more than 12 million views, and mostly positive responses, I think
> I've more than done my share of contributing to the large majority of
> people who realize that this was a conspiracy. More importantly, I have
> increased the number who realize that for the right reasons.

Yes, that is exactly what you think. Unfortunately for you what I said
is true.

> Other than a lot of trash talk and BS accusations, what have you
> contributed, Mr. Bud?

I`ve brought this inconvenient truth to your attention. No need to thank
me.

>
>
> Robert Harris

[Jason Burke]

You really don't get it, do you, Harris?
The reason most folks don't bother responding to you is that they're
tired of your nonsense.

[bigdog]

You are free to assume anything you want and you usually do.

[bigdog]

On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 5:37:33 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> With more than 12 million views, and mostly positive responses, I think
> I've more than done my share of contributing to the large majority of
> people who realize that this was a conspiracy.

How many of those 12 million gave a rat's ass?

[LANCE O MEADOWS]

Zapruder didn't have his camera on a tripod. Have you seen THE BLAIR
WITCH PROJECT?

[LANCE O MEADOWS]

Psy's Gangnam Style has been viewed over 2.2 billion times on YouTube and
it's the worst video I have ever seen.

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
OVER 80% OF THEM ! ! !
==================================================================

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[cmikes]

At the International Skeptics Forum the posters call this a "fringe
reset". It's when a poster absolutely refuses to address or even
acknowledge any refutations of their postings and simply repost their
original posts as if it's brand new information.

I think in this group it should be called a "Bob Harris".

[bigdog]

On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 7:47:07 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

If Luis Alvarez is correct, every shot would be followed by a jiggle but
every jiggle is not evidence of a shot. There are other reasons for
jiggles. Therefore, the jiggles do not tell us when there were shots but
when there could have been shots. Elementary logic which seems to have
eluded you.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Chris does this all the time too, but Bob got there first.

[LANCE O MEADOWS]

The Steadicam did not exist in 1963.

[bigdog]

I like the idea. That way when somebody employs the practice, instead of
trying to give the same refutation for the umpteenth time, we simply give
them "The Harris Award".

[Robert Harris]

In article <ae6e6581-40f7-43f0...@googlegroups.com>,

So, you think Americans and most others, don't care about the JFK
assassination??

Or are you just hoping they don't care enough to pay attention to the
facts:-)





Robert Harris

[LANCE O MEADOWS]

Americans are more interested in 50 Shades of Grey.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 7:07:00 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article <ae6e6581-40f7-43f0...@googlegroups.com>,
> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 5:37:33 PM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> > >
> > > With more than 12 million views, and mostly positive responses, I think
> > > I've more than done my share of contributing to the large majority of
> > > people who realize that this was a conspiracy.
> >
> > How many of those 12 million gave a rat's ass?
>
> So, you think Americans and most others, don't care about the JFK
> assassination??
>

Pretty much. It's a niche interest group. Most Americans rarely give it a
though. I can't remember the last time it came up in conversation outside
this newsgroup.

> Or are you just hoping they don't care enough to pay attention to the
> facts:-)
>

They just don't care.

[bigdog]

And Dancing with the Stars...

And American Idol...

And The Voice...

And...

[Robert Harris]

In article <18a2d64e-9f00-4a28...@googlegroups.com>,

> Pretty much everything you have written that I have read.

I stated that Oswald's rifle generated sound levels of 130 decibels,
based on tests conducted in Dealey Plaza by acoustic experts. Did you
just miss the citation of Dr. James Bargar, that I posted many times
over the years, to that effect?

"..the shock wave was measured by a microphone 10 feet from the
trajectory of the bullet and the muzzle blast was measured by the same
microphone which was at the same time 30 feet from the muzzle... The
shockwave has an intensity of 130 decibels. The muzzle blast at 30 feet
is more intense. It has an intensity of 137 decibels."

I can understand how people like yourself, who have never researched the
case, would be ignorant of this evidence, but don't you think the honest
thing to do would have been to simply ask me for a citation?

>
> > You CAN do that, can't you John?
> >
>

> I just did.

No you didn't. You just made another phony accusation.

>
> > John?
> >
>
> That's my name.

At last!! An accurate statment!

>
> > The simple fact is, that high powered rifles are very, very loud.
> > Oswald's generated 130 decibels and provoked highly visible,
> > simultaneous startle reactions following 285 and 313 - exactly as we
> > would expect.
> >
>

> There you go again.

I love how you refuse to be specific in your "arguments".

You seem to be disagreeing about something, but you also seem to be
afraid to mention what it is. Is that because you know that if you're
specific, I will prove you wrong?

>
> > But the early shots were MUCH different. They startled no one and only
> > one of them was even noticed by most witnesses.
> >
>

> They startled Connally. They startled Rosemary Willis.

Each of those witnesses reported only ONE early shot, which was the one
circa 160. And neither of them exhibited startle reactions to it.

In fact, Connally stated very specifically, that he NEVER HEARD THE SHOT
THAT HIT HIM, which was the next one, at 223. No one else heard it
either.

Damn! Don't you wish you had continued to be vague and nonspecific:-)

> Agent Bennett heard
> it. Just about everyone heard it. Not everyone realized it was a gun shot.
> Some didn't even realize the second sound was a gun shot.

Yes, agent Bennett heard it.

But that has nothing to do with anything. What is important is that it
wasn't loud enough to startle anyone. How many ducked in reaction to it?

How many spun around at enormous speed?

How many shielded their ears like Kellerman did following 285?

Why don't we see THIS in reaction to the shots at 223 or the one before
it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI

>
> > I'm sorry that you choose to evade these facts. They are not my theory,
> > or speculation. They are absolute facts, beyond dispute.
> >
>

> Then why does everyone here dispute them?

Everyone here doesn't.

But that has nothing to do with anything. More Americans believe the
tales in Genesis than in evolution. But that has nothing to do with
reality or the truth of the issue.





Robert Harris

[bigdog]

So how many people were withing 30 feet of the muzzle of Oswald's rifle?

I can name three.

> I can understand how people like yourself, who have never researched the
> case, would be ignorant of this evidence, but don't you think the honest
> thing to do would have been to simply ask me for a citation?
>
>
>
> >
> > > You CAN do that, can't you John?
> > >
> >
> > I just did.
>
> No you didn't. You just made another phony accusation.
>
>
>
> >
> > > John?
> > >
> >
> > That's my name.
>
> At last!! An accurate statment!
>
> >
> > > The simple fact is, that high powered rifles are very, very loud.
> > > Oswald's generated 130 decibels and provoked highly visible,
> > > simultaneous startle reactions following 285 and 313 - exactly as we
> > > would expect.
> > >
> >
> > There you go again.
>
> I love how you refuse to be specific in your "arguments".
>

Learned a long time ago that reason and logic are wasted on you.

> You seem to be disagreeing about something, but you also seem to be
> afraid to mention what it is. Is that because you know that if you're
> specific, I will prove you wrong?
>

I can honestly say that is a possibility that has never crossed my mind.
And never should.

>
> >
> > > But the early shots were MUCH different. They startled no one and only
> > > one of them was even noticed by most witnesses.
> > >
> >
> > They startled Connally. They startled Rosemary Willis.
>
> Each of those witnesses reported only ONE early shot, which was the one
> circa 160. And neither of them exhibited startle reactions to it.
>

That's right. There was one early shot. One late shot. And one right in
between. That's 3 shots. That's what most people heard. That's how many
spent shells were found in the sniper's nest.

> In fact, Connally stated very specifically, that he NEVER HEARD THE SHOT
> THAT HIT HIM, which was the next one, at 223. No one else heard it
> either.
>
> Damn! Don't you wish you had continued to be vague and nonspecific:-)
>

I wouldn't quote Connally because he isn't your fried. You are right he
didn't hear the bullet that hit him. He did hear a bullet before that and
we can see him react to that sound prior to being hit. How does that fit
your scenario? It is quite common that people don't hear the shot that
hits them. A supersonic bullet will strike before the sound of it reaches
the victim. That doesn't mean the shot was not audible. I know CTs will
invent every cockamamie reason they can dream up for dismissing CE399
since they can't make their pet theories work if CE399 is genuine. It is
genuine. It is the bullet that passed through JFK and JBC. It was fired by
Oswald's rifle. Game, set, and match.

>
> > Agent Bennett heard
> > it. Just about everyone heard it. Not everyone realized it was a gun shot.
> > Some didn't even realize the second sound was a gun shot.
>
> Yes, agent Bennett heard it.
>
> But that has nothing to do with anything.

Of course. His testimony doesn't fit your pet theory so just dismiss his
testimony. That's what conspiracy hobbyists routinely do when faced with
inconvenient evidence.

> What is important is that it
> wasn't loud enough to startle anyone. How many ducked in reaction to it?
>

You must think there is a law that people must duck when they hear a gun
shot. Who ducked after Z313?

> How many spun around at enormous speed?

Ditto.

>
> How many shielded their ears like Kellerman did following 285?
>

Ditto, ditto.

> Why don't we see THIS in reaction to the shots at 223 or the one before
> it?
>

Why don't we see it after Z313?

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI


SNOOZER ALERT!!!

>
> >
> > > I'm sorry that you choose to evade these facts. They are not my theory,
> > > or speculation. They are absolute facts, beyond dispute.
> > >
> >
> > Then why does everyone here dispute them?
>
> Everyone here doesn't.
>

You're right. Some simply choose to ignore you altogether.

> But that has nothing to do with anything. More Americans believe the
> tales in Genesis than in evolution. But that has nothing to do with
> reality or the truth of the issue.

That's correct. More Americans believe there was a conspiracy than believe
Oswald was a lone assassin but that has nothing to do with reality or the
truth of the issue.

[Anthony Marsh]

Did you just overlook the fact that he said "30 feet" not at street
level 180 feet below the sniper's nest. And your Invisible Ninja
shooters in or on the roof of the Dal-Tex would be even farther away.


And finally that test was not done in Dealey Plaza.
I won't tell you where, but it was not even done in Dallas on August 20th.

> shockwave has an intensity of 130 decibels. The muzzle blast at 30 feet
> is more intense. It has an intensity of 137 decibels."
>
> I can understand how people like yourself, who have never researched the
> case, would be ignorant of this evidence, but don't you think the honest
> thing to do would have been to simply ask me for a citation?
>
>

I can understand how people like yourself who have never been to
college can be ignorant of science, but don't you think the honest thing
to was talk to some real expert before blabbing incoherently?

>
>>
>>> You CAN do that, can't you John?
>>>
>>
>> I just did.
>
> No you didn't. You just made another phony accusation.
>
>
>
>>
>>> John?
>>>
>>
>> That's my name.
>
> At last!! An accurate statment!
>
>>
>>> The simple fact is, that high powered rifles are very, very loud.
>>> Oswald's generated 130 decibels and provoked highly visible,
>>> simultaneous startle reactions following 285 and 313 - exactly as we
>>> would expect.
>>>
>>
>> There you go again.
>
> I love how you refuse to be specific in your "arguments".
>

I love how you refuse to admit ANY errors when I am VERY specific in my
arguments.

> You seem to be disagreeing about something, but you also seem to be
> afraid to mention what it is. Is that because you know that if you're
> specific, I will prove you wrong?
>
>
>>
>>> But the early shots were MUCH different. They startled no one and only
>>> one of them was even noticed by most witnesses.
>>>
>>
>> They startled Connally. They startled Rosemary Willis.
>
> Each of those witnesses reported only ONE early shot, which was the one
> circa 160. And neither of them exhibited startle reactions to it.
>
> In fact, Connally stated very specifically, that he NEVER HEARD THE SHOT
> THAT HIT HIM, which was the next one, at 223. No one else heard it
> either.
>

He was very specific that he was not hit by the same shot which hit JFK.

> Damn! Don't you wish you had continued to be vague and nonspecific:-)
>
>
>> Agent Bennett heard
>> it. Just about everyone heard it. Not everyone realized it was a gun shot.
>> Some didn't even realize the second sound was a gun shot.
>
> Yes, agent Bennett heard it.
>
> But that has nothing to do with anything. What is important is that it
> wasn't loud enough to startle anyone. How many ducked in reaction to it?
>
> How many spun around at enormous speed?
>

Define enormous.

> How many shielded their ears like Kellerman did following 285?
>

Kellerman did not shield his ears. What are you babbling about?

> Why don't we see THIS in reaction to the shots at 223 or the one before
> it?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
>
>
>>
>>> I'm sorry that you choose to evade these facts. They are not my theory,
>>> or speculation. They are absolute facts, beyond dispute.
>>>
>>
>> Then why does everyone here dispute them?
>
> Everyone here doesn't.
>
> But that has nothing to do with anything. More Americans believe the
> tales in Genesis than in evolution. But that has nothing to do with
> reality or the truth of the issue.
>

Gee, that's fun. Why don't we make fun of a specific religion?

>
>
>
>
> Robert Harris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Something like that. Close enough for a WC defender.

>> jiggles. Therefore, the jiggles do not tell us when there were shots but
>> when there could have been shots. Elementary logic which seems to have
>> eluded you.
>

> The Steadicam did not exist in 1963.
>

Steadicam does not prevent jiggles.

[Anthony Marsh]

And I call them a CIA training operation.

[Anthony Marsh]

I do not dimiss Alvarez entirely, but he made a few false assumptions.
There does not have to be a jiggle for every shot.

The person might be deaf. And he falsely assumed that jiggles were caused
by the shock wave physically moved the camera. But Zapruder was outside
the cone of the shock wave.

[Anthony Marsh]

I call them a CIA training op.

[Anthony Marsh]

Please leave your Argumenum ad Ignorntiam at the door.

>
>
> Robert Harris
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/2/2015 1:25 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> ANTHONY MARSH SAID:
>
> Not true. The Connallys said they were peppered with debris. Like spent
> buckshot.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Good job, Tony. Just pretend that I was talking about the Connallys being
> showered with debris after the HEAD SHOT, instead of what I was obviously
> referring to---people in the car being peppered by the MISSED shot. (Why
> do you do that, Anthony?)
>


I don't fall for the phony story about a missed shot hitting the
pavement and throwing up debris. Look at the Haag shooting test into
pavement.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/2/2015 1:13 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 7:09:42 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 2/28/2015 1:09 PM, claviger wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 27, 2015 at 1:14:24 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 9:45:49 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>>>>> I discovered this while googling for information for another thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://dyingwords.net/missing-bullet-jfk-assassination/#sthash.OIBZ9cWb.dpbs
>>>>>
>>>>> It contains a well written and well reasoned analysis of Oswald's three
>>>>> shots by a retired homicide detective.
>>>>>
>>>>> He has a theory similar to Max Holland's which is that Oswald's first shot
>>>>> missed because it hit the traffic light. While I believe that is a
>>>>> possibility, it is only one possibility and virtually unproveable.
>>>>>
>>>>> In reply to someone else's comment, he did make one mistake which I see so
>>>>> many others make in response to someone else's suggestion that the first
>>>>> shot hit the pavement directly. He wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "I still have a problem on how LHO could have completely missed that
>>>>> monstrous target of the limo from that distance (approx 75-80′)
>>>>> while he struck JFK accurately from 189′ on the second shot and
>>>>> 265 on the third."
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we can safely say that Oswald's target was not "that monstrous
>>>>> target of the limo". His intended target seems to have been that guy who
>>>>> was sitting in the extreme right hand corner of the back seat. If Oswald's
>>>>> shot missed him slightly to the right, it would not have hit the limo. If
>>>>> Oswald had intended to shoot the limo, I'm fairly confident he would have
>>>>> succeeded.
>>>> A very flawed batch of guesswork. But I can see how your gullibility
>>>> would let you think it was well reasoned. As with many LNs the guy was
>>>> stuck with using only 3 bullets, and yet even he mentioned the bullet that
>>>> hit near James Tague, making a 4th bullet.
>>>
>>> Oh goody. Another shot from nowhere that ends up nowhere close to the
>>> Limousine. So who was this sniper aiming at waaaay over there? Maybe
>>
>> Hoe did your shooter miss everything on the planet with HIS missed shot?
>>
>
> Who said he did. Strawman.
>

Because you can't tell me what your misses shot hit and you can't show
me the point of damage.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/1/2015 7:23 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 8:58:04 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 2/28/2015 9:11 PM, David Emerling wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course, it's impossible to know *exactly* why the first shot was a
>>
>> No, not impossible. Only for little minds.
>>
>
> Tony, please share with those of us with little minds how through your
> vast intellect you are able to determine exactly why the first shot was a
> miss.
>


By matching up the acoustical data with the jiggle analysis.
No matter how many times I post my link you refuse to read it.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/headshot.txt

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/1/2015 7:07 PM, Robert Harris wrote:

> Well, don't be bashful. Tell everyone what I said that I haven't proven
> with verifiable documentation.
>
> You CAN do that, can't you John?
>
> John?
>
> The simple fact is, that high powered rifles are very, very loud.
> Oswald's generated 130 decibels and provoked highly visible,
> simultaneous startle reactions following 285 and 313 - exactly as we
> would expect.
>
> But the early shots were MUCH different. They startled no one and only
> one of them was even noticed by most witnesses.
>

So you can't see that 3 SS agents in the Queen Mary HAD already turned
their heads to look back before the Altgens photo?
Duck, duck, goose.

[bigdog]

On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 1:36:11 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> At the International Skeptics Forum the posters call this a "fringe
>
> And I call them a CIA training operation.
>

In your world, what isn't?

[bigdog]

So in your mind it logically follows that if we don't have definitive
proof of what the bullet hit that it logically follows that it didn't hit
anything. No wonder after more than 50 years you still can't figure out
who shot JFK.

[Anthony Marsh]

You don't even understand the difference.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, I am just making fun of you continual hypocrisy.

[cmikes]

Of course the ISF is scary to conspiracy theorists. They use actual
logic, reason, science and evidence over there! What could be more
horrifying to a conspiracy theorist?

[bigdog]

And still haven't been able to figure out who shot JFK.

[John Paul Jones]

On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 6:45:49 PM UTC-8, bigdog wrote:
> I discovered this while googling for information for another thread.
>
> http://dyingwords.net/missing-bullet-jfk-assassination/#sthash.OIBZ9cWb.dpbs
>
> It contains a well written and well reasoned analysis of Oswald's three
> shots by a retired homicide detective.
>
> He has a theory similar to Max Holland's which is that Oswald's first shot
> missed because it hit the traffic light. While I believe that is a
> possibility, it is only one possibility and virtually unproveable.
>
> In reply to someone else's comment, he did make one mistake which I see so
> many others make in response to someone else's suggestion that the first
> shot hit the pavement directly. He wrote:
>
> "I still have a problem on how LHO could have completely missed that
> monstrous target of the limo from that distance (approx 75-80′)
> while he struck JFK accurately from 189′ on the second shot and
> 265 on the third."
>
> I think we can safely say that Oswald's target was not "that monstrous
> target of the limo". His intended target seems to have been that guy who
> was sitting in the extreme right hand corner of the back seat. If Oswald's
> shot missed him slightly to the right, it would not have hit the limo. If
> Oswald had intended to shoot the limo, I'm fairly confident he would have
> succeeded.

Has anyone considered that Oswald may have been aiming for Tague and was
trying out a bank shot?