Horne's Zapruder theory fails
John McAdams
<Quote on>
I can explain the latest alteration theory du jour. In fact, anyone
familiar with the physics of photography should know the answer.
The claim is that Zapruder frames 214, 218, 220, 224 and 229 show
problems with the edge of the Stemmons sign. In 214, instead of
showing a sharply-defined curved line, the upper rounded corner seems
to disappear. In the other frames, the objects beyond the sign seem
to show through the straight edge of the sign and sort of blend in
with it.
The explanation is very simple. There are actually five variables at
work in every frame: a moving camera, a moving car, moving objects, a
stationary sign, and a relatively slow camera shutter speed. All the
moving objects travel in the same direction left to right.
The shutter speed of Zapruder�s camera was 1/40th of a second
(http://www.jfk-info.com/durn1.htm) and the film passed through the
camera at an average rate of 18.3 frames per second. During the time
each frame was exposed, 1/40th of a second, all the objects except the
sign moved a short distance laterally. Beginner physics say the
stationary sign, therefore, must appear more blurred than the moving
objects�.and it does.
The objects (limo sun visors, Jackie and others), appear through the
blur because they move with the camera while the shutter was open.
Zapruder�s camera shutter speed wasn�t user-adjustable, but if it
were, faster and faster speeds would show decreasing blur of the sign,
and all sign corners and edges would appear normal.
So what are we actually seeing in each frame? Exactly what one should
see. Bright objects in the car show through the blurred corner and
side of the sign, distorting the image and obscuring the edges.
Nothing more.
If anything, the anomalies support the film�s authenticity, which is
something I�ve been saying since 1998, long before The Sixth Floor
Museum received the film�s copyright
(http://www.assassinationscience.com/mack.html). And if anyone
wonders if my continuing defense of the film has something to do with
my employment at the Museum, they should think again. Absolute proof
of conspiracy would dramatically boost interest in the assassination
and attendance at the Museum. That would be wonderful, but conspiracy
needs to be proven first.
Gary Mack
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Peter Fokes
McAdams) wrote:
>From Gary Mack:
What page numbers are you referring to in Horne's book?
Be specific.
See Vol IV.
Looking forward to your reply.
Cheers,
PF
John Fiorentino
But, gee Gary......................What about "Badge Man" TMWKK, the DPD
Dictabelt, the Carillon bell, etc., etc.
Huh? Mr. "Mack"............. ;-)
Me thinks someone has raided the hen house. Nice steady income there at
the old Museum, no?
John F.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4b326bcd...@news.supernews.com...
> From Gary Mack:
>
> <Quote on>
> I can explain the latest alteration theory du jour. In fact, anyone
> familiar with the physics of photography should know the answer.
>
> The claim is that Zapruder frames 214, 218, 220, 224 and 229 show
> problems with the edge of the Stemmons sign. In 214, instead of
> showing a sharply-defined curved line, the upper rounded corner seems
> to disappear. In the other frames, the objects beyond the sign seem
> to show through the straight edge of the sign and sort of blend in
> with it.
>
> The explanation is very simple. There are actually five variables at
> work in every frame: a moving camera, a moving car, moving objects, a
> stationary sign, and a relatively slow camera shutter speed. All the
> moving objects travel in the same direction left to right.
>
> The shutter speed of Zapruder's camera was 1/40th of a second
> (http://www.jfk-info.com/durn1.htm) and the film passed through the
> camera at an average rate of 18.3 frames per second. During the time
> each frame was exposed, 1/40th of a second, all the objects except the
> sign moved a short distance laterally. Beginner physics say the
> stationary sign, therefore, must appear more blurred than the moving
> objects..and it does.
David Von Pein
Excellent, Mr. Mack. Thank you.
And I'd be willing to bet that very similar explanations concerning the
various "anomalies" in the Zapruder Film [like the explanation discussed
by Gary Mack at the link above] could be presented in order to debunk
every single one of the claims made by the conspiracy theorists who have
attempted to discredit the authenticity of the film.
And I still can't see how Doug Horne (or anybody) can find a way for the
film to be altered (especially on Day 1, November 22nd), because we know
that Abraham Zapruder or his business partner were IN POSSESSION OF and IN
CONTROL OF Zapruder's camera-original film throughout that entire day.
We know that Zapruder himself was present when his camera-original film
was developed. And Zapruder was also present when the three first-
generation copies were made. There was simply no time available to "fake"
the original film prior to the three first-generation copies being made.
Do the alterationists actually think that the film-forgers were able to
fake (in perfect tandem) not only the camera-original film, but also ALL
THREE first-generation copies that were made within HOURS of when the
original film was developed?
It makes me wonder if Mr. Horne actually thinks that Abe Zapruder and
Erwin Schwartz were a part of a "plot" to alter the film. But I really
don't want to shell out more than $80 for Horne's five volumes of fantasy
in order to find out. Maybe he'll tell me himself sometime during one of
our heartwarming and tender encounters at Amazon.com. ;)
Anthony Marsh
> From Gary Mack:
>
> <Quote on>
> I can explain the latest alteration theory du jour. In fact, anyone
> familiar with the physics of photography should know the answer.
>
> The claim is that Zapruder frames 214, 218, 220, 224 and 229 show
> problems with the edge of the Stemmons sign. In 214, instead of
> showing a sharply-defined curved line, the upper rounded corner seems
> to disappear. In the other frames, the objects beyond the sign seem
> to show through the straight edge of the sign and sort of blend in
> with it.
>
> The explanation is very simple. There are actually five variables at
> work in every frame: a moving camera, a moving car, moving objects, a
> stationary sign, and a relatively slow camera shutter speed. All the
> moving objects travel in the same direction left to right.
>
> (http://www.jfk-info.com/durn1.htm) and the film passed through the
> camera at an average rate of 18.3 frames per second. During the time
Close, but the shutter speed is a direct function of the camera's instant
filming speed. Slightly less than 1/36.6 of a second due to the design of
the semi-circular shutter plate.
> each frame was exposed, 1/40th of a second, all the objects except the
> sign moved a short distance laterally. Beginner physics say the
> stationary sign, therefore, must appear more blurred than the moving
> objects?.and it does.
>
> The objects (limo sun visors, Jackie and others), appear through the
> blur because they move with the camera while the shutter was open.
> Zapruder?s camera shutter speed wasn?t user-adjustable, but if it
> were, faster and faster speeds would show decreasing blur of the sign,
> and all sign corners and edges would appear normal.
>
> So what are we actually seeing in each frame? Exactly what one should
> see. Bright objects in the car show through the blurred corner and
> side of the sign, distorting the image and obscuring the edges.
> Nothing more.
>
> If anything, the anomalies support the film?s authenticity, which is
> something I?ve been saying since 1998, long before The Sixth Floor
> Museum received the film?s copyright
> (http://www.assassinationscience.com/mack.html). And if anyone
> wonders if my continuing defense of the film has something to do with
> my employment at the Museum, they should think again. Absolute proof
> of conspiracy would dramatically boost interest in the assassination
> and attendance at the Museum. That would be wonderful, but conspiracy
> needs to be proven first.
>
> Gary Mack
>
But we are wondering if his continued withholding of the photographic
evidence has anything to do with WHO is paying him to run the Museum.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>
>Excellent, Mr. Mack. Thank you.
Could you please provide specific cites in Horne's book for the points
you find incorrect.
Generalities are fun, but please be specific.
Provide page numbers too.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
>
>And I'd be willing to bet that very similar explanations concerning the
>various "anomalies" in the Zapruder Film could be presented in order to
>debunk every single one of the claims made by the conspiracy theorists who
>have attempted to discredit the authenticity of the film.
>
>And I still can't see how Doug Horne (or anybody) can find a way for the
>film to be altered on Day 1 or Day 2 (November 22nd or 23rd), because we
>know that Abraham Zapruder or his business partner were IN CONTROL of
>Zapruder's camera-original film throughout both of those days.
>
>It makes me wonder if Mr. Horne actually thinks that Abe Zapruder and
>Erwin Schwartz were a part of a "plot" to alter the film. But I really
>don't want to shell out more than $80 for Horne's five volumes of fantasy
>in order to find out. Maybe he'll tell me himself sometime during one of
>our heartwarming encounters at Amazon.com.
Peter Fokes
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>Now, I certainly agree with Mr. Mack that the Z-film is authentic.
>
>But, gee Gary......................What about "Badge Man" TMWKK, the DPD
>Dictabelt, the Carillon bell, etc., etc.
>
>Huh? Mr. "Mack"............. ;-)
>
>Me thinks someone has raided the hen house. Nice steady income there at
>the old Museum, no?
LOL!
I'm sure Gary will take your comments in the proper spirit of the
season!
Happy Holidays, John
Peter Fokes
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>
>Excellent, Mr. Mack. Thank you.
David, have you read the book?
Please provide an argument about some specific points discussed by
Horne in his book, and provide page numbers.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Peter Fokes
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>But we are wondering if his continued withholding of the photographic
>evidence has anything to do with WHO is paying him to run the Museum.
Uh oh, if the LNs are not going to provide sites to specific arguments
made by Horne in his book, the conversation might quickly veer off
course onto a discussion of Gary Mack!
Come on LNs ... be specific
GIVE PAGE NUMBERS SO WE CAN FOLLOW YOUR REBUTTALS
OF ARGUMENTS IN THE BOOK.
Enough with the name calling and "alterationists" generalization and
labelling.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
John McAdams
wrote:
Isn't it a bit unfair, Peter, to demand that people spend $80 on a
book they know to be garbage in order to refute you here?
Would you take the same attitude if somebody published a book saying
that space aliens did it?
When I teach my JFK course, I consider Z-film alteration to be too
"fringe" to even deal with.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
It doesn't matter if the stuff referred to by Gary Mack is in Doug
Horne's book or not. The point is: Mack still crushed the theory about
the Stemmons sign's "rounded" vs. "square" corners.
John Blubaugh
> On 23 Dec 2009 17:52:27 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is hard to do when one has never read it. But, isn't that your
point ;-)
JB
Anthony Marsh
Peter Fokes
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Ask him if he bought Judyth's book.
Nope.
Neither did I waste the hours and hours and hours you and .John did
discussing that issue.
LOL!
Horne, you see, spent years in the employ of the U.S. Government
interviewing witnesses in this case, gathering documents and analyzing
the results.
His work has assisted researchers gain access to previously classifed
records, and to the testimony of witnesses previously ignored.
Make comments about his work if you want. Make judgements.
But have the decency to read his work first.
Otherwise your comments are nothing but rhetoric.
.John has you in his killfile, Tony. He doesn't read what you write
either.
Judyth, Tony, Horne ... all the same to McAdams.
LOL!
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
John Fiorentino
Very well said!
John F.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:jqq5j5d7nv8l3ahc5...@4ax.com...
John Blubaugh
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:12:36 -0500, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 23 Dec 2009 18:37:01 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> >>But we are wondering if his continued withholding of the photographic
> >>evidence has anything to do with WHO is paying him to run the Museum.
>
> >Uh oh, if the LNs are not going to provide sites to specific arguments
> >made by Horne in his book, the conversation might quickly veer off
> >course onto a discussion of Gary Mack!
>
> >Come on LNs ... be specific
>
> >GIVE PAGE NUMBERS SO WE CAN FOLLOW YOUR REBUTTALS
> >OF ARGUMENTS IN THE BOOK.
>
> >Enough with the name calling and "alterationists" generalization and
> >labelling.
>
> Isn't it a bit unfair, Peter, to demand that people spend $80 on a
> book they know to be garbage in order to refute you here?
>
> Would you take the same attitude if somebody published a book saying
> that space aliens did it?
>
> When I teach my JFK course, I consider Z-film alteration to be too
> "fringe" to even deal with.
>
> .John
>
Why of course you do but you don't have any problem foisting the single
bullet theory on you students do you? Now that is really "fringe". Of
course it is too much to expect anyone to read a book before they make
comments about it. Typical LN thought and behavior.
JB
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Dec 23, 11:19�pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:12:36 -0500, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Isn't it a bit unfair, Peter, to demand that people spend $80 on a
>> book they know to be garbage in order to refute you here?
>>
>> Would you take the same attitude if somebody published a book saying
>> that space aliens did it?
>>
>> When I teach my JFK course, I consider Z-film alteration to be too
>> "fringe" to even deal with.
>>
>>
>
>Why of course you do but you don't have any problem foisting the single
>bullet theory on you students do you? Now that is really "fringe". Of
>course it is too much to expect anyone to read a book before they make
>comments about it. Typical LN thought and behavior.
>
Something isn't "fringe" just because you disagree with it.
Every serious trajectory analysis has found that the SB trajectory
works.
Every serious examination of the medical evidence has shown the wounds
to be consistent with the SBT.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Fiorentino
I know we don't agree on much, but I guess we kind of agree on this.
Happy Holidays to you also.
As to Mr. "Mack" I could care less how he takes it.
John F.
"Peter Fokes" <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:nim5j5l1kqaktblvb...@4ax.com...
John Fiorentino
Horne obviously had a pivotal role at ARRB. Yes, much good came of that,
but with it came the bad.
Thirty year old testimony, faded memories, prejudices and in some cases
downright fabrications.
One doesn't really have to "read the book" to form an opinion about
alterations to the Z-film, Humes altering JFK's wounds, (someone) altering
the X-rays, (someone) altering the autopsy photos, (someone) photographing
an "additional" brain, blah, blah, blah.
Come on Peter, you're a smart guy.........Too smart for this carp, I
should think. I mean, I thought Lifton took the cake, but obviously, I was
wrong.
John F.
"Peter Fokes" <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:7q17j5dhbkgus6kho...@4ax.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "You don't have any problem foisting the single bullet theory on
you[r] students do you? Now that is really "fringe"." <<<
There's absolutely nothing "fringe" or crazy or ridiculous about the SBT.
The exact OPPOSITE is true, of course--i.e., any theory that REPLACES the
Single-Bullet Theory is truly a "fringe" theory:
Anthony Marsh
> On 24 Dec 2009 11:49:29 -0500, John Blubaugh<jblu...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 23, 11:19 pm, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:12:36 -0500, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't it a bit unfair, Peter, to demand that people spend $80 on a
>>> book they know to be garbage in order to refute you here?
>>>
>>> Would you take the same attitude if somebody published a book saying
>>> that space aliens did it?
>>>
>>> When I teach my JFK course, I consider Z-film alteration to be too
>>> "fringe" to even deal with.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why of course you do but you don't have any problem foisting the single
>> bullet theory on you students do you? Now that is really "fringe". Of
>> course it is too much to expect anyone to read a book before they make
>> comments about it. Typical LN thought and behavior.
>>
>
> Something isn't "fringe" just because you disagree with it.
>
> Every serious trajectory analysis has found that the SB trajectory
> works.
>
Every bogus trajectory analysis by cover-up artists. Funny how it always
works no matter which frame is chosen, no matter what positions the men
are in, no matter where you place the wounds.
> Every serious examination of the medical evidence has shown the wounds
> to be consistent with the SBT.
>
But you're the lead WC defender so you are supposed to believe the WC's
lies about the back wound. What are you, a critic now?
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Blubaugh
> On 24 Dec 2009 11:49:29 -0500, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com>
There has never been a serious study of the wounds because the autopsy
was so bad and the pictures were altered. There are many experts who
do not agree with the SBT.
JB
Anthony Marsh
> On 24 Dec 2009 10:22:09 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Ask him if he bought Judyth's book.
>
> Nope.
>
> Neither did I waste the hours and hours and hours you and .John did
> discussing that issue.
>
> LOL!
>
> Horne, you see, spent years in the employ of the U.S. Government
> interviewing witnesses in this case, gathering documents and analyzing
> the results.
>
Well, woopee-do. You could say the same thing about WC lawyers as if that
would make them tell the truth. I am not impressed. When someone says
things that I know are not true, I lose respect for that person.
bigdog
>
> Well, woopee-do. You could say the same thing about WC lawyers as if that
> would make them tell the truth. I am not impressed. When someone says
> things that I know are not true, I lose respect for that person.
>
Anthony Marsh
> Peter:
>
> Horne obviously had a pivotal role at ARRB. Yes, much good came of that,
> but with it came the bad.
>
> Thirty year old testimony, faded memories, prejudices and in some cases
> downright fabrications.
>
> One doesn't really have to "read the book" to form an opinion about
> alterations to the Z-film, Humes altering JFK's wounds, (someone)
> altering the X-rays, (someone) altering the autopsy photos, (someone)
> photographing an "additional" brain, blah, blah, blah.
>
Peter's point is that we should at least give the guy a chance to make
his arguments. But we've already heard the same stupid arguments
hundreds of times in the past. And notice that Peter does not extend the
same courtesy to Judyth.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
> On 12/24/2009 11:51 AM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
***Just what cover-up artist would that be? A man was seen aiming down
Elm Street, from the 6th floor corner window. A film of the limo turning
onto Houston shows JFK's head over Connally's right shoulder.
The single bullet trajectory occurred between frames. Connally's jacket
jumped between frames 223 and 224. JFK and Connally's right arms jumped
up in unison just afterward. JFK in reaction to a throat wound, and JBC,
consistent with being wounded in the wrist.
The bullet exiting JFK's throat had to go somewhere. Connally was a large
man, blocking a large area of the path of any bullet exiting JFK. No one
heard a bullet strike anything in the limo, unlike the head shot, which
Kellerman likened to a flurry of shots coming into the car. Connally's
body would have been a soft backstop for the bullet that caused JFK's
first wound.
***Ron Judge
Anthony Marsh
Your babbling has nothing to do with what I said. They didn't need no damn
stinkin Single Bullet Theory until they realized in late April 1964 that
they had a timing problem.
No a man was not seen aiming down Elm. Yes, the film shows that there was
plenty of room for the bullet to miss Kennedy and hit Connally. Your point
about seeing Kennedy's head over Connally's right shoulder invalidates the
SBT. You are shooting yourself in the foot. Connally needs to be several
inches far over to the left.
> The single bullet trajectory occurred between frames. Connally's jacket
Which again is a meaningless statement you can't prove. No one claims to
see the bullet hit while the frame is being exposed.
> jumped between frames 223 and 224. JFK and Connally's right arms jumped
No, it didn't.
> up in unison just afterward. JFK in reaction to a throat wound, and JBC,
No, they didn't.
> consistent with being wounded in the wrist.
>
Dr. McCarthy points out that JFK was already reacting by frame Z-224 to
a stimulus which happened at least 4 frames earlier.
> The bullet exiting JFK's throat had to go somewhere. Connally was a large
Yeah, it deflected up off the T-1 vertebra and kept going up and out of
the limousine.
> man, blocking a large area of the path of any bullet exiting JFK. No one
> heard a bullet strike anything in the limo, unlike the head shot, which
> Kellerman likened to a flurry of shots coming into the car. Connally's
> body would have been a soft backstop for the bullet that caused JFK's
> first wound.
>
Fun to guess, isn't it?
> ***Ron Judge
>
bigdog
the evidence had indicated something else had happened, they would
have gone there.
> No a man was not seen aiming down Elm. Yes, the film shows that there was
> plenty of room for the bullet to miss Kennedy and hit Connally. Your point
> about seeing Kennedy's head over Connally's right shoulder invalidates the
> SBT. You are shooting yourself in the foot. Connally needs to be several
> inches far over to the left.
>
> > The single bullet trajectory occurred between frames. Connally's jacket
>
> Which again is a meaningless statement you can't prove. No one claims to
> see the bullet hit while the frame is being exposed.
>
> > jumped between frames 223 and 224. JFK and Connally's right arms jumped
>
> No, it didn't.
>
> > up in unison just afterward. JFK in reaction to a throat wound, and JBC,
>
> No, they didn't.
>
Yes they did as can be seen in Z225-226 by anyone with a pair of eyes
and who doesn't have a desperate need to deny what is painfully
obvious. JFK's right fist was moving downward from Z224 to 225 but
suddenly reverses direction in Z226, the same frame we first see JBC's
right arm coming up.
> > consistent with being wounded in the wrist.
>
> Dr. McCarthy points out that JFK was already reacting by frame Z-224 to
> a stimulus which happened at least 4 frames earlier.
>
So if that is true, why isn't Connally also reacting to a bullet that
hit four frames earlier?
> > The bullet exiting JFK's throat had to go somewhere. Connally was a large
>
> Yeah, it deflected up off the T-1 vertebra and kept going up and out of
> the limousine.
>
This is the Tony Marsh Magic Bullet Theory. It puts Zigzagging Magic
Bullet Theory to shame for it's entertainment value. I'm still trying
to figure out how a bullet deflecting upward off T-1 could exit at the
base of JFK's throat instead of quite a bit higher. Draw a line from
the top of the windshield to T-1 doesn't take you through the point of
the bullet exit.
> > man, blocking a large area of the path of any bullet exiting JFK. No one
> > heard a bullet strike anything in the limo, unlike the head shot, which
> > Kellerman likened to a flurry of shots coming into the car. Connally's
> > body would have been a soft backstop for the bullet that caused JFK's
> > first wound.
>
> Fun to guess, isn't it?
At least he is making educated guesses.
Anthony Marsh
They didn't need a SBT until Specter realized there was a timing problem.
He thought JFK could not be hit before Z-210 and Connally could not be hit
after Z-240. That's only 30 frames, or 1.6 seconds. The shooting tests
confirmed to him that rifle could not be reloaded and fired any faster
than 2.25 seconds. Not quickly enough for one shooter to hit JFK and then
Connally. That meant that either there were two shooters or one bullet hit
both men. That is what cause him to invent the SBT. This is a simple fact
which almost researchers have known for 45 years, but apparently that
leaves you out.
It's an either/or choice. Conspiracy or SBT. Which do you think Specter
wanted to choose? He had no choice. He was mandated to NOT find
conspiracy.
>> No a man was not seen aiming down Elm. Yes, the film shows that there was
>> plenty of room for the bullet to miss Kennedy and hit Connally. Your point
>> about seeing Kennedy's head over Connally's right shoulder invalidates the
>> SBT. You are shooting yourself in the foot. Connally needs to be several
>> inches far over to the left.
>>
>>> The single bullet trajectory occurred between frames. Connally's jacket
>>
>> Which again is a meaningless statement you can't prove. No one claims to
>> see the bullet hit while the frame is being exposed.
>>
>>> jumped between frames 223 and 224. JFK and Connally's right arms jumped
>>
>> No, it didn't.
>>
>>> up in unison just afterward. JFK in reaction to a throat wound, and JBC,
>>
>> No, they didn't.
>>
> Yes they did as can be seen in Z225-226 by anyone with a pair of eyes
> and who doesn't have a desperate need to deny what is painfully
> obvious. JFK's right fist was moving downward from Z224 to 225 but
> suddenly reverses direction in Z226, the same frame we first see JBC's
> right arm coming up.
>
If you don't mind I'll ignore the opinions of an internet junky typing
away from the computer in his trailer and instead respect the opinions of
an expert.
And I've been analyzing the Zapruder film 4 times longer than you have. Do
you happen to remember who it was who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic?
>>> consistent with being wounded in the wrist.
>>
>> Dr. McCarthy points out that JFK was already reacting by frame Z-224 to
>> a stimulus which happened at least 4 frames earlier.
>>
> So if that is true, why isn't Connally also reacting to a bullet that
> hit four frames earlier?
>
What? You expect to see him reacting four frames before the bullet hit
him? What was he, psychic?
Now, if you want to play games here, you can change your SBT to frame
Z-220 and claim that we don't see the effect until Z-224. That's fine with
me. I love to see hoaxsters keep changing their claims.
>>> The bullet exiting JFK's throat had to go somewhere. Connally was a large
>>
>> Yeah, it deflected up off the T-1 vertebra and kept going up and out of
>> the limousine.
>>
> This is the Tony Marsh Magic Bullet Theory. It puts Zigzagging Magic
> Bullet Theory to shame for it's entertainment value. I'm still trying
Most forensic pathologists know that bullets often deflect when they hit
bone.
> to figure out how a bullet deflecting upward off T-1 could exit at the
> base of JFK's throat instead of quite a bit higher. Draw a line from
> the top of the windshield to T-1 doesn't take you through the point of
> the bullet exit.
>
I don't have to draw any lines from points you suggest. I already said
that I did not agree with Furhman's theory, just that his theory also
has the bullet deflected and missing Connally.
John Blubaugh
> > stinkin Single Bullet Theory until they realized in late April 1964 that
> > they had a timing problem.
>
> They never NEEDED the SBT. The SBT is where the evidence led them. If
> the evidence had indicated something else had happened, they would
> have gone there.
>
That is absolute BS. They never even considered the SBT until they had to
have it to explain the missed shot. It was invented and not all of the WC
bought into it but without the SBT, there had to be another shooter and
they couldn't have that could they?
JB
tomnln
"John Blubaugh" <jblu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1c7b8cea-949e-44e8...@k23g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
jas
>It (the SBT) was invented and not all of the WC
>bought into it
Which is EXACTLY why there was no conspiracy. Had there been one, ALL
of them would have bought into it.
Thank you for supporting the LNs.
bigdog
The SBT was the result of putting ALL the information together. Most
sigificantly was the observation from the filmed recreation that JFK
and JBC were in a direct line with Oswald at the time of the back
shot. Then there was the observation that JFK and JBC were reacting
too closely together to have been hit by seperate bullets from the
same bolt action rifle. In fact, they reacted at precisely the same
instant, but the WC missed clues that would have told them that. That
meant either the two men were by bullets from different rifles, or
from one bullet from the same rifle. The ballistic evidence told them
that the recovered bullets had come from one rifle and that steered
them to the SBT.
John Blubaugh
Well, you post a lot of nonsense but if you see some way that my
saying that not all of the SBT members bought into the SBT and that
makes me an LN supporter then I think any attempt at conversation with
you is futile. But, that is what LNs do. Distort, deny evidence, make
up things to fit the scenario they want to be true. It is an old story
and you just aren't gaining any ground. Outside of the 30 or so of you
fanatics, no one believes it.
JB
Sandy McCroskey
Wow, amazing. You really didn't get the point, did you?
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Some conspiracy believers believe in a SBT, notably those supporting the
HSCA with ITS SBT. It is hard to imagine a WC defender who would reject
the SBT.
Anthony Marsh
No. The ONLY thing that lead to the SBT was the timing problem. THEN
they lied about the medical evidence and positions to try to support it.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
He has no point and neither do you.
JB
claviger
ballistics.
Anthony Marsh
> On Dec 28, 7:11 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It (the SBT) was invented and not all of the WC
>> bought into it
>
> Which is EXACTLY why there was no conspiracy. Had there been one, ALL
> of them would have bought into it.
>
They were ordered to NOT disclose the conspiracy.
Sandy McCroskey
If you could refute the point, you would address it.
/sm
jas
John, John, John. Come on man. Stop the BS why don't ya?
As far as trying to successfully rebut my rationale, you fail
miserably as you have failed so many times before with other LNs.
You seem like a reasonably intelligent person and must see this, so
what's your problem?
John Blubaugh
What you are repeating is what they put out but the fact remains that
there was going to be no SBT until the timing and a missed shot had to be
explained. It was a last minute addition and several WC members never
believed it. So keep spouting the company line but that doesn't make it
the truth and it never will. You were right in an earlier post when you
said that no one cared about the assassination any more. The reason for
that is that the American public decided there was a conspiracty and the
WC was a sham long ago. Only you, McAdams and a few other LN fanatics
believe otherwise. You haven't changed anyone's mind in years and you
aren't going to start now.
JB
claviger
The main reasons for believing the SBT are ballistic science, logic,
and experience. The fact that the back wound was a through and through
wound basically tells us all we need to know about where the bullet
ended its penetrating trajectory. Police officers, soldiers, hunters,
and ballistic experts are not surprised a high velocity missile can
penetrate two mammals so close together in the pathway of the
trajectory. What experienced riflemen already knew has been confirmed
using the scientific method of field testing. The Single Bullet Theory
was always a Single Bullet Fact long before the Kennedy assassination.
Anthony Marsh
The FACT that the back wound was BELOW the top of the shoulders tells us
that the SBT is physically impossible.
John Blubaugh
Funny that they didn't use all of that until they were told there was
a "timing" problem with the shots and one of the shots missed. That is
what created the single bullet nonsense, not science.
JB
claviger
> The FACT that the back wound was BELOW the top of the shoulders tells us
> that the SBT is physically impossible.
The body of the President was face up on the operating table so of
course the back wound is lower than the throat wound.
jas
You got that bass-ackwards.
The public decided a long time ago CONSPIRACISTS are the ones pulling
the sham.
They have come up with nothing but speculation, innuendo, dead-end
allegations, monumental leaps to conspiratorial conclusions they can't
possibly prove, and out-and-out lies in defending their argument.
The public has given up believing all their crap and hype.
>Only you, McAdams and a few other LN fanatics
> believe otherwise. .
>
Oh, so you have a statistical tabulation in front of you of the
numbers of Americans who believe Oswald acted alone?
Post it here.
>You haven't changed anyone's mind in years and you
> aren't going to start now
I wouldn't put any money on that bold and sweeping statement from
someone who still believes in the fabled GK shooter.
Hilarious.
jas
.
>
> The FACT that the back wound was BELOW the top of the shoulders tells us
> that the SBT is physically impossible.
>
>
Care to explain that to the surviving experts from the HSCA?
Didn't think so...
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tony, the LNs will swear he was standing on his head when the shot was
fired. They simply won't believe the physical evidence and, as one of
them told you, he doesn't care where the wounds were.
JB
jas
> On Dec 31, 10:24 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The main reasons for believing the SBT are ballistic science, logic,
> > and experience. The fact that the back wound was a through and through
> > wound basically tells us all we need to know about where the bullet
> > ended its penetrating trajectory. Police officers, soldiers, hunters,
> > and ballistic experts are not surprised a high velocity missile can
> > penetrate two mammals so close together in the pathway of the
> > trajectory. What experienced riflemen already knew has been confirmed
> > using the scientific method of field testing. The Single Bullet Theory
> > was always a Single Bullet Fact long before the Kennedy assassination.
>
> Funny that they didn't use all of that until they were told there was
> a "timing" problem with the shots and one of the shots missed. That is
> what created the single bullet nonsense, not science.
>JB
Wrong. They used it after carefully taking into consideration all of the
evidence, and the SBT (actually SBF, as in "fact") was the only way it
clicked into place.
If you don't personally believe the SBF, that's your problem.
And while we're on the subject, this is where CTs fail on most points.
They don't take into consideration the TOTALITY of the evidence. To them
just one or two pieces, isolated from all the rest, suffice to reach their
conclusions.
In everyday life in the real world, if we always used this absurd CT
concept of isolating evidence from the totality to draw final conclusions
we would all fall flat on our faces with mistakes -- simple mistakes as
well as deadly and destructive ones. In fact, we see it all the time in
the news.
Example: JFK Jr's dive to the ocean in his private plane in 1999. The
investigators concluded he was spatially disoriented and lost the horizon,
losing control of the plane. He should have trusted his instruments to
keep level flight.
Therefore, because he didn't take into consideration the TOTALITY of the
evidence of his level flight, i.e., his instrument readings, they would
have landed safely.
It is quite obvious why conspiracists don't look at the entire picture of
evidence in the JFK assassination ---
---it's the picture of Oswald acting alone.
Happy New Year.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wrong. The SBT and it is far from being a fact, was made of by one member
of the committee to explain away an embarrassing little timing problem and
the fact that the first shot missed. Your precious SBF (fiction) was only
incorporated because it was necessary to explain away annoying little
facts and folks like you who are unable to zero in on a faulty theory use
it to repaint their misinformation story. You delude yourselves into
believing you are free thinkers when, in fact, you led like sheep to the
slaughter of the WR altar.
JB
jas
Oops, correction (New years eve, ya know :>)
In the phrase
Therefore, because he didn't take into consideration the TOTALITY of the
> evidence of his level flight, i.e., his instrument readings, *they would
> have landed safely.*
I meant to say: ---*they crashed.*
I'm sure anyone reading this would have seen my mistake, but because some
CTers like to play it up as somehow showing my logic is wrong, and
therefore just another "misguided" LNer, I've pointed this out.
Happy New Year
Anthony Marsh
Yes, and I have done so in person. What have you done?
Anthony Marsh
Oh really? Is that why 90% of the public believes us and not you?
Face it, you're just a sore loser trying to change the score.
claviger
> Wrong. The SBT and it is far from being a fact, was made of by one member
> of the committee to explain away an embarrassing little timing problem and
> the fact that the first shot missed. Your precious SBF (fiction) was only
> incorporated because it was necessary to explain away annoying little
> facts and folks like you who are unable to zero in on a faulty theory use
> it to repaint their misinformation story. You delude yourselves into
> believing you are free thinkers when, in fact, you led like sheep to the
> slaughter of the WR altar.
Here is a well written opinion about this subject:
U.S. History: The JFK, magic bullet theory, governor connally
http://en.allexperts.com/q/U-S-History-672/2008/5/JFK-4.htm
claviger
> > The main reasons for believing the SBT are ballistic science, logic,
> > and experience. The fact that the back wound was a through and through
> > wound basically tells us all we need to know about where the bullet
>
> The FACT that the back wound was BELOW the top of the shoulders tells us
> that the SBT is physically impossible.
I'm assuming you are advocating the idea the entrance wound in the back is
lower than the exit wound in the throat, therefore the through-
and-through wound was caused by a rising trajectory that missed the torso
of Gov. Connally. So, therefore you must believe in the gun-
contraption-in-the-trunk theory. I take it you agree with this fellow:
JFK Opinion http://www.mikeleejohnson.com / JFKOpinion.html?
CFID=154...
claviger
> Tony, the LNs will swear he was standing on his head when the shot was
> fired. They simply won't believe the physical evidence and, as one of
> them told you, he doesn't care where the wounds were.
On the other hand you seem to believe in incredible coincidence that two
different shots line up on exactly the same trajectory and yet one of them
missed the President. You have yet to explain how the shot that wounded
Gov. Connally went around the President who was blocking the view from
behind and why it caused an oblong entrance wound.
jas
>You delude yourselves into
> believing you are free thinkers when, in fact, you led like sheep to the
> slaughter of the WR altar.
>
> JB
Oh please....free thinkers? Think again, Mr. Free Thinking.
In the Kennedy case one doesn't have to be a "free thinker" to reiterate
studied facts. The work has already been done -- meticulously -- or have
you forgotten? One only has to read and study the facts as recorded by the
Warren Commission, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission, the HSCA,
and the ARRB. THEN, thinking is based on those facts.
I've got news for you, "free thinking" is not changing the known and
proved facts of the assassination as already investigated and recorded by
these commissions, nor is it making up conspiracy angles based only on
opinion and speculation as conspiracists do. Rather, it is formulating
theories, ideas, and ultimately conclusions, in the STUDYING OF AN
UNKNOWN.
Apparently unbeknownst to you and your CT cronies, the Kennedy
assassination and its investigation over the past 46 years is NOT A STUDY
OF AN UNKNOWN.
claviger
Never mind. He's a Greer shot the President CT. Interesting website
though.
http://www.mikeleejohnson.com/JFKLinks.html
JFK Murder Was an Inside Job
By Mike Johnson
claviger
Anthony,
I'm assuming you are advocating the idea the entrance wound in the
back is lower than the exit wound in the throat, therefore the through-
and-through wound was caused by a rising trajectory that missed the
torso of Gov. Connally. So, therefore you must believe in the gun-
contraption-in-the-trunk theory.
I take it you agree with this fellow:
concealed weapon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7-GnaK6aT4&feature=related
Anthony Marsh
There was plenty of room for a bullet to go over Kennedy's right
shoulder and hit Connally. Dale Myers illustrated that in his diagrams
for Video Toaster.
Anthony Marsh
No, you assume too much. I think the back wound is really where the
autopsy photos and other evidence show it, just above T-1. I have
diagrammed this many times. Once you account for his arm being over the
side of the car that moves the back wound up so that it is slightly above
the throat wound.
And stop telling me what I must believe in.
Anthony Marsh
I gloss over mistakes like that. What disturbed me about your message was
your presuming to know exactly what the conditions were and exactly what
the error was. You pretend that all he had to do was watch his
instruments, forgetting that he wasn't qualified for instrument flight
rules, only visual, and that he was not a very good pilot to begin with.
> Happy New Year
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
And he defends it to the death ignoring the fact that the WC said it was
not central to its conclusions. They couldn't even be sure which shot
missed.
John Blubaugh
It is well written but it is just more LN bullshit from another psuedo
expert. It is like calling Steve who posts here a forensic accustic
expert. It ain't so.
JB
John Blubaugh
It is a flawed study because your precious WC was corrupt and the fix
was already in before it started.
JB
claviger
The first problem with a rising trajectory you have not addressed is where
did it come from? It would have to come from street level or ricochet off
the pavement. So either you are endorsing the Donahue theory or trying to
account for the first shot miss. The major problem with a ricochet is it
would mash the bullet so its very doubtful a deformed bullet would make
such a small round entrance hole and exit with another small round exit
hole. It is more likely a deformed bullet wound not penetrate all the way
through the torso. No bullet was found inside the body in any x-rays, so
we are back to street level. Who fired the shot from on the street?
Next, where did the second bullet come from that missed JFK but hit
Connally? And why was the entrance wound oblong instead of round? An
oblong wound is indicative of a tumbling bullet. Why was this bullet
tumbling before it struck the target? Since it would need to be a downward
trajectory what happened to the bullet? Shouldn't it be imbedded into the
back of the front seat where Kellerman was sitting or the floorboard in
front?
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 1, 9:57 pm, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anthony,
>>
>>>> The main reasons for believing the SBT are ballistic science, logic,
>>>> and experience. The fact that the back wound was a through and through
>>>> wound basically tells us all we need to know about where the bullet
>>
>>> The FACT that the back wound was BELOW the top of the shoulders tells us
>>> that the SBT is physically impossible.
>>
>> I'm assuming you are advocating the idea the entrance wound in the back is
>> lower than the exit wound in the throat, therefore the through-
>> and-through wound was caused by a rising trajectory that missed the torso
>> of Gov. Connally. So, therefore you must believe in the gun-
>> contraption-in-the-trunk theory. I take it you agree with this fellow:
>>
>> JFK Opinionhttp://www.mikeleejohnson.com/ JFKOpinion.html?
>> CFID=154...
>
> Anthony,
>
> I'm assuming you are advocating the idea the entrance wound in the
No, you are not assuming. You know what what I believe and you state the
exact opposite. You've run out of arguments.
> back is lower than the exit wound in the throat, therefore the through-
> and-through wound was caused by a rising trajectory that missed the
> torso of Gov. Connally. So, therefore you must believe in the gun-
> contraption-in-the-trunk theory.
>
The back wound was just slightly above the throat wound at the time of
the shot. It was headed on a downward trajectory until it hit the top of
T-1 and then was deflected upwards and exited the throat.
> I take it you agree with this fellow:
>
What is this, kindergarten? You think you can impress people with the
old guilt by association trick when I have many times ridiculed that
stupid idea myself?
> concealed weapon
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7-GnaK6aT4&feature=related
>
That video is a fake and almost every data point is a lie. It is hard to
attribute all the lies to simple stupidity. There must be something more
at work.
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Besides the fact that the guy is an idiot, I even question whether Mike
Lee Johnson really exists. And didn't I just last month point out that
every month some idiot brings up the driver did it theory?
We put this to rest decades ago, but some people are just stupid.
Anthony Marsh
I often overlook simple errors like that because I assume everyone knows
what you meant to say. What I object to your assuming that you know what
the conditions were like that night and what JFK Jr.'s abilities were. He
was NOT rated for instrument flight rules.
Haze and visibility
Hazy conditions existed on the night of the crash. Especially at night,
haze can lead to spatial disorientation for pilots. Although the weather
was officially listed as VFR (Visual Flight Rules), allowing Kennedy to
fly that night despite his lack of an IFR (Instrument Flight Rules)
rating, the visibility was poor in Essex County, New Jersey, and airports
along his flight path reported visibilities between 5 and 8 miles with
haze and few clouds. Other pilots flying similar routes on the night of
the accident reported no visual horizon while flying over the water
because of haze. At least one pilot interviewed by the NTSB in the
subsequent crash investigation canceled his flight to Martha's Vineyard
that night: "Based only on the current weather conditions at CDW, the fact
that I could not get my friends to come with me, and the fact that I would
not have to spend money on a hotel room in Martha's Vineyard, I made the
decision to fly my airplane to Martha's Vineyard on Saturday." The
conditions near the crash site were "Clear skies at or below 12,000 feet;
visibility 10 miles".[1] [edit] Pilot inexperience
Kennedy obtained his private pilot license in April 1998. He did not
possess an instrument rating. He received a "high performance airplane"
sign-off in June 1998 and a Complex airplane sign-off in the accident
airplane two months before the crash.[1] Kennedy's estimated total flight
experience was about 310 hours, of which 55 hours were at night. His
estimated experience flying without a certified flight instructor (CFI) on
board was about 72 hours. His estimated flight time in the accident
airplane was about 36 hours, of which 9.4 hours were at night.
Approximately 3 hours of that flight time was without a CFI on board, and
only 48 minutes of that time was flown at night, which included just one
night landing.[1] In the 15 months before the accident, Kennedy had flown
about 35 flights either to or from northern New Jersey and the Martha's
Vineyard area. Kennedy flew over 17 of these legs without a CFI on board,
including at least 5 at night. His last known flight in the accident
airplane without a CFI on board was on May 28, 1999.[1] [edit] Pilot
training
The CFI who prepared Kennedy for his private pilot checkride stated that
he had "very good" flying skills for his level of experience. Four months
before the crash, Kennedy passed the FAA's written airplane instrument
examination and enrolled in an instrument rating course. He continued to
receive flight instruction in New Jersey in the accident airplane,
including flights from CDW to MVY. His instructors said he required help
working the rudder pedals to taxi and land the plane because of an ankle
injury. During a training flight at night under instrument conditions, his
instructor stated that Kennedy had the ability to fly the airplane without
a visible horizon but may have had difficulty performing additional tasks
under such conditions. He also stated that the pilot was not ready for an
instrument evaluation, and needed additional training. The instructor at
the time of the crash was not aware that Kennedy would be flying in those
conditions without an instructor on board. The CFI further stated that he
had talked to Kennedy on the day of the accident and offered to fly with
him that night. He stated that Kennedy declined. The CFI stated that
Kennedy had the capability to conduct a night flight to Martha's Vineyard
as long as a visible horizon existed.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 2, 6:31 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/1/2010 10:59 PM, claviger wrote:
>>
>>> JB,
>>
>>>> Tony, the LNs will swear he was standing on his head when the shot was
>>>> fired. They simply won't believe the physical evidence and, as one of
>>>> them told you, he doesn't care where the wounds were.
>>
>>> On the other hand you seem to believe in incredible coincidence that two
>>> different shots line up on exactly the same trajectory and yet one of them
>>> missed the President. You have yet to explain how the shot that wounded
>>> Gov. Connally went around the President who was blocking the view from
>>> behind and why it caused an oblong entrance wound.
>>
>> There was plenty of room for a bullet to go over Kennedy's right
>> shoulder and hit Connally. Dale Myers illustrated that in his diagrams
>> for Video Toaster.
>
> The first problem with a rising trajectory you have not addressed is where
> did it come from? It would have to come from street level or ricochet off
> the pavement. So either you are endorsing the Donahue theory or trying to
No. Maybe if you were replying to someone else's message, but you are
replying to me. And my theory stipulates that the bullet came from the
sniper's nest just before Z-210.
> account for the first shot miss. The major problem with a ricochet is it
You know I ridicule the Donahue theory every chance I get.
I have a missed shot about 30 frames before the one which hit Kennedy,
about Z-180.
> would mash the bullet so its very doubtful a deformed bullet would make
> such a small round entrance hole and exit with another small round exit
No, it would not mash a FMJ bullet.
> hole. It is more likely a deformed bullet wound not penetrate all the way
> through the torso. No bullet was found inside the body in any x-rays, so
> we are back to street level. Who fired the shot from on the street?
>
False argument, false conclusion. You know nothing about ballistics.
You contradict your own arguments by claiming that CE 399 broke several
bones and came out looking so undamaged. And then point to the
Australian test which produced an unmashed bullet.
> Next, where did the second bullet come from that missed JFK but hit
> Connally? And why was the entrance wound oblong instead of round? An
I tend to think window #10. If the government would ever release all the
files on the acoustical evidence I might be able to do the same test on
that shot as W&A did for the grassy knoll shot.
> oblong wound is indicative of a tumbling bullet. Why was this bullet
Wrong. An elongated wound does not have to indicate a tumbling bullet.
> tumbling before it struck the target? Since it would need to be a downward
Well, then why was the bullet tumbling before it hit the back of JFK's
head as you think when that was supposedly an IDENTICAL oblong wound?
Hoisted by your own petard again.
> trajectory what happened to the bullet? Shouldn't it be imbedded into the
> back of the front seat where Kellerman was sitting or the floorboard in
> front?
>
>
Or maybe it went through the floorboard as rumor has it.
But my bullet is deflected up and out the limo.