Top Ten surpises in Bugliosi's book Revising History
Anthony Marsh
And as you know Bugliosi says that anyone who doesn't agree with him is
a kook. Unfortunately for the WC defenders here most of them say the
frame was Z-224.
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***If that is what Bugliosi believes, then i am on the side of the
kooks, as JFK was just beginning to reflexively react as he appeared
from behind the sign. JFK's instantaneous rapid arm motion indicated
that he was shot frames at most, prior to his arm movement. Z210 was
some 25 frames earlier, more than a second.
***Ron Judge
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
<r2bz...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1179458073....@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Yes, an Internet friend told me this the other day by private e-mail
(after that friend asked Vince directly at a book signing in NYC about his
odd SBT timing). Vince told my friend that he places the SBT "just after
Z210".
This is, indeed, odd and is something I completely disagree with VB about,
and I will say so in my tome of a review coming in a few weeks. But at
least VB realizes that an SBT frame IS on that film SOMEWHERE. There HAS
to be. The WC knew that and so did the HSCA (even though they, too, came
to different conclusions about the timing).
Odder still, IMO, is Vincent's picking "210", which is, number 1, a frame
that DOES NOT EVEN EXIST on the copies of the Z-Film we see today. Z210 is
one of the damage and removed frames that were damaged by Time-Life in
'63-'64.
And, number two, Z210 (if it WERE a part of the extant film) can't
possibly lead Vince to a conclusive "SBT" conclusion, because we can't
even SEE Kennedy's body at that point on the film. All but the top of his
head is behind the Stemmons sign.
I see, though, that Vince has gotten closer to the true SBT frame (which
is Z224, without a SPECK of a doubt, IMHO)....because VB had endorsed the
HSCA's ridiculously-early Z190 timeline back in 1986 at the Mock Trial of
LHO in London.
Very strange. But I'll wait and see what VB's full explanation is for this
odd 210 timeline when I read (fully) his book very soon. (My copy is
coming in a day or so.)
Perhaps Vince is doing a little "extrapolating" backward from Z224-225
(via some "expert" in the field of "reaction times" or something) to
arrive at his 210 SBT time. I don't know. But I'll know for certain soon.
(Or perhaps Tony Marsh will tell us more details, since he apparently has
read VB's SBT chapter.)
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Bugliosi places the Single Bullet Theory at frame 210." <<<
>
> Yes, an Internet friend told me this the other day by private e-mail
> (after that friend asked Vince directly at a book signing in NYC about his
> odd SBT timing). Vince told my friend that he places the SBT "just after
> Z210".
>
> This is, indeed, odd and is something I completely disagree with VB about,
> and I will say so in my tome of a review coming in a few weeks. But at
> least VB realizes that an SBT frame IS on that film SOMEWHERE. There HAS
> to be. The WC knew that and so did the HSCA (even though they, too, came
> to different conclusions about the timing).
>
Gee, I thought you said Bugliosi was God? Is God dead now?
Maybe you can answer a question which Bugliosi can't.
How can it be scientifically sound that three different groups pick
widely different frame numbers for their SBTs and each claims that the
SBT works perfectly and ONLY at that particular frame each chose?
> Odder still, IMO, is Vincent's picking "210", which is, number 1, a frame
> that DOES NOT EVEN EXIST on the copies of the Z-Film we see today. Z210 is
> one of the damage and removed frames that were damaged by Time-Life in
> '63-'64.
>
Maybe not on the copies YOU look at, but some of us see Z-210 on the SS
copy.
> And, number two, Z210 (if it WERE a part of the extant film) can't
> possibly lead Vince to a conclusive "SBT" conclusion, because we can't
> even SEE Kennedy's body at that point on the film. All but the top of his
> head is behind the Stemmons sign.
>
That is the beauty of his picking Z-210. Don't you see his logic at
work? He can claim anything because we can't see Connally in Z-210.
> I see, though, that Vince has gotten closer to the true SBT frame (which
Closer? I guess you think closer is good enough for a WC defender.
> is Z224, without a SPECK of a doubt, IMHO)....because VB had endorsed the
> HSCA's ridiculously-early Z190 timeline back in 1986 at the Mock Trial of
> LHO in London.
>
Yeah, which illustrates my point.
Guess what? Picking Z-210 moves the head shot at Z-313 to the grassy knoll.
> Very strange. But I'll wait and see what VB's full explanation is for this
> odd 210 timeline when I read (fully) his book very soon. (My copy is
> coming in a day or so.)
>
Fully? Hey, we don't have 25 years to wait. He is due in Cambridge on
Tuesday. Guess who will be in the audience to call him a liar to his
face (and prove it)?
> Perhaps Vince is doing a little "extrapolating" backward from Z224-225
> (via some "expert" in the field of "reaction times" or something) to
> arrive at his 210 SBT time. I don't know. But I'll know for certain soon.
> (Or perhaps Tony Marsh will tell us more details, since he apparently has
> read VB's SBT chapter.)
>
No extrapolating. Just guesswork.
BTW, do you happen to know who else says that Kennedy was hit at Z-210?
Moi. Mainly because of the acoustical evidence.
Anthony Marsh
Don't worry about the exact number of frames or exact number of seconds.
We understand your point. Some of us agree about Kennedy. But his SBT
includes Connally and almost all WC defenders now say that the so-called
lapel flip proves that Connally was hit at exactly Z-224. What does
Bugliosi say about that?
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1179462253.8...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> Not really......many consider the first shot to have happened around
> Z186-210......I do and I think Barb is
> around there too. Trouble is that it really does not fit into the SBT
> or missed shot considerations.
>
Maybe you haven't read his book or don't understand what I wrote.
Bugliosi is arguing that HIS SBT happened at Z-210. Not a first shot at
Z-210.
Here is his caption to his SBT drawing:
"No one knows the exact Zapruder frame at which the president and Governor
Connally were hit by Oswald's second bullet, but it was somewhere within a
split second of frame 210. This is a three-dimensional overhead rendering
of Kennedy and Connally as they were seated in the limousine at
approximately frame 210, with te single bullet's trajectory."
> Z210 is a spot that JFK can't be fully evaluated for any clear
> reaction. I'm surprised that VB did
> select this point for a first shot.....hit or miss.
>
Not first shot. Can't you pay attention? Bugliosi says it is the second
shot and is his SBT. He can't very well have a first shot at 210 and then
a SBT at 224/225. Even HE is not that stupid.
> jko
>
>
>
> "Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net <mailto:doc...@netzero.net>>
> wrote in message news:464d...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> From the Endnotes...
>
> Did I miss something about Z210?
>
> Chad
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net
> <mailto:anthon...@comcast.net>> wrote in message
> news:wu-dnc6bL4dIQdbb...@comcast.com...
David Von Pein
knoll." <<<
WTF???
And...
Huh???!!!
I gotta hear Tony's wondrous & logical explanation that allows him to
arrive at the above crazy assertion.
Give it a shot, Tone.
Martin Shackelford
available since the publication of Josiah Thompson's book in 1967, and ALL
available with the publication of Robert Groden's booklet in the late 1990s.
They are also available on Groden's DVD "The Assassination Films."
Martin
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:K8k3i.107527$NK5....@newsfe23.lga...
James K. Olmstead
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:GK6dnXEyIfSo3tPb...@comcast.com...
> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>> Not really......many consider the first shot to have happened around Z186-210......I do and I think Barb is
>> around there too. Trouble is that it really does not fit into the SBT or missed shot considerations.
>>
>
>
> Maybe you haven't read his book or don't understand what I wrote. Bugliosi is arguing that HIS SBT happened at Z-210.
> Not a first shot at Z-210.
I did not fully understand if in fact VB meant the SBT happened at Z210. I can't
pick up RH until this Weds so I have not read his book
> Here is his caption to his SBT drawing:
>
> "No one knows the exact Zapruder frame at which the president and Governor Connally were hit by Oswald's second
> bullet, but it was somewhere within a split second of frame 210. This is a three-dimensional overhead rendering of
> Kennedy and Connally as they were seated in the limousine at approximately frame 210, with te single bullet's
> trajectory."
>
>> Z210 is a spot that JFK can't be fully evaluated for any clear reaction. I'm surprised that VB did
>> select this point for a first shot.....hit or miss.
>>
>
> Not first shot. Can't you pay attention? Bugliosi says it is the second shot and is his SBT. He can't very well have a
> first shot at 210 and then a SBT at 224/225. Even HE is not that stupid.
Even a second shot at Z210 is a surprize that he selected that point. Did special X-ray glasses
come with the book to see thru the sign?
jko
James K. Olmstead
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1179541034.4...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
I think this "Tone" slipped thru........sort of the same problem as "Babs" was years ago. I fear with the
release of VB's book name calling maybe a issue you guys will need to be on the look out for.
This book will be the subject of hundreds of posts in the near future as more get their copies.
jko
David Von Pein
But not available on the best digital version of the Z-Film (to
date)....the 1998 MPI DVD version.
Yes, I have the Groden DVD, which (as you said) does include the
unspliced film....but it's a really crappy-looking version, and is
hardly in good enough shape to make any definite "JFK WAS SHOT HERE!"
determinations. (IMO anyway.)
Anthony Marsh
> "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message news:1179541034.4...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> "Guess what? Picking Z-210 moves the head shot at Z-313 to the grassy
>> knoll." <<<
>>
>> WTF???
>>
>> And...
>>
>> Huh???!!!
>>
>> I gotta hear Tony's wondrous & logical explanation that allows him to
>> arrive at the above crazy assertion.
>>
>> Give it a shot, Tone.
>>
>>
>
> I think this "Tone" slipped thru........sort of the same problem as "Babs" was years ago. I fear with the
> release of VB's book name calling maybe a issue you guys will need to be on the look out for.
>
Well, guess who else says that Kennedy was hit at Z-210? I do. Mainly
because of my match-up of the acoustical evidence. Which then places the
shot at Z-313 coming from the grassy knoll.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/headshot.txt
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:GK6dnXEyIfSo3tPb...@comcast.com...
>> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>> Not really......many consider the first shot to have happened around Z186-210......I do and I think Barb is
>>> around there too. Trouble is that it really does not fit into the SBT or missed shot considerations.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe you haven't read his book or don't understand what I wrote. Bugliosi is arguing that HIS SBT happened at Z-210.
>> Not a first shot at Z-210.
>
> I did not fully understand if in fact VB meant the SBT happened at Z210. I can't
> pick up RH until this Weds so I have not read his book
>
>
>> Here is his caption to his SBT drawing:
>>
>> "No one knows the exact Zapruder frame at which the president and Governor Connally were hit by Oswald's second
>> bullet, but it was somewhere within a split second of frame 210. This is a three-dimensional overhead rendering of
>> Kennedy and Connally as they were seated in the limousine at approximately frame 210, with te single bullet's
>> trajectory."
>>
>>> Z210 is a spot that JFK can't be fully evaluated for any clear reaction. I'm surprised that VB did
>>> select this point for a first shot.....hit or miss.
>>>
>> Not first shot. Can't you pay attention? Bugliosi says it is the second shot and is his SBT. He can't very well have a
>> first shot at 210 and then a SBT at 224/225. Even HE is not that stupid.
>
>
> Even a second shot at Z210 is a surprize that he selected that point. Did special X-ray glasses
> come with the book to see thru the sign?
>
The question you have to ask is why would Bugliosi have chosen Z-210? The
answer is because he could get away with it as Connally can not be seen. I
already showed the fallacy of any SBT at Z-224 because we can see
Connally. And seeing Kennedy at Z-225 proves a SBT at Z-224 is physically
impossible.
Michael O'Dell
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:GK6dnXEyIfSo3tPb...@comcast.com...
> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>> Not really......many consider the first shot to have happened around
>> Z186-210......I do and I think Barb is
>> around there too. Trouble is that it really does not fit into the SBT or
>> missed shot considerations.
>>
>
>
> Maybe you haven't read his book or don't understand what I wrote. Bugliosi
> is arguing that HIS SBT happened at Z-210. Not a first shot at Z-210.
> Here is his caption to his SBT drawing:
>
Actually, he doesn't argue it was 210. The caption must be wrong. It's a
little misleading to claim his argument is one thing based on the caption to
one picture, when the book makes clear that it isn't his argument.
On page 40 he has the second shot 3.5 seconds after the first, and the third
shot 8.4 seconds after the first. So the second and third are 4.9 seconds
apart.
4.9 seconds is 90 frames (18.3 fps cited elsewhere). The third shot being
frame 313 the second would then be 223, not 210.
Elsewhere the book probably spells it out explicitly, but I haven't read it
yet.
Michael
David Von Pein
And I know Vince is an advocate for a first-shot miss at Z160. So this
info is good news (IMO), because I think it's 100% right. Thanks
Michael. ....
Shot 1 -- Z160 (a miss).
Shot 2 -- Z224 (SBT shot).
Shot 3 -- Z313 (head shot).
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
>"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:GK6dnXEyIfSo3tPb...@comcast.com...
>> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>> Not really......many consider the first shot to have happened around
>>> Z186-210......I do and I think Barb is
>>> around there too. Trouble is that it really does not fit into the SBT or
>>> missed shot considerations.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe you haven't read his book or don't understand what I wrote. Bugliosi
>> is arguing that HIS SBT happened at Z-210. Not a first shot at Z-210.
>> Here is his caption to his SBT drawing:
>>
>
>Actually, he doesn't argue it was 210. The caption must be wrong. It's a
>little misleading to claim his argument is one thing based on the caption to
>one picture, when the book makes clear that it isn't his argument.
>
>On page 40 he has the second shot 3.5 seconds after the first, and the third
>shot 8.4 seconds after the first. So the second and third are 4.9 seconds
>apart.
>
>4.9 seconds is 90 frames (18.3 fps cited elsewhere). The third shot being
>frame 313 the second would then be 223, not 210.
>
>Elsewhere the book probably spells it out explicitly, but I haven't read it
>yet.
Hi Michael,
Indeed he spells it out on page 463 where he states:
"It has to be emphasized that at the time Connally was struck by a
bullet (somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222),* the oak tree to the
north of Elm close to the Depository Building was no longer ...."
The * goes to this footnote:
"Connally can first be seen reacting to being hit by a bullet at frame
222 of the Zapruder film, when his upper body can be seen for the frst
ti,e from emerging from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign (see photo
section of book, HSCA Report, p82)."
He's got another honey on that page too!
Wooooo. This book is gonna be fun!
Barb :-)
jim....@fuse.net
Although you're off the mark at Zf210, Anthony, while you are asking VB
questions IF there is a question and answer opportunity after his
presentation, ask Vincent why he named his JFK assassination tome
"Revising History." What history is he revising the LNer position? I
don't think so. His revisings are squarely focused on the CT group because
he is an "official findings" and WC supporter by his own admission.
Regards, Jim
David Von Pein
He didn't name it that. Better look again. It's called "RECLAIMING
HISTORY" -- not "revising".
The book went through three titles in 21 years' time, btw.....
"FINAL VERDICT: THE TRUE ACCOUNT OF THE MURDER OF JOHN F. KENNEDY";
then....
"FINAL VERDICT: THE SIMPLE TRUTH IN THE KILLING OF JFK";
and finally:
"Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
Kennedy" (with this final one being by far the best title among the
three choices, IMO).
r2bz...@sbcglobal.net
***3 agents were turned to the rear in the altgens photo. 2 of them
stated that they responded to the first shot by turning to the rear,
from where they heard the sound. During the time from Z160 to where
they disappeared from the sprockets of the Zfilm, they are not seen
turning around to the rear.
Zapruder said that he heard a shot and saw Kennedy slump over to his
left, then heard one or two more shots.
I believe Zapruder was correct when he indicated that the first shot
struck Kennedy.
***Ron Judge
Anthony Marsh
The official history is that there was a conspiracy. That was the last
investigation and it has not been overturned by a subsequent
investigation. Get used to it. We won, you lost. So Bugliosi is trying to
revise that official history.
Hey, you could figure out all by yourself with no help that Bugliosi is a
WC supporter? I bet your fellow WC defenders disagree with that and call
him a seeker of truth.
pjsp...@aol.com
You're absolutely correct, Ron. In anticipation of Bugliosi's shoddy
analysis, I went to Bugliosi-like lengths to demonstrate why we should
conclude that the first shot miss is a myth. At patspeer.com, in chapters
5 through 8, I go through the statements of over 200 Dealey Plaza
witnesses and demonstrate just how little support there is for a first
shot miss. There's almost none. IMO, both HOLLAND and BUGLIOSI have
exposed themselves as second-rate analysts with their blind acceptance of
a first shot miss.
pjsp...@aol.com
You're absolutely correct, Ron. In anticipation of Bugliosi's shoddy
Anthony Marsh
Can you explain why he would depict a SBT trajectory at Z-210 if he
thought it happened at Z-224?
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:GK6dnXEyIfSo3tPb...@comcast.com...
>> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>> Not really......many consider the first shot to have happened around
>>> Z186-210......I do and I think Barb is
>>> around there too. Trouble is that it really does not fit into the SBT or
>>> missed shot considerations.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe you haven't read his book or don't understand what I wrote. Bugliosi
>> is arguing that HIS SBT happened at Z-210. Not a first shot at Z-210.
>> Here is his caption to his SBT drawing:
>>
>
> Actually, he doesn't argue it was 210. The caption must be wrong. It's a
> little misleading to claim his argument is one thing based on the caption to
> one picture, when the book makes clear that it isn't his argument.
>
OK, so this is a new excuse for him. Maybe I'll ask him what happened.
Your theory is that the publisher wrote the wrong caption? But how do you
explain the drawing which is supposed to show their alignment at Z-210?
You claim it was actually Z-224? Or do you claim that they remained in
exactly the same positions from Z-210 to Z-224? Remember, I mean to say
SURPRISES. As in a David Letterman Top Ten list.
> On page 40 he has the second shot 3.5 seconds after the first, and the third
> shot 8.4 seconds after the first. So the second and third are 4.9 seconds
> apart.
>
> 4.9 seconds is 90 frames (18.3 fps cited elsewhere). The third shot being
> frame 313 the second would then be 223, not 210.
>
> Elsewhere the book probably spells it out explicitly, but I haven't read it
> yet.
>
So you're saying that Bugliosi is not even sure what he is saying?
Anthony Marsh
You can't look at any specific frame and say that JFK was shot here, or
even Connally was shot here, except the head shot at Z-313.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Of course you can.
Z-223.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Michael O'Dell
> Michael O'Dell wrote:
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:GK6dnXEyIfSo3tPb...@comcast.com...
>>> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>>> Not really......many consider the first shot to have happened around
>>>> Z186-210......I do and I think Barb is
>>>> around there too. Trouble is that it really does not fit into the SBT
>>>> or missed shot considerations.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe you haven't read his book or don't understand what I wrote.
>>> Bugliosi is arguing that HIS SBT happened at Z-210. Not a first shot at
>>> Z-210.
>>> Here is his caption to his SBT drawing:
>>>
>>
>> Actually, he doesn't argue it was 210. The caption must be wrong. It's
>> a little misleading to claim his argument is one thing based on the
>> caption to one picture, when the book makes clear that it isn't his
>> argument.
>>
>
> OK, so this is a new excuse for him. Maybe I'll ask him what happened.
> Your theory is that the publisher wrote the wrong caption? But how do you
> explain the drawing which is supposed to show their alignment at Z-210?
> You claim it was actually Z-224? Or do you claim that they remained in
> exactly the same positions from Z-210 to Z-224? Remember, I mean to say
> SURPRISES. As in a David Letterman Top Ten list.
>
Tony, the only thing I'm doing is telling you the FACT of what the book
says. I'm not making any claims at all.
I think most people understand that you can't tell what a book says by
just looking at the pictures.
Michael
Barb Junkkarinen
Then you disagree with Bugliosi. :-)
Barb :-)
Glenn Sarlitto
wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 04:42:31 GMT, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John
>
>
>
>
>
> McAdams) wrote:
> >On 22 May 2007 00:41:41 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>
> >>David Von Pein wrote:
> >>>>>> "David doesn't seem to realize that the "missing frames" have been mostly available since the publication of Josiah Thompson's book in 1967..." <<<
>
> >>> But not available on the best digital version of the Z-Film (to
> >>> date)....the 1998 MPI DVD version.
>
> >>> Yes, I have the Groden DVD, which (as you said) does include the
> >>> unspliced film....but it's a really crappy-looking version, and is
> >>> hardly in good enough shape to make any definite "JFK WAS SHOT HERE!"
> >>> determinations. (IMO anyway.)
>
> >>You can't look at any specific frame and say that JFK was shot here, or
> >>even Connally was shot here, except the head shot at Z-313.
>
> >Of course you can.
>
> >Z-223.
>
> Then you disagree with Bugliosi. :-)
>
I agree with Bugliosi. He is not claiming that the shot was fired at
exactly 210.
His take is that "we can reasonably assume that the second shot was
fired somewhere bewteen frames 207 andd 222 of the Zapruder film."
There is 3D overhead that depicts frame 210 & the positions of JFK and
Connally along with lines for the SB.
Part of the caption reads...
Quote On...
No one knows the exact Zapruder frame at which the president and
Governally Connally were hit by Oswald's second bullet, but it was
somewhere within a split second of frame 210.
Quote Off
I couldn't agree more. No one knows exactly which frame. And of
course, Bugliosi writes more in this regard. Alot more. And in my
opinion, one of the best that has been written to date regarding the
SBT since the Warren Commission's attempt in a SUMMARY REPORT.
You really should read his book Barb, or at least the portions that
interest you. I noticed that he noted you in his notes. Not sure
exactly yet what he noted. It's on the CD. Just curious, did he at
least send you a copy? If so, don't drop it. The guy in brown dropped
mine twice. OUCH! Damaged goods. That cover binding is pretty lame for
a 7 Pounder. Gonna have to repair mine soon before it gets worse.
Glenn Sarlitto
> Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> >.John
>
> >The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
:)
David Von Pein
When did I ever say VB thought it happened at Z224? I didn't say that.
Ever.
It DID happen at Z224, of course. But I never said Vince said that.
VB is wrong re. the exact SBT timing...but he's just playing it
safe...like the WC with its 210-225 "range".
But you are ever MORE wrong with your anti-SBT stance. Obviously,
Vince isn't silly enough to abandon the SBT. Why would anyone who's
looked at the evidence in this case be that silly, I ask you?
Mike
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:465274a8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Hahaha... I assume that is a joke, John ?
Mike :-)
Anthony Marsh
> Nobody's shot at 223....it's 224.
>
> :)
>
>
Well, we never know, because you guys keep changing frame numbers.
Anthony Marsh
Then why do all his diagrams and map show the hit at frame 210?
Is 224 a split second after 210?
> I think most people understand that you can't tell what a book says by
> just looking at the pictures.
>
As I said before the pictures are the second thing I look at when I see
a new book. Then if I spot something strange I try to find the text
about it.
In the text he says that the bullet hit within a split second of frame
210. He did not say 224.
> Michael
Anthony Marsh
All of his diagrams show a shot at 210.
How can Kennedy and Connally always be lined up for a SBT in all those
frames from 207 to 224 when Connally said he was in the process of
turning around in his seat?
> Part of the caption reads...
>
> Quote On...
>
> No one knows the exact Zapruder frame at which the president and
> Governally Connally were hit by Oswald's second bullet, but it was
> somewhere within a split second of frame 210.
>
>
> Quote Off
>
>
> I couldn't agree more. No one knows exactly which frame. And of
> course, Bugliosi writes more in this regard. Alot more. And in my
> opinion, one of the best that has been written to date regarding the
> SBT since the Warren Commission's attempt in a SUMMARY REPORT.
>
Not much of a theory when the guy isn't even sure when the SBT happened.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Earlier in this thread, I responded to Michael with quotes from the
book ... exactly what Bugliosi said about the timeframe of the SB. I
guess you missed it. :-) Here is my reply in full:
QUOTE
Hi Michael,
Indeed he spells it out on page 463 where he states:
"It has to be emphasized that at the time Connally was struck by a
bullet (somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222),* the oak tree to the
north of Elm close to the Depository Building was no longer ...."
The * goes to this footnote:
"Connally can first be seen reacting to being hit by a bullet at frame
222 of the Zapruder film, when his upper body can be seen for the frst
ti,e from emerging from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign (see photo
section of book, HSCA Report, p82)."
He's got another honey on that page too!
Wooooo. This book is gonna be fun!
Barb :-)
END QUOTE
This was 2 or 3 days ago.
>I noticed that he noted you in his notes. Not sure
>exactly yet what he noted. It's on the CD.
I haven't looked yet. Something to do with an e-mail exchange I had
with Epstein on the Files thing, I've been told.
>Just curious, did he at
>least send you a copy?
Nope! But he did spell my name wrong in the index. :-)
> If so, don't drop it. The guy in brown dropped
>mine twice. OUCH! Damaged goods. That cover binding is pretty lame for
>a 7 Pounder. Gonna have to repair mine soon before it gets worse.
It weighs 5.5 pounds on our scale. Definitely too big and clunky to
hunker down qith comfortably without breaking a rib.<g>
So, you think Connally is "seen reacting to a bullet" in 222? So much
for the lapel flip, completing his turn and being forward facing
before getting hit, the hat/hand jerk, and pretty much the whole
enchilada of LN arguments post lapel-flip discovery. Back to the WC
and their "delayed reaction", I guess ... save Bugliosi removes that
delay and his him in the throes of racting at 222. What will y'all
argue now?<g>
Barb :-)
Glenn Sarlitto
Tony,
>
> All of his diagrams show a shot at 210.
Yep! They do.
> How can Kennedy and Connally always be lined up for a SBT in all those
> frames from 207 to 224 when Connally said he was in the process of
> turning around in his seat?
>
You are looking for absolute when absolute is unachieveable and not
needed to resolve the case in this instance. Sometimes you gotta go
with the little ya got and RECONCILE the data. Heck, Tony. You should
know this yourself. You sure don't have much when it comes to your
Grassy Knoll Shooter.
>
> > Part of the caption reads...
>
> > Quote On...
>
> > No one knows the exact Zapruder frame at which the president and
> > Governally Connally were hit by Oswald's second bullet, but it was
> > somewhere within a split second of frame 210.
>
> > Quote Off
>
> > I couldn't agree more. No one knows exactly which frame. And of
> > course, Bugliosi writes more in this regard. Alot more. And in my
> > opinion, one of the best that has been written to date regarding the
> > SBT since the Warren Commission's attempt in a SUMMARY REPORT.
>
> Not much of a theory when the guy isn't even sure when the SBT happened.
>
Bugliosi has a theory as to when Oswald's second shot from the 6th
floor was fired. Somewhere between frames 207 and 222.
And speakin' about "NOT MUCH OF A THEORY".....
Kinda like your Grassy Knoll Shooter. Not much of a theory when you
have no physical evidence of any kind and no eyewitnesses regarding
the weapon or shooter.
FORE!
GS
>
> > You really should read his book Barb, or at least the portions that
> > interest you. I noticed that he noted you in his notes. Not sure
> > exactly yet what he noted. It's on the CD. Just curious, did he at
> > least send you a copy? If so, don't drop it. The guy in brown dropped
> > mine twice. OUCH! Damaged goods. That cover binding is pretty lame for
> > a 7 Pounder. Gonna have to repair mine soon before it gets worse.
>
> > Glenn Sarlitto
>
> >> Barb :-)
>
> >>> .John
> >>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> >>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm-Hide quoted text -
Andrew Mason
There is not one witness who said that JFK and Jackie smiled and waved after the first shot. There are at least 17 witnesses who said that he reacted to the first shot. Most said he moved to his left and stopped waving, or brought his hands to his neck. The witness evidence is summarized here:
http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_hit_witnesses.PDF
In addition, you have a couple of dozen witnesses who put the first shot after z190, summarized here: http://www.dufourlaw.com/jfk/first_shot_location_witnesses.PDF
On top of all this, you have dozens of witnesses (45 by my last count) who said that the last two shots were closer together than the first two, which means that there was only one shot by z224.
All of this is quite consistent with Oswald firing all the shots, but it is quite inconsistent with the SBT.
Andrew Mason
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Can you explain why he would depict a SBT trajectory at Z-210 if he thought it happened at Z-224?" <<<
>
> When did I ever say VB thought it happened at Z224? I didn't say that.
> Ever.
>
> It DID happen at Z224, of course. But I never said Vince said that.
>
But you SHOULD have made that claim anyway, as a good little WC
defender. Maybe if you could actually read his book sometime within the
next century you would find where he claims the shot was at 223-224.
Nope? Then maybe I'd better do it for you.
39 Connally blurts out: Governor Connally’s recollection is that he
didn’t utter this
cry until after he had been hit by the second bullet (4 H 133; 1 HSCA
46), although
he once wavered in his recollection in 1978 (1 HSCA 43). In this
instance, however,
the governor’s recollection is at odds with that of two other witnesses
and a
film of the event. Mrs. Connally testified that her husband cried, “Oh
no, no, no!”
immediately after the first shot and prior to the second (4 H 147; 1
HSCA 43). Mrs.
Kennedy’s testimony also agrees with Nellie Connally’s. Mrs. Kennedy
recalled
that she was looking to the left side of the car when the governor’s cry
caused her
to turn to her right (5 H 180). The Zapruder film supports the
recollection of both
women, showing Mrs. Kennedy’s left-right turn (Z167–193) occurring
immediately
after the governor turns to look over his right shoulder (Z162–170).
According
to the Zapruder film, and consistent with Mrs. Connally’s recollection, both
of these events occur prior to the second shot (Z223–224), which is
believed to
have been the bullet that simultaneously struck both the president and
the governor,
the first time that either of them was wounded.
> VB is wrong re. the exact SBT timing...but he's just playing it
> safe...like the WC with its 210-225 "range".
>
What do you mean he's wrong? He can't be wrong according to your worship
of him as God. All knowing, all seeing.
He's not only playing it safe, he's not even sure of what the Hell he's
talking about.
> But you are ever MORE wrong with your anti-SBT stance. Obviously,
> Vince isn't silly enough to abandon the SBT. Why would anyone who's
> looked at the evidence in this case be that silly, I ask you?
>
Only a WC defender like Furhman would dare to abandon the SBT. YOU guys
know that without a SBT it means giving in to conspiracy, like
acquiescing to Dracula.
>
Anthony Marsh
I have a tough question for you. Maybe you'll need to ask the WC
defenders to help you figure it out. Theoretically is frame 223 or frame
224 within that range of frames 210 to 222?
In the endnotes Bugliosi says that the bullet hit both men at frame
223-224. So, is 224 the same thing as 222, or is it just close enough
for a WC defender?
> The * goes to this footnote:
>
> "Connally can first be seen reacting to being hit by a bullet at frame
> 222 of the Zapruder film, when his upper body can be seen for the frst
> ti,e from emerging from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign (see photo
> section of book, HSCA Report, p82)."
>
> He's got another honey on that page too!
>
> Wooooo. This book is gonna be fun!
>
> Barb :-)
> END QUOTE
>
> This was 2 or 3 days ago.
>
>> I noticed that he noted you in his notes. Not sure
>> exactly yet what he noted. It's on the CD.
>
> I haven't looked yet. Something to do with an e-mail exchange I had
> with Epstein on the Files thing, I've been told.
>
He only mentions that you were the recipient of Epstein's message.
919 “Files’ story . . . is the most believable and persuasive”: In 2001,
Bob Vernon,
the producer of the videotape showing the interview of Jim Files by Joe
West,
actually got NBC to the point where it was seriously considering doing a
documentary
on Files’s story. Fortunately, NBC hired assassination researcher and Warren
Commission critic Edward Epstein to check Files’s story before it proceeded
any further with the show. Epstein in turn hired the Jules Kroll
detective firm,
which established from telephone records that Files was in Chicago, not
Dallas, on
November 22, 1963. In an April 24, 2001, e-mail, posted on the Internet,
to one
Barb Junkkarin, Epstein says he “placed a call to Files from Dick
Clark’s office
[Clark was to be the producer of the NBC show] and I interviewed Files
about the
Kroll findings. He said he had a twin brother, who no one knew about . .
.. and who
he murdered after November 22 . . . His wife, however, said there was no
twin, and
Kroll confirmed there was no twin. My view then and now is that Files
invented
the story for the money it would earn him.” Files would later say that
the twinbrother
story was concocted by Files’s lawyer, Julius Echeles, Files’s first
wife, and
possibly his older daughter, in an effort to derail the investigative
efforts of Robert
Vernon and stop the showing of his confession to killing Kennedy on
television.
(Dankbaar, Files on JFK, p.80)
>> Just curious, did he at
>> least send you a copy?
>
> Nope! But he did spell my name wrong in the index. :-)
>
>> If so, don't drop it. The guy in brown dropped
>> mine twice. OUCH! Damaged goods. That cover binding is pretty lame for
>> a 7 Pounder. Gonna have to repair mine soon before it gets worse.
>
> It weighs 5.5 pounds on our scale. Definitely too big and clunky to
> hunker down qith comfortably without breaking a rib.<g>
>
> So, you think Connally is "seen reacting to a bullet" in 222? So much
> for the lapel flip, completing his turn and being forward facing
> before getting hit, the hat/hand jerk, and pretty much the whole
> enchilada of LN arguments post lapel-flip discovery. Back to the WC
> and their "delayed reaction", I guess ... save Bugliosi removes that
> delay and his him in the throes of racting at 222. What will y'all
> argue now?<g>
>
Bugliosi seems to think that the lapel flip is bunk. So I guess that
makes him a kook according to the WC defenders here.
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:GK6dnXEyIfSo3tPb...@comcast.com...
>> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>> Not really......many consider the first shot to have happened around
>>> Z186-210......I do and I think Barb is
>>> around there too. Trouble is that it really does not fit into the SBT or
>>> missed shot considerations.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe you haven't read his book or don't understand what I wrote. Bugliosi
>> is arguing that HIS SBT happened at Z-210. Not a first shot at Z-210.
>> Here is his caption to his SBT drawing:
>>
>
> Actually, he doesn't argue it was 210. The caption must be wrong. It's a
> little misleading to claim his argument is one thing based on the caption to
> one picture, when the book makes clear that it isn't his argument.
>
> apart.
>
Obviously you've never bothered to read his book. Too big for you? So you
appear to be relying on disinformation fed to you by someone else. There
is no text like that on page 40 of his book. Do I really need to scan in
page 40 just for you so that you can see that someone lied to you, time
and again?
> 4.9 seconds is 90 frames (18.3 fps cited elsewhere). The third shot being
> frame 313 the second would then be 223, not 210.
>
> Elsewhere the book probably spells it out explicitly, but I haven't read it
> yet.
>
Good enough guess for a WC defender. In his endnotes he says that a shot
hit both men at Z-223/224. So, which is it? He doesn't know.
> Michael
>
>> "No one knows the exact Zapruder frame at which the president and Governor
>> Connally were hit by Oswald's second bullet, but it was somewhere within a
Anthony Marsh
In that case then don't even try to make ANY claims about any SBT.
>>> Part of the caption reads...
>>> Quote On...
>>> No one knows the exact Zapruder frame at which the president and
>>> Governally Connally were hit by Oswald's second bullet, but it was
>>> somewhere within a split second of frame 210.
>>> Quote Off
>>> I couldn't agree more. No one knows exactly which frame. And of
>>> course, Bugliosi writes more in this regard. Alot more. And in my
>>> opinion, one of the best that has been written to date regarding the
>>> SBT since the Warren Commission's attempt in a SUMMARY REPORT.
>> Not much of a theory when the guy isn't even sure when the SBT happened.
>>
>
> Bugliosi has a theory as to when Oswald's second shot from the 6th
> floor was fired. Somewhere between frames 207 and 222.
>
Close enough for a WC defender. His inconsistency doesn't bother you at
all naturally.
> And speakin' about "NOT MUCH OF A THEORY".....
> Kinda like your Grassy Knoll Shooter. Not much of a theory when you
> have no physical evidence of any kind and no eyewitnesses regarding
> the weapon or shooter.
>
Nor did any eyewitness report seeing the Black Dog Man, out there in
plain sight and suspected by some crackpots as being a shooter.
Anthony Marsh
Have you even read his book? His book says frame 210. His endnotes say
223-224. He is confused.
> I think most people understand that you can't tell what a book says by
> just looking at the pictures.
>
I think most people understand that when an author captions a picture he
is making some type of claim about the facts.
> Michael
David Von Pein
3.5 seconds after the first, and the third shot 8.4 seconds after the
first. So the second and third are 4.9 seconds apart."
TONY MARSH SAID: "There is no text like that on page 40 of his book."
DVP NOW SAYS: There most certainly is, Tony. Better check your copy
again. Because it's just exactly as Mike said....Vince shows Shot 2 at
":03.5 seconds" after the first shot (on Page 40). And he shows the
third shot at ":08.4 seconds" after the first shot (hence, the "8.4
seconds" total shot timeline, being rounded up from 8.36, since Vince
is using just a single digit after the decimal point; and keep in mind
that VB has a first shot [miss] coming at Z160 to start the shot
clock).
Which has to mean, technically, that Michael is slightly off
too...because 3.5 seconds equates to only ONE possible Z-Frame, and
it's not 222 or 223....it's 224. If VB was thinking of a 222 shot on
page 40, the shot clock would have been ":03.4 seconds", not 3.5, per
the round-offs being used on pg. 40. And a 223 shot isn't 3.5 secs.
either; that would be 3.44 (or 3.4 on the round-down...unless VB is
rounding UP on 3.44, which would not be really very accurate; that
figure should be rounded down, per standard rules of math).
Yes, I'm micro-managing these decimal places, I realize...but I'm just
saying this .....
#1. Mr. Marsh is wrong re. Pg. 40 (and Michael was right).
and
#2. Vince, in his book, has a variation in SBT timelines it would
appear. Which makes me suspect (although I certainly cannot prove it)
that Vince B. possibly wrote some of this material years (even
decades) apart, and some of these precise timelines aren't meshing
over time.
Perhaps he's had differing "SBT Timeline" theories over the years, has
revised them, and some old material didn't get revised in certain
places in the book. Hard to believe, though, since VB is meticulous
and wants things to "align" and be correct for any finished product.
But, anyway, that's just a guess.
Michael O'Dell
> Michael O'Dell wrote:
>> "Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:GK6dnXEyIfSo3tPb...@comcast.com...
>>> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>>> Not really......many consider the first shot to have happened around
>>>> Z186-210......I do and I think Barb is
>>>> around there too. Trouble is that it really does not fit into the SBT
>>>> or missed shot considerations.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe you haven't read his book or don't understand what I wrote.
>>> Bugliosi is arguing that HIS SBT happened at Z-210. Not a first shot at
>>> Z-210.
>>> Here is his caption to his SBT drawing:
>>>
>>
>> Actually, he doesn't argue it was 210. The caption must be wrong. It's
>> a little misleading to claim his argument is one thing based on the
>> caption to one picture, when the book makes clear that it isn't his
>> argument.
>>
>> On page 40 he has the second shot 3.5 seconds after the first, and the
>> third shot 8.4 seconds after the first. So the second and third are 4.9
>> seconds apart.
>>
>
> Obviously you've never bothered to read his book. Too big for you? So you
> appear to be relying on disinformation fed to you by someone else. There
> is no text like that on page 40 of his book. Do I really need to scan in
> page 40 just for you so that you can see that someone lied to you, time
> and again?
>
I said I hadn't read the book. But I did read those pages, and the
information I cited is there.
"Second Shot --:03.5 seconds BANG!" pg. 40
"Third Shot --:08.4 seconds BANG!" pg. 41
I'm not going to play word games with you.
>> 4.9 seconds is 90 frames (18.3 fps cited elsewhere). The third shot
>> being frame 313 the second would then be 223, not 210.
>>
>> Elsewhere the book probably spells it out explicitly, but I haven't read
>> it yet.
>>
>
> Good enough guess for a WC defender. In his endnotes he says that a shot
> hit both men at Z-223/224. So, which is it? He doesn't know.
>
Tony, if you have an issue with something in the book take it up with
Bugliosi. I only told you what was there.
Michael
Anthony Marsh
> MICHAEL O'DELL SAID: "On page 40, he [Vince B.] has the second shot
> 3.5 seconds after the first, and the third shot 8.4 seconds after the
> first. So the second and third are 4.9 seconds apart."
>
> TONY MARSH SAID: "There is no text like that on page 40 of his book."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS: There most certainly is, Tony. Better check your copy
> again. Because it's just exactly as Mike said....Vince shows Shot 2 at
> ":03.5 seconds" after the first shot (on Page 40). And he shows the
> third shot at ":08.4 seconds" after the first shot (hence, the "8.4
> seconds" total shot timeline, being rounded up from 8.36, since Vince
> is using just a single digit after the decimal point; and keep in mind
> that VB has a first shot [miss] coming at Z160 to start the shot
> clock).
>
Wrong. Maybe you haven't figured this out after reading 400,000 of my
messages, but I often criticize someone for not quoting correctly. That
does not mean that I disagree with the overall point.
Bugliosi starts on page 39 with the lead-in:
First Shot -- :00.0 seconds BANG!
Then on page 40 he has:
Second shot -- :03.5 seconds BANG!
Then on page 41 he had:
Third shot -- :08.4 seconds BANG!
So it is not all on page 40 and it is not phrased the way someone quoted.
And why are you bothering to explain a rounding factor when you WC
defenders claim that exact data and minor details do not matter?
> Which has to mean, technically, that Michael is slightly off
And WHO the HELL cares if Michael is slightly off, to quote some famous
WC defenders? Close enough for a WC defender.
> too...because 3.5 seconds equates to only ONE possible Z-Frame, and
> it's not 222 or 223....it's 224. If VB was thinking of a 222 shot on
> page 40, the shot clock would have been ":03.4 seconds", not 3.5, per
Clearly Bugliosi was thinking of a 224 shot.
> the round-offs being used on pg. 40. And a 223 shot isn't 3.5 secs.
> either; that would be 3.44 (or 3.4 on the round-down...unless VB is
> rounding UP on 3.44, which would not be really very accurate; that
> figure should be rounded down, per standard rules of math).
>
> Yes, I'm micro-managing these decimal places, I realize...but I'm just
> saying this .....
>
Jeez, now you are starting to sound like a Tony!
> #1. Mr. Marsh is wrong re. Pg. 40 (and Michael was right).
>
> and
>
> #2. Vince, in his book, has a variation in SBT timelines it would
> appear. Which makes me suspect (although I certainly cannot prove it)
> that Vince B. possibly wrote some of this material years (even
> decades) apart, and some of these precise timelines aren't meshing
> over time.
>
Ya think?
> Perhaps he's had differing "SBT Timeline" theories over the years, has
> revised them, and some old material didn't get revised in certain
> places in the book. Hard to believe, though, since VB is meticulous
> and wants things to "align" and be correct for any finished product.
> But, anyway, that's just a guess.
>
Bugliosi is never meticulous. He is sloppy.
>
David Von Pein
quoted." <<<
Oh, for Pete sake.
Somebody give Tony an award for the Best Hairsplitting Job in 2007. I
forgot to mention PAGE 41 earlier. The horror of it!
Geez. (With a G, yes. Wanna quibble over my not spelling it "Jeez"?) ;)
And, btw, I understood what Michael O'Dell wrote re. Page 40 and the "3.5
seconds" thing immediately. Wonder why you couldn't?
>>> "And why are you bothering to explain a rounding factor when you WC
defenders claim that exact data and minor details do not matter?" <<<
In this particular instance (on pages 40-41), BECAUSE OF THE PRECISE WAY
BUGLIOSI'S WRITTEN IT. He's got things rounded to a TENTH of a decimal
point -- .4 and .5. This shows he's not merely rounding stuff off to a
HALF or a WHOLE second.
And, the ONLY Z-Frame that is technically "3.5" seconds after Z160 is
Z224. That's just a fact.
>>> "Bugliosi is never meticulous. He is sloppy." <<<
Bullshit.
I guess that's why he always "aspires to a masterpiece" in his work,
huh?
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
I see Tony's penchant for pea-splitting gave you the hiccups.<g>
How come Bugliosis says, as I quoted in an earlier post, that the SB
happened between 210 and 222? ... he doesn't say 224?
Barb :-)
>>>> "So it is not all on page 40 and it is not phrased the way someone
>quoted." <<<
>
>Oh, for Pete sake.
>
>Somebody give Tony an award for the Best Hairsplitting Job in 2007. I
>forgot to mention PAGE 41 earlier. The horror of it!
>
>Geez. (With a G, yes. Wanna quibble over my not spelling it "Jeez"?) ;)
>
>And, btw, I understood what Michael O'Dell wrote re. Page 40 and the "3.5
>seconds" thing immediately. Wonder why you couldn't?
>
>>>> "And why are you bothering to explain a rounding factor when you WC
>defenders claim that exact data and minor details do not matter?" <<<
>
>In this particular instance (on pages 40-41), BECAUSE OF THE PRECISE WAY
>BUGLIOSI'S WRITTEN IT. He's got things rounded to a TENTH of a decimal
>point -- .4 and .5. This shows he's not merely rounding stuff off to a
>HALF or a WHOLE second.
>
>And, the ONLY Z-Frame that is technically "3.5" seconds after Z160 is
>Z224. That's just a fact.
>
>
>
>
>>>> "Bugliosi is never meticulous. He is sloppy." <<<
>
Anthony Marsh
> On 23 May 2007 22:31:20 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> I see Tony's penchant for pea-splitting gave you the hiccups.<g>
>
> How come Bugliosis says, as I quoted in an earlier post, that the SB
> happened between 210 and 222? ... he doesn't say 224?
>
Alzheimer's?
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "So it is not all on page 40 and it is not phrased the way someone
> quoted." <<<
>
> Oh, for Pete sake.
>
> Somebody give Tony an award for the Best Hairsplitting Job in 2007. I
> forgot to mention PAGE 41 earlier. The horror of it!
>
> Geez. (With a G, yes. Wanna quibble over my not spelling it "Jeez"?) ;)
>
> And, btw, I understood what Michael O'Dell wrote re. Page 40 and the "3.5
> seconds" thing immediately. Wonder why you couldn't?
>
>>>> "And why are you bothering to explain a rounding factor when you WC
> defenders claim that exact data and minor details do not matter?" <<<
>
> In this particular instance (on pages 40-41), BECAUSE OF THE PRECISE WAY
> BUGLIOSI'S WRITTEN IT. He's got things rounded to a TENTH of a decimal
> point -- .4 and .5. This shows he's not merely rounding stuff off to a
> HALF or a WHOLE second.
>
> And, the ONLY Z-Frame that is technically "3.5" seconds after Z160 is
> Z224. That's just a fact.
>
>
So, you figured out that he meant Z-224? And you did that all by yourself?
David Von Pein
But, then too, on pg. 40 -- "3.5 seconds" after a Z160 shot HAS to be
Z224. So, yes, VB is inconsistent throughout the manuscript re. the exact
SBT timeline. (I say this without having gotten to the SBT chapter
yet...I'm still on Ch. 1....this is gonna take weeks..months!...to
read...but worthwhile IMO.)
But, based on these piecemeal posts re. this-&-that re. VB's SBT timing,
it appears he's got at least 2 variations. Because 210 is certainly not
3.5 seconds from Z160 (VB's first-shot time). Nor is Z222 3.5 secs. from
160.
As I said earlier, I attribute it to things being written literally
DECADES apart...with Vince's memory not being what it used to be (that's
obvious from the videos of his book tour). But, to be fair, he's getting
up in years now (73 in mid-August).
Anyway, VB knows an SBT is on that Z-Film someplace...to believe otherwise
is simply "crazy on its face" (in VB parlance). So, whether it's 222 or
210 or 224, the SBT lives BASED ON ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE THAT MAKES IT A
FACT.
Live with that...or live with a bulletless CT alternative (if 399 was
"planted", as nearly all CTers advocate). Simple as that.
(Addendum -- Z224 is the correct SBT frame, of course, no matter what
anyone says. That's obvious...to me anyway. YMMV. And shall.) <decent-
sized grin>
tomnln
credit for?
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rd1a53lauahck5htb...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
>Maybe Bugliosi is NOT as familiar with evidence/testimony as some give him
>credit for?
No kidding. :-)
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "How come Bugliosi says, as I quoted in an earlier post, that the SB
> happened between 210 and 222? ... he doesn't say 224?" <<<
>
> But, then too, on pg. 40 -- "3.5 seconds" after a Z160 shot HAS to be
> Z224. So, yes, VB is inconsistent throughout the manuscript re. the exact
> SBT timeline. (I say this without having gotten to the SBT chapter
> yet...I'm still on Ch. 1....this is gonna take weeks..months!...to
> read...but worthwhile IMO.)
>
> But, based on these piecemeal posts re. this-&-that re. VB's SBT timing,
> it appears he's got at least 2 variations. Because 210 is certainly not
> 3.5 seconds from Z160 (VB's first-shot time). Nor is Z222 3.5 secs. from
> 160.
>
> As I said earlier, I attribute it to things being written literally
> DECADES apart...with Vince's memory not being what it used to be (that's
> obvious from the videos of his book tour). But, to be fair, he's getting
> up in years now (73 in mid-August).
>
Or could it be that the book was written by a committee and came back
piecemeal?
> Anyway, VB knows an SBT is on that Z-Film someplace...to believe otherwise
> is simply "crazy on its face" (in VB parlance). So, whether it's 222 or
> 210 or 224, the SBT lives BASED ON ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE THAT MAKES IT A
> FACT.
>
Sure. Maybe it was out at Love Field and they had delayed reactions!
> Live with that...or live with a bulletless CT alternative (if 399 was
> "planted", as nearly all CTers advocate). Simple as that.
>
I got plenty of bullets for ya.
> (Addendum -- Z224 is the correct SBT frame, of course, no matter what
> anyone says. That's obvious...to me anyway. YMMV. And shall.) <decent-
> sized grin>
>
>
Do you think the Bug will come to your rescue and fess up?
paul seaton
Tony, do you ever see that cartoon by the 'Simpson's' people.. "Futurama"
?? D'you recognise the character "Bender" , the hilarious girder eating
robot ?? You know, punchy, direct, blunt..no let's not beat about the bush
.. downright pug-friggin-nacious ??
God he's funny.
Anyway, just wondered.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>.this is gonna take weeks..months!...to
>read...but worthwhile IMO.)
Do they still publish those Readers Digest Abridged versions?
Perfect book for consideration.
Get rid of the hyperbole and rhetoric, and include just one "timing
version" for the SBT ....
Also attract less stares when reading the book in subway ...
:-)
PF
Peter Fokes
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 24 May 2007 01:44:00 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Maybe Bugliosi is NOT as familiar with evidence/testimony as some give him
>>credit for?
>
>No kidding. :-)
I have yet to receive the book.
Does he credit anyone with helping him *write* this book, Barb?
PF
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>>>> "How come Bugliosi says, as I quoted in an earlier post, that the SB
>happened between 210 and 222? ... he doesn't say 224?" <<<
>
>But, then too, on pg. 40 -- "3.5 seconds" after a Z160 shot HAS to be
>Z224. So, yes, VB is inconsistent throughout the manuscript re. the exact
>SBT timeline. (I say this without having gotten to the SBT chapter
>yet...I'm still on Ch. 1....this is gonna take weeks..months!...to
>read...but worthwhile IMO.)
>
>But, based on these piecemeal posts re. this-&-that re. VB's SBT timing,
>it appears he's got at least 2 variations. Because 210 is certainly not
>3.5 seconds from Z160 (VB's first-shot time). Nor is Z222 3.5 secs. from
>160.
Uh, yeah, so how valid is that for "reclaiming history" ?<g>
>
>As I said earlier, I attribute it to things being written literally
>DECADES apart...with Vince's memory not being what it used to be (that's
>obvious from the videos of his book tour). But, to be fair, he's getting
>up in years now (73 in mid-August).
I'm not sure that's a help! But nice try ... not up to cookie
standards though!
>
>Anyway, VB knows an SBT is on that Z-Film someplace...to believe otherwise
>is simply "crazy on its face" (in VB parlance). So, whether it's 222 or
>210 or 224, the SBT lives BASED ON ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE THAT MAKES IT A
>FACT.
Ahhh, yes, the "it's a fact, so it must be someplace" reclaiming of
history. What is it they call that "I know the answer so this can
explain it and therefore it's a fact" kind of "logic:?<g>
>
>Live with that...or live with a bulletless CT alternative (if 399 was
>"planted", as nearly all CTers advocate). Simple as that.
Or, that JFK and JBC were simply hit by two separate bullets. Simple
as that too. And the LN SBT has a bulletless factor as well, so don't
try to flap your wings and fly on that one lest you do a face plant on
the knoll. :-)
>
>(Addendum -- Z224 is the correct SBT frame, of course, no matter what
>anyone says. That's obvious...to me anyway. YMMV. And shall.) <decent-
>sized grin>
What's "YMMV"?
Does VB actually SAY 224 anywhere? Maybe it's his math that's the
problem ... heck, y'all could always lay it off to that, but then you
have to deal with the SBT being somewhere other than 224 ... and there
goes all those years of mighty argument that JFK and JBC are reacting
at the exact same moment and then there's that pesky lapel flip left
flapping in the breeze ....
Barb :-) <low-key chortle>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Wed, 23 May 2007 23:21:18 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On 24 May 2007 01:44:00 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Maybe Bugliosi is NOT as familiar with evidence/testimony as some give him
>>>credit for?
>>
>>No kidding. :-)
>
>I have yet to receive the book.
>
>Does he credit anyone with helping him *write* this book, Barb?
Not that I've seen. No sign of Fred Haines, though I seem to recalling
quite some time ago that he was quite ill. He has a 5 page
"acknowledgments" section in the back of the book where he does the
usual thanks of various people for their help with assorted things,
but not with the writing that Is aw ... though I rather just scanned
it.
Barb :-)
David Von Pein
Where's the other bullet? Or: Where's the limo damage done by that
bullet? Or....SOMETHING! Anything to show that more than 1 bullet
likely hit those men!? Where?
And Ollie Stone's got it even worse...he thinks THREE bullets went
AWOL.
<chortle time>
>>> "And the LN SBT has a bulletless factor as well..." <<<
Sure, via a MISSED shot that penetrated no victims. Duh.
How the hell is anybody expected to locate that bullet? "METAL
Telepathy" perhaps?
<high-key chortle>
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Or, that JFK and JBC were simply hit by two separate bullets. Simple as that too." <<<
>
> Where's the other bullet? Or: Where's the limo damage done by that
> bullet? Or....SOMETHING! Anything to show that more than 1 bullet
> likely hit those men!? Where?
>
In the front seat. CE 567 and CE 569.
In the front seat. CE 567 and CE 569.
The alignment of those men does not work for your SBT. Invent a new one.
> And Ollie Stone's got it even worse...he thinks THREE bullets went
> AWOL.
>
> <chortle time>
>
>
>
>>>> "And the LN SBT has a bulletless factor as well..." <<<
>
> Sure, via a MISSED shot that penetrated no victims. Duh.
>
> How the hell is anybody expected to locate that bullet? "METAL
> Telepathy" perhaps?
>
Remote viewing, a CIA project costing the tax payers millions of dollars.
> <high-key chortle>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
In the endnotes. Second shot at 223-224.
>
> Barb :-) <low-key chortle>
>
Andrew Mason
David Von Pein wrote:
"Or, that JFK and JBC were simply hit by two separate bullets. Simple as that too." <<<Where's the other bullet? Or: Where's the limo damage done by that bullet? Or....SOMETHING! Anything to show that more than 1 bullet likely hit those men!? Where?
Now you can disagree with that explanation. But it fits together rather well with all the evidence - including the evidence that Oswald was the lone shooter. And you cannot find any reliable body of primary evidence that it is inconsistent with.
Andrew Mason
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>>>> "Or, that JFK and JBC were simply hit by two separate bullets. Simple as that too." <<<
>
>Where's the other bullet? Or: Where's the limo damage done by that
>bullet? Or....SOMETHING! Anything to show that more than 1 bullet
>likely hit those men!? Where?
Over the roof and thru the plaza to grandmother's house it went? :-)
It *was* afterall, a convertible.
>
>And Ollie Stone's got it even worse...he thinks THREE bullets went
>AWOL.
>
><chortle time>
>
>
>
>>>> "And the LN SBT has a bulletless factor as well..." <<<
>
>Sure, via a MISSED shot that penetrated no victims. Duh.
Oh yeah ... totally missing ... even evidence of the shot having
happened is missing.<g>
>
>How the hell is anybody expected to locate that bullet? "METAL
>Telepathy" perhaps?
>
><high-key chortle>
Okay, I gotta give you a cookie for that one .... "metal telepathy"
... best chuckle of the week!
Barb :-)
>
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>> "Or, that JFK and JBC were simply hit by two separate bullets. Simple as that too." <<<
>>>>>
>>
>> Where's the other bullet? Or: Where's the limo damage done by that
>> bullet? Or....SOMETHING! Anything to show that more than 1 bullet
>> likely hit those men!? Where?
>>
> Try this: First shot hit JFK in the neck. It ended up in JBC's
You'll have to diagram this for me. It sounds uncomfortably like Milton
Helpern's theory. So you have the bullet exit Kennedy's throat at 1700
fps and go over the jump seat and fall into Connally's right pocket?
> body/clothing and came out as CE399. Second shot hit JBC in the back, as
> he and Nellie said, struck his wrist and fragmented. One fragment (or a
> bone fragment) penetrated the skin on the palm side of the wrist. One or
> some of the fragments struck the windshield/frame, at least one struck
> the visor over the limo driver, Greer, and one fragment exited the car
Show me the photo of the damaged visor.
David Von Pein
Sure it does. So why not stop saying it doesn't. You know damn well
you can't measure the victims' positions TO THE INCH inside the limo
at the time they're hit. Such exactitude is impossible and everybody
knows it.
But within a reasonable degree of certainty/(probability), the men
were lined up to receive a single bullet from Z-Film frames 210 to
225. The Warren Commission TESTED this theory, and came up with that
"range".
Thus far, no CTer has come up with anything better (certainly nothing
with the word "reasonable" attached to it, at any rate). Nor has any
conspiracist come up with anything to disprove the WC's "210-225" SBT
timeframe.
And, most importantly, no CTer has produced a single BULLET that
debunks the SBT's likelihood...and, of course, they never will produce
one...because no such non-C2766 anti-SBT bullet exists.
So, what CTers are left with is this -- Seven wounds in two
victims...caused by ZERO BULLETS in evidence. (Automatically
discounting CE399, naturally, since all CTers think that bullet's a
fake of some kind and never touched a victim on Elm Street.)
CTers have multiple magic bullets in this case....LNers have zero such
bullets of the magical variety.
Which is, indeed, irony at its finest.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>>>> "The alignment of those men does not work for your SBT." <<<
>
>Sure it does. So why not stop saying it doesn't. You know damn well
>you can't measure the victims' positions TO THE INCH inside the limo
>at the time they're hit. Such exactitude is impossible and everybody
>knows it.
>
>But within a reasonable degree of certainty/(probability), the men
>were lined up to receive a single bullet from Z-Film frames 210 to
>225. The Warren Commission TESTED this theory, and came up with that
>"range".
>
>Thus far, no CTer has come up with anything better (certainly nothing
>with the word "reasonable" attached to it, at any rate). Nor has any
>conspiracist come up with anything to disprove the WC's "210-225" SBT
>timeframe.
>
>And, most importantly, no CTer has produced a single BULLET that
>debunks the SBT's likelihood...and, of course, they never will produce
>one...because no such non-C2766 anti-SBT bullet exists.
>
>So, what CTers are left with is this -- Seven wounds in two
>victims...caused by ZERO BULLETS in evidence. (Automatically
>discounting CE399, naturally, since all CTers think that bullet's a
>fake of some kind and never touched a victim on Elm Street.)
Oh dear, I better write this down in the official CT handbook ... one
more thing to remember ... sigh.
Nice wide brush you have there, Mr. VP :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 May 2007 09:07:52 -0400, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 May 2007 23:21:18 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 24 May 2007 01:44:00 -0400, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Maybe Bugliosi is NOT as familiar with evidence/testimony as some give him
>>>>credit for?
>>>
>>>No kidding. :-)
>>
>>I have yet to receive the book.
>>
>>Does he credit anyone with helping him *write* this book, Barb?
>
>Not that I've seen. No sign of Fred Haines, though I seem to recalling
>quite some time ago that he was quite ill. He has a 5 page
>"acknowledgments" section in the back of the book where he does the
>usual thanks of various people for their help with assorted things,
>but not with the writing that Is aw ... though I rather just scanned
>it.
>
>Barb :-)
Oops...my bad ... an e-mal correspondent this morning tells me Mr. B
does indeed acknowledge Fred Haines (as well as Dale Meyers) for help
in writing the book.
I missed it...
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "The alignment of those men does not work for your SBT." <<<
>
> Sure it does. So why not stop saying it doesn't. You know damn well
> you can't measure the victims' positions TO THE INCH inside the limo
> at the time they're hit. Such exactitude is impossible and everybody
> knows it.
>
Of course I can and you think Dale Myers can. It also depends on which
frame of the month you subscribe to.
> But within a reasonable degree of certainty/(probability), the men
> were lined up to receive a single bullet from Z-Film frames 210 to
> 225. The Warren Commission TESTED this theory, and came up with that
> "range".
>
That is totally bizarre. To claim that they were always lined up for a
SBT while Connally was in the process of turning on his seat.
> Thus far, no CTer has come up with anything better (certainly nothing
> with the word "reasonable" attached to it, at any rate). Nor has any
> conspiracist come up with anything to disprove the WC's "210-225" SBT
> timeframe.
>
Some CTers have come up with their own frames. For example the HSCA was
stuck with Z-190. Now, if you think the two men were perfectly aligned
at Z-210 then they were also perfectly aligned at Z-190.
> And, most importantly, no CTer has produced a single BULLET that
> debunks the SBT's likelihood...and, of course, they never will produce
> one...because no such non-C2766 anti-SBT bullet exists.
>
Produced a single bullet? What's wrong with CE 399 doing some of the work?
> So, what CTers are left with is this -- Seven wounds in two
> victims...caused by ZERO BULLETS in evidence. (Automatically
> discounting CE399, naturally, since all CTers think that bullet's a
> fake of some kind and never touched a victim on Elm Street.)
>
Again, more strawman arguments. We already have CE 399 and CE 567 and CE
569. That is more than ZERO bullets.
> CTers have multiple magic bullets in this case....LNers have zero such
> bullets of the magical variety.
>
LNers have several magic bullets.
David Von Pein
Nah. That sucker HAD to be planted.
What kind of CTer are you anyway...believing in a legit 399 to do
"some of the work"?
That kind of talk will positively have you crossed off the invitation
list for Ollie Stone's next BBQ.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "What's wrong with CE 399 doing some of the work?" <<<
>
> Nah. That sucker HAD to be planted.
>
> What kind of CTer are you anyway...believing in a legit 399 to do
> "some of the work"?
>
It's called the Modified Single Bullet Theory (now public domain).
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qMKdnQ366Pf_Ycfb...@comcast.com...