Ear Witnesses vs Silent Film

[claviger]

One of the enduring mysteries about this case is the contradiction by a
majority of earwitnesses to what we see in the Zapruder Film. Most
eyewitnesses remember a shot sequence of

Bang - - - - - Bang-Bang

The perception being the last 2 shots were distinctly closer together than
the first two. However, that is not what the Zapruder film shows.

If the 2nd shot hit the President in the back causing his elbows to
instantly splay upward at Z-224 and the next shot at Z-313 struck him in
the head then the following calculation conflicts with witness testimony.

The Zapruder film operated at 18.3 frames per second.

From Z-133 to Z-224 = 4.97 sec

From Z-160 to Z-224 = 3.49 sec

From Z-224 to Z-313 = 4.86 sec

For the timing to match the perception of earwitnesses the first shot
would have to occur at or before frame Z-133. This is the rationale of
the Max Holland Theory. However, the last Bang-Bang perception by a
majority of earwitnesses is not supported by the film evidence.

What can account this contradiction instead of corroboration? There is no
obvious explanation.

Ballistic experts know the explosion of a rifle bullet creates more than
one loud noise. The muzzle blast is one sound and the bullet breaking the
sound barrier another. A third sound is echo off a hard surface and a
fourth sound impact with any hard object in the trajectory. The closer
proximity of a witness to the weapon, the more these sounds blend
together.

It is possible many witnesses heard a rifle blast/echo. If true why did
they not hear 4 distinct sounds? Actually several witnesses did hear 4
sounds. Then why not the majority of witnesses?

Another possibility is the Donahue Theory. If a bodyguard did
accidentally fire his weapon it might have happened simultaneous with the
last shot by LHO, which missed and bounced off the street as one witness
claims or possibly hit a manhole cover. A third possibility is both
bullets struck the President in the skull.

One SSA claimed two shots sounded different. If Donahue is correct the
last errant shot at closer proximity and flatter trajectory may have
created a blast-echo combination that a majority of witnesses reported
hearing. Part of this theory is LHO only fired the first two shots.
Some investigators wondered about the empty shell found on 6th floor with
apparent multiple dents caused by a firing pin. It was thought by some to
be a plug not a live round.

This is a logical ballistic explanation. The problem is the 3 witnesses
on the 5th floor who thought they heard 3 shots from above. Actually only
one was sure about that at first, but the other two supported his
impression in later statements. If 4 shots were fired the last two being
together, then the 5th floor witnesses are correct and so is the Donahue
Theory.

[Anthony Marsh]

You're not trying hard enough in your cover-up. You are supposed to
claim that Dealey Plaza was an echo chamber so 3 shots sounded like 6!

[Robert Harris]

claviger wrote:
>
> One of the enduring mysteries about this case is the contradiction by a
> majority of earwitnesses to what we see in the Zapruder Film. Most
> eyewitnesses remember a shot sequence of
>
> Bang - - - - - Bang-Bang
>
> The perception being the last 2 shots were distinctly closer together than
> the first two. However, that is not what the Zapruder film shows.

This is not a contest between the Zapruder film and the
witnesses.

An honest and objective analysis factors both; when you do
that, you will find no contradictions. One of my earliest and
most knowledgeable critics was a Berkley physicist, named
Cary Zeitlin. He frequently stated that for a theory to be
sound, it must be coherent. That is, there must not be
inconsistencies.

You see a contradiction between the visual evidence and the
overwhelming consensus of the witness, including almost all
of the limo passengers, because you are operating on
unproven, false assumptions.

> If the 2nd shot hit the President in the back causing his elbows to
> instantly splay upward at Z-224

It's not too important but that is actually, incorrect. The
hands dropped at 225 and the began to rise at 226. That shot
was fired at 223.

> and the next shot at Z-313 struck him in
> the head then the following calculation conflicts with witness testimony.

Yes indeed!

And there's a very good reason for this "conflict". In fact,
there are several good reasons.

Almost all of the witnesses who reported the spacing of the
shots, only heard one of the early ones. That includes John
Connally, who testified that he heard one audible shot, but
only "felt" the next one. Like all the others, he never heard
the shot at 223.

Obviously, that shot was not fired by Oswald or anyone else,
using an unsuppressed, high powered rifle.

This is another good example of how you should use the visual
evidence in conjunction with what the witnesses heard. If you
look closely at the limo passengers, you will see no startle
reactions, even remotely similar to the reactions following
285 and 313.

The next shot was the loud noise that was discovered by Dr.
Luis Alvarez and confirmed by Dr. Michael Stroscio, two
brilliant, award winning physicists.

The shot was fired no earlier than 285 and resulted in a
startle response by Zapruder in the heavily blurred frames at
290-291.

At precisely that same instant, the surviving passengers
reacted, three of them simultaneously ducking and two
spinning sharply away from the source of the shot. Their
reactions all began at 290-292 - in perfect unison with
Zapruder's reaction.

http://jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

If you have any doubts at all about that, look at this
closeup analysis of SA Kellerman's reactions. As he ducked,
he simultaneous raised his hands to shield his left ear. His
hand was up for less than 1/3rd of a second.

This happened at the same time that he was hearing a "flurry"
of "at least two" shots at the end of the attack.

http://jfkhistory.com/kellerman2.gif

>
> The Zapruder film operated at 18.3 frames per second.
>
> From Z-133 to Z-224 = 4.97 sec
>
> From Z-160 to Z-224 = 3.49 sec
>
> From Z-224 to Z-313 = 4.86 sec

You have to let go of the long discredited, "lone nut"
theory. If fails in a multitude of ways.

None of the early shots were loud enough to startle anyone
and only one of them was audible to most witnesses. That
proves beyond any doubt that those shots did not come from
Oswald's rifle.

And the shots at 285 and 313, were 1.5 seconds apart - much
too close for Oswald to have fired both of them.

There comes a time when one must let go of what he "wants" to
believe and accept what the facts and evidence prove.


Robert Harris

[mainframetech]

A CT couldn't have said it any differently. Are you sure you're not a
closet CT?

Chris

[bigdog]

On Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 8:43:30 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:

The Donahue Theory is as silly as anything dreamed up by the conspiracy
camp. It is in fact a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy of silence. It has
about as much real evidence to support it as any other conspiracy theory
which is to say none. Donahue is nothing more than another revisionist,
trying to change what actually happened. The assassination happened one
way. Oswald fired 3 shots from his perch on the 6th floor. The first of
those shots missed JFK, most likely right of target where it would also
miss the limousine. The second shot struck JFK in the back, exited his
throat, then passed through JBC's torso before shattering his right wrist
and lodging in his thigh. Oswald's third shot struck JFK in the back of
the head causing a devastating wound which he could not have possibly
survived. That is the one and only truth of the JFK assassination. Any
theory that doesn't accept that isn't worth the time of day.

Donahue would have us believe that the guy who was trying to shoot JFK
only managed to hit him once in three shots but a guy who didn't even
intend to fire his weapon not only accidentally discharged it but of all
the places that bullet could have randomly struck, it hit JFK in the back
of the head. Never mind there isn't an ounce of physical evidence to
support that. No bullet or fragment of a bullet from an AR-15 was
recovered. There were only two bullets recovered. CE399 and the fragmented
bullet found on the floor of the limo late at night by the SS. Donahue's
theory is laughable as are all revisionist theories.

[Anthony Marsh]

Sure, but many WC defenders believe it because it allows shots from 2
different places without admitting conspiracy. Just like the WC defenders
on the HSCA who accepted the grassy knoll shot.

> camp. It is in fact a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy of silence. It has

You keep failing to understand and separate the murder from the cover-up.
You could argue that the murder was not a conspiracy, but that there was a
cover-up to hide their incompetence.

> about as much real evidence to support it as any other conspiracy theory
> which is to say none. Donahue is nothing more than another revisionist,

I don't think that's fair to a kook like Donahue and those who support
his theory.

He wasn't revising anything, just expanding.

> trying to change what actually happened. The assassination happened one
> way. Oswald fired 3 shots from his perch on the 6th floor. The first of

Dogma is not proof. You can't prove anything.

> those shots missed JFK, most likely right of target where it would also
> miss the limousine. The second shot struck JFK in the back, exited his
> throat, then passed through JBC's torso before shattering his right wrist
> and lodging in his thigh. Oswald's third shot struck JFK in the back of
> the head causing a devastating wound which he could not have possibly
> survived. That is the one and only truth of the JFK assassination. Any
> theory that doesn't accept that isn't worth the time of day.
>

You still have not explained the dent of the chrome topping, the crack
of the windshield, and the smashing in of the back of the rearview
mirror. Any kook theory that doesn't even acknowledge those points of
damage is a cover-up.

> Donahue would have us believe that the guy who was trying to shoot JFK
> only managed to hit him once in three shots but a guy who didn't even

Sounds about right. You mean like a guy who couldn't even hit a seated
target only 120 feet away? Or a guy who couldn't even hit the target in
the Marienes?

> intend to fire his weapon not only accidentally discharged it but of all
> the places that bullet could have randomly struck, it hit JFK in the back

It's called Friendly fire and it happens all the time. Hickey WAS
intending to shoot his AR-15. You are just slandering him for fun.

> of the head. Never mind there isn't an ounce of physical evidence to
> support that. No bullet or fragment of a bullet from an AR-15 was

You are not allowed to say that or I can say that there isn't an ounce
of physical evidenc to support your SBT of the month.

> recovered. There were only two bullets recovered. CE399 and the fragmented

Not all the fragments were recovered and maybe some were thrown away, so
Donahue has a loophole.

You claim that two bullets were recovered. BULLSHIT. Show them to me.

> bullet found on the floor of the limo late at night by the SS. Donahue's

Or do you mean the ones which were found by the FBI later?
You never seem to know the evidence.

> theory is laughable as are all revisionist theories.
>

But it's a safety valve for you WC defenders who want to admit a second
gun without having to admit conspiracy.

[claviger]

Here is a famous career detective who was motivated to study this case
after reading about the Donahue theory in Bonar Menninger's well written
book, Mortal Error. After four years of probative study and ballistic
research McLaren came to the conclusion Donahue was right.

Colin McLaren - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_McLaren

[mainframetech]

A laughable theory for sure. A bullet was found on the WRONG gurney and
later replaced by a test bullet from the MC rifle, and is called CE399 and
many pretend it somehow came out of JFK or Connally! Only 3 bullets were
fired, yet there are bullet strikes all over Dealey Plaza, like the on
through the windshield of the limousine seen by 6 witnesses, including an
SS agent, a bullet that struck the overhead chrome bar of the limo, a
bullet seen by a DPD cop that struck the right hand curb, a bullet that
struck the curb near James Tague far across the plaza, and on that hit JFK
in the throat, the back, and the head, and one that hit Connally in the
head. The 3 shot theory is for suckers.

> Donahue would have us believe that the guy who was trying to shoot JFK
> only managed to hit him once in three shots but a guy who didn't even
> intend to fire his weapon not only accidentally discharged it but of all
> the places that bullet could have randomly struck, it hit JFK in the back
> of the head. Never mind there isn't an ounce of physical evidence to
> support that. No bullet or fragment of a bullet from an AR-15 was
> recovered. There were only two bullets recovered. CE399 and the fragmented
> bullet found on the floor of the limo late at night by the SS. Donahue's
> theory is laughable as are all revisionist theories.

Add to that the wacky theories in the WCR. Concocted to cover up the
conspiracy.

Chris

[TOMNLN]

============================================================================================YOU JUST REPEATED THE "CLAIMS" OF THE WARREN COMMISSION..... DOES THE OFFICIAL EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY FOUND IN THE COMMISSION'S 26 VOLUMES SUPPORT THOSE CLAIMS ? ? ? ?
==============================================================================================
>

[Anthony Marsh]

You never stop pushing this crazy theory, do you?
Again, tell me the difference in antimony levels between a Carcano
bullet lead core and an AR-15 bullet lead core.

<crickets>

[claviger]

A senior detective did not find it a laughable theory at all. After 4
years of study he found it not only plausible, but probable.

> A bullet was found on the WRONG gurney and later replaced by a test bullet
> from the MC rifle, and is called CE399 and many pretend it somehow came
> out of JFK or Connally!

What does that have to do with the Donahue theory?

> Only 3 bullets were fired, yet there are bullet strikes all over Dealey Plaza, like
> the on through the windshield of the limousine seen by 6 witnesses, including an
> SS agent, a bullet that struck the overhead chrome bar of the limo, a bullet seen
> by a DPD cop that struck the right hand curb, a bullet that struck the curb near
> James Tague far across the plaza, and on that hit JFK in the throat, the back, and
> the head, and one that hit Connally in the head. The 3 shot theory is for suckers.

All have been analyzed and explained by real experts, none of whom were
mainframe technicians, which is the reason they figured it out as
experienced forensic and ballistic experts are trained to do by
colleagues, partners, consultants, FBI, and college professors.

> Chris

[bigdog]

They were both wrong.

[mainframetech]

First I've heard that 'experts' checked EVERY bullet strike and came to
the conclusion that ONLY 3 of them represented real bullets. I will need
cites and links for that please, which I doubt you can provide.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, you mean the idiot? The one who doesn't know AR-15 lead from Carcano
lead?

>
>> A bullet was found on the WRONG gurney and later replaced by a test bullet
>> from the MC rifle, and is called CE399 and many pretend it somehow came
>> out of JFK or Connally!
>
> What does that have to do with the Donahue theory?
>
>> Only 3 bullets were fired, yet there are bullet strikes all over Dealey Plaza, like
>> the on through the windshield of the limousine seen by 6 witnesses, including an
>> SS agent, a bullet that struck the overhead chrome bar of the limo, a bullet seen
>> by a DPD cop that struck the right hand curb, a bullet that struck the curb near
>> James Tague far across the plaza, and on that hit JFK in the throat, the back, and
>> the head, and one that hit Connally in the head. The 3 shot theory is for suckers.
>
> All have been analyzed and explained by real experts, none of whom were
> mainframe technicians, which is the reason they figured it out as
> experienced forensic and ballistic experts are trained to do by
> colleagues, partners, consultants, FBI, and college professors.
>
>> Chris
>
>

In the future all crimes will be solved by mainframe techs. Isn't there
a show like that on TV now? CBS?


>
>

[claviger]

There are many theories about this case. This scientific theory was the
result of research by an acknowledged ballistics expert who worked with
police departments in Maryland and was an expert witness in several
trials. Police Detectives relied on him as a consultant to analyze
complicated shooting incidents. His testimony was accepted in criminal
court and was instrumental in solving cases involving firearms. He also
studied forensic science at George Washington University. One class was
taught by FBI Firearms Expert Cortlandt Cunningham, who was involved in
the investigation of the Kennedy assassination.

So Donahue had the experience, credentials, and contacts to conduct an
in-depth research project on the Kennedy assassination. After a decade of
research Donahue came to the somber conclusion an accidental discharge of
a rifle took place during the motorcade.

A famous detective in Australia heard about the book Mortal Error and read
it with great interest. After reading the book he conducted his own
investigation and uncovered further evidence not available to Donahue.
He invested 4 years of research into this project and eventually came to
same conclusion as Donahue.

As to your question about Antimony this has been discussed at length in
previous threads. The problem with Antimony is the eutectic process in
manufacturing bullets. Antimony will always fall out of solution first
but if too early before lead completes the process those bullets will not
only have significant variation within that batch, but also within a box,
and even a single bullet. This is why Howard Donahue said CABL analysis
alone would never solve this case. What would solve it once and for all
from a ballistic standpoint is copper flakes from wound scrapings. Even
after many requests the US government refuses to release that evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

Bullshit. Who said that? Cites and links please.

> Chris
>
>

[claviger]

I've heard the same thing. A few witnesses did hear 4 shots but a large
majority heard only 3 shots. Two of those bullets disintegrated: 1st shot
miss hit a curb and 3rd shot hit the skull.

> I will need cites and links for that please, which I doubt you can provide.
> Chris

If you want to find out what really happened read two books: Mortal Error
and JFK: The Smoking Gun.

[claviger]

In what way?

[bigdog]

I know you can't cite any experts who concluded there were all these
bullet strikes you claim. If all these bullets which you claim were
striking all over Dealey Plaza, one would have to conclude that if they
really were bullet strikes, the conspirators hired The Gang That Couldn't
Shoot Straight to carry out the assassination.

[mainframetech]

Looks like you're wandering off into the boonies there. There are
simpler items of evidence that can be considered to resolve who and how
the conspiracy was accomplished.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

No shots from an AR-15.

[mainframetech]

The paragraph you're answering wasn't mine. Probably Claviger. Chris

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 3:25:09 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 2:10:09 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 5:43:24 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> >
> > > All have been analyzed and explained by real experts, none of whom were
> > > mainframe technicians, which is the reason they figured it out as
> > > experienced forensic and ballistic experts are trained to do by
> > > colleagues, partners, consultants, FBI, and college professors.
> > First I've heard that 'experts' checked EVERY bullet strike and came to
> > the conclusion that ONLY 3 of them represented real bullets.
>
> I've heard the same thing. A few witnesses did hear 4 shots but a large
> majority heard only 3 shots. Two of those bullets disintegrated: 1st shot
> miss hit a curb and 3rd shot hit the skull.

> > I will need cites and links for that please, which I doubt you can provide. So now you're saying that 2 out of 3 FMJ MC type bullets disintegrated!! Yet if I say that some of the rain of bullets that hit Dealey Plaza disintegrated upon hitting things like curbs, etc. You will complain.

> If you want to find out what really happened read two books: Mortal Error
> and JFK: The Smoking Gun.

NO. Please show the cites and links, or we'll have to assume this was
one of your made up stories. If you have the book, supply the cites and
the page numbers the info is on.

Chris

[mainframetech]

[Anthony Marsh]

Not true.

> studied forensic science at George Washington University. One class was
> taught by FBI Firearms Expert Cortlandt Cunningham, who was involved in
> the investigation of the Kennedy assassination.
>
> So Donahue had the experience, credentials, and contacts to conduct an
> in-depth research project on the Kennedy assassination. After a decade of
> research Donahue came to the somber conclusion an accidental discharge of
> a rifle took place during the motorcade.
>
> A famous detective in Australia heard about the book Mortal Error and read
> it with great interest. After reading the book he conducted his own

Australia? Yeah, I'm really impressed. NOT.

> investigation and uncovered further evidence not available to Donahue.
> He invested 4 years of research into this project and eventually came to
> same conclusion as Donahue.
>
> As to your question about Antimony this has been discussed at length in
> previous threads. The problem with Antimony is the eutectic process in
> manufacturing bullets. Antimony will always fall out of solution first

Not exactly. Most of the antimony used in the WCC bullets came from
dropping cold nuggets of recycled lead from other bullet cores and
recycled car batteries. There was no way to get a homogenous mixture.
The antimony level in one bullet could range for 100 ppm to 800 ppm.
Read Ken Rahn's essays an note his comments about my contributions to
that debate.

> but if too early before lead completes the process those bullets will not
> only have significant variation within that batch, but also within a box,
> and even a single bullet. This is why Howard Donahue said CABL analysis
> alone would never solve this case. What would solve it once and for all

And he was right. That is why I praised him on some things.
But in the WCC bullets were are talking about ALL of them being
UNHARDENED lead cores. ALL AR-15 bullets have HARDENED lead cores.
Apples and Oranges.

> from a ballistic standpoint is copper flakes from wound scrapings. Even

Not sure where you see the copper flakes.

> after many requests the US government refuses to release that evidence.
>

Ya think there might be a cover-up or something?

>

[claviger]

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:16:29 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 3:25:09 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 2:10:09 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 5:43:24 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > >
> > > > All have been analyzed and explained by real experts, none of whom were
> > > > mainframe technicians, which is the reason they figured it out as
> > > > experienced forensic and ballistic experts are trained to do by
> > > > colleagues, partners, consultants, FBI, and college professors.
> > > First I've heard that 'experts' checked EVERY bullet strike and came to
> > > the conclusion that ONLY 3 of them represented real bullets.
> >
> > I've heard the same thing. A few witnesses did hear 4 shots but a large
> > majority heard only 3 shots. Two of those bullets disintegrated: 1st shot
> > miss hit a curb and 3rd shot hit the skull.
>
>
>
>
> > > I will need cites and links for that please, which I doubt you can provide. So now you're saying that 2 out of 3 FMJ MC type bullets disintegrated!! Yet if I say that some of the rain of bullets that hit Dealey Plaza disintegrated upon hitting things like curbs, etc. You will complain.
>
> > If you want to find out what really happened read two books: Mortal Error
> > and JFK: The Smoking Gun.
> NO.

No? How can you argue against a theory you've never read about?!!!

> Please show the cites and links, or we'll have to assume this was one of your
> made up stories.

Who is "we"? Is this the corny old "Me, Myself, and I" routine to make it
appear you have a fan club?

> If you have the book, supply the cites and the page numbers the info is on.
> Chris

Synopsis:

Reelz Channel to air documentary about 'friendly fire' theory of JFK ...
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/reelz-channel-air-jfk-assassination-
documentary-article-1.1411110

Another way to learn something new. This received a Five Star rating:

JFK: The Smoking Gun by Colin McLaren | Audiobook (CD) | Barnes ...
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/jfk-colin-mclaren/1115738336?type=Audiobook

A good article, short and easy to read:

No CT: "Smoking Gun," "Mortal Error," Friendly Fire ... - Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/8/1254058/-No-CT-Smoking-Gun-Mortal-Error-
Friendly-Fire-Finally-Who-Killed-JFK-50-Years-Later

Here is the full length video:

JFK The Smoking Gun - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4p7DBomWYA

[claviger]

On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:16:29 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 3:25:09 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 2:10:09 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 5:43:24 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > >
> > > > All have been analyzed and explained by real experts, none of whom were
> > > > mainframe technicians, which is the reason they figured it out as
> > > > experienced forensic and ballistic experts are trained to do by
> > > > colleagues, partners, consultants, FBI, and college professors.
> > > First I've heard that 'experts' checked EVERY bullet strike and came to
> > > the conclusion that ONLY 3 of them represented real bullets.
> >
> > I've heard the same thing. A few witnesses did hear 4 shots but a large
> > majority heard only 3 shots. Two of those bullets disintegrated: 1st shot
> > miss hit a curb and 3rd shot hit the skull.
> > > I will need cites and links for that please, which I doubt you can provide.

You have a bad memory. Already been discussed a long time ago. Not only
that the HSCA accepted the shot sequence: first shot miss, second shot
torso, third shot head.

> So now you're saying that 2 out of 3 FMJ MC type bullets disintegrated!!

Not me, the HSCA. The Donahue Theory claims one Carcano bullet
disintegrated and one AR-15 bullet disintegrated.

> Yet if I say that some of the rain of bullets that hit Dealey Plaza disintegrated
> upon hitting things like curbs, etc. You will complain.

Some of them, but not all? What happened to the ones that did not
disintegrate?

> > If you want to find out what really happened read two books: Mortal Error
> > and JFK: The Smoking Gun.
> NO. Please show the cites and links, or we'll have to assume this was
> one of your made up stories. If you have the book, supply the cites and
> the page numbers the info is on.

Reelz Announces Interactive Website for JFK: THE SMOKING GUN
http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/Reelz-Announces-Interactive-Website-for-JFK-THE-SMOKING-GUN-20131028#

Jfk The Smoking Videos - Wapistan
http://wapistan.co.in/category/jfk--the-smoking.html

'JFK: The Smoking Gun': Colin McLaren Solves the World's Coldest Case
http://www.whio.com/videos/entertainment/jfk-the-smoking-gun-colin-mclaren-solves-the/vCGH8y/

> Chris

[bigdog]

You are the one who is confused. I responded to your paragraph which you
wrote in response to claviger on July 27. That paragraph was your entire
response to him. It was also bottom posted and was immediately followed by
your signature so there can be no doubt who wrote it. When I respond to
some's post I always delete their signature so that it is clear the
comments being made are mine. I will copy and paste your entire response
to claviger below.

[quote on]

First I've heard that 'experts' checked EVERY bullet strike and came to
the conclusion that ONLY 3 of them represented real bullets. I will need
cites and links for that please, which I doubt you can provide.

Chris

[quote off]

I think the best thing for you to do now is just admit your mistake and we
can just drop it.

[claviger]

VUDU - JFK: The Smoking Gun: Malcolm Mcdonald , Larry Day, Tod ...
http://www.vudu.com/movies/#!content/496629/JFK-The-Smoking-Gun

[mainframetech]

On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:23:00 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:16:29 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 3:25:09 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 2:10:09 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 5:43:24 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > All have been analyzed and explained by real experts, none of whom were
> > > > > mainframe technicians, which is the reason they figured it out as
> > > > > experienced forensic and ballistic experts are trained to do by
> > > > > colleagues, partners, consultants, FBI, and college professors.
> > > > First I've heard that 'experts' checked EVERY bullet strike and came to
> > > > the conclusion that ONLY 3 of them represented real bullets.
> > >
> > > I've heard the same thing. A few witnesses did hear 4 shots but a large
> > > majority heard only 3 shots. Two of those bullets disintegrated: 1st shot
> > > miss hit a curb and 3rd shot hit the skull.
> > > > I will need cites and links for that please, which I doubt you can provide.
>
> You have a bad memory. Already been discussed a long time ago. Not only
> that the HSCA accepted the shot sequence: first shot miss, second shot
> torso, third shot head.
>

I would not especially remember discussion such a theory. If it came
out of the HSDCA, then you are able to find the cites and links for it.
And to possibly save you some time searching for this theory, I suggest to
you that FMJ bullets that can go through 4 feet of pine boards without
damage, ought to be able to have something left over when hitting
something solid. An example is the CE 567 & 569 fragments, where the FMJ
bullet probably hit the chrome bar over the limousine windshield and
though it broke up, much of it was in fragments, 2 of which were copper
jacket remains. MC bullets that hit solid things should leave bits and
pieces at least. So where were they? Or was CE567 & 569 the fragments
from one of the MC bullets fired from the TDBD 6th floor?

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG as usual! Claviger has a bad habit of putting comments right
together even though they are from different people. Maybe his news
reader or something. The line you THINK was a quote from me was NOT.
The part that was mine, was "I will need

> cites and links for that please, which I doubt you can provide." The first part was "First I've heard that 'experts' checked EVERY bullet strike and came to
> the conclusion that ONLY 3 of them represented real bullets" which was from Claviger. He has also a bad habit of making stuff up. In this case it looks to me that he made up the business that 'experts' looked at the bullets and only 3 were real. That's a sentence I would never say, and even you can figure that out. So try and get straight next time.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I'm not interested in any "synopsis", I want to see the lines from the
"two books" you wanted me to read for you, and their location. I'm not
interested in theories either. If you can prove something, supply the
cites and links. If the proof is in a video, then supply a reasonable
location in the video for the specific data to be shown. This is what
many other here have done when asked for cites and links. You're no more
special than me or anyone else here.

Chris

[bigdog]

There is no shame in admitting a mistake. We all make them. When you
continue to deny a mistake when it has been clearly shown only makes you
look foolish. When Marsh makes them, there is no expectation he will ever
admit them. It's just not in his DNA to do that. Why do you choose to take
the same approach? The words I quoted came from YOUR post of July 27. It
was in response to claviger's June 26 post. The words I quoted are not in
his 7/26 post. They originated in your 7/27 post. Anyone who is interested
can easily verify that. If you dispute that, point out where claviger's
7/26 post are the words I quoted. Of course you won't be able to do that.
Take a piece of friendly advice and cut your losses. Admit you made a
mistake. Admit that the quote I responded to was yours and not claviger's.
Otherwise you will only dig yourself a deeper hole.

[claviger]

On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:43:15 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:23:00 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>
> I would not especially remember discussion such a theory. If it came
> out of the HSDCA, then you are able to find the cites and links for it.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/HSCA.html

> And to possibly save you some time searching for this theory, I suggest to
> you that FMJ bullets that can go through 4 feet of pine boards without
> damage, ought to be able to have something left over when hitting
> something solid. An example is the CE 567 & 569 fragments, where the FMJ
> bullet probably hit the chrome bar over the limousine windshield and
> though it broke up, much of it was in fragments, 2 of which were copper
> jacket remains. MC bullets that hit solid things should leave bits and
> pieces at least. So where were they? Or was CE567 & 569 the fragments
> from one of the MC bullets fired from the TDBD 6th floor?
> Chris

No question the Carcano 6.5 FMJ was one of the most rugged military
bullets in WWII. However, it would not survive a collision with a
concrete curb and might breakup with contact on skull bone but unlikely to
shatter into a "lead snowstorm". The AR15 and M16 were notorious for
shattering on contact with bone, the reason why some international
pressure groups want it classified as a frangible bullet and banned for
military use by the Geneva Convention. This is why Donahue and McLaren
doubt it was a Carcano bullet that caused the devastating head wound.
Since there was an AR15 in the followup car it would be the logical source
to investigate, especially when some researchers claim the head shot came
from a much flatter trajectory.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/31/2016 2:02 PM, claviger wrote:
> On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:43:15 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Friday, July 29, 2016 at 11:23:00 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>>
>> I would not especially remember discussion such a theory. If it came
>> out of the HSDCA, then you are able to find the cites and links for it.
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/HSCA.html
>
>> And to possibly save you some time searching for this theory, I suggest to
>> you that FMJ bullets that can go through 4 feet of pine boards without
>> damage, ought to be able to have something left over when hitting
>> something solid. An example is the CE 567 & 569 fragments, where the FMJ
>> bullet probably hit the chrome bar over the limousine windshield and
>> though it broke up, much of it was in fragments, 2 of which were copper
>> jacket remains. MC bullets that hit solid things should leave bits and
>> pieces at least. So where were they? Or was CE567 & 569 the fragments
>> from one of the MC bullets fired from the TDBD 6th floor?
>> Chris
>
> No question the Carcano 6.5 FMJ was one of the most rugged military
> bullets in WWII. However, it would not survive a collision with a

FYI, the bullets Oswald bought were not made in WWII. They were made in
1954 for the CIA which had more stringent standards than the Italians.

> concrete curb and might breakup with contact on skull bone but unlikely to
> shatter into a "lead snowstorm". The AR15 and M16 were notorious for

Nope, Physically impossible.
Where the Hell are the copper fragments in the brain?

> shattering on contact with bone, the reason why some international
> pressure groups want it classified as a frangible bullet and banned for

Not true.
Cheap slander by the losers.

> military use by the Geneva Convention. This is why Donahue and McLaren
> doubt it was a Carcano bullet that caused the devastating head wound.

Well, sorta. Maybe not Oswald's Carcano bullets.

> Since there was an AR15 in the followup car it would be the logical source
> to investigate, especially when some researchers claim the head shot came
> from a much flatter trajectory.
>

No, it wasn't which is why no one even considered it.
Unless you believe in the bullets which can go through glass without
leaving a mark. wasn't that in Dune?

[mainframetech]

A shame that theory is wasted, since the kill shot that hit JFK in the
head came from the front, passed through the brain and blew out the BOH..

Chris

[mainframetech]

I've shown you your mistake, so you can admit it now, as per your talk
about admitting your mistakes.

> the same approach? The words I quoted came from YOUR post of July 27. It
> was in response to claviger's June 26 post. The words I quoted are not in
> his 7/26 post. They originated in your 7/27 post. Anyone who is interested
> can easily verify that. If you dispute that, point out where claviger's
> 7/26 post are the words I quoted. Of course you won't be able to do that.
> Take a piece of friendly advice and cut your losses. Admit you made a
> mistake. Admit that the quote I responded to was yours and not claviger's.
> Otherwise you will only dig yourself a deeper hole.

WRONG as usual! I went back and recorded the various comments in order
and I find that you jumped in too fast as is your bad habit, and you saw
my name after the comment and thought I put it there, but Claviger had put
his comment in just before my name, which you can se had a 'greater than'
symbol before it whereas his did not. It looks like I signed the comment,
but it was his. The 'greater than' symbol proves it.

The first ccurrence of the 'experts' checking EVERY bullet strike
comment was from Claviger, and as I have had to do often, when the thread
gets too long, it stops early with a comment that the content was trimmed.
I have always gone back and shown all that closed off info and copied it
forward, but it loses one level of the 'greater than' symbol and looks
like everything was one level younger.

Here is the first mention of the Claviger comment:

"July 26 claviger

All have been analyzed and explained by real experts, none of whom were
mainframe technicians, which is the reason they figured it out as
experienced forensic and ballistic experts are trained to do by
colleagues, partners, consultants, FBI, and college professors."

> Chris

[notice that my name has the greater than symbol, meaning it was from a
prior post.

Then we have:

"On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 5:43:24 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 8:59:42 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 6:58:12 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:

.
.

.

> All have been analyzed and explained by real experts, none of whom were
> mainframe technicians, which is the reason they figured it out as
> experienced forensic and ballistic experts are trained to do by
> colleagues, partners, consultants, FBI, and college professors.
>

First I've heard that 'experts' checked EVERY bullet strike and came to
the conclusion that ONLY 3 of them represented real bullets.

I will need cites and links for that please, which I doubt you can
provide.

Chris

This is my comment...note that it is separate from the previous comment
about 'experts' checking EVERY strike. I then asked for cites and links
separately from his comment because of copying forward after the content
trimmed message.


[then we have]

> the conclusion that ONLY 3 of them represented real bullets. I will need
> cites and links for that please, which I doubt you can provide.
>

Bullshit. Who said that? Cites and links please.

> Chris
>
>

fort the above sequence, Marsh got into it and put his comment and
request for cites and links in as well, and he never erases my name, so it
was left there from the prior post.


As you've been told, I put ONLY the request for cites and links which
got tagged onto the comment about 'experts' having checked everything.

Now, I still want cites and links on the 'experts' having checked ALL
bullet strikes and only finding 3 of them valid. Please supply those
ASAP. Thank you.

And for bd, stick to your own knitting if you can't keep this stuff
straight.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 3:59:19 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 1:54:11 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 2:44:04 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

> > > WRONG as usual! Claviger has a bad habit of putting comments right
> > > together even though they are from different people. Maybe his news
> > > reader or something. The line you THINK was a quote from me was NOT.
> > > The part that was mine, was "I will need
> > >
> > > > cites and links for that please, which I doubt you can provide." The first part was "First I've heard that 'experts' checked EVERY bullet strike and came to
> > > > the conclusion that ONLY 3 of them represented real bullets" which was from Claviger. He has also a bad habit of making stuff up. In this case it looks to me that he made up the business that 'experts' looked at the bullets and only 3 were real. That's a sentence I would never say, and even you can figure that out. So try and get straight next time.
> > >
> >
> > There is no shame in admitting a mistake. We all make them. When you
> > continue to deny a mistake when it has been clearly shown only makes you
> > look foolish. When Marsh makes them, there is no expectation he will ever
> > admit them. It's just not in his DNA to do that. Why do you choose to take
>
>
> I've shown you your mistake, so you can admit it now, as per your talk
> about admitting your mistakes.
>

You were mistaken when you did that.

Yes it is your comment and it is the comment I first responded to as
anyone who cares can easily verify.

>
> [then we have]
> > the conclusion that ONLY 3 of them represented real bullets. I will need
> > cites and links for that please, which I doubt you can provide.
> >
>
>
> Bullshit. Who said that? Cites and links please.
>

You said it. You have just provided the cites. The above passage that
follows [then we have] is word for word what you wrote on 7/27 and it is
the passage I responded to. It is not the entirety of your post of 7/27
but it comes directly from that. Once again, here is the entirety of YOUR
7/27 post.

[quote on]


First I've heard that 'experts' checked EVERY bullet strike and came to
the conclusion that ONLY 3 of them represented real bullets. I will need
cites and links for that please, which I doubt you can provide.


Chris

[quote off]

That is what you wrote. It was not written by claviger. It is the post I
responded to which you tried to claim had been written by claviger. This
passage didn't appear in this threat until you wrote it on 7/26.

> > Chris
> >
> >
>
> fort the above sequence, Marsh got into it and put his comment and
> request for cites and links in as well, and he never erases my name, so it
> was left there from the prior post.
>
>
> As you've been told, I put ONLY the request for cites and links which
> got tagged onto the comment about 'experts' having checked everything.
>

If it got tagged onto your comment it was tagged onto by you. It comes
from your 7/27 post. You have now admitted writing the request for cites
and links and that is what I responded to. It seems to me you are denying
have written the first part of your 7/27 post. Fair enough. These are the
words in question, the ones you seem to be denying having written.

[quote on]

First I've heard that 'experts' checked EVERY bullet strike and came to
the conclusion that ONLY 3 of them represented real bullets.

[quote off]

If these words did not originate with your 7/27 post, please give us the
date and the poster who first wrote them.

> Now, I still want cites and links on the 'experts' having checked ALL
> bullet strikes and only finding 3 of them valid. Please supply those
> ASAP. Thank you.
>

Since that was claviger's claim, I will allow him to proved the cites and
links.

> And for bd, stick to your own knitting if you can't keep this stuff
> straight.
>

I've kept it straight. I know who wrote what. I know you wrote exactly the
passage I responded to which you later tried to pass off as claviger's
comments. You find yourself in a hole and yet you keep digging. Makes no
sense to me.

[mainframetech]

You've failed again to make your case. I know Claviger's form of error
in putting people's comments together as if they were one, but the
'greater than' symbols tell the truth too. As well, so do the copies that
I do to rescue text from your silly 'swamp posts'. You're wrong yet
again.

Chris