So who did it?
jwrush
"conspirators" were, who fired the shots, from where were the shots fired,
who are the suspects, who hired them. And they haven't listed the evidence
against them, nor have they turned up any bullets, guns, or fingerprints.
All they do is try to defend Oswald, year after year, and try to take the
blame off of him.
So let's hear it from the conspiracy people.... who did it? Who killed the
President, and give us specific details about who did it.
rob.s...@gmail.com
Marsh and Bob Harris. At least they give somewhat of an arguement for
their positions. The rest just continue to defend Oz.
Rob
James Olmstead
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:42e7...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> The "conspiracy" people have noticeably neglected to tell us who the
> "conspirators" were, who fired the shots, from where were the shots fired,
> who are the suspects, who hired them. And they haven't listed the evidence
> against them, nor have they turned up any bullets, guns, or fingerprints.
> All they do is try to defend Oswald, year after year, and try to take the
> blame off of him.
>
The conflicting fingerprint evidence is a matter of record, are you aware
that even the FBI was still searching to id latent images on key items of
evidence after the WC Report was published? Are you aware of the
conflict the FBI had with the fingerprint work done...or not done by
the DPD?
You join in the effort to resolve the conflicting evidence and perhaps we
will know if Oswald was the only one to handle that rifle, the bag, the
curtain
rods and place his latent images on the boxes in the SN.
jko
Robert Harris
This is classic folks:-)
Because we cannot produce the names of the shooters, we must conclude
that there was no conspiracy.
By that "reasoning", if there is not enough left of a suicide bomber
to determine his identity, then we must conclude that he never blew up
at all.
Robert Harris
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
Barb Junkkarinen
>The "conspiracy" people have noticeably neglected to tell us who the
>"conspirators" were, who fired the shots, from where were the shots fired,
>who are the suspects, who hired them. And they haven't listed the evidence
>against them, nor have they turned up any bullets, guns, or fingerprints.
>All they do is try to defend Oswald, year after year, and try to take the
>blame off of him.
You haven't been here long enough to make a judgment like that ....
and if you have been a lurker for very long then you would know
better. Most CTs do not claim Oswald was a totally innocent lamb. Much
evidence is discussed, not just as regards Oswald. You walked in
claiming you knew Oswald and lo and behold, Oswald became a focus. Go
figure, eh?
>
>
>
>So let's hear it from the conspiracy people.... who did it? Who killed the
>President, and give us specific details about who did it.
If we knew that, none of us would be here. And it is not necessary to
be able to name the conspirators, etc to show that a conspiracy
existed.
Instead of going on and on with proclamations about Oswald and about
how CTs are leftists, commie sympathizers and dupes of the KGB,
perhaps you would like to actually discuss some of the evidence, Mr.
Rush.
Care to go to the morgue with some of us?
Barb :-)
>
>
jwrush
<rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122471121.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I think the majority of the educated public today who read about this case
and who see new TV documentaries about it, every 5 or 10 years, during the
various anniversaries, realize that Oswald was the lone assassin. Pointing
out his guilt has been the general trend in most of the new documentaries
made by the major networks since the early 1990s. I think there are only a
few people in the US today who still try to defend Oswald and blame unknown
and unnamed "conspirators". I think the public has become tired of hearing
about "conspiracy" for so many years, while no actual "conspirators" have
ever been turned up by the conspiracy promoters.
Barb Junkkarinen
You, on the other hand, have been around long enough to know
better. :-)
Care to stick your neck out in the morgue or rather just stick to
potshot generalities that have nothing to do with whether or not there
was a conspiracy?
Barb :-)
>
>Rob
>
jwrush
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42e7c940...@news20.forteinc.com...
>
> This is classic folks:-)
>
> Because we cannot produce the names of the shooters, we must conclude
> that there was no conspiracy.
>
> By that "reasoning", if there is not enough left of a suicide bomber
> to determine his identity, then we must conclude that he never blew up
> at all.
>
If he was seen in a window by witnesses blowing himself up, or if he blew
himself up in front of policemen in a theater after shouting, "This is it!"
(or whatever), then that's enough evidence to conclude that he blew himself
up.
rob.s...@gmail.com
Rob
Robert Harris
>
><rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1122471121.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> The only ones that I know of who have stuck their necks out is Tony
>> Marsh and Bob Harris. At least they give somewhat of an arguement for
>> their positions. The rest just continue to defend Oz.
>>
>> Rob
>
>I think the majority of the educated public today who read about this case
>and who see new TV documentaries about it, every 5 or 10 years, during the
>various anniversaries, realize that Oswald was the lone assassin.
Hopefully, Ben Holmes will forgive me for usurping his recent posting
on this subject, in A.C.J.
(quoting)
Was More Than One Person Involved In The JFK Assassination?
Most Americans say yes. A Gallup Poll was conducted March 26-28, 2001
with telephone interviews of a randomly selected sample of 1,024
adults aged 18 and older. The results are projectable to all American
households with a 95% confidence and 3% margin of error. At that time,
when asked, "Do you think that one man was responsible for the
assassination of President Kennedy, or do you think that others were
involved in a conspiracy?", with the possible answers "one man,"
"others involved" and "no opinion":
Fourth-fifths (81%) responded that they believed that other people
were involved in a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy, an all
time-high.
Let's look at the historical results of this poll, which has been
conducted periodically by Gallup since 1964:
One Man / Others Involved / No Opinion
March 2001 13% 81% 6%
November 1993 15% 75% 10%
February 1992* 10% 77% 13%
October 1983* 11% 74% 15%
December 1976** 11% 81% 9%
December 1966** 36% 50% 15%
November 1963** 29% 52% 19%
*Wording included, "one man, Lee Harvey Oswald . . ."
** Slight variations in wording (quoted verbatim from Gallup's Web
site with thanks):
1963 - "Do you think that the man who shot President Kennedy acted on
his own, or was some group or element also responsible?"
1966 - "Do you think that one man was responsible for the
assassination of President Kennedy, or do you think others were
involved?"
1976 - "Do you think that one man was responsible for the
assassination of President Kennedy, or do you think others were
involved?"
In the 1997 Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University nationwide
poll, the question concerned not more than one person, but government
officials with direct involvement in the assassination of President
Kennedy in 1963. The poll
discovered:
More than half (51%) of Americans believe it is very likely or
somewhat likely that government officials were "directly responsible
for the assassination of President Kennedy."
(end of respost)
Robert Harris
>Pointing
>out his guilt has been the general trend in most of the new documentaries
>made by the major networks since the early 1990s. I think there are only a
>few people in the US today who still try to defend Oswald and blame unknown
>and unnamed "conspirators". I think the public has become tired of hearing
>about "conspiracy" for so many years, while no actual "conspirators" have
>ever been turned up by the conspiracy promoters.
>
>
>
>
>
>
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
jwrush
I was talking about the intelligent educated people, not the 50% of the
citizens who have IQs lower than 100.
Glenn Sarlitto
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:k8cfe152is1sv0q5p...@4ax.com...
Pardon the interruption here.
To be honest, its been awhile since I peaked into the morgue myself. Fact
is, I don't peak much there to begin with. I leave that up to you medical
experts. Has conclusive evidence surfaced in the morgue recently that shows
a conspiracy existed? Or, at the very least, refutes the SBT?
Just Curious,
Glenn
PS...BTW...How's your Jeep running, Barb? Glad to see you are in good health
now after the accident. I just bought a new 'Liberty' back in April. Damn!
What a machine! I'm planning a trip to Mt. Washington in New Hampshire
(elev. 6K + feet at summit) and then onto visit a few of the Archives in
Maryland. This time with a much better camera.
Just curious and looking for roadtips to the summit...have you or anybody
here ever driven to the Mt. W summit? I hear they give you a free bumper
sticker when you do. :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
What you think is in conflict with what the professional polls show.
>
>
>
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
Insufferable comment. Yet not a surprise.
Do you understand the randomness of professional polls? Or do you
think that they track IQs and only poll people with IQs that, though
quite normal, aren't up to your standards of what someone needs to be
well educated? Why do you think IQ even has a place for commentary in
any of this?
Rhetorical only.
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Well, you do need to catch up! There is great movement on one question
.... the entry point into the rear of the head....which has been a
point of major contention over the years. Even several LNs are now on
the bandwagon for the autopsists having been absolutely correct that
the bullet entered near the EOP ... and documentably so. John Canal,
Chad, Sturdivan are all notable LNs who have done great work on this
... including Chad and Sturdivan examining the original x-rays at the
Archives, and John working with forensic pathologists. As for the SBT,
there's plenty of other theories of shot sequence that refute it ....
it, afterall, just being a theory itself. :-)
>
>
>Just Curious,
>
>Glenn
>
>PS...BTW...How's your Jeep running, Barb?
Great!
>Glad to see you are in good health
>now after the accident.
Doing good, coming along, all that.
> I just bought a new 'Liberty' back in April. Damn!
>What a machine! I'm planning a trip to Mt. Washington in New Hampshire
>(elev. 6K + feet at summit) and then onto visit a few of the Archives in
>Maryland. This time with a much better camera.
Great, enjoy that Liberty ride.
>
>Just curious and looking for roadtips to the summit...have you or anybody
>here ever driven to the Mt. W summit? I hear they give you a free bumper
>sticker when you do. :-)
You get a bumper sticker for going to 6,000 ft? Must be an East coast
thing.<g> I've never been there ...
Have a great trip!
Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
jwrush
So tell us who did it.
jwrush
So who did it?
Robert Harris
I rest my case:-)
Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Ok, Mr. Rush.
Let's take out the dummies.
81% - 50% = 31%
You still lose by a landslide 31% to 13%
Next excuse?
Robert Harris
Whistler
> President, and give us specific details about who did it.
The most best conspiracy theory to date, would
have to be, aliens did the shooting and were hired
by the "Illuminati" of the Free Masons...
The Aliens then "shape shifted" themselves to
duplicate another Oswald, in fact, many other
Oswalds, and Jack Rubys' for that matter.
They knew way in advance of announcment of
the motorcade route, and they predicted
accurately where Jackie would choose to have the
autopsy done.
Only aliens with supernatural powers could
have set up the DP scenario with grassy knoll
shooters asnd all, on such short notice.
Only aliens could have taken the place of the
regular doctors and nurses at the ER's of Parkland
Hospital, Bethesda Med Center, and several
other high profile hospitals, just in case Jackie
chose one of the others for the autopsy.
Luckily for the conspirators Jackie chose
Bethesda for the autopsy instead of Coney
Island Hospital in Brooklyn. CIP is the only
hospital whom the aliens hadn't covered.
The only thing about this theory, is that the
autopsy x-rays and photos completely support
the "lone nut" theory...Hmmm...
Rockett Crawford
> As for the SBT,
> there's plenty of other theories of shot sequence that refute it ....
> it, afterall, just being a theory itself. :-)
Two things:
In science, a "theory" is a position of sound logic that is very strongly
backed by data. Theory of Gravity for example.
The word is commonly misused by laypeople to mean something that a person
is "suggesting" which people who do science would call a "conjecture."
Secondly, nothing has been put forth that refutes the SBT.
take care, :^)
Rockett
tomnln
Your asking us to "Speculate".
THAT's what got the Warren Commission in Trouble.
With All your knowledge, I would appreciate you explaining WHY
the Authorities & Media repeatedly Lied & Destroyed Evidence?
A FELONY
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:42e7...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
UNTIL Proven Guilty under the Adversary Procedure.
<rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122471121.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
<rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122484398....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Conspiracy? what conspiracy?
>
> Rob
>
>
tomnln
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:42e7...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
tomnln
I've had my set of the WC/HSCA Volumes for Decades.
How long have you had yours?
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:42e7...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
Barb Junkkarinen
I don't know who did it.
Tell me about that RIF claim of yours. Still claim it is the RIF to
the actual replica bag?
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
<cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:d4lfe1hivo81vsmie...@4ax.com...
>> On 27 Jul 2005 13:57:42 -0400, "Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> As for the SBT,
>> there's plenty of other theories of shot sequence that refute it ....
>> it, afterall, just being a theory itself. :-)
>
>Two things:
>
>In science, a "theory" is a position of sound logic that is very strongly
>backed by data. Theory of Gravity for example.
I think you're overapplying the term as regards how they settled on
the SBT. This particular theory was born of necessity, not of
evidence. It would do, explain the problem, make it go away, leave
everyone satisfied...belch.
>
>The word is commonly misused by laypeople to mean something that a person
>is "suggesting" which people who do science would call a "conjecture."
Then the SBC it is!
>
>Secondly, nothing has been put forth that refutes the SBT.
A shot sequence in which shots happen less than 2.3 secs apart dumps
the SBT on its little fanny. Just such a sequence is not only possible
from the evidence, it's probable, imo .... and in the original
opinions of the FBI, WC panels who studied the Z-film and the HSCA.
To have JBC and JFK begin reacting at the same time to the same shot a
host of other evidence has to be ignored ... including studies by
joints like ITEK who clearly note, as others have, that JFK is clearly
already in the throes of reacting when he first becomes visible from
behind the sign. Connally, otoh, appears to not have been hit yet. The
WC panels figured they would be reporting 3 shots/3 hits, but they
needed to study the timing to see if it were even possible (given that
Oswald did it and his rifle had certain timing constraints).. It
wasn't. And the rest, as they say, is what they decided to call
history.
Bests,
Barb :-)
>
>take care, :^)
>Rockett
>
>
Gerry Simone (W)
CTers don't have to find those answers you ask to establish the
probability of a conspiracy (although some answers/attempts have been made
based on circumstantial evidence).
But they can ask other questions which haven't been satisfactorily
answered which would likely establish reasonable doubt for Oswald. That's
why Oswald was killed before a trial! That eliminated the burden of proof
or test.
I believe there's a majority of people who believe that there was a
conspiracy. They don't need to know who actually did it. They just have
to doubt that one person did it alone in light of the facts or evidence of
the case.
But suppose 100% of people believed in the conspiracy, post WC. If the
conspiracy was successful, which for the most part IMO, it was, then
nobody would have those answers anyways. CTers aren't negligent. The very
nature of a successful conspiracy doesn't lend to complete disclosure of
the evidence or all facts...we're not auditing the books of Enron here.
(Then to compound matters, there was likely a coverup, which probably was
separate from the conspiracy). A conspiracy may not be perfect. As long
as the most secret point or connection remains secret, then the debate
continues.
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:42e7...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Gerry Simone (W)
"Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:42e7e97f...@news20.forteinc.com...
Gerry Simone (W)
You mean the same citizens that the courts call upon for jury duty?
Sorry, but I couldn't resist (I actually like Bush).
Ditto on Barb J.'s point made in response to this thread.
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:42e7...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
Steve
I see that the numbers never seem to stay the same as far as "Others were
involved". Note how they peaked at 81% in 1981, then dropped off in '83,
'92 and '93. This even after Stone's movie "JFK" where the numbers jumped
from 74% in 1983 to 77% in 1992 then fell back lower than that only a year
later in 1993 at 75% 2 years after the movie.
I would like to see the results after the new technology has exposed some
of the unknowns in the case over the past 4 years since 2001.
jwrush
Huh? You can't "refute" a "theory" by suggesting "plenty of other
theories." That's not the way science works. Anyway, West and I proved the
theory back in 1991.
Barb Junkkarinen
The SBT is not science.
>
>
jwrush
> On 27 Jul 2005 22:59:52 -0400, "Rockett Crawford"
> <cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:d4lfe1hivo81vsmie...@4ax.com...
>>> On 27 Jul 2005 13:57:42 -0400, "Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> As for the SBT,
>>> there's plenty of other theories of shot sequence that refute it ....
>>> it, afterall, just being a theory itself. :-)
>>
>>Two things:
>>
>>In science, a "theory" is a position of sound logic that is very strongly
>>backed by data. Theory of Gravity for example.
>
> I think you're overapplying the term as regards how they settled on
> the SBT. This particular theory was born of necessity, not of
> evidence. It would do, explain the problem, make it go away, leave
> everyone satisfied...belch.
>>
>>The word is commonly misused by laypeople to mean something that a person
>>is "suggesting" which people who do science would call a "conjecture."
>
> Then the SBC it is!
>>
>>Secondly, nothing has been put forth that refutes the SBT.
>
> A shot sequence in which shots happen less than 2.3 secs apart dumps
> the SBT on its little fanny.
You are going by 41 year old and incorrect Warren Commission estimates. The
HSCA had different estimates. You evidently haven't read Posner's book and
haven't read the US News and World Report article about it or several
television documentaries.
Seems you like the Warren Commission when they were wrong about something.
Gary Combs
Ruh asks "So let's hear it from the conspiracy people.... who did it? Who
President, and give us specific details about who did it."
1.Malcom Wallace from the TSBD
2.Loren Hall from pick-up truck. captured on a photograph(can't recall the
name) somewhat before the grassy knoll, and at a height that some have
speculated would have to be from.
3.Eugene Brale Hadding, Daltext building. Or his operative.
gc
Martin Shackelford
Martin
jwrush wrote:
> <rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1122471121.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>The only ones that I know of who have stuck their necks out is Tony
>>Marsh and Bob Harris. At least they give somewhat of an arguement for
>>their positions. The rest just continue to defend Oz.
>>
>>Rob
>
>
> I think the majority of the educated public today who read about this case
> and who see new TV documentaries about it, every 5 or 10 years, during the
> various anniversaries, realize that Oswald was the lone assassin. Pointing
Martin Shackelford
Some who were there deny that he said "This is it!"
Martin
jwrush wrote:
> "Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
James Olmstead
"Steve" <drumr...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1122505771....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
evidence that has not had the opportunity to be examined using some
of this new technology. It takes seconds today to find 40 pts of id on
a latent fingerprint, where it took hours and even days to do the same
work. Even the two latents that were claimed to be Oswald's on the
triggerguard could be re-examined and have the "no value" label applied
by the FBI on 23 November changed to one of "value".
Over that last year I had the opportunity to a Forensic Science course
and talk to various experts in Forensic's...Dr. Henry Lee, Prof Starrs,
Dr. Baden, Dr. Wecht and others not familiar with the Kennedy case, all
showed interest in the new physical evidence such as the fibers trapped
under the lifting tape on CE 637. Most that I showed the evidence to
had never seen first generation copies of the exhibit.
The fiber could tell use about the oil on the barrel, they may contain
DNA or info on the blanket or clothing worn. The need however is
for all of those interested to join in regardless of the results and who's
toes get stepped on when the results come back.
jko
Rockett Crawford
> On 27 Jul 2005 22:59:52 -0400, "Rockett Crawford"
> <cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> >
> A shot sequence in which shots happen less than 2.3 secs apart dumps
> the SBT on its little fanny.
Agreed.
> Just such a sequence is not only possible
> from the evidence, it's probable, imo .... and in the original
> opinions of the FBI, WC panels who studied the Z-film and the HSCA.
> To have JBC and JFK begin reacting at the same time to the same shot a
> host of other evidence has to be ignored ... including studies by
> joints like ITEK who clearly note, as others have, that JFK is clearly
> already in the throes of reacting when he first becomes visible from
> behind the sign. Connally, otoh, appears to not have been hit yet.
I'm sure you've been round on this hundreds of times but:
Lapel flip and hat flip.
> The
> WC panels figured they would be reporting 3 shots/3 hits, but they
> needed to study the timing to see if it were even possible (given that
> Oswald did it and his rifle had certain timing constraints).. It
> wasn't. And the rest, as they say, is what they decided to call
> history.
Barb, how do you explain away the oblong entry wound in Connaly's
shoulder?
take care, ;^)
Rockett
jwrush
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:dca1js$l...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> There are conflicting versions of what Oswald said inside the theater.
> Some who were there deny that he said "This is it!"
The way the old-time Russians and the CPUSA people started this
disinformation project back in '63 was to cast doubt on everything, all
eyewitness testimony, etc. You are following what they started, but that
doesn't matter anymore because there is plenty of research data, books, and
TV documentaries that explain what happen. The conspiracy buffs no longer
control the case, as they once did back in the 1970s. That's why you can
only get 5 or 6 of them to show up here.
jwrush
"Gary Combs" <glcc...@chartertn.net> wrote in message
news:42e8...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Well dang! Let's go arrest those buggers!
jwrush
> That "tired" public still polls at 70-90% that there was a conspiracy.
>
> Martin
>
except in "conspiracy" places on the internet, right along with people who
believe in UFOs, the International Banker's Conspiracy, various 911
conspiracies, Murrah Building conspiracies, the Roswell "UFO crash", the
Planet X coverup conspiracy. The usual internet crackpots. There are
actually more UFO conspiracy believers than JFK conspiracy believers.
jwrush
The single bullet hit both JFK and Connally at about Z 224-225. Your idea
about the timing of the shots is 41 years out of date.
Rockett Crawford
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:dca1i5$l...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
But the poll numbers for UFOs, ghosts, ESP and other similar phenomena
are also high among the general public. I think this goes to show that
reality
isn't up for a vote?
75% believe in the paranormal including:
extra sensory perception (ESP), haunted houses, ghosts, mental telepathy,
clairvoyance, astrology, communicating with the dead, witches,
reincarnation,
and channeling. There are no significant differences in belief by age,
gender,
education, or region of the country
http://gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=16915
72% believe in UFOs
70% of American adults do not understand the scientific process;
78% can't define what a molecule is
68% want creationism taught in schools (45% want *only* creationism taught)
66% don't believe the Big Bang Theory
60% believe some people posses psychic powers or extrasensory perception
(ESP);
50% believe in Astrology
48% believe humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs;
46% did not know how long it takes the Earth to orbit the sun (1 year);
47% don't believe in evolution
42% believe houses can be haunted
Rockett Crawford
Barb Junkkarinen
<cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:muige19jbtulq002d...@4ax.com...
>> On 27 Jul 2005 22:59:52 -0400, "Rockett Crawford"
>> <cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> A shot sequence in which shots happen less than 2.3 secs apart dumps
>> the SBT on its little fanny.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> Just such a sequence is not only possible
>> from the evidence, it's probable, imo .... and in the original
>> opinions of the FBI, WC panels who studied the Z-film and the HSCA.
>> To have JBC and JFK begin reacting at the same time to the same shot a
>> host of other evidence has to be ignored ... including studies by
>> joints like ITEK who clearly note, as others have, that JFK is clearly
>> already in the throes of reacting when he first becomes visible from
>> behind the sign. Connally, otoh, appears to not have been hit yet.
>
>I'm sure you've been round on this hundreds of times but:
>
>Lapel flip and hat flip.
Indeed. And JFK is already making reactive movements before either of
those occur. That's the point, Rockett. <g> Before the lapel flip was
discovered, the SBT had occurred earlier, while they were still behind
the sign according to the LN position. With the lapel flip ... it
moved. But now not only JBC hadn't been hit already, by necessity, JFK
couldn't have been either. Sigh.
>
>> The
>> WC panels figured they would be reporting 3 shots/3 hits, but they
>> needed to study the timing to see if it were even possible (given that
>> Oswald did it and his rifle had certain timing constraints).. It
>> wasn't. And the rest, as they say, is what they decided to call
>> history.
>
>Barb, how do you explain away the oblong entry wound in Connaly's
>shoulder?
I don't explain it away at all. As Connally's surgeon noted in his WC
testimony, that elongated entry could be accounted for by *either* a
tumbling bullet .... or one that entered at an angle. You've ready his
doctor's testimonies?
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Amen. I'd like to see the acoustics evaluated with today's technology
too .... and shooting tests that check other locations instead of just
the 6th floor.
Barb :-)
>
>jko
>
>
Robert Harris
>
>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>news:dca1js$l...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>> There are conflicting versions of what Oswald said inside the theater.
>> Some who were there deny that he said "This is it!"
>
>The way the old-time Russians and the CPUSA people started this
>disinformation project back in '63 was to cast doubt on everything, all
>eyewitness testimony, etc.
ROFLMAO!!!
Gosh, where have we heard that before:-)
Robert Harris
>You are following what they started, but that
>doesn't matter anymore because there is plenty of research data, books, and
>TV documentaries that explain what happen. The conspiracy buffs no longer
>control the case, as they once did back in the 1970s. That's why you can
>only get 5 or 6 of them to show up here.
>
>
>
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
jwrush
> On 28 Jul 2005 11:47:14 -0400, "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>>news:dca1js$l...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>>> There are conflicting versions of what Oswald said inside the theater.
>>> Some who were there deny that he said "This is it!"
>>
>>The way the old-time Russians and the CPUSA people started this
>>disinformation project back in '63 was to cast doubt on everything, all
>>eyewitness testimony, etc.
>
> ROFLMAO!!!
>
> Gosh, where have we heard that before:-)
Moscow? New York? Havana?
jwrush
I doubt if the stuck microphone at the Trade Mart could pick up the shots in
Dealey Plaza.
Glenn Sarlitto
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
"This particular theory [SBT] was born of necessity, not of evidence."
hehehehehehe....Now that's certainly Classic Weisberg!
Glenn
news:muige19jbtulq002d...@4ax.com...
Rockett Crawford
> On 28 Jul 2005 11:33:03 -0400, "Rockett Crawford"
> <cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:muige19jbtulq002d...@4ax.com...
> >> On 27 Jul 2005 22:59:52 -0400, "Rockett Crawford"
> >> <cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >I'm sure you've been round on this hundreds of times but:
> >
> >Lapel flip and hat flip.
>
> Indeed. And JFK is already making reactive movements before either of
> those occur. That's the point, Rockett. <g> Before the lapel flip was
> discovered, the SBT had occurred earlier, while they were still behind
> the sign according to the LN position. With the lapel flip ... it
> moved. But now not only JBC hadn't been hit already, by necessity, JFK
> couldn't have been either. Sigh.
Barb,
I respectfully disagree. I see JFK's right hand, still in hand wave position
coming down in z224 through z225. His left arm is completely down and
resting. It's clearly not until the z225, immediately following the lapel
flip
that the left arm starts jerking upwards.
Look particularly at JFK's left elbow. Completely down until it jerks up
in front of the white dog... I mean reflection in z225. ;^)
The right arm has joined it by z226. Also note the right hand has
rotated, started cupping, and is being quickly pulled inwards towards
JFK in z226
See it here in my animated gif:
http://capella.haela.com/JFKHands.gif
> >Barb, how do you explain away the oblong entry wound in Connaly's
> >shoulder?
>
> I don't explain it away at all. As Connally's surgeon noted in his WC
> testimony, that elongated entry could be accounted for by *either* a
> tumbling bullet .... or one that entered at an angle. You've ready his
> doctor's testimonies?
Barb, do you think the doctor might have not been aware that the
bullet that made the wound was as long as the wound itself indicating
it entered sideways? :^)
take care,
Rockett
rob.s...@gmail.com
Rob
rob.s...@gmail.com
Barb Junkkarinen
That wide brush of yours is good for something ... the more you whip
out comments like these, the more you paint yourself, imo. Keep it up!
Barb Junkkarinen
<cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:144ie1l3fpjs6ec4s...@4ax.com...
>> On 28 Jul 2005 11:33:03 -0400, "Rockett Crawford"
>> <cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> >"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >news:muige19jbtulq002d...@4ax.com...
>> >> On 27 Jul 2005 22:59:52 -0400, "Rockett Crawford"
>> >> <cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> >I'm sure you've been round on this hundreds of times but:
>> >
>> >Lapel flip and hat flip.
>>
>> Indeed. And JFK is already making reactive movements before either of
>> those occur. That's the point, Rockett. <g> Before the lapel flip was
>> discovered, the SBT had occurred earlier, while they were still behind
>> the sign according to the LN position. With the lapel flip ... it
>> moved. But now not only JBC hadn't been hit already, by necessity, JFK
>> couldn't have been either. Sigh.
>
>Barb,
>
>I respectfully disagree.
Okay. :-)
>I see JFK's right hand, still in hand wave position
>coming down in z224 through z225. His left arm is completely down and
>resting. It's clearly not until the z225, immediately following the lapel
>flip
>that the left arm starts jerking upwards.
You are assuming, at best, that what you are seeing there is his
initial, very first reactive movement. You are also positing bullet
hit and *visible reactive movement* in the span of one frame or less.
Cain't be....physiology.
You are in disagreement with the ITEK analysis and with ballistics
expert Roger McCarthy.
>
>Look particularly at JFK's left elbow. Completely down until it jerks up
>in front of the white dog... I mean reflection in z225. ;^)
>
>The right arm has joined it by z226. Also note the right hand has
>rotated, started cupping, and is being quickly pulled inwards towards
>JFK in z226
Indeed he is well into the throes of reactive movements.
Say, Rockett, why do you think Jackie is looking at him in that head
cocked looking-at-John position when *she* becomes visible from behind
the sign a few frames earlier? And watch her hat in the Zfilm ... she
has assumed that position by 205-207 and it never changes until well
after she comes from behind the sign.
>
>See it here in my animated gif:
>http://capella.haela.com/JFKHands.gif
>
>> >Barb, how do you explain away the oblong entry wound in Connaly's
>> >shoulder?
>>
>> I don't explain it away at all. As Connally's surgeon noted in his WC
>> testimony, that elongated entry could be accounted for by *either* a
>> tumbling bullet .... or one that entered at an angle. You've ready his
>> doctor's testimonies?
>
>Barb, do you think the doctor might have not been aware that the
>bullet that made the wound was as long as the wound itself indicating
>it entered sideways? :^)
I think the doctor was aware of the size of the wound and the bullet.
Have you read the testimonies and statements, you didn't say. :-)
Just how big do you think the wound was in its pre-procedure state?
Barb :-)
>
>take care,
>Rockett
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
>"This particular theory [SBT] was born of necessity, not of evidence."
>
>hehehehehehe....Now that's certainly Classic Weisberg!
Don't know that Weisberg ever said that.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
And yours only came into vogue when LNs moved the hit due to the lapel
flip being noted. :-)
Yours is also in conflict with ITEK and Roger McCarthy and human
physiolgy among others.
>
>
Gary Combs
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:42e9...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Rush,
Even you are smart enough to know that will never happen, for what the
Federal Government wants, the Federal Government gets. I do believe that
fingerprint in the TSBD should not be labeled "unidentified", but Max
Wallace. And Loren Hall's recording in the judges' chamber should be
discovered and put in public domain. And that should have been Eugene Hale
Barding, Big Jim Garrison would tell you about him, if not for him dying.
Just speculation, has you know, but you asked for opinion so I provided
one.
gc
Rockett Crawford
> On 28 Jul 2005 15:06:17 -0400, "Rockett Crawford"
> <cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >Barb,
> >
> >I respectfully disagree.
>
> Okay. :-)
>
> >I see JFK's right hand, still in hand wave position
> >coming down in z224 through z225. His left arm is completely down and
> >resting. It's clearly not until the z225, immediately following the lapel
> >flip
> >that the left arm starts jerking upwards.
>
> You are assuming, at best, that what you are seeing there is his
> initial, very first reactive movement. You are also positing bullet
> hit and *visible reactive movement* in the span of one frame or less.
No, not true.
> Cain't be....physiology.
> You are in disagreement with the ITEK analysis and with ballistics
> expert Roger McCarthy.
> >
> >Look particularly at JFK's left elbow. Completely down until it jerks up
> >in front of the white dog... I mean reflection in z225. ;^)
> >
> >The right arm has joined it by z226. Also note the right hand has
> >rotated, started cupping, and is being quickly pulled inwards towards
> >JFK in z226
>
> Indeed he is well into the throes of reactive movements.
I disagree as I said. He showed no evidence of reactive movements until
after 224. His right hand waving hand dropping down is consistent with
it's movement before going behind the sign. Before going behind the sign,
his left arm looks almost identical to 224 coming out (clutching his
lapel, elbow down). After 224 all hell breaks loose.
>
> Say, Rockett, why do you think Jackie is looking at him in that head
> cocked looking-at-John position when *she* becomes visible from behind
> the sign a few frames earlier? And watch her hat in the Zfilm ... she
> has assumed that position by 205-207 and it never changes until well
> after she comes from behind the sign.
I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about? She starts turning her
head to the right after z165 or so and ends up looking to her right about
200-205 or so. Keeps looking to her right until about z245?
> >
> >See it here in my animated gif:
> >http://capella.haela.com/JFKHands.gif
> >Barb, do you think the doctor might have not been aware that the
> >bullet that made the wound was as long as the wound itself indicating
> >it entered sideways? :^)
>
> I think the doctor was aware of the size of the wound and the bullet.
> Have you read the testimonies and statements, you didn't say. :-)
No, not all of them.
> Just how big do you think the wound was in its pre-procedure state?
I don't know. Which report are you referring to? Are you talking about
Dr. Shaw's initial estimate in his OR report or later in his WC testimony,
or something else?
Thanks, :^)
Rockett
jwrush
Ok, I will. And rob was right. I forgot about crop circle conspiracy
people.
You keep up your good work too.
Glenn Sarlitto
>
>>"This particular theory [SBT] was born of necessity, not of evidence."
"Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>hehehehehehe....Now that's certainly Classic Weisberg!
>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> Don't know that Weisberg ever said that. Barb :-)
Aarrrrgggghhhhhh!!!
POST MORTEM, Chapter 5
"THE THREE MONKEYS" THEORY
pg 51 para. 4
"Thus it can be seen that the "single-bullet' theory is is not a "theory"
(though it is anything but fact) but is a necessity."
Cheers!!!
Glenn
PS...Your comment and the similarity to Hal's certainly support Johann
Rush's views regarding the Propoganda Project. Not that I totally agree as
yet, mind you. There is alot to digest in that regard. It is mind
boggling, but certainly well researched from what I have seen so far. But
what do I know? I'm still a Sophomore, so to speak, when it comes to
serious JFK research. I only arrived around the 40th anniversary just to
take a peak. Didn't think I'd stick around this long. How time flies!
Anthony Marsh
That was not her question. She'd like to see the same types of tests
applied but using different shooter locations. Obviously like you she
refuses to read any of my research so she is not aware that she could do
that herself with my computer program.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Anthony Marsh
Hello? Hello? Anyone at home?
If you could just gather up your courage you could do it yourself, using
my computer program which using the W&A method allows you to plug in
whatever shooter location in Dealey Plaza you wish.
Anthony Marsh
Interesting. So you interpret one poll stating 72% believe in UFOs as
being a greater number than 90% who believe it there was a conspiracy in
the assassination of President Kennedy? I dispute all your claims about
how many people believe what.
And BTW, some of the examples you cite are really conspiracies of some
type, although not necessarily the wacky ones you are thinking about. 911
was a conspiracy by Al Qaeda. Tim McVeigh was not the only one involved in
the Oklahoma bombing.
Anthony Marsh
> "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:muige19jbtulq002d...@4ax.com...
>
>>On 27 Jul 2005 22:59:52 -0400, "Rockett Crawford"
>><cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>A shot sequence in which shots happen less than 2.3 secs apart dumps
>>the SBT on its little fanny.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>>Just such a sequence is not only possible
>>from the evidence, it's probable, imo .... and in the original
>>opinions of the FBI, WC panels who studied the Z-film and the HSCA.
>>To have JBC and JFK begin reacting at the same time to the same shot a
>>host of other evidence has to be ignored ... including studies by
>>joints like ITEK who clearly note, as others have, that JFK is clearly
>>already in the throes of reacting when he first becomes visible from
>>behind the sign. Connally, otoh, appears to not have been hit yet.
>
>
> I'm sure you've been round on this hundreds of times but:
>
> Lapel flip and hat flip.
>
>
>>The
>>WC panels figured they would be reporting 3 shots/3 hits, but they
>>needed to study the timing to see if it were even possible (given that
>>Oswald did it and his rifle had certain timing constraints).. It
>>wasn't. And the rest, as they say, is what they decided to call
>>history.
>
>
> Barb, how do you explain away the oblong entry wound in Connaly's
> shoulder?
>
> take care, ;^)
> Rockett
>
>
>
How do YOU explain away the supposed oblong entry wound in JFK's head?
Same concepts involved. It does not have to be a tumbling bullet. It
could be a bullet hitting at an angle. It could be the bullet hitting a
curved surface. Now, it is not critical, but the Connally wound was
actually in his armpit, not his shoulder.
rob.s...@gmail.com
Anthony Marsh
>>So let's hear it from the conspiracy people.... who did it? Who killed the
>>President, and give us specific details about who did it.
>
>
> The most best conspiracy theory to date, would
> have to be, aliens did the shooting and were hired
> by the "Illuminati" of the Free Masons...
> The Aliens then "shape shifted" themselves to
> duplicate another Oswald, in fact, many other
> Oswalds, and Jack Rubys' for that matter.
> They knew way in advance of announcment of
> the motorcade route, and they predicted
> accurately where Jackie would choose to have the
> autopsy done.
> Only aliens with supernatural powers could
> have set up the DP scenario with grassy knoll
> shooters asnd all, on such short notice.
> Only aliens could have taken the place of the
> regular doctors and nurses at the ER's of Parkland
> Hospital, Bethesda Med Center, and several
> other high profile hospitals, just in case Jackie
> chose one of the others for the autopsy.
> Luckily for the conspirators Jackie chose
> Bethesda for the autopsy instead of Coney
> Island Hospital in Brooklyn. CIP is the only
> hospital whom the aliens hadn't covered.
> The only thing about this theory, is that the
> autopsy x-rays and photos completely support
> the "lone nut" theory...Hmmm...
>
>
>
OK, so maybe some Cuban Exiles WERE involved. But I see no reason for
you to refer to them as aliens. How rude!
jwrush
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:bmcGe.13485$x32.4646@trndny09...
No one can do an acoustics test in Dealey Plaza, since the stuck
microphone was at the Trade Mart and there were no recordings of the
shooting. You could do an acoustics test at the Trade Mart, but I don't
think you could pick up any sounds of gunshots from Dealey Plaza, since it
was so far away.
Barb Junkkarinen
<cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:4vdie11f6gtagook9...@4ax.com...
>> On 28 Jul 2005 15:06:17 -0400, "Rockett Crawford"
>> <cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
>> >Barb,
>> >
>> >I respectfully disagree.
>>
>> Okay. :-)
>>
>> >I see JFK's right hand, still in hand wave position
>> >coming down in z224 through z225. His left arm is completely down and
>> >resting. It's clearly not until the z225, immediately following the lapel
>> >flip
>> >that the left arm starts jerking upwards.
>>
>> You are assuming, at best, that what you are seeing there is his
>> initial, very first reactive movement. You are also positing bullet
>> hit and *visible reactive movement* in the span of one frame or less.
>
>No, not true.
You say he was hit at 224 and showing visible reactive movements in
225 ..... right?
>
>> Cain't be....physiology.
>> You are in disagreement with the ITEK analysis and with ballistics
>> expert Roger McCarthy.
>> >
>> >Look particularly at JFK's left elbow. Completely down until it jerks up
>> >in front of the white dog... I mean reflection in z225. ;^)
>> >
>> >The right arm has joined it by z226. Also note the right hand has
>> >rotated, started cupping, and is being quickly pulled inwards towards
>> >JFK in z226
>>
>> Indeed he is well into the throes of reactive movements.
>
>I disagree as I said. He showed no evidence of reactive movements until
>after 224.
Gee, maybe because he was behind the sign til then .... ya think?<g>
>His right hand waving hand dropping down is consistent with
>it's movement before going behind the sign. Before going behind the sign,
>his left arm looks almost identical to 224 coming out (clutching his
>lapel, elbow down). After 224 all hell breaks loose.
As he disappears behind the sign and we can see just a bit of his
head, his left arm is up,...with his hand/wrist at an awkward angle
toward his face.
Tell me how, physiologically, he can be hit and then be exhibiting
visible major muscle group movements in the next 1/9 - 1/18 sec.
>
>>
>> Say, Rockett, why do you think Jackie is looking at him in that head
>> cocked looking-at-John position when *she* becomes visible from behind
>> the sign a few frames earlier? And watch her hat in the Zfilm ... she
>> has assumed that position by 205-207 and it never changes until well
>> after she comes from behind the sign.
>
>I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about? She starts turning her
>head to the right after z165 or so and ends up looking to her right about
>200-205 or so. Keeps looking to her right until about z245?
What is she looking AT from 205 til the 240's. She is famous for her
concerned head slightly cocked looking at John pose. And it goes with
her testimony.... her just looking at him wondering what could be
wrong, him looking like he might just have a headache with a quizzical
look on his face....
>
>> >
>> >See it here in my animated gif:
>> >http://capella.haela.com/JFKHands.gif
>
>> >Barb, do you think the doctor might have not been aware that the
>> >bullet that made the wound was as long as the wound itself indicating
>> >it entered sideways? :^)
>>
>> I think the doctor was aware of the size of the wound and the bullet.
>> Have you read the testimonies and statements, you didn't say. :-)
>
>No, not all of them.
Do. And the surgical reports. They are in an appendix in the WR.
>
>> Just how big do you think the wound was in its pre-procedure state?
>
>I don't know. Which report are you referring to? Are you talking about
>Dr. Shaw's initial estimate in his OR report or later in his WC testimony,
>or something else?
The measurement was incorrect and later corrected ... and others, like
Baden, kept the inaccuracy alive. One measurement was before
debridement, they excised the perimeter around the wound, which
increased it to 3cm (Shaw testified to this, somewhere in Volume 6,
can't remember the page...somewhere in the late 80s or early 90s, I
think).... which was the size of the scar, natch, when Baden looked at
it. But the wound was not 3cm in its "pristine" state (I think
Lattimer, like Baden, then stated the size of the wound made by the
bullet was 3cm) ... it was 1-1/2cm.
Funny that you say here you don't know how big the wound was, yet what
I was replying to was you having asked me:
"Barb, do you think the doctor might have not been aware that the
bullet that made the wound was as long as the wound itself indicating
it entered sideways? :^)"
You seemed to think YOU were "aware" of how big the wound was...and
that it was as big as the bullet. <g>
The Carcano bullet is, indeed, a skosh over 3cm long.
The wound wasn't. It was 1-1/2cm.
Seems you've been had by something you read by Baden, Lattimer, some
LN ,,,or? :-)
Oh, and it should be within a few pages in Shaw's testimony noted
above that he is asked if a tumbling bullet would account for the
elongated entry into Connally's back .... and Shaw says that either a
slightly tumbling bullet or one hitting on a tangent could account for
it. Either or.
By the way, the entry into the back of JFK's head was elongated ....
but I've never seen an LN argue the bullet had to have been tumbling
from hitting something else first. :-^))
Bests,
Barb :-)
>
>Thanks, :^)
>Rockett
jwrush
I think liberals in the government would like to arrest somebody for the
crime, other than Oswald. They had a chance with Jimmy Carter, but they
didn't do it. They had a chance with Bill Clinton but they didn't do it.
There is no evidence for anyone other than Oswald. If there was any
evidence, there are plenty of liberals in government who would like to
arrest someone after all these years.
Barb Junkkarinen
I didn't know you had done such research or had such a computer
program, Tony. :-)
Barb :-)
John McAdams
>
>"Gary Combs" <glcc...@chartertn.net> wrote in message
>news:42e9...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>
>> Rush,
>> Even you are smart enough to know that will never happen, for what the
>> Federal Government wants, the Federal Government gets. I do believe that
>> fingerprint in the TSBD should not be labeled "unidentified", but Max
>> Wallace. And Loren Hall's recording in the judges' chamber should be
>> discovered and put in public domain. And that should have been Eugene Hale
>> Barding, Big Jim Garrison would tell you about him, if not for him dying.
>> Just speculation, has you know, but you asked for opinion so I provided
>> one.
>>
>> gc
>
>I think liberals in the government would like to arrest somebody for the
>crime, other than Oswald. They had a chance with Jimmy Carter, but they
>didn't do it. They had a chance with Bill Clinton but they didn't do it.
>There is no evidence for anyone other than Oswald. If there was any
>evidence, there are plenty of liberals in government who would like to
>arrest someone after all these years.
>
Be careful here. Although the conspiracist culture leans left, people
we might call "mainstream liberals" have never been conspiracist.
I'm talking here about the Mainstream Media, Democratic Attorneys
General, and so on.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Rockett Crawford
>
> >
> > I doubt if the stuck microphone at the Trade Mart could pick up the
shots in
> > Dealey Plaza.
>
> That was not her question. She'd like to see the same types of tests
> applied but using different shooter locations. Obviously like you she
> refuses to read any of my research so she is not aware that she could do
> that herself with my computer program.
>
Rush,
I think he's ignoring your point about the impossibility of the open
microphone being in Dealey Plaza which would make such attempts to match
more chance random static with gunshots (real or computer generated) a
moot point?
Rockett Crawford
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>"This particular theory [SBT] was born of necessity, not of evidence."
>
>
>"Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>hehehehehehe....Now that's certainly Classic Weisberg!
>
>
>
>>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Don't know that Weisberg ever said that. Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>Aarrrrgggghhhhhh!!!
>
>POST MORTEM, Chapter 5
>
>"THE THREE MONKEYS" THEORY
>
>pg 51 para. 4
>
>"Thus it can be seen that the "single-bullet' theory is is not a "theory"
>(though it is anything but fact) but is a necessity."
I've been saying what I said above for years .... didn't get it from
Weisberg, have hardly (sorry Harold, you know I loved you) read much
Weisberg text ..... would have been amazed and amused to learn Harold
had uttered the same phrase. I see he didn't. Plenty of people have
noted the SBT was cobbled together out of ncessity. Gee, I wonder
why.<g>
>
>
>Cheers!!!
Ole'
Barb :-)
>
>Glenn
>
>
>PS...Your comment and the similarity to Hal's certainly support Johann
>Rush's views regarding the Propoganda Project.
Oh please.
> Not that I totally agree as
>yet, mind you.
Thank goodness.
> There is alot to digest in that regard. It is mind
>boggling, but certainly well researched from what I have seen so far. But
>what do I know? I'm still a Sophomore, so to speak, when it comes to
>serious JFK research. I only arrived around the 40th anniversary just to
>take a peak. Didn't think I'd stick around this long. How time flies!
Lots of flies lately.... :-)
jwrush
>
> And BTW, some of the examples you cite are really conspiracies of some
> type, although not necessarily the wacky ones you are thinking about. 911
> was a conspiracy by Al Qaeda. Tim McVeigh was not the only one involved in
> the Oklahoma bombing.
>
I agree.
jwrush
A similar type of thing has already been done. Just add some black ink and
some white ink to small parts of the Moorman photo, and you can produce
any kind of conspiracy guy with a gun in any of the bushes you want.
Rockett Crawford
> Rockett Crawford wrote:
>
> How do YOU explain away the supposed oblong entry wound in JFK's head?
> Same concepts involved. It does not have to be a tumbling bullet. It
> could be a bullet hitting at an angle. It could be the bullet hitting a
> curved surface. Now, it is not critical, but the Connally wound was
> actually in his armpit, not his shoulder.
>
It looks like from Dr. Shaw's diagram, it was right next to his shoulder
blade in his back, not in his armpit.
http://capella.haela.com/ConnallyBack.jpg
Rockett Crawford
Barb Junkkarinen
>So Barb, just who do you think was in the Dal-Tex building?
Lots of people. I don't think I know the names of any of them save
ones mentioned who were Z's employees or any others who gave
statements as witnesses. How about you?
Barb :-)
>
Barb Junkkarinen
I replied that I didn't know you had such a program. Would love to
see/know how it works!
Barb :-)
jwrush
"Rockett Crawford" <cap...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:11ej2bm...@corp.supernews.com...
I think you're right.
jwrush
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:42e9a2b4...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
I guess that could be why the Carter and Clinton administrations never
arrested anybody. That and no evidence against anyone but Oswald.
And of course we have Bob Dylan acknowledging in 1963 that Oswald was the
assassin. And when I got to San Francisco in 1967, there were some bumper
stickers that read, "Lee Harvey Oswald, where are you now that we really
need you?" (Yes, very small type on the bumper sticker.) It referred to
Lyndon Johnson being President in 1967.
Rockett Crawford
> On 28 Jul 2005 21:06:11 -0400, "Rockett Crawford"
> <cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:4vdie11f6gtagook9...@4ax.com...
> >> On 28 Jul 2005 15:06:17 -0400, "Rockett Crawford"
> >> <cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >> >Barb,
> >> >
> >> >I respectfully disagree.
> >>
> >> Okay. :-)
> >>
> >> >I see JFK's right hand, still in hand wave position
> >> >coming down in z224 through z225. His left arm is completely down and
> >> >resting. It's clearly not until the z225, immediately following the
lapel
> >> >flip
> >> >that the left arm starts jerking upwards.
> >>
> >> You are assuming, at best, that what you are seeing there is his
> >> initial, very first reactive movement. You are also positing bullet
> >> hit and *visible reactive movement* in the span of one frame or less.
> >
> >No, not true.
>
> You say he was hit at 224 and showing visible reactive movements in
> 225 ..... right?
>
No, I didn't say he was hit at 224. I said the lapel flip is in 224 in the
movie.
If we now want to split hairs about reaction times, it could be said that he
was hit as early as late in the exposure of 223. The lapel flip wouldn't
have registered until the next frame (I can elaborate on this if you want,
photography is a hobby of mine). We could also say that the reaction of the
left arm could have been as late as the middle part of the exposure of 225
which would be close to two frames or somewhere around 100 miliseconds.
I've read about tests however where only 1/2 of that time was required
for a visible reaction to start in the arms.
> >
> >> Cain't be....physiology.
> >> You are in disagreement with the ITEK analysis and with ballistics
> >> expert Roger McCarthy.
> >> >
> >> >Look particularly at JFK's left elbow. Completely down until it jerks
up
> >> >in front of the white dog... I mean reflection in z225. ;^)
> >> >
> >> >The right arm has joined it by z226. Also note the right hand has
> >> >rotated, started cupping, and is being quickly pulled inwards towards
> >> >JFK in z226
> >>
> >> Indeed he is well into the throes of reactive movements.
> >
> >I disagree as I said. He showed no evidence of reactive movements until
> >after 224.
>
> Gee, maybe because he was behind the sign til then .... ya think?<g>
Well, I heard that he wanted to change outfits before he got to the
Trade Mart. You wouldn't have expected him to change out in the
open would you?? ;^)
No, again we can see his right hand coming out from behind the sign
going down as it started to do before he went behind the sign. The
left arm can be seen coming out from behind the sign just as it was
when he went behind the sign. All before he starts reacting in 225.
>
> >His right hand waving hand dropping down is consistent with
> >it's movement before going behind the sign. Before going behind the sign,
> >his left arm looks almost identical to 224 coming out (clutching his
> >lapel, elbow down). After 224 all hell breaks loose.
>
> As he disappears behind the sign and we can see just a bit of his
> head, his left arm is up,...with his hand/wrist at an awkward angle
> toward his face.
>
> Tell me how, physiologically, he can be hit and then be exhibiting
> visible major muscle group movements in the next 1/9 - 1/18 sec.
Again, if you want to split hairs, you can pick whatever tests you want.
I've seen one where people react in as little as 40 miliseconds or
1/25th second. And there could have been as much as 100
miliseconds (1/10th second) for the reaction to start.
> >> Say, Rockett, why do you think Jackie is looking at him in that head
> >> cocked looking-at-John position when *she* becomes visible from behind
> >> the sign a few frames earlier? And watch her hat in the Zfilm ... she
> >> has assumed that position by 205-207 and it never changes until well
> >> after she comes from behind the sign.
> >
> >I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about? She starts turning her
> >head to the right after z165 or so and ends up looking to her right about
> >200-205 or so. Keeps looking to her right until about z245?
>
> What is she looking AT from 205 til the 240's. She is famous for her
> concerned head slightly cocked looking at John pose. And it goes with
> her testimony.... her just looking at him wondering what could be
> wrong, him looking like he might just have a headache with a quizzical
> look on his face....
She also thought she remembered already seeing a piece of his skull at
that time.
Actually as we have discussed, I don't put much stock in Mrs. Kennedy's
testimony, not because she wasn't a sharp woman, but because of the
trauma of the event. She's obviously confused the order of events
in her testimony and completely repressed other things such as climbing
out on the trunk and blood splattering everywhere.
I think the same thing for Mrs. Connally. Traumatic to see one's loved
one wounded.
> >
> >> Just how big do you think the wound was in its pre-procedure state?
> >
> >I don't know. Which report are you referring to? Are you talking about
> >Dr. Shaw's initial estimate in his OR report or later in his WC
testimony,
> >or something else?
>
> The measurement was incorrect and later corrected ... and others, like
> Baden, kept the inaccuracy alive. One measurement was before
> debridement, they excised the perimeter around the wound, which
> increased it to 3cm (Shaw testified to this, somewhere in Volume 6,
> can't remember the page...somewhere in the late 80s or early 90s, I
> think).... which was the size of the scar, natch, when Baden looked at
> it. But the wound was not 3cm in its "pristine" state (I think
> Lattimer, like Baden, then stated the size of the wound made by the
> bullet was 3cm) ... it was 1-1/2cm.
>
> Funny that you say here you don't know how big the wound was, yet what
> I was replying to was you having asked me:
I didn't say I didn't know how big the wound was. I just didn't know
which report you were choosing to go by. I was guessing however that
you would prefer Shaw's WC estimate. ;^)
>
> "Barb, do you think the doctor might have not been aware that the
> bullet that made the wound was as long as the wound itself indicating
> it entered sideways? :^)"
>
> You seemed to think YOU were "aware" of how big the wound was...and
> that it was as big as the bullet. <g>
>
> The Carcano bullet is, indeed, a skosh over 3cm long.
>
> The wound wasn't. It was 1-1/2cm.
In Shaw's second account. ;^)
>
> Seems you've been had by something you read by Baden, Lattimer, some
> LN ,,,or? :-)
>
> Oh, and it should be within a few pages in Shaw's testimony noted
> above that he is asked if a tumbling bullet would account for the
> elongated entry into Connally's back .... and Shaw says that either a
> slightly tumbling bullet or one hitting on a tangent could account for
> it. Either or.
>
> By the way, the entry into the back of JFK's head was elongated ....
> but I've never seen an LN argue the bullet had to have been tumbling
> from hitting something else first. :-^))
I personally don't think the angle of the shot was responsible for
Connally's
elongation. I doubt such an angle would have produced the path through
Connally that brought the bullet out just a little lower in his body than it
went in? Even if you go by Shaw's second account of the wound's estimated
size.
take care, :^)
Rockett
Rockett Crawford
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:42e9...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> > If you could just gather up your courage you could do it yourself, using
> > my computer program which using the W&A method allows you to plug in
> > whatever shooter location in Dealey Plaza you wish.
>
> A similar type of thing has already been done. Just add some black ink and
> some white ink to small parts of the Moorman photo, and you can produce
> any kind of conspiracy guy with a gun in any of the bushes you want.
<LOL!>
Rockett Crawford
Martin Shackelford
am not resisting arrest."
Martin
jwrush wrote:
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:dca1js$l...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
>>There are conflicting versions of what Oswald said inside the theater.
>>Some who were there deny that he said "This is it!"
>
>
> The way the old-time Russians and the CPUSA people started this
> disinformation project back in '63 was to cast doubt on everything, all
> eyewitness testimony, etc. You are following what they started, but that
> doesn't matter anymore because there is plenty of research data, books, and
> TV documentaries that explain what happen. The conspiracy buffs no longer
> control the case, as they once did back in the 1970s. That's why you can
> only get 5 or 6 of them to show up here.
>
>
>
Martin Shackelford
Martin
jwrush wrote:
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
James Olmstead
damage from military service too much exposure to gunfire.
jko
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:hzcGe.13488$x32.7685@trndny09...
Gerry Simone (W)
DON'T YOU GET IT!
lol
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:42e7...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:arkfe1drrc37dbu94...@4ax.com...
> > On 27 Jul 2005 12:13:25 -0400, "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >><rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1122471121.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>> The only ones that I know of who have stuck their necks out is Tony
> >>> Marsh and Bob Harris. At least they give somewhat of an arguement for
> >>> their positions. The rest just continue to defend Oz.
> >>>
> >>> Rob
> >>
> >>I think the majority of the educated public today who read about this
case
> >>and who see new TV documentaries about it, every 5 or 10 years, during
the
> >>various anniversaries, realize that Oswald was the lone assassin.
Pointing
> >>out his guilt has been the general trend in most of the new
documentaries
> >>made by the major networks since the early 1990s. I think there are only
a
> >>few people in the US today who still try to defend Oswald and blame
> >>unknown
> >>and unnamed "conspirators". I think the public has become tired of
hearing
> >>about "conspiracy" for so many years, while no actual "conspirators"
have
> >>ever been turned up by the conspiracy promoters.
> >
> > What you think is in conflict with what the professional polls show.
> >>
>
> So tell us who did it.
>
>
>
Gerry Simone (W)
100.
This statistical stuff extropolates for the population within a tolerable
margin of error.
If you say half of the respondents are morons (which is not the purpose or
the determination of the survey), then you'd have to say that half of the
population of the USA are morons.....which is not the case of course.
"Gerry Simone (W)"
<addfornos...@addfornospambelmontconcreteaddfornospam.com> wrote in
message news:RI2dnevWnLF...@look.ca...
> You mean the same citizens that voted for your President?
>
> You mean the same citizens that the courts call upon for jury duty?
>
> Sorry, but I couldn't resist (I actually like Bush).
>
> Ditto on Barb J.'s point made in response to this thread.
>
> "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
> news:42e7...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> >
> > "Robert Harris" <reha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:42e7e97f...@news20.forteinc.com...
> > > On 27 Jul 2005 12:13:25 -0400, "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >><rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:1122471121.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >>> The only ones that I know of who have stuck their necks out is Tony
> > >>> Marsh and Bob Harris. At least they give somewhat of an arguement
for
> > >>> their positions. The rest just continue to defend Oz.
> > >>>
> > >>> Rob
> > >>
> > >>I think the majority of the educated public today who read about this
> case
> > >>and who see new TV documentaries about it, every 5 or 10 years, during
> the
> > >>various anniversaries, realize that Oswald was the lone assassin.
> > >
> > > Hopefully, Ben Holmes will forgive me for usurping his recent posting
> > > on this subject, in A.C.J.
> > >
> > > (quoting)
> > >
> > > Was More Than One Person Involved In The JFK Assassination?
> > >
> > > Most Americans say yes. A Gallup Poll was conducted March 26-28, 2001
> > > with telephone interviews of a randomly selected sample of 1,024
> > > adults aged 18 and older. The results are projectable to all American
> > > households with a 95% confidence and 3% margin of error. At that time,
> > > when asked, "Do you think that one man was responsible for the
> > > assassination of President Kennedy, or do you think that others were
> > > involved in a conspiracy?", with the possible answers "one man,"
> > > "others involved" and "no opinion":
> > >
> > >
> > > Fourth-fifths (81%) responded that they believed that other people
> > > were involved in a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy, an all
> > > time-high.
> > >
> > > Let's look at the historical results of this poll, which has been
> > > conducted periodically by Gallup since 1964:
> > >
> > >
> > > One Man / Others Involved / No Opinion
> > > March 2001 13% 81% 6%
> > > November 1993 15% 75% 10%
> > > February 1992* 10% 77% 13%
> > > October 1983* 11% 74% 15%
> > > December 1976** 11% 81% 9%
> > > December 1966** 36% 50% 15%
> > > November 1963** 29% 52% 19%
> > >
> > >
> > > *Wording included, "one man, Lee Harvey Oswald . . ."
> > >
> > > ** Slight variations in wording (quoted verbatim from Gallup's Web
> > > site with thanks):
> > >
> > >
> > > 1963 - "Do you think that the man who shot President Kennedy acted on
> > > his own, or was some group or element also responsible?"
> > >
> > > 1966 - "Do you think that one man was responsible for the
> > > assassination of President Kennedy, or do you think others were
> > > involved?"
> > >
> > > 1976 - "Do you think that one man was responsible for the
> > > assassination of President Kennedy, or do you think others were
> > > involved?"
> > >
> > >
> > > In the 1997 Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University nationwide
> > > poll, the question concerned not more than one person, but government
> > > officials with direct involvement in the assassination of President
> > > Kennedy in 1963. The poll
> > > discovered:
> > >
> > > More than half (51%) of Americans believe it is very likely or
> > > somewhat likely that government officials were "directly responsible
> > > for the assassination of President Kennedy."
> > >
> > > (end of respost)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Robert Harris
> >
> > I was talking about the intelligent educated people, not the 50% of the
> > citizens who have IQs lower than 100.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Glenn Sarlitto
> On 28 Jul 2005 21:17:31 -0400, "Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>"This particular theory [SBT] was born of necessity, not of evidence."
>>
>>
>>"Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>hehehehehehe....Now that's certainly Classic Weisberg!
>>
>>
>>
>>>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Don't know that Weisberg ever said that. Barb :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Aarrrrgggghhhhhh!!!
>>
>>POST MORTEM, Chapter 5
>>
>>"THE THREE MONKEYS" THEORY
>>
>>pg 51 para. 4
>>
>>"Thus it can be seen that the "single-bullet' theory is is not a "theory"
>>(though it is anything but fact) but is a necessity."
>
> I've been saying what I said above for years .... didn't get it from
> Weisberg, have hardly (sorry Harold, you know I loved you) read much
> Weisberg text ..... would have been amazed and amused to learn Harold
> had uttered the same phrase. I see he didn't.
hehehehehehe....I see he didn't? Who's kidding who here? You should read the
whole chapter. There's more.
>Plenty of people have noted the SBT was cobbled together out of ncessity.
Another example of the Power of Propoganda.
>Gee, I wonder why.<g>
Ditto. Why even bother with the cliche anymore as nothing in over 40 years
has been brought forward that confirms that the SBC was cobbled together out
of necessity. Weisberg tried back in 1975 when he published Post Mortem and
specifically, The Three Monkeys Theory.
Cheers!
Glenn
Barb Junkkarinen
<cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
Okay....then no later than somewhere in frame 223....
>
>If we now want to split hairs about reaction times, it could be said that he
>was hit as early as late in the exposure of 223. The lapel flip wouldn't
>have registered until the next frame (I can elaborate on this if you want,
>photography is a hobby of mine).
No need, see above.
>We could also say that the reaction of the
>left arm could have been as late as the middle part of the exposure of 225
>which would be close to two frames or somewhere around 100 miliseconds.
>
>I've read about tests however where only 1/2 of that time was required
>for a visible reaction to start in the arms.
Fastest thing known on the human body is the eye blink at 50
milliseconds from what I recall. "Visible" is the prob you have above
as for the arms or any major muscle groups. I believe it was Roger
McCarthy who put the minimum time for visible reaction of any part of
his limbs at 3 frames, others have as well.
Several things have to happen for muscles to work and limbs to make
visible movements. You'll have to show me that it is even possible in
100 milliseconds. From everything I know, I don't theeeenk so....and
at that, one has to assume you are correct that he's not *already*
making movemnets when we part of him in 224.
>
>> >
>> >> Cain't be....physiology.
>> >> You are in disagreement with the ITEK analysis and with ballistics
>> >> expert Roger McCarthy.
>> >> >
>> >> >Look particularly at JFK's left elbow. Completely down until it jerks
>up
>> >> >in front of the white dog... I mean reflection in z225. ;^)
>> >> >
>> >> >The right arm has joined it by z226. Also note the right hand has
>> >> >rotated, started cupping, and is being quickly pulled inwards towards
>> >> >JFK in z226
>> >>
>> >> Indeed he is well into the throes of reactive movements.
>> >
>> >I disagree as I said. He showed no evidence of reactive movements until
>> >after 224.
>>
>> Gee, maybe because he was behind the sign til then .... ya think?<g>
>
>Well, I heard that he wanted to change outfits before he got to the
>Trade Mart. You wouldn't have expected him to change out in the
>open would you?? ;^)
Could explain the crowds along the route....<g>
>
>No, again we can see his right hand coming out from behind the sign
>going down as it started to do before he went behind the sign.
Assumption on your part that that is what he was going to do.
> The
>left arm can be seen coming out from behind the sign just as it was
>when he went behind the sign. All before he starts reacting in 225.
I respectfully disagree. :-)
>
>>
>> >His right hand waving hand dropping down is consistent with
>> >it's movement before going behind the sign. Before going behind the sign,
>> >his left arm looks almost identical to 224 coming out (clutching his
>> >lapel, elbow down). After 224 all hell breaks loose.
>>
>> As he disappears behind the sign and we can see just a bit of his
>> head, his left arm is up,...with his hand/wrist at an awkward angle
>> toward his face.
>>
>> Tell me how, physiologically, he can be hit and then be exhibiting
>> visible major muscle group movements in the next 1/9 - 1/18 sec.
>
>Again, if you want to split hairs, you can pick whatever tests you want.
>I've seen one where people react in as little as 40 miliseconds or
>1/25th second. And there could have been as much as 100
>miliseconds (1/10th second) for the reaction to start.
Are those the tests that have equipment hooked up to the person ...
that measure the immediate little responses within the muscle that are
not *visible* to the naked eye but indicate messages are being sent
and things are starting to happen? When I have seen those types of
times, that is what has been happening. Show me something that says a
limb can make visible change in position movement is 100 milliseconds.
>
>> >> Say, Rockett, why do you think Jackie is looking at him in that head
>> >> cocked looking-at-John position when *she* becomes visible from behind
>> >> the sign a few frames earlier? And watch her hat in the Zfilm ... she
>> >> has assumed that position by 205-207 and it never changes until well
>> >> after she comes from behind the sign.
>> >
>> >I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about? She starts turning her
>> >head to the right after z165 or so and ends up looking to her right about
>> >200-205 or so. Keeps looking to her right until about z245?
>>
>> What is she looking AT from 205 til the 240's. She is famous for her
>> concerned head slightly cocked looking at John pose. And it goes with
>> her testimony.... her just looking at him wondering what could be
>> wrong, him looking like he might just have a headache with a quizzical
>> look on his face....
>
>She also thought she remembered already seeing a piece of his skull at
>that time.
SASHAY! Care to actually answer the question now? :-)
>
>Actually as we have discussed, I don't put much stock in Mrs. Kennedy's
>testimony, not because she wasn't a sharp woman, but because of the
>trauma of the event. She's obviously confused the order of events
>in her testimony and completely repressed other things such as climbing
>out on the trunk and blood splattering everywhere.
I agree....as to the order of events, it's a wonder the woman could
remember as much as she did. But we can see some of what she testified
to happening in the Z film Like what I mentioned above.
You're not the first to dive over, under and around it.
>
>I think the same thing for Mrs. Connally. Traumatic to see one's loved
>one wounded.
Yeah, yeah .... now, again, why not answer the question? What do you
see? And how does that correleate to what she DID see and was doing
during that time frame. Afterall, that was before she knew there was a
problem, before she was traumatized.
>
>> >
>> >> Just how big do you think the wound was in its pre-procedure state?
>> >
>> >I don't know. Which report are you referring to? Are you talking about
>> >Dr. Shaw's initial estimate in his OR report or later in his WC
>testimony,
>> >or something else?
>>
>> The measurement was incorrect and later corrected ... and others, like
>> Baden, kept the inaccuracy alive. One measurement was before
>> debridement, they excised the perimeter around the wound, which
>> increased it to 3cm (Shaw testified to this, somewhere in Volume 6,
>> can't remember the page...somewhere in the late 80s or early 90s, I
>> think).... which was the size of the scar, natch, when Baden looked at
>> it. But the wound was not 3cm in its "pristine" state (I think
>> Lattimer, like Baden, then stated the size of the wound made by the
>> bullet was 3cm) ... it was 1-1/2cm.
>>
>> Funny that you say here you don't know how big the wound was, yet what
>> I was replying to was you having asked me:
>
>I didn't say I didn't know how big the wound was. I just didn't know
>which report you were choosing to go by. I was guessing however that
>you would prefer Shaw's WC estimate. ;^)
I prefer the size the wound actually was after the hit and before it
was excised. No other size is relevant now is it?
And you sashayed around that too. :-)
>
>>
>> "Barb, do you think the doctor might have not been aware that the
>> bullet that made the wound was as long as the wound itself indicating
>> it entered sideways? :^)"
>>
>> You seemed to think YOU were "aware" of how big the wound was...and
>> that it was as big as the bullet. <g>
>>
>> The Carcano bullet is, indeed, a skosh over 3cm long.
>>
>> The wound wasn't. It was 1-1/2cm.
>
>In Shaw's second account. ;^)
This was long ago reconciled. During his testimony, Shaw was shown a
drawing of Connally's wound as it appeared AFTER the surgery. Shaw
noted that it was bigger than the wound before surgery ... which he
placed at 1-1/2cm. This is all at the time of the WC. He's the one who
worked on the wound. Lattimer noting later that 3cm is the same size
as a Carcano bullet and using that drawing, failing to note it was a
post-surgery drawing, hardly makes the size the wound actually was
questionable.
And the hole in the coat matches the 1-1/2cm hole in his bod.
>
>>
>> Seems you've been had by something you read by Baden, Lattimer, some
>> LN ,,,or? :-)
>>
>> Oh, and it should be within a few pages in Shaw's testimony noted
>> above that he is asked if a tumbling bullet would account for the
>> elongated entry into Connally's back .... and Shaw says that either a
>> slightly tumbling bullet or one hitting on a tangent could account for
>> it. Either or.
>>
>> By the way, the entry into the back of JFK's head was elongated ....
>> but I've never seen an LN argue the bullet had to have been tumbling
>> from hitting something else first. :-^))
>
>I personally don't think the angle of the shot was responsible for
>Connally's
>elongation.
The angle the bullet entered is the sole reason for the elongation ...
the question is why did it enter at an angle at all .... and, as Shaw
noted, it could be *either* a tumbling bullet OR had come from an
angle.
>I doubt such an angle would have produced the path through
>Connally that brought the bullet out just a little lower in his body than it
>went in?
Why not? And why should Connally's wound be any different than either
of JFK's entry wounds ... which were both angled entries.
>Even if you go by Shaw's second account of the wound's estimated
>size.
Let's go by the size the wound was established to be: 1-1/2cm before
excision. It was 3cm after excision ... that's obvious from the scar,
so it was also obviously smaller before that.
Silly point to quibble about ... in fact I haven't seen anybody
quibble about it in years.
What's Jackie doing/looking at when she comes out from behind the
sign?
Barb :-)
>
>take care, :^)
>Rockett
>
>
jwrush
Maybe he could turn it into a computer game. The kid who finds the most
number of hidden assassins on the grassy knoll and behind the fence wins the
game.
Rockett Crawford
> On 29 Jul 2005 11:25:45 -0400, "Rockett Crawford"
> <cap...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> Are those the tests that have equipment hooked up to the person ...
> that measure the immediate little responses within the muscle that are
> not *visible* to the naked eye but indicate messages are being sent
> and things are starting to happen? When I have seen those types of
> times, that is what has been happening. Show me something that says a
> limb can make visible change in position movement is 100 milliseconds.
Here's one that provide visual confirmation of muscle response.
Note visual muscular reactions in at little as 40-75 milliseconds.
------------------------------------
The following figures come from a study by Brown et al, published in the
British journal, Brain. The authors tested the latency period (time it takes
to respond) of the auditory startle reflex in 12 healthy volunteers ranging
in age from 18 to 80 years. While relaxing in a chair, the subjects were
randomly treated about every 20 minutes to a tone burst of 124 decibels, the
equivalent BANG! of a car backfire 20 feet away. The average latency period
of the relevant muscle groups in milliseconds:
Neck: 58 m/s (range 40-136 m/s)
Paraspinal muscles: 60 m/s (range: 48-120 m/s)
Forearm Flexors: 82 m/s (range: 60-200 m/s)
Forearm Extensors: 73 m/s (range 62-173 m/s)
Thumb: 99 m/s (range 75-179 m/s)
Back of Hand: 99 m/s (range 72-176 m/s)
The authors concluded:
"The most generalized startle response to the standard sound stimulus
employed consisted of eye closure, grimacing, neck flexion, trunk flexion,
slight abduction of the arms, flexion of the elbows and pronation of the
forearms. There was considerable variation in the degree to which this
response was expressed, and in some subjects only eye closure and flexion of
the neck was apparent."
------------------------------------
>>> Gee, maybe because he was behind the sign til then .... ya think?<g>
>>
>>Well, I heard that he wanted to change outfits before he got to the
>>Trade Mart. You wouldn't have expected him to change out in the
>>open would you?? ;^)
>Could explain the crowds along the route....<g>
<LOL>
May also explain crosseyed Jean's "white dog?" <ducking>
> >
> >> >> Say, Rockett, why do you think Jackie is looking at him in that head
> >> >> cocked looking-at-John position when *she* becomes visible from
behind
> >> >> the sign a few frames earlier? And watch her hat in the Zfilm ...
she
> >> >> has assumed that position by 205-207 and it never changes until well
> >> >> after she comes from behind the sign.
> >> >
> >> >I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about? She starts turning her
> >> >head to the right after z165 or so and ends up looking to her right
about
> >> >200-205 or so. Keeps looking to her right until about z245?
> >>
> >> What is she looking AT from 205 til the 240's. She is famous for her
> >> concerned head slightly cocked looking at John pose. And it goes with
> >> her testimony.... her just looking at him wondering what could be
> >> wrong, him looking like he might just have a headache with a quizzical
> >> look on his face....
> >
> >She also thought she remembered already seeing a piece of his skull at
> >that time.
>
> SASHAY! Care to actually answer the question now? :-)
Sorry, I would, but I don't see what you are saying about her cocking
her head? I've watched it close up in slow motion several times looking
for it, but she appears to just be looking to the right after her head quits
turning. Can't tell anything myself from her pillbox hat. Seems to stay
relatively still to me?
> >
> >Actually as we have discussed, I don't put much stock in Mrs. Kennedy's
> >testimony, not because she wasn't a sharp woman, but because of the
> >trauma of the event. She's obviously confused the order of events
> >in her testimony and completely repressed other things such as climbing
> >out on the trunk and blood splattering everywhere.
>
> I agree....as to the order of events, it's a wonder the woman could
> remember as much as she did. But we can see some of what she testified
> to happening in the Z film Like what I mentioned above.
>
> You're not the first to dive over, under and around it.
Wow, all at once? Are you sure you aren't confusing me with something
you saw in that Fantastic 4 movie??
> >
> >I think the same thing for Mrs. Connally. Traumatic to see one's loved
> >one wounded.
>
> Yeah, yeah .... now, again, why not answer the question? What do you
> see? And how does that correleate to what she DID see and was doing
> during that time frame. Afterall, that was before she knew there was a
> problem, before she was traumatized.
Again so you don't accuse me of ducking or something, I don't see her
doing anything beside looking to her right (and winking at Jean Hill's
motorcycle boyfriend riding in the flank behind them).
MRS. KENNEDY:
And all I remember is seeing my husband, he had this sort of quizzical
look on his face, and his hand was up, it must have been his left hand.
And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull
and I remember it was flesh colored. I remember thinking he just looked
as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood
or anything.
EQ
She saw a piece of his skull with no blood and thought he looked like
he had a "slight headache?" Bless her heart...
> I prefer the size the wound actually was after the hit and before it
> was excised. No other size is relevant now is it?
>
> And you sashayed around that too. :-)
No, I'm just noting your opinion. ;^)
>
> Let's go by the size the wound was established to be: 1-1/2cm before
> excision. It was 3cm after excision ... that's obvious from the scar,
> so it was also obviously smaller before that.
>
> Silly point to quibble about ... in fact I haven't seen anybody
> quibble about it in years.
I'm not quibbling. You have your opinion and I have mine. I don't
expect to change your mind about it. ;^)
>
> What's Jackie doing/looking at when she comes out from behind the
> sign?
To me, it looks like the same thing she was looking at before she
went behind the sign (again except for blowing a kiss at Jean
Hill's boyfriend).
take care, ;^)
Rockett
Anthony Marsh
For which event are you offering this? If you mean JFK's arm movement,
your Forearm Flexors are the ones to cite. Not really an average of 82
m/s if the range is 60-200.
Anthony Marsh
You're thinking of Sam McClung.
Anthony Marsh
The one I posted is in BASIC. I also wrote a version in PROMAL and
compiled one for the Commodore.
> Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
Fine. But the hole was actually in the right sleeve of the jacket and the
HSCA examination placed the scar in the armpit, just UNDER the shoulder.
> Rockett Crawford
tomnln
Why didn't you address the Destruction of evidence question I asked you
earlier?
"jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote in message
news:42e9...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
Anthony Marsh
So, your concept is that no scientific test is accurate even if it shows
a probability of 99.9999% because it could just be random static?
Anthony Marsh
> On 28 Jul 2005 23:28:42 -0400, "jwrush" <jwr...@advantas.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Gary Combs" <glcc...@chartertn.net> wrote in message
>>news:42e9...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>
>>>Rush,
>>> Even you are smart enough to know that will never happen, for what the
>>>Federal Government wants, the Federal Government gets. I do believe that
>>>fingerprint in the TSBD should not be labeled "unidentified", but Max
>>>Wallace. And Loren Hall's recording in the judges' chamber should be
>>>discovered and put in public domain. And that should have been Eugene Hale
>>>Barding, Big Jim Garrison would tell you about him, if not for him dying.
>>>Just speculation, has you know, but you asked for opinion so I provided
>>>one.
>>>
>>>gc
>>
>>I think liberals in the government would like to arrest somebody for the
>>crime, other than Oswald. They had a chance with Jimmy Carter, but they
>>didn't do it. They had a chance with Bill Clinton but they didn't do it.
>>There is no evidence for anyone other than Oswald. If there was any
>>evidence, there are plenty of liberals in government who would like to
>>arrest someone after all these years.
>>
>
>
> Be careful here. Although the conspiracist culture leans left, people
> we might call "mainstream liberals" have never been conspiracist.
>
> I'm talking here about the Mainstream Media, Democratic Attorneys
> General, and so on.
>
> .John
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Correct. The Eastern Establishment media denies conspiracy. They want
Americans to believe that such things are not possible in this country.