single bullet theory is not true says Soily [Archive] - Page 4

Dave Rogers

11th October 2010, 06:29 AM

Tell me again what the three factors are that I'm ignoring.

Firstly, you're ignoring the angle of Oswald's body in the vertical plane parallel to the direction of view of the camera. Secondly, you're ignoring the fact that the apparent angle of the shadow on the photograph is very different to the actual angle of the shadow on the ground, and made not the slightest effort even to construct a methodology for converting between the two. Thirdly, you're ignoring the fact that Oswald's head is closer to the camera than the shadow of Oswald's head, and that therefore the apparent movement of the shadow due to a movement of Oswald's head will be greater than the apparent movement of Oswald's head that caused it. In effect, therefore, you're ignoring the effects of the angle of Oswald's body in a plane perpendicular to the direction of view. And, finally, I'm not entirely convinced you're accounting for the camera position correctly.

Now, stop with the pointless questions already. Go away, study the solid geometry of the real objects that form the photograph, and come back with a proper theory or a retraction. At the moment, you've got a worthless oversimplification.

Dave

RoboTimbo

11th October 2010, 06:32 AM

Do you think the fact that the items mentioned (stairpost and LHO amongst others) are larger in the second photo than the first that this is due to the camera being closer or the original negative being enlarged and cropped? Or do you think there is another reason?

Are you working from the original negative? Or a digital pic you found on the internet?

Tolls

11th October 2010, 08:05 AM

Tolls Look at the photos in the link you have provided above. Is LHO different sizes in each photo?

Look at the animation, which actually superimposes those two images, so no eyeballing innacuracies. He is the same height. The camera has moved a bit, but so has LHO. He's more forward in his stance in one, and more laid back in the other.

Honestly, use some software.

http://img412.imageshack.us/i/rightphoto1.jpg/

Photo showing the relationship of the right panel post to the fence behind it. It's the same in all three photos.

Anybody diagree?

Well, it is the same post, but in at least two of the three photos it is clear the camera has moved fractionally since other parts of the photo no longer match up when matching up, say, the stair post. I can point to he stair post and say "look, it's the same in these two pictures", and completely disregard the fact that everything else doesn't match when they're lined up.

Fourbrick

11th October 2010, 11:18 AM

Look at the animation, which actually superimposes those two images, so no eyeballing innacuracies. He is the same height. The camera has moved a bit, but so has LHO. He's more forward in his stance in one, and more laid back in the other.

Did you answer the question, Tolls? is Oswald a different size in one photo to the other?

Well, it is the same post, but in at least two of the three photos it is clear the camera has moved fractionally since other parts of the photo no longer match up when matching up, say, the stair post. I can point to he stair post and say "look, it's the same in these two pictures", and completely disregard the fact that everything else doesn't match when they're lined up.

Tolls. The only two parts of the photo which show two items which are able to be judged for depth i.e. the stairpost/fence panel (and the side of the house in the same photo) and the right panel post/ fence paling are identical in all three photos. That shows that the second photo cannot be taken by a camera that has moved position. If the camera had gone forward, backwards or sideways, one or both of those two views would be different. They aren't. The only thing that is different are the verticals in all photos which are at slightly different angles.

Fourbrick

11th October 2010, 11:29 AM

Firstly, you're ignoring the angle of Oswald's body in the vertical plane parallel to the direction of view of the camera. Secondly, you're ignoring the fact that the apparent angle of the shadow on the photograph is very different to the actual angle of the shadow on the ground, and made not the slightest effort even to construct a methodology for converting between the two.

The angle of the shadow on the ground is the same in all photos. (or does the grounsd suddenly change levels between photos?)

Thirdly, you're ignoring the fact that Oswald's head is closer to the camera than the shadow of Oswald's head, and that therefore the apparent movement of the shadow due to a movement of Oswald's head will be greater than the apparent movement of Oswald's head that caused it.

Rubbish

In effect, therefore, you're ignoring the effects of the angle of Oswald's body in a plane perpendicular to the direction of view. And, finally, I'm not entirely convinced you're accounting for the camera position correctly.

You're right not to be convinced about my accounting for the camera position. Where have I tried to account for the camera position?

Now, stop with the pointless questions already. Go away, study the solid geometry of the real objects that form the photograph, and come back with a proper theory or a retraction. At the moment, you've got a worthless oversimplification.

Glad the questions are getting up your nose, Dave, I know you don't like answering them.

I assume you mean the "photographs" rather than the "photograph".

Show me where am I wrong about the three sections (left and right)shown above. If they are the same (just love your superficially the same!) then the camera wasn't moved. if the camera wasn't moved then somebody enlarged at least two of the photos. If somebody did that, why?

uke2se

11th October 2010, 12:31 PM

Tolls. The only two parts of the photo which show two items which are able to be judged for depth i.e. the stairpost/fence panel (and the side of the house in the same photo) and the right panel post/ fence paling are identical in all three photos. That shows that the second photo cannot be taken by a camera that has moved position. If the camera had gone forward, backwards or sideways, one or both of those two views would be different. They aren't. The only thing that is different are the verticals in all photos which are at slightly different angles.

No, I wouldn't say they were identical based on your photo analysis. We are talking about such a slight change that it might be impossible to eyeball at all. In your analysis - which I realize was just a quick example to make us understand what you mean - your lines do not trace the fence lines.

Furthermore, looking at the underside of the top fence board, it is possible to measure an width increase of the shadow consistent with a camera somewhat dropped down and tilted up. This isn't enough evidence to prove such a movement, but it is enough to say that your claim of identical fence lines in both photos just aren't true based on eyeballing.

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 12:59 AM

Glad the questions are getting up your nose, Dave, I know you don't like answering them.

You seem to have the wrong view entirely of this conversation. You're not debating with a representative of the official story; you're trying to convince a skeptic that you have something worth looking at. So far, you're failing dismally, and being obnoxious is not exactly going to help.

Dave

Tolls

12th October 2010, 02:09 AM

Did you answer the question, Tolls? is Oswald a different size in one photo to the other?

He is the same height.
His right leg matches up, and his hips are at the same location.
The only difference is that in the one with the rifle in his left hand he has his left foot levelish with his right foot (relative to our position). In the one with the rifle in his right hand his left foot has moved back.

Can you guess what effect (slight though it is) this would have on the apparent size of his head?

Tolls. The only two parts of the photo which show two items which are able to be judged for depth i.e. the stairpost/fence panel (and the side of the house in the same photo) and the right panel post/ fence paling are identical in all three photos. That shows that the second photo cannot be taken by a camera that has moved position. If the camera had gone forward, backwards or sideways, one or both of those two views would be different. They aren't. The only thing that is different are the verticals in all photos which are at slightly different angles.

It has moved slightly due to the effect around the rest of the photo. You can line up several different things and, because the camera was almost in the same position in both shots, you'll see other stuff move out of line.
I can line up the whatever-it-is behind his head (window?, stair openign thing?) and now the stairs/post are out of line. (Though it does show the focus is out slightly on the right-hand-gun photo).

This is almost the limit with these photos, though, because they are frankly absurdly low-res to be doing any sort of detailed analysis on.

Belz...

12th October 2010, 02:22 AM

Not sophistry, Belz. I don't know who did it, if it was done, so how could I possibly comment what their abilities are?

First off, you don't even know what happened, so you're just musing, really.

Belz...

12th October 2010, 02:26 AM

Dave. let's ignore the shadows.

So when things don't go your way, we ignore the shadows and then come right back to it one post later ?

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 02:28 AM

He is the same height.

But have you answered the question yet? Is he the same size?

Dave

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 03:34 AM

So when things don't go your way, we ignore the shadows and then come right back to it one post later ?

No, Belz. Dave seems to think that the angle o0f the shadows isn't totally different. That's why I tried to show him the other things wrong with the photos.

By the way, have you anything worthwhile to contribute rather than coming on with daft comments? I you have, you are welcome to join in.

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 03:37 AM

But have you answered the question yet? Is he the same size?

Dave

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/LHO/oswald.GIF

LHO is the same size in each photo? God, I better get a new monitor

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 03:42 AM

Additional problems with the photos.

In the second photo, everything (including LHO) is approx 20% bigger than in the first photo.

He is standing in the same position see position of the shadow of his head in both photos, therefore he should be taller in the second photo than he is in the first. He is appears smaller. Anybody tell me why?

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 03:50 AM

Forget it.

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 04:00 AM

It has moved slightly due to the effect around the rest of the photo. You can line up several different things and, because the camera was almost in the same position in both shots, you'll see other stuff move out of line.
I can line up the whatever-it-is behind his head (window?, stair openign thing?) and now the stairs/post are out of line. (Though it does show the focus is out slightly on the right-hand-gun photo).

Show me where Tolls.

This is almost the limit with these photos, though, because they are frankly absurdly low-res to be doing any sort of detailed analysis on.

There are so many anomalies with these photographs, I wonder how anybody can believe them. (I suppose I should list them but it would take me a quite a long time) However that's the beholders choice.

Just as a matter of interest, what's your take on the difference in the angle of the shadowsin photo one and two?

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 04:01 AM

LHO is the same size in each photo? God, I better get a new monitor

New brain, maybe. Measure the distance from the top of LHO's head to his right knee. Post your results. Show me this 20% difference you keep talking about.

Your problem, at every turn, is that you're too lazy to measure anything, so you post your superficial and erroneous impressions as fact then try to harangue everybody else into accepting them uncritically. And, for some reason, you think you've got us on the run. We're not running. We're getting a bit bored.

Dave

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 04:03 AM

In the second photo, everything (including LHO) is approx 20% bigger than in the first photo.

He is standing in the same position see position of the shadow of his head in both photos, therefore he should be taller in the second photo than he is in the first. He is appears smaller. Anybody tell me why?

More interestingly, is there anyone except Fourbrick who can't see that he's claiming that Oswald is both bigger and smaller in the second photo?

Dave

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 04:10 AM

New brain, maybe.[?QUOTE]

Who's being obnoxious now, Dave? Measure the distance from the top of LHO's head to his right knee. Post your results. Show me this 20% difference you keep talking about.

I've already provided these measurements. How many more do you want?

Your problem, at every turn, is that you're too lazy to measure anything, so you post your superficial and erroneous impressions as fact then try to harangue everybody else into accepting them uncritically.

I have provided the measurements required, Dave. What have you provided apart from denials of what I have shown? Show me which of the measurements I have provided are wrong.

And, for some reason, you think you've got us on the run. We're not running. We're getting a bit bored.

Where did I say I think I've got you on the run, Dave?

I'm asking you to show me where I'm wrong.

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 04:15 AM

More interestingly, is there anyone except Fourbrick who can't see that he's claiming that Oswald is both bigger and smaller in the second photo?

Dave
No, Dave. What I am saying, and you seem to have a problem understanding, is that if the second photo is taken closer, (which I say it isn't,) then Oswald should be taller, because everything else in the second picture is 20% bigger. He isn't. A silly mistake. as he is actually smaller, (or are you going to deny that as well?)

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 04:18 AM

I'm asking you to show me where I'm wrong.

OK, you're wrong in claiming that Oswald is both larger and smaller in the second photo. In fact, you'd be wrong in claiming he was either larger or smaller. You're wrong in claiming that the distance between Oswald's head and his knee is different by 20%; it's 197 pixels in the left photo and 196 pixels in the right one, within the margin of error. You're wrong in assuming that a three degree movement of the camera angle would necessarily mean a three degree change in the angle of the shadow as seen in the photograph. And, finally, you're far beyond wrong in thinking that the one measurement you've actually posted - a difference in the angle of the shadow as measured on the photograph - is any kind of evidence of doctoring of the photographs, because it's been shown beyond rational doubt that Oswald's stance differs between the photographs too.

Really, this is getting like some kind of bizarre performance art. How stupid are you trying to appear here? Is there some sort of prize?

Dave

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 04:28 AM

OK, you're wrong in claiming that Oswald is both larger and smaller in the second photo. In fact, you'd be wrong in claiming he was either larger or smaller.

See post above.

You're wrong in claiming that the distance between Oswald's head and his knee is different by 20%; it's 197 pixels in the left photo and 196 pixels in the right one, within the margin of error.

I'm not counting pixels, Dave, I'm measuring actual details in the photos

.You're wrong in assuming that a three degree movement of the camera angle would necessarily mean a three degree change in the angle of the shadow as seen in the photograph.

Where did I say a change in the three degree camera angle would necessarily mean a three degree change in the angle of the shadow? Stop misquoting me.

And, finally, you're far beyond wrong in thinking that the one measurement you've actually posted - a difference in the angle of the shadow as measured on the photograph - is any kind of evidence of doctoring of the photographs, because it's been shown beyond rational doubt that Oswald's stance differs between the photographs too

No, Dave, I didn't only supply one measurement, I supplied at least four, or didn't you look properly?
Regarding his stance, of course his stance is different in all three photos. Who said they weren't?

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 04:30 AM

Oh, and while we're at it, the centre of the shadow of Oswald's head is 28 pixels to the left of the centre of his head in the left photo, and 29 to the left of it in the right one. Assuming Oswald's head is at about the same height and depth into the picture in the two, that means that the angle of the sun is the same to within the resolution of the photographs.

Measurements, Fourbrick. Vague handwaving statements aren't worth a damn.

Dave

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 04:37 AM

I'm not counting pixels, Dave, I'm measuring actual details in the photos

Pixel counting is an accurate way to measure details in the photos. If a distance is the same number of pixels, then it's the same distance.

OK, so: I've measured the photos, and found that Oswald is the same size in both, from the fact that his head is 197±1 pixels above his left knee. I've also determined that the angle of the sun, as seen from the shadow, is exactly the same in both photographs, as the shadow of his head is 28±1 pixels to the left of, and 206±1 pixels below, his head. As a check that the scales of the photographs are the same, I measured the vertical separation between horizontals of the fence, and found both to be 46±1 pixels. Your 20% difference in scales is entirely imaginary.

Therefore, your points are refuted. Game over.

Dave

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 04:59 AM

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 05:03 AM

Pixel counting is an accurate way to measure details in the photos. If a distance is the same number of pixels, then it's the same distance.

OK, so: I've measured the photos, and found that Oswald is the same size in both, from the fact that his head is 197±1 pixels above his left knee.

So despite what the photos show, you really think that LHO is the same size in both photos?

I've also determined that the angle of the sun, as seen from the shadow, is exactly the same in both photographs, as the shadow of his head is 28±1 pixels to the left of, and 206±1 pixels below, his head. As a check that the scales of the photographs are the same, I measured the vertical separation between horizontals of the fence, and found both to be 46±1 pixels. Your 20% difference in scales is entirely imaginary.

No it isn't. see photos above.

Therefore, your points are refuted. Game over.

No, they're not and you wish.

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 05:22 AM

Hey, Dave, measure the stairpost where I have I have highlighted in the second photo and tell me that it isn't 20% ±1 than it is the first photo.(i.e "1x" and "2x")

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 05:23 AM

Not so, Dave. Rreal measurements of the photos count, not pixels.

That's a Stundie. The pixels are equally spaced on the photos, therefore any measurement can be expressed in pixels; and, since the pixels are the photo, only a measurement in pixels is a "real" measurement.

Show me where my measurements on the above photos are wrong.

Firstly, you're measuring the wrong angle. The angle of the shadow on the ground, as I've repeated ad infinitum, is not determined solely by the angle of the sun, but by that plus the angle at which Oswald is standing. However, the angle between an object and a shadow of that object is determined solely by the angle of the sun, provided the shadow is projected on to the same plane and the camera angle is unchanged. From the measurements I just posted, you can see that in both cases the angle from Oswald's head to the shadow of his head is 7.75º, so there is no discrepancy in the shadow angle.

As for your measurements of Oswald's height, you've guessed where his right foot should be, outside the frame of the picture, and based your height measurement on that guess, and you've guessed it wrong; from a screen dump, the length from Oswald's knee to the tip of his toe is 93 pixels in the left photograph, and you've guessed it as 122 pixels in the right one. Your guess is about 30% out. From here on, you're basically denying the obvious.

It would be fair, I suppose, for you to ask why I haven't bothered to do this till now. The simple answer is that I couldn't be bothered. In my experience, conspiracy theorists are lazy, stupid liars; liars because they make things up and insist they're true, lazy because they can't be bothered to do a proper analysis of the evidence, and stupid because they post the evidence anyway even though it refutes their claims. I saw no reason to suspect you were any different, and I still don't. I've measured your photographs, and found out you're completely, utterly wrong. If you have the gall to insist, on the basis of a refusal to measure anything relevant, that your guesses are better than my measurements, then I don't have anything more to say.

Dave

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 05:31 AM

That's a Stundie. The pixels are equally spaced on the photos, therefore any measurement can be expressed in pixels; and, since the pixels are the photo, only a measurement in pixels is a "real" measurement.

Firstly, you're measuring the wrong angle. The angle of the shadow on the ground, as I've repeated ad infinitum, is not determined solely by the angle of the sun, but by that plus the angle at which Oswald is standing. However, the angle between an object and a shadow of that object is determined solely by the angle of the sun, provided the shadow is projected on to the same plane and the camera angle is unchanged. From the measurements I just posted, you can see that in both cases the angle from Oswald's head to the shadow of his head is 7.75º, so there is no discrepancy in the shadow angle.

You're right aboout the angle from the shadow of his head to the top of his head, but I am considering the whole of the shadow. This isn't the same.

As for your measurements of Oswald's height, you've guessed where his right foot should be, outside the frame of the picture, and based your height measurement on that guess, and you've guessed it wrong; from a screen dump, the length from Oswald's knee to the tip of his toe is 93 pixels in the left photograph, and you've guessed it as 122 pixels in the right one. Your guess is about 30% out. From here on, you're basically denying the obvious.

No Dave, I'm measuring the fixed objects inthe pictures. The stairpost is about 20% bigger in the second picture.

It would be fair, I suppose, for you to ask why I haven't bothered to do this till now. The simple answer is that I couldn't be bothered. In my experience, conspiracy theorists are lazy, stupid liars; liars because they make things up and insist they're true, lazy because they can't be bothered to do a proper analysis of the evidence, and stupid because they post the evidence anyway even though it refutes their claims. I saw no reason to suspect you were any different, and I still don't.

I've measured your photographs, and found out you're completely, utterly wrong. If you have the gall to insist, on the basis of a refusal to measure anything relevant, that your guesses are better than my measurements, then I don't have anything more to say.

Dave

No insults there, then. That makes a change.

You better take your football and go home, Dave, that's what they always used to when they were losing.

Have you answered the above question yet?

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 05:36 AM

You're right aboout the angle from the shadow of his head to the top of his head,

Then the rest doesn't matter. The positions of the shadows are consistent, so you have no argument left. The rest is just obsessive nitpicking.

Dave

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 05:38 AM

Then the rest doesn't matter. The positions of the shadows are consistent, so you have no argument left. The rest is just obsessive nitpicking.

Dave

Notice you still don't answer questions, Dave.

What a cop-out. Better take your ball home, Dave.

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 05:45 AM

Notice you still don't answer questions, Dave.

What a cop-out. Better take your ball home, Dave.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/147644cb4584e798ad.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21304)

"Come back! I'll bite your legs off!"

Dave

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 05:55 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/147644cb4584e798ad.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21304)

"Come back! I'll bite your legs off!"

Dave

Good one, Dave. Shows you haven't got a leg to stand on, and relatively 'armless.

RoboTimbo

12th October 2010, 06:10 AM

That's a Stundie. The pixels are equally spaced on the photos, therefore any measurement can be expressed in pixels; and, since the pixels are the photo, only a measurement in pixels is a "real" measurement.

Firstly, you're measuring the wrong angle. The angle of the shadow on the ground, as I've repeated ad infinitum, is not determined solely by the angle of the sun, but by that plus the angle at which Oswald is standing. However, the angle between an object and a shadow of that object is determined solely by the angle of the sun, provided the shadow is projected on to the same plane and the camera angle is unchanged. From the measurements I just posted, you can see that in both cases the angle from Oswald's head to the shadow of his head is 7.75º, so there is no discrepancy in the shadow angle.

As for your measurements of Oswald's height, you've guessed where his right foot should be, outside the frame of the picture, and based your height measurement on that guess, and you've guessed it wrong; from a screen dump, the length from Oswald's knee to the tip of his toe is 93 pixels in the left photograph, and you've guessed it as 122 pixels in the right one. Your guess is about 30% out. From here on, you're basically denying the obvious.

It would be fair, I suppose, for you to ask why I haven't bothered to do this till now. The simple answer is that I couldn't be bothered. In my experience, conspiracy theorists are lazy, stupid liars; liars because they make things up and insist they're true, lazy because they can't be bothered to do a proper analysis of the evidence, and stupid because they post the evidence anyway even though it refutes their claims. I saw no reason to suspect you were any different, and I still don't. I've measured your photographs, and found out you're completely, utterly wrong. If you have the gall to insist, on the basis of a refusal to measure anything relevant, that your guesses are better than my measurements, then I don't have anything more to say.

Dave

Nice analysis, Dave. I wonder what the CTers will try next now that this has been slam-dunked and put away to bed.

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 06:16 AM

Slam dunked my ***. Read the posts which followed that post. Questions in which Dave, didn't answer.

You're another one who doesn't answer questions.

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 06:44 AM

Hey, Dave, measure the stairpost where I have I have highlighted in the second photo and tell me that it isn't 20% ±1 than it is the first photo.(i.e "1x" and "2x")

In the photos you've shown in post #768, no, it isn't; it's exactly the same. I've just noticed, though, that in the photos that you've used for your measurements it's different. All the measurements I've taken come from the photos in post #768, in which the stairpost is the same length, Oswald is the same height, the separation of the fence horizontals is the same, and the shadow angle from Oswald's head to the shadow of his head is the same. You seem to be working from a different pair of photographs, on your Imageshack account, of which the right one has been scaled up 20%. Which one's the original?

Dave

ETA: As if I hadn't already wasted enough time on this idiocy. I just went back through the thread. There are, indeed, two sets of photos with different relative scales between the two we're talking about. There's a set of three that Fourbrick first posted in post #350, in which features in the middle photo are about 20% larger than corresponding features in the left photo, and there's a set of two that Fourbrick first posted in post #494, in which the two photos scale exactly the same. Fourbrick's been working from the 20% different ones.

It makes no odds as regards the shadow angle, which is exactly the same in both. But it's confused the issue over the scale of the photographs, which is different depending on which one we work from. I have no idea which set is correctly scaled from the originals. But all the confusion is down to Fourbrick posting two different sets of pictures.

Fourbrick, my lad, I think you've got a bit of explaining to do.

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 06:58 AM

In the photos you've shown in post #768, no, it isn't; it's exactly the same. I've just noticed, though, that in the photos that you've used for your measurements it's different. All the measurements I've taken come from the photos in post #768, in which the stairpost is the same length, Oswald is the same height, the separation of the fence horizontals is the same, and the shadow angle from Oswald's head to the shadow of his head is the same. You seem to be working from a different pair of photographs, on your Imageshack account, of which the right one has been scaled up 20%. Which one's the original?

Dave

You do make things hard work, Dave.

Let's take it slowly.

There are three photos

The first (or left) photo.
The second (or middle or right if you are just looking at two photos)
The third (or right) photo.

In the second ( right or middle) photo, objects (e.g. the stairpost) are approx 20% larger than in the first ( or left photo)

Do you agree?

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 07:02 AM

Fourbrick, see edit above. Why have you posted two sets of photos with different relative scaling in posts #350 and #494?

Dave

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 07:10 AM

Fourbrick, see edit above. Why have you posted two sets of photos with different relative scaling in posts #350 and #494?

Dave

I didn't change the scaling, Dave. That's the fault of the original supplier. As it happens those two photos were to show the angle of the shadows not the scale of the rest of the photos.) I did tell you to print off a copy of the three photos, but you were too idle.

Do I hear the sound of pedals going backwards?

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 07:23 AM

http://www.copweb.be/images/CE-133-all.jpg

Just to remind you.

Worm

12th October 2010, 07:28 AM

But here's the one you quoted above, where the second photo is scaled differently. Both from you - so your problem.
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/LHO/oswald.GIF

LHO is the same size in each photo? God, I better get a new monitor

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 07:44 AM

But here's the one you quoted above, where the second photo is scaled differently. Both from you - so your problem.

You are quite right, Worm. However those two photos were originally shown just to point out the difference in the shadows. They were then re-used to ask a question about the differences in size in the actual photo. My questions were never answered.

I should have just used the three photos shown in post 796 in all my posts.

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 07:45 AM

I didn't change the scaling, Dave. That's the fault of the original supplier. As it happens those two photos were to show the angle of the shadows not the scale of the rest of the photos.) I did tell you to print off a copy of the three photos, but you were too idle.

So you think that printing off a set of photos changes the fact that you've posted two sets with different relative scales? That's an interesting opinion. How does that work, exactly?

Do I hear the sound of pedals going backwards?

No, but you should - your own. You've posted two different sets of photos, with different relative scaling. Where did you get the two sets, and which one is the original scaling? If you don't know, then anything you've said based on differences in scale between the left and middle photos is invalid. As we've already eliminated the angle of the shadows - because, however much you may want to deny it, it's exactly the same between the two photos - then you're left a little bit short of a claim.

You provided both sets of photos to this forum. Which set has the right scaling?

Dave

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 07:46 AM

See post 795, Dave. the ones i suggested you print off earlier, but you couldn't be bothered.

Happy now?

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 07:48 AM

As we've already eliminated the angle of the shadows - because, however much you may want to deny it, it's exactly the same between the two photos - then you're left a little bit short of a claim.

No, we haven't, Dave. You have but you are wrong.

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 07:49 AM

See post 795, Dave. the ones i suggested you print off earlier, but you couldn't be bothered.

Happy now?

No. Where did you get the other set, that Worm reposted in #796, and why do you think that one set is correctly scaled and not the other?

Dave

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 07:51 AM

No, we haven't, Dave. You have but you are wrong.

The shadow angle is 7.75º in both pictures, as I posted. Your measurements are based on a guess of the position of Oswald's right foot, and the differences between them are due to the difference in Oswald's stance. Everybody but you can see this.

Dave

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 07:56 AM

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 07:58 AM

No. Where did you get the other set, that Worm reposted in #796, and why do you think that one set is correctly scaled and not the other?

Dave

Can't remember, Dave, but the photos shown in the above 795 are copies of the originals, so they are the ones to use.

carlitos

12th October 2010, 07:59 AM

At this point, a mostly-lurker to this thread might ask "so what?" What exactly is anyone trying to prove by this photo analysis?

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 08:01 AM

Can't remember, Dave, but the photos shown in the above 795 are copies of the originals, so they are the ones to use.

How do you know that?

Dave

RoboTimbo

12th October 2010, 08:02 AM

No, we haven't, Dave. You have but you are wrong.

You're still clutching at straws that turn to smoke. Do this test, get a fellow CTer friend to take a picture of you standing at two different angles and post the two pictures here. Be sure that your shadow on the ground is visible in both photos.

I'll make it even easier for you. Go outside while the sun is up and just observe your own shadow as you stand in different postures.

RoboTimbo

12th October 2010, 08:04 AM

At this point, a mostly-lurker to this thread might ask "so what?" What exactly is anyone trying to prove by this photo analysis?

I think Fourbrick is actually Jack White. He uses the same photo analysis techniques.

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 08:04 AM

At this point, a mostly-lurker to this thread might ask "so what?" What exactly is anyone trying to prove by this photo analysis?

If you don't know why, then it's no use me explaining.

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 08:08 AM

You're still clutching at straws that turn to smoke. Do this test, get a fellow CTer friend to take a picture of you standing at two different angles and post the two pictures here. Be sure that your shadow on the ground is visible in both photos.

I'll make it even easier for you. Go outside while the sun is up and just observe your own shadow as you stand in different postures.

Robo. You just don't seem to comprehend. Stance does not alter the angle of the shadow, It just changes the shape of the shadow.

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 08:09 AM

Tell you what to do, Dave. Print off the above photo in 795.

Then on the first photo, draw a line from the shadow of LHO's neck, down through the centre of the body line so it comes out in the clear area below the photos.

Then on the second photo, do exactly the same for the second photo.

Then draw a line between the two lines below the photos (you keeping up?)

Measure the two angles and then you can work out the angle of difference between the two lines.

You should be able to do that.

How are you proposing I determine the "centre of the body line"? Guess?

OK, let's look at the photos that you think are the correctly scaled ones. If I measure the position of Oswald's nose, it's exactly above the outside of his right leg at knee level in the left hand photo, and 20 pixels to our right in the second. The height of his nose above his knee is about 250 pixels, so the difference in the angle of his stance, defined that way, is about 4.5º. That will result in the shadow being a different shape, because the shape of his stance is different, but we don't know what the change in the apparent angle of his shadow will be without knowing the angle of the sun.

So, did it have to be more or less than 4.5º for Oswald to have killed Kennedy?

Dave

RoboTimbo

12th October 2010, 08:10 AM

Robo. You just don't seem to comprehend. Stance does not alter the angle of the shadow, It just changes the shape of the shadow.

Waiting for you to post those two pictures.

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 08:10 AM

How do you know that?

Dave

If you want to discuss them with me, Dave, they are the ones to use. They are the ones I posted when you asked me to post my measurements. If you don't , please yourself.

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 08:11 AM

Robo. You just don't seem to comprehend. Stance does not alter the angle of the shadow, It just changes the shape of the shadow.

Oh, God, please, no.

The stance does not alter the angle between an object and the shadow of that object, and that angle has been shown to be the same between the two photographs. It alters the angle the shadow makes on the ground, which has been shown to be different between the two photographs. To suggest that it can change the shape but not the angle of the shadow is absurd; the shape of the shadow is what you think you're measuring its angle from.

Dave

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 08:12 AM

Waiting for you to post those two pictures.

You'll wait an awful long time, Robo. Almost as long as I've waited for you to answer my question.

RoboTimbo

12th October 2010, 08:15 AM

You'll wait an awful long time, Robo. Almost as long as I've waited for you to answer my question.

So far you've been wrong about everything. This must be one thing that you don't want to prove to yourself that you're wrong about. Ok with me.

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 08:16 AM

Oh, God, please, no.

The stance does not alter the angle between an object and the shadow of that object,

That's what I've just said.

and that angle has been shown to be the same between the two photographs.

Only in your mind.

It alters the angle the shadow makes on the ground, which has been shown to be different between the two photographs.

Precisely my argument.I thought you said the angles were the same

To suggest that it can change the shape but not the angle of the shadow is absurd; the shape of the shadow is what you think you're measuring its angle from.

Dave

You tried doing what I suggested, Dave?

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 08:17 AM

If you want to discuss them with me, Dave, they are the ones to use. They are the ones I posted when you asked me to post my measurements. If you don't , please yourself.

How do you know that the set of photographs you posted originally in post #350 has the correct scaling, and that the set you posted in post #449 has had the scaling changed? How do you know that it's not the set in #350 that's had the scaling changed? And why should anybody believe you?

Incidentally, the scaling doesn't change the angles, so the angle is still the same for both photographs. So I'm happy to discuss angles for either set of photographs. It's just your point about the 20% difference in scale, whatever that point was, that's now suspect. If you want to advance any argument concerning differences in scale, you'll have to provide evidence that the photos you posted in #449 have had their scales altered and the photos you posted in #350 haven't.

Dave

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 08:18 AM

So far you've been wrong about everything. This must be one thing that you don't want to prove to yourself that you're wrong about. Ok with me.

You got anything constructive to say, Robo? You haven't so far.

CurtC

12th October 2010, 08:18 AM

Robo. You just don't seem to comprehend. Stance does not alter the angle of the shadow, It just changes the shape of the shadow.

I think this is the heart of the problem. His stance most definitely alters the angle of the shadows - the apparent angle that the shadow makes on the ground. How could it not?

Until we get past this little point, I don't think there's any sense in addressing anything else.

Fourbrick, face it. Do some experiments. Prove this to yourself. If you're standing differently, even leaving your feet in the same place, the shadow's apparent angle will change. That's because the angle you're talking about is the line that connects the head's shadow with the feet. If the head moves sideways, the shadow's angle will change.

If the head moves sideways, the shadow's angle will change.

If the head moves sideways, the shadow's angle will change.

Repeat this to yourself until you accept it.

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 08:21 AM

That's what I've just said.

No it isn't.

Only in your mind.

I posted the numbers, and anybody can check them. You haven't posted any of your own, so this is simple, mindless denialism.

Precisely my argument.I thought you said the angles were the same

No you didn't. I've been perfectly clear that the difference in Oswald's stance results in a different shadow on the ground.

You tried doing what I suggested, Dave?

Yes, although I didn't do it in as stupid a way as you suggested. The result, if you could be bothered to scroll up, is that Oswald's body is angled about four and a half degrees to our right in the second photo, and that this is the cause of the different shape of the shadow.

Dave

RoboTimbo

12th October 2010, 08:22 AM

You got anything constructive to say, Robo? You haven't so far.

Have you stepped outside yet to see what your shadow does? Get a move on.

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 08:23 AM

How do you know that the set of photographs you posted originally in post #350 has the correct scaling, and that the set you posted in post #449 has had the scaling changed? How do you know that it's not the set in #350 that's had the scaling changed? And why should anybody believe you?

I don't,

Incidentally, the scaling doesn't change the angles,
Where did I say it did?

so the angle is still the same for both photographs.
only in your opinion.

So I'm happy to discuss angles for either set of photographs. It's just your point about the 20% difference in scale, whatever that point was, that's now suspect. If you want to advance any argument concerning differences in scale, you'll have to provide evidence that the photos you posted in #449 have had their scales altered and the photos you posted in #350 haven't.

Dave

Dave, use the photo in 795. Now that's not difficult, even for you. Just print the photo off and then we'll discuss the 20% difference in size. Glad you'll be happy to discuss them. (Or maybe you just want to play semantic silly buggers.)

carlitos

12th October 2010, 08:24 AM

If you don't know why, then it's no use me explaining.

I was being serious. Why would the apparent angles of shadows in photos taken of Lee Harvey Oswald in his back yard prove anything about the Kennedy assassination?

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 08:29 AM

I was being serious. Why would the apparent angles of shadows in photos taken of Lee Harvey Oswald in his back yard prove anything about the Kennedy assassination?

Apologies, Carlitos. I thought mistakenly that you were being sarcastic. If the photos have been tampered with then it could show that there was a conspiracy.

"The authenticity of the photographs was also addressed by Robert Blakey, who chaired the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). He acknowledged then that if the photos had been faked, it would not only imply that Oswald had been framed but, because of the technical sophistication involved, it would also indicate the existence of a larger conspiracy to cover up the crime, and to support the “lone gunman” scenario."

RoboTimbo

12th October 2010, 08:32 AM

I was being serious. Why would the apparent angles of shadows in photos taken of Lee Harvey Oswald in his back yard prove anything about the Kennedy assassination?

But, Soily, if the backyard photos are proved to be fakes, then the whole case falls apart.

Even your fellow CTists don't think they were faked. Of course, they've all fled.

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 08:33 AM

I don't,

Then any differences in scale are meaningless, because we know one of your sets of photos has been re-scaled.

only in your opinion.

No, by measurement. A line drawn from Oswald's head to the shadow of Oswald's head lies at an angle of 7.75º to the vertical on both photographs. Your refusal to accept it doesn't make it false, it just makes you delusional or dishonest.

Dave, use the photo in 795. Now that's not difficult, even for you. Just print the photo off and then we'll discuss the 20% difference in size. Glad you'll be happy to discuss them. (Or maybe you just want to play semantic silly buggers.)

The middle photo in post #795 shows all features about 20% larger than the left photo in post #795. I don't need to print it out to do the measurements. So, since we know that one of your sets of photos has been rescaled, what do you think this proves?

Dave

carlitos

12th October 2010, 08:37 AM

Apologies, Carlitos. I thought mistakenly that you were being sarcastic. If the photos have been tampered with then it could show that there was a conspiracy.

"The authenticity of the photographs was also addressed by Robert Blakey, who chaired the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). He acknowledged then that if the photos had been faked, it would not only imply that Oswald had been framed but, because of the technical sophistication involved, it would also indicate the existence of a larger conspiracy to cover up the crime, and to support the “lone gunman” scenario."

Well, good luck in showing them to be fakes then. So far, you certainly haven't convinced me. The only person I have ever heard claiming that these photos were doctored is Jack White, and he's not competent in this area.

As Dave Rogers and others have suggested, stop posting here and start learning about the solid geometry involved. You will learn something useful and find that there was no conspiracy. It's a win-win.

Worm

12th October 2010, 08:39 AM

And as has been stated before, the only thing you can conclude from 'manipulated' photos is the fact of the manipulation. Hypothesising a conspiracy from that is a whole different ball of wax.

Fourbrick

12th October 2010, 08:44 AM

Then any differences in scale are meaningless, because we know one of your sets of photos has been re-scaled.

O.K. I'll accept your critism.

No, by measurement. A line drawn from Oswald's head to the shadow of Oswald's head lies at an angle of 7.75º to the vertical on both photographs. Your refusal to accept it doesn't make it false, it just makes you delusional or dishonest.[QUOTE]

No Dave, I agrred with you earlier on about that angle, but look at the angles of the main shadow.draw a line through the shadow of his body in both the left and the middleones.

[QUOTE]The middle photo in post #795 shows all features about 20% larger than the left photo in post #795. I don't need to print it out to do the measurements.

At last, we agree about the second photo.

So, since we know that one of your sets of photos has been rescaled, what do you think this proves?

Dave
Just ignore any other photos, Dave, and concentrate on the ones you haven't yet printed out, because you can't be bothered. Or even look at the two photos with the measurement on that I provided you when you requested them. Do you disagree with any of my four measurements (apart from the angle of the shadows which I know you cant see). If so which ones?

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 08:53 AM

No Dave, I agrred with you earlier on about that angle, but look at the angles of the main shadow.draw a line through the shadow of his body in both the left and the middleones.

Yes, (he said in his talking-to-five-year-olds voice), the angle is different. That's because Oswald is standing at a different angle. On two of my posts that you didn't bother to read, I pointed out that Oswald's body is vrtical on the first one and angled 4.5º to the right on the second one, and that means that the second shadow makes a different angle on the ground than the first.

Just ignore any other photos, Dave, and concentrate on the ones you haven't yet printed out, because you can't be bothered. Or even look at the two photos with the measurement on that I provided you when you requested them. Do you disagree with any of my four measurements (apart from the angle of the shadows which I know you cant see). If so which ones?

You haven't actually posted any measurements; rather, you've said that 2x is 19% larger than 1x, and 2y is 9.6% larger than 1y. I agree with the first of those statements, roughly speaking. The second is based on your guess at the position of Oswald's right foot, so it's meaningless.

Your original contention was that the 20% difference indicates either that one of the photographs was re-scaled, or that a zoom lens was used, and that Marina Oswald's camera didn't have a zoom lens. OK; so one of the photos in your first set was re-scaled. So what?

Dave

Tolls

12th October 2010, 09:26 AM

Since we don't have the original photos, who says the second isn't scaled?
Anyone got the negatives to post?

I see nothing on that second batch of photos that says "these are untouched originals".

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 09:34 AM

Since we don't have the original photos, who says the second isn't scaled?
Anyone got the negatives to post?

I see nothing on that second batch of photos that says "these are untouched originals".

My point exactly. Fourbrick is trying to argue (I think, because he seems a little reluctant to make his point) that, because the second photo has been scaled, it must have been doctored. Since he's got one set where the second has been scaled and one where it hasn't, we can't possibly know which is the original, so all we know is that someone has re-scaled

We interrupt this post to bring you a stupidity update.

Marina Oswald's camera was a negative film camera. The prints were made by placing the negatives in an enlarger and projecting on to photographic paper. This process can result in the scaling and cropping of any photo by any amount, depending on the (continously variable) distance set on the enlarger, and therefore any scaling and cropping differences are completely irrelevant to whether the original negatives were, or were not, faked.

It's something I think we forget in the digital photography age, but the print from a film camera is not the original; it has, as a matter of course, been re-scaled.

So any line of argument Fourbrick tries to advance on the basis that some version of the photo has been re-scaled and cropped, is automatically worthless. We know it's been re-scaled and cropped, because it's a print.

Jesus, what a pointless waste of time.

Dave

angrysoba

12th October 2010, 09:38 AM

I'm glad to see there are so many expert photo analysts amongst us.

This is a very long thread so I don't know if this has already been mentioned, but a recent study showed the backyard photos to be authentic:

http://angrysoba.blogspot.com/2010/02/shadows-dispelled.html

Tolls

12th October 2010, 09:40 AM

Oh no, that's why I was asking about the negatives.
I remember doing that (well, watching my brother do that anyway).
I also remember zooming and shifting the view if there was a particular bit of photo that was to be focussed on, rather than the photo as a whole.

So, it's the negatives...

BUT!
Once the images we have have been scaled to match (going back to the original 2 pictures I used) then the various bits of the image match OK...ie (and I say again) LHO is the same height etc etc.

Printing them out and eyeballing, or measuring with a stick, is nowhere near as accurate as using an image manipulation program.

Dave Rogers

12th October 2010, 09:42 AM

Printing them out and eyeballing, or measuring with a stick, is nowhere near as accurate as using an image manipulation program.

I think Fourbrick just heard you say "I'm too lazy to print them out..."

Dave

RoboTimbo

12th October 2010, 09:48 AM

Fourbrick, I'm surprised that you didn't focus on the wrinkles/folds in Oswald's shirt in the different photos.

TraneWreck

12th October 2010, 09:49 AM

Robo. You just don't seem to comprehend. Stance does not alter the angle of the shadow, It just changes the shape of the shadow.

Step 1: Go outside during the day.
Step 2: turn your back to the sun.
Step 3: stick your arm out to the side.
Step 4: Note the angle of that shadow with respect to the shadow cast by your body.
Step 5: move arm in any direction.
Step 6: notice the angle of the shadow has changed.
Step 7: Profit.

Tolls

12th October 2010, 10:13 AM

Fourbrick, I'm surprised that you didn't focus on the wrinkles/folds in Oswald's shirt in the different photos.

Oh don't...

uke2se

12th October 2010, 10:16 AM

My point exactly. Fourbrick is trying to argue (I think, because he seems a little reluctant to make his point) that, because the second photo has been scaled, it must have been doctored. Since he's got one set where the second has been scaled and one where it hasn't, we can't possibly know which is the original, so all we know is that someone has re-scaled

We interrupt this post to bring you a stupidity update.

Marina Oswald's camera was a negative film camera. The prints were made by placing the negatives in an enlarger and projecting on to photographic paper. This process can result in the scaling and cropping of any photo by any amount, depending on the (continously variable) distance set on the enlarger, and therefore any scaling and cropping differences are completely irrelevant to whether the original negatives were, or were not, faked.

It's something I think we forget in the digital photography age, but the print from a film camera is not the original; it has, as a matter of course, been re-scaled.

So any line of argument Fourbrick tries to advance on the basis that some version of the photo has been re-scaled and cropped, is automatically worthless. We know it's been re-scaled and cropped, because it's a print.

Jesus, what a pointless waste of time.

Dave

Hey! That's what I've been saying all along. This is why I never understood Fourbricks "scale" complaint.

angrysoba

12th October 2010, 10:25 AM

Anyone talk about Hany Farid?

Just checking...

tsig

12th October 2010, 11:36 AM

I was being serious. Why would the apparent angles of shadows in photos taken of Lee Harvey Oswald in his back yard prove anything about the Kennedy assassination?

It's just the minutiae minuet.

RoboTimbo

12th October 2010, 01:36 PM

Step 1: Go outside during the day.
Step 2: turn your back to the sun.
Step 3: stick your arm out to the side.
Step 4: Note the angle of that shadow with respect to the shadow cast by your body.
Step 5: move arm in any direction.
Step 6: notice the angle of the shadow has changed.
Step 7: Profit.

He's been gone an awfully long time. Maybe you should have told him to come back in at some point.

Wolrab

12th October 2010, 01:45 PM

I'm lost. Were these photos rolled into a single bullet and used to shoot JFK?

TraneWreck

12th October 2010, 02:41 PM

He's been gone an awfully long time. Maybe you should have told him to come back in at some point.

My bad on that. I was always terrible at that little game they'd make you play in school, "List out ALL the steps in making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

I couldn't help but assume that people realized you needed to lift the lid to get to the contents of the peanut butter jar.

Seems I've similarly erred again.

JimBenArm

12th October 2010, 06:35 PM

I'm lost. Were these photos rolled into a single bullet and used to shoot JFK?

No. The fact there was multiple photos proves there was multiple shooters. Each photo is of a different one, rolled into one person. The name "Lee Harvey Oswald" is actually made up of the first name of all three shooters.

Only a Warren Commission apologist can't see this.

Tolls

13th October 2010, 01:30 AM

<snip stuff about prints and negatives>
Dave

And a thought.
When a print is made from a negative and "zoomed" in (and I'm going back a bit here, so memory might be failing me) don't you get some slight distortion towards the edges of the print? Just saying because I notice something similar when the two images are superimposed. Which would explain why, when something near(ish) to the centre of the picture is aligned, the things to the edge are slightly skew.

You see something similar with OHPs.

Belz...

13th October 2010, 11:28 AM

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/LHO/oswald.GIF

LHO is the same size in each photo? God, I better get a new monitor

You are aware of a little thing called "angle", right ?

The principal problem of conspiracy theorists is their utter ignorance of photography.

Belz...

13th October 2010, 11:35 AM

Good one, Dave. Shows you haven't got a leg to stand on, and relatively 'armless.

Wow. The "I know you are but what am I ?" defense. Such a potent retort.

Belz...

13th October 2010, 11:36 AM

If you don't know why, then it's no use me explaining.

And if he DID know why, there'd still be no use in you explaining. It's win-win for you, isn't it ?

Dave Rogers

13th October 2010, 01:02 PM

And a thought.
When a print is made from a negative and "zoomed" in (and I'm going back a bit here, so memory might be failing me) don't you get some slight distortion towards the edges of the print? Just saying because I notice something similar when the two images are superimposed. Which would explain why, when something near(ish) to the centre of the picture is aligned, the things to the edge are slightly skew.

You see something similar with OHPs.

Any lens-based imaging system will have aberrations, which will get worse the further from the central axis you go, so they'll show up most strongly in the corners. The amount of spherical aberration will depend on the quality of the optical system, which will depend on the price. If Marina Oswald's camera was a cheap one, the camera lens itself could introduce some distortion near the corners.

Dave

Dave Rogers

18th October 2010, 01:55 AM

I see Fourbrick seems to have left us. I'm going to be charitable, and assume that he's realised his analysis is so badly flawed that he needs to re-examine his entire view of the Kennedy assassination.

Dave

Soily

18th October 2010, 05:48 AM

Ohh god, you go away for a few weeks and they're talking about photofakery...

In my opinion those (genuine) photos are entirely consistent with Oswald's role as a low level infiltrator or agent provocateur of left wing groups. He did a pretty good job of smearing the FPCC in New Orleans as a bunch of violent wackos and what else is he doing in these photos other than establishing his credentials as a commie bad ass? One thing about them I do not believe is that Marina took them, I think its far more likely it was the white Russian oil man and surrogate uncle of Jackie Kennedy George De Mohrenschildt. When he died a previously unknown and much better quality version of one of the backyard photos was found in his possession signed 'To my friend George from Lee Oswald' with the sarcastic words 'hunter of fascists - ha ha ha' written on the back.

Oswald was a communist without any comrades, all his associates where extreme right wingers like Bannister, Ferrie and DeMoherensheildt, even the ostensibly liberal Paines are awash with intelligence connections, Ruths dad and sister both worked for the CIA, Michael worked for a Nazi and had security clearance at bell helicopters - plus his mum was best friends with spy Mary Bancroft, who was also the lover and long time partner in crime of non other than Allan Dulles. (indeed as an interesting aside, Dulles supplied some title tattle from an 'anonymous' source of his that Michael was a homosexual. Wonder who told him that?). Ruth Paine also seemed to be operating a little off the books spying of her own, after the assassination a load of filing cabinets were found in her garage filled with the names of local Castro sympathizers.

So Oswald's chums were hardly comrades. Oswald's hero as a teenager was this man - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Philbrick

Then after becoming obsessed with the TV programme 'I Led 3 Lives' he suddenly starts espousing communism. And what does he do next? He joins groups that couldn't be more starkly opposite to his new found beliefs - the local Civil Air Patrol unit (with David Ferrie) run by ultra right wing racist and owner of the TSBD DH Byrd, then the US Marines. Within a few years he then supposedly becomes fluent in Russian, one of the harder languages to learn, without any official training - purely through reading magazines and books.

He becomes a radar operator. According to his commander at El Toro:
"He had access to the location of all bases in the west coast areas, all radio frequencies for all squadrons, all tactical call signs, and the relative strength of all squadrons, number and type of aircraft in a squadron, who was the commanding officer, the authentication code of entering and exiting the ADIZ, which stand for Air Defense Identification Zone. He knew the range of our radar. He knew the range of our radio. And he knew the range of surrounding units' radio and radar... There are some things which he knew on which he received instructions that there is no way of changing, such as the MPS 16 height-finder radar gear... He had also been schooled on a piece of machinery call a TPX-1, which is used to transfer radio--radar and radio signals over a great distance. Radar is very susceptible to homing missiles, and this piece of equipment is used to put your radar antenna several miles away, and relay the information back to your site which you hope is relatively safe. He had been schooled on this." [WC Vol. 8 p.298]

He is then stationed at the top secret U2 spy base in Japan. He contracts VD 'in the line of duty'. He then travels to Moscow entirely off his own back(!) and announces his intention to defect to the US Embassy there, and also his intention to give the Russians classified military secrets. He stays in Russia nearly 3 years, never shows any interest in communism or the system he's chosen to live in, and meets, woos and marries the niece of a Russian Colonel in 6 weeks flat. Then despite being a traitor, with an extensive CIA 201 file and being one of only 300 people on the CIAs illegal mail watch programme, he simply waltzes back into the US with a loan from the state department and no questions asked beyond a nice chat with the FBI. The CIA state point blank they never debriefed him, despite John Newman in his book 'Oswald and the CIA' proving they did.

Oswald was as much of a commie as Philbrick was, and those photos were taken as part of his job to infiltrate, inform on and/or smear left wing groups in the US.

catsmate1

18th October 2010, 07:22 AM

Robo. You just don't seem to comprehend. Stance does not alter the angle of the shadow, It just changes the shape of the shadow.
Really? This belief of your explains a lot of your mistakes.

catsmate1

18th October 2010, 07:23 AM

At this point, a mostly-lurker to this thread might ask "so what?" What exactly is anyone trying to prove by this photo analysis?
Alleged, and non-existent, differences between two different photographics obviously prove Kennedy was killed by an enormous, all encompassing conspiracy.
Or not.

Dave Rogers

18th October 2010, 07:25 AM

Alleged, and non-existent, differences between two different photographics obviously prove Kennedy was killed by an enormous, all encompassing conspiracy.

Also, if the photographs are genuine, that too obviously proves Kennedy was killed by an enormous, all encompassing conspiracy.

Dave

riptowtan

18th October 2010, 01:35 PM

Ohh god, you go away for a few weeks and they're talking about photofakery...
Oswald was a communist without any comrades, all his associates where extreme right wingers like Bannister, Ferrie and DeMoherensheildt, even the ostensibly liberal Paines are awash with intelligence connections, Ruths dad and sister both worked for the CIA, Michael worked for a Nazi and had security clearance at bell helicopters - plus his mum was best friends with spy Mary Bancroft, who was also the lover and long time partner in crime of non other than Allan Dulles. (indeed as an interesting aside, Dulles supplied some title tattle from an 'anonymous' source of his that Michael was a homosexual. Wonder who told him that?). Ruth Paine also seemed to be operating a little off the books spying of her own, after the assassination a load of filing cabinets were found in her garage filled with the names of local Castro sympathizers.

The CIA state point blank they never debriefed him, despite John Newman in his book 'Oswald and the CIA' proving they did.

Can you provide some evidence that Oswald was linked to these people? All I've ever heard is a bunch of contradictory anecdotes, some of which came out many years after the assassination.

The CIA state point blank they never debriefed him, despite John Newman in his book 'Oswald and the CIA' proving they did.
Are you talking about James Hosty? The reason why they said no one debriefed him was because they destroyed the Hosty memo. Not because of a vast conspiracy to cover up who shot Kennedy, but to cover their own asses. They failed to recognize Oswald as a potential threat and so they destroyed the evidence they had to make it seem like they were clueless.

So right now you are arguing that Oswald was in cahoots with extreme right wingers, and so it follows that the CIA, police department and several panels of experts would have to be in on the cover up. This is already a conspiracy too big to hold its own weight, but I have a feeling the list will just keep growing..

catsmate1

18th October 2010, 03:16 PM

Also, if the photographs are genuine, that too obviously proves Kennedy was killed by an enormous, all encompassing conspiracy.

Dave
Exactly. Though obviously in that case it's a different enormous, all encompassing, conspiracy.

Soily

18th October 2010, 03:23 PM

No I'm simply arguing that Oswald a supposed commie, didn't have any comrades. There is not one known comrade of Oswalds in his entire time post Russia. Everyone of his associates is either right wing, very right wing, or riddled with intelligence connections. Of course the Ferrie-bannister-Oswald stuff always makes LNs foam at the mouth because of the Garrison connection. But there is no dispute that Bannister knew and worked with Ferrie in new Orleans in 1963. Ferrie knew Oswald(post assassination an erroneous report got out linking Ferrie to Oswald via a library card - he went to oswalds former neighbour and landlady in NO to try and find it, he also tried to track down ny photos showing him and oswald together http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol10/pdf/HSCA_Vol10_AC_12_Ferrie.pdf). Oswald was in new Orleans at the same time. Bannister was infiltrating and spying on left wing groups as part of an FBI operation. Ferrie was known to be involved with anti-Castro activity. Oswald was setting up phoney FPCC chapters, hiring unemployed youths ( even though he had no cash himself) to help him leaflet in the streets and starting fights with anti castro groups. He stamped his leaflets with a different address for the same building as guy bannisters office. Numerous witnesses saw the men together, including author michael Kurtz who saw bannister and Oswald together talking to students at Lousianna state university. And all those witnesses at the voter registration drive in Clinton, Jackson (an incident which the HSCA concluded happened). Of course there could be a vast conspiracy where lots of people are lying to the same effect but you don't believe that ever happens do you?

Soily

19th October 2010, 05:21 AM

Back to the SBT, proponents of Dale Myers have to explain his mysterious 13 degree deflection.

Buried away on his own website - http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm :

In order to exit just below JBC's right nipple (based on JBC's position at Zapruder frame 223); the bullet would have to then follow a slightly altered course after entering the Governor's body -- shifting 13 degrees to the right and 1 degree upward from the original trajectory line.

The possibility that the bullet changed course after hitting the Governor (a rather common phenomenon) has been debated before by experts. Dr. Charles S. Petty, stated that JBC's internal injuries suggested that the bullet "tunneled around the chest wall and did not proceed in a straight line from entrance to exit." (Petty thought that the injuries to JBC's right lung were caused by bone fragments blasted out by the passing bullet.) My note: Petty was the only one who even raised the possibility, but in the end no mention of it in the final report

However, the majority of HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel members disagree. They said that they would have expected a comparable missile to pass from entrance to exit in a fairly straight line, adding that they didn't feel that the surgeon could have known whether the injury to JBC's lung was caused by the bullet or by rib fragments alone. (7HSCA150)

Myers is slightly understating his problem. Of all the doctors and pathologists who have studied the case, for the Warren Commission, The Clarke Panel and the HSCA, not a single one testified to the deflection Myers requires for his theory to work. No such deflection is mentioned in any of those bodies reports. All the evidence is the bullet passed through in a straight line. If any one can find any doctor or pathologists who has studied the wounds who thinks there was a 13 degree deflection please inform Dale Myers. And post it here.

In the end, the medical evidence alone cannot prove, nor disprove, that the bullet changed course after striking JBC in the back.

In other words, there's no evidence for it, but my cartoon demands it so it must be true.

Dave Rogers

19th October 2010, 05:45 AM

In other words, there's no evidence for it, but my cartoon demands it so it must be true.

No. In other words, it's a common enough phenomenon, so a theory that requires it is not invalidated by that requirement. In terms of Occam's razor, it isn't a new entity, because it's a common observation elsewhere that bullets can change trajectory on entry.

The requirement for a 13 degree deflection also requires that JBC's exact posture is well enough known from the Zapruder film. I'd be interested in seeing what the error margin is on the known attitude of JBC's upper body.

Remember, the aim here is to demonstrate that the single bullet cannot possibly have caused both sets of wounds, rather than to demonstrate that the single bullet has not been proven to have caused both.

Dave

Soily

19th October 2010, 06:28 AM

This is entirely based on Myers own data and presentation, so if we assume his data is correct, then his own theory requires a deflection which the pathologists say didn't happen. The argument is not whether a bullet could be deflected, but whether it was.

(And if you are to argue that Myers own data is not correct, then how can you possibly regard it as scientific?)

The question goes to the heart of Myers simulation. The question is not whether a bullet fired from behind passing straight through Kennedy would probably hit Connolly. It probably would, barring a large deflection. But Myers theory is not that. Myers theory is that CE399 fired from the 6th Floor of the TSBD at a downward and right to left trajectory, hit Kennedy just to the right of the upper back, exited his Adam's apple, hit Connolly under the right armpit, exited his right nipple, passed through his wrist and ended up in his thigh, at some point fell out and somehow got into the hands of the FBI at some unknown time. He has not presented sufficient data to prove this, leaving his 3D cartoon an assertion of what he thinks, rather than a model of provable data.

RoboTimbo

19th October 2010, 06:38 AM

Soily

19th October 2010, 06:50 AM

I know it's a long shot but do you have any cartoons showing the actual bullet path as you understand it to have occurred?

Such a task would be futile, because we don't have enough solid data and have to make far too many assumptions. Dale Myers works backwards from the predetermined point that Oswald fired the shots from the 6th floor, and fills in all the numerous gaps in his data with the assumption that Oswald did it. (Something which he also does with his Tippit book) In the end its no more than an illustration of what he thinks, it can't be proved until he releases all of the data he's using, and all that data is scientifically verified to be accurate. But entirely based on what he himself presents, where he says Connolly was hit at frame 223 - we can conclude that his theory is false because it requires a 13 degree deflection that did not happen.

Dave Rogers

19th October 2010, 07:12 AM

This is entirely based on Myers own data and presentation, so if we assume his data is correct, then his own theory requires a deflection which the pathologists say didn't happen. The argument is not whether a bullet could be deflected, but whether it was.

No, if you look at the thread title, it says "single bullet theory is not true says Soily", not "single bullet theory may not be true says Soily". Lack of positive proof doesn't constitute a refutation; at the moment the position is that the bullet could have, but has not been proven to have, followed the path suggested by Myers, so the single bullet theory cannot be said to be refuted.

But entirely based on what he himself presents, where he says Connolly was hit at frame 223 - we can conclude that his theory is false because it requires a 13 degree deflection that did not happen.

No, we cannot so conclude. It requires a 13 degree deflection that has not been proven to have happened.

Dave

Soily

19th October 2010, 07:16 AM

The single bullet theory is that CE399 did *whatever*. And it didn't.

The evidence is perfectly clear that CE399 was not the bullet found at Parkland, so the single bullet theory cannot be true.

No, we cannot so conclude. It requires a 13 degree deflection that has not been proven to have happened.

But its not just absence of evidence, the pathologists concluded the bullet passed through in a straight line.

Dave Rogers

19th October 2010, 07:46 AM

The single bullet theory is that CE399 did *whatever*. And it didn't.

The evidence is perfectly clear that CE399 was not the bullet found at Parkland, so the single bullet theory cannot be true.

So you have continually asserted. However, this is your opinion, based on a selective reading of the chain of custody evidence. The chain is not in fact broken, and Tomlinson is on record as having stated that CE399 appeared to be the same bullet that he found at Parkland. So, again, you're misrepresenting not proven as disproven.

But its not just absence of evidence, the pathologists concluded the bullet passed through in a straight line.

Not supported by the evidence you present. They stated their expectation that the bullet would have travelled in a straight line. This was an opinion, not a conclusion.

Dave

RoboTimbo

19th October 2010, 07:53 AM

Soily, maybe it would help your case if you had some hypothesis as to what happened to cause the bullet wounds.

Tolls

19th October 2010, 07:59 AM

Soily, maybe it would help your case if you had some hypothesis as to what happened to cause the bullet wounds.

Machine gun fire.
From within the car.

Soily

19th October 2010, 09:57 AM

So you have continually asserted. However, this is your opinion, based on a selective reading of the chain of custody evidence. The chain is not in fact broken, and Tomlinson is on record as having stated that CE399 appeared to be the same bullet that he found at Parkland. So, again, you're misrepresenting not proven as disproven.

Not supported by the evidence you present. They stated their expectation that the bullet would have travelled in a straight line. This was an opinion, not a conclusion.

Dave

Nobody has ever mentioned Dale's deflection, not the attending physicians or any of the panels that have looked at the case. To Myers credit he at least admits, albeit buried away on his website, that he has in this instance worked backwards from his conclusion and assumed something he knows probably isn't true because that's the only way his conclusion works. Honest, but not very scientific. And it highlights the inherent flaws in his work. Where's his data? Where's he getting it from and how accurate is it? We just don't know. His work isn't reproducible because all we have to go in is the visual presentation. Even then we can look at his work and his statements about it and see him telling fibs, like claiming the jump seats where 6 inches in when they were really 2.5 ouches. As it is, what he's produced is an Inherently deceptive assertion of what he thinks.*

Soily

19th October 2010, 11:07 AM

Soily, maybe it would help your case if you had some hypothesis as to what happened to cause the bullet wounds.

They were produced by guns I think. Beyond that there isn't enough evidence to make any remotely firm statements, although I can think of many credible alternative theories.

For example, we know absolutely nothing about the throat wound, beyond the fleeting impressions of just 3 doctors, 2 might be an entrance wound. It was never photographed and never probed or examined at the autopsy, indeed they didn't even realise it existed. We also know the autopsy could not find any bullet path between the two wounds. The first shot could have been a misfire or a deflection that entered the back only to a certain level and just a small fragment of either it or bone exited the throat. Or the throat wound could have been an exiting fragment of the bullet strike at the EOP that fragmented into many pieces. Unfortunetly the autopsy was so incompetently performed that we can't know anything for certain and JFK myths spread by lone nut zealots like the pee doctor John lattimer and Larry Sturdivan haven't helped either. They are the men resposinble for the lie that connollys back wound was long and narrow, which would be indicative of a tumbling bullet consistent with one that had already hit somebody else - ie Kennedy. Unfortunetly this untruth, eagerly gobbled up by the likes of Bugliosi and Posner is flat out wrong. The wound in Connollys back was 1.5 cm x 0.8 cm in size, not 3cm long as SBT evangelsists claim - indicative merely of a bullet hitting the man at an angle, not tumbling. The 3cm is a measurement of the wound after Connollys physician had medically enlarged the wound to remove the damaged material, as he clearly told the Warren Commision - http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0049b.htm

There is no evidence the bullet that hit Connolly was tumbling or that it had passed through Kennedy before it had hit him.

One of the other problems here is that once the rifle was found in the TSBD and Oswald was arrested at the Texas theatre, the investigation effectively stopped, with no more leads been followed. So much so that crucial evidence such as Oswalds clipboard and jacket weren't found until weeks later and then only by employees. If the police weren't even bothered to search the floor and building they say the shots were fired from, how can we be confident there was any kind of search of the other office buildings directly behind Kennedy? We know absolutely nothing about them, aside from the intriguing arrest of Jim Braden in the DalTex.

And to pre-empt the inevitable 'where's the other bullets then' criticism, where's the missed bullet in the WC scenario? Where's the 5th bullet fired at Tippit? Connolly wore a Mexican peso as a cufflink, it was lost during the shooting, presumably in the car, never to be seen again. Where's that?

riptowtan

19th October 2010, 05:34 PM

Where's his data? Where's he getting it from and how accurate is it? We just don't know. His work isn't reproducible because all we have to go in is the visual presentation. Even then we can look at his work and his statements about it and see him telling fibs, like claiming the jump seats where 6 inches in when they were really 2.5 ouches. As it is, what he's produced is an Inherently deceptive assertion of what he thinks.*
The page below gets into how he came up with the dimensions.

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/models.htm

And his data has been independently reviewed by forensic animation experts.
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/zaxis.htm

From the his site:
"This particular criticism stems from a comment made during the ABC News broadcast. At one point in the program, a computer animated sequence compares a diagram of how conspiracy theorists believe Kennedy and Connally were seated in the limousine with how they actually were seated as seen in the Zapruder film. Peter Jennings notes in voiceover narration that Connally was not seated directly in front of Kennedy, as some conspiracy theorists believe, but was "six inches" to Kennedy's left. However, the six inch figure mentioned in narration did not refer to the distance between the jump seat and the inside of the limousine door, as presumed by this critic, but instead referred to the distance between the center of Kennedy and Connally's body. Kennedy was seated to the extreme right side of the limousine. Connally was turned to his right and had shifted left on the jump seat in front of Kennedy. Projecting an imaginary line forward from the center of the both men shows that the difference between their two center points is six inches. Connally's jump seat, which was about 20.5 inches wide, was correctly located 2.5 inches from the inside of the right-hand door."

riptowtan

19th October 2010, 06:14 PM

They were produced by guns I think. Beyond that there isn't enough evidence to make any remotely firm statements, although I can think of many credible alternative theories.

For example, we know absolutely nothing about the throat wound, beyond the fleeting impressions of just 3 doctors, 2 might be an entrance wound. It was never photographed and never probed or examined at the autopsy, indeed they didn't even realise it existed.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285944cbe41c8c3d53.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21388)

You mean this photograph? What do you mean they didn't realize it existed?

The impressions of the first three doctors believed in may have been an entry wound because they only saw one side of Kennedy's body. They didn't roll him over to see the back wound. If you look at where the wounds are they clearly match up and would explain the back wound of Connally. As far as the credible alternative explanations go, I haven't heard any from you yet.

We also know the autopsy could not find any bullet path between the two wounds.
Not true.
The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. Warren Commission Report, p. 543."

The first shot could have been a misfire or a deflection that entered the back only to a certain level and just a small fragment of either it or bone exited the throat. Or the throat wound could have been an exiting fragment of the bullet strike at the EOP that fragmented into many pieces.

Or the first shot could have deflected off of the tree branch, explaining why fragments hit James Tague. If you claim that the throat wound could have been an exiting fragment, where did that fragment go? This is some of the most laughable speculation I've heard. You are just ignoring the most plausible explanations for the wounds while just embarrassing yourself trying to work around all your loose ends.

Unfortunetly the autopsy was so incompetently performed that we ca
n't know anything for certain and JFK myths spread by lone nut zealots like the pee doctor John lattimer and Larry Sturdivan haven't helped either. They are the men resposinble for the lie that connollys back wound was long and narrow, which would be indicative of a tumbling bullet consistent with one that had already hit somebody else - ie Kennedy. Unfortunetly this untruth, eagerly gobbled up by the likes of Bugliosi and Posner is flat out wrong. The wound in Connollys back was 1.5 cm x 0.8 cm in size, not 3cm long as SBT evangelsists claim - indicative merely of a bullet hitting the man at an angle, not tumbling.

I don't think a difference of one cm makes a difference. But where do you think this bullet came from? If it passed through Kennedy, which I've already stated why I think that is the most plausible scenario by far, then the angle would have been caused by tumbling.

There is no evidence the bullet that hit Connolly was tumbling or that it had passed through Kennedy before it had hit him.

Of course there is. It's very clear to most people that Connally's back wound could not have been an entrance wound unless Kennedy pulled out a gun and shot him. And if by some miracle a shooter from the front (no evidence whatsoever) was able to shoot over the windshield of the car and hit Connally in the chest, thus making an exit hole, wouldn't that have hit Kennedy in the chest? What about all of Connally's other wounds to his wrist and thigh? Did the conspirators gather some of the worst marksmen they find to try and kill Kennedy, only to actually hit the target once out of seven times?

phillyboy

19th October 2010, 11:44 PM

Soily

20th October 2010, 12:01 AM

The page below gets into how he came up with the dimensions.

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/models.htm

And his data has been independently reviewed by forensic animation experts.
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/zaxis.htm

From the his site:
"This particular criticism stems from a comment made during the ABC News broadcast. At one point in the program, a computer animated sequence compares a diagram of how conspiracy theorists believe Kennedy and Connally were seated in the limousine with how they actually were seated as seen in the Zapruder film. Peter Jennings notes in voiceover narration that Connally was not seated directly in front of Kennedy, as some conspiracy theorists believe, but was "six inches" to Kennedy's left. However, the six inch figure mentioned in narration did not refer to the distance between the jump seat and the inside of the limousine door, as presumed by this critic, but instead referred to the distance between the center of Kennedy and Connally's body. Kennedy was seated to the extreme right side of the limousine. Connally was turned to his right and had shifted left on the jump seat in front of Kennedy. Projecting an imaginary line forward from the center of the both men shows that the difference between their two center points is six inches. Connally's jump seat, which was about 20.5 inches wide, was correctly located 2.5 inches from the inside of the right-hand door."

Shame that Myers feels the need to blame his own lie on a dead man isn't it?

Here's a quote from Myers himself in the programme beyond the magic bullet:
Here's the position that most critics believed they were occupied at the time of the single bullet, with Connally directly in front of Kennedy. But that's not true. Actually, Connally's seated about six inches inboards

He then moves connollys seat 6 inches inboard, not connolly as shown here:
http://694219319665945976-a-patspeer-com-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/patspeer.com/www2/If6.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cq1GvceoDqPlMy7Of9ld22GzRk ec2DlvyEYHg1B3Yt_j5UtjIXfs3hg9hdnGuBmlQMKmBLQAwfxA eSh_r3kn1GKQ3r8bsy9jfOT2pESH9M_CqbqjvN29vyR7DzKyGu jZQQW6Cc-9vQcTk1Ig4PA0X7or5bBq0pKBpE6fGrt35pbZM-Had4%3D&attredirects=0
This image is from pat speers website, where he points out the fact that myers had to turn govoner connolley into a midget in order to get his trajectory to work, in reality Connolly was a much taller man than Kennedy. He also has to turn Kennedy into a curious hunchback.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c:animania

Soily

20th October 2010, 12:23 AM

Soily: QUOTE ON

Unfortunetly the autopsy was so incompetently performed that we can't know anything for certain and JFK myths spread by lone nut zealots like the pee doctor John lattimer and Larry Sturdivan haven't helped either. They are the men resposinble for the lie that connollys back wound was long and narrow, which would be indicative of a tumbling bullet consistent with one that had already hit somebody else - ie Kennedy. Unfortunetly this untruth, eagerly gobbled up by the likes of Bugliosi and Posner is flat out wrong. The wound in Connollys back was 1.5 cm x 0.8 cm in size, not 3cm long as SBT evangelsists claim - indicative merely of a bullet hitting the man at an angle, not tumbling. The 3cm is a measurement of the wound after Connollys physician had medically enlarged the wound to remove the damaged material, as he clearly told the Warren Commision.

[snip; I can't post a URL]

There is no evidence the bullet that hit Connolly was tumbling or that it had passed through Kennedy before it had hit him. [snip]

Quote off

On p. 138 of Sturdivan's book The JFK Myths he admits that the entry wound may have been as short as 1.5 cm, but that the bullet (6mm in diameter), could still have been yawed as it entered Connally's tissue, since the elasticity of the skin would facilitate the the partial closing of the wound after entry.

Yet again Sturdivan just makes stuff up in order to fit his pre determined conclusion. Connolly's physicians actually did a good job, unlike with the Kennedy autopsy. They properly examined and probed his wounds. The wound in his right armpit was slightly ovoid because it entered his body at a downward angle of 25 degrees. The holes in his shirt and jacket were the same size as the hole in his back, to as measured by Robert Frazier.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm
The rear entrance wound was not 3 cm as indicated in one of the operative notes. It was a puncture-type wound, as if a bullet had struck the body at a slight declination (i.e. not at a right angle). The wound was actually approximately 1.5 cm.* The ragged edges of the wound were surgically cut away, effectively enlarging it to approximately 3 cm. [7HSCA325] (Emphasis is original.)

Soily

20th October 2010, 12:36 AM

One of the best pieces of evidence against the single bullet theory is the zapruder film. If we overlook for a moment that the hsca said Kennedy had already begun to react to a shot before he went behind the sign, everyone can see the Kennedy is most certainly already reacting to a shot at 223-224 when he emerges from behind the sign. SBTs say that Connolly was hit at frame 224, when the lapel flip is clearly visible in the zapruder film. Since a bullet travels at supersonic speeds, that means that it passed through both men in a fraction of 1 zapruder frame. So Kennedy is also hit at 224, at best 223. Yet Kennedy is already reacting, his hands are already half way up towards his mouth. Using a minimum reaction time of 200 milliseconds, which is about 3.5 zapruder frames, that means Kennedy was hit at a minimum 3 frames before Connolly was and almost certainly more because Kennedy is already well into his reaction to the shot at 224. The Zapruder film shows that the two men simply could not have been hit by the same bullet, unless it floated in mid air between the 2 men for a while before carry on it's course.

phillyboy

20th October 2010, 01:29 AM

phillyboy

20th October 2010, 01:40 AM

Soily

20th October 2010, 01:59 AM

It's my understanding JBC's back wound is ovoid in the vertical, as opposed to the lateral. If I'm wrong on this, someone can call me out. Anyway, assuming it's the former, the shooter would have to have been basically over the limo. And how does one then account for the ragged exit wound at the RH nipple? One can go against the SBT, but it seems you've got to embrace a lot more improbability going against, rather than with.

The bullet destroyed 4 inches of his rib, this was the first non-soft tissue the bullet had hit and I would imagine this would have accounted for any yawing. And yes, I think the wound in Connolly was vertical, and it hit him at a downward angle of 25 degrees, which is larger than the angle the SBTs say the bullet traveled into the car. Since we know the bullet passed straight through Kennedy at a slight upward angle relative to his body position, the only way that could be the same bullet is if Kennedy was leaning far forward, which is what the HSCA were forced to admit. Kennedy is not leaning far forward in the Zapruder film, he is upright. There is just no evidence the bullet that hit Connolly was tumbling to any significant degree, the wound and the hole in his clothing and the declination of the strike show it was not.

Sturdivan has spread so many lies about these issues than almost anyone else. In order for him to claim the bullet could have done all the wounds to Connolly without deforming, he has to make up some completely bizarre velocity figures. Quoting Speer:

The absurdity of this war was reinforced by Sturdivan in his 2005 book The JFK Myths. In Table III he relates the probable speed of the magic bullet at seven steps of its voyage. Sturdivan proposes that the bullet was traveling at 2160 fps (plus or minus 30 fps) when fired, 2015 fps (plus or minus 30 fps) upon impact with Kennedy's neck (and yes, he writes "neck"), 1830 fps (plus or minus 50 fps) upon impact with Connally's back, 1450-800 fps (plus or minus 100 fps) while penetrating Connally's rib, 500 fps (plus or minus 100 fps) upon impact with Connally's wrist, and 135 fps (plus or minus 20 fps) upon impact with Connally's thigh. This is PREPOSTEROUS. Amazingly, he actually proposes the bullet lost more velocity in Connally's back before penetrating his rib (380 fps plus or minus 100 fps) than from passing through 5 1/2 inches of Kennedy's neck (185 fps plus or minus 50 fps) or shattering Connally's wrist (365 fps plus or minus 20 fps).

If you're wondering how a supposed expert could dream up anything so ludicrous, well, you need to look at Table II in Sturdivan's book. In Table II, he notes the speeds at which bullets like those used in the assassination rifle will deform. Here, Sturdivan relates that such a bullet traveling point first will deform on bone (such as Connally's rib) at 1700 fps and that such a bullet traveling sideways will deform on bone at 1400 fps. As the magic bullet was purportedly traveling sideways as it impacted Connally's rib, and emerged almost unscathed, Sturdivan had to find a way to lower its velocity from the 1830 fps or so it would be traveling upon exit from Kennedy's neck. So he simply decided that Connally's back flesh substantially slowed the bullet before it impacted on Connally's rib around 1450 fps. There were no tests to support this conjecture, at least none mentioned in his book. He simply decided.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter11%3Athesingle-bullettheory

Soily

20th October 2010, 02:20 AM

I'm reading the book, "Should We Now Believe the Warren Report?", by
Stephen White. Came out in 1968. This guy knew nothing of the lapel bulge
at that point in time, but he comes up with Z222 for the SBT,
based on the startle reaction theory. In other words, Z313 plus 5 equals
Z318, the first blurred frame after the head shot. The first blurred frame
following JFK's involuntary reaction (arms raising; hands balling into
fists) is Z227. Subtract 5 and you get Z222. Not absolute proof in itself,
but a nice cross-check.

Also, I believe Lattimer came up with 1/10 of a second from the time of
impact to the point where the lapel reaches its furthest point. The lapel
is all the way out at Z224. Subtract 1/10 of a second and you get Z222
(rounded off to the nearest frame).

In addition, JFK's arms don't seem to begin to raise until a point between
Z225 and Z226 (Z225.5). From Z222 to Z225.5 is .190 seconds for JFK to
involuntarily react. Although the most cited value for this type of
reaction to take place is .400 seconds, some experts believe that in a
scenario where the nerve impulse has a short path (as in this case, where
we have mechanical stimulation of the nervous system caused by a shock
wave or possibly a bullet brush impacting the top of the spine, and then a
nerve impulse making a short transit to arm/ shoulder muscles)--some
experts believe this value could be as short as .200 seconds.

So we have 3 converging pieces of evidence here for the SBT alone. Is this absolute proof of the SBT? No. You could even argue that it's not even proof beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the argument that there's no absolute
standard of what constitutes reasonable doubt.

The above doesn't disprove other scenarios, but it supports the SBT as it revolves around things like reaction time, visible reaction to being shot, etc.

The MC bullet was moving somewhere between aprrox 2100-1500 feet per second depending on who you believe. Lets take the lower number. The Zapruder film runs at 18.3 frames per second. In one frame that bullet would have moved 81 feet. The two men were only 3 foot apart. That means it went right through both men in one tiny fraction of one frame of the Zapruder film. If the lapel flip is caused by a bullet, then that means in terms of the Zapruder film the two men are hit at exactly the same frame. There can be no other possible interpretation. But by 223-224, Kennedy is already reacting to a bullet strike, even if you use the absolute lower limit for a human reaction time of say 100ms, that's still nearly 2 Zapruder frames before the bullet impact at 223/224. But since Kennedy is already well into his reaction at 223/224 that has to push it back even further. How can they be hit by the same bullet if Kennedy is reacting before he is hit?

TraneWreck

20th October 2010, 04:35 AM

Soily

20th October 2010, 05:21 AM

This is so pointless. Soily is just going to nitpick at unknowable details forever. He's basically the Kennedy Conspiracy Nut version of the "God of the Gaps."

Myers and the Discovery channel recreation of the shot will always be slightly flawed because there are simply some details that cannot be mimicked. We don't know Kennedy's exact posture, we don't know how the bullet ricocheted in the body, we don't know exactly how Kennedy's body changed after he died, how the wounds swelled, how the muscles relaxed then hardened in rigor-mortis...etc.

Connolly wasn't dead, and we know his wounds are inconsistent with him been struck by the same bullet. Connolly himself, his wife who had the best view in the entire Plaza, 3 members of the Warren Commission and President Johnson all thought he was hit by a different bullet. The Zapruder film shows he was hit by a different bullet. His physicians, the people who studied his wounds and found more lead in them than missing from the bullet, thought he was hit by a different bullet. There is no evidence, beyond 'ohh well he must have been', that Connolly was hit by the same bullet, or that that bullet was fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

The Discovery Channel recreation shows that one bullet CAN cause all of the damage, and that the wounds are shockingly similar. Myers shows that the wounds basically line up with a trajectory that leads back to the book depository.

No he doesn't. Myers cartoon is full of assumptions, flawed data and deceptions, yet he actually now calls the single bullet theory a single bullet fact. He doesn't say 1 bullet CAN, he says 1 bullet DID. Big difference.

Given that THERE IS NO PHYSICAL OR VIDEO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST A SHOT COMING FROM ANY OTHER DIRECTION those two projects are very convincing.

Soily will continue to casually dismiss evidence recalcitrant to his theory and accept hogwash, nonsensical eyewitness stories and other useless bits of support to bolster his vapid delusions.

If you don't want to be annoyed I suggest moving on.
Thing is you(your side) ignore the evidence, the autopsy, Connolly's wounds, the hole in his jacket, the mythical 13 degree deflection, the weight of the bullet, the evidence of the Zapruder film. The fraudulently produced CE399. The best you can do is absence of evidence is not evidence of absence etc. The problem is there's so many gaping holes in the theory and such a thunderous absence of actual evidence for it, that the only way the theory works is if you just assume that all wounds were caused by a sniper on the 6th floor and work backwards from there, ignoring and twisting all the contrary evidence to fit your conclusion. Which is the sort of bad thinking that some conspiracy theorists are rightly criticized for.

There is no video evidence of a shot coming from the TSBD either. The video evidence, the Zapruder film shows the opposite. What we have is the 3 shells found in the snipers nest, which is not proof all or any of the shots were from the TSBD and nowhere else. There is no evidence that any of the other buildings where searched or any other leads were pursued after the rifle was found in the TSBD. We know absolutely nothing about those buildings today.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence etc.

RoboTimbo

20th October 2010, 06:44 AM

Connolly wasn't dead, and we know his wounds are inconsistent with him been struck by the same bullet. Connolly himself, his wife who had the best view in the entire Plaza, 3 members of the Warren Commission and President Johnson all thought he was hit by a different bullet. The Zapruder film shows he was hit by a different bullet. His physicians, the people who studied his wounds and found more lead in them than missing from the bullet, thought he was hit by a different bullet. There is no evidence, beyond 'ohh well he must have been', that Connolly was hit by the same bullet, or that that bullet was fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

No he doesn't. Myers cartoon is full of assumptions, flawed data and deceptions, yet he actually now calls the single bullet theory a single bullet fact. He doesn't say 1 bullet CAN, he says 1 bullet DID. Big difference.

Thing is you(your side) ignore the evidence, the autopsy, Connolly's wounds, the hole in his jacket, the mythical 13 degree deflection, the weight of the bullet, the evidence of the Zapruder film. The fraudulently produced CE399. The best you can do is absence of evidence is not evidence of absence etc. The problem is there's so many gaping holes in the theory and such a thunderous absence of actual evidence for it, that the only way the theory works is if you just assume that all wounds were caused by a sniper on the 6th floor and work backwards from there, ignoring and twisting all the contrary evidence to fit your conclusion. Which is the sort of bad thinking that some conspiracy theorists are rightly criticized for.

There is no video evidence of a shot coming from the TSBD either. The video evidence, the Zapruder film shows the opposite. What we have is the 3 shells found in the snipers nest, which is not proof all or any of the shots were from the TSBD and nowhere else. There is no evidence that any of the other buildings where searched or any other leads were pursued after the rifle was found in the TSBD. We know absolutely nothing about those buildings today.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence etc.

So your hypothesis that accounts for all the wounds is....?

Fourbrick

20th October 2010, 06:48 AM

I was going to reply to my critics today, Soily, but as it might derail your argument I will wait until another time.

Dave Rogers

20th October 2010, 06:50 AM

I was going to reply to my critics today, Soily, but as it might derail your argument I will wait until another time.

Did you notice that Soily is one of your critics?

Dave

Fourbrick

20th October 2010, 06:51 AM

Yes, Dave, I did. What's your point?

TraneWreck

20th October 2010, 06:53 AM

Dave Rogers

20th October 2010, 07:29 AM

Yes, Dave, I did. What's your point?

My point is that your consideration may not be reciprocated, so you may be better off going ahead and replying.

Dave

Soily

20th October 2010, 08:27 AM

This is a perfect example of your fatally flawed approach. You are honestly arguing that Connolly's recollection of the insanely chaotic moment is useful.

Conspiracy theories always rest on the claims and testimony of confused, terrified people in horrible positions to analyze events.

There's no point in discussing this with you because you lack a basic comprehension of evidence and have a perverse notion of inductive reasoning. You can keep babbling about this nonsense, I'm satisfied that this thread has dealt with your spurious claims.

I'm not relying on Connolly's recollections at all. It's just that his and his wife's recollections are corroborated by the physical evidence, which you continue to ignore. There isn't one piece of physical evidence that supports the single bullet theory. If there is, let's see it.

Instead of taking it upon yourself to decide the thread is over, why don't you directly address the arguments and show why they are false? Why is Kennedy reacting to a shot before Connolly is hit in the Zapruder film? Why is there more lead in Connolly than was missing from CE399? Why did the witnesses say CE399 was not the bullet they found at Parkland? Why did the bullet enter Kennedy's back at a downward angle, tunnel upwards and exit level or above the entrance wound, exit right through where Kennedy's tie and collar where but make no hole in it, hang around in mid air for a few 100 milliseconds, then continue at downward angle again, even though Kennedy was sat upright at the time? Why does Dale Myers say there was a 13 degree deflection in Connolly when there is no evidence to support this? Why does a urologist called John Lattimer say the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connolly when there is no evidence to support this? Why does Larry Sturdivan say the bullet had massively slowed down when it hit Connolly's rib when there is no evidence to support this?

That's enough to be going on with, answer those then we can move on to the next set of questions.

Fourbrick

20th October 2010, 08:32 AM

I'll wait. I've waited 47 years so what's a few days?

Dave Rogers

20th October 2010, 08:40 AM

It's just that his and his wives recollections are corroborated by the physical evidence,

I never knew Connolly was a Mormon.

Dave

Soily

20th October 2010, 09:04 AM

I never knew Connolly was a Mormon.

Dave

Poor Nellie! Speaking of the singular Mrs Connolly, she mentioned in her book about the Mexican Peso that her husband wore as a cufflink and was shot off during the assassination. Where'd that peso go Dave?

carlitos

20th October 2010, 09:20 AM

argument from incredulity is not interesting. TraneWreck is right to exit stage left.

Dave Rogers

20th October 2010, 09:25 AM

Poor Nellie! Speaking of the singular Mrs Connolly, she mentioned in her book about the Mexican Peso that her husband wore as a cufflink and was shot off during the assassination. Where'd that peso go Dave?

OK, you've finally convinced me. Since cufflinks never fall out, get lost or otherwise suffer random damage by any other means than being hit by a bullet, I suppose that proves that there must have been another bullet.

Can we close the thread now, please?

Dave

RoboTimbo

20th October 2010, 09:27 AM

Soily

20th October 2010, 09:54 AM

OK, you've finally convinced me. Since cufflinks never fall out, get lost or otherwise suffer random damage by any other means than being hit by a bullet, I suppose that proves that there must have been another bullet.

Can we close the thread now, please?

Dave

That's not the point I was making. The point I am making is that if a large piece of metal like a mexiacan peso can disappear completely, then so can additional bullets, hence the bulgiosian refrain of 'well were's the bullets then' is nonsense.

Soily

20th October 2010, 09:56 AM

argument from incredulity is not interesting. TraneWreck is right to exit stage left.

Maybe you could address the arguments made instead of waffle? Why does Kennedy react to getting shot before the bullet hits him?

JimBenArm

20th October 2010, 10:33 AM

Maybe you could address the arguments made instead of waffle? Why does Kennedy react to getting shot before the bullet hits him?

Superhuman powers, obviously.

riptowtan

20th October 2010, 12:07 PM

I'm not relying on Connolly's recollections at all. It's just that his and his wife's recollections are corroborated by the physical evidence, which you continue to ignore. There isn't one piece of physical evidence that supports the single bullet theory. If there is, let's see it.

Instead of taking it upon yourself to decide the thread is over, why don't you directly address the arguments and show why they are false? Why is Kennedy reacting to a shot before Connolly is hit in the Zapruder film? Why is there more lead in Connolly than was missing from CE399? Why did the witnesses say CE399 was not the bullet they found at Parkland? Why did the bullet enter Kennedy's back at a downward angle, tunnel upwards and exit level or above the entrance wound, exit right through where Kennedy's tie and collar where but make no hole in it, hang around in mid air for a few 100 milliseconds, then continue at downward angle again, even though Kennedy was sat upright at the time? Why does Dale Myers say there was a 13 degree deflection in Connolly when there is no evidence to support this? Why does a urologist called John Lattimer say the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connolly when there is no evidence to support this? Why does Larry Sturdivan say the bullet had massively slowed down when it hit Connolly's rib when there is no evidence to support this?

That's enough to be going on with, answer those then we can move on to the next set of questions.

All covered in post 873. Go back and read it. If you accept that the Connally bullet came from the front, you reach absurdities. If you would just think about the SBT you would see it makes complete sense and would explain all of the evidence. Instead you cherry pick bits of evidence, and dismiss all of the relevant evidence that supports the SBT. Your attempts to come up with a plausible alternative scenario have been disastrous to say the least.

Dave Rogers

20th October 2010, 12:30 PM

That's not the point I was making. The point I am making is that if a large piece of metal like a mexiacan peso can disappear completely, then so can additional bullets, hence the bulgiosian refrain of 'well were's the bullets then' is nonsense.

If I'd ever offered that argument, maybe I'd be interested.

Dave

Soily

20th October 2010, 01:34 PM

All covered in post 873. Go back and read it. If you accept that the Connally bullet came from the front, you reach absurdities. If you would just think about the SBT you would see it makes complete sense and would explain all of the evidence. Instead you cherry pick bits of evidence, and dismiss all of the relevant evidence that supports the SBT. Your attempts to come up with a plausible alternative scenario have been disastrous to say the least.

I just reread that post in the hope that i'd missed something, but all I saw was ignorance. The autopsy doctors did not know there was a wound on kennedy's throat until afterwards, they thought it was just a tracheotomy opening. The autopsy doctors did not track the path of the bullet between the throat and the back, they thought the back wound was shallow.

You also appear to be labouring under the impression that it's Impossible for Connolly to be hit without it going through Kennedy, which shows me you don't even understand your own argument. As Dale Myers has made a career of pointing out, Connolly wasn't sat directly in front of Kennedy, he was sat to Kennedy's left, leaving Connolly open to a clear shot from any of the other office buildings to the rear of the limousine. There's no evidence for it, but like you have no evidence at all for the entirety of the single bullet theory as stated, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. As I have already pointed out, as soon as Oswald is arrested the investigation into the crime stops right there. So much so, that they didn't even bother to search the 6th floor or the TSBD any further let alone any of the other office buildings, meaning evidence such as Oswald's clipboard and Oswald's jacket weren't found until weeks later.

danrush

20th October 2010, 01:50 PM

Well, all the wounds line up to have originated somewhere high in the southeast corner of the Book Depository building, so if the CE399 bullet wasn't the actual item, and another one was, you're still left with a slightly different single bullet theory with Oswald as the source.

Oswald had been firing rifles since he was 8yo, his Marine Corps shooting record at bootcamp shows him to be a good shot and it's not that hard for a novice to learn proper scope shooting techniques.

If I can take my 15yo nephew and teach him to shoot my Carcano for a day and get bullseyes at 800 yards then Oswald could easily have done it.

3 bullets...1 miss....1 overpenetration....1 head shot.

Soily

20th October 2010, 02:14 PM

Oswald had been firing rifles since he was 8yo, his Marine Corps shooting record at bootcamp shows him to be a good shot and it's not that hard for a novice to learn proper scope shooting techniques.

If I can take my 15yo nephew and teach him to shoot my Carcano for a day and get bullseyes at 800 yards then Oswald could easily have done it.

3 bullets...1 miss....1 overpenetration....1 head shot.

This is a slightly deceptive statement. When Oswald first joined the marines he hit a good score in his shooting tests, although his instructor felt he got lucky. By the time he left the marines, his shooting had detoriated and he barely scraped in at the lowest mark attainable. For the next four years there is no evidence he regularly, or if at all, practised firing a rifle. And if you believe the official story, his rifle was in the Paines garage until the morning of the shooting, leaving Oswald absolutely no time to practise the shots. He went in there, 4 years after he barely qualified at the lowest mark attainable and did the shooting on his first go, completely cold, no dummy run and the first time in his life he'd shot from elevation at a moving target. Not bad at all.

riptowtan

20th October 2010, 03:44 PM

This is a slightly deceptive statement. When Oswald first joined the marines he hit a good score in his shooting tests, although his instructor felt he got lucky. By the time he left the marines, his shooting had detoriated and he barely scraped in at the lowest mark attainable. For the next four years there is no evidence he regularly, or if at all, practised firing a rifle. And if you believe the official story, his rifle was in the Paines garage until the morning of the shooting, leaving Oswald absolutely no time to practise the shots. He went in there, 4 years after he barely qualified at the lowest mark attainable and did the shooting on his first go, completely cold, no dummy run and the first time in his life he'd shot from elevation at a moving target. Not bad at all.

This is a slightly misleading representation of Oswald's shooting abilities. While he wasn't an expert shot, he was still a good shot.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/anderson1.htm

And the shots were not that hard to pull off. I set up a half fast JFK experiment 2 weeks ago with targets at 40 60 and 100 yards.:D I hit the second 2 targets within an 8 second time period 4/10 times. And I hardly ever fire a rifle.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285944cbf6fe7f421e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21399)

phillyboy

20th October 2010, 07:12 PM

Soily

20th October 2010, 11:58 PM

This is a slightly misleading representation of Oswald's shooting abilities. While he wasn't an expert shot, he was still a good shot.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/anderson1.htm

And the shots were not that hard to pull off. I set up a half fast JFK experiment 2 weeks ago with targets at 40 60 and 100 yards.:D I hit the second 2 targets within an 8 second time period 4/10 times. And I hardly ever fire a rifle.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285944cbf6fe7f421e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21399)

The last time Oswald was tested in the marines, he only got 191, which is just 2 points above failing to qualify at all, a pretty rotten performance. And the last time the Lone Nuts say Oswald fired a rifle, he missed a clear, static target at 20 yards - general walker. Col. A. G. Folsom, who examined Oswalds shooti ability was interviewed by the WC:
Mr. Ely: I just wonder, after having looked through the whole scorebook, if we could fairly say that all that it proves is that at this stage of his career he was not a particularly outstanding shot.
Col. Folsom: No, no, he was not. His scorebook indicates . . . that he did well at one or two ranges in order to achieve the two points over the minimum score for sharpshooter.
Mr. Ely: In other words, he had a good day the day he fired for qualification?
Col. Folsom: I would say so. (8H311)

Your test is bunkum too. You had 10 goes at it. I bet you had some practise shots too. Yours is a flat static target. You were under no pressure. You didn't have to re- acquire a target in a split second after it was obscured by a tree.

Soily

21st October 2010, 12:00 AM

How great a shooting performance was it that day? Nothing further than 88 yds. Missed the target 2 times out of 3. The one hit was something close to a stationary shot since the target was moving roughly parallel to the bullet's path. One shot a complete miss. He shot Maggy's Drawers on 11/22/63!

There's no evidence Oswald completely missed with one shot, the Tague chip only makes sense if it's a fragment from the headshot.

dafydd

21st October 2010, 04:35 AM

I'll wait. I've waited 47 years so what's a few days?

If you are waiting for the lid to be blown off the non-existent CT it will be more than a few days.

RoboTimbo

21st October 2010, 06:21 AM

The last time Oswald was tested in the marines, he only got 191, which is just 2 points above failing to qualify at all, a pretty rotten performance. And the last time the Lone Nuts say Oswald fired a rifle, he missed a clear, static target at 20 yards - general walker. Col. A. G. Folsom, who examined Oswalds shooti ability was interviewed by the WC:

Your test is bunkum too. You had 10 goes at it. I bet you had some practise shots too. Yours is a flat static target. You were under no pressure. You didn't have to re- acquire a target in a split second after it was obscured by a tree.

You keep saying how things are impossible to have happened so let me ask you:

1. Who was it that took the shot at Walker and missed? Is Oswald the only person in the world who would have missed him?

2. Who took the rifle into the TSBD since you claim Oswald couldn't have done it or he would have been seen? Is Oswald the only person in the world who would have been seen taking it in?

3. Who built the sniper's nest on the sixth floor? You say Oswald would have been caught doing it and therefor couldn't have. And yet there was a sniper's nest on the sixth floor. Which magical person built it who wouldn't have been seen doing so?

So what's your hypothesis, Soily?

Soily

21st October 2010, 07:07 AM

You keep saying how things are impossible to have happened so let me ask you:

1. Who was it that took the shot at Walker and missed? Is Oswald the only person in the world who would have missed him?

I don't really understand what you mean?

2. Who took the rifle into the TSBD since you claim Oswald couldn't have done it or he would have been seen? Is Oswald the only person in the world who would have been seen taking it in?

However the rifle found its way into the TSBD, it has nothing to do with whether the SBT is true. The physical evidence says 'no'.

3. Who built the sniper's nest on the sixth floor? You say Oswald would have been caught doing it and therefor couldn't have. And yet there was a sniper's nest on the sixth floor. Which magical person built it who wouldn't have been seen doing so?

I beginning to think there never was a 'sniper's nest' as such. Have a look at pictures of the 6th floor, its stacked to the rafters with large boxes full of books. Admittedly that argument cuts both ways and makes it easier for anyone to use it as a makeshift sniper location.

So what's your hypothesis, Soily?
My hypothesis is that the official lone nut case as set out in the Warren Commission is wrong.

What frame of the Zapruder film are Kennedy and Connolly hit by the SB RoboTimbo?

catsmate1

21st October 2010, 07:25 AM

OK, you've finally convinced me. Since cufflinks never fall out, get lost or otherwise suffer random damage by any other means than being hit by a bullet, I suppose that proves that there must have been another bullet.

Can we close the thread now, please?

Dave
Oh dear jeebus, Soily is actually using a missing cufflink as part of his argument? Yep the Ignore feature is useful.

RoboTimbo

21st October 2010, 07:34 AM

I don't really understand what you mean?
You keep bringing up it being impossible for Oswald to have missed Walker at 20 yards (even though that has nothing to do with the SBT). I asked who you think would have been capable of missing Walker if not Oswald. It isn't that hard of a question. I asked it of you pages ago and you ignored the question then too.

However the rifle found its way into the TSBD, it has nothing to do with whether the SBT is true. The physical evidence says 'no'.
No, what? That nobody took the rifle into the building and it just magically appeared there?

I beginning to think there never was a 'sniper's nest' as such. Have a look at pictures of the 6th floor, its stacked to the rafters with large boxes full of books. Admittedly that argument cuts both ways and makes it easier for anyone to use it as a makeshift sniper location.
Great. Answer the question then. You have intimated that it was impossible for Oswald to have built it. Who could possibly have builit it without being seen if you are claiming that Oswald couldn't have built it since he would have been seen.

My hypothesis is that the official lone nut case as set out in the Warren Commission is wrong.
Then you have no hypothesis for what happened that would match up with all of your impossibilities?

What frame of the Zapruder film are Kennedy and Connolly hit by the SB RoboTimbo?
It had gone through both men by frame 224.

Soily

21st October 2010, 08:42 AM

Oh dear jeebus, Soily is actually using a missing cufflink as part of his argument? Yep the Ignore feature is useful.

The oft stated argument used against advocates of more than 1 shooter is 'where are the bullets'? This is not a valid argument, since the WC shooting sequence has a missing bullet too, and as I have pointed out, a large piece of metal was shot off during the shooting and completely lost. It happens.

RoboTimbo

21st October 2010, 08:52 AM

Also, Soily, set up a test where you're in the sixth floor window and make the same shot and try not to hit Connolly after shooting through soft tissue on Kennedy.

If you need help setting up the shot, watch the Myers video.

How is the testing going, Soily?

Soily

21st October 2010, 08:56 AM

You keep bringing up it being impossible for Oswald to have missed Walker at 20 yards (even though that has nothing to do with the SBT). I asked who you think would have been capable of missing Walker if not Oswald. It isn't that hard of a question. I asked it of you pages ago and you ignored the question then too.

Huh? I said if Oswald shot at Walker then he was a very poor shot, because that shot was several times easier than the 'easy' shots LN defenders say he made on the 22nd.

No, what? That nobody took the rifle into the building and it just magically appeared there?

Whether Oswald took the rifle into the building is irrelevant to whether the SBT is true.

Great. Answer the question then. You have intimated that it was impossible for Oswald to have built it. Who could possibly have builit it without being seen if you are claiming that Oswald couldn't have built it since he would have been seen.

As I have said, this argument goes both ways. I have rethought my argument that people would have seen the snipers nest been built, because I don't think the sniper's nest was built, it was a natural feature of the floor because it was stacked to the rafters with boxes filled with books. You should accept this argument because it helps the case against your man Oswald. It doesn't explain how Oswald became invisible, so he could be on the 6th floor at the same time as Bonnie Ray Williams, or how he escaped down the stairs past Jack Dougherty and those 2 office girls. The answer is because he wasn't on the 6th floor, he was in the lunchroom as he said, and 70 seconds after the shooting he was seen there by Roy Truly and Marrion Baker, calm and not out of breath.

Then you have no hypothesis for what happened that would match up with all of your impossibilities?

It had gone through both men by frame 224.

Haha! What a weasley, mealy mouthed answer. You know full well that the bullet would have traveled entirely through the both men within one tiny fraction of 1 Zapruder frame. As far as the Zapruder film is concerned both men are hit at the same frame, there is no other conceivable conclusion. Now please explain to me how Kennedy is already half way through his reaction to getting shot when a bullet hurtles through him and Connolly at supersonic speed and makes Connolly's jacket lapel flip up in just 50ms, a time which is far quicker than any possible human reaction time.

Soily

21st October 2010, 09:10 AM

How is the testing going, Soily?
I don't believe the shot that hit Connolly was fired from the 6th floor, (not that its impossible. If Myers can have a 13 degree deflection with no evidence to support it then why can't there be a deflection in JFKS body that takes it out of the path of Connolly and into the limousine? You can't have it both ways). If the previous assassination plots against Kennedy are anything to go by, they would have had more than 1 shooter. Edwin Black, author of IBM and the Holocaust and other highly respected works, wrote a ground-breaking piece back in the 70s piece about the failed attempt on JFKs life in Chicago in October 1963 - http://www.blackopradio.com/The%20Chicago%20Plot%20by%20Edwin%20Black.pdf

Worth a read, you might learn something.

Now what about an answer my Zapruder film question?

RoboTimbo

21st October 2010, 09:21 AM

I don't believe the shot that hit Connolly was fired from the 6th floor, (not that its impossible. If Myers can have a 13 degree deflection with no evidence to support it then why can't there be a deflection in JFKS body that takes it out of the path of Connolly and into the limousine? You can't have it both ways). If the previous assassination plots against Kennedy are anything to go by, they would have had more than 1 shooter. Edwin Black, author of IBM and the Holocaust and other highly respected works, wrote a ground-breaking piece back in the 70s piece about the failed attempt on JFKs life in Chicago in October 1963 - http://www.blackopradio.com/The%20Chicago%20Plot%20by%20Edwin%20Black.pdf

Worth a read, you might learn something.

Now what about an answer my Zapruder film question?

Fortunately, an analysis has been done. No doubt you knew that already. Here ya go: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jbchit.htm

RoboTimbo

21st October 2010, 09:24 AM

Here's another one, specifically addressing the CTists who no hypothesis of their own: http://prouty.jfkassassination.net/jfkhit.htm

riptowtan

21st October 2010, 10:06 AM

The last time Oswald was tested in the marines, he only got 191, which is just 2 points above failing to qualify at all, a pretty rotten performance. And the last time the Lone Nuts say Oswald fired a rifle, he missed a clear, static target at 20 yards - general walker. Col. A. G. Folsom, who examined Oswalds shooti ability was interviewed by the WC:

Your test is bunkum too. You had 10 goes at it. I bet you had some practise shots too. Yours is a flat static target. You were under no pressure. You didn't have to re- acquire a target in a split second after it was obscured by a tree.

No practice shots. My friend hit all 3 targets on his second try. The whole point of the experiment was to show that hitting something from 100 yards even without a scope is not that difficult. It's true there were no moving targets, but we had to readjust the rifle for each shot, since they were spaced out 20 yards from each other. The spacing of targets was supposed to simulate a movement of target. Both my friend and I target practice a few times a year, whereas Oswald was at one point ranked sharpshooter. Using a more accurate rifle with a scope, Oswald could have easily got off the shots. And the "rotten performance" you are referring to is much better than an average shooter. Maybe he shot poorly because he was just having an off day. The sharpshooter ranking was given to Oswald after 2 weeks of shooting, which would eliminate any noise or bad luck.

I have already explained that Oswald's bullet hit the windowpane, causing it to miss by several inches.

And I see you now acknowledge that there was a tree in the way of the first shot. I'd like to know why you think Oswald's first shot couldn't have hit the tree?

riptowtan

21st October 2010, 10:07 AM

There's no evidence Oswald completely missed with one shot, the Tague chip only makes sense if it's a fragment from the headshot.

Please explain

Soily

21st October 2010, 11:47 AM

Fortunately, an analysis has been done. No doubt you knew that already. Here ya go: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jbchit.htm
That doesn't explain anything. I want you to tell me how if Connolly is hit at 224, which let me reiterate means Kennedy is also hit at 224, Kennedy is already reacting to been hit? The way you repeatedly dodge this question tells me you don't know the answer.

RoboTimbo

21st October 2010, 11:49 AM

That doesn't explain anything. I want you to tell me how if Connolly is hit at 224, which let me reiterate means Kennedy is also hit at 224, Kennedy is already reacting to been hit? The way you repeatedly dodge this question tells me you don't know the answer.

Now that you've proven that you didn't read the links, what is your hypothesis? Here's where you ran away before.

Soily

21st October 2010, 11:57 AM

Please explain
Because the first shot somehow missing or getting deflected the length of a football field to leave a lead smear on the pavement is implausible, how did a nick from a tree branch sheer the entire copper jacket off like a tin opener? The headshot however is not only much closer to the trajectory to hit Tague, but we know that bullet fragmented into dozens of pieces leaving bits of lead to shoot off all over the place, causing large dents in the windscreen, the windscreen chrome and the rear view mirror.

The thing about it is its just obvious.

Soily

21st October 2010, 11:59 AM

Now that you've proven that you didn't read the links, what is your hypothesis? Here's where you ran away before.

I want you to tell me how if Connolly is hit at 224, which let me reiterate means Kennedy is also hit at 224, Kennedy is already reacting to been hit?

Answer the question please.

RoboTimbo

21st October 2010, 12:05 PM

Now that you've proven that you didn't read the links, what is your hypothesis? Here's where you ran away before.

Soily, answer the question.

Soily

21st October 2010, 12:10 PM

Soily, answer the question.

I want you to tell me how if Connolly is hit at 224, which let me reiterate means Kennedy is also hit at 224, Kennedy is already reacting to been hit?

RoboTimbo

21st October 2010, 12:12 PM

I want you to tell me how if Connolly is hit at 224, which let me reiterate means Kennedy is also hit at 224, Kennedy is already reacting to been hit?

Ok, first humor me. Explain in your own words what the two websites I linked you to say. Then I'll answer.

riptowtan

21st October 2010, 01:52 PM

Because the first shot somehow missing or getting deflected the length of a football field to leave a lead smear on the pavement is implausible, how did a nick from a tree branch sheer the entire copper jacket off like a tin opener? The headshot however is not only much closer to the trajectory to hit Tague, but we know that bullet fragmented into dozens of pieces leaving bits of lead to shoot off all over the place, causing large dents in the windscreen, the windscreen chrome and the rear view mirror.

The thing about it is its just obvious.

Just asserting it is implausible does no make it so. Let me get this straight, the bullet could have richocheted a long distance off of Kennedy's head, but not the tree branch?? The bullet could have hit the tree branch, changing the direction of the bullet, where it could have then hit the curb where Tague was near. What's so implausible about that? There were large fragments collected in the limousine of the third bullet, which makes the possibility of a large fragment deflecting off into the curb unlikely.

"For the sake of background, Posner believes there were three shots, all of which originated from the Depository, and all of which were shot by Lee Harvey Oswald from the sixth floor window. This theory has the first shot at the presidential limousine being obscured by the branches of a tree. The bullet would have hit a branch, fragmented, and gone towards the area where Tague was standing where it hit the curb. This is supported with several pieces of evidence and testimony. Two relatively large fragments of the bullet from the head shot were found in the limousine. The odds of having another sizable fragment travel 200 feet and chip concrete then decreases. Also, Tague himself claims "he thinks he heard the third shot after he was hit in the face" (Warren Report, 116). Although he believed that it was the second shot which caused his wound, it is quite clear that the second shot had gone through Kennedy and Governor Connally, ending in Connally's thigh after analysis of film footage shot by Abraham Zapruder.

Analysis of the footage of the Zapruder film of the assassination best correlates with this theory. Posner shows how the first shot (at Z-frame 160) is being deflected by a branch of the oak tree between Oswald and the limousine. The second shot hit both the President and Governor Connally just as their limousine emerged into Zapruder's view from behind a freeway sign. Careful analysis points to the second and third shots causing all of the wounds to Kennedy and Connally.

It is possible that Tague was hit with the first bullet and didn't immediately feel the sting because of his assumably shocked state throughout the situation. It would correlate with his insistence that it sounded different as well (hitting a tree and concrete near him rather than landing in the limousine).

After personally interviewing James Tague, he made it aware to me that he was misquoted in Posner's book. Tague told me that it was not the first shot that caused his wound. He told the author in an interview that "something made me jump back behind the abutment, and that's why I think it was the second one (shot)." Despite Tague's feeling that it was the second shot which hit him, it appears possible that he merely didn't feel any pain right away. Tague explained his wound as a "very minor scratch." It only created a few drops of blood. This supports the idea that he may not have felt the pain immediately. "
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/tague.htm

So where do you think the shooters were exactly? Are you a supporter of the triangulation theory?

riptowtan

21st October 2010, 01:59 PM

I want you to tell me how if Connolly is hit at 224, which let me reiterate means Kennedy is also hit at 224, Kennedy is already reacting to been hit?

Easy. Connolly is reacting at 224 too.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jbchit.htm
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285944cc0a951070b0.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21406)

And here is further proof that the second bullet passed through both Kennedy and Connolly.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285944cc0a98a62238.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21407)

Soily

21st October 2010, 02:18 PM

Ok, first humor me. Explain in your own words what the two websites I linked you to say. Then I'll answer.

Your link completely misunderstands what it's quoting, which is not unusual for Dave Reitzes. That was a study of auditory reaction times (The bullet was travelling faster than the speed of sound.), the lower end of which were blink reactions, and all of which were longer than the times measured in the Zapruder film. Here's a more apposite study of reactions to external pain stimuli, showing reaction times of well over 100ms, and this is in much younger men than Kennedy - http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/26/42/10879#F2

Since you're incapable of directly answering the question i'll go through it again. The bullet was travelling at 81 foot per Zapruder frame. The 2 men were sat 3 foot apart and each Zapruder film represents 54ms of time. The bullet passed clean through both men in one fraction of a zapruder frame. If Connolly is hit at 224, then so is Kennedy. Yet Kennedy is visibly physically reacting at 224, his hands have begun to move up to his mouth and by 225 they're well on their way. Thats 0-54 milliseconds robotimbo for a visible physical movement, completely unheard of in the history of neuroscience where the standard reference figure is 200ms, or 4 zapruder frames.

Soily

21st October 2010, 02:37 PM

Just asserting it is implausible does no make it so. Let me get this straight, the bullet could have richocheted a long distance off of Kennedy's head, but not the tree branch?? The bullet could have hit the tree branch, changing the direction of the bullet, where it could have then hit the curb where Tague was near. What's so implausible about that? There were large fragments collected in the limousine of the third bullet, which makes the possibility of a large fragment deflecting off into the curb unlikely.

"For the sake of background, Posner believes there were three shots, all of which originated from the Depository, and all of which were shot by Lee Harvey Oswald from the sixth floor window. This theory has the first shot at the presidential limousine being obscured by the branches of a tree. The bullet would have hit a branch, fragmented, and gone towards the area where Tague was standing where it hit the curb. This is supported with several pieces of evidence and testimony. Two relatively large fragments of the bullet from the head shot were found in the limousine. The odds of having another sizable fragment travel 200 feet and chip concrete then decreases. Also, Tague himself claims "he thinks he heard the third shot after he was hit in the face" (Warren Report, 116). Although he believed that it was the second shot which caused his wound, it is quite clear that the second shot had gone through Kennedy and Governor Connally, ending in Connally's thigh after analysis of film footage shot by Abraham Zapruder.

Analysis of the footage of the Zapruder film of the assassination best correlates with this theory. Posner shows how the first shot (at Z-frame 160) is being deflected by a branch of the oak tree between Oswald and the limousine. The second shot hit both the President and Governor Connally just as their limousine emerged into Zapruder's view from behind a freeway sign. Careful analysis points to the second and third shots causing all of the wounds to Kennedy and Connally.

It is possible that Tague was hit with the first bullet and didn't immediately feel the sting because of his assumably shocked state throughout the situation. It would correlate with his insistence that it sounded different as well (hitting a tree and concrete near him rather than landing in the limousine).

After personally interviewing James Tague, he made it aware to me that he was misquoted in Posner's book. Tague told me that it was not the first shot that caused his wound. He told the author in an interview that "something made me jump back behind the abutment, and that's why I think it was the second one (shot)." Despite Tague's feeling that it was the second shot which hit him, it appears possible that he merely didn't feel any pain right away. Tague explained his wound as a "very minor scratch." It only created a few drops of blood. This supports the idea that he may not have felt the pain immediately. "
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/tague.htm

So where do you think the shooters were exactly? Are you a supporter of the triangulation theory?

I genuinely don't give a toss what Gerald Posner thinks.

If you can explain how a fully metal jacketed military bullet can get completely skinned of its jacket by nicking something as soft as a tree branch and how such a nick can deflect it 200 foot out of its trajectory then maybe you'll be on to something. The whole notion is specualtive, evidence free and preposterous.

Whereas on the other hand, one of the known facts of the shooting is that multiple fragments of lead were flying about as a result of the shot to kennedys head at z313. These multiple fragments are known to have caused nicks and dents in at least 3 separate places. These leads fragments were flying forwards out the front of the limousine in the exact direction of where James Tague was stood. A small chip was found in the curb with a lead smear on it. Tague getting hit by a fragment from the headshot fits all the known facts of the case, Tague getting his by this 'missed' shot fits no known facts.

RoboTimbo

21st October 2010, 03:30 PM

Your link completely misunderstands what it's quoting, which is not unusual for Dave Reitzes. That was a study of auditory reaction times (The bullet was travelling faster than the speed of sound.), the lower end of which were blink reactions, and all of which were longer than the times measured in the Zapruder film. Here's a more apposite study of reactions to external pain stimuli, showing reaction times of well over 100ms, and this is in much younger men than Kennedy - http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/26/42/10879#F2

Nope, that's not what it's saying. Try again.

riptowtan

21st October 2010, 07:01 PM

I genuinely don't give a toss what Gerald Posner thinks.

If you can explain how a fully metal jacketed military bullet can get completely skinned of its jacket by nicking something as soft as a tree branch and how such a nick can deflect it 200 foot out of its trajectory then maybe you'll be on to something. The whole notion is specualtive, evidence free and preposterous.
Who said the bullet had its jacket completely skinned off by hitting the tree? The bullet could have lost the jacket when it hit the curb. And why is it so hard to believe that a bullet can be deflected by the tree branch, which over time comes out to 200 ft. It's not like the bullet jump 200 feet over. It would have been on an angle towards the curb.

Whereas on the other hand, one of the known facts of the shooting is that multiple fragments of lead were flying about as a result of the shot to kennedys head at z313. These multiple fragments are known to have caused nicks and dents in at least 3 separate places. These leads fragments were flying forwards out the front of the limousine in the exact direction of where James Tague was stood. A small chip was found in the curb with a lead smear on it. Tague getting hit by a fragment from the headshot fits all the known facts of the case, Tague getting his by this 'missed' shot fits no known facts.
So one of the fragments from the headshot flew over a few hundred feet, had enough force to do some damage to the curb and to break off and hit Tague in the cheek. I'm sorry but I find the tree branch hypothesis much more plausible. But again we are arguing tiny details with the case that will never be sorted out with any high degree of certainty. If we look at all of the very clear evidence surrounding the Kennedy assassination, there is tons of evidence that Oswald did it, and not a scintilla of evidence for any other gunmen, nor any evidence that Oswald was associated with any groups. Getting back to one of your questions you asked me earlier, I don't think its plausible that members of the mob, cia and other groups could keep a secret like this for forty years. Not to mention pull off the job perfectly, while leaving various anomalies that some of the most incompetent researchers can pick out.

Soily

22nd October 2010, 12:23 AM

Who said the bullet had its jacket completely skinned off by hitting the tree? The bullet could have lost the jacket when it hit the curb. And why is it so hard to believe that a bullet can be deflected by the tree branch, which over time comes out to 200 ft. It's not like the bullet jump 200 feet over. It would have been on an angle towards the curb.

So one of the fragments from the headshot flew over a few hundred feet, had enough force to do some damage to the curb and to break off and hit Tague in the cheek. I'm sorry but I find the tree branch hypothesis much more plausible. But again we are arguing tiny details with the case that will never be sorted out with any high degree of certainty. If we look at all of the very clear evidence surrounding the Kennedy assassination, there is tons of evidence that Oswald did it, and not a scintilla of evidence for any other gunmen, nor any evidence that Oswald was associated with any groups. Getting back to one of your questions you asked me earlier, I don't think its plausible that members of the mob, cia and other groups could keep a secret like this for forty years. Not to mention pull off the job perfectly, while leaving various anomalies that some of the most incompetent researchers can pick out.
It's nothing to do with whether Oswald did the shots. There is simply no evidence for a tree strike, and it's deeply implausible that a bullet Nick on a branch could deflect it by 45 degrees and skin it of it's jacket. And if Posners theory is correct, then the same criticism you used against me applies, if it hit the tree with enough force to shear its jacket, how then could the leas core have enough velocity to travel the 400 foot from tree to curb? You can't have it both ways. How could the curb have skinned the bullet off the jacket when the singular small curb chip had a lead coloured smear on it, not copper? If the bullet slid along the curb having its jacket sheared off, wheres the marks? You're talking absolute bollocks.

And what do you think happened when the bullet hit kennedy's head? It stopped to a halt? Nope, it still had an enough velocity in the 100s if not 1000+ of feet per second range. It had the energy to blow brain and bone into the limousines behind it, it blew the Harper fragment 60 foot behind the car, several small fragments shot off in the same direction of James Tague, doing damage to the chrome trim, windshield and rear view mirror. Those fragments had enough velocity to hit the curb near Tague and cause a small chip of concrete to hit him on the cheek. It's not just the more likely scenario, it's to paraphrase Basil Fawlty, it's the 'bleeding obvious' one. And its not even particularly an argument that Oswald didn't do it.

Soily

22nd October 2010, 12:31 AM

Nope, that's not what it's saying. Try again.
Yep it is, reaction times are in the 100ms+ range. Its not remotely controversial. Even the finest athletes mankind has to ofer cannot physically react to a stimuli in less than 100ms, that's why if an Olympic sprinter - the fastest people on earth, reacts to the gun in less than 100ms he is disqualified.

akenlon

22nd October 2010, 03:02 AM

Soily

22nd October 2010, 04:38 AM

I enjoyed watching a show on the single bullet theory once.

They set up a mock-up using Ballistics Gel around a skeleton. Several actually. All laid out in the same configuration as the people who were wounded/killed by the "magic bullet". The same type of gun and the same type of scope was used and the gun was fired from a cherry picker boom from the same height and distance and angle as the original shot.

They recreated the shot with "injuries" to the ballistics dummies in the same places as the original Kennedy assassination.

Now here's the fun part and why most people have a problem with the magic bullet theory.

Using the reporting system for autopsy and ER Damage documentation, they noted all the entry and exit wounds of all the ballistics dummies. They took the documentation to a medical examiner in another country (to find a doctor who isn't familiar with the Kennedy case). That doctor looked at the documentation and reported that it was likely two bullets to do all that damage. Then they showed the doctor the footage and the slow-motion footage. The doctor was flabbergasted. Without seeing the footage of the shot, he would have never guessed a single bullet could do all that. The doctor (and likely the doctor at the time of the incident) looked at the situation and applied Occam's Razor to it and put the money on the simpler solution of two bullets to cover that wide range of damage.

In my mind, I like to pull the Mythbuster's style of looking at it. You can't really call it confirmed, but since it was reproducible it becomes well planted in the realm of plausible.

What happened with the Warren Commission was actually kind of the opposite of that. When the Doctors were first interviewed they hadn't seen either the Zapruder film or CE399. Some, not all generally agreed with Spector's assertion that one bullet could account for all the wounds. It was only after seeing the Zapruder film and particularly CE399 that most of them turned against the SBT.

Dr. Shaw gave evidence to the Warren Commission twice, first in March 1964 (volume 6H), then a month later in April 1964 (volume 4H). The difference between the two occasions is that Dr. Shaw was allowed to view the Zapruder film, CE 399 and the Governor's clothes on the second occasion. His testimony was markedly different after viewing the physical evidence.

In March 1964, Dr Shaw was happy to speculate that one bullet did all the damage to John Connally, but in April, he won't be held to that and even discusses the possibility of several bullets.[29] Dr Shaw said in April 1964, "Mr. Dulles, I thought I knew just how the Governor was wounded [i.e. with one bullet through JFK and John Connally] until I saw the pictures today, and it becomes a little bit harder to explain."[30] The extent to which the Warren Commission had already committed to the SBT is evident in Dulles' confusion when Shaw suggests the possibility of three bullets to account for the three wounds suffered by Connally.[31]

What is interesting about the testimony of the doctors who treated Connolly, is that it is abundantly clear that Connolly's thigh wound was not a bullet hit at all, but a tangential strike from a bullet fragment:

With the testimony of Dr. Shires and the FBI note from Dr. Reynolds, the Warren Commission was well aware that a whole bullet did not penetrate Connally's thigh, only a fragment. Dr. Shires said that the skin wound was either tangential or that a larger fragment (not a whole bullet) had penetrated or stopped in the skin and then fallen out.

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/22nd_Issue/sbt.html

That in itself completely destroys the single bullet theory.

Soily

22nd October 2010, 05:13 AM

dafydd

22nd October 2010, 06:17 AM

Still no hypothesis from Soily?

Soily

22nd October 2010, 07:38 AM

Still no hypothesis from Soily?
My hypothesis is that the single bullet theory as promoted by Arlen Spector and Dale Myers is quite clearly not correct.

RoboTimbo

22nd October 2010, 07:43 AM

Still no hypothesis from Soily?
Hans said it best:
You do know that is a request that will never be honoured!

dafydd

22nd October 2010, 08:10 AM

My hypothesis is that the single bullet theory as promoted by Arlen Spector and Dale Myers is quite clearly not correct.

What did happen then?Enlighten us,and we can report it to the proper authorities.

brenn

22nd October 2010, 08:13 AM

Never mind (thread is way to long for me to respond to post #2).

riptowtan

22nd October 2010, 08:15 AM

By the way Akenlon, here's their magic bullet from that Discovery recreation:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTTmYO8K5yfMy9NHjG0iLzKKfZ83-eLkgaNnufIuaLqHdoqN8I&t=1&usg=__HYMGjGZ4C_J5zOmy-tCxkvarbcs=

Again, the experiments show the unlikelhood of the SBT theory as much as anything.

This article goes into this in detail - http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/Breakability/Breakability.htm

It also nails once and for all the JFK Myth, that the bullet that hit Connolly was tumbling (ie because it had already gone through Kennedy). The bullet was not tumbling, that is a misconception caused by a mistake Larry Sturdivan made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZRUNYZY71g
Watch the end of the video. The bullet hit two ribs instead of one in the test. That can account for the damage to the bullet. And the bullet did tumble in this test. The bullet only passed through 6 of the 7 locations, but that's because it was slowed down by the second rib. This should put a nail in the coffin of the CT movement, along with Myer's animation. Instead of acknowledging that the test nearly got everything right (trajectory,passing through two bodies,6 out of 7 wounds), the CTs will just complain "But it didn't do every thing in the exact same way!! Therefore it was a conspiracy of some kind. Of what kind I have no clue."
Soily, if in the future they did another test in which they happened to duplicate the findings of the warren commission EXACTLY, would you change your mind?

riptowtan

22nd October 2010, 08:17 AM

My hypothesis is that the single bullet theory as promoted by Arlen Spector and Dale Myers is quite clearly not correct.

That's not what he meant. What do you think happened?

RoboTimbo

22nd October 2010, 08:21 AM

So do we all agree that the next post from Soily (or Fourbrick or 7forever) needs to be a hypothesis for what they think happened?

brenn

22nd October 2010, 08:26 AM

My hypothesis is that the single bullet theory as promoted by Arlen Spector and Dale Myers is quite clearly not correct.

Your proof, in the part of this mess I have read, seems to rest on pretty wild assumptions about ballistics that have no real basis. If everything you assume was true, you might have a point, but most of the "a bullet would do X and couldn't do Y" stuff is nonsense.

Fourbrick

22nd October 2010, 08:34 AM

So do we all agree that the next post from Soily (or Fourbrick or 7forever) needs to be a hypothesis for what they think happened?

I'm afraid I don't deal in hypotheses, unlike certain contributors here, Robo, just facts. Facts which I will be pleased to show you in the near future.

dafydd

22nd October 2010, 08:43 AM

I'm afraid I don't deal in hypotheses, unlike certain contributors here, Robo, just facts. Facts which I will be pleased to show you in the near future.

Lol,no CT'er on this forum has put forward a coherent theory of anything,just more ducking and diving.You have no theory,just a need to believe in nonsense.

RoboTimbo

22nd October 2010, 08:51 AM

I'm afraid I don't deal in hypotheses, unlike certain contributors here, Robo, just facts. Facts which I will be pleased to show you in the near future.

So more Joke White from you then?
:dl:

Fourbrick

22nd October 2010, 08:57 AM

So more Joke White from you then?
:dl:

There's an old saying. "He who laughs last..." Enjoy your trolling.

Soily

22nd October 2010, 09:09 AM

Your proof, in the part of this mess I have read, seems to rest on pretty wild assumptions about ballistics that have no real basis. If everything you assume was true, you might have a point, but most of the "a bullet would do X and couldn't do Y" stuff is nonsense.

Lets have some examples then? The wild assumptions are the entire basis of the SBT theory and the WC 3 bullet shooting scenario. It's riddled with absolute nonsense, like the magic bullet that rolled its way down elm street teasingly removing its hardened copper jacket like a bride removing a negligee, before popping up 400 foot later to hit James Tague, and leaving no trace behind except a lead smear in a chip on the pavement. Like how Dale Myers makes Kennedy a hunchback, Connolly and a midget and then lies about their positions in the car in order to get his shot to line up with the 6th floor window. Like his magic 13 degree deflection that all the pathologists say didn't happen. Like the autopsy doctors who probed Kennedy's back wound and found it was shallow. Like the magic traveling back and head wounds, which change position every time an official government body looks at them. Like the magic velocities conjured up by Larry Sturdivan to explain why nobody in history has ever been able to produce a comparable bullet to CE399 that had done the same amount of damage. Like the myth of the tumbling bullet started by John Lattimer because he used the wrong measurements of Connollys back wounds. Like Kennedy's magic superhuman reaction times in the Zapruder film. Like the lies the FBI told about the witnesses at Parkland not identifying CE399 as the bullet they found. Like documentary evidence that the FBI received a bullet that became CE399, an hour and a half before the secret service man delivered the Parkland bullet to them. Every time I point this nonsense out the LN defenders get all shifty and change the goalposts.

Now apparently in order to show a scenario is not correct, I have to provide a detailed alternative scenario, complete with proof. Proof that doesn't exist because the case happened 47 years ago, much of the evidence is either gone or horribly tainted, the original investigation was completely inadequate and virtually all the witnesses are dead.

Sorry chums, but that's an impossibly high benchmark. All I'm obliged to do as a skeptic is to point out the flaws in the arguments of someone or some group who are claims something is true.

I'm certainly glad you lot aren't judges. Under your system, in order for a defendant to prove they didn't do it they not only have to offer an alibi, they have to go out and prove who did do it and solve the crime for you.

RoboTimbo

22nd October 2010, 09:14 AM

The wild assumptions are the entire basis of the SBT theory and the WC 3 bullet shooting scenario. It's riddled with absolute nonsense, like the magic bullet that rolled its way down elm street teasingly removing its hardened copper jacket like a bride removing a negligee, before popping up 400 foot later to hit James Tague, and leaving no trace behind except a lead smear in a chip on the pavement. Like how Dale Myers makes Kennedy a hunchback, Connolly and a midget and then lies about their positions in the car in order to get his shot to line up with the 6th floor window. Like his magic 13 degree deflection that all the pathologists say didn't happen. Like the autopsy doctors who probed Kennedy's back wound and found it was shallow. Like the magic traveling back and head wounds, which change position every time an official government body looks at them. Like the magic velocities conjured up by Larry Sturdivan to explain why nobody in history has ever been able to produce a comparable bullet to CE399 that had done the same amount of damage. Like the myth of the tumbling bullet started by John Lattimer because he used the wrong measurements of Connollys back wounds. Like Kennedy's magic superhuman reaction times in the Zapruder film. Like the lies the FBI told about the witnesses at Parkland not identifying CE399 as the bullet they found. Like documentary evidence that the FBI received a bullet that became CE399, an hour and a half before the secret service man delivered the Parkland bullet to them. Every time I point this nonsense out the LN defenders get all shifty and change the goalposts.

Now apparently in order to show a scenario is not correct, I have to provide a detailed alternative scenario, complete with proof. Proof that doesn't exist because the case happened 47 years ago, much of the evidence is either gone or horribly tainted, the original investigation was completely inadequate and virtually all the witnesses are dead.

Sorry chums, but that's an impossibly high benchmark. All I'm obliged to do as a skeptic is to point out the flaws in the arguments of someone or some group who are claims something is true.

I'm certainly glad you lot aren't judges. Under your system, in order for a defendant to prove they didn't do it they not have to offer an alibi, they have to go out and prove who did do it and solve the crime for you.

So what's your hypothesis, Soily?

angrysoba

22nd October 2010, 09:15 AM

I'm certainly glad you lot aren't judges. Under your system, in order for a defendant to prove they didn't do it they not have to offer an alibi, they have to go out and prove who did do it and solve the crime for you.

I haven't read the thread but this suggests that LHO wasn't guilty.

Do you believe he took no part in the killing? (A crazy belief I think) or that he wasn't the only shooter? (a slightly less crazy but unlikely idea) or that he was part of some conspiracy that was covered up? (unlikely in my view) or that he was part of a conspiracy that none of the investigations ever discovered? (unlikely but not beyond the realms of possibility IMHO!)

Soily

22nd October 2010, 09:17 AM

So what's your hypothesis, Soily?
That the Single Bullet theory and the WC commission shooting scenario is not correct. What's yours?

Do you believe the HSCA got the shooting sequence correct Robo? You know, hit at around 190, bullet tunneling upwards in Kennedys body, Kennedy leaning far forward etc? Do you believe their conclusions or do you believe government panels of experts get it wrong sometimes?

RoboTimbo

22nd October 2010, 09:18 AM

That the Single Bullet theory and the WC commission shooting scenario is not correct.

But what's your hypothesis, Soily?

Soily

22nd October 2010, 09:23 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZRUNYZY71g
Watch the end of the video. The bullet hit two ribs instead of one in the test. That can account for the damage to the bullet. And the bullet did tumble in this test. The bullet only passed through 6 of the 7 locations, but that's because it was slowed down by the second rib. This should put a nail in the coffin of the CT movement, along with Myer's animation. Instead of acknowledging that the test nearly got everything right (trajectory,passing through two bodies,6 out of 7 wounds), the CTs will just complain "But it didn't do every thing in the exact same way!! Therefore it was a conspiracy of some kind. Of what kind I have no clue."
Soily, if in the future they did another test in which they happened to duplicate the findings of the warren commission EXACTLY, would you change your mind?

What you fail to point out is that their bullet hit less rib than CE399, whether that's across 1 or 2 ribs is completely irrelevant. And that bullet is massively more deformed than CE399. Nobody in the history of the world has ever been able to produce a comparable bullet to CE399 that did comparable damage.

Soily

22nd October 2010, 10:05 AM

I haven't read the thread but this suggests that LHO wasn't guilty.

Do you believe he took no part in the killing? (A crazy belief I think) or that he wasn't the only shooter? (a slightly less crazy but unlikely idea) or that he was part of some conspiracy that was covered up? (unlikely in my view) or that he was part of a conspiracy that none of the investigations ever discovered? (unlikely but not beyond the realms of possibility IMHO!)

The evidence suggests Oswald wasn't on the 6 th floor at the time of the shooting, and hadn't fired a rifle that day. It also strongly suggests that he left the TSBD knowing he was in trouble. So I think he was probably involved in some way yes.

The whole point about the SBT is unless it's true as stated, there was a conspiracy regardless of what anybody thinks about Oswald, Tippit or anything else.

The Warren commission knew this full well, which is why it had to resort to conclusion that was a bold faced lie:

3. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President's throat also caused Governor Connally's wounds. However, Governor Connally's testimony and certain other factors have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability but there is no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President's and Governor Connally's wounds were fired from the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.

Which is of course obviously nonsense. If Connolly isn't hit by the same bullet as Kennedy there was a conspiracy. This is the level of thinking the Warren Commision worked at.

angrysoba

22nd October 2010, 10:10 AM

The evidence suggests Oswald wasn't on the 6 th floor at the time of the shooting, and hadn't fired a rifle that day. It also strongly suggests that he left the TSBD knowing he was in trouble. So I think he was probably involved in some way yes.

The whole point about the SBT is unless it's true as stated, there was a conspiracy regardless of what anybody thinks about Oswald, Tippit or anything else.

The Warren commission knew this full well, which is why it had to resort to conclusion that was a bold faced lie:

Which is of course obviously nonsense. If Connolly isn't hit by the same bullet as Kennedy there was a conspiracy. This is the level of thinking the Warren Commision worked at.

Okay, just trying to place your idea about this. I bought Bugliosi's book on the subject and haven't read through the whole thing yet. What do you think of the book?

carlitos

22nd October 2010, 10:22 AM

My hypothesis is that the single bullet theory as promoted by Arlen Spector and Dale Myers is quite clearly not correct.

No.
hy·poth·e·sis (h-pth-ss)
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Please explain, in your words, what happened in Dallas that day. Please ensure that your hypothesis includes all of the evidence presented. Good luck.

Soily

22nd October 2010, 10:24 AM

Okay, just trying to place your idea about this. I bought Bugliosi's book on the subject and haven't read through the whole thing yet. What do you think of the book?
I've not read his book, very few people have (it bombed apparently), but I am very familiar with his case, since the book is based on his prosecution case in the excellent 1986 mock trial of Oswald, with famed lawyer Gerry Spenser repented Oswald (his cross examination of Ruth Paine is riveting drama). Bugliosi's prosecution case is indeed impressive. Unfortunetly it is a tendentious lawyers case. As soon as you bother to dig deeper into his points, you see how one sided and distorted his arguments are. There are very few of Bugliosi's arguments that stand up to scrutiny and I would be quite happy to debate any of Bugliosi's points with anyone. I suggest once you read bulgloisis case you read Jim DiEugenio's 10 part rebuttal. You owe it to yourself to get both sides of the argument .

carlitos

22nd October 2010, 10:28 AM

Prosecutors' arguments do tend to be one-sided, yes.

Soily

22nd October 2010, 10:30 AM

No.

Please explain, in your words, what happened in Dallas that day. Please ensure that your hypothesis includes all of the evidence presented. Good luck.

Bad luck. My hypothesis, argument, large Mongolian wildebeest, whatever you want to call it, is that the SBT and the WC shooting sequence is not correct. I believe by investigating the evidence and testing the arguments this theory can be disproved to a reasonable level of certainty.

Soily

22nd October 2010, 10:31 AM

Prosecutors' arguments do tend to be one-sided, yes.

Books purporting to be the final word on a subject do not, no.

carlitos

22nd October 2010, 10:39 AM

Bad luck. My hypothesis, argument, large Mongolian wildebeest, whatever you want to call it, is that the SBT and the WC shooting sequence is not correct. I believe by investigating the evidence and testing the arguments this theory can be disproved to a reasonable level of certainty.

Cool. If the "SBT and the WC shooting sequence is not correct," having thought about this so much, please enlighten us: What was the likely bullet count, shooting location, and sequence of events? This should be easy.

Soily

22nd October 2010, 10:58 AM

Cool. If the "SBT and the WC shooting sequence is not correct," having thought about this so much, please enlighten us: What was the likely bullet count, shooting location, and sequence of events? This should be easy.

It wasn't as laid down in the Warren report. Even the Warren reports own testimony and experts show quite clearly that the Warren commissions conclusions were wrong. Which would be why 3 of the 7 members of the Warren commission didn't believe their own conclusions.

carlitos

22nd October 2010, 11:15 AM

Yes, I get that. You think that the Warren Commission was wrong. Got it. No need to repeat it ever again. Please don't.

Now, given that you think that the Warren Commission was wrong, and you have obviously done a lot of thinking about this:

What's your best guess as to what happened to President Kennedy? Who, why what how where? How many shooters? Where were they? Who were they?

Please, tell us your hypothesis that explains what we saw and heard.

Soily

22nd October 2010, 11:21 AM

carlitos

22nd October 2010, 11:33 AM

Is it that you don't understand the question, or were you answering someone else with that post?

What's your best guess as to what happened to President Kennedy? Who, why what how where? How many shooters? Where were they? Who were they?

Please, tell us your hypothesis that explains what we saw and heard.

Soily

22nd October 2010, 11:37 AM

Is it that you don't understand the question, or were you answering someone else with that post?

My hypothesis is that the Warren Commission, Dale Myers and Vincent Bugliosi's SBT and shooting sequence is wrong.

Now in the photograph above, would a right to left shot passing through kennedy's neck hit Connolly in the right arm pit. Yes or no?

carlitos

22nd October 2010, 11:48 AM

My hypothesis is that the Warren Commission, Dale Myers and Vincent Bugliosi's SBT and shooting sequence is wrong.
That is NOT a hypothesis. See definition above. You are simply arguing from incredulity.

tsig

22nd October 2010, 11:48 AM

My hypothesis is that the Warren Commission, Dale Myers and Vincent Bugliosi's SBT and shooting sequence is wrong.

Now in the photograph above, would a right to left shot passing through kennedy's neck hit Connolly in the right arm pit. Yes or no?

So you don't know what happened but you know what didn't happen?

Soily

22nd October 2010, 11:55 AM

That is NOT a hypothesis. See definition above. You are simply arguing from incredulity.

It is an hypothesis, it's an explanation of why the official verdict on the shooting sequence and the sbt is wrong.

And I genuinely don't care what you think. You are incapable of defending what you believe and that tells me don't actually know why you believe it.

Please describe where Connolly is seated in relation to Kennedy in the photo I posted. Would a right to left shot passing through kennedy's neck hit Connollys right arm pit. Yes or no?

carlitos

22nd October 2010, 11:59 AM

It is an hypothesis, it's an explanation of why the official verdict on the shooting sequence and the sbt is wrong.

And I genuinely don't care what you think. You are incapable of defending what you believe and that tells me don't actually know why you believe it.

Just in case you are wondering why there isn't public outcry for your cause, read the above to yourself. The lack of a hypothesis that better explains events afflicts many conspiracists. See the 9/11 section for a similar pattern. I just thought I'd give you an opportunity to prove me wrong, but since you don't care, feel free to carry on. Everyone needs a hobby.

ETA, from DGM's signature:

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" --Jay Windley

Soily

22nd October 2010, 12:11 PM

Just in case you are wondering why there isn't public outcry for your cause, read the above to yourself. The lack of a hypothesis that better explains events afflicts many conspiracists. See the 9/11 section for a similar pattern. I just thought I'd give you an opportunity to prove me wrong, but since you don't care, feel free to carry on. Everyone needs a hobby.

ETA, from DGM's signature:

I don't give a toss what people believe about 9/11, it has nothing to do with this. And you're serious about the lack of public outcry? No public outcry in 64-67 that led to the Clarke panel? No public outcry in 75-76 that led to the HSCA? No public outcry in 91-93 that led to the ARRB? Every poll ever conducted on the subject shows widespread disbelief in the WC verdict?

You are clearly incapable of defending what you believe because you don't know why you believe it. If you actually engaged in the arguments maybe your critiscms would have some weight.

In the photograph I posted, would a right to left shot passing through the midline of kennedy's neck at the position of the adams apple hit Connolly in the right arm pit. Yes or No?

carlitos

22nd October 2010, 12:18 PM

And you're serious about the lack of public outcry? No public outcry in 64-67 that led to the Clarke panel? No public outcry in 75-76 that led to the HSCA? No public outcry in 91-93 that led to the ARRB? I just double-checked my watch and it's 2010, but it is a fair point that people freaked out after Oliver Stone's fictional movie about JFK. People also freaked out about Silent Spring, so we banned DDT and killed millions of poor African children with malaria. This tendency of the mob to embrace incorrect ideas is one of the reasons that the founders didn't choose direct democracy, so these freakouts can't mess up the Constitution.
Every poll ever conducted on the subject shows widespread disbelief in the WC verdict?

Polls also indicate that people believe in God, bigfoot, aliens and lots of wacky stuff. Argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy, not an argument.

I'm just checking. One last try.

I ask you a question - "hey dude, what's your hypothesis about what happened to JFK?"

You refuse to answer my question, and then badger me with questions about a photopgraph.

Does that about sum it up?

Soily

22nd October 2010, 12:24 PM

I just double-checked my watch and it's 2010, but it is a fair point that people freaked out after Oliver Stone's fictional movie about JFK. People also freaked out about Silent Spring, so we banned DDT and killed millions of poor African children with malaria. This tendency of the mob to embrace incorrect ideas is one of the reasons that the founders didn't choose direct democracy, so these freakouts can't mess up the Constitution.
Polls also indicate that people believe in God, bigfoot, aliens and lots of wacky stuff. Argumentum ad populum is still a fallacy, not an argument.

I'm just checking. One last try.

I ask you a question - "hey dude, what's your hypothesis about what happened to JFK?"

You refuse to answer my question, and then badger me with questions about a photopgraph.

Does that about sum it up?

My hypothesis, my premise, is that the Warren commissions single bullet theory and shooting sequence is incorrect. I am seeking to prove that by testing their own evidence and the other available evidence we have.

Also you asked a question about public outcry, and I answered you. If it's an Argumentum ad populum then you asked for it.

Now, in the photograph I posted, would a shot exiting Kennedy's adam's apple on a right to left trajectory hit Connolly in the right armpit. Yes or no?

You are I capable of answering the question aren't you?

carlitos

22nd October 2010, 12:34 PM

Soily

22nd October 2010, 12:43 PM

"hey dude, what's your hypothesis about what happened to JFK?"

None of the highlighted portion of this question has anything to do with the Warren Commission. I asked for the Soily verion of events, nothing else.

I broadly agree with the current official verdict of the United States government. That is that Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy, but the precise nature of that conspiracy is unknown. Because of the poor quality of the evidence and the inadequacy of the original investigation we will never know for sure what happened.

My specific hypothesis, hence the title of the thread you are currently posting in, is that the official Warren commission SBT and their shooting sequence is incorrect. If you don't wish to keep trolling this thread then I suggest you start another one.

carlitos

22nd October 2010, 12:47 PM

I broadly agree with the current official verdict of the United States government. That is that Kennedy was probably killed as a result of a conspiracy, but the precise nature of that conspiracy is unknown. Because of the poor quality of the evidence and the inadequacy of the original investigation we will never know for sure what happened.
No, JFK was killed by a gunshot wound. A gun that was fired by a man somewhere nearby. You expect me to believe that you really have no opinion on who the man was, or where he was located? OK. But you are just arguing from incredulity. Don't worry; nothing will ever happen as the result of your incredulity.

My specific hypothesis, hence the title of the thread you are currently posting in, is that the official Warren commission SBT and their shooting sequence is incorrect. If you don't wish to follow the thread then I suggest you start another one.

If you won't propose a "correct" shooting sequence it seems like there is no point. You can't prove a negative. That's why I brought up the 9/11 threads; it's a bunch of bozos saying "the official story is wrong," and not a one of them proposes a coherent alternative.

Hypotheses explain events. They don't say "so and so is wrong."

Soily

22nd October 2010, 12:59 PM

No, JFK was killed by a gunshot wound. A gun that was fired by a man somewhere nearby. You expect me to believe that you really have no opinion on who the man was, or where he was located? OK. But you are just arguing from incredulity. Don't worry; nothing will ever happen as the result of your incredulity.

If you won't propose a "correct" shooting sequence it seems like there is no point. You can't prove a negative. That's why I brought up the 9/11 threads; it's a bunch of bozos saying "the official story is wrong," and not a one of them proposes a coherent alternative.

Hypotheses explain events. They don't say "so and so is wrong."

Please read the title of the thread again. This thread is about the validity of the single bullet theory. Even though it is off topic, I have answered your question about what I think happened, that is I agree with the United States official governments position that Kennedy was probably killed by a conspiracy. I believe the evidence is not good enough to make an accurate assessment of the precise nature of the conspiracy. I do however have many theories, but they are not for this thread.

Now unless you are willing to answer my question about the photo I posted, or are willing to start another thread with your off topic questions, then this is the last post from you I am going to respond to. Because otherwise you are trolling.

carlitos

22nd October 2010, 01:07 PM

Kennedy was probably killed by a conspiracy
No. He was killed by a gunshot wound.

Soily

22nd October 2010, 01:25 PM

No. He was killed by a gunshot wound.

Oh no, my sides have split.

marplots

22nd October 2010, 01:34 PM

riptowtan

22nd October 2010, 01:46 PM

One of the great problems with Dale Mysers version of what happened in dealey plaza is that he places Connolly and Kennedy in the positions they are in cherry picked photos from earlier in the motorcade route. But Kennedy and Connolly are not statues. Their positions change. Please look at the photograph below and tell me where Connolly is seated in relation to Kennedy.

http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/jfk.jpg

As anyone can see, if Kennedy and Connolly are seated in this position at the time of the shooting, then a right to left shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD passing through kennedy's back and neck, would not hit Connolly in his right armpit, but somewhere on the left side of his body, or miss him completely. The best film we have of the shooting is the Zapruder film, in that film it's impossible to precisely verify Connolly and Kennedy's position, but there is no reason to believe they are not seated as they are above.

So you say that Myers cherrypicked this photo to support his conclusion, but then say that the picture he chose doesn't even match up?
So a trajectory like this couldn't have happened?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285944cc1f93e56d07.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21444)

Still nothing but arguments from incredulity and arguments to authority. In order to make a case, like Oswald is innocent or there was another gunmen, we need some evidence or good reason to think that is true. So far we been all over the place on bullet trajectories,how much damage bullets can do and whether or not Oswald brought a bag into the Book Depository. This is not how a proper investigation is done. Looking at the totality of evidence, and applying some logic, its a very simple case. We have 53 pieces of evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy. Whereas there are no pieces of evidence for any other gunmen or conspirators who were in cahoots with Kennedy. 40 years of naked speculation, distortions and denialist tactics and what have the JFK conspiracy researchers accomplished? Not a damn thing. Unless there is a convincing argument, or a solid piece of evidence for another gunman/conspirator, there is no reason to believe there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
I've listened to all of your arguments soily, and find not one convincing. Since it seems most here agree with my assessment of your arguments, maybe its time to reconsider the methods you've used, and whether or not you have dug yourself into one of those dreaded rabbitholes. At least consider the possibility of being wrong.

Soily

22nd October 2010, 01:57 PM

So you say that Myers cherrypicked this photo to support his conclusion, but then say that the picture he chose doesn't even match up?
So a trajectory like this couldn't have happened?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285944cc1f93e56d07.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21444)

Still nothing but arguments from incredulity and arguments to authority. In order to make a case, like Oswald is innocent or there was another gunmen, we need some evidence or good reason to think that is true. So far we been all over the place on bullet trajectories,how much damage bullets can do and whether or not Oswald brought a bag into the Book Depository. This is not how a proper investigation is done. Looking at the totality of evidence, and applying some logic, its a very simple case. We have 53 pieces of evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy. Whereas there are no pieces of evidence for any other gunmen or conspirators who were in cahoots with Kennedy. 40 years of naked speculation, distortions and denialist tactics and what have the JFK conspiracy researchers accomplished? Not a damn thing. Unless there is a convincing argument, or a solid piece of evidence for another gunman/conspirator, there is no reason to believe there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
I've listened to all of your arguments soily, and find not one convincing. Since it seems most here agree with my assessment of your arguments, maybe its time to reconsider the methods you've used, and whether or not you have dug yourself into one of those dreaded rabbitholes. At least consider the possibility of being wrong.

Jesus, are you serious? You do understand that the line you have drawn is in the opposite direction to the TSBD don't you? You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

For a brief moment I actual thought you were a genuine opponent. Now I know you are an idiot.

Soily

22nd October 2010, 02:09 PM

Soily, did you notice in that pic you posted... Kennedy is already reacting to getting shot??

I'm a disinterested party, but I've read the whole thread. I have to say it very much reminds me of the argument for "the missing link" in evolution. I've seen many objections answered quite clearly, but it doesn't matter, another detail needs an answer and then another and so on and on.

There's a sort of mathematical rigor demanded that doesn't meet with my experiences with how the world actually works. Loose ends are just that -- loose ends. But in the obsessive search for these outliers, the whole fabric gets tossed aside. I have to ask it this way -- Would a jury have convicted Oswald? Because, in the end, that's the sort of 'truth' you are going to get in the world outside of this theory-making mental masturbation.

Forgive me but I don't understand the first line of your post.

But no, a jury wouldn't have convicted Oswald. I'm not saying a case couldn't be crested, Bugliosis did a good job in 1986. The problem is in a real trial the defence could subpoena evidence and cross examine witnesses under oath. Under that level of scrutiny the Dallas polices utter incompetence would have been ruthlessly exposed, most of their evidence thrown out and the FBI and the CIAs obstruction exposed for what it was.

For instance, CE399, the rifle, the blanket, the bag, the shells, Marina, markham, Bledsoe, Brennan would all be absolutely shredded by a competent defence team. Most of the physical evidence wouldn't even make it to court because it's so tainted by incompetence. Why exactly did the palm print on the rifle the DPD say they found on the 22nd disappear when sent to the FBI lab on the 23rd? Their fingerprint expert reported that no such palm print existed on the weapon, and indeed no prints were found on the weapon at all until after Oswald was dead. This sort of stuff, and his is by no means unique, would destroy the prosecution case.

Under the scrutiny of a court room, the case against Oswald is actually embarrassing, the provence and quality of the evidence is so relentlessly poor. Will fritz picked the shells up with his hands, the TSBd wasn't sealed for nearly half an hour after the shooting, about 15 different people claim to have found the rifle, 3 different detectives where stood on the paper bag, yet none of them remember it and it was never photographed anywhere in the TSBD. The list goes on.

riptowtan

22nd October 2010, 02:15 PM

Jesus, are you serious? You do understand that the line you have drawn is in the opposite direction to the TSBD don't you? You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

For a brief moment I actual thought you were a genuine opponent. Now I know you are an idiot.

Nice ad hominem.
So are claiming that Myers and every attempted trajectory proposed by SBT supporters had the trajectory coming from the wrong direction?
If so why didn't you point this out earlier?
These videos agree with the trajectory i drew in do they not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbIjki-HLo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBXW1-VGmM&feature=related

RoboTimbo

22nd October 2010, 02:18 PM

riptowtan

22nd October 2010, 02:21 PM

Soily why don't you draw the trajectory line. Correct my mistake, if i got it wrong.

marplots

22nd October 2010, 02:25 PM

Soily

22nd October 2010, 02:29 PM

Nice ad hominem.
So are claiming that Myers and every attempted trajectory proposed by SBT supporters had the trajectory coming from the wrong direction?
If so why didn't you point this out earlier?
These videos agree with the trajectory drew in do they not?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbbIjki-HLo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBXW1-VGmM&feature=related

I can't even believe i'm bothering to reply to you. The TSBD was always to the right of the motorcade during the shooting, how can you have such strong opinions and not know even the most basic facts about the case? The line you've drawn points back to the country records building at least, you utter fool. Myers trajectory is about a million times more correct than yours, at least he bothers to have a basic understanding of the geography of the case.

Soily

22nd October 2010, 02:37 PM

My first line that wasn't clear: "Soily, did you notice in that pic you posted... Kennedy is already reacting to getting shot??"

I'm pointing out that a motion of a man's hands isn't necessarily a reaction to getting shot. There is no way to pin "getting shot" down to a frame of film based on whether someone's hands are moving in the direction of the wound. Of course, if that's what you want it to be -- a reaction to getting shot -- then, well, that's what it has to be. But this is just the sort of thing I am asked to accept. Not just once, but over and over again. A reworking of meanings to fit one idea or another.

Now, this would work, if there was some clear idea all the meanings led toward. But I'm not getting that at all.

As far as a trial goes, there is an element you are dodging a bit. It's called, "The defense's theory of the case". This is the narrative the defense offers to explain the inconvenient forensic evidence that implicates their client. It is generally a storyline that establishes things like alibi and other reasons for their client's actions. It doesn't have to directly accuse some other person/person's but it darn sure has to account for their clients actions. Just sayin'.

You have an unbelievably poor understanding of what a defense is in a trial. The defense doesn't have to prove anything, it doesn't have to provide any alternative scenario. All the defense has to do is cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution case. This is 101 stuff, it's hard to believe you are so ignorant of the basics. You are almost as bad as riptown, who has incredibly strong opinions on the case, yet doesn't even know where the TSBD depository is in relation to the presidential limousine.

Absolutely piss poor, I thought I was amongst proper critical thinkers, yet it's quite clear you haven't got a clue what your talking about.

RoboTimbo

22nd October 2010, 02:37 PM

I can't even believe i'm bothering to reply to you. The TSBD was always to the right of the motorcade during the shooting, how can you have such strong opinions and not know even the most basic facts about the case? The line you've drawn points back to the country records building at least, you utter fool.

Oswald was the lone gunman who shot Kennedy from the sixth floor of the TSBD. He fired three shots. The first one missed, likely deflected by a tree branch. The second one went through Kennedy's back and out his throat and then into Connelly causing all of Connelly's injuries. The third shot was the head shot.

That's the best hypothesis we will ever have unless someone comes up with a better one. Do you have a better one?

riptowtan

22nd October 2010, 02:38 PM

I can't even believe i'm bothering to reply to you. The TSBD was always to the right of the motorcade during the shooting, how can you have such strong opinions and not know even the most basic facts about the case? The line you've drawn points back to the country records building at least, you utter fool.

It's to the right of the motorcade? I think one of us is making a mistake, can I have someone else's opinion here I always thought the TBSD was to the left of the motorcade.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285944cc2037beaf04.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21446)

It's to the left if you are looking at it from the front.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285944cc204385b05d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21447)

riptowtan

22nd October 2010, 02:43 PM

So the trajectory here is placing the TSBD on the wrong side of the street? Is that what you are claiming?
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b.

marplots

22nd October 2010, 02:56 PM

You have an unbelievably poor understanding of what a defense is in a trial. The defense doesn't have to prove anything, it doesn't have to provide any alternative scenario. All the defense has to do is cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution case. This is 101 stuff, it's hard to believe you are so ignorant of the basics. You are almost as bad as riptown, who has incredibly strong opinions on the case, yet doesn't even know where the TSBD depository is in relation to the presidential limousine.

Absolutely piss poor, I thought I was amongst proper critical thinkers, yet it's quite clear you haven't got a clue what your talking about.

You misunderstood me. I didn't say 'prove', I said 'explain'. Here's a good refresher for you on what's involved: http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/tips/defense.html
This is the way reasonable doubt is generated. You present what you feel is a more reasonable explanation and people weigh the two. I think your arguments would be much stronger if you could do that. As it is, you are saying that story X is unreasonable, but largely leaving unanswered the obvious question, "Well, what is more reasonable?"

Surely, you have asked yourself this same question? Kennedy is dead. The claim is that this guy killed him. There's a storyline that involves a place, a weapon, some background... the usual means, motive and opportunity. The story doesn't have to hang together in every nuance. But the whole tale does, when considered entire. I'm gonna assume we all think someone shot Kennedy, right?

Soily

22nd October 2010, 03:21 PM

So the trajectory here is placing the TSBD on the wrong side of the street? Is that what you are claiming?
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b.

I'm not claiming anything. It's a fact that the TSBD was to the right of the president when the shooting happened. The line you drew was to the left of the president, pointing back towards either the daltex or more likely the country records building. What's so utterly hilarious about your ignorance is that what you claim proves the Oswald shot is the exact trajectory conspiracy theorists claim is more consistent with the wounds.

Edited for civility. Stop the name-calling.

Soily

22nd October 2010, 03:27 PM

You misunderstood me. I didn't say 'prove', I said 'explain'. Here's a good refresher for you on what's involved: http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/tips/defense.html
This is the way reasonable doubt is generated. You present what you feel is a more reasonable explanation and people weigh the two. I think your arguments would be much stronger if you could do that. As it is, you are saying that story X is unreasonable, but largely leaving unanswered the obvious question, "Well, what is more reasonable?"

Surely, you have asked yourself this same question? Kennedy is dead. The claim is that this guy killed him. There's a storyline that involves a place, a weapon, some background... the usual means, motive and opportunity. The story doesn't have to hang together in every nuance. But the whole tale does, when considered entire. I'm gonna assume we all think someone shot Kennedy, right?

Have you seen the trial bugliosi prosecuted in 1986? This is the closest we'll ever get to a genuine trial of Oswald. Real jurors, real judge, real lawyers, all the real witnesses, including the eyewitnesses, Ruth Paine, Buell Frazier, Marrion Baker and many more. As the judge repeatedly points out, the defence has to prove precisely nothing, only that the prosecution case is wrong beyond a reasonable doubt.