single bullet theory is not true says Soily

[RoboTimbo]

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.

And yet you agree that Oswald killing Kennedy, firing three shots from the sixth floor of the TSBD is the best theory we have?

[riptowtan]

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. You are a clown, but unusually a funny one.

To the right if you are in the limo. If you are looking at it from the front it is clearly to the left of the limo. Are you saying that the maps are all wrong?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285944cc2037beaf04.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21446)

[riptowtan]

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.

Yeah and Bugliosi won the trial unanimously. What's your point?

[Soily]

And yet you agree that Oswald killing Kennedy, firing three shots from the sixth floor of the TSBD is the best theory we have?
It's not a theory that fits the known facts no.

Do you believe riptowns trajectory is correct robo?

[RoboTimbo]

It's not a theory that fits the known facts no.

Did you have a better hypothesis for how Kennedy was killed? If not, you'll simply have to agree that we already have the correct one.

[Soily]

To the right if you are in the limo. If you are looking at it from the front it is clearly to the left of the limo. Are you saying that the maps are all wrong?

[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285944cc2037beaf04.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21446)


Edited for civility. Stop the name-calling.

This is your own image:
http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21444

Now, look at your own image and compare it to the map you posted. Do you see that your trajectory is in the opposite direction to the TSBD? That it points back to the daltex or country records building? Can some poster with some critical faculties point this out to him?

[riptowtan]

Removed quote of moderated content

This is your own image:
http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21444

Now, look at your own image and compare it to the map you posted. Do you see that your trajectory is in the opposite direction to the TSBD? That it points back to the daltex or country records building? Can some poster with some critical faculties point this out to him?

Here are both the images:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285944cc2037beaf04.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21446)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285944cc1f93e56d07.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21444)

You are saying that the trajectory I drew in is the opposite direction of the trajectory of the photo on the left???

[riptowtan]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285944cc2190678c48.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21448)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285944cc2191380379.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21449)

[Soily]

Yeah and Bugliosi won the trial unanimously. What's your point?

According to mark redhead, the producer of the LWT mock trial the first jury verdict was a 7-5 aquital.

[Soily]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285944cc2190678c48.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21448)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285944cc2191380379.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21449)
The trajectory from the TSBD is right to left from the point of view of the alleged 6th floor sniper (about 18 degrees at 224). Your line is coming in on a left to right trajectory, the opposite direction to the TSBD. You have made such a fundamental error that it suggests to me you don't have an even basic grasp of the issues involved.

[Fourbrick]

I'll second that.

[akenlon]

The problem with saying that Kennedy wasn't killed by a single gunman and that it was all due to a conspiracy is that nothing in the concept of conspiracy precludes the possibility of a single, solo gunman to actually do the job. If you arrest a person for hiring a hitman, the legal charge for that crime is "conspiracy to commit murder".

So yes, there could have been a conspiracy to kill the PotUS, but nothing in the word or concept of conspiracy says that the conspirators could not have hired or manipulated LHO to do the deed for them.

I for one prefer the hypothesis of the Single Bullet. Unlike all of the theories that have been read my me, the single bullet has some evidence behind it. Similar shot setups have resulted in *very* similar bullet and wound paths. The fact that none of them have hit exactly the same way and done the exact damage does not invalidate the tests.

A muscle could have been tensed that is missing from the test ballistics, a seam in the fabric could have influenced the bullet in some way. Any number of minor things can shift the path a little bit. It's chaos equations and it means that we can *never* perfectly recreate the original shot.

However, all the other theories and hypothesis that I have seen (and that is just the ones that I am familiar with, I do acknowledge that there may be others that may prove me wrong), all have very complex explanations. Some are very Rube-Goldbergian in nature. The Single Bullet for me is the simplest explanation since it has proof (from the discovery channel tests and other organizations) that a shot like that is plausible.

Please again not that I did not give it a mythbusters-styled "Confirmed" but a "Plausible".

Until we can invent space-time travel we may never know exactly how the events unfolded. Just make some educated guesses.

[angrysoba]

I prefer the theory that someone popped out of a manhole and shot the president. Or that Kennedy's chaffeur turned around and shot him with a pistol!

There is no shortage of weird and wacky theories and proving any of them wrong is almost impossible. All you can do is try to apply the same level of skepticism to any one claim than you do to another.

Many Kennedy conspiracy theorists are either reluctant to spell out a theory in order to apply the same skepticism to it that they do to the Warren Commission's findings or else they simply don't apply the same skepticism to their own theories.

[RoboTimbo]

I for one prefer the hypothesis of the Single Bullet. Unlike all of the theories that have been read my me, the single bullet has some evidence behind it.

There haven't been any other theories put forward in this thread. Soily as much as admits that the SBT is the only plausible theory and Oswald is the lone assassin.

[Soily]

I prefer the theory that someone popped out of a manhole and shot the president. Or that Kennedy's chaffeur turned around and shot him with a pistol!

There is no shortage of weird and wacky theories and proving any of them wrong is almost impossible. All you can do is try to apply the same level of skepticism to any one claim than you do to another.

Many Kennedy conspiracy theorists are either reluctant to spell out a theory in order to apply the same skepticism to it that they do to the Warren Commission's findings or else they simply don't apply the same skepticism to their own theories.

The flaw in this reasoning is that most conspiracy theorists don't have unlimited resources, access to all the evidence and all the witnesses, and the entire investigative power of the FBI behind them. So to demand the same levels of proof and evidence from them is at best unrealistic. The Warren Commission had all the tools at it's disposal to find out exactly what happened and came up with an explanation that is deeply flawed, so flawed that even the Warren Commission didn't agree with it.

[Soily]

There haven't been any other theories put forward in this thread. Soily as much as admits that the SBT is the only plausible theory and Oswald is the lone assassin.

Pardon? So showing that something didn't happen one way is actually proof that it did? Welcome to the crazy world of the Warren Commission defender.

Have you decided yet how a bullet travelling through Kennedy's neck on an 18 degree right to left trajectory could hit Connolly in his right armpit in the photograph I posted? Or do you agree with riptown that Kennedy was shot from the Dallas county records building?

[RoboTimbo]

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

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.

Answer the question, Soily. If you have no other hypothesis, then you agree with the Warren Commission.

[Fourbrick]

Could be an interesting book.
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs090/1101630309567/archive/1103780709152.html

[Soily]

Answer the question, Soily. If you have no other hypothesis, then you agree with the Warren Commission.

With razor sharp logic like that it's not surprising your defense of the single bullet theory is so poor.

[RoboTimbo]

With razor sharp logic like that it's not surprising your defense of the single bullet theory is so poor.

You tell me what your hypothesis is and I'll compare the two and then make up my mind.

[Soily]

Could be an interesting book.
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs090/1101630309567/archive/1103780709152.html

I'm halfway through this fourbrick and I'm finding it slightly disappointing. About half the book is just about the principles of science rather than the JFK case, which is all very interesting but not really particularly relevant. And whilst he makes some good, if not new points, a lot of his statements about the assassination seem surprisingly glib for someone who is clearly a very accomplished scientist. I'll reserve final judgement till vie finished it but so far it doesn't live up to the bold claims it makes in the blurb.

[Soily]

You tell me what your hypothesis is and I'll compare the two and then make up my mind.

I'm not going to come up with a detailed alternative scenario when there's no way it can be proven, especially since so much of the evidence is gone or tainted. I'll stick to what I can prove, which is that the single bullet theory and the Warren Commission shooting sequence is not correct.

And you have already shown with your incredibly poor defense of the single bullet theory that your analytic skills are not really very good, or your understanding of the case very complete, so I have a feeling i'm not missing out on any kind of penetrating insight.

[riptowtan]

The trajectory from the TSBD is right to left from the point of view of the alleged 6th floor sniper (about 18 degrees at 224).
Agreed.

Your line is coming in on a left to right trajectory, the opposite direction to the TSBD. You have made such a fundamental error that it suggests to me you don't have an even basic grasp of the issues involved.

No, because it is from the POV of someone in front of the limosuine. This is a different point of view, and so right and left are reversed. If you were in the snipers position, the line I drew would be going left to right. I hate to spell this out for you. Did you look at the map? Think about what you are saying.

Here's a quiz for you:
Imagine standing in front of two big statues. One of JFK and the other of Governor Connolly. JFK is on your right, Connolly on your left. Your friend then can be seen behind the statues walking towards them. Where are the Connolly and JFK statues in relation to him?

[riptowtan]

I'm not going to come up with a detailed alternative scenario when there's no way it can be proven, especially since so much of the evidence is gone or tainted. I'll stick to what I can prove, which is that the single bullet theory and the Warren Commission shooting sequence is not correct.

Maybe that's a sign that you went wrong somewhere. You claim that the single bullet theory a flawed hypothesis, but you can't even think up a better one.

[RoboTimbo]

I'm not going to come up with a detailed alternative scenario when there's no way it can be proven, especially since so much of the evidence is gone or tainted. I'll stick to what I can prove, which is that the single bullet theory and the Warren Commission shooting sequence is not correct.

And you have already shown with your incredibly poor defense of the single bullet theory that your analytic skills are not really very good, or your understanding of the case very complete, so I have a feeling i'm not missing out on any kind of penetrating insight.

Everything you have brought up has been shot down in flames. You keep bringing up minutia and it keeps being refuted. I think we need a better quality of CTist. Do you know of any that you could recommend?

[Soily]

Agreed.



No, because it is from the POV of someone in front of the limosuine. This is a different point of view, and so right and left are reversed. If you were in the snipers position, the line I drew would be going left to right. I hate to spell this out for you. Did you look at the map? Think about what you are saying.

Here's a quiz for you:
Imagine standing in front of two big statues. One of JFK and the other of Governor Connolly. JFK is on your right, Connolly on your left. Your friend then can be seen behind the statues walking towards them. Where are the Connolly and JFK statues in relation to him?

My advice for you is not to embarrass yourself any further. Here's your picture:
http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21444

And you've drawn a line back towards he Dallas country records building.

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

[Soily]

Everything you have brought up has been shot down in flames. You keep bringing up minutia and it keeps being refuted. I think we need a better quality of CTist. Do you know of any that you could recommend?

The opposite is actually true. I've shot down everyone of your lame, misinformed attempts to defend a theory that has no physical or documentary evidence to back it up.

[RoboTimbo]

The opposite is actually true. I've shot down everyone of your lame, misinformed attempts to defend a theory that has no physical or documentary evidence to back it up.

Nope, and you have no hypothesis.

[Soily]

Nope, and you have no hypothesis.

Well this is good isn't it? This is quality debate about the issues.

Why are incapable of defending what you believe?

[RoboTimbo]

Well this is good isn't it? This is quality debate about the issues.

Why are incapable of defending what you believe?

What did you think of this: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b

You failed to even acknowledge it earlier.

[riptowtan]

My advice for you is not to embarrass yourself any further. Here's your picture:
http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21444

And you've drawn a line back towards he Dallas country records building.

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

The building on the left side of the map is the TSBD. My trajectory I drew in is coming from the left side. Therefore the trajectory is coming from the TSBD. If you are serious about this claim, it would explain a lot about your confusions about the JFK assassination. You had the trajectories reversed the whole time! I am baffled right now on what you are talking about. How on earth can a red line coming from the TSBD be coming from the Dallas records building? I will now overlay the images to spoon feed you what you've been confused about for all this time.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_285944cc31d5b51b72.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21453)

[riptowtan]

The opposite is actually true. I've shot down everyone of your lame, misinformed attempts to defend a theory that has no physical or documentary evidence to back it up.

Ok, this has clearly turned into a pissing contest. I ask the reader to come to their own conclusions. For some reason I don't Soily convinced anyone. Which of course says nothing about the validity of his arguments.....

[Soily]

What did you think of this: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2b

You failed to even acknowledge it earlier.

It's Dale Myers assertion about what he thinks happened, illustrated with computer graphics. He has not one iota of physical evidence to back it up and has to resort to filling the gaps with assumptions he has no possible justification for. He even places the men in the car based on photos taken earlier in the motorcade, when photos exist showing Connolly actually sat slightly to the right of Kennedy, not to his left, making the trajectory impossible. He moved the wound in kennedy's back too, it was at e level of the first thoracic vertebrae, anatomically lower on kennedy's body than his Adams apple. Even the HSCAs forensic pathology panel agreed with that, which is why they had to say he was leaning forward when he was hit, because if he wasn't there is no possible way a bullet travelling downwards at an 18 degree angle can enter at a point lower than it's exist point, unless it is deflected by bone. There was no such deflection.

Just to remind you, this was the HSCAs solution to the anatomical problem they were faced with:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/HSCA_Vol7_pg55.jpg

Myers solution is to simply lie about the wounds and turn Kennedy into a hunchback.

[riptowtan]

It's Dale Myers assertion about what he thinks happened, illustrated with computer graphics. He has not one iota of physical evidence to back it up and has to resort to filling the gaps with assumptions he has no possible justification for. He even places the men in the car based on photos taken earlier in the motorcade, when photos exist showing Connolly actually sat slightly to the right of Kennedy, not to his left, making the trajectory impossible. He moved the wound in kennedy's back too, it was at e level of the first thoracic vertebrae, anatomically lower on kennedy's body than his Adams apple. Even the HSCAs forensic pathology panel agreed with that, which is why they had to say he was leaning forward when he was hit, because if he wasn't there is no possible way a bullet travelling downwards at an 18 degree angle can enter at a point lower than it's exist point, unless it is deflected by bone. There was no such deflection.

Just to remind you, this was the HSCAs solution to the anatomical problem they were faced with:
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/HSCA_Vol7_pg55.jpg

Myers solution is to simply lie about the wounds and turn Kennedy into a hunchback.

You should really spend some time reading Myers FAQ page. All of this is addressed and refuted. I'm getting tired of repeating myself here.

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm

[Soily]

You should really spend some time reading Myers FAQ page. All of this is addressed and refuted. I'm getting tired of repeating myself here.

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm

Nope, they just lie and invent things to fit their preconceived opinions. No forensic pathologist who has ever looked at the case thinks there was a 13 degree deflection, so myers just invents one.

He also spots a photo from earlier in the motorcade where Connolly has moved inwards towards his wife and assumes, because it fits his conclusion, that he was sat in this position during the shooting. Even though other photos show he was sat directly in format of Kennedy, which makes more sense since he is looking outwards and was acknowledging the crowds.

And he distorts the positions and size of the figures in his attempts to cram a square peg into a round hole, such as making Connolly a midget in comparison to Kennedy, even though in reality Connolly was 3 inches taller:
http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx306/Hinrichs7/myersfraud3.gif

[Soily]

Ok, this has clearly turned into a pissing contest. I ask the reader to come to their own conclusions. For some reason I don't Soily convinced anyone. Which of course says nothing about the validity of his arguments.....

Regardless of what anybody thinks about the assassination, everyone can see you made an extremely basic error in your picture, that's why nobody leapt to your defense. I'm not going to rub it on any further, you made a mistake, we all do sometimes.

[Soily]

This is frame 230 of the zapruder film, showing Govoner Connolly gripping his white stetson hat between his thumb and fingers.

http://i429.photobucket.com/download-albums/qq20/LetsAskTheBeaver/JFK/zapruder230noSingleBullet.jpg

Unfortunetly, at this point according to the SBT, his wrist had been shattered, and the radial nerve severed. The radial nerve is what allows you to grip things in apposition between your thumb and fingers.

[riptowtan]

Regardless of what anybody thinks about the assassination, everyone can see you made an extremely basic error in your picture, that's why nobody leapt to your defense. I'm not going to rub it on any further, you made a mistake, we all do sometimes.

I still don't see where I made a mistake. If you can address the last picture I posted, and explain which trajectory, blue or red is the correct one with reasons why, I will admit I was wrong. At the moment I don't see how your position is tenable. You agree that the TSBD was on the left side of the street but think that the bullet would have came from the right side. Then you make the straw man argument that makes it seem like my trajectory is coming from the records building(its clearly not). If Soily is right about the trajectory, can someone point out where the misunderstanding lies or what exactly I got wrong in the last picture I posted.

[riptowtan]

This is frame 230 of the zapruder film, showing Govoner Connolly gripping his white stetson hat between his thumb and fingers.

http://i429.photobucket.com/download-albums/qq20/LetsAskTheBeaver/JFK/zapruder230noSingleBullet.jpg

Unfortunetly, at this point according to the SBT, his wrist had been shattered, and the radial nerve severed. The radial nerve is what allows you to grip things in apposition between your thumb and fingers.

Wrong. He held hold onto the hat until he got to Parkland hospital.
"Long after John Kennedy is seen in the Zapruder film moving his arms toward his throat in response to being hit, John Connally is seen holding his hat. Conspiracy writers insist that he could not possibly have held on to the hat after his wrist was shattered by a bullet. The implication is that yet another bullet hit Connally at some later point, contrary to the Single Bullet Theory. But Nellie Connally says that John held the hat on the way to Parkland Hospital. The late Governor Connally was a loyal son of Texas. He's probably still holding that hat.

Men with more severe injuries than Connally's can hold onto things. In the following passage, Hawaii Senator Daniel K. Inouye describes how he lost his arm in combat:

At last I was close enough to pull the pin on my last grenade. And as I drew my arm back, all in a flash of light and dark I saw him, that faceless German, like a strip of motion picture film running through a projector that's gone berserk. One instant he was standing waist-high in the bunker, and the next he was aiming a rifle grenade at my face from a range of ten yards. And even as I cocked my arm to throw, he fired and his rifle grenade smashed into my right elbow and exploded and all but tore my arm off. I looked at it, stunned and unbelieving. It dangled there by a few bloody shreds of tissue, my grenade still clenched in a fist that suddenly didn't belong to me anymore . . ."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm

[Soily]

I still don't see where I made a mistake. If you can address the last picture I posted, and explain which trajectory, blue or red is the correct one with reasons why, I will admit I was wrong. At the moment I don't see how your position is tenable. You agree that the TSBD was on the left side of the street but think that the bullet would have came from the right side. Then you make the straw man argument that makes it seem like my trajectory is coming from the records building(its clearly not). If Soily is right about the trajectory, can someone point out where the misunderstanding lies or what exactly I got wrong in the last picture I posted.

Because your trajectory you drew in with a red line points back away from the TSBD and towards the Dallas county records building. The fact you are unable or unwilling to see this means you have very poor judgement and a seriously inadequate understanding of the basic facts of the case.

[Soily]

Wrong. He held hold onto the hat until he got to Parkland hospital.
"Long after John Kennedy is seen in the Zapruder film moving his arms toward his throat in response to being hit, John Connally is seen holding his hat. Conspiracy writers insist that he could not possibly have held on to the hat after his wrist was shattered by a bullet. The implication is that yet another bullet hit Connally at some later point, contrary to the Single Bullet Theory. But Nellie Connally says that John held the hat on the way to Parkland Hospital. The late Governor Connally was a loyal son of Texas. He's probably still holding that hat.

Men with more severe injuries than Connally's can hold onto things. In the following passage, Hawaii Senator Daniel K. Inouye describes how he lost his arm in combat:

At last I was close enough to pull the pin on my last grenade. And as I drew my arm back, all in a flash of light and dark I saw him, that faceless German, like a strip of motion picture film running through a projector that's gone berserk. One instant he was standing waist-high in the bunker, and the next he was aiming a rifle grenade at my face from a range of ten yards. And even as I cocked my arm to throw, he fired and his rifle grenade smashed into my right elbow and exploded and all but tore my arm off. I looked at it, stunned and unbelieving. It dangled there by a few bloody shreds of tissue, my grenade still clenched in a fist that suddenly didn't belong to me anymore . . ."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm

I've been asked a question I can't answer, quick better go be told what to think from macadams.

What's a severed arm got to do with this? Was Conolly's wrist severed from his arm now then?

Basically what we have is the word of a right wing professor of politics versus the word of one of the most eminent forensic pathologist in history, a man who has conducted 1000s of medical legal autopsies in his career.

And of course there's Nellie Connolly. Lone nuts discount Nellie Connolly as a poor witness because she was adamant from the 22nd of November 1963 to the day she died that her husband was hit by a separate shot to Kennedy, having as she did the best view in the entire plaza of both men during the shooting.

So when you need her she's a reliable witness, and when you don't she's wrong. Typical really.

[riptowtan]

I've been asked a question I can't answer, quick better go be told what to think from macadams.

What's a severed arm got to do with this? Was Conolly's wrist severed from his arm now then?

Basically what we have is the word of a right wing professor of politics versus the word of one of the most eminent forensic pathologist in history, a man who has conducted 1000s of medical legal autopsies in his career.

And of course there's Nellie Connolly. Lone nuts discount Nellie Connolly as a poor witness because she was adamant from the 22nd of November 1963 to the day she died that her husband was hit by a separate shot to Kennedy, having as she did the best view in the entire plaza of both men during the shooting.

So when you need her she's a reliable witness, and when you don't she's wrong. Typical really.

No one is saying she was a poor witness. They say she was mistaken about about the sounds of the bullets. It contradicts everything else we know about the case, and its for that reason why we don't find it a compelling piece of evidence. At best, you are doing the exact same thing in reverse. You accept Nelly's testimony about the bullets but then reject her testimony when she says her husband was holding his hat the whole time. We have two different events one taking place over the course of a few seconds, the other around 5 minutes. Which time period do you think is more prone to false memories?

[marplots]

...It contradicts everything else we know about the case, and its for that reason why we don't find it a compelling piece of evidence...

And here we come to the raw conflict in methodology. Soily would say that the contradictory nature of any piece of evidence is precisely what makes it compelling. I give you the OP as an example.

[Soily]

No one is saying she was a poor witness. They say she was mistaken about about the sounds of the bullets. It contradicts everything else we know about the case, and its for that reason why we don't find it a compelling piece of evidence. At best, you are doing the exact same thing in reverse. You accept Nelly's testimony about the bullets but then reject her testimony when she says her husband was holding his hat the whole time. We have two different events one taking place over the course of a few seconds, the other around 5 minutes. Which time period do you think is more prone to false memories?
The problem is you accept an anecdotal piece of evidence from Nellie Connolly, that contradicts everything we know about the case on terms of the medical evidence. We know Connolly's wrist was shattered and the radial nerve severed, thats not anectodal its a fact. Nellies evidence doesn't even say which hand he was holding his hat in at the hospital, it could be he grabbed it with his good hand during the aftermath of the shooting. Essentially you want to have it both ways, as always.

And of course Nellies convcition about the shooting sequence doesn't contradict what we know about the shooting, since we don't 'know' anything about the shooting, since the SBT is a conclusion driven solution that has no pysical or documentary evidence to back it up.

[riptowtan]

The problem is you accept an anecdotal piece of evidence from Nellie Connolly, that contradicts everything we know about the case on terms of the medical evidence. We know Connolly's wrist was shattered and the radial nerve severed, thats not anectodal its a fact. Nellies evidence doesn't even say which hand he was holding his hat in at the hospital, it could be he grabbed it with his good hand during the aftermath of the shooting. Essentially you want to have it both ways, as always.

And of course Nellies convcition about the shooting sequence doesn't contradict what we know about the shooting, since we don't 'know' anything about the shooting, since the SBT is a conclusion driven solution that has no pysical or documentary evidence to back it up.

It's not just the anecdotal evidence. According to Dr. Robert R. Artwohl:
"the only nerve
damaged was the superficial branch of the radial nerve which
only supplies sensation to part of the back of the hand and
is not involved in the ability of the thumb and finder to
grasp objects.
Furthermore it is the ulnar and median nerve that enervate
the muscles required for grip.
Connally suffered no nerve damage that would prevent him
holding on to his hat, no?"

Just because you don't know what happened, it doesn't follow that we are clueless as well. I don't find any of the points you have raised in this thread raise any reasonable doubts about the evidence. This may also be why the vast majority of historians and skeptics that have looked at the Kennedy assassination have concluded it was Oswald alone. If you don't have a counter case, you don't have anything at all.

[riptowtan]

And here we come to the raw conflict in methodology. Soily would say that the contradictory nature of any piece of evidence is precisely what makes it compelling. I give you the OP as an example.

But I think we would all agree that anecdotes are by far the worst kind of evidence. If we have mountains of physical evidence (which we do) contradicting the minority of anecdotes, we can rule them out as probably mistaken.

[Soily]

It's not just the anecdotal evidence. According to Dr. Robert R. Artwohl:
"the only nerve
damaged was the superficial branch of the radial nerve which
only supplies sensation to part of the back of the hand and
is not involved in the ability of the thumb and finder to
grasp objects.
Furthermore it is the ulnar and median nerve that enervate
the muscles required for grip.
Connally suffered no nerve damage that would prevent him
holding on to his hat, no?"

Just because you don't know what happened, it doesn't follow that we are clueless as well. I don't find any of the points you have raised in this thread raise any reasonable doubts about the evidence. This may also be why the vast majority of historians and skeptics that have looked at the Kennedy assassination have concluded it was Oswald alone. If you don't have a counter case, you don't have anything at all.

Haha artwohl, he's just a sturdivan and a Lattimer, a lone nut zealot who will testify to any wacky idea if it nails Oswald, which is why macadams loves him. Does it not disturb you that you get every single thing you know about the case from 1 source? Artwohl is one of the fake experts who have come forw with bizarre theories to explain oswalds guilt. We now know you have no critical faculties regarding this case, so he's the perfect 'expert' for you.

[Soily]

But I think we would all agree that anecdotes are by far the worst kind of evidence. If we have mountains of physical evidence (which we do) contradicting the minority of anecdotes, we can rule them out as probably mistaken.

Yes, I quite agree we can rule out witnesses that contrwdict the physical evidence, which is why john and nellie conollys testimony is so important, because it corroborates all the physical evidence we have in the case, that unamisouly contradicts the evidence free SBT.

[riptowtan]

Haha artwohl, he's just a sturdivan and a Lattimer, a lone nut zealot who will testify to any wacky idea if it nails Oswald, which is why macadams loves him. Does it not disturb you that you get every single thing you know about the case from 1 source? Artwohl is one of the fake experts who have come forw with bizarre theories to explain oswalds guilt. We now know you have no critical faculties regarding this case, so he's the perfect 'expert' for you.

So Artwohl is wrong about this?Since you call him a "fake expert", show where he went wrong. You have presented not a single coherent narrative, and neither of have any of the conspiracy researchers. They are all far more absurd than the SBT. Your inability to even muster a possible alternative theory proves it. You know if you tell us what you think happened it will get ripped to shreds. About getting info from the same sources, that could go both ways. You constantly post links from history matters and Pat Speers site. I use Bugliosi's book, Posner's book, Mcadam's site and a few other sites. Since you have such great critical faculties, why are you arguing about this case on an internet forum? And better yet, why is it that you can't convince a single person here who wasn't already a CT???

[phillyboy]

No one disputes that Connally's wrist was injured. Moreover, he holds on to the hat for a long time after he comes from behind the sign. So whenever the shot hit his wrist, whether it's 222 or later, it doesn't cause him to drop the hat.

The nerve that causes the thumb to oppose the rest of the hand (to flex) & grip the brim may have been severed, but could it be that if the nerve that does the opposite, to extend--could it be that if that nerve is not severed then the fingers, thumb and the rest of the hand hand will stay in the same attitude?

Also, so what if the flexing ("holding") capability of the thumb is neutralized by the severed nerve in question? One can still grip the brim with the fingers opposing the palm.

[Soily]

No one disputes that Connally's wrist was injured. Moreover, he holds on to the hat for a long time after he comes from behind the sign. So whenever the shot hit his wrist, whether it's 222 or later, it doesn't cause him to drop the hat.

The nerve that causes the thumb to oppose the rest of the hand (to flex) & grip the brim may have been severed, but could it be that if the nerve that does the opposite, to extend--could it be that if that nerve is not severed then the fingers, thumb and the rest of the hand hand will stay in the same attitude?

Also, so what if the flexing ("holding") capability of the thumb is neutralized by the severed nerve in question? One can still grip the brim with the fingers opposing the palm.

All good points philly, but the experts who treated Connollys wounds not only felt they weren't caused by CE399 they also made it quite clear the wrist wound was dorsal to volar, ie it entered the top of the wrist and exited the bottom ( they also felt the wound could havd been caused by an irregular missile, not a pristine bullet ).

Now you try holding the top of your wrist against your nipple, you practically have to break your arm to do it.

Dr Gregory, an expert in gunshot wounds, treated connollys wrist wound, he told the the warren commision:


- The general ragged appearance of the dorsal wound is typical of an entrance wound.
- Bits of thread and cloth were carried into the wound on the dorsal side and these correspond with tear in jacket sleeve.
- Two or three fragments were shed after the bullet had hit the radius . The three fragments taken from the wrist were more volar and caused by the radius flaking them off.
- The distortion of the soft tissues shows the pathway to be dorsal to volar.
- Air in the wound is more visible on the dorsal side of the X ray which typical of entrance wound.


http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=34&relPageId=127

Do you feel connolly was holding his hat in such a bizare and painful way? iI the zapruder film it sure looks like hes holding it with the underside of his wrist towards his chest to me.

[Soily]

Dr charles gregory tended to, ex amined and operated on govoner connolly's wrsit wound. Nobody in the history of the wprld knows more about the nature of those wounds than him. Lets take a closer look at what he had to say about them:
Dr. GREGORY - Recall that I suggested that the wound of entrance, certainly the dorsal wound lay some distance, 5 cm. above the wrist joint, approximately here, that the second wound considered to be the wound of exit was only 2 cm. above this point, making the pathway an oblique one.

Dr. GREGORY - My initial impression was that whatever produced the wound of the wrist was an irregular object, certainly not smooth nosed as the business end of this particular bullet is because of two things. The size of the wound of entrance, and the fact that it is irregular surfaced permitted it to pick up organic debris, materials, threads, and carry them into the wound with it.

Dr. GREGORY - The wound of entrance is characteristic in my view of an irregular missile in this case, an irregular missile which has tipped itself off as being irregular by the nature of itself.
Mr. DULLES - What do you mean by irregular?
Dr. GREGORY - I mean one that has been distorted. It is in some way angular, it has edges or sharp edges or something of this sort. It is not rounded or pointed in the fashion of an ordinary missile. The irregularity of it also, I submit, tends to pick up organic material and carry it into the limb, and this is a very significant takeoff, in my opinion.

Dr. GREGORY - There is one additional piece of information that is of pertinence but I don't know how effectively it can be applied to the nature of the missile. That is the fact that dorsal branch of the radial nerve, a sensory nerve in this immediate vicinity was partially transected together with one tendon leading to the thumb, which was totally transected.
This could have been produced by a missile entering in the ordinary fashion, undisturbed, undistorted. But again it is more in keeping with an irregular surface which would tend to catch and tear a structure rather than push it aside.

Dr. GREGORY - This morning I was shown two additional missiles or portions of missiles which are rather grossly distorted.
Mr. SPECTER - Let me make those a part of the record here, and ask if those are the missiles which have heretofore been identified as Commission Exhibit 568 and Commission Exhibit 570.
Dr. GREGORY - These items represent distorted bits of a missile, a jacket in one case, and part of a jacket and a lead core in the other.
These are missiles having the characteristics which I mentioned earlier, which tend to carry organic debris into wounds and tend to create irregular wounds of entry. One of these, it seems to me, could conceivably have produced the injury which the Governor incurred in his wrist.
Mr. DULLES - In his wrist?
Dr. GREGORY - Yes.

Dr. GREGORY - I think it is plausible that the bullet, having struck the President's head, may have broken into more than one fragment. I think you apprised me of the fact that it did, in fact, disperse into a number of fragments, and they took tangential directions from the original path apparently.

Dr. GREGORY - I think it is possible that a fragment from that particular missile may have escaped and struck the Governor's right arm.

[BadBoy]

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?
Sorry, this was from miles back. But the shadow in the photos of his head isnt in the same place at all. Its lined up with a different post in the background. Since the angle of the line of the base of the fence is not horizontal, we can see he would need to move slightly closer to the camera, and thus appear slightly bigger (certainly not 20%)

Infact, when you look at the photos for a couple of minutes, you can tell its a completely different shot, I think him and the photographer has moved slightly.

[Fourbrick]

Sorry, this was from miles back. But the shadow in the photos of his head isnt in the same place at all. Its lined up with a different post in the background. Since the angle of the line of the base of the fence is not horizontal, we can see he would need to move slightly closer to the camera, and thus appear slightly bigger (certainly not 20%)

Infact, when you look at the photos for a couple of minutes, you can tell its a completely different shot, I think him and the photographer has moved slightly.
Thanks for your input, Badboy. You'll notice I didn't say Oswald was 20% bigger just the inanimate objects. Oswald should also be 20% larger. I agree he isn't.

He appears to be actually smaller.

The non change of the background perspective shows that the camera couldn't have been moved. Other people have suggested that for the background to remain ther same the camera must have been on a tripod. I disagree with this as if it was in a fixed position then photo2 couldn't appear closer.

[BadBoy]

Thanks for your input, Badboy. You'll notice I didn't say Oswald was 20% bigger just the inanimate objects. Oswald should also be 20% larger. I agree he isn't.

He appears to be actually smaller.

The non change of the background perspective shows that the camera couldn't have been moved. Other people have suggested that for the background to remain ther same the camera must have been on a tripod. I disagree with this as if it was in a fixed position then photo2 couldn't appear closer.
ah, but I think the background has changed between pictures 1 and 2. Look at the angle of the base of the fence behind Ozzie. In the first picture it is at and angle, slightly sloping downwards behind him. In the second it is nearly horizontal. This to me implies the photographer was stand orthogonal in the second photo, and standing a little to the left at an angle to the fence, in the first.

As I siad, ozzies head shadow is not in the same place. Look at where is falls, on the first it is to the left of the fourth white fence post. On the second it is clearly to the right, quite clearly a good 4 to 6 inches.

Taking into account the direction of the sun, in order for his head shadow, the top of the shadow of his head that is, to line up with the bottom edge of the fence, he would need to be standing slightly further forward in the second image.

Its obvious to me also that because the base line of the white fence is horizontal in the econd image, the photographer has had to moved to the left.

image 2
------fence

--o


--p


image 1
-----fence
--o

---P

[dafydd]

Why do these photographs prove that Oswald did not shoot Kennedy?

[Soily]

Why do these photographs prove that Oswald did not shoot Kennedy?
How do they prove he did?

[TheRedWorm]

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)

Did anyone else notice that Connally's jacket appears to have popped forward on frame 225 as opposed to being flat against his chest at 223?

[Fourbrick]

ah, but I think the background has changed between pictures 1 and 2. Look at the angle of the base of the fence behind Ozzie. In the first picture it is at and angle, slightly sloping downwards behind him. In the second it is nearly horizontal. This to me implies the photographer was stand orthogonal in the second photo, and standing a little to the left at an angle to the fence, in the first.

Have you noticed that the angle of the whole photo has changed? Look at the vertical stairpost in photo 1 the angle is about 3° to the right of vertical. In the second the photo has been moved anticlockwise so that the stairpost is vertical. That accounts for the apparent difference in the angle of the fence behind lHO.

As I said, ozzies head shadow is not in the same place. Look at where is falls, on the first it is to the left of the fourth white fence post. On the second it is clearly to the right, quite clearly a good 4 to 6 inches.



That's what I've been saying for weeks but nobody else can see it.

Its obvious to me also that because the base line of the white fence is horizontal in the econd image, the photographer has had to moved to the left.

image 2
------fence

--o


--p


image 1
-----fence
--o

---P

See first reply above.

[Fourbrick]

Why do these photographs prove that Oswald did not shoot Kennedy?

Dafydd, as the oft quoted Hany Farid said in his video
"“ If this photograph is fake, it would almost certainly point to a broader conspiracy because it would mean the Police doctored a photograph to try to spin a story”

Make of that what you will.

[BadBoy]

Have you noticed that the angle of the whole photo has changed? Look at the vertical stairpost in photo 1 the angle is about 3° to the right of vertical. In the second the photo has been moved anticlockwise so that the stairpost is vertical. That accounts for the apparent difference in the angle of the fence behind lHO.



That's what I've been saying for weeks but nobody else can see it.



See first reply above.
The point is, theres perfectly valid explanations for the differences. The human eye/brain is actually pretty good at detecting fakes. Most CGI/green screen, even with todays technology can be detected most times immediately by anyone. Trying to forge these photos in such a ham-handed way I would think would be easily determined just by looking.

In my opinion, I trust my instinctive pattern recognition and my first impressions were the photos are fine.

[Fourbrick]

The human eye/brain is actually pretty good at detecting fakes. Most CGI/green screen, even with todays technology can be detected most times immediately by anyone.
Agreed.

Trying to forge these photos in such a ham-handed way I would think would be easily determined just by looking.
Agreed.

In my opinion, I trust my instinctive pattern recognition and my first impressions were the photos are fine.


You are quite welcome to your opinions. Can your human eye explain how the shadow of the rifle in photo2 is almost horizontal to the shadow of LHO's body?

How would you explain the differences in the angle of the shadow of Oswald in photos1 and 2?

[RoboTimbo]

How would you explain the differences in the angle of the shadow of Oswald in photos1 and 2?
I see you've never explained these shadows, Fourbrick:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/267444cc59356cfeff.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21480)
Nor, apparently, have you understood them.

[JimBenArm]

I see you've never explained these shadows, Fourbrick:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/267444cc59356cfeff.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21480)
Nor, apparently, have you understood them.

They were obviously doctored in the same way as the Oswald photos were!

[Fourbrick]

In 1978, when interviewed by Peter Dale Scott, this is what Jesse Curry , Dallas Police Chief had to say.

P.D.S. " You've seen the Zapruder film there's a distinct head snap when The President's head goes backwards. Doesn't that suggest that the shot came from the front?"

J.C. " It appears so"

P.D.S. And we also had Dr Malcolm Perry at Parkland Hospital saying that he said the wound on his throat was an entrance wound which would also suggest that the shot came from the front"

J.C. "I'm not saying that the shot didn't come from the here (pointing to the front). I'm sayiing we never found anybody we could connect with it/"

P.D.S. " But it does suggest that the evidence that we have in both cases- rather strong evidence- that there was another assassin involved"

J.C. "That's right."

[RoboTimbo]

In 1978, when interviewed by Peter Dale Scott, this is what Jesse Curry , Dallas Police Chief had to say.

P.D.S. " You've seen the Zapruder film there's a distinct head snap when The President's head goes backwards. Doesn't that suggest that the shot came from the front?"

J.C. " It appears so"

P.D.S. And we also had Dr Malcolm Perry at Parkland Hospital saying that he said the wound on his throat was an entrance wound which would also suggest that the shot came from the front"

J.C. "I'm not saying that the shot didn't come from the here (pointing to the front). I'm sayiing we never found anybody we could connect with it/"

P.D.S. " But it does suggest that the evidence that we have in both cases- rather strong evidence- that there was another assassin involved"

J.C. "That's right."

What is your hypothesis for where the bullet came from?

[Soily]

The two JFK threads appear to have crossed over...This post rightly belongs here...

Ohh I'd not seen this from Dale Myers website before:
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/concl2_pic.gif

Look where he has Connallys right hand, the one he says was shattered by the single bullet at 224.

Unfortunetly Dale, Connollys thigh wound was in his left thigh.

[TraneWreck]

The two JFK threads appear to have crossed over...This post rightly belongs here...

Ohh I'd not seen this from Dale Myers website before:
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/concl2_pic.gif

Look where he has Connallys right hand, the one he says was shattered by the single bullet at 224.

Unfortunetly Dale, Connollys thigh wound was in his left thigh.

Oh my god, it all unraveled! How could that problem possibly be solved?

Remember that the Governor's legs were not visible. You're looking at models that attempt to replicate the torso position not EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE VARIABLE.

When it comes time to line up the thigh wound, the legs will turn to the right as they naturally would when one looks over their shoulders.

More trivial, irrelevant whining.

But interestingly, while looking at his site, I noticed this:

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

Observe the model of the limo. Notice the seats. That limo still exists. If the seats are actually modelled correctly, Connally HAD to be in board of Kennedy.

The photo I supplied of the limo supports this. Please explain how Connally could have been in line with Kennedy, who was leaning over the side of the limo, when the seat was a good 6-12 inches from the door.

[Soily]

Oh my god, it all unraveled! How could that problem possibly be solved?

Remember that the Governor's legs were not visible. You're looking at models that attempt to replicate the torso position not EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE VARIABLE.

When it comes time to line up the thigh wound, the legs will turn to the right as they naturally would when one looks over their shoulders.

More trivial, irrelevant whining.

Haha this is your most feeble reply yet. Please explain to everyone how a bullet passing through the back of a mans right wrist, exiting the underside of his wrist entires his left thigh? You can see Connollys wrists millseconds sfter the supposed SBT strike at 224, its right up aaginst his right nipple, this is how Myers has it:
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/shot2.gif
Please explain a) how you can hold the back of your wrist up to your chest and b) how a bullet travelling through his right wrist ends up in his left thigh, especially since we know at 224, his wrist must be near his right leg, because if it isn't a bullet coming through his right nipple could not enter it.

You're snookered.

And the baffling thing is, Myers knows where the wrist and thigh wounds were, so why did he put Connallys hand there? Its because he knows the trajectorys don't line up and he was hoping nobody would check.

[Soily]

But interestingly, while looking at his site, I noticed this:

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

Observe the model of the limo. Notice the seats. That limo still exists. If the seats are actually modelled correctly, Connally HAD to be in board of Kennedy.

The photo I supplied of the limo supports this. Please explain how Connally could have been in line with Kennedy, who was leaning over the side of the limo, when the seat was a good 6-12 inches from the door.

Ignorance yet again. Even Dale Myers was forced to concede the jump seat was just 2.5 inches in from the door - http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

My photo proved that Connally could easily sit directly in front, if not slightly to the right of Kennedy
http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/jfk.jpg

Draw the trajectory line on it, I dare you.

[TheRedWorm]

Did anyone else notice that Connally's jacket appears to have popped forward on frame 225 as opposed to being flat against his chest at 223?


Anyone? How about you Soily?

[Soily]

Anyone? How about you Soily?

Its seen to move at 224. SBTs say its the bullet passing through but this is speculative at best. For a start, the bullet didn't go through Connollys lapel, which was well away from the bullet holes and actually very small. It could be a general 'coat bulge', but since the film is smeared and blurry, it could just be a general change in the shape of his coat caused by his rapid rotation on his seat. It's not clear enough to be sure.

[TraneWreck]

Ignorance yet again. Even Dale Myers was forced to concede the jump seat was just 2.5 inches in from the door - http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

My photo proved that Connally could easily sit directly in front, if not slightly to the right of Kennedy
http://www.in-broad-daylight.com/jfk.jpg

You cite this as a point in your favor?

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.



Draw the trajectory line on it, I dare you.

Stupid thing to say. That's not the position they were in when shot. Connally was turned more to the right.

[TheRedWorm]

Its seen to move at 224. SBTs say its the bullet passing through but this is speculative at best. For a start, the bullet didn't go through Connollys lapel, which was well away from the bullet holes and actually very small. It could be a general 'coat bulge', but since the film is smeared and blurry, it could just be a general change in the shape of his coat caused by his rapid rotation on his seat. It's not clear enough to be sure.


So the coat changes shape in 2 frames due to...what, exactly? That's awfully quick to be a result of a motion on Conallys part. So what else could it have been?

Also, just out of general curiosity, have you ever fired a rifle?

[Soily]

So the coat changes shape in 2 frames due to...what, exactly? That's awfully quick to be a result of a motion on Conallys part. So what else could it have been?

Also, just out of general curiosity, have you ever fired a rifle?

If your going to use rapidity as an argument then it inavalidates the SBT, because the lapel flip only works if its a delayed reaction on the part of the coat. Oterwise Kennedy pysically reacts to a shot within 56ms, which is impossible. Awfully quick for a delayed coat flip isnt it? Those frsmes of the Zapruder film are smeared and blurred, and the area in question is just a blob, its just as likely to be an artifact of the poor quality of the Zapruder film as anything else, and Connollys subsquent apperent(and i say appaerent, because some frames his face looks serene) are completly compitable with fear and panic as well as pain.

[TheRedWorm]

I'm not arguing anything, I just want you to flesh out your hypothesis.

BTW, have you ever fired a rifle?

[Soily]

I'm not arguing anything, I just want you to flesh out your hypothesis.

BTW, have you ever fired a rifle?

No, have you? My hypothesis is that the SBT(that CE399 created all the wounds in both men) and WC shooting sequence is not correct. I base this mainly, but not exclusively, on the fact the wounds in the men don't match the purported behavior of CE399 and that CE399 was not the bullet found at Parkland.

[TheRedWorm]

Yes, I have fired a few rifles, and have experienced the very odd behavior of a very fast bullet fired at a fluid filled container (I used Arizona tea container filled with water, and a .22 Mag. You should try it, (assuming firearms are legal where you live) it's a lot of fun). Also, I do not think that your suppositions qualify as a hypothesis...

[TraneWreck]

Yes, I have fired a few rifles, and have experienced the very odd behavior of a very fast bullet fired at a fluid filled container (I used Arizona tea container filled with water, and a .22 Mag. You should try it, (assuming firearms are legal where you live) it's a lot of fun). Also, I do not think that your suppositions qualify as a hypothesis...

Good luck on getting Soily to express some actual theory. There are two threads full of people trying to do the same.

Interestingly, he did manage to offer a couple of theories about what happened. Unfortunately the contradicted one another, which is why he's back to playing coy.

[Soily]

Yes, I have fired a few rifles, and have experienced the very odd behavior of a very fast bullet fired at a fluid filled container (I used Arizona tea container filled with water, and a .22 Mag. You should try it, (assuming firearms are legal where you live) it's a lot of fun). Also, I do not think that your suppositions qualify as a hypothesis...

Well whatever, my proposition is that the SBT as described is not correct. If you don't like that, then fine. And no I won't be taking up shooting either.

Tom Purvis's theory, which I posted as an example to show there sre valid altertive explantions that actually fit the known facts better, comes from a man who is a highly decorated soldier, and who actually owns 4 MC rifles identical to Oswalds and has fired hundreds of rounds of the 6.5mm WCC ammo through them. He has also personally spoken to all the doctors and pathplogists who tended to the wounds of Kennedy with the excpetion of Pierre Finck who wouldn't talk about the case to anyone. So when he says something is and isn't possible I take it seriously. Pat speer has gone through every single piece of testimony and evidence to the medical aspect of the case with a fine tooth comb. When he wasys something is or isnt possible I take him seriously. On the other hand, ill-informed bloviaters like Train and Robo repeatedly demostrate their utter ignorance of even the most basic facts of the case. I don't take them seriously.

[Soily]

Good luck on getting Soily to express some actual theory. There are two threads full of people trying to do the same.

Interestingly, he did manage to offer a couple of theories about what happened. Unfortunately the contradicted one another, which is why he's back to playing coy.

The official versions contradicts each other. The WC said the back wound was on the neck. The HSCA said it several inches lower on the back. The Warren Commision said the head wound was at the EOP, the HSCA said it was at the cowlick. The Warren Commision didn't know what frame the SB strike happened. The HSCA said 190. Bugliosi and Myers say 224. The Warren Commision said Kennedy was slumped far forward at the heqdshot, the HSCA said he was only slightly leaning forward. The HSCA said Kennedy was leaning far forward at the SB strike, the WC said he was upright.

This is a case of contradictions.

[TraneWreck]

The official versions contradicts each other. The WC said the back wound was on the neck. The HSCA said it several inches lower on the back. The Warren Commision said the head wound was at the EOP, the HSCA said it was at the cowlick. The Warren Commision didn't know what frame the SB strike happened. The HSCA said 190. Bugliosi and Myers say 224. The Warren Commision said Kennedy was slumped far forward at the heqdshot, the HSCA said he was only slightly leaning forward. The HSCA said Kennedy was leaning far forward at the SB strike, the WC said he was upright.

This is a case of contradictions.

It's almost like we learn more as time goes on and video analysis becomes better.

Notice that I'm not advancing contradictory theories, you are. If there are parts of the WC or HSCA that don't match the evidence, so much the worse for them.

You, on the other hand, advanced a theory that required 4 shots. In order to prove there were 4 shots you advanced a theory that was directly contradictory to the initial theory.

Big difference.

[Soily]

Lets have a look at this again.
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/concl2_pic.gif

Have you worked out yet how a bullet at this frame travelling through Connollys right nipple, entered his right wrist and then his left thigh yet?

What position was Connollys wrist in at frame 223 Train?

[RoboTimbo]

On the other hand, ill-informed bloviaters like Train and Robo repeatedly demostrate their utter ignorance of even the most basic facts of the case. I don't take them seriously.

That's because IWOTs live in their own little conspiriworld, really far removed from reality.

It's also why you'll never learn anything.

[RoboTimbo]

It's almost like we learn more as time goes on and video analysis becomes better.

Notice that I'm not advancing contradictory theories, you are. If there are parts of the WC or HSCA that don't match the evidence, so much the worse for them.

You, on the other hand, advanced a theory that required 4 shots. In order to prove there were 4 shots you advanced a theory that was directly contradictory to the initial theory.

Big difference.

TraneWreck, any idea why the IWOTs spew like they do? They must know that all the evidence shows that Oswald did it, so why do they try to perpetuate lies? What do they get out of it?

[TraneWreck]

Lets have a look at this again.
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/concl2_pic.gif

Have you worked out yet how a bullet at this frame travelling through Connollys right nipple, entered his right wrist and then his left thigh yet?

What position was Connollys wrist in at frame 223 Train?

Once again, you display utter ignorance of what Myers was doing. I'll let Myers answer this idiotic point. From the FAQ:

Assuming you are correct in your analysis that a single bullet fired from the Texas School Book Depository passed through Kennedy's neck and struck Connally in the right armpit, why didn't you extend that trajectory line forward to explain Connally's wrist and knee wounds on the ABC News special?

The producer's of the ABC News special were satisfied that the single bullet theory was amply demonstrated by showing that both men were aligned to be struck by a single bullet. Obviously, as that single bullet entered the area of Connally's right armpit it had to continue forward. Doctor Robert Shaw, who performed the operation on the governor, told the press immediately after the surgery that it was his belief that all of the governor's wounds were caused by a single bullet. In my opinion, all of the evidence surrounding the governor's wounding supports this conclusion rather than refutes it. Obviously, the exact path that the bullet would have to take to connect all five wounds in the governor is a matter of conjecture since Connally's right wrist (the location of two of his wounds) and left thigh (the location of one wound) are not visible in the Zapruder film, and therefore cannot be positioned as they were at the moment of impact with any degree of accuracy.
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

[TraneWreck]

TraneWreck, any idea why the IWOTs spew like they do? They must know that all the evidence shows that Oswald did it, so why do they try to perpetuate lies? What do they get out of it?

I would say it makes them feel better, but clearly it doesn't. They seem perpetually aggravated.

[phillyboy]

Geez, I never would have imagined the Insurance Women of Toledo would have had a D.I.T.F!

Sorry. Carry on.

[Soily]

Once again, you display utter ignorance of what Myers was doing. I'll let Myers answer this idiotic point. From the FAQ:


http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

We know 2 things -
1 where the wounds are
2 where his wrist is 250 ms after the supposed bullet strike, its right up against his right nipple.

So where is his right wrist when the bullet strikes Train? If its near his right nipple so the bullet passing through hits the wrist, then how does it end up in his left thigh? If its near his left thigh, how does a bullet exiting his right nipple end up on his wrist?

[Soily]

It's almost like we learn more as time goes on and video analysis becomes better.

Notice that I'm not advancing contradictory theories, you are. If there are parts of the WC or HSCA that don't match the evidence, so much the worse for them.

You, on the other hand, advanced a theory that required 4 shots. In order to prove there were 4 shots you advanced a theory that was directly contradictory to the initial theory.

Big difference.
No, its almost as if as time goes by the wounds in the men keep changing position.

I on the other hand, pointed you to 2 different theories that fit the known facts, that actually reconcile many of the baffling contradictions inherent in the case. They also disgree with each other on one part of the shooting sequence - thats because the evidence we have is so confusing and contradictory. The LNs theories not only constantly contradict themselves, but they are the only camp who ever claims to know what happened.

[TraneWreck]

We know 2 things -
1 where the wounds are
2 where his wrist is 250 ms after the supposed bullet strike, its right up against his right nipple.

So where is his right wrist when the bullet strikes Train? If its near his right nipple so the bullet passing through hits the wrist, then how does it end up in his left thigh? If its near his left thigh, how does a bullet exiting his right nipple end up on his wrist?

Really? Read what Myers wrote again.

Obviously the wrist and thigh can be placed in such a way that they are in line of that bullet. The Discovery channel shot proved that.

Myers was modeling what could be seen. He didn't attempt to guess Connally's wrist or thigh.

When the bullet exited his chest, it went somewhere. Connally's wounds let us infer what happened, but that wasn't Myers' concern.

Even you can see how vapid your argument is. THis is just grasping at straws.

[TheRedWorm]

No, its almost as if as time goes by the wounds in the men keep changing position.

I on the other hand, pointed you to 2 different theories that fit the known facts, that actually reconcile many of the baffling contradictions inherent in the case. They also disgree with each other on one part of the shooting sequence - thats because the evidence we have is so confusing and contradictory. The LNs theories not only constantly contradict themselves, but they are the only camp who ever claims to know what happened.



Since you have no hypothesis, I suggest you come up with one. Something along the lines of JFK was shot by ______ using _______. I propose to test this hypothesis by _________. Unless and until you can do that, all you are doing is trolling.

Pro tip: A hypothesis must be positive, not negative, as you cannot test a negative hypothesis. For example, how would you test the phrase: "There are no such things as Unicorns."?

[TraneWreck]

No, its almost as if as time goes by the wounds in the men keep changing position.

Weak. This is your denial mechanism trying to protect you from the realization of how absolutely pathetic your arguments have been.


I on the other hand, pointed you to 2 different theories that fit the known facts, that actually reconcile many of the baffling contradictions inherent in the case. They also disgree with each other on one part of the shooting sequence - thats because the evidence we have is so confusing and contradictory. The LNs theories not only constantly contradict themselves, but they are the only camp who ever claims to know what happened.

Haha. They reconcile nothing. As long as there was a shot from the Grassy Knoll and a Predator Drone shooting straight down on Kennedy's head, then your presentations make sense.

You offered to DIRECTLY contradictory stories, and the contradiction is central as the "statistical evidence" that you're so fond of babbling about is based entirely on an anchor point of the headshot coming from the Grassy Knoll.

Pure *********. The best you have. Wow.

[Soily]

Really? Read what Myers wrote again.

Obviously the wrist and thigh can be placed in such a way that they are in line of that bullet. The Discovery channel shot proved that.

Myers was modeling what could be seen. He didn't attempt to guess Connally's wrist or thigh.


When the bullet exited his chest, it went somewhere. Connally's wounds let us infer what happened, but that wasn't Myers' concern.

Even you can see how vapid your argument is. THis is just grasping at straws.



What Myers did was put the wrist in the one place it could not possibly have been.

Anyway, you betray your rank ignorance yet again. Did you bother to read the testimony of the doctors who worked on Connally's wounds? His wrist wound was not made by a bullet, it was made by an irregular fragment and his thigh wound was a superficial glancing wound probably made by a fragment too, a bullet did not enter.

[Soily]

Since you have no hypothesis, I suggest you come up with one. Something along the lines of JFK was shot by ______ using _______. I propose to test this hypothesis by _________. Unless and until you can do that, all you are doing is trolling.

Pro tip: A hypothesis must be positive, not negative, as you cannot test a negative hypothesis. For example, how would you test the phrase: "There are no such things as Unicorns."?

My proposition is that The SBT as set forward in the WC is not true. Like it or lump it.

[TheRedWorm]

My proposition is that The SBT as set forward in the WC is not true. Like it or lump it.


So, troll it is.

[TraneWreck]

What Myers did was put the wrist in the one place it could not possibly have been.

Sigh...this is pathetic. He was demonstrating the body turn in that still, not Connally's exact position when the bullet hit. Look at the full animation.

This is just getting sad.


Anyway, you betray your rank ignorance yet again. Did you bother to read the testimony of the doctors who worked on Connally's wounds? His wrist wound was not made by a bullet, it was made by an irregular fragment and his thigh wound was a superficial glancing wound probably made by a fragment too, a bullet did not enter.

You know what, I don't even care at this point. You have such a problem understanding what serves as quality evidence vs. what is mere speculation that you've imposed your rigid fantasies onto that there's little point in belaboring your obvious failures.

Let's say you're right and the wrist and thigh wound were made by fragments from the head-shot. I'll accept that as plausible.

That still leaves Lee Harvey as the lone gunman.

[RoboTimbo]

Sigh...this is pathetic. He was demonstrating the body turn in that still, not Connally's exact position when the bullet hit. Look at the full animation.

This is just getting sad.



You know what, I don't even care at this point. You have such a problem understanding what serves as quality evidence vs. what is mere speculation that you've imposed your rigid fantasies onto that there's little point in belaboring your obvious failures.

Let's say you're right and the wrist and thigh wound were made by fragments from the head-shot. I'll accept that as plausible.

That still leaves Lee Harvey as the lone gunman.

And still leaves Soily without a hypothesis or a point.

[Soily]

Weak. This is your denial mechanism trying to protect you from the realization of how absolutely pathetic your arguments have been.



Haha. They reconcile nothing. As long as there was a shot from the Grassy Knoll and a Predator Drone shooting straight down on Kennedy's head, then your presentations make sense.

You offered to DIRECTLY contradictory stories, and the contradiction is central as the "statistical evidence" that you're so fond of babbling about is based entirely on an anchor point of the headshot coming from the Grassy Knoll.

Pure *********. The best you have. Wow.


Speer and Purvis' theories reconcile the gaping contradictions and holes in the medical evidence, you know that body of evidence you repeatedly show you know nothing about?

Not sure why exactly you're wetting your pants about the acoustics evidence, my position on that is that is the evidence that it was not a coincidence is hard to dismiss. The problem with Thomas is he takes this too far by saying that the bang heard in the vicinity of the grassy knoll has to be a shot that hit Kennedy in the head, which is just not correct. Everyone knows the vast majority of witnesses said the last 2 shots were right on top of each other. Hell, the acoustics evidence contradicts some of the things I think about the case, but unlike you I'm open minded enough to know I don't know what happened and am prepared to constantly refine my opinions about the case. Even arch LN Gary Mack still thinks the acoustics evidence is important, and it contradicts what he thinks too.


And the thing about the acoustics evidence is what exactly do you think did make the 5 bangs heard in the tape? And why do they synchronize spatially and temporally with the progression of the motorcade? It's just hard to dismiss by chance because the odds are astronomical.

But what you want, in the murkiest murder case in history, where the evidence is a contradictory mess, where most of it is either gone or tainted and virtually all the witnesses are dead, is what exactly happened written as unimpeachable truth in stone tablets.

When your own case is a mess of contradictions, evidence vacuums, unwarranted assumptions and outright lies, this is quite rich.

[TraneWreck]

Speer and Purvis' theories reconcile the gaping contradictions and holes in the medical evidence, you know that body of evidence you repeatedly show you know nothing about?

Ah, your refrain. You're still wrong. They reconcile nothing because they're nonsensical. They are amazing, amateur failures.


Not sure why exactly you're wetting your pants about the acoustics evidence, my position on that is that is the evidence that it was not a coincidence is hard to dismiss. The problem with Thomas is he takes this too far by saying that the bang heard in the vicinity of the grassy knoll has to be a shot that hit Kennedy in the head, which is just not correct.

For god's sake. Did you read his paper? Do you understand how he made those statistical comparisons? One more time, since you're slow:

HE BEGINS WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE KILL SHOT CAME FROM THE GRASSY KNOLL.

This is how he anchors the sound with Zapruder. THis statistical analysis is founded on an incorrect assumption. Whatever comes after is thus flawed.

And this is before getting into the physical problem with the recordings and what they actually say.

You are wearing your ignorance like a badge of honor.


Everyone knows the vast majority of witnesses said the last 2 shots were right on top of each other. Hell, the acoustics evidence contradicts some of the things I think about the case, but unlike you I'm open minded enough to know I don't know what happened and am prepared to constantly refine my opinions about the case. Even arch LN Gary Mack still thinks the acoustics evidence is important, and it contradicts what he thinks too.

Ah, now we've made it to another shibboleth of the conspiracy theorist: the open mind.

I gave you Myers THOROUGH debunking of the acoustic nonsense. Nothing you've said even represents a basic understanding of the criticisms he launched. You're just repeating the same failed points over and over.


[blah, blah, blah]...

When your own case is a mess of contradictions, evidence vacuums, unwarranted assumptions and outright lies, this is quite rich.

And now we're back to it. This is what I've been saying all along: because you've adopted a rogue position on the meanings of the words "proof" and "evidence" you will never be moved from the idiotic positions you hold.

Anyone reading this thread (you have my pity) can watch your nonsense dissolve, but here you are, saying the EXACT same crap you said at the beginning.

This is why I left before. You have adopted a faith-based, unfalsifiable position. Your one attempt at advancing a positive hypothesis resulted in a Marx-brothers-esque farce.

[carlitos]

We know 2 things -
Actually we know a lot more than "2 things," we know millions of things. Even so, conspiracy theorists thrive on details, at the expense of the big picture. Carry on ignoring the totality of the evidence.

[Soily]

HE BEGINS WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE KILL SHOT CAME FROM THE GRASSY KNOLL.

Calm down. You genuinely can't read can you? That's the bit I disagree with him on. I said that. The bit I find compelling is the fact the noises on the tape spatially and temporally follow the motorcade in the right order. Myers debunking does nothing to explain the statistical match here, which is impressive to say the least. Are their flaws in the acoustics stuff? Yes. Is it perfect? No. But I still think its important.

You're beginning to show your true colours as a bigoted blowhard shouting at the world until it surrenders to your silly narrow black and white view.

And returning to your own position, the utter poverty of your arguments, the endless empty unwarranted assumptions, the outright lies and the widespread ignorance over basic facts single you out as someone who just doesn't care about debating the issues in an intelligent way. You're just someone who wants to shout.

And really, I keep saying it. Go read the medical evidence.

You've been in some kind of apoplectic rage ever since I posted 2 examples of alternatives theories that fit the evidence. Are you sure you're OK? Perhaps you should have a lie down? I did this because you claimed that there is no other possible explanation than the SBT, not because I subscribe to those two theories lock stock and barrel.

[TraneWreck]

Calm down. You genuinely can't read can you? That's the bit I disagree with him on. I said that. The bit I find compelling is the fact the noises on the tape spatially and temporally follow the motorcade in the right order. Myers debunking does nothing to explain the statistical match here, which is impressive to say the least. Are their flaws in the acoustics stuff? Yes. Is it perfect? No. But I still think its important.

Alright, I will say this as politely as I can: you are failing to understand the significance of the initial, false anchoring. You have not read Myers' piece, and this refrain of yours is just exhibiting the same incorrect notion over and over.


You're beginning to show your true colours as a bigoted blowhard shouting at the world until it surrenders to your silly narrow black and white view.

You have made the same mistake over and over, have been given a source that explains that error, and still make it. What am I supposed to think of you?


And returning to your own position, the utter poverty of your arguments, the endless empty unwarranted assumptions, the outright lies and the widespread ignorance over basic facts single you out as someone who just doesn't care about debating the issues in an intelligent way. You're just someone who wants to shout.

More contentless babble. This thread is a monument to your failures.


And really, I keep saying it. Go read the medical evidence.

I have. And I read your boy's mangling of the information that lead him to conclude a predator drone dropped a bullet on Kennedy from straight above.


You've been in some kind of apoplectic rage ever since I posted 2 examples of alternatives theories that fit the evidence. Are you sure you're OK? Perhaps you should have a lie down? I did this because you claimed that there is no other possible explanation than the SBT, not because I subscribe to those two theories lock stock and barrel.

Ah, now the sanctimony. When the arguments fail, go for condescension. And thank you, by the way, for those two examples. They proved the enduring superiority of the single bullet theory.

You have no idea what my mood is as I type, you're inferring from the presence of capital letters.

This, like most of your reasoning, is faulty. I type in caps not out of anger, but to emphasize an issue that you have failed to comprehend multiple times.

If my argument were as poor as yours, I might resort to such childish ad hominems as well.

[Soily]

Actually we know a lot more than "2 things," we know millions of things. Even so, conspiracy theorists thrive on details, at the expense of the big picture. Carry on ignoring the totality of the evidence.
I'd actually say that was the other way round in this case. The LNs are fixated on the circumstantial details - the gun, the shells, the dead body and not the totality of the evidence and the bigger picture - Oswalds mysterious life, Mexico City, Odio, John Hurt, his connections with the CIA and the FBI, Oswald playing both sides in New Orleans, Kennedy's policies, Vietnam, the Chicago plot, the people using Oswald's name, the bifurcated 201 files, Jack Ruby, his mob ties and how he got into the basement to shoot Oswald, the botched investigation and cover-up etc etc.

[TraneWreck]

Moved from the other thread:

Hello McFly?! Doesn't matter how it was done, it fooled the experts. Ohh and I think we should have a citation for your claim anyway, I can find no reference to it

I included the references.

And yes, it does matter how it was done. If you want to use this KGB forgery as evidence that other Oswald documents could be forgeries, then you need to cast doubt on the ability of the experts to judge handwriting.

Again, they said they had trouble with the KGB forgery because the copy was in terrible condition. It's also a composite of letter Oswald wrote while in Russia (in all fairness, I cannot tell if it was cut and pasted directly or copied by a KGB expert, the quote I included in the last post in unclear), so it's either actually Oswald's handwriting or it's a direct copy of specific words and phrases.

On top of that, the Hunt letter was the only one that they disagreed on, and we now have a great deal more information about how it was produced. No such additionaly information has been produced concerning the other letters.

It's a childish apples-oranges comparison meant to cast broad doubt on the experts. It's wholly unjustified.



So you think Oswald was there then? That's interesting. Who is this chum who drove him 600 miles there, and 600 miles back on the 26th ready to go do his speech the next morning? Whats that, a 24 hour roundtrip? Why is there no other reference in the whole world to this epic trip, when Oswalds whereabouts and actions have been studied more than any other private individual in history?

What it prove one way or the other. Maybe it was an old friend of his playing a joke.

I often sign those sorts of things in other names.

[Soily]

Alright, I will say this as politely as I can: you are failing to understand the significance of the initial, false anchoring. You have not read Myers' piece, and this refrain of yours is just exhibiting the same incorrect notion over and over.

Nope you are failing to understand the correlations. We don't know when the other shots were visually in the Zapruder film, so the anchoring you're talking about is irrelevant to the point I'm making. Of the things we know, the spatial characteristics of Dealy Plaza and the temporal movement of the motorcade, the matches are very impressive and hard to explain. I ask again, what else was making the bangs?


You have made the same mistake over and over, have been given a source that explains that error, and still make it. What am I supposed to think of you?

Your lack of reading ability and your own numerous errors must be quite galling for you, no wonder you have to lash out at others because of your own ignorance.



I have. And I read your boy's mangling of the information that lead him to conclude a predator drone dropped a bullet on Kennedy from straight above.

Again, what is the overriding theme of your postings is your utter ignorance of the medical evidence. That's why you are unable to understand people who are more knowledge than you's theories. The mangling is entirely on your side.



Ah, now the sanctimony. When the arguments fail, go for condescension. And thank you, by the way, for those two examples. They proved the enduring superiority of the single bullet theory.

You have no idea what my mood is as I type, you're inferring from the presence of capital letters.

This, like most of your reasoning, is faulty. I type in caps not out of anger, but to emphasize an issue that you have failed to comprehend multiple times.

If my argument were as poor as yours, I might resort to such childish ad hominems as well.

Your failure to comprehend the arguments of people who, unlike you, have studied the evidence, is your failure and nobody elses. The recurring theme of your ignorance is my abiding memory of our increasingly tedious and tiresome encounters. That you feel the need to resort to shouting because you can't be bothered to go and learn about the basic facts is a poor reflection on yourself.

[TraneWreck]

Nope you are failing to understand the correlations. We don't know when the other shots were visually in the Zapruder film, so the anchoring you're talking about is irrelevant to the point I'm making. Of the things we know, the spatial characteristics of Dealy Plaza and the temporal movement of the motorcade, the matches are very impressive and hard to explain. I ask again, what else was making the bangs?

First of all, the raw statistical data doesn't say what you think it says:

The next day, Monday, September 11, 1978, Dr. Barger testified to the committee in public hearings. Statistically, there was 96% chance that the acoustic team had correctly detected two shots, a 75% chance they had correctly identified three shots, and only a 29% chance they had correctly found four gunshots. According to Barger, the probability that a grassy knoll shot had been fired was only 50-50. [38] Barger reiterated what he had told HSCA members the night before, that the acoustic tests were designed “to see if [the Dallas police tape] was statistically likely to have contained the sounds of gunfire,” [39] and that the results he obtained were “a potential corroborating force toward other evidence.” [40] In short, it was up to the HSCA to find additional evidence that either confirmed or refuted the acoustic tests.
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics_2.htm

The critical errors have to do with the way the recording was made. First of all, there are no audible rifle bangs. The tape had to be cleared out and manipulated to even make the pulses distinguishable from background noise, so don't pretend like you hear a series of gunshots.

As for what they are:

For two days, beginning on July 17, 1978, Dr. Barger briefed the HSCA in secret session. He told the committee that what BBN thought might be gunshots were a sequence of “impulse sounds” that appeared on the Channel One recording beginning at about 12:30 p.m. and 47 seconds. [24] Barger cautioned that while the loudest “impulse sounds” might be gunfire, they could just as easily be motorcycle engine misfires, ignition system noises, intermittent microphone relay sounds, scratches on the surface of the Dictabelt itself, electrical or mechanical distortions due to components in the communication system, or any number of other non-firearm sources.

In 2003, Medstar Television and Court-TV commissioned Robert Berkovitz of Sensimetrics Corporation to re-examine the acoustic evidence using the latest computer technology for a forthcoming 40th anniversary television special. Berkovitz concluded that the CBA was correct in their conclusion after all; that the impulse sounds deemed to be gunshots by the HSCA acoustic teams were actually recorded about one minute after the assassination, and therefore, too late to be assassination
shots


Your lack of reading ability and your own numerous errors must be quite galling for you, no wonder you have to lash out at others because of your own ignorance.

Oooo, good one. A wit for the ages.



Again, what is the overriding theme of your postings is your utter ignorance of the medical evidence. That's why you are unable to understand people who are more knowledge than you's theories. The mangling is entirely on your side.

Do you just have that paragraph on your clipboard?




Your failure to comprehend the arguments of people who, unlike you, have studied the evidence, is your failure and nobody elses. The recurring theme of your ignorance is my abiding memory of our increasingly tedious and tiresome encounters. That you feel the need to resort to shouting because you can't be bothered to go and learn about the basic facts is a poor reflection on yourself.

If this is how you need to save your ego by slinking away, more power to you.

I read your "experts," they're awful. They make childish mistakes--Speers, for example made the EXACT same error in his analysis of Myers' work the Fourbrick made in concerning the photos.

Let that sink in for a second.

The guy you cite as "more knowledgeable" made the exact same mistake likely Stundie winner for the month of October 2010, Fourbrick, made.

This places your heroes in their proper light.

His work with the medical evidence is similarly flawed.

[Soily]

For fun, I have had a quick go at some diagrams of my own. It's crude admittedly, but it illustrates a point which couldn't be more obvious.

My sources for these two images are the HSCA diagrams of the Governor's wounds and Dale Myers measurements of his position in the car.

In each slide, the blue line is the centre point of the car, the green line is the trajectory of the bullet from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and the red dotted line is the actual path of the bullet connecting the govs 2 wounds.

Slide 1 is how the Governor's wound be seated if he were sat head on with his shoulders perpendicular to the centre point of the car

http://i54.tinypic.com/qn1ys6.png
As you can see, the trajectory of the 6th floor bullet is perfect!

But, according to Dale Myers scientific photogrammetrical analysis of the Zapruder film, Connally is rotated 37 degrees to his right at frame 223. SO making the adjustment, we have this:
http://i55.tinypic.com/243kqr7.png

The trajectory now shows that the bullet is entering the car left to right, the opposite side of the car to the TSBD.

Now I fully acknowledge this diagram is rough and doesn't have the awesome sheen and dazzling technical prowess of Dale Myers 3D extravaganza. A better version would use more exact measurements of the exact positions of the wounds. But it does show his angles don't work out however you look at it.

Feel free to to have a go for yourself.

Sources:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0077a.htm
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl1.htm

[TraneWreck]

For fun, I have had a quick go at some diagrams of my own. It's crude admittedly, but it illustrates a point which couldn't be more obvious.

[...]

Sources:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0077a.htm
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl1.htm

Soily, if you honestly think this is a sufficient rebuttal to Myers' work, there is nothing anyone is going to be able to do to put you on the right track.

Although it is interesting that you've joined Jack White, your hero Speer, and Fourbrick in failing to understand the concept of Photogrammetry.

[Soily]

Soily, if you honestly think this is a sufficient rebuttal to Myers' work, there is nothing anyone is going to be able to do to put you on the right track.

Although it is interesting that you've joined Jack White, your hero Speer, and Fourbrick in failing to understand the concept of Photogrammetry.

They're Myers own measurements and the anatomical positions of the wounds. No photgrammtery involved by me at all. I have illsutrated those 2 things and those 2 things only. Now, specifically, whats wrong with it?

[TheRedWorm]

They're Myers own measurements and the anatomical positions of the wounds. No photgrammtery involved by me at all. I have illsutrated those 2 things and those 2 things only. Now, specifically, whats wrong with it?


Why should anyone give you specificity when you refuse to state an actual hypothesis?

[TraneWreck]

They're Myers own measurements and the anatomical positions of the wounds. No photgrammtery involved by me at all. I have illsutrated those 2 things and those 2 things only. Now, specifically, whats wrong with it?

You mean other than beginning with a rigid, not scaled model of Connally standing straight up?

The bullet entered Connally's armpit and exited near his nipple, meaning your line is off. Also, Connally's torso was about six inches inboard of Kennedy, meaning that the angle between your green line and the center line is much too large.

Correct those two problems and it works out pretty well, despite the lack of scale and general accuracy. And that's the point, what is this nonsense meant to prove? It's not detailed, it's not scientific, it's the same ********* with a protractor that made a fool of Jack White.

[twinstead]

So it appears that the conspiracy theorists's attitude that the only reason why somebody would disagree is because he "just hasn't studied the evidence" pretty much applies to just about every conspiracy from the moon hoax to JFK to 9-11, it seems.

[Soily]

No forget about Kennedy, this is just about Connally and his wounds on a horizontal plane. The anatomical position of the wounds were just to left of Connallys right armpit and just under his right nipple. Now, sit facing forward. Put your thumb under your right nipple and if you hand is big enough your finger just to the left of the bottom of your armpit. Now turn 37 degrees to your right. What direction is the bullet coming from? The trajectory is left to right, the opposite direction to the TSBD. There are a few errors in my first attempt, but they don't change the important point. I have no corrected both slides using Myers own measurements. 13 degree right to left trajectory from the TSBD. Connolly's wound about 23 degrees from the centre line and Connolly's body rotated 37 degrees to the right. Doesn't change a thing, the trajectory is still coming in from the opposite side of the car.

http://i55.tinypic.com/vijpdl.png

http://i52.tinypic.com/x0xlpg.png

[TraneWreck]

No forget about Kennedy, this is just about Connally and his wounds on a horizontal plane. The anatomical position of the wounds were just to left of Connallys right armpit and just under his right nipple. Now, sit facing forward. Put your thumb under your right nipple and if you hand is big enough your finger just to the left of the bottom of your armpit. Now turn 37 degrees to your right. What direction is the bullet coming from? The trajectory is left to right, the opposite direction to the TSBD. There are a few errors in my first attempt, but they don't change the important point. I have no corrected both slides using Myers own measurements. 13 degree right to left trajectory from the TSBD. Connolly's wound about 23 degrees from the centre line and Connolly's body rotated 37 degrees to the right. Doesn't change a thing, the trajectory is still coming in from the opposite side of the car.

http://i55.tinypic.com/vijpdl.png

http://i52.tinypic.com/x0xlpg.png

You're just compounding your initial error. Look at where the wounds actually are:

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm

According to Dr. Robert Shaw' s operative record, the entrance wound in JBC's body was "just lateral to the right [shoulder blade] close [to] the [armpit] yet has passed through the latysmus [latissimus] dorsi muscle...the wound of entrance was approximately [1.2 inches] in its longest diameter." (7HSCA142)

The HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel determined that Dr. Shaw's report described a wound located approximately 7.9 inches to the right of the midline, and 7.1 inches below the top of the 1st thoracic vertebra. (2HSCA181)

The amusing thing is that the Green line on the second photo fairly accurately follows the actual wounds. You've just arrived at the same conclusion sane single bullet theorists have. Since you've still got far too large of an angle, just correcting that gives you basically what Myers has.

The unfortunate part is that Soily thinks this is a legitimate method of inquiry. You realize you're just doing what Fourbrick did?

[Soily]

You're just compounding your initial error. Look at where the wounds actually are:

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm



The amusing thing is that the Green line on the second photo fairly accurately follows the actual wounds. You've just arrived at the same conclusion sane single bullet theorists have. Since you've still got far too large of an angle, just correcting that gives you basically what Myers has.

The unfortunate part is that Soily thinks this is a legitimate method of inquiry. You realize you're just doing what Fourbrick did?

No, the amusing thing is you've just described where the wounds were shown in Doctor Shaws own diagram which I used for the positions in my slides. You've not addressed the point at all. You can't change the anatomical position of the wounds. Connally, according to Myers was rotated 37 degrees to the right. Now addresing those facts, what is wrong with my diagram?

[TraneWreck]

Amusingly you've just described where the wounds were shown in Doctor Shaws diagram which I used for the positions in my slides. You've not addressed the point at all. You can't change the anatomical position of the wounds. Connally, according to Myers was rotated 37 degrees to the right. Now addresing those facts, what is wrong with my diagram?

That's right, I forgot Connally's back and chest were perfectly flat, 2 dimensional objects.

Your assessment is much more accurate than Myers' 3d models.

Soily, I say this with no hostility or malice: you're making a very elementary mistake here. It's the same one White and Fourbrick made. Please read what I linked from Myers' website. You don't have to agree with that, but it will show you the level of work that needs to be done to have a valid response.

[Soily]

That's right, I forgot Connally's back and chest were perfectly flat, 2 dimensional objects.

Your assessment is much more accurate than Myers' 3d models.

Is that it? I see what you're doing now is been dazzled by the very concept of a 3d animation, like a native dazzled by the white man in big metal bird. What specifically is wrong with my disgram? We both agree on the anatomical position of the wounds. All the angles are Myers own angles, so whats your problem exactly?

Did you try the little practical experiment? Face forward. Put your thumb under your right nipple, and your finger just to the left of your armpit. Turn right 37 degrees. What trajectory is the line Train? Left to right or right to left?

[TraneWreck]

Is that it? I see what you're doing now is been dazzled by the very concept of a 3d animation, like a native dazzled by the white man in big metal bird. What specifically is wrong with my disgram? We both agree on the anatomical position of the wounds. All the angles are Myers own angles, so whats your problem exactly?

Sigh. There's no other way to explain it. You're looking at a dot on a two dimensional object. Myers placed the wounds on a three dimensional body. I linked you the page that shows where the wounds are on a 3d object.

Your angle drawn off of dots on a flat piece of paper are a farce. If you can't understand this, there's no hope for you.


Did you try the little practical experiment? Face forward. Put your thumb under your right nipple, and your finger just to the left of your armpit. Turn right 37 degrees. What trajectory is the line Train? Left to right or right to left?

Here it is again. Don't know how to help you any more than this:

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm

[Soily]

Sigh. There's no other way to explain it. You're looking at a dot on a two dimensional object. Myers placed the wounds on a three dimensional body. I linked you the page that shows where the wounds are on a 3d object.

Your angle drawn off of dots on a flat piece of paper are a farce. If you can't understand this, there's no hope for you.



Here it is again. Don't know how to help you any more than this:

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm

Train, use your mind to comprehend that this is entirely about the wounds on the horizontal plane. Whats 3d got to do with it? Now, If Connolly is sat forwards, his back wound was at a right to left angle of about 23 degrees - relative to the cars midline, that measurement is from Myers website. Now, this is real simple maths. If Connolly rotates 37 degrees to his right, that angle is now -14 degrees, or 14 degrees from the other side left to right coming into the car. All that is using Myers own angles and measurements. Now, addressing just these facts, tell me whats wrong with my diagram.

[RoboTimbo]

I see what you're doing now is been dazzled by the very concept of a 3d animation, like a native dazzled by the white man in big metal bird.

So is your bigger failure your lack of a hypothesis or your inability to goad TraneWreck?

[Soily]

So is your bigger failure your lack of a hypothesis or your inability to goad TraneWreck?
Did you try the experiment Robo? What trajectory did you come up with? Whats wrong with my diagram, using as it does only Myers own measurements?

[TraneWreck]

Whats 3d got to do with it?

Seriously, how else can I explain this?

The placement of the wounds on a 2 dimensional object will not yield the correct angle. It might, by accident, but since we have actual 3d objects to compare to, and those results contradict the odd display you're making with the paper figure, there's absolutely no reason to even pay attention to what you're saying.

Look at where the wounds are on Myers' animation. They yield a significantly different angle then the one your silly test has provided.

If you continue to refuse to even acknowledge the fundamental flaw your sketch series is based on, you're going to keep making the same mistake.

[RoboTimbo]

Did you try the experiment Robo? What trajectory did you come up with? Whats wrong with my diagram, using as it does only Myers own measurements?

Yes, here's what I came up with (http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm). Nobody has ever been able to refute it.

[Soily]

Seriously, how else can I explain this?

The placement of the wounds on a 2 dimensional object will not yield the correct angle. It might, by accident, but since we have actual 3d objects to compare to, and those results contradict the odd display you're making with the paper figure, there's absolutely no reason to even pay attention to what you're saying.

Look at where the wounds are on Myers' animation. They yield a significantly different angle then the one your silly test has provided.

If you continue to refuse to even acknowledge the fundamental flaw your sketch series is based on, you're going to keep making the same mistake.

23.5 degree right to left horizontal trajectory according to the page you keep linking to. Thats Myers own figure. Now, use a calculator if you like, Rotate that angle 37 degrees to the right and where does it come from? It comes from left to right doesn't it? For all your bluster you repeatedly fail to address this point.

[TraneWreck]

23.5 degree right to left horizontal trajectory according to the page you keep linking to. Thats Myers own figure. Now, use a calculator if you like, Rotate that angle 37 degrees to the right and where does it come from? It comes from left to right doesn't it? For all your bluster you repeatedly fail to address this point.

So, hopeless it is.

[Soily]

Using Myers own diagrams:
Connally's wound 23.5 degree on horizontal plane if sat facing forward.
http://i51.tinypic.com/2dtzofs.png

Connally rotated 37.5 degrees to his right at bullet strike.
http://i51.tinypic.com/30s905f.png

All measurements taken from http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm

[TraneWreck]

Using Myers own diagrams:
Connally's wound 23.5 degree on horizontal plane if sat facing forward.
http://i51.tinypic.com/2dtzofs.png

Connally rotated 37.5 degrees to his right at bullet strike.
http://i51.tinypic.com/30s905f.png

All measurements taken from http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm

Sigh. One more time:

Photogrammetry describes how three-dimensional spatial relationships can be extracted from two-dimensional photographs or images. Without taking into account these relationships, accurate interpretations of two-dimensional images are impossible. In short, you cannot simply draw or overlay lines on a two-dimensional image (as this theorist has claimed) and extract three-dimensional measurements. This is a common amateur blunder.
http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

Soily=Common Amateur Blunder.

[TraneWreck]

You know what, Soily, here's Myers' blog:

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/

Clearly nothing I or anyone else on this forum says will have any impact on you. Make a comment describing your findings. Myers replies fairly consistently in the few posts I've read with comments. Hell, send him an e-mail. As long as you supress your less attractive habits in the message, he might explain the problem to you politely.

[RoboTimbo]

And be sure to come back here and post the exchange.

[Soily]

Sigh. One more time:


http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

Soily=Common Amateur Blunder.

Photogrammetry has nothing to do with it, the position of the wounds is the issue which you keep avoiding. Do it on your own body. Put your thumb under your right nipple and your finger just to the left of your right armpit. Turn 37 degrees to your right. The resulting trajectory is always left to right. No amount of blathering about photogrammtery is going to change that. Myers says on his own website that the angle of the wounds is 23.5 degrees right to left, you don't need the disgram to tell you that when you rotate that 37 degrees to the right, the resulting trajectory is left to right coming into the car.

Dale Meyers simulation is wrong.

[TraneWreck]

Photogrammetry has nothing to do with it, the position of the wounds is the issue which you keep avoiding. Do it on your own body. Put your thumb under your right nipple and your finger just to the left of your right armpit. Turn 37 degrees to your right. The resulting trajectory is always left to right. No amount of blathering about photogrammtery is going to change that. Myers says on his own website that the angle of the wounds is 23.5 degrees right to left, you don't need the disgram to tell you that when you rotate that 37 degrees to the right, the resulting trajectory is left to right coming into the car.

Dale Meyers simulation is wrong.

Cool story. Tell him that.

[Soily]

Cool story. Tell him that.

I already know what Myers answer is, it's what his answer always is - he assumes a massive deflection that he has no evidence for. What was originally sold as a straight line that lines up the wounds of both men now undergoes 3 deflections - a downwards deflection in Kennedys neck, a massive left to right deflection In Connollys chest and a massive left to right deflection in the wrist. All of which he has and offers no evidence for. A theory that relies on assumptions he has no evidence for is not a 'single bullet fact' as Myers now absurdly claims. A trajectory that relies on multiple baseless, evidence free deflections is gibberish.

[TraneWreck]

I already know what Myers answer is, it's what his answer always is - he assumes a massive deflection that he has no evidence for. What was originally sold as a straight line that lines up the wounds of both men now undergoes 3 deflections - a downwards deflection in Kennedys neck, a massive left to right deflection In Connollys chest and a massive left to right deflection in the wrist. All of which he has and offers no evidence for. A theory that relies on assumptions he has no evidence for is not a 'single bullet fact' as Myers now absurdly claims. A trajectory that relies on multiple baseless, evidence free deflections is gibberish.

Good thing you don't need to waste your time learning things. That could really be time consuming.

[Soily]

Good thing you don't need to waste your time learning things. That could really be time consuming.

Haha, I like the fact you've gone into a huff now you were utterly unable to find any genuine critism of my argumemt, beyond ranting about photogrammetry - something you have shown you have no understanding of because its monumentally irrelevent to the point you have been so inept at addressing.

[BadBoy]

Once again, you display utter ignorance of what Myers was doing. I'll let Myers answer this idiotic point. From the FAQ:


http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm
I read the FAQ two days ago, and as soon as I saw Soily's post about that I immediately thought: "why, its just for illustration, they couldnt see where his hand was so they just layed it on his lap. Anything else would open the model up to further ridicule").

I can only think that Soily didnt read the FAQ. Infact, after reading it I can see now why the case is sooo closed. Its very very convincing evidence. He ended up with a computer model that was generated FROM THE FILM and other photos that after adding the wounds and then projecting that backwards what a surprise, it went back to the 6th floor window.

CTists could try to argue that it wasn’t Oswald, but they cant argue that the shots that hit came from somewhere else and that there were more than 2 shots that met their target. You would have to be really desperate to keep this CT alive to argue otherwise.

Sometimes I think CTists put so much effort and time into becoming experts in all the facts surrounding an event, I mean so good that they are more knowledgeable about the CT than their day jobs, or anything else in their lives, that it becomes their sole hobby. Something they feel they can speak about with confidence to people who know little about it. Like "did you know that.." or "actually, Oswald was not where they say he was at 15:32 of the evening of..." etc etc.

Sometimes I strongly believe they wouldn’t want to be proven correct because after an initial media splash, once everyone else understood what "really" happened, they'd have nothing to talk about anymore. It would kinda undermine their position of being numero uno since everyone would now know what they knew, and would no longer care, because it would no longer be a mystery.


Soily, read the ***** FAQ tranewreck posted for goodness sake. You will find It would be very difficult to argue against unless you are good enough to show where his method/approach was fundamentally incorrect. But then you would have to be an expert in computer modelling of this type.

[BadBoy]

I already know what Myers answer is, it's what his answer always is - he assumes a massive deflection that he has no evidence for. What was originally sold as a straight line that lines up the wounds of both men now undergoes 3 deflections - a downwards deflection in Kennedys neck, a massive left to right deflection In Connollys chest and a massive left to right deflection in the wrist. All of which he has and offers no evidence for. A theory that relies on assumptions he has no evidence for is not a 'single bullet fact' as Myers now absurdly claims. A trajectory that relies on multiple baseless, evidence free deflections is gibberish.
Soily mate, you are living on another planet. You are soooo in denial.

he assumes a massive deflection that he has no evidence for. Duh, the crack in the window?? The fact the bullet was never found??? if it didn’t deflect it would have been IN THE CAR or inside Connolly.

now undergoes 3 deflections Post a link that shows this

a massive left to right deflection In Connolly’s chest No, that’s not in the model.

a massive left to right deflection in the wristNo, that’s not in the model, infact its not even modelled, but of course doesn’t even need to be.

All of which he has and offers no evidence forWhy would he offer evidence for something he doesn’t show. You know, we all read the FAQ and his analysis on his website. We KNOW what it says. Why are you lying here.

A theory that relies on assumptions he has no evidence His single bullet modelling is not a theory, its a re-enactment based on the evidence. Even with his margins for error it indicates that the official story concerning a single bullet is more or less correct.

At this point Soily, you are not a "Critical Thinker" or a "Skeptic" because you are so obviously dismissing this stuff out of hand. Critical thinkers dont do this. Scientists dont (or shouldn't) do this. At this point you fall behind into the rabble of raving, handwaving, blinded, missguided individuals that should be left alone in a corner, or put into a room together so that can all talk, mumble to themselves. So we can close the door on the noise and think about the issues in an unbiased way under blue skys and a warm breeze and a carefull but considered and quite discussion.

[Soily]

Soily mate, you are living on another planet. You are soooo in denial.
Duh, the crack in the window?? The fact the bullet was never found??? if it didn’t deflect it would have been IN THE CAR or inside Connolly.

The crack in the window was caused by fragments from the headshot. No bullets were found in the car, inside Connally or inside Kenendy - only fragments (all from the headshot), so you're argument is null and void.

Post a link that shows this
Downward angle of Connally's wounds was 24.5, downward angle of the shot from the TSBD was 17.5. Trajectory of Connally's background was 13.5 degrees left to right, trajectory from TSBD was 10 degrees right to left. Connally's wrist wound was on his right wrist, his thigh wound on his left thight. Myers offers no data for the trajectory here, but needless to say it had to undergo a massive deflection to get there. All data taken from Myers own website - http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm

No, that’s not in the model.
Myers own data. - http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm

No, that’s not in the model, infact its not even modelled, but of course doesn’t even need to be.
Of course not. We know from the nature of the wrist wound it was probably created by a jagged irregular fragment, probably from headshot, as the gunshot wound expert who treated Connally's wrist testified to the Warren Commission. The magic bullet wasn't involved with that wound. (WC_Vol4 P124,127,128)

Mr. SPECTER. Then the wound on the dorsal or back side
of the wrist was a little larger than the wound on the volar
or palm side of the wrist?

Dr. GREGORY. Yes; it was.

Mr. SPECTER. And is that characteristic in terms of entry
and exit wounds?

Dr. GREGORY. It is not at all characteristic of the entry
wound of a pristine missile which tends to make a small
wound of entrance and larger wound of exit.

Mr. SPECTER. Is it, however, characteristic of a missile
which has had its velocity substantially decreased?

Dr. GREGORY. I don't think that the exchange in the
velocity will alter the nature of the wound of entrance
or exit excepting that if the velocity is low enough the
missile may simply manage to emerge or may not emerge
at all on the far side of the limb which has been struck.

Mr. DULLES. Would this be consistent with a tumbling
bullet or a bullet that had already tumbled and therefore
entered back side too?

Dr. GREGORY. The wound of entrance is characteristic
in my view of an irregular missile in this case, an irregular
missile which has tipped itself off as being irregular by
the nature of itself.

Mr. DULLES. What do you mean by irregular?

Dr. GREGORY. I mean one that has been distorted. It is
in some way angular, it has edges or sharp edges or
something of this sort. It is not rounded or pointed in
the fashion of an ordinary missile. The irregularity of it
also, I submit, tends to pick up organic material and carry
it into the limb, and this is a very significant takeoff, in my
opinion.




Why would he offer evidence for something he doesn’t show. You know, we all read the FAQ and his analysis on his website. We KNOW what it says. Why are you lying here.

You clearly haven't read it. He even admits there's a deflection he can't account for in his FAQ - http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm

Are you blind?

His single bullet modelling is not a theory, its a re-enactment based on the evidence. Even with his margins for error it indicates that the official story concerning a single bullet is more or less correct.
No, it indicates he has mangled the data in order to get to his pre-conceived conclusion. None of his angles work out, and he has to lie about the wounds in order to get it to even remotely work.


At this point Soily, you are not a "Critical Thinker" or a "Skeptic" because you are so obviously dismissing this stuff out of hand. Critical thinkers dont do this. Scientists dont (or shouldn't) do this. At this point you fall behind into the rabble of raving, handwaving, blinded, missguided individuals that should be left alone in a corner, or put into a room together so that can all talk, mumble to themselves. So we can close the door on the noise and think about the issues in an unbiased way under blue skys and a warm breeze and a carefull but considered and quite discussion.

I've taken Myers own figures and done a really simple piece of maths with them. That you continue to blindly follow this bizarre religion is your business.

The whole 'sell' of the Myers 3d simulation was that, contrary to what the critics have said, when the men are lined up 'properly' the SBT trajectory is actually a simple straight line through them. In reality, the bullet zig zags 3 times. And that's just using Myers own data, accepting all his measurements are correct (which I do not).

[TraneWreck]

Haha, I like the fact you've gone into a huff now you were utterly unable to find any genuine critism of my argumemt, beyond ranting about photogrammetry - something you have shown you have no understanding of because its monumentally irrelevent to the point you have been so inept at addressing.

Behold, the awesome power of denial.

[TraneWreck]

I've taken Myers own figures and done a really simple piece of maths with them. That you continue to blindly follow this bizarre religion is your business.

Arrogance + stupidity.

Just like the 9-11 goofballs, Soily assumes no one has ever thought to do SIMPLE MATH!

I'm sure your work will come as a revelation to Myers. This is why you should e-mail or post on his blog.

After all, he just submitted his work to neutral forensics experts. They couldn't possibly be as brilliant as Soily.

[Soily]

Arrogance + stupidity.

Just like the 9-11 goofballs, Soily assumes no one has ever thought to do SIMPLE MATH!

I'm sure your work will come as a revelation to Myers. This is why you should e-mail or post on his blog.

After all, he just submitted his work to neutral forensics experts. They couldn't possibly be as brilliant as Soily.

It's not as if I thought of it, mathematician Alaric Rosman made the exact same point in much more detail in his paper 'The Single Bullet in Flatland'.

And as I have already pointed out, Myers knows this. Unlike Bugliosi and Posner who both think the SBT trajectory was a straight line, Myers knows this is not correct. That's why he hides away on his website the disclaimer 'by the way, all this is based on the bullet undergoing massive deflections for which I have no evidence'.

You've been misled by your guru. But SBT zealots aren't going to let go since they had that road to Damascus revelation in 2003, when like a magic Ned Flanders, Myers moved the jump seat in 6 inches. And lo and behold everything became clear, you saw a ray of light and it led up in a straight line right back to the 6th floor window! Praise be!

Err, except it turns out, it didn't. And he knows it didn't the scoundrel.

It's also worth pointing out that the 'SBT' shot is not the only one where Myers plays hard and lose with the facts. His cone of trajectory for the head-shot points back to the Dal Tex, so he just assumes there must have been another deflection. With this amount of assumption, whats the point of bothering? We could just look at the film and assume all the shots came from the TSBD and somehow, through various deflections it all just works out. What's the point of Myers 3D simulation, other than to assert what he thinks? He may as well have drawn it in crayon.

[BadBoy]

blah blah blah Myers moved the jump seat in 6 inches. blah blah blah[QUOTE]

This is in the FAQ. He didnt move the jump seat in by 6 inches. He even specifies how big (wide) the jump seat was. The six inches comes from (as Im sure you know well, and is explained on his site) the fact that JFK is leaning his arm on the edge of the car door, his body upto the inside edge, and Connolly is looking around to his right. Both those movements line the bullet up perfectly ok.


[QUOTE=Soily;6494010]blah blah blah... His cone of trajectory for the head-shot points back to the Dal Tex, so he just assumes there must have been another deflection.

The cone centres on the 6th floor window and covers the Dal Tex roof aswell slightly, but this was for the kill shot, not for the magical bullet from what I remember.


Its like talking to myself. You dont listen to anything. I'm no expert in this at all but I can see your problem from space.

[BadBoy]

hay Tranewreck, lets go and get a beer. I done arguing with the goofball

[TraneWreck]

It's not as if I thought of it, mathematician Alaric Rosman made the exact same point in much more detail in his paper 'The Single Bullet in Flatland'.

And as I have already pointed out, Myers knows this. Unlike Bugliosi and Posner who both think the SBT trajectory was a straight line, Myers knows this is not correct. That's why he hides away on his website the disclaimer 'by the way, all this is based on the bullet undergoing massive deflections for which I have no evidence'.

You've been misled by your guru. But SBT zealots aren't going to let go since they had that road to Damascus revelation in 2003, when like a magic Ned Flanders, Myers moved the jump seat in 6 inches. And lo and behold everything became clear, you saw a ray of light and it led up in a straight line right back to the 6th floor window! Praise be!

Err, except it turns out, it didn't. And he knows it didn't the scoundrel.

It's also worth pointing out that the 'SBT' shot is not the only one where Myers plays hard and lose with the facts. His cone of trajectory for the head-shot points back to the Dal Tex, so he just assumes there must have been another deflection. With this amount of assumption, whats the point of bothering? We could just look at the film and assume all the shots came from the TSBD and somehow, through various deflections it all just works out. What's the point of Myers 3D simulation, other than to assert what he thinks? He may as well have drawn it in crayon.

Your paranoid mind gets the best of you again.

Myers is upfront about all of this on his website. And the angle doesn't go back to the Dal Tex building, it goes 140 feet above the Dal Tex building.

This might not be a problem for you because you've already advanced a theory requiring a bullet to come from the sky, but for most rational people this leads to the conclusion that a deflection occurred.

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl3.htm

This is old and tired. All of these ********* concerns of yours are well dealt with by normal scientific reasoning and understandings of margins of errors in a recreation where endless variables cannot be replicated.

It amazes me that on the one hand you're willing to draw insane, attenuated conclusions about Oswald's conversation with a mechanic about ordering a gun, but the notion that a bullet would deflect off of someone's rib cage is just too much for you to handle.

Once again, you're contorting all evidence to meet your paranoid conspiracy theories. The result is this nonsense you perpetually produce.

[TraneWreck]

hay Tranewreck, lets go and get a beer. I done arguing with the goofball

Yeah, that's the smart course. I'm out as well.

I'll get the first round.

[Soily]

[QUOTE=Soily;6494010]blah blah blah Myers moved the jump seat in 6 inches. blah blah blah[QUOTE]

This is in the FAQ. He didnt move the jump seat in by 6 inches.
That's funny, because he's actually filmed on camera moving the jump seat itself in (at least) 6 inches in Beyond the Magic Bullet. He has since backtracked and claimed this was just for visual effect and he knew the jump seat was really only 2.5 inches inboard all along.


He even specifies how big (wide) the jump seat was. The six inches comes from (as Im sure you know well, and is explained on his site) the fact that JFK is leaning his arm on the edge of the car door, his body upto the inside edge, and Connolly is looking around to his right. Both those movements line the bullet up perfectly ok.


Ohh someone sounds a bit rattled! Just saying it lines up doesn't make it so. You have complety dodged the fact the bullet needs a series of deflections in order to line up, including one huge 23.5 degree left to right deflection for which Myers offers no evidence. Really, this is meant to be a forum of skeptics and rationalists, but you 2 are like a couple of disciples of some religious cult - staring into the sun and swearing that it is night.


Its like talking to myself. You dont listen to anything. I'm no expert in this at all but I can see your problem from space.
You exasperation lies entirely with your own rampant ignorance and inability to properly address an argument without resorting to 'wahhh but Dale Myers sez...'

[Soily]

Yeah, that's the smart course. I'm out as well.

I'll get the first round.

Yeah and make sure when you go to take a drink, your hand follows Dale Myer's trajectory up to you mouth.

You'll end up with most of the beer in your ear.

[danrush]

It's not a theory, it's a fact and it has strong proof to back it up.

[Soily]

It's not a theory, it's a fact and it has strong proof to back it up.
Yes, just you saying it makes it a fact. Unfortunately all the evidence shows it is not.

[danrush]

Ohh someone sounds a bit rattled! Just saying it lines up doesn't make it so. You have complety dodged the fact the bullet needs a series of deflections in order to line up

I'm afraid to bust your happy bubble pal but I must...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm

Not theory any more but solid facts!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt3.jpg

Jump seat lower than Kennedy's back seat

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt2.gif

Drawing from the 1970's HSCA

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/robinson1.jpg

Connally inboard and lower than Kennedy. Single bullet fact.

Yes, just you saying it makes it a fact.

Care to keep talking or shall I show more evidence?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt1.gif

Here's a picture from the conspiracy lover's most popullar book, High Treason

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus4.gif

Look who got it wrong!

[danrush]

Dale Meyers simulation is wrong.

Somehow the layout of Dealy Plaza escaped you.

[Soily]

Somehow the layout of Dealy Plaza escaped you.
Yes, the 3 degree downward incline is highly relevent to how Connolly was turned Horizonatlly in space, or how the wounds were aligned on his body in the horizontal plane.

Have you ever read any other sources than the website of right wing political proffessor John 'string em up' Macadams? And will you continue to spam multiple threads with links to his website?

[TheRedWorm]

Yes, the 3 degree downward incline is highly relevent to how Connolly was turned Horizonatlly in space, or how the wounds were aligned on his body in the horizontal plane.

Have you ever read any other sources than the website of right wing political proffessor John 'string em up' Macadams? And will you continue to spam multiple threads with links to his website?


Have you ever bothered to read and comprehend sources that contradict your precious preconceived notion that anyone but LHO shot JFK?

[danrush]

than the website of right wing political proffessor

Right wing, left wing, loon wing, whatever jack. Who cares about your stupid political moors when it comes to facts and evidence...

One man
One Rifle
One dead President

[danrush]

Yes, the 3 degree downward incline is highly relevent to how Connolly was turned Horizonatlly in space, or how the wounds were aligned on his body in the horizontal plane.

What experiance do you have with rifles? Just asking.

[TheRedWorm]

What experiance do you have with rifles? Just asking.

...

BTW, have you ever fired a rifle?

No, have you?...


Dere ya go.

[RoboTimbo]

What experiance do you have with rifles? Just asking.
Dere ya go.

Let's join BadBoy and TraneWreck for a beer. We can leave the debris of the conspiraloon demolition here for someone else to clean up.

[danrush]

allow me to state the autopsy report of Doctor Fink....

Bullet in the back 14cm from the right acromion and at 14cm from the right mastoid process. produced eechymosis of the dome of the parietal pleura on the right and came out in the anterior neck below the larynx without bone injury.

The acromion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acromion


Mastoid pocess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastoid_process

eechymosis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecchymosis

parietal pleura: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parietal_pleura

the pleura: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleura

From looking through my medical book, it appears the round "canted"

[Soily]

Have you ever bothered to read and comprehend sources that contradict your precious preconceived notion that anyone but LHO shot JFK?
I don't believe 'anyone but LHO' shot Kennedy. I believe It's not clear. There's compelling evidence Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting, and complelling evidence that says he didn't fire a rifle that day. But unlike most CTs I'm not completly adverse to the idea the Oswald was involved in some way or even implicated. But I also believe the SBT simply does not line up at frame 223. And to belive it does is to stare facts in the face and deny them. I have demonstrated here, using only the LNs own measurements how the SBT does not work. Looking at Connallys wounds, thered no way the shot lines up without assuming a series of massive deflection, eviserating the SBT strsight line trajectory myth.

[Soily]

Dere ya go.
Yyeeeeeee haaaa! Dis guy never fired no gun boys, he dun know wat he talk about till he killed no varmint yeaaaa haaaa!

Yes, because of course you have to be an expert rifle man in order for your eyes to suddenly work so you can see where Connally's wounds where, to read what his doctors and surgeons said about his wounds and to take the figures on the website of the SBTs greatest 'expert' and show they are internally contradictory.

Only firing a rifle can allow you to do any of that.

Since when did this forum become such a den of right wing vipers?

[danrush]

There's compelling evidence Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting

Oh?

[RoboTimbo]

I don't believe 'anyone but LHO' shot Kennedy. I believe It's not clear. There's compelling evidence Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting, and complelling evidence that says he didn't fire a rifle that day. But unlike most CTs I'm not completly adverse to the idea the Oswald was involved in some way or even implicated. But I also believe the SBT simply does not line up at frame 223. And to belive it does is to stare facts in the face and deny them. I have demonstrated here, using only the LNs own measurements how the SBT does not work. Looking at Connallys wounds, thered no way the shot lines up without assuming a series of massive deflection, eviserating the SBT strsight line trajectory myth.

How do you account for all of Connelly's wounds then?

[TheRedWorm]

Let's join BadBoy and TraneWreck for a beer. We can leave the debris of the conspiraloon demolition here for someone else to clean up.


Good idea. Let's hope they have La Fin Du Monde on tap.

[Soily]

How do you account for all of Connelly's wounds then?

Haha! You are talking about Connallys wounds? Thats like you asking me about Billy Grahams views on religion. You're a daft bigot.

Please remember to keep the tone civil. Thank you.

[RoboTimbo]

Haha! You are talking about Connallys wounds? Thats like you asking me about Billy Grahams views on religion. You're a daft bigot.

It seems you've used English words but strung them together in a way that only makes sense to you.

How do you account for all of Connelly's wounds?

[Soily]

It seems you've used English words but strung them together in a way that only makes sense to you.

How do you account for all of Connelly's wounds?

This is undetermined and probably always will be, however there are other viable alternatives. The back wound may have been caused by a seperate bullet as Connally's doctors suggested, or it msy have been the bullet that passed through the top of Kennedys neck and impacted him in the EOP region. His wrist wound was probably caused by a fragmet of the headshot as theorized by Dr Gregory. The thigh wound was a superficial glancing blow and could have been caused by either of the above.

[TheRedWorm]

Actually, no, it's not undetermined. The single bullet was tested on a human analogue, and found to be consistent with a single shot coming from the SBD. Until anyone can show otherwise, that is the default scenario.

[Soily]

Actually, no, it's not undetermined. The single bullet was tested on a human analogue, and found to be consistent with a single shot coming from the SBD. Until anyone can show otherwise, that is the default scenario.

Its demonstrably false in many of its particulars which is all that counts. All the simulations have ever proved was that it was broadly possible, which was never in dispute. What the zealots overlook is that the simulations also demonstrate that the particulars of the SBT were highly improbable or impossible, in the condition of the bullet, the spatial relation of the men, the exact trajectory or the nature of the mens wounds.

[RoboTimbo]

Its demonstrably false in many of its particulars which is all that counts. All the simulations have ever proved was that it was broadly possible, which was never in dispute. What the zealots overlook is that the simulations also demonstrate that the particulars of the SBT were highly improbable or impossible, in the condition of the bullet, the spatial relation of the men, the exact trajectory or the nature of the mens wounds.

Interesting. So, not only broadly possible but reinforced by all the other evidence. Thanks.

[Soily]

Interesting. So, not only broadly possible but reinforced by all the other evidence. Thanks.

Nope, broadly possible but disproved by the evidence in the particulars.

[EventHorizon]

Good idea. Let's hope they have La Fin Du Monde on tap.

I think I've been on facebook a bit too much lately. I was looking for the like button for this comment. Though I prefer Trois Pistoles.

[TheRedWorm]

I think I've been on facebook a bit too much lately. I was looking for the like button for this comment. Though I prefer Trois Pistoles.

That's very good as well. But my favorite beer (Wild Blue) they appear not to make anymore.