ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags HSCA , JFK assassination , Kennedy conspiracies

Closed Thread
Old 23rd August 2015, 04:32 AM   #41
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,316
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
That is untrue. He NEVER differentiated the shot fired "into a hard object", from the "second" shot that he heard. This is from his original report, of 11/22/63,

I heard a second firecracker type noise but it had a different sound-- like the sound of shooting a revolver into something hard.

He NEVER said he heard two separate shots then.
Strawman argument. The two separate shots is your argument. Mine is for a head shot and the sound of the impact of the bullet on the head.

And Clint Hill said quite clearly he heard two separate sounds - a "double-sound" - and he said one of those sounds was possibly caused by the impact of the bullet on the head.

Quote:
Mr. SPECTER. And did you have a reaction or impression as to the source of point of origin of the second shot that you described?
Mr. HILL. It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear, because when I mounted the car it was--it had a different sound, first of all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what caused it.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you describing this double sound with respect to what you heard on the occasion of the second shot?
Mr. HILL. The second shot that I heard; yes, sir.
Hill heard only two shots, five seconds apart. And he also heard the impact of the bullet on the head.

Quote:
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what is your best estimate on the timespan between the first firecracker-type noise you heard and the second shot which you have described?
Mr. HILL. Approximately 5 seconds.

I count approximately five seconds between shots at Zapruder frame 223 and Zapruder frame 313 (4.9 seconds to be more precise). What do you count, Robert?

Hill does not give any confirmation to your claims of four shots, with the final two shots 1.5 seconds apart. None whatsoever. His testimony leads to the conclusion he heard the shots at Z223 and Z313, plus the impact of the head shot as another - third - sound.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2015, 04:55 AM   #42
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,316
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
By the way, I made this presentation about Clint Hill, several years ago. You might find it interesting to learn that he jumped in direct reaction to the shot at 285,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u08P2R2l5T8
Hill said there were approximately five seconds between the two shots he heard.

Z223 and Z313 fits very nicely (4.9 seconds at 18.3 frames per second). Z285 and Z313 does not. That's about 1.5 seconds only.

Quote:
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what is your best estimate on the timespan between the first firecracker-type noise you heard and the second shot which you have described?
Mr. HILL. Approximately 5 seconds.
I see nothing in your video that addresses that. Your argument that Hill jumped at Z285 has nothing to do when he heard the first shot. He must have heard the Z223 shot; as he notes after the shot he saw the President raise his hands to his neck (which happens well before Z285); not any supposed Z285 shot.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2015, 11:15 AM   #43
vtbub
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 252
I have a hard time catching the tail lights on the Z-Film. At what point did Kellerman hit the brakes and then hit the gas again?
vtbub is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2015, 02:05 PM   #44
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
It has been disputed, right here in this thread. I've pointed out, repeatedly, that many of the witnesses' recollections you cite are fully consistent with only two shots being fired, with the impact on the head being heard as an additional third shot.
That theory makes no sense at all. For the impact and the shot to have been misconstrued as two shots, there would have to have been a significant and discernible delay between the two noises. But there was none. The 130 or more, decibel shock wave arrived with the bullet, so the sound of the impact would have been perfectly simultaneous with that shock wave.

Clint Hill confirmed that fact when he stated that the the sound was like one bullet hitting something hard, which is exactly what it was. He never stated or implied that it sounded like two separate shots.

And you still have not dealt with the fact that the reactions we are discussing here, which followed the 285 shot, all occurred PRIOR to 313, so they couldn't possibly have been the result of those people being confused by the sound of the head shot.

It was in 1965, that I learned about this, by studying Mrs. Connally, in the Zapruder film - a copy of which I had hijacked from the old, Medio, JFK CD.

Reading her testimony, I was thinking to myself, that she and many other witnesses were indeed, hopelessly confused about the shots. But as I watched her in the film, a light suddenly came on.

She testified that she heard a single shot and then turned to look back at JFK, seeing him with his hands raised up to roughly the level of his face. It is easy to see that this happened at about frame 258, well after the 223 shot.


Mrs. CONNALLY. ..I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was - he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down. Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John.


She then testified about what she did next,

I just pulled him over into my arms because it would have been impossible to get us really both down with me sitting and me holding him.

So when did that happen?

In this brief Zapruder segment, it is quite easy to see when she finally turned back to her husband and pulled him back to her.

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie3.gif

When did that happen, Hank?

We can argue all day about the reliability of what witnesses say, but there is no argument about what they did and when they did it, when those reactions are clearly visible in the Zapruder film.

So, when did she turn back to her husband, as she described, following the "second shot"?
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2015, 02:26 PM   #45
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
But whether it was the mob or the boy scouts, it wasn't Oswald acting alone. There can be no doubt about that at all.
Actually, there's never been any alternative hypothesis to the conentional narrative which has explained a consilience of evidence like the conventional narrative does.

Therefore, there has never been any doubt that Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK. That's why the conventional narrative is the null hypothesis and it has never been falsified.

If you have some alternative narrative which explains a consilience of evidence better than the conventional narrative, please post it here and we can discuss it.

As it stands, your opinions of phantom shooters of phantom suppressed rifles from phantom locations with magic bullets which leave no evidence of their existence, all based on your opinions of sounds you assume exist on a silent video have pretty clearly been shown to be a house of cards built on shifting sand.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2015, 03:53 PM   #46
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,077
I don't know if he even hit the brakes. He does turn around and may have lifted his foot from the gas pedal. This would still cause everyone in the car to move forward in an obvious startle reaction from inertia.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2015, 04:12 PM   #47
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,316
Originally Posted by vtbub View Post
I have a hard time catching the tail lights on the Z-Film. At what point did Kellerman hit the brakes and then hit the gas again?
My understanding is the tail lights don't show throughout the entirety of the Z-film. In addition, I don't believe Greer (not Kellerman) hit the brakes at any time.

Here is his initial statement: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/sa-greer.htm

The President's automobile was almost past this building and I was looking at the overpass that we were about to pass under in case someone was on top of it, when I heard what I thought was the backfire of a motorcycle behind the President's automobile. After the second shot, I glanced over my right shoulder and saw Governor Connally start to fall, I knew then that something was wrong and I immediately pushed the accelerator to the floor and Mr. Kellerman said, get out of here.

Nothing about hitting the brakes in the above, or in his testimony.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/greer.htm


Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2015, 04:53 PM   #48
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by vtbub View Post
I have a hard time catching the tail lights on the Z-Film. At what point did Kellerman hit the brakes and then hit the gas again?
He probably didn't hit the brakes. After doing a study of the limo's velocity from frame to frame, Dr. Alvarez concluded that he only lifted his foot from the gas, causing a gradual slowdown from 12 to 8 mph.
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2015, 05:26 PM   #49
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,316
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
[info=Loss Leader]3. Bill Greer, the driver of the limo, stated that the second shot, which he described as almost simultaneous with the third, caused him to feel it's "concussion", which is exactly what we would expect him to have felt from the shock wave of a passing, high powered rifle shot.
You keep saying that, but I've corrected it in the past.


First, the word concussion can mean an impact:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concussion

a : a stunning, damaging, or shattering effect from a hard blow; especially : a jarring injury of the brain resulting in disturbance of cerebral function

b : a hard blow or collision
Second, I pointed out that Greer, like the others in the limo, was pelted with brain matter from the head shot. For instance, Governor Connally testified to this:

Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time. Again my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that this--that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle. These were just thoughts that went through my mind because of the rapidity of these two, of the first shot plus the blow that I took, and I knew I had been hit, and I immediately assumed, because of the amount of blood, and in fact, that it had obviously passed through my chest. that I had probably been fatally hit.
So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to--I just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She was sitting, of course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.
Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else.

Mrs. Connally said the same thing:
Mrs. CONNALLY. ... I just pulled him over into my arms because it would have been impossible to get us really both down with me sitting and me holding him. So that I looked out, I mean as he was in my arms, I put my head down over his head so that his head and my head were right together, and all I could see, too, were the people flashing by. I didn't look back any more. The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot falling all over us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was the matter, brain tissue, or whatever, just human matter, all over the car and both of us.


Third, you are quoting Greer out of context.


Mr. SPECTER. Describe as best you can the types of sound of the second report, as distinguished from the first noise which you said was similar to a motorcycle backfire?
Mr. GREER. The second one didn't sound any different much than the first one but I kind of got, by turning around, I don't know whether I got a little concussion of it, maybe when it hit something or not, I may have gotten a little concussion that made me think there was something different to it. But so far as the noise is concerned, I haven't got any memory of any difference in them at all.

Greer himself suggested (above) that the second sound he heard might have been the impact of the shot hitting something (and it could only be on the President's head that was struck).


Fourth, you're not taking physics into account. The sound of the bullet travels slower than the bullet itself, by about a factor of three (700 FPS vs 2100 FPS). That means Greer would have heard the impact on the head before he heard the sound of the shot being fired. The second sound he heard, under my scenario, would be the impact of the shot, and he attributed that sound to feeling the "concussion", e.g., being pelted with brain matter from the head shot. The sound of the shot would have been the third sound he heard. That is wholly consistent with the second sound being the impact on the head and the third sound being the sound of the second shot being fired, and that is consistent with both the physics of the matter and the testimony of Greer.


Fifth, Greer said he estimated the total shooting time as just three or four seconds. He said the final two "shots" he heard were almost simultaneous, and the time span between the first two were three or four seconds.

Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your ability to recollect and estimate, how much time elapsed from the first noise which you have described as being similar to the backfire of a motor vehicle until you heard the second noise?
Mr. GREER. It seems a matter of seconds, I really couldn't say. Three or four seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. How much time elapsed, to the best of your ability to estimate and recollect, between the time of the second noise and the time of the third noise?
Mr. GREER. The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other, but I don't recollect just how much, how many seconds were between the two. I couldn't really say.

Remember that the from the time of the shot at Z223 to the shot at Z313 is just 4.9 seconds. Greer's recollection of the timing of the shots is more consistent with just hearing two shots at the above two times (and the near-simultaneous impact of the bullet on the head of JFK) than it is with your scenario of an early shot at Z150-160, another at Z223, another at Z285, another at Z313, and yet another at about Z335, as you suggested may have been fired in another post. Excluding the shot at Z335, and assuming the first shot was at Z160, I get a total time span of about 8.3 second for the four shots (that's the minimum in YOUR scenario). If we count from Z150 to Z335, I get a total time span of 10.1 seconds for the five shots (that's the maximum in your scenario). So Greer was wrong, according to you, by at least one shot and maybe two, and anywhere from four seconds to over six seconds.

In my scenario, which explains the bunching of the last two sounds at least as well as yours, I get 4.9 seconds for the time span of the shooting. And just two shots, and the sound of an impact on the skull. Compare the 4.9 second time of my scenario with what these witnesses said:

Clint Hill said:
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what is your best estimate on the timespan between the first firecracker-type noise you heard and the second shot which you have described?
Mr. HILL. Approximately 5 seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, did the impact on the President's head occur simultaneously, before, or after the second noise which you have described?
Mr. HILL. Almost simultaneously.

Roy Kellerman said:
Mr. SPECTER. To Mr. Lawson. All right. Was there any timespan which you could discern between the first and second shots and what you have described as the flurry?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I will estimate 5 seconds, if that.

And of course, Greer said:
Mr. SPECTER. To the best of your ability to recollect and estimate, how much time elapsed from the first noise which you have described as being similar to the backfire of a motor vehicle until you heard the second noise?
Mr. GREER. It seems a matter of seconds, I really couldn't say. Three or four seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. How much time elapsed, to the best of your ability to estimate and recollect, between the time of the second noise and the time of the third noise?
Mr. GREER. The last two seemed to be just simultaneously, one behind the other, but I don't recollect just how much, how many seconds were between the two. I couldn't really say.

So please stop attributing the "concussion" to a shot at Z285, because there's no evidence that Greer was attributing that "concussion" to the shock wave of a shot, and there's ample evidence he was attributing it to being struck with brain matter.

I'm uncertain why you persist in attributing the "concussion" Greer said he felt with a shock wave of a bullet at Z285, when my scenario explains his testimony at least as well as yours, and doesn't have pop-up assassins populating Dealey Plaza and then vanishing upon firing their shots, leaving no trace.

I could also point out that the two large fragments found in the limousine the evening of the assassination, were determined to have been fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world, and that these two fragments, comprising in total roughly half a bullet with no overlap (one recovered portion was from the front of the bullet, the other recovered portion from the back of the bullet) were most likely from the shot that struck JFK in the skull.

In other words, the evidence indicts Oswald as the killer of JFK. And nobody else. But that's an argument for another day.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 09:13 AM   #50
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,213
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Actually, there's never been any alternative hypothesis to the conentional narrative which has explained a consilience of evidence like the conventional narrative does.

Therefore, there has never been any doubt that Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK. That's why the conventional narrative is the null hypothesis and it has never been falsified.

If you have some alternative narrative which explains a consilience of evidence better than the conventional narrative, please post it here and we can discuss it.

As it stands, your opinions of phantom shooters of phantom suppressed rifles from phantom locations with magic bullets which leave no evidence of their existence, all based on your opinions of sounds you assume exist on a silent video have pretty clearly been shown to be a house of cards built on shifting sand.
Mr Harris should have known his statement was factually wrong, by the simple virtue of having read any of the previous JFK threads. To claim there is no doubt of a conspiracy can not be sustained while many doubt that very idea. Or indeed any idea other than Oswald acting alone.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 09:20 AM   #51
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,296
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by a "consilience".
It was defined and discussed at length during your previous sojourn here, in connection with your argument. I recall you did not participate much in that discussion, so I urge you to reread it if you're unsure what was meant.

Briefly, consilience is the property of an investigation composed of several avenues of evidence whereby evidence developed in isolation in each of those several avenues most parsimoniously points to the same general conclusion. It is taken as more probable then that the conclusion is true than it is that each of those several avenues of evidence independently and erroneously point to the same wrong conclusion.

Quote:
But do you see a pattern here? None of those "proof", really prove anything...
This statement is what ignores or denies the consilience attributed to the conventional explanation.

Further, your argument earlier goes on to exhibit what some have termed "anti-consilience." This has been described as the property of an investigation whereby the desired interpretation of one avenue of evidence (i.e., the visual interpretation of people's movements) is applied to all the other avenues to compel an interpretation accordingly. It fails to consider each avenue in isolation, which disallows any claim thereafter of true consilience.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 09:58 AM   #52
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,469
Since so much of RH's theory rests on his interpretation of witness reports of what they heard, and most folks haven't had the experience of being on the wrong end of the range, I suggest that interested parties do this:

If you have a range close by that hosts NRA high power rifle competitions and they use the traditional 600 yd course of fire (as opposed to the reduced target size targets at shorter range) take the time to attend a match and volunteer to work the target pits - you'll be under safe cover and raise and lower the targets and mark them for score - you'll also experience first hand what a rifle projectile sounds like as it misses you.

That's the only reason that I knew I was under fire the first time it happened to me. I had been in the pits and recognized the sound of a passing projectile.

The other thing a newbie will note is the difference between the time you here the passing projectile and the time you hear the rifle's report - shorten the distance between shooter and target and you can see and hear for yourself how it is possible for someone down-range to confuse muzzle blast and a projectiles sound wave.

Contrary to assertion, close passing super sonic/sub sonic projectiles do not always cause startle responses in untrained individuals.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 02:32 PM   #53
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,316
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
That theory makes no sense at all. For the impact and the shot to have been misconstrued as two shots, there would have to have been a significant and discernible delay between the two noises. But there was none. The 130 or more, decibel shock wave arrived with the bullet, so the sound of the impact would have been perfectly simultaneous with that shock wave.
Another day, another straw man argument from Robert. I mentioned the shock wave not at all. Why he invokes it as part of his rebuttal is beyond my ken. Or even my barbie.

The sound of the impact of the bullet on the skull would make a noise separate and distinct from the sound of the weapon being fired. I'm talking about the sound of the bullet being fired, which travels at the speed of sound, and the speed of the bullet, which travels about three times as fast, give or take a few hundred feet per second. When the bullet travelled the 88 yards from the weapon to JFK's skull between frames 312 and 313, the sound of the weapon had only travelled one-third as far.

Let's do the math together, Robert.

Frame 312 is the last frame that shows JFK's head undamaged. Frame 313 shows the massive head explosion, after the bullet has already passed through the head. So the bullet actually struck between those two frames. Let's call it 312.5 for convenience.

Let's work backward to determine when the bullet was fired. The bullet had to traverse about 88 yards or 264 feet to get to JFK's head. At 2100 fps, that's 264 / 2100 or .125 seconds to travel those 88 yards. That's the equivalent of roughly 2.3 Zapruder frames since Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera exposed film at the rate of 18.3 frames per second.

That means the shot that impacted JFK in the head was fired at roughly frame 310.2 (312.5 minus 2.3 frames), if it came from the sniper's nest, which is my scenario.

Are you with me so far?

The passengers in the limo (and Clint Hill, who was rushing to the limo), were the closest to the impact on JFK's head, and the sound of the impact did not have far to travel to be heard by them... only a few feet in the case of Connally, Greer and Kellerman, and maybe a dozen feet in the case of Clint Hill. Let's ignore the delay here, which would amount to at best maybe 1/100th of a second. So those people would hear the sound of the impact of the bullet on the head at just about Z312.5, the same instance as the head shot.

Still with me?

Now, when would they hear the sound of the rifle shot?

Let's do the math together again. The sound of the bullet being fired from Oswald's rifle would be travelling at about 700 fps, and it was fired at, as we previously determined, frame 310.2. It actually had to travel further than 88 yards because the car was moving away from the weapon, but let's ignore that consideration and assume the car was stationary for the duration of this problem-solving exercise. The sound would take 264 / 700 of a second to travel those 88 yards - or roughly .377 seconds to travel from the rifle to the limo. It's more than a third of a second later. That equates to 6.9 Zapruder frames (or more, as the limo was moving away, but we're ignoring that).

The rifle was fired at Zapruder frame 310.2, which means the sound would reach the limo passengers at Zapruder frame 317.1 (frame 310.2 + 6.9 frames). The difference between when the impact was heard (312.5) and when the sound was heard (317.1) is 4.6 frames; or almost exactly a quarter of a second later... close enough to be called almost simultaneous by Clint Hill or bang-bang by Roy Kellerman and Bill Greer.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what is your best estimate on the timespan between the first firecracker-type noise you heard and the second shot which you have described?
Mr. HILL. Approximately 5 seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, did the impact on the President's head occur simultaneously, before, or after the second noise which you have described?
Mr. HILL. Almost simultaneously.
That sounds more like a quarter second apart than 1.5 seconds apart.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, in your prior testimony you described a flurry of shells into the car. How many shots did you hear after the first noise which you described as sounding like a firecracker?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Specter, these shells came in all together.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to say how many you heard?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang--bang, bang.

That sounds more like a quarter second apart than 1.5 seconds apart.

Mr. GREER. To the best of my recollection, Congressman, was that the last two were closer together than the first one. It seemed like the first one, and then there was, you know, bang, bang, just right behind it almost. The two seemed, the last two seemed, closer to me than the other.

That sounds more like a quarter second apart than 1.5 seconds apart.

And of course, three witnesses mentioned the impact on the skull separate from the sound of the shot (Connally, Hill, and Greer):

Mr. GREER. The second one didn't sound any different much than the first one but I kind of got, by turning around, I don't know whether I got a little concussion of it, maybe when it hit something or not, I may have gotten a little concussion that made me think there was something different to it.

Governor CONNALLY. ...and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.

Mr. HILL. ...it had a different sound, first of all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what caused it.


Of course, for other witnesses, like Sam Holland or Jean Hill, the numbers for the speed of sound or the bullet don't change but the math does as their distance to the limo increases. A person close to the TSBD at the corner of Elm and Houston would hear the rifle shot after it travelled only maybe 120 feet, but the bullet would have to travel to JFK's skull and the sound of that impact would then have to travel back to the witness at the speed of sound. It might be an interesting exercise to map the location of the witnesses and the delay between the last two shots they reported.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Clint Hill confirmed that fact when he stated that the the sound was like one bullet hitting something hard, which is exactly what it was. He never stated or implied that it sounded like two separate shots.
Another straw man argument. I'm not claiming Hill thought he heard two separate shots at the end of the shooting - and I've explained that before. I'm claiming he heard both the sound of the rifle being fired and the sound of the bullet striking the skull. Ignore the testimony at your peril. He did attest to two separate sounds, both the sound of the impact and the sound of the rifle being fired. I am claiming that some of your other witnesses to two shots at the end of the shooting heard those same two sounds, and thought they were two gunshots.

Here you go, for your reading displeasure once more:
Mr. HILL. It was right, but I cannot say for sure that it was rear, because when I mounted the car it was--it had a different sound, first of all, than the first sound that I heard. The second one had almost a double sound--as though you were standing against something metal and firing into it, and you hear both the sound of a gun going off and the sound of the cartridge hitting the metal place, which could have been caused probably by the hard surface of the head. But I am not sure that that is what caused it.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you describing this double sound with respect to what you heard on the occasion of the second shot?
Mr. HILL. The second shot that I heard; yes, sir.
Please cease and desist with the straw men arguments, Robert.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
And you still have not dealt with the fact that the reactions we are discussing here, which followed the 285 shot, all occurred PRIOR to 313, so they couldn't possibly have been the result of those people being confused by the sound of the head shot.
We are, for the moment, focusing on the double-sound that some witnesses reported that you claim is the result of shots at Z285 and Z313. I suggest some of the witnesses heard the sound of the impact of the bullet on the skull, and the sound of the bullet being fired as two separate sounds, and thought they were two separate shots. I think my scenario, as it invokes nothing more than an understanding of physics, is simpler, more understandable, and conforms better to what the witnesses actually reported than your scenario, which invokes multiple unseen gunmen that leave no trace, some bullets that are heard, while others are not heard, and five or more shots taking ten or more seconds from three or more locations. It also conforms far better, of course, to the physical evidence of one weapon found, three shells recovered, and two large fragments and one nearly whole bullet recovered traceable to that one weapon.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
It was in 1965, that I learned about this, by studying Mrs. Connally, in the Zapruder film - a copy of which I had hijacked from the old, Medio, JFK CD.

Reading her testimony, I was thinking to myself, that she and many other witnesses were indeed, hopelessly confused about the shots. But as I watched her in the film, a light suddenly came on.

She testified that she heard a single shot and then turned to look back at JFK, seeing him with his hands raised up to roughly the level of his face. It is easy to see that this happened at about frame 258, well after the 223 shot.


Mrs. CONNALLY. ..I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was - he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down. Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John.


She then testified about what she did next,

I just pulled him over into my arms because it would have been impossible to get us really both down with me sitting and me holding him.

So when did that happen?

In this brief Zapruder segment, it is quite easy to see when she finally turned back to her husband and pulled him back to her.

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie3.gif

When did that happen, Hank?

We can argue all day about the reliability of what witnesses say, but there is no argument about what they did and when they did it, when those reactions are clearly visible in the Zapruder film.

So, when did she turn back to her husband, as she described, following the "second shot"?
You just tried to bail on the witness testimony by saying "We can argue all day about the reliability of what witnesses say" - and then you quote a witness (Nellie Connally) and *assume* she's reliable.

Can't have it both ways, Robert.

Which way do you want to have it? The witnesses are reliable, in which case they confirm my scenario of two shots and a head impact in 4.9 seconds far more so than your scenario of four or five or more shots in 9 seconds or more, or the witnesses are unreliable, in which case we can disregard the testimony of Nellie Connally.

But you can't throw out my witnesses because they might be unreliable, and retain the statements you want to keep by claiming your witnesses aren't subject to the same unreliability as mine.

Well, you can, and that appears to be exactly what you're doing above. But I think most people would see right through that attempt to manipulate the data in your favor.

All the best,

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 02:40 PM   #54
vtbub
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
My understanding is the tail lights don't show throughout the entirety of the Z-film. In addition, I don't believe Greer (not Kellerman) hit the brakes at any time.

Here is his initial statement: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/sa-greer.htm

Hank
Thanks for the driver correction. (Edited the quote above for length.)

Wolrab understood where I was going with my question. The limo slows and accelerates during the shooting. Knowing how my lack of balances causes me to move around in my wheelchair when the van I ride in slows and leaves stoplights, I can see why the limo occupants would react in unison the same way.
vtbub is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 02:49 PM   #55
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,316
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
It was in 1965, that I learned about this, by studying Mrs. Connally, in the Zapruder film - a copy of which I had hijacked from the old, Medio, JFK CD.

Reading her testimony, I was thinking to myself, that she and many other witnesses were indeed, hopelessly confused about the shots. But as I watched her in the film, a light suddenly came on.

She testified that she heard a single shot and then turned to look back at JFK, seeing him with his hands raised up to roughly the level of his face. It is easy to see that this happened at about frame 258, well after the 223 shot.


Mrs. CONNALLY. ..I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was - he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John.
You understand her testimony is wrong on this point, as she has her husband hit with a second bullet AFTER she turned back to see the President. And by your own argument, the wound to Governor Connally must therefore have happened after frame 258 - if Nellie is a reliable witness. But as determined by the Governor himself, he was not struck that late in the film. And I don't believe you yourself put the wound to the Governor that late in the film. I believe you put it at Z223. Please correct me if this is wrong.

Ergo, you just exposed the witness you are citing above as - gasp - *unreliable*. Yet you cite her anyway, and ignore those portions of her testimony that conflict with your scenario.

Sorry, no. I'm not convinced by this argument of yours.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 03:15 PM   #56
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
I don't know if he even hit the brakes. He does turn around and may have lifted his foot from the gas pedal. This would still cause everyone in the car to move forward in an obvious startle reaction from inertia.
The limo slowdown began at about frame 300, as Dr. Alvarez stated.

http://jfkhistory.com/slowdown.jpg

The limo passengers all began to react at frames 290-292, so they could not have been caused by the deceleration.

I further confirmed that fact in this brief presentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDAg5c4x5U
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 03:45 PM   #57
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
That theory makes no sense at all. For the impact and the shot to have been misconstrued as two shots, there would have to have been a significant and discernible delay between the two noises. But there was none. The 130 or more, decibel shock wave arrived with the bullet, so the sound of the impact would have been perfectly simultaneous with that shock wave.

Clint Hill confirmed that fact when he stated that the the sound was like one bullet hitting something hard, which is exactly what it was. He never stated or implied that it sounded like two separate shots.

And you still have not dealt with the fact that the reactions we are discussing here, which followed the 285 shot, all occurred PRIOR to 313, so they couldn't possibly have been the result of those people being confused by the sound of the head shot.

It was in 1965, that I learned about this, by studying Mrs. Connally, in the Zapruder film - a copy of which I had hijacked from the old, Medio, JFK CD.

Reading her testimony, I was thinking to myself, that she and many other witnesses were indeed, hopelessly confused about the shots. But as I watched her in the film, a light suddenly came on.

She testified that she heard a single shot and then turned to look back at JFK, seeing him with his hands raised up to roughly the level of his face. It is easy to see that this happened at about frame 258, well after the 223 shot.


Mrs. CONNALLY. ..I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right.I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. SPECTER. And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck?

Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was - he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down. Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John.


She then testified about what she did next,

I just pulled him over into my arms because it would have been impossible to get us really both down with me sitting and me holding him.

So when did that happen?

In this brief Zapruder segment, it is quite easy to see when she finally turned back to her husband and pulled him back to her.

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie3.gif

When did that happen, Hank?

We can argue all day about the reliability of what witnesses say, but there is no argument about what they did and when they did it, when those reactions are clearly visible in the Zapruder film.

So, when did she turn back to her husband, as she described, following the "second shot"?
Hank, I hope you will address this issue about Mrs. Connally. This short animation makes it easy to follow her.

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

1. When did she look back and see JFK with his hands raised up to his face?

2. When did she turn her attention back to her husband and position herself to pull him back to her?

It's obvious, that she didn't realize her husband was hit at 223, because she could only see his back. She couldn't see his contorted face and as he twisted back to his right, she thought he was only checking on the President.

John had turned to his right also when we heard that first noise and shouted, "no, no, no,' and in the process of turning back around so that he could look back and see the President - I don't think he could see him when he turned to his right - the second shot was fired and hit him.

We can further confirm her error through the extremely revealing fact that Governor Connally and his wife disagreed on one critical point. The Governor testified that he shouted "oh, no, no, no" AFTER he was hit.

...I immediately, when I was hit, I said, "Oh, no, no, no"

But Mrs. Connally thought he shouted first, and then was hit.

I recall John saying "Oh, no, no, no, no". Then there was a second shot, and it hit John...

Her error was understandable though, because by that point, she had heard only one shot and noticed only one victim.

So, when she heard the second shot at 285, she presumed that was the one that hit her husband. And she was not the only one to make that mistake. So were members of the Secret Service, who like her, rejected the single bullet theory, thinking JFK was hit by shot #1, Connally by #2 and JFK again at 313. This presentation explains in detail. PLEASE watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAqqWwG_bbE

And BTW, when I said I had acquired a digital copy of the Zapruder film in 1965. I meant to say 1995. I need to be less sloppy in this moderated status, since there is no chance to go back and fix the typos :-)
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 03:48 PM   #58
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,316
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
What three shots were "known" to have been fired by Oswald and how exactly, was that proven?
Well, I can't defend three shots from Oswald, but I can establish the necessary two from his rifle at Z223 and Z313.

The hard evidence shows this.

A bullet - later designated as CE399 - was recovered at Parkland Hospital after the shooting and it was determined, by analysis, to have been fired from Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. This bullet caused the wound in JFK that entered his back and exited his throat, and then wounded Governor Connally.

Two large fragments, comprising roughly half a bullet, were found in the limousine the evening of the assassination, and those two fragments were determined to have been fired from Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Most likely, the bullet that contributed these fragments was the bullet that struck JFK in the skull.

The hard evidence indicates two shots from Oswald's rifle were involved in the shooting and caused all the wounds in the two victims in the car.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
None of the early shots could have come from a high powered rifle.
I count one early shot and one later one, and one sound of impact on the skull. Three sounds, heard by many as three shots.


Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Only one of them was even audible to most witnesses.
Have you considered only one of them was audible to most witnesses because there was only one shot fired early? Why are you conjecturing more shots than are necessary again?



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
...and neither of them were loud enough to provoke the kind of reactions we see following frames 285 and 313.

And those two shots were much too closely spaced for Oswald to have fired both.
And what evidence is there for a shot at Z285? Dr. Alvarez certainly didn't conjecture one there. The hard evidence and the eyewitness testimony indicates no more than three shots and quite possibly only two. Roughly 90% of the witnesses who gave a number of shots said three, and in fact, more witnesses said two or fewer shots than said four or more. If eyewitness testimony is at all reliable, rely on that.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by Locknar; 26th August 2015 at 05:47 AM. Reason: Fixed QUOTE
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 24th August 2015, 09:40 PM   #59
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,163
Quote:
That's quite an assertion. Would you mind posting a verifiable citation to prove it?
No, see, this is the part where you literally need to produce a smoking gun.

The only silenced rifles considered reliable in 1963 were 9mm or .45 caliber.

Silencer technology didn't really take off for rifles until the late 1980s, and only through rethinking the technology did they become acceptable for standard military use. You're oil can idea would have made the weapon inaccurate, and any experienced marksman would have scrapped it.

You need to reveal a secret weapon, and I don't think that you can.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 25th August 2015, 03:39 PM   #60
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Actually, there's never been any alternative hypothesis to the conentional narrative which has explained a consilience of evidence like the conventional narrative does.
Yes there is. I just presented one, which contradicts none of the legitimate evidence.

And since there is NO evidence which proves that Oswald acted alone, there cannot be a "consilience of evidence" proving that he did.

It is ALWAYS about the facts and evidence. Nothing else is worth discussing. And the facts and evidence prove:

1. Oswald could not have fired the early shots, which were not nearly as loud as the ones at the end.

2. Oswald could not have fired both of the shots at 285 and 313, because they were much too close together.

Therefore, Oswald could not have been the only shooter involved in the attack on President Kennedy.
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th August 2015, 06:34 AM   #61
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,316
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Hank, I hope you will address this issue about Mrs. Connally.
Already did. I pointed out you're questioning the validity of the eyewitness testimony ("We can argue all day about the reliability of what witnesses say") when it points away from your scenario (like the time estimations of the duration of the shooting as five seconds or less by Hill, Greer, and Kellerman) and accepting the eyewitness testimony of Nellie Connally when it suits your purposes.

You then attempt to explain away her errors of perception, but avoid the issue that if she had errors of perception, that calls into question how good a witness she was. Some people call that cherry-picking. Others might call it data-mining. Regardless of what one calls it, ignoring the hard evidence and retaining only those elements of the disparate eyewitness testimony that confirms one's beliefs is not the best way, nor the most appropriate way to resolve any crime. One can support any theory with that selective approach in this most-heavily documented case of all time. And trust me, I have seen your approach a lot. It's what every conspiracy theorist does (from David Lifton - who invented the JFK body alteration theory to salvage his conspiracy theory when evidence revealed it was untenable, to Dr. Fetzer, who opined there was a mobile photo alteration lab in Dealey Plaza to alter the Altgens photo when evidence showed the Altgens photo was transmitted across the country within a hour of the assassination, among others).

And that's apparently exactly what you're doing, accepting a 30-year later recollection that a second rifle was found on a different floor, that the selected eyewitnesses confirm your theory, that the ballistics evidence implicating Oswald's rifle was planted or swapped, etc.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
And BTW, when I said I had acquired a digital copy of the Zapruder film in 1965. I meant to say 1995. I need to be less sloppy in this moderated status, since there is no chance to go back and fix the typos :-)
I understood what you meant. I purchased the Medio CD myself back in the 1990's. I still have one in the original wrapper, and another I used. I figured the unwrapped one would someday be worth a lot of money. Not so much.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th August 2015, 06:46 AM   #62
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,296
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
And since there is NO evidence which proves that Oswald acted alone, there cannot be a "consilience of evidence" proving that he did.
Asked and answered. "...that Oswald acted alone" is a negative proposition. Further, your argument doesn't really discuss consilience, nor address the anti-consilience others have noted it to demonstrate. You really aren't therefore in a position to judge whether consilience favors or disfavors your case.

Quote:
It is ALWAYS about the facts and evidence. Nothing else is worth discussing. And the facts and evidence prove:
Asked and answered. Your argument depends on fundamental premises which are simply your subjective extrapolation and speculation from the observations, not the observations themselves. As Harvard professor Peter Gomes writes, the most insidious interpretation is the one you deny having made.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th August 2015, 07:20 AM   #63
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Yes there is. I just presented one, which contradicts none of the legitimate evidence.
No, you especially haven't. As has been noted, your approach is anti-consilience. You've started with your desired conclusion and retconned things to fit, even going so far as to invent most of the back story out of whole cloth: suppressed weapons? phantom shots? magical disappearing snipers? phantom rounds which hit nothing in Texas? That's about as far removed from a consilience of evidence as it is to get.

Quote:
And since there is NO evidence which proves that Oswald acted alone, there cannot be a "consilience of evidence" proving that he did.
Obviously, you've not proven your case for anyone other than Oswald being the assassin. You studiously avoid Hank's damning rebuttals which expose the fatal flaws of your anti-consilient "hypothesis".

Quote:
It is ALWAYS about the facts and evidence. Nothing else is worth discussing. And the facts and evidence prove:

1. Oswald could not have fired the early shots, which were not nearly as loud as the ones at the end.
Evidence of your making up evidence out of whole cloth. What early shots?

Quote:
2. Oswald could not have fired both of the shots at 285 and 313, because they were much too close together.
What shot at 285? This is your anti-consilient approach, making up an entire back story. Remember, that's the opposite of consilience.

Quote:
Therefore, Oswald could not have been the only shooter involved in the attack on President Kennedy.
Therefore, you have yet to show that. The ball is still in your court. Do you have any actual evidence?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th August 2015, 08:39 AM   #64
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,702
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
It is ALWAYS about the facts and evidence. Nothing else is worth discussing. And the facts and evidence prove:

1. Oswald could not have fired the early shots, which were not nearly as loud as the ones at the end.

2. Oswald could not have fired both of the shots at 285 and 313, because they were much too close together.
I think you may be confused about the meaning of the first highlighted word, as you seem to be implying that the highlighted phrases are facts.

Also, there's a William, from Ockham, who is wondering if you need a shave.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th August 2015, 09:16 AM   #65
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,350
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Yes there is. I just presented one, which contradicts none of the legitimate evidence.

And since there is NO evidence which proves that Oswald acted alone, there cannot be a "consilience of evidence" proving that he did.

It is ALWAYS about the facts and evidence. Nothing else is worth discussing. And the facts and evidence prove:

1. Oswald could not have fired the early shots, which were not nearly as loud as the ones at the end.

2. Oswald could not have fired both of the shots at 285 and 313, because they were much too close together.

Therefore, Oswald could not have been the only shooter involved in the attack on President Kennedy.
What you have presented is a poorly supported conjecture about the timing of Oswald's shots, and the existence of an undetermined number of additional shots, based on a cherry-picked interpretation of eyewitness accounts and a highly questionable interpretation of movements of of people recorded on film.

I don't know, but strongly suspect that you started with the assumption that their were shots in addition to Oswald's three, and from that begged question and a huge helping of confirmation bias, you have concocted an alternative narrative involving extra shots from for which no real evidence actually exists. This narrative appears to be very convincing to you, and to nobody else on this forum. You haven't actually proven anything at all, nor have you produced any evidence to justify considering you narrative as a plausible alternative to the Warren Commission narrative.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th August 2015, 12:46 PM   #66
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
No, see, this is the part where you literally need to produce a smoking gun.
You bear the burden of proving your assertions. You said:

"Then there is the problem with a "silenced" rifle. You continue to ignore the fact that no marksmen used them in 1963"

Ergo, you need to prove that "no marksmen" used suppressed weapons in 1963.

Quote:
The only silenced rifles considered reliable in 1963 were 9mm or .45 caliber.
Well, you haven't proven that either, but if you are correct then this issue is settled, since there are subsonic versions of both 9mm and .45 caliber bullets.

Quote:
Silencer technology didn't really take off for rifles until the late 1980s, and only through rethinking the technology did they become acceptable for standard military use. You're oil can idea would have made the weapon inaccurate, and any experienced marksman would have scrapped it.
Uh huh, and the shot at 160 missed Kennedy and the entire limo, according Posner, Bugliosi and every other nutter I know of.

Quote:
You need to reveal a secret weapon, and I don't think that you can.
I only need to prove that suppressed rifles were available then. Besides the fact that snipers used them 20 years earlier, in WW2, you have confirmed that there were at least, "reliable" 9mm and .45 caliber rifles available in 1963.

The silencer issue is settled.

Now, let's get to the gist of the issue. Why is it that the witnesses only heard ONE of the early shots?

Why is it that none of the early shots were loud enough to provoke the kind of reactions we see following 285 and 313?

Why is it that EVERY SURVIVING LIMO PASSENGER REPORTED ONLY ONE EARLY SHOT?

If Oswald had fired all the shots, the earliest would have been the loudest and most startling, to the ears of the limo passengers. Why don't we see this, immediately following 160 or 223?

http://jfkhistory.com/duckstwice.gif
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th August 2015, 01:52 PM   #67
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Well, I can't defend three shots from Oswald, but I can establish the necessary two from his rifle at Z223 and Z313.
No sir, you cannot. Let's talk about 223. It's one of my favorite topics.

John Connally stated in his autobiography that the bullet which wounded him, fell from his stretcher to the floor and was recovered by a nurse. Now, if he was the only witness, I would agree that given his condition at the time, he might have been a bit deluded.

But he was corroborated by the Dallas district attorney, Henry Wade. Wade ran into that nurse, shortly after Connally's surgery and he saw her holding that bullet in her hand, stating that it came from Connally's gurney. He told her to get it to the police, ASAP.

The nurse did as she was told and put the bullet in an envelope, then passed it to Officer Bobby Nolan, who was working security of the Governor at the time. He also confirmed that she said that whole bullet came from Connally's gurney.

The FBI claimed that they were told by nursing supervisor Audrey Bell, that the envelope Nolan received, was from her and that it contained only a single fragment from Connally's wrist. But Bell flatly denied that and stated in both her HSCA interview and ARRB testimony, that she actually passed her envelop to plain clothed agents and NOT a uniformed police officer. Nolan was in full state patrol dress that day.

She also stated that her envelope contained 3-4 tiny fragments, rather than only one as the FBI said, and of course, she was right about that too. It contained exactly four, but the FBI needed it to contain only one, since that was the number of items in Nolan's envelope. This article goes into much more detail on this issue:

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

The 223 shot, was not fired by Oswald. Not only was the bullet NOT the one that Tomlinson recovered in the basement, but the 223 shot was not heard by anyone - not even John Connally, who was hit by it. He testified,

It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it.


Connally did not hear the 223 shot. Nor did anyone else.

In that statement, he also confirmed that there were TWO early shots - the first, which he heard and the second which he only felt.

Quote:
The hard evidence shows this.

A bullet - later designated as CE399 - was recovered at Parkland Hospital after the shooting and it was determined, by analysis, to have been fired from Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
Yes, CE399 was indeed, fired from Oswald's rifle, but not during the assassination. It was also, not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered, which is why every one of the four men to handle Tomlinson's bullet refused to confirm that CE399 was the same one.

Even more conclusive is the fact that the initials of Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen and FBI agent Elmer Todd, both of whom initialed the Tomlinson bullet, are not present on CE399.

It ONLY bears the initials of people who marked it at the FBI labs, after it was transferred there.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png

Read the article that I previously linked for you in this post. It contains even more evidence which confirms these facts, including the fact that shortly after receiving fragments from the limo, which were large enough to compare with Tomlinson's bullet, he received a strange call in the wee hours of the morning, instructing him to "keep his mouth shut" about the bullet he found.

Quote:
This bullet caused the wound in JFK that entered his back and exited his throat, and then wounded Governor Connally.
One bullet almost certainly did cause those wounds. But it was not CE399. It couldn't have been.

Quote:
Two large fragments, comprising roughly half a bullet, were found in the limousine the evening of the assassination, and those two fragments were determined to have been fired from Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Most likely, the bullet that contributed these fragments was the bullet that struck JFK in the skull.
Oswald might have fired that shot. But there is no way to be certain, since any evidence the FBI handled has to be suspect.

Quote:
The hard evidence indicates two shots from Oswald's rifle were involved in the shooting and caused all the wounds in the two victims in the car.
No it doesn't. The ONLY forensic evidence which points to Oswald's rifle, is the limo fragments, and then, only if the FBI was honest about it. At best, that's a coin toss.

Quote:
I count one early shot and one later one, and one sound of impact on the skull. Three sounds, heard by many as three shots.
Your theory about the final shots is ridiculous. There is absolutely no evidence for it and it couldn't possible explain the 285 reactions, since they all occurred prior to head shot.

Quote:
Have you considered only one of them was audible to most witnesses because there was only one shot fired early?
That argument is equally false.

Read the citation from John Connally that I posted for you. He was crystal clear that he heard a and then only felt the next shot. Obviously, he was hearing the one circa 160 and feeling the one at 223.

We both acknowledge the 223 shot, and there is additional evidence that it was preceded by an earlier shot, which provoked Mrs. Kennedy to turn toward her husband. Besides her own statement that she turned to her right, following that "noise", she was corroborated by Phil Willis, who had her in his camera lense then.

When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction

He reaffirmed that in this statement,

In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead, and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street. Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him

You tell me Hank. When did Mrs. Kennedy turn to JFK? I see that beginning at about 169. What do you get?

Quote:
Why are you conjecturing more shots than are necessary again?
Never mind that every other LN advocate on the planet agrees that there were two early shots. The facts and evidence prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Quote:
And what evidence is there for a shot at Z285?
I have presented a small mountain of evidence, Hank. It's not good enough to allege that it doesn't exist. If you wish to refute my analysis, you might want to start with this brief article:

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html

Quote:
Dr. Alvarez certainly didn't conjecture one there.
Alvarez proved that there was a startling noise at frame 285. He was obviously wrong in his speculation that it was a siren. The witnesses including the same people we see reacting, told us EXACTLY what they were hearing then. I have repeatedly cited them verbatim, in this subforum. Would you like to go over what each of them said?

BTW, in our last exchange, I asked you a very specific question about Mrs. Connally. I'm sure it was an oversight, but you did not respond. Let's talk about Mrs. Connally. What makes her special, is that she didn't just tell us what happened, she showed us.

I think it is easy to see when she reacted to the "second shot", which she mistakenly believed, hit her husband. I also linked to a presentation in which Secret Service agents confirmed that they made exactly the same mistake. What is your take on this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAqqWwG_bbE
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 26th August 2015, 05:03 PM   #68
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,316
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
...It is ALWAYS about the facts and evidence. Nothing else is worth discussing. And the facts and evidence prove:

1. Oswald could not have fired the early shots, which were not nearly as loud as the ones at the end.
Begging the question. You haven't established two early shots, especially not one that was "silenced" or "inaudible". Putting "Oswald could not have fired the early shots" in a statement is not the same as establishing there were early shots Oswald couldn't have fired.



Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
2. Oswald could not have fired both of the shots at 285 and 313, because they were much too close together.
Begging the question once more. Everyone understands there was a shot at Z313, but you haven't established a shot at Z285. Repeating the litany of your arguments once again for everyone here won't be more convincing than the first ten times you argued for shots at Z285 and Z313. You haven't even tried to rebut the arguments I made in favor of one shot and one sound of impact within a quarter second of each other at the end of the shooting. You simply dismissed them by calling the arguments I put forth implausible, and knocking down massive quantities of straw men (which I pointed out in my prior posts).

Try taking on those arguments head on.

And, please go back to the very beginning of your ventures into this forum and tell us the evidence that puts Jim Braden as a conspirator. Be specific.

I asked nearly two months ago and reminded you of my desire to see that evidence more than once. For example, I asked here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2572

Here are just some of the posts you made with claims about Braden:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2526

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2577

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3930

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7&postcount=18

None of your posts naming Braden contained any evidence - only assertions. I'd like to see the evidence - naming names, citing the testimony. Do you have any you intend to share?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 11:39 AM   #69
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,475
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Yes there is. I just presented one, which contradicts none of the legitimate evidence.

And since there is NO evidence which proves that Oswald acted alone, there cannot be a "consilience of evidence" proving that he did.

It is ALWAYS about the facts and evidence. Nothing else is worth discussing. And the facts and evidence prove:

1. Oswald could not have fired the early shots, which were not nearly as loud as the ones at the end.

2. Oswald could not have fired both of the shots at 285 and 313, because they were much too close together.

Therefore, Oswald could not have been the only shooter involved in the attack on President Kennedy.
It's regrettable that you can't or more likely won't see the flaws in the above. But reality and the rules of logic don't conform to wishful thinking, no matter how fervent those desires might be.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 01:39 PM   #70
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Another day, another straw man argument from Robert. I mentioned the shock wave not at all. Why he invokes it as part of his rebuttal is beyond my ken. Or even my barbie.
I "invoke it" it because it was the single, loudest noise that that was heard by Clint Hill and the people closest to him.

Quote:
The sound of the impact of the bullet on the skull would make a noise separate and distinct from the sound of the weapon being fired.
Then why wasn't Clint Hill fooled? Why didn't he think he heard two, separate shots then, which would have been three in total?

Mr. SPECTER. How many shots have you described that you heard?
Mr. HILL. Two.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you hear any more than two shots?
Mr. HILL. No, sir.


Quote:
I'm talking about the sound of the bullet being fired, which travels at the speed of sound,
That's called the muzzle blast. It arrived about 116 milliseconds after the shock wave.

Quote:
and the speed of the bullet, which travels about three times as fast,
The speed of sound is about 1100 fps. The bullet traveled no more than 2100 fps. You might want to check your calculator:-)

It took the muzzle blast, 245 ms. to reach Kennedy. (270/1100)

It took the bullet and shock wave, 129 ms. (270/2100)

Sooo, the muzzle blast arrived about 116 ms. (245-129) after the bullet/shockwave did. But to the witnesses, the shock wave and muzzle blast would have been perceived as a single noise.

Also, the gap between the two noises, to most of the witnesses wouldn't even have been that much. Most of the witnesses were well to the east of the limo then, so they did not hear the bullet strike the skull (if they heard it at all) until that sound traveled back to them, and being closer to the source of the shot, the muzzle blast would have arrived sooner.

To most of them, those two noise would have been perfectly simultaneous. In some cases, the muzzle blast would actually have been heard a few ms. before the head strike. There was NO discernible gap between the two noises.

Quote:
give or take a few hundred feet per second. When the bullet travelled the 88 yards from the weapon to JFK's skull between frames 312 and 313, the sound of the weapon had only travelled one-third as far.
Your numbers are wrong, Hank. You're basing your theory on flawed data.

Quote:
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what is your best estimate on the timespan between the first firecracker-type noise you heard and the second shot which you have described?
Mr. HILL. Approximately 5 seconds.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, did the impact on the President's head occur simultaneously, before, or after the second noise which you have described?
Mr. HILL. Almost simultaneously.
That sounds more like a quarter second apart than 1.5 seconds apart.
Perhaps it sounds that way to you, but to me, it sounds like he said the noises were perceived almost simultaneously. Even more important, he repeatedly stated that he heard ONE SHOT then. He did not perceive two.

Quote:
Mr. SPECTER. Now, in your prior testimony you described a flurry of shells into the car. How many shots did you hear after the first noise which you described as sounding like a firecracker?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Specter, these shells came in all together.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to say how many you heard?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang--bang, bang.

That sounds more like a quarter second apart than 1.5 seconds apart.
Let me see if I have this right. The witness said the gap was two seconds, which to you, sounds like one fourth of a second???

To me, two seconds sounds more like umm... two seconds. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on that one:-)

Quote:
Mr. GREER. To the best of my recollection, Congressman, was that the last two were closer together than the first one. It seemed like the first one, and then there was, you know, bang, bang, just right behind it almost. The two seemed, the last two seemed, closer to me than the other.

That sounds more like a quarter second apart than 1.5 seconds apart.
No, it sounds like he said that last two "seemed closer" than the first two. How in holy hell do you get a quarter of a second out of that. But let's talk about that second shot he heard. He said,

Mr. GREER. The second one didn't sound any different much than the first one but I kind of got, by turning around, I don't know whether I got a little concussion of it, maybe when it hit something or not

When was he turned around? Was he turned around at 313? Was he turned around at 285?

http://www.jfkhistory.com/285.jpg

Quote:
And of course, three witnesses mentioned the impact on the skull separate from the sound of the shot (Connally, Hill, and Greer):
They did no such thing. Not even one of them.

Quote:
[i][indent]Mr. GREER. The second one didn't sound any different much than the first one but I kind of got, by turning around, I don't know whether I got a little concussion of it,
Yes, and he was turned around then, wasn't he? So, he couldn't have been thinking of 313. He could only have been hearing the shock wave at 285.

Quote:
Governor CONNALLY. ...and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear.
Yes, he heard the "the shot hit something". He never thought he was hearing two shots then and never claimed he heard two shots then; neither did anyone else.

Your theory fails in every case. Besides the fact that the head strike and muzzle blast were perceived as simultaneous, no one who was more than 10 feet from Kennedy, said they heard the bullet hit the head, at all. Can you name another witness, other than Hill and Connally, who claimed to hear the bullet strike?

And the fact that both Hill and Connally described it as the bullet striking the head, tells us that it didn't sound to them, like a high powered rifle shot. It sounded like a bullet striking the head.

Even more important than all that, you "theory" does not address the main issues, including the reactions following 285, all of which occurred prior to 313.

http://www.jfkhistory.com/ducking.gif

Nor do you address the analyses of Drs. Alvarez and Stroscio, both of whom, confirmed that there was a loud and startling noise at frame 285.

Nor do you address the fact that none of the early shots were loud enough to provoke startle reactions, like we see following 285 and 313.

As for your theory that there was only one early shot, I have proven you wrong about that, beyond any reasonable doubt. John Connally stated quite clearly, that he heard an early shot, and after that, felt a second shot, which he never heard. No one else heard it either, which proves that at least, that shot came from a suppressed weapon.

Mrs. Kennedy's reactions which preceded 223, adds further confirmation to that fact.
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 27th August 2015, 10:13 PM   #71
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Already did. I pointed out you're questioning the validity of the eyewitness testimony ("We can argue all day about the reliability of what witnesses say") when it points away from your scenario (like the time estimations of the duration of the shooting as five seconds or less by Hill, Greer, and Kellerman) and accepting the eyewitness testimony of Nellie Connally when it suits your purposes.
I'm sorry you chose to accuse me of distorting the facts to support my own opinions. Perhaps it is my fault for not explaining this clearly enough for you.

First, I have always questioned the validity of witness statements - no exceptions. All humans are prone to error and various studies have proven that witnesses, even in criminal cases, are no exception.

Witnesses who makes specific time estimates with no mention of using watches or other timing devices are even more unreliable. Their estimates are nothing more than guesses. That is especially true of the tiny minority who only heard two of the shots.

That's why I try to test witness statements whenever possible. Fortunately for us, we have the Zapruder film, which provides conclusive confirmations and denials of many statements made by witnesses who were in the limo during the attack.

I stated that Mrs. Connally was wrong in believing her husband was hit at 285, because there is solid, visible evidence, that he was hit at 223, at the same time JFK was. I think it is safe to say that pretty much everyone in this subforum agrees with that. At that frame, his jacket was blown open and his tie flipped to his left:

http://jfkhistory.com/pix/connally_at_223.jpg

His subsequent movements further corroborate that fact:

http://jfkhistory.com/pix/jbc.gif

So, Hank, I did not make that statement because I needed it to make my case. I made that statement on the same basis that I make ALL my statements - because it is supported by the facts and evidence.

Quote:
You then attempt to explain away her errors of perception, but avoid the issue that if she had errors of perception, that calls into question how good a witness she was.
Let me try to be a little clearer for you. Mrs. Connally's perception was nearly perfect. In her position you, I or any other clear headed person would have said the same thing.

She heard ONE early shot, just like her husband heard and just like almost everyone else in Dealey Plaza heard. That was the shot at app. 150-160, which was confirmed by Posner, Bugliosi, and pretty much every other lone nut advocate on the planet.

The evidence for a pre-223 shot is BRD. In addition to John Connally's testimony and the reactions by Mrs. Kennedy and Phil Willis, we can see Rosemary Willis, who told Gerald Posner that she stopped running when she heard that first shot, coming to a complete stop. Look at the film. That happened, prior to frame 223.

http://www.jfk-online.com/rosemary-w...-dunckel-2.gif

Also, like the other witnesses, including her husband, Mrs. Connally never heard the shot at 223. She had no reason to believe that the governor had been hit. And since she could only see his back, she had no way of seeing his contorted face as we can see it from the Zapruder side of Elm Street.

So there is no reason she SHOULD have realized that he had already been hit. Her perception was not flawed. NONE of the witnesses realized that both men were hit by one shot, either. Neither did the authorities until months later.

Are you with me so far? Can you see how these conclusions are entirely driven by the facts and evidence, rather than my own needs?

Next, we have Mrs. Connally's statement that she looked back at JFK. But once again, I am not going trust her. I want to see PROOF, which fortunately for us, is clearly visible in the Zapruder film. I see her looking back at 258, give or take no more than 2 frames.

Do you agree?

http://jfkhistory.com/nellie2.gif

Are you still with me, Hank? Do you see that so far, I am sticking purely with the facts and evidence, rather than what I need to present to support my analysis?

Now, let's talk about the most important issue - Mrs. Connally's statement that she turned her attention to her husband and pulled him back to her. Look again, at nellie2.gif. Do you agree that it is easy to see when she did that?

Will you also agree, that that happened in precisely the range of 290-292, in the same three frames or 1/6th of one second that the others in the limo ducked or spun around??

I would hope that you do, Hank. It will save me from making more GIFs in ridiculously slow motion:-)

If you do agree, then the only remaining question is whether she was correct in stating that she did this in reaction to hearing the "second shot".

If she was wrong, then this was not just a case of faulty memory. It was a case of delusion. It means that she was hearing a non-existent rifle shot which she reacted to, thinking it wounded her husband.

And isn't it an incredible coincidence that she reacted to that "imaginary" gunshot at the same instant that Jackie and Kellerman ducked, while Bill Greer spun rapidly around as he made the worst mistake of his career, lifting his foot from the gas pedal?

And isn't it amazing that she reacted within less than 1.5 seconds prior to 313, while the large majority of witnesses heard "closely bunched" shots at the end of the attack?

And if that isn't enough, isn't it amazing that Dr. Alvarez determined that Zapruder reacted to a noise at 285, within THE SAME 1/9TH OF A SECOND that Mrs. Connally did?

Of course, she was not delusional. In addition to the corroborations from the other witnesses and the scientists, there are a multitude of others who also thought Connally was hit by a second shot - after JFK was hit in the back and just prior to the fatal headshot.

I'm surprised that you chose not to discuss the Secret Service agents who came to that same conclusion. Did you look at this presentation? Do you think all of those secret service agents and other witnesses were delusional as well?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAqqWwG_bbE
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 04:29 AM   #72
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,316
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
...the shot at 160 missed Kennedy and the entire limo, according Posner, Bugliosi and every other nutter I know of.
Then your research is inadequate. I suggest you re-read my posts on this subject in this very thread and its predecessor thread for an alternative view of whether there was a shot at Zapruder frame 160 or thereabouts.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 04:41 AM   #73
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,316
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Now, let's get to the gist of the issue. Why is it that the witnesses only heard ONE of the early shots?
You don't appear to have adequately considered the possibility that they only heard one early shot because there was only one early shot. The one at Z223.


Nor have you eliminated that possibility. You just assume as a given there were two early shots, then go about extrapolating from there.


I've quoted extensively from the record of the closest witnesses with firearms experience (Governor Connally, Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman and William Greer) and all those men said they only heard only one shot before the head shot. Ironically, you were previously quoting these men to support your interpretation of the shooting - complete with phantom shooters, multiple missed shots, and silenced weapons. So you cannot plead ignorance of their testimony at this point in time.


Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 04:45 AM   #74
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,316
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
Why is it that EVERY SURVIVING LIMO PASSENGER REPORTED ONLY ONE EARLY SHOT?
Asked and answered -- multiple times. Maybe because there was only one early shot. Please show us how you know for a fact there was more than one.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 04:55 AM   #75
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,316
Originally Posted by Robert Harris View Post
No sir, you cannot. Let's talk about 223. It's one of my favorite topics.

John Connally stated in his autobiography that the bullet which wounded him, fell from his stretcher to the floor and was recovered by a nurse. Now, if he was the only witness, I would agree that given his condition at the time, he might have been a bit deluded.

But he was corroborated by the Dallas district attorney, Henry Wade. Wade ran into that nurse, shortly after Connally's surgery and he saw her holding that bullet in her hand, stating that it came from Connally's gurney. He told her to get it to the police, ASAP.

The nurse did as she was told and put the bullet in an envelope, then passed it to Officer Bobby Nolan, who was working security of the Governor at the time. He also confirmed that she said that whole bullet came from Connally's gurney.

The FBI claimed that they were told by nursing supervisor Audrey Bell, that the envelope Nolan received, was from her and that it contained only a single fragment from Connally's wrist. But Bell flatly denied that and stated in both her HSCA interview and ARRB testimony, that she actually passed her envelop to plain clothed agents and NOT a uniformed police officer. Nolan was in full state patrol dress that day.

She also stated that her envelope contained 3-4 tiny fragments, rather than only one as the FBI said, and of course, she was right about that too. It contained exactly four, but the FBI needed it to contain only one, since that was the number of items in Nolan's envelope. This article goes into much more detail on this issue:

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

The 223 shot, was not fired by Oswald. Not only was the bullet NOT the one that Tomlinson recovered in the basement, but the 223 shot was not heard by anyone - not even John Connally, who was hit by it. He testified,

It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it.


Connally did not hear the 223 shot. Nor did anyone else.

In that statement, he also confirmed that there were TWO early shots - the first, which he heard and the second which he only felt.



Yes, CE399 was indeed, fired from Oswald's rifle, but not during the assassination. It was also, not the same bullet that Tomlinson recovered, which is why every one of the four men to handle Tomlinson's bullet refused to confirm that CE399 was the same one.

Even more conclusive is the fact that the initials of Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen and FBI agent Elmer Todd, both of whom initialed the Tomlinson bullet, are not present on CE399.

It ONLY bears the initials of people who marked it at the FBI labs, after it was transferred there.

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/initials.png

Read the article that I previously linked for you in this post. It contains even more evidence which confirms these facts, including the fact that shortly after receiving fragments from the limo, which were large enough to compare with Tomlinson's bullet, he received a strange call in the wee hours of the morning, instructing him to "keep his mouth shut" about the bullet he found.



One bullet almost certainly did cause those wounds. But it was not CE399. It couldn't have been.



Oswald might have fired that shot. But there is no way to be certain, since any evidence the FBI handled has to be suspect.



No it doesn't. The ONLY forensic evidence which points to Oswald's rifle, is the limo fragments, and then, only if the FBI was honest about it. At best, that's a coin toss.



Your theory about the final shots is ridiculous. There is absolutely no evidence for it and it couldn't possible explain the 285 reactions, since they all occurred prior to head shot.



That argument is equally false.

Read the citation from John Connally that I posted for you. He was crystal clear that he heard a and then only felt the next shot. Obviously, he was hearing the one circa 160 and feeling the one at 223.

We both acknowledge the 223 shot, and there is additional evidence that it was preceded by an earlier shot, which provoked Mrs. Kennedy to turn toward her husband. Besides her own statement that she turned to her right, following that "noise", she was corroborated by Phil Willis, who had her in his camera lense then.

When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction

He reaffirmed that in this statement,

In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead, and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street. Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him

You tell me Hank. When did Mrs. Kennedy turn to JFK? I see that beginning at about 169. What do you get?



Never mind that every other LN advocate on the planet agrees that there were two early shots. The facts and evidence prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.



I have presented a small mountain of evidence, Hank. It's not good enough to allege that it doesn't exist. If you wish to refute my analysis, you might want to start with this brief article:

http://jfkhistory.com/WebArticle/article.html



Alvarez proved that there was a startling noise at frame 285. He was obviously wrong in his speculation that it was a siren. The witnesses including the same people we see reacting, told us EXACTLY what they were hearing then. I have repeatedly cited them verbatim, in this subforum. Would you like to go over what each of them said?

BTW, in our last exchange, I asked you a very specific question about Mrs. Connally. I'm sure it was an oversight, but you did not respond. Let's talk about Mrs. Connally. What makes her special, is that she didn't just tell us what happened, she showed us.

I think it is easy to see when she reacted to the "second shot", which she mistakenly believed, hit her husband. I also linked to a presentation in which Secret Service agents confirmed that they made exactly the same mistake. What is your take on this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAqqWwG_bbE
You make quite a few assertions in the above, but document very few of them.

Where is the evidence to support your assertions about a bullet recovered in the operating room? You cite the non-evidence of a published book ghost-written by another man. Please cite the direct testimony of Governor Connally on this subject. You don't because you can't. You know there is no evidence, so you cite hearsay.

Sorry, no. Not buying it.

Nearly every one of your paragraphs above can be followed by the simple question: "What's the evidence for this claim?"

And assertions without evidence in support are also not very convincing.

So slow down, and document your claims with evidence. And by the way, links to articles written by conspiracy theorists are not evidence.

For example, start with this paragraph: "But he was corroborated by the Dallas district attorney, Henry Wade. Wade ran into that nurse, shortly after Connally's surgery and he saw her holding that bullet in her hand, stating that it came from Connally's gurney. He told her to get it to the police, ASAP."

Where and when did Wade testify to that?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 09:56 AM   #76
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
It's regrettable that you can't or more likely won't see the flaws in the above. But reality and the rules of logic don't conform to wishful thinking, no matter how fervent those desires might be.
If there were flaws, you would be able to describe them, with specificity.
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th August 2015, 03:42 PM   #77
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,163
Quote:
You bear the burden of proving your assertions. You said:

"Then there is the problem with a "silenced" rifle. You continue to ignore the fact that no marksmen used them in 1963"

Ergo, you need to prove that "no marksmen" used suppressed weapons in 1963.
Nope. I'm not the guy who's wandered into a skeptics forum with a theory that hinges on a weapons technology not widely used by marksmen in 1963.

Quote:
Well, you haven't proven that either, but if you are correct then this issue is settled, since there are subsonic versions of both 9mm and .45 caliber bullets.
None of which were used in the shooting. None reliable at the range required. The .45 might have been effective from the 6th floor, but it would have hit the target, and the doctors would have recovered the round and everyone would know there was a second gunman.

The surpressed .45 would have had little recoil, and with no loud blast the shooter is more accurate.

Quote:
Uh huh, and the shot at 160 missed Kennedy and the entire limo, according Posner, Bugliosi and every other nutter I know of.
Oswald's first shot was deflected by the traffic light. The other two hit, everyone knows this.

Quote:
I only need to prove that suppressed rifles were available then.
No, you need to point to a specific rifle and a specific shooter. Marksmen are creatures of habit, they use the same weapons, and they use the same tactics because they work. You need to point to a man known for his use of silenced rifles, and I would point out that such a man would have a reputation that would be known to those in the sharp shooting community. Then all you have to do is put him in Dallas on that day.


Quote:
Besides the fact that snipers used them 20 years earlier, in WW2
Not widely, and the reason was that they were inaccurate at long range compared to the regular rifles. Distance = safety. The other reason is that suppressors (the big kids don't call them silencers) quickly foul the weapon, which also makes their use undesirable.

Quote:
, you have confirmed that there were at least, "reliable" 9mm and .45 caliber rifles available in 1963.
But you have not proved any of those calibers were used.

Quote:
The silencer issue is settled.
Hardly.

Quote:
Why is it that EVERY SURVIVING LIMO PASSENGER REPORTED ONLY ONE EARLY SHOT?
This is where your theory strays into sociopathic behavior. You lack basic empathy and you seem not to understand how human beings function in a state of shock.

You just asked why a bunch of blue-blooded politicians, who were under fire, and taking horrific casualties, only heard one shot. Guess what? They heard all three, but they only recall the one. You ignore the human mind and how it works and doesn't work in cases of sudden emergency. The people in JFK's limo are technically the worst witnesses for the event past the first bullet strike. Their individual worlds shrank to a space of square inches for a few seconds.

The two big weak points of your theory is the needless use of a silenced weapon which no shooter in his right mind would use, and the reactions of people who were being shot at and hit while expecting them to act like it was a Sunday drive.

Look, I get it, you've done a lot of work, and it's hard to walk away from it. Your lack of firearms knowledge and unwillingness to do the research begs the question of how will you did your homework with the rest of this.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th August 2015, 04:16 PM   #78
Robert Harris
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Asked and answered -- multiple times. Maybe because there was only one early shot. Please show us how you know for a fact there was more than one.
I have refuted that argument over and over again. Your claim is that there was no shot circa 160, right? You are not disputing the shot at 223, right? Let's go very my refutations AGAIN.

John Connally proved you wrong in spades. He "heard" the first of those two early shots but only "felt" the one at 223,

It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it.

Mrs. Kennedy stated that she was looking to her left when she heard that first shot/noise,

Mrs. KENNEDY. You know, there is always noise in a motorcade and there are always motorcycles, besides us, a lot of them backfiring. So I was looking to the left. I guess there was a noise, but it didn't seem like any different noise really because there is so much noise

She was looking to her left at 160, wasn't she? But by 223, she had turned completely to her right, looking at JFK. She had to have heard a pre-223 shot then.

Besides her own statement that she turned to her right, following that "noise", she was corroborated by Phil Willis, who had her in his camera lens then.

When I took slide No. 4, the President was smiling and waving and looking straight ahead, and Mrs. Kennedy was likewise smiling and facing more to my side of the street. When the first shot was fired, her head seemed to just snap in that direction

He reaffirmed that in this statement,

In slide No. 4 he was looking pretty much toward--straight ahead, and she was looking more to the left, which would be my side of the street. Then when the first shot was fired, she turned to the right toward him

You tell me Hank. When did Mrs. Kennedy turn to JFK? I see that beginning at about 169. What do you get?

In addition to John Connally's testimony and the reactions by Mrs. Kennedy and Phil Willis, we can see Rosemary Willis, who told Gerald Posner that she stopped running when she heard that first shot, coming to a complete stop. Look at the film. That happened, prior to frame 223.

http://www.jfk-online.com/rosemary-w...-dunckel-2.gif

Rosemary came to a complete stop before 223. You are wrong, Hank. There were at least two early shots. That fact is beyond reasonable doubt.

And here's another one, if that's not enough for. Mrs. Donald Baker testified,

Mrs. BAKER. Well, as I said, I thought it was a firecracker. It looked just like you could see the sparks from it and I just thought it was a firecracker..

How could she have seen "sparks", rising from the pavement, from the 223 shot, that passed through two men?
Robert Harris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2015, 12:40 AM   #79
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,213
On the one hand we could see human testimony as understandably flawed, and confused. And we can see people acting in the confusion of the moment, on film, while being shot at thrice, with two bullets wounding one man and killing another.

Or we can see the same confusion as absolute proof that people were startled, by snipers with suppressed weapons, failing to cause any known wound, without leaving a single recovered bullet, or indeed bullet hole, any evidence of their location or existence.

They would have needed to use a lower calibre of bullet than any found, or any that can be shown to have caused a wound.


And if my understanding of suppressed weapons is correct, and they were using those favoured I the war, they would have to be at close range to avoid hitting random members of the crowd due to decreased accuracy.(though I expect Hank willl correct me on this)

And all based on the assumption people are startled, in a way that can ONLY be explained by a very loud (silenced) noise!
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th August 2015, 11:56 AM   #80
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,213
I'm tired of the thread going in circles with no evidence to support the same tired assumptions.

Lets do something new.


Lets assume you were the guy responsible for killing JFK and you had the budget it would take to make even a mundane conspiracy claim. Lets say a few million dollars it would take to establish a "second Oswald" as some theories claim. How would you spend two million dollars to assassinate JFK and frame somebody else. Cheapest, most reliable, and least incriminating suggestion gets the contract... (There is a point here)
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.