HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Offbeat » Creative Speculation (Group) » Here's a correction OP fo...

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 12:48 PM

Here's a correction OP for 50 Reasons, 50 Years OP

Subject: Black Op Radio's "50 REASONS, 50 YEARS"... Why the Warren Commission conclusions about Lee Harvey Oswald's "lone gun" theory is all wrong in my opinion. As the series is explained by host, Len Osanic of Black Op Radio -

Leading towards the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of President John Kennedy, this series is designed to highlight the cutting edge of research exposing the conspiracy and the cover-up behind his murder.


Source: Black Op Radio

Check Out the series that has begun to explain these 50 reasons here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAu2-ycDOaN1yyNHT8FiG9FlYZ-rL9k80
13 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
I've never seen any of these videos, you have my attention
10 (77%)
I've seen these videos, but could care less about them
0 (0%)
I've seen these videos, and I'm not convinced yet
0 (0%)
I'm with the single bullet, lone gunman theory, regardless
3 (23%)
Still need evidence to convince me of single bullet, lone gunman theory
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

168 replies, 21106 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 168 replies Author Time Post
Reply Here's a correction OP for 50 Reasons, 50 Years OP (Original post)
MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 OP
eomer Feb 2013 #1
MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 #4
William Seger Feb 2013 #2
MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 #3
William Seger Feb 2013 #5
MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 #6
William Seger Feb 2013 #11
William Seger Feb 2013 #12
William Seger Feb 2013 #13
William Seger Feb 2013 #15
William Seger Feb 2013 #16
zappaman Mar 2013 #18
eomer Feb 2013 #7
MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 #8
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #14
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #9
MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 #10
zappaman Mar 2013 #17
MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #19
zappaman Mar 2013 #20
MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #21
zappaman Mar 2013 #22
MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #23
zappaman Mar 2013 #24
MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #25
arguille Mar 2013 #26
MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #27
William Seger Mar 2013 #28
arguille Mar 2013 #33
William Seger Mar 2013 #38
arguille Mar 2013 #43
William Seger Mar 2013 #46
William Seger Mar 2013 #51
arguille Mar 2013 #52
William Seger Mar 2013 #58
arguille Mar 2013 #60
William Seger Mar 2013 #64
MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #66
William Seger Apr 2013 #73
arguille Apr 2013 #74
William Seger Apr 2013 #79
arguille Apr 2013 #82
William Seger Apr 2013 #85
arguille Apr 2013 #92
William Seger Apr 2013 #93
arguille Apr 2013 #94
William Seger Apr 2013 #95
arguille Apr 2013 #97
William Seger Apr 2013 #99
arguille Apr 2013 #100
William Seger Apr 2013 #108
arguille Apr 2013 #110
William Seger Apr 2013 #115
arguille Apr 2013 #117
William Seger Apr 2013 #118
arguille Apr 2013 #119
William Seger Apr 2013 #121
arguille Apr 2013 #124
William Seger Apr 2013 #127
arguille Apr 2013 #129
William Seger Apr 2013 #133
arguille Apr 2013 #135
William Seger Apr 2013 #131
arguille Apr 2013 #136
MrMickeysMom Apr 2013 #84
William Seger Apr 2013 #86
William Seger Apr 2013 #69
arguille Apr 2013 #76
William Seger Apr 2013 #80
MrMickeysMom Apr 2013 #87
William Seger Apr 2013 #88
MrMickeysMom Apr 2013 #89
William Seger Apr 2013 #90
arguille Apr 2013 #91
William Seger Apr 2013 #96
arguille Apr 2013 #98
William Seger Apr 2013 #112
arguille Apr 2013 #113
William Seger Apr 2013 #114
arguille Apr 2013 #116
William Seger Apr 2013 #122
arguille Apr 2013 #130
William Seger Apr 2013 #132
arguille Apr 2013 #137
William Seger Apr 2013 #140
arguille Apr 2013 #142
William Seger Apr 2013 #144
arguille Apr 2013 #147
William Seger Apr 2013 #148
arguille Apr 2013 #149
William Seger Apr 2013 #151
arguille Apr 2013 #153
William Seger Apr 2013 #156
arguille Apr 2013 #158
William Seger Apr 2013 #160
arguille Apr 2013 #161
William Seger Apr 2013 #162
arguille Apr 2013 #165
William Seger Apr 2013 #167
William Seger Mar 2013 #29
arguille Mar 2013 #34
William Seger Mar 2013 #40
arguille Mar 2013 #44
William Seger Mar 2013 #48
arguille Mar 2013 #53
William Seger Mar 2013 #59
arguille Mar 2013 #61
William Seger Apr 2013 #70
arguille Apr 2013 #77
William Seger Mar 2013 #30
arguille Mar 2013 #35
William Seger Mar 2013 #39
arguille Mar 2013 #45
William Seger Mar 2013 #50
arguille Mar 2013 #54
William Seger Mar 2013 #57
arguille Mar 2013 #62
William Seger Apr 2013 #71
arguille Apr 2013 #75
William Seger Apr 2013 #83
arguille Apr 2013 #78
William Seger Apr 2013 #81
William Seger Mar 2013 #31
arguille Mar 2013 #36
William Seger Mar 2013 #41
William Seger Mar 2013 #32
arguille Mar 2013 #37
William Seger Mar 2013 #42
arguille Mar 2013 #47
William Seger Mar 2013 #49
arguille Mar 2013 #55
William Seger Mar 2013 #56
arguille Mar 2013 #63
MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #68
William Seger Apr 2013 #72
Riftaxe Mar 2013 #65
MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #67
ZombieHorde Apr 2013 #101
zappaman Apr 2013 #102
ZombieHorde Apr 2013 #103
zappaman Apr 2013 #104
ZombieHorde Apr 2013 #105
arguille Apr 2013 #106
zappaman Apr 2013 #107
MrMickeysMom Apr 2013 #109
zappaman Apr 2013 #111
arguille Apr 2013 #120
William Seger Apr 2013 #123
arguille Apr 2013 #125
William Seger Apr 2013 #126
arguille Apr 2013 #128
William Seger Apr 2013 #134
arguille Apr 2013 #138
William Seger Apr 2013 #139
arguille Apr 2013 #141
William Seger Apr 2013 #143
arguille Apr 2013 #150
William Seger Apr 2013 #152
arguille Apr 2013 #154
William Seger Apr 2013 #155
arguille Apr 2013 #157
William Seger Apr 2013 #159
William Seger Apr 2013 #163
arguille Apr 2013 #164
William Seger Apr 2013 #166
William Seger Apr 2013 #168
William Seger Apr 2013 #146
William Seger Apr 2013 #145

Response to MrMickeysMom (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 03:08 PM

1. Thanks for posting, I watched the first 9 videos from the links in your earlier posts.

So far they are substantive, evidence-based, and well produced. I look forward to watching the remaining ones in the weeks running up to the fiftieth anniversary in November.

I am also a host of this group and while I sort of see Bolo's point about 9 separate posts, I don't think it was that big a deal. In my view these videos are exactly the kind of thing to be discussed here and here is the intended place to discuss them. This year, the year of the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination, is a time when extra discussion of it is both appropriate and to be expected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:08 PM

4. I sort of see it, too...

Bolo had a point about how to post it. He just can't be nice.

So, that's why I'm starting over here. I look forward to honest discussion, in particular on the 50th anniversary.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 04:54 PM

2. Introduction: Woman heard shot from grassy knoll

(From the thread you deleted)

That introduction starts off with a witness who says the shot came from "the hill" just as the limo was passing her. It was reports like that, of course, that started the whole "grassy knoll" thing.

Back in the 60s, the JFK conspiracy hucksters had me convinced that those reports were a "good reason" for believing there was a second shooter on the knoll. But when I went to Army basic training, one afternoon we went to some bleachers set down in a pit to learn how to identify where shots that were fired overhead were coming from. Now, why do you suppose that would require special training? Turns out, it's not nearly as simple as you might think because of a complication: Bullets from high-powered military and hunting rifles fly faster than sound, which means that the first thing you hear is their "sonic boom." It actually sounds like a whip cracking, because it's really the same phenomenon. But here's the thing which was the point of the class: Because it's a shock wave from the bullet as it passes you, that crack always sounds like it's coming from a direction perpendicular to the actual path of the bullet. What we were taught was to listen for the "thump" sound that followed the crack (hence the name "crack/thump method"), which is the actual sound coming from the muzzle.

If you apply that knowledge to this woman's testimony, it tells a rather different story than the one conspiracy hucksters would like to sell: The shooter was most likely 90 degrees away from where the woman thought he was. "Good reason," not so much, but trying to explain why to conspiracy zealots never seems to be very productive. Just like trying to explain why the Zapruder film irrefutably shows JFK getting hit from behind.

And on and on it goes, through EVERY "good reason" offered by the conspiracy hucksters, to the best of my knowledge -- there's ALWAYS some reason why it just isn't the "smoking gun" they claim it is, and far too often, it's far short of the known facts.


But even though you couldn't seem to give me a good reason why I should, I did watch another video:

Episode One: L. Fletcher Prouty speculates Oswald was somehow connected with the CIA, with spooky, one-note soundtrack. No time to substantiate, apparently, and no time to explain how Prouty spans the logical chasm from that to concluding that the CIA killed JFK; he just just invites you to make that leap on your own.

I'd say this series is off to a bad start, but I'm sure you're too open minded to consider that possibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:07 PM

3. Snark?

That's all I get from you is snark?

Of course I'm open minded. That's why I posted in the dungeon earlier and on CS here!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:25 PM

5. "That's all I get from you is snark?"

Read it again -- you missed a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #5)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 06:49 PM

6. No, I read it...

I've read it over and over again. It was only to be topped by your snark.

So, I didn't miss anything.

Now, on to looking for better dialog...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:29 AM

11. Uh-huh, "answers" and "honest discussion" and "dialog"

... as long as it doesn't challenge your beliefs? Oh, you're really just trolling for hearts? Here, I'll give you one for being honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:42 AM

12. Episode Two: John Armstrong speculates there were "two Oswalds"

... to the same spooky, one-note soundtrack, and once again, there's not even an attempt to connect that to anything resembling a logical conclusion. There may (or may not) have been two people using the identity of Lee Harvey Oswald, therefore the CIA killed JFK, apparently.

Impressive stuff.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:16 AM

13. Episode Three: Bill Simpich speculates that Oswald was part of "false defector" program

Same spooky, one-note soundtrack, same lack of substantiation, same lack of even an attempt to explain why, even if true, that would be evidence of a conspiracy to kill JFK.

In what episode, please, do we get to those "good reasons" you were talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:58 AM

15. Episode Four: Joan Mellen speculates that Oswald was a CIA/FBI plant

... in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. The spooky, one-note soundtrack is not the only pattern I'm seeing here but at least this one makes an attempt to connect the assertion to a JFK conspiracy theory: that it was "really" all a setup so they could later use him as a patsy.

But I don't suppose you care to discuss this one, either?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 08:00 PM

16. Episode Five: John Armstrong again, speculating about "two Oswalds" again

John Armstrong doesn't believe Oswald went to Mexico City early in '63, which of course proves that the CIA killed JFK and the Warren Commission is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people.

Okay, at this rate, maybe I'll check back around episode 48 or 49 to see if they're making any progress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #16)

Sat Mar 9, 2013, 06:14 PM

18. No response from the OP yet?

How surprising!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Original post)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 07:56 PM

7. On posting the videos as they come out each week, and on your being blocked for it...

Bolo Boffin has said (in your original thread) that he will block you from this group if you begin to post a new thread for each new video as they come out week by week between now and November. As a fellow host of this group I urge him not to. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable way to post them and not abusive, disruptive, or a violation of any kind.

Edit to add: a new post each week on a different aspect of a controversial topic that is important and timely is, in my opinion, exactly what this group could use. The problem with this group is it is slow and stagnating - there is hardly a risk of disrupting it because there's not much to disrupt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #7)

Sat Feb 9, 2013, 10:57 PM

8. Appreciated, eomer...

I've taken the high road, and I'll cross post to the OP I've corrected.

I like your reason about the slow moving threads. Quite often you're likely to move the threads if there is a lot of debate over what you're talking about.

The approach of the people who get the most upset when you speak truth to power is to cry and bully. Makes me wonder just who these people are. So, instead of the locked threads behavior, I'll burn somebody's ass to speak truth to power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eomer (Reply #7)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:30 AM

14. I followed the discussion and I thank you for having, by far, the more reasonable approach.

Cheers to you, eomer!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:09 AM

9. Thanks for posting and sorry for any grief you got from others.

Due to posting separate posts for the different chapters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:22 AM

10. Twas nothing...

I'm just trolling for hearts!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Original post)

Sat Mar 9, 2013, 06:13 PM

17. Will the OP be answering Seger's criticisms of the videos any time soon?

Or does the OP know when they have nothing, it's better to back away???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #17)

Sun Mar 10, 2013, 05:15 PM

19. It would appear that the poll speaks for who's more interested in the videos...

rather than the absurdity of your best buddy. I'll be sure to watch the poll now that I've said that!

P.S. Thanks for kicking this topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #19)

Sun Mar 10, 2013, 05:16 PM

20. So the answer is NO

Thanks for the non response.
KICK!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #20)

Sun Mar 10, 2013, 05:23 PM

21. The answer is...

you love to be slapped with the truth.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #21)

Sun Mar 10, 2013, 05:24 PM

22. !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #22)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 12:24 AM

23. ...

blackopradio.com


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #23)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 12:35 AM

24. I'm sorry you can't speak for yourself.

But blackopradio.com is an excellent spokesman!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #24)

Fri Mar 15, 2013, 06:30 AM

25. They sure are...

And so they are...

You might have a sole purpose being here, but I live like everyone else, and can at least rely on objective sources for this information. You, however, cannot.

Your history here attests to that.

Bo-fucking hoo!

blackopradio.com produces lol's.... wonderful!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Original post)

Fri Mar 22, 2013, 03:07 PM

26. Seger's criticisms

I'll respond to the criticisms offered by W Seger:

a) eyewitness reports of shot(s) from grassy knoll area
It wasn't just Jean Hill but many people initially reported shots from that area, including persons riding in the motorcade. The video series' #14 is specifically on this topic. In the context of Seger's 90 degree argument, note that these eyewitnesses were facing in all directions, and yet all of them turned their attention to this one area. (By the way, the Zapruder film most certainly does not "irrefutably" show a shot from behind).

b) Fletcher Prouty worked at the Pentagon for years and interacted daily with Special Operations and CIA personnel. He can't be curtly dismissed, and he offers substantive reasons for his interpretation of Oswald's background: Atsugi, personal associations, etc

c) Seger dismisses information on Oswald's history and background as unsubstantial, even as the documentary evidence plays before him. The official story portrayed Oswald as a lone nut completely off the radar, and yet he defects to Russia at exactly the same time false defector programs are initiated by US intelligence agencies, and later Oswald appears in New Orleans to form a chapter of Fair Play for Cuba at exactly the same time as a counter-intelligence program targeting the FPCC is initiated. That's some coincidence.

d) Mexico City - whatever happened there, the CIA's handling of their own files showed that, as they would admit much later, the agency had an "operational interest" in Oswald. This is not what the official story tells us. Oswald's background was deliberately covered up by the Warren Commission, and agencies such as the CIA practiced lies and deceptions with this subject. There would have been no need for such a cover-up if the official story was actually true. It is not.

e) spooky one-note music. That I cannot answer for, and maybe the video-makers should have come up with at least a second note.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #26)

Fri Mar 22, 2013, 11:19 PM

27. I a interested in the way you addressed "c"

That is no coincidence, IMO.

Welcomed to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #26)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 01:36 AM

28. One at a time: a) eyewitness reports of shot(s) from grassy knoll area

> It wasn't just Jean Hill but many people initially reported shots from that area, including persons riding in the motorcade.

So? Depending on who you trust to interpret the testimony, there were at least 20 (according to the HSCA) or as many as 52 (conspiracist Stewart Galanor) people who thought they heard shots from the knoll. But the point is that identifying where a shot came from is not nearly as simply as conspiracists imagine, and contrary to what you're trying to imply, it is quite possible that all of those people were simply wrong. I was pointing out was there are other valid reasons for that difficulty besides the echos and general perception difficulties that are usually mentioned when discussing this subject. Bottom line: You can't prove there was a shooter on the knoll with "ear witnesses."

> In the context of Seger's 90 degree argument, note that these eyewitnesses were facing in all directions, ...

So? That doesn't matter at all for the effect I'm talking about: To those close enough to hear the "crack" of the bullet as it passed and to accurately recognize where it appeared to come from, it would sound like it came from a direction perpendicular to the actual path, regardless of what direction they were facing.

> ... and yet all of them turned their attention to this one area.

Really? All of them? Gee, you wouldn't try to pull my leg, would you? All of them, including the larger number of "ear witnesses" who thought the shots came from the TSBD? Please explain why all of those people "turned their attention to this one area" if they thought the shot came from the TSBD. How about those who said they couldn't identify where the shots came from -- "all of them," too?

> (By the way, the Zapruder film most certainly does not "irrefutably" show a shot from behind).

Really? Please proceed; refute it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #28)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 01:39 PM

33. reply to #28


Here is the 14th video in the series, the aftermath which features dozens of persons rushing to the knoll area. This was the immediate reaction of people on the scene. Witnesses such as Jean Hill and the Newmans were on television and radio very shortly afterwards and said that they felt the shots came from that area. The Newmans described the sensation of bullets rushing past them. The Zapruder film was screened by 3 PM. The immediate visceral impression is that the president was struck by a shot from the front driving him back into the seat. (By the way, forensic crime scene investigator Sherry Fiester has written clearly and scientifically on why the Zapruder film shows a shot from the front.)

The sum of the above is that by 3 PM there was overwhelming eyewitness and photographic evidence of a second source of shots -from the front of the motorcade. Other than the policemen who joined everyone else running up to the picket fence, there is no indication that this evidence was ever considered or explored. Instead, by 4PM Dallas time word from Washington was that there was a single assassin who had no confederates. Case closed.

Sorry. That does not add up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #33)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 05:24 PM

38. "Sorry. That does not add up."

We were discussing that video in another thread and it seems there are at least two possible explanations for people running up the hill.

(1) They figured the murderer couldn't shoot all of them, so whoever made it up there when he ran out of ammo would grab him.

(2) They were trying to leave and they parked in the parking lot behind the picket fence.

As fascinating as your arithmetic is, I think I'll go with (2), but the point is that the inference that video tries to make is completely invalid.

The Warren Commission and the HSCA and everyone else who has reviewed the "ear witnesses" objectively has concluded that more people said the shots came from the direction of the TSBD than from the knoll. You dodged every point in my reply, but the important one was that you can't prove there was a shooter on the knoll with those perceptions.

> (By the way, forensic crime scene investigator Sherry Fiester has written clearly and scientifically on why the Zapruder film shows a shot from the front.)

When asked specifically about the forward head-snap seen in Zapruder, this is what Fiester offered as an explanation:

When the bullet strikes the skull, the velocity abruptly slows, thereby transferring kinetic energy to the target. This primary transfer of energy causes the target to move minutely into the force and against the line of fire, quickly followed by movement with the force, and in the continued direction, of the moving bullet (Karger, 2008). This dual movement is addressed in several studies, all of which include that dual movement as a part of the characteristic of gunshot wounds to the head.

Once the bullet enters the skull, if the design of the projectile limits penetration by distortion or fragmentation, the bullet immediately loses velocity. The loss of velocity results in the transfer of kinetic energy demonstrated by the instantaneous generation of temporary cavitation. The higher a projectile’s velocity upon impact, the more kinetic energy is available to transfer to the target. The amount of kinetic energy transferred to a target increases with faster projectile deceleration. This initial transfer of energy causes the target to swell or move minutely into the force and against the line of fire. The greater the transferred energy, the more pronounced the forward movement (Karger, 2008; Coupland, 2011; Radford, 2009).

http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php?topic=2240.120

She goes on to provide some high-frame-rate videos of bullets passing through gelatin blocks to demonstrate that while the bullet is still inside the gelatin, the side where the bullet entered bulges slightly as pressure builds up.

Sorry, but we're not talking about JFK's head bulging slightly while the bullet was passing through it, but rather the 2.5-inch forward movement of the entire skull after the bullet has already passed through it. Fiester has certainly not explained that movement because she hasn't even addressed it. Moreover, she does not even begin to address how the back-and-to-left movement could have been caused by momentum from a bullet that passed through the skull 1/6 second before that motion is observed.

The Zapruder film irrefutably shows that the fatal shot was from behind, but please feel free to attempt another refutation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #38)

Sun Mar 24, 2013, 09:14 PM

43. reply to #38

No one claims that all shots came from the front. Obviously Kennedy was struck in the back and Connally was hit by a bullet also from behind the limo. Most of the spectators were standing closer to the TSBD (and Dal-Tex) than the knoll area. So the "ear-witness" thing, in context, states the obvious and does in no way account for why the witnesses were drawn to that area.

Your criticism of Fiester is rather limited. She uses the gelatin block footage to expand her point on the transfer of kinetic energy, but her discussion of the JFK shot is one of a tangential shot which is different. Most witnesses after the shooting described a large hole in the right rear of Kennedy's head. Blood and brain matter ejected forcefully towards the rear of the limo. The "jet effect" explanation was made up expressly for this case, and holds no validity except in the arguments of supporters of the official story.

The forward movement of Kennedy in the Zapruder film is not visible when the film is played, but the forceful lurch back into his seat is - and the point which was originally being made is that by 3 PM Dallas time the investigating authorities knew: a) witnesses stated that shots came from the knoll b) eyewitnesses were drawn in numbers to that area immediately after the shots c) JFK's reactions strongly suggest a shot from the front. And yet, there is no evidence that a gunman situated in the front was ever considered by the investigating authorities, rather it would be quickly determined that the assassination was the result of a single shooter with no associates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #43)

Sun Mar 24, 2013, 10:38 PM

46. Neither you nor Fiester have refuted what I'm saying about Zapruder

In the text I linked to, Feister says the videos demonstrate that the gelatin bulges slightly in the direction the bullet came from, but that's completely irrelevant to what I'm talking about. What I'm challenging you to refute is that there was a forward movement of the entire head, measured at 2.5 inches and thoroughly analyzed with real physics, immediately after the bullet has passed completely through. I'm challenging you to refute that this displacement implies that either the shot was from behind or the film has been altered.

And again, whatever caused the back-and-to-the-left movement, it cannot have been momentum from the bullet because that movement began three frames, 1/6 second, after the bullet had already passed through the head and is no longer applying any force. Furthermore, that motion shows acceleration for several frames which implies a continued force. I personally believe it was a muscle spasm rather than the jet effect, but it certainly wasn't the bullet.

And again, I see nothing in your response or what I could find by Fiester that even addresses any of those issues, much less refutes the physics involved.

Hearsay about a left-rear exit wound is not supported by any hard evidence, and it's not supported by the Zapruder film. (And no, it wasn't just "painted over.")

And yes, the forward head-snap is quite visible when you know it's there. I don't believe you tried very hard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #43)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 04:32 AM

51. BTW, here's a "painted over" Zapruder frame

... or so say some of the "photo analysts" in the conspiracy community. The top frame is an enlarged area of z317 (a straight 2x pixel enlargement with no smoothing). The second frame is a copy with a histogram adjustment applied to "spread out" the darker colors over a wider range, and the third frame is a gray-scale of that adjusted image, which shows the relative brightness of each pixel.



The claim is that a large left-rear exit wound was simply "painted out" on the Zapruder film negative. One "analyst" claimed it was so crudely done that it might have been done with a magic marker.

But the expanded histogram shows that the color of the head shadow is the same dark purple as other shadows in the limo, and in fact the darkest spot on the head is actually lighter than several spots on JFK's jacket and elsewhere.

If the film negative had simply been painted over, it would look more like the completely black (0,0,0 in all frames) unexposed film outside the image, because paint would block the light necessary to make an image from the negative (which of course is the presumed reason it was used). The head shadow also shows the same blocky, meaningless JPEG compression artifacts as the rest of the image, but some "analysts" seem to be unaware of what causes that artifacting and claim that's further evidence of a paint job, despite similar artifacts all over the image.

There is absolutely no indication of any paint job. The claim is based on "photo analysis" on a level comparable to that used by 9/11 "no-planers."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #51)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 01:27 PM

52. reply to #51

I should note that at no point was any discussion over a painted frame ever initiated. Likewise, no disavowal of the forward head movement was offered. You are seizing on these issues to avoid dealing with the the criticism presented and made originally namely:

by 3 PM Dallas time the investigating authorities knew: a) witnesses stated that shots came from the knoll b) eyewitnesses were drawn in numbers to that area immediately after the shots c) JFK's reactions seen in the Zapruder film strongly suggest a shot from the front. And yet, there is no evidence that a gunman situated in the front was ever considered by the investigating authorities, rather it would be quickly determined that the assassination was the result of a single shooter with no associates.

By the way, a copy of the Zapruder film was delivered to the CIA's National Photographic Intelligence Center a few days after the assassination and their analysis held that Kennedy and Connally were struck by more than three shots coming from multiple directions. That analysis was never shared with the Warren Commission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #52)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 11:00 PM

58. Baloney. I DID respond to your three issues.

A) You have not answered my point that witnesses can simply be wrong about where the sounds came from. B) You have not answered my point that it makes much more sense that those people were trying to get to the parking lot and leave than that they were rushing a murderer with a gun. C) You have not refuted my point that, to anyone who applies valid physics to accurate observations, JFK's reactions seen in the Zapruder film not only implies that the shot came from behind, but it completely precludes the possibility that the back-and-to-the-left motion was the result of momentum from the bullet.

Instead, you throw out a new claim:

> And yet, there is no evidence that a gunman situated in the front was ever considered by the investigating authorities, rather it would be quickly determined that the assassination was the result of a single shooter with no associates.

As stated, that is simply not true. There is in fact ample evidence that the DPD, the FBI, the Warren Commission, and the HSCA all considered the possibility that there were other shooters. There's a reason they came to the conclusion that there wasn't: Any other conclusion would have required actual evidence beyond where some people thought the sounds came from, but none was found.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #58)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:05 AM

60. reply to #58

a) you made two self-contradictory arguments that 1) witnesses can be wrong about where sounds come from and 2) most people heard shots from the TSBD area.
b) I thought you were joking or being sarcastic by inferring the people may have been running up the knoll to retrieve their parked cars. I would think better of you if you were joking.
c) since the autopsy was handled so horrendously, no one really knows where bullets struck JFK. The backwards movement is obvious and visceral. No one sees that and thinks "oh he was obviously hit from behind" or "oh that is obviously the result of the jet effect which is happening this one time only in the history of the world". No, people see a body reacting to a shot striking from the front. That's why Life Magazine and the Warren Commission both felt they needed to reverse the frames when printing the sequence.

By the way, I forgot to add d) to my three issues at 3PM Dallas time day of the assassination.

d)Dr Perry at Parkland Hospital said during a press conference that the president had suffered a wound of entrance in his throat

As to the investigations:
A couple of Dallas police officers went up to the picket fence area after the shots, and more police officers combed through the railway yard and parking lot, but once the shell casings were discovered shortly after 1 PM the Dallas police did nothing but focus on the TSBD as the sole source of shots.

The FBI was told to look into all leads... for twenty-four hours. At that point Hoover wrote a memo declaring Oswald the sole assassin and field agents were instructed to stop any investigation not involving Oswald. In that 24 hours the FBI did very little, if anything, related to shots from the knoll area.

The Warren Commission started from the premise that Oswald was the sole shooter and did everything in its power to downplay, suppress, and disappear any contradicting information.

The HSCA developed a lot of information pointing to a high level conspiracy and classified most of it, on its way to a weak conclusion that there was "probably" two shooters but the second guy missed and Oswald did it.

I pointed out four solid leads or reasons pointing to a shot from the knoll existing at 3PM Dallas time - including eyewitness, photographic,and expert - and they were all ignored and you don't seem to think anything is wrong with that picture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #60)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:17 AM

64. Timeout

Not that we were getting anywhere anyway, but I just finished packing for my vacation. I'll be gone a week, probably with no internet access except my cell phone, and trying to post with that is too frustrating for me.

To be continued...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #64)

Fri Mar 29, 2013, 06:36 AM

66. A vacation is what you needed at this point, Billy

A vacation!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #66)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:19 AM

73. I'm back

Have you made any progress on identifying one of those blackopsradio videos that contains a good reason to believe there was a conspiracy? I'm beginning to think you aren't even trying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #73)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 04:08 PM

74. reply to #73

There is convincing evidence of at least two shooters, and corroborated evidence that Oswald was not rushing down to the second floor in the aftermath of the shooting and was therefore probably not on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting.

Episode 12 explains that numerous eyewitnesses, in the motorcade or standing close by, saw Mrs Kennedy turn to face her husband as he reacted to being hit by a shot. The Zapruder film clearly shows she has turned to face her husband by the time the limousine comes out from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. Connally has not yet been hit by a bullet. It would be impossible for the alleged assassination rifle to fire two shots in the time needed to hit Kennedy (just before limo goes behind sign) and then Connally (just after the limo reappears). The single bullet theory also is dismissed by this evidence.





Episode 15 shows that two young women employed in the School Book building were on the back stairs at exactly the same time the official story determined Oswald was making his escape, and they did not see or hear him. The Warren Commission knew this was a huge problem, but responded by refusing to talk to the second witness, refusing to do proper timing tests, coaching other witnesses, and ignoring a third statement which corroborated the women's account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #74)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 05:27 PM

79. I keep asking for one GOOD reason

... but all I'm getting from the first video is unsubstantiated speculations about when JFK and Connally were hit, with naked assertions such as "Connally has not yet been hit by a bullet" offered by you as if it were a fact.

The second video actually includes the disclaimer that "If Ms. Adams is accurate about her timings..." but that isn't a clue to you why that isn't the good reason I'm asking for? How about the general difficulty of making inferences based on what people didn't see?

But I do believe you may be correct that that's as good as it gets with these videos, which just proves my point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #79)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 08:14 PM

82. reply to #79

Once again you jump into the fray with a post that reveals little more than your own obvious lack of attention.

The "unsubstantiated speculations" in episode #12 are the conclusions of the HSCA's photographic panel who, as the narrator tells us, were the first panel of peer-recognized experts to engage in a forensic analysis of the Zapruder film. Their finding that the president was hit before the limousine disappears behind the sign is generally ignored by supporters of the official story, but the notion that Connally was struck within a few frames of its reappearance is not only embraced by these supporters, it is generally presented as a fact - because the single bullet theory on which the entire lone assassin myth depends only works with a shot at this instance. (by the way, both John Connally and his wife consistently disputed that he was struck at this point in time). So if your position is that the lynchpin of the entire lone assassin story is "unsubstantiated speculation", then I would say we are actually getting somewhere!

The narrator of the second video is the model of a careful sober presenter who prefers understatement to hyperbole. If you had watched with care and attention, you would have realized that the case had already been made that Ms Adams WAS accurate about her timings and this was not only corroborated, but it was done with a visual reference - i.e. Miss Garner saw the two women leave to the staircase and then afterwards saw Mr Truly and officer Baker heading upstairs. These are the two men who encountered Oswald in the lunch room. That's not only devastating to the official story's timeline, but the handling of Ms Adams by the Warren Commission demonstrates the extent by which it was a cover-up operation designed to bolster a pre-ordained conclusion.

So that's 1) shots too close together to be from one rifle and 2) no way to place the accused assassin in the spot the shots were alleged to have come from. Each of these points supported in multiple ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #82)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:45 PM

85. Baloney

> The "unsubstantiated speculations" in episode #12 are the conclusions of the HSCA's photographic panel...

The actual conclusions of the photographic panel were:

2. VISUAL EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM OBSERVATIONS OF PERSONS IN THE ZAPRUDER FILM**

(a) Issues

(57) The Panel was requested by the committee to address, at a minimum, three questions
(58) (a) When did Kennedy first show a reaction to some severe external stimulus?
(59) (b) When did Connally first show areaction to some severe external stimulus?
(60) (c) Was the relative alinement of Kennedy and Connally within the limousine consistent with the single-bullet theory?

...

(c) Conclusions

(64) (a) By a vote of 12 to 5, the Panel determined that President Kennedy first showed a reaction to some severe external stimulus by Zapruder frame 207, as he is seen going behind a street sign that obstructed Zapruder's view.
(65) (b) By a vote of 11 to 3, the Panel determined that Governor Connally first showed a reaction to some severe external stimulus by Zapruder frame 224, virtually immediately after be is seen emerging from behind the sign that obstructed Zapruder's view.
(66) (c) By a vote of 15 to 1, the Panel determined that the relative alinement of President Kennedy and Governor Connally in the limousine was consistent with the single bullet theory.
(67) (d) At least two shots, spaced approximately 6 seconds apart were fired at the Presidential limousine. Nevertheless, based only on its review of the reactions of persons shown in the Zapruder film, there was insufficient evidence to reach any conclusion concerning additional shots.


So in the first place, the reason that they had to take a vote on the questions was because there was a difference of opinion about the answers, with no objective fact that could be derived from the film to settle those differences of opinion. It simply isn't possible to establish as objective fact when each man was hit using the Zapruder, so any arguments that begin by pretending you can is inherently fallacious.

Furthermore, there's nothing in that conclusion to support your assertion that "Connally has not yet been hit by a bullet." What it actually says is that most of the experts voted that the first visible sign of a reaction in the film is "virtually immediately after be is seen emerging from behind the sign that obstructed Zapruder's view." If Connally was also hit when the panel voted that JFK was hit, frame 207, any reaction then wouldn't be seen in the film because Connally was behind the sign. Or, if the first actual reaction was at frame 224, that doesn't necessarily imply that that's when he was hit, because the visible reaction could have been delayed by a second. But you just offer your speculations as fact and jump to the unsound conclusion that there were two shots one second apart. Speculation is not evidence.

> If you had watched with care and attention, you would have realized that the case had already been made that Ms Adams WAS accurate about her timings and this was not only corroborated, but it was done with a visual reference - i.e. Miss Garner saw the two women leave to the staircase and then afterwards saw Mr Truly and officer Baker heading upstairs. These are the two men who encountered Oswald in the lunch room.

Um, maybe I didn't "realize" that because no such case is made in the video? How much "care and attention" is required to "realize" something that isn't there? But whatever... if you now want to make that argument, then actually make it or link to something that does and we'll see if the claims can withstand scrutiny.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #85)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 04:30 AM

92. reply to #85

"Speculation is not evidence"

This from a man who earlier posted a claim that an explanation based on a theory is fact.

Here you strain to maintain differences of opinion are different from objective facts which are different from speculation and definitely not conclusions.

Or are you arguing that Connally was also struck at frame 207 and his reaction at frame 224 - which actually wasn't a "reaction" but simply a lifting of his shirt's lapel - was a "delayed" reaction which was the result of a passing bullet moving his shirt lapel after delaying inside his body for 17/18ths of a second? Or what exactly are you saying? Can you support your argument with corresponding eyewitness testimony as appears in the video in question? Or support it with anything? Or are you just winging it?

As to the second video, it absolutely makes the case just as was stated. There is witness testimony, corroborated by two separate accounts. These accounts are consistent over time, and backed up by specific markers. The Warren Commission decided instead to accept, if not help create, witness testimony which was inconsistent over time, and was inconsistent with concurrent accounts.What then is the scrutiny which you insist be withstood?

After assuming an arrogant and dismissive attitude, your actual understanding and grasp of the evidence is repeatedly shown as incomplete at best. That is, you don't really know what you are talking about, but have presumed some sort of authority which you clearly do not possess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #92)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 10:47 AM

93. Sliced thin and piled high, it's still baloney

> This from a man who earlier posted a claim that an explanation based on a theory is fact.

Nope, not once have I made any such claim. What i clearly said several times is that the SBT is the best explanation (a.k.a. "theory") of the credible facts. You seem to be confusing your own fuzzy definitions for those terms with what I've actually said, but a "fact" is a highly credible observation that something really occurred or is actually the case, while a "theory" is a logical framework for understanding the facts.

> Or are you arguing that Connally was also struck at frame 207 and his reaction at frame 224 - which actually wasn't a "reaction" but simply a lifting of his shirt's lapel - was a "delayed" reaction which was the result of a passing bullet moving his shirt lapel after delaying inside his body for 17/18ths of a second? Or what exactly are you saying? Can you support your argument with corresponding eyewitness testimony as appears in the video in question? Or support it with anything? Or are you just winging it?

Um, what i actually argued was that it isn't possible to conclusively determine when JFK and Connally were hit by looking at the Zapruder film, which simply invalidates any argument that begins with guesses -- specifically, the guess that the hits were one second apart. That is an example of asserting speculation as if it were a fact, if that helps you distinguish the difference.

And you seem to have forgotten that we were talking about the conclusions of the HSCA photo analysis panel, which did not use the lapel movement to place the Connally hit at frame 224 -- that was a much later observation (by Dale Myers, I believe). The panel was asked to make their best guess about when Connally first showed a visible reaction.

But here's where conspiracists' trolley really jump the tracks: As the WC report said, the SBT is not at all critical to their conclusions, yet conspiracists like to pretend that it's absolutely vital to the single-shooter theory. However, it isn't critical to that conclusion because it's possible that the first assumption made by most people (including Connally himself) -- that JFK and Connally were hit by two different bullets -- was correct, but both were fired by Oswald, one of them being the bullet that the WC decided had missed. Guesses about when Connally was hit based on the Zapruder film do not refute that possibility, no matter how much certainty you have about those guesses. What refutes that possibility is that if the bullet that went through JFK's neck hadn't hit Connally (which would have been extremely difficult given the actual geometry), then it should have hit somewhere inside the limo instead, but no such evidence was found.

> As to the second video, it absolutely makes the case just as was stated. There is witness testimony, corroborated by two separate accounts. These accounts are consistent over time, and backed up by specific markers. The Warren Commission decided instead to accept, if not help create, witness testimony which was inconsistent over time, and was inconsistent with concurrent accounts.What then is the scrutiny which you insist be withstood?

That's it then? What's shown in the video is the entirety of the "case"? Well, here's why that doesn't withstand scrutiny: If Adams was off by as little as 15 seconds in her estimate of when she and Styles headed downstairs, then there is no mystery about why she didn't see Oswald. And far from corroborating the claimed timing, Garner's statement appears to refute it: She remained on the 4th floor and says that right after she saw Adams and Styles go down, she saw Baker and Truly going up. That implies that Baker and Truly had already encountered Oswald on the 2nd floor! You (and the video) seem to have omitted the mental contortions necessary to interpret that as a corroboration of the claim that Adams should have seen Oswald, rather than corroboration of the notion that he had already gone down before Adams. But feel free to try again.

> After assuming an arrogant and dismissive attitude, your actual understanding and grasp of the evidence is repeatedly shown as incomplete at best. That is, you don't really know what you are talking about, but have presumed some sort of authority which you clearly do not possess.

LOL, my attitude is as irrelevant as yours. Once again, just like we saw with the forward head-snap and the SBT, you're trying to pretend that you've got valid and sound arguments, somewhere, I'm just not knowledgeable enough to understand them. If that were true, then I have a right to expect a better presentation of this secret knowledge than you seem to be capable of providing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #93)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 02:49 PM

94. reply to #93

"it isn't possible to conclusively determine when JFK and Connally were hit by looking at the Zapruder film, which simply invalidates any argument that begins with guesses -- specifically, the guess that the hits were one second apart..."

But the notion that Kennedy was struck somewhere around frame Z207 (or more accurately "exhibits a reaction to a severe external stimulus"), is buttressed by the eyewitness accounts of persons in the motorcade and bystanders. Those observations have been aligned with all the photographic evidence - not just the Z film - to establish consistencies. For example, two of Kennedy's closest aides, plus a motorcycle officer riding next to them, all described essentially the same thing - JFK slumps and turns to his left - happening at essentially the same time - right as the sound of a shot rang out. Before the limousine disappears behind the sign, Kennedy has stopped waving and is turning to his left. These reactions can be compared to other photographs, which have been examined closely enough to establish a corresponding Zapruder frame. One photographer snapped his shutter immediately on hearing the shot, where we see Mrs Kennedy looking to her left. The weight of the eyewitness testimony - this is from many persons - is that Mrs Kennedy turned to her husband in reaction to his being hit by a shot. So there is a photo taken immediately as the shot rang out (and you can actually see the photographer in the Zapruder film taking the picture) where Mrs Kennedy is turned to her left and then very shortly afterward, as can be seen on the Zapruder film as the limousine appears from behind the sign, she is facing her husband. This is what you are dismissing as speculative guesswork.

"As the WC report said, the SBT is not at all critical to their conclusions, yet conspiracists like to pretend that it's absolutely vital to the single-shooter theory."

But it is absolutely vital to the lone gunman theory and the Warren Commission knew it, no matter what they said.And from here, after lecturing about speculative guesswork, you propose an "assumption" that might be a "possibility" based on a shot which allegedly ripped through Kennedy's neck even though he was actually hit in the back. Once again, the idea that a bullet passed through Kennedy to strike Connally is the epitome of a speculative guess. There is absolutely no evidence to support this notion and in fact, the physical evidence says that this single bullet speculation cannot be true (CE399 would have been smashed striking Connally's wrist - it is not. Kennedy was hit in the back, as autopsy materials and holes in his clothing show. The Parkland doctors - who, unlike the Bethesda doctors were experienced in gunshot wounds, said the throat wound was one of entrance. etc). Most telling of all, the one thing that would have been incontrovertible about this wound - tracking the path of the bullet at the autopsy - was not done even though it was a procedural and even legal requirement, and it was not done on the orders of senior military officers who were controlling the autopsy.

" If Adams was off by as little as 15 seconds in her estimate of when she and Styles headed downstairs, then there is no mystery about why she didn't see Oswald..."

Nonsense. Oswald, according to the official story, was necessarily moving quite quickly down creaky wooden stairs (the timing recreations, which needed to get Oswald to the 2nd floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Baker, proved very tricky for the Commission, and required shortcuts in things such as hiding the rifle). Neither Adams or Styles saw OR HEARD anyone, which means that no one was rushing down the stairs either ahead or behind them.

"And far from corroborating the claimed timing, Garner's statement appears to refute it: She remained on the 4th floor and says that right after she saw Adams and Styles go down, she saw Baker and Truly going up. That implies that Baker and Truly had already encountered Oswald on the 2nd floor! You (and the video) seem to have omitted the mental contortions necessary to interpret that as a corroboration of the claim that Adams should have seen Oswald, rather than corroboration of the notion that he had already gone down before Adams."

By your account then, Baker and Truly would have passed Adams and Styles on the staircase - but there is nothing to support this.
None of these persons ever remembered or described such an encounter. Are you suggesting that it is somehow a "mental contortion" to fail to consider an event which no witness has described as even ever happening? Would it be cruel to add that there is not a single witness who could place Oswald on the sixth floor after 12 noon (actually even earlier), and that the entire notion that he was up there, let alone was firing a gun, is entirely speculative guesswork? In fact, it is worse than speculative guesswork because there are witnesses who can establish that no one was dashing down the staircase in the aftermath of the shooting, and there is a witness placing Oswald on the main floor shortly before the shooting.

The Warren Commission's conclusions were a bluff. The evidence collected and published in the Report does not support their conclusions. The idea that there is "credible evidence" supporting the official story is a mirage. Somehow you have allowed yourself to not only be taken in by this bluff, but presume to haughtily pontificate and demean persons who have been carefully rolling back this curtain in the interests of historical truth.

"you're trying to pretend that you've got valid and sound arguments"

That Kennedy was struck by a bullet before Connally is supported by photographic evidence (film and stills) and by accounts from multiple eyewitnesses - all of which is mutually supporting. Instead of absorbing this information, you deflect it by offering speculation ("it's possible that the first assumption...was correct...guesses (note: mutually supported photographic and eyewitness accounts)... do not refute that possibility"). That Oswald was never on the sixth floor is proven by two witnesses who were on the exact staircase he was allegedly frantically scampering down and who neither saw or heard him. Like the Warren Commission, you are in denial over that fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #94)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 11:11 PM

95. On and on

> But the notion that Kennedy was struck somewhere around frame Z207 (or more accurately "exhibits a reaction to a severe external stimulus"), is buttressed by the eyewitness accounts of persons in the motorcade and bystanders. Those observations have been aligned with all the photographic evidence - not just the Z film - to establish consistencies... This is what you are dismissing as speculative guesswork.

Um, actually, the issue immediately at hand was not so much the speculative guesswork involved in determining which Z frame shows JFK getting hit, but rather the speculative guesswork behind your claim, "At this point Connally has not been hit."

> Once again, the idea that a bullet passed through Kennedy to strike Connally is the epitome of a speculative guess.

And once again, no it isn't; it's a theory that gives a credible explanation for the actual facts, which so far conspiracists have utterly failed to do. We seem to be simultaneously discussing those facts elsewhere, but what the hell, here's another one: If JFK's back wound (which just coincidentally points back to where somebody is shooting at him) is an entrance wound (which it certainly appears to be), and the throat wound is then almost certainly an exit wound (or certainly is, if we disallow magic disappearing bullets entering both wounds), then given where JFK was sitting relative to Connally, then that path through JFK's two wounds points straight toward Connally's back:



Then, we find that not only does Connally indeed have an entrance wound in his back, but that no trace of the bullet that passed through JFK's neck was found elsewhere in the limo. And you say that it's the "epitome of a speculative guess" to draw the clear, logical connection between these facts? On a par with your guessing when Connally was hit? Wow...

> But it is absolutely vital to the lone gunman theory and the Warren Commission knew it, no matter what they said.

No, it simply was not -- not unless we add the claims that conspiracists make that the timing of the presumed two shots rules out a single shooter. But there's a simple way out of that dilemma: Don't treat guesses about when the hits happened as if they are facts.

> Nonsense. Oswald, according to the official story, was necessarily moving quite quickly down creaky wooden stairs (the timing recreations, which needed to get Oswald to the 2nd floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Baker, proved very tricky for the Commission, and required shortcuts in things such as hiding the rifle). Neither Adams or Styles saw OR HEARD anyone, which means that no one was rushing down the stairs either ahead or behind them.

No, it does not mean any such thing. The fact that conspiracists attribute infallible perceptions and memories to people who tell any story that appears to contradict any WC finding does not mean that those perceptions and memories are actually factual. Furthermore, you only pretended to address what I actually said, which was that if Oswald went down the stairs even as little a 15 seconds before Adams and Styles, then they would have missed him. Yet you want to use that non-observation as proof that Oswald hadn't been on the 6th floor? Now, that's nonsense.

> By your account then, Baker and Truly would have passed Adams and Styles on the staircase - but there is nothing to support this.
> None of these persons ever remembered or described such an encounter. Are you suggesting that it is somehow a "mental contortion" to fail to consider an event which no witness has described as even ever happening?


Don't look now, but you've spun yourself right out of an argument, since that would actually be a problem for your account. If Adams and Styles say that they didn't see Baker and Truly, but Garner says she saw them come up to the 4th floor "right after" Adams and Styles went down, then the story you're trying to spin lacks internal consistency with the timing, regardless of where Oswald was at the time, and it becomes even more baffling what you are claiming that Garner's story "corroborates." I'm not sure that even mental contortions can save your tale now, but one possible sequence of events (not the only one) that doesn't violate any of those witness statements other than the remembered timing is that Oswald came down from the sixth floor and ducked into the second floor lunch room when he heard Truly and Baker coming up; Adams and Styles started down; Truly and Baker went into the lunchroom to confront Oswald; Adams and Styles continued down the stairs past the lunchroom; Truly and Baker returned to the stairs and went up, where Garner saw them go past the fourth floor. If we instead consider that Adams' story and/or Garner's "corroboration" are not quite as infallibly accurate as you would like to pretend, as implied by Adams and Styles not seeing Truly and Baker, then all sorts of other scenarios become possible. In the end, trying to claim that you've got "proof" that Oswald couldn't have been on the sixth floor is abject nonsense, because you haven't even begun to rule out all the other possible explanations.

And please note, since you seem to be very confused about this, I am NOT offering the above speculated timeline as a "fact" but rather as a demonstration of the gaping hole in your reasoning. If your conclusions can be wrong, then your logic is invalid and therefore does not qualify as the "proof" that you claim.

> The Warren Commission's conclusions were a bluff. The evidence collected and published in the Report does not support their conclusions. The idea that there is "credible evidence" supporting the official story is a mirage.

Uh-huh, sez you, but the question remains, what can you actually prove. Apparently, nothing that actually refutes any significant WC conclusion.

> Somehow you have allowed yourself to not only be taken in by this bluff, but presume to haughtily pontificate and demean persons who have been carefully rolling back this curtain in the interests of historical truth.

What a hero you are, which of course means that anyone who doesn't buy the nonsense you peddle must be the villain, out to conceal the "historical truth" that you apparently think can be manufactured out of unsubstantiated speculation by someone properly skilled in the art.

> That Kennedy was struck by a bullet before Connally is supported by photographic evidence (film and stills) and by accounts from multiple eyewitnesses - all of which is mutually supporting.

Yet, for some strange reason, conspiracists can't even convince each other exactly when it happened? No, it's not so strange; that would be because the "photographic evidence" can be (and has been) interpreted many different ways, and the eyewitnesses don't agree with each other so you have to decide who to believe. Same problem as above: If your conclusions do not necessarily follow from sound premises, then your logic is faulty, by definition.

> That Oswald was never on the sixth floor is proven by two witnesses who were on the exact staircase he was allegedly frantically scampering down and who neither saw or heard him. Like the Warren Commission, you are in denial over that fact.

If you meant to say that I deny that's a fact, then yes I do, and I've given some of my reasons. There are others, such as all the evidence that the murder weapon found on the sixth floor was Oswald's gun, which he apparently brought to work that morning, and Oswald's hand prints found on the sniper's nest boxes, etc. etc. I am denying that you've actually proved your claims, and I've given the reasons. Clearly, you are the one in denial about what are facts and what is speculation, and about what the credible facts imply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #95)

Sun Apr 7, 2013, 10:30 PM

97. reply to #95

To engage in lectures over "speculative guesswork" and then present the single bullet theory as a "credible explanation" is a remarkable feat of cognitive dissonance, if nothing else. And it is nothing else.

Only died-in-the-wool Warren Commission supporters could offer a comparison diagram featuring a man lying on his back head slightly raised, set against a man placed on his side held by doctors - and expect the geometric lines to match anything but BS. Not to mention the head is larger in one photograph than the other. And the supposed path of the bullet in the diagram bears no relation to the downward track measured by the Bethesda doctors as they noted a back wound which extended less than a finger-length into the body. But pay that no mind, because Seger has discovered the same "clear, logical connection" that his predecessors have earlier inferred. Of course, if the first back wound is actually too low to begin with to create this magical logical connection… well, here's some deceptive diagrams to look at while he gets the bridge ready for the big sale.

"if Oswald went down the stairs even as little a 15 seconds before Adams and Styles, then they would have missed him…"

Except, Sherlock, it has been established the TSBD staircase was creaky and noisy and they would have HEARD him. If you want to add more seconds to that, then Roy Truly would have heard them. David Belin worked his way through all of these schemes before deciding to say she was off by 5 minutes. By the way, Miss Garner seeing the Truly and Baker "right after" is your inference. The Stroud memo says: "after Miss Adams went downstairs she (Miss Garner) saw Mr Truly and the policeman come up." The Warren Commission instead went with a story which is wildly different, and so instead of attempting to reconcile the differences as an honest inquiry would do, they hid this information from the public.

I will let the remainder of your post - which consists of logical contortions and twisted reasoning necessitated by stubborn denial - stand without comment as a monument to your own foolishness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #97)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:33 AM

99. Stairway to delusion

> To engage in lectures over "speculative guesswork" and then present the single bullet theory as a "credible explanation" is a remarkable feat of cognitive dissonance, if nothing else. And it is nothing else.

Hmm, sounds like we're getting near the end of any productive discussion. The SBT does explain the actual evidence, and you have yet to offer a shred of actual evidence that refutes it or to offer a better explanation. But if you're satisfied with just farting in my general direction and leaving it at that, suit yourself.

> Only died-in-the-wool Warren Commission supporters could offer a comparison diagram featuring a man lying on his back head slightly raised, set against a man placed on his side held by doctors - and expect the geometric lines to match anything but BS. Not to mention the head is larger in one photograph than the other.

Look at the angle of the ear in the photo on the right: The head is tilted back, so we're seeing more of the top of the head than the back. The size of the ear as seen from that angle and the width of the head on the right relative to the depth seen in the left photo (which I've cropped) were the two things I used to size the photos. It's a careful approximation, but I don't claim any great photometric accuracy for it, nor is any such accuracy required to make the general point clear: the SBT trajectory is quite possible. I'm really not much interested in your off-the-cuff perception that it isn't correct, much less hand-waving claims about a lower wound, which are clearly contradicted by the photo on the right. Do a version that you think is more accurate, and we'll compare them, okay?

Whenever possible, I like to check things out for myself. I did this diagram to investigate whether Specter's demonstration to the WC and Dale Myers's computer model were really possible, or if conspiracists were correct that the back wound was too low for that to be the trajectory. And what do you know; once again, I determined for myself that it's the conspiracists who are bullshitting. I don't expect anything from you except the same denial that you've shown over the forward head-snap, and yet there it is.

> Except, Sherlock, it has been established the TSBD staircase was creaky and noisy and they would have HEARD him.

Would they, now? What if those 3-inch hills Adams was wearing made too much noise for them to hear anyone else as she ran across the wooden floor of the storeroom and down those creaky wooden stairs? And would they necessarily remember it if they did hear anyone? That's been "established," too, huh? Even if there was some distraction, like, oh, being upset about having just seen the President of the United States murdered in front of their eyes? If it's going to be central to your "proof" that Oswald is innocent, I'm afraid you're going to have to ask you to "establish" that infallible perception and memory, please, rather than just assume it for the benefit of your "proof." Then, there are several more details that will need to be established before it will qualify as a "proof," such as the infallibility of Garner's perception and memory. What if Garner simply didn't see Oswald going down right after Adams because, say, maybe she was watching what was going on outside? Do you seriously not realize how many holes there are in this "proof" you're offering -- basing conclusions on what people didn't see or didn't remember?

> By the way, Miss Garner seeing the Truly and Baker "right after" is your inference.

But it would have to be "right after" if you're going to claim that your timeline is accurate. Baker said that when he reached the second floor, he saw Oswald though the lunchroom door, walking quickly away from it, which would agree with the notion that if Oswald had been on the sixth floor doing the shooting, then he reached the lunchroom just ahead of Baker. Your hand-waving assertions about WC evil motives and cheating aside, it's pretty clear there was time for that. If Adams and Styles are supposed to have been on the stairs at the same time that Oswald was going down, then they should have also seen Baker and Truly. Otherwise, if they ran across the 4th floor and down the stairs quickly enough to be all the way down and out before Baker even started up, then Oswald could have gone down right after them, but Garner simply missed it. There are all sorts of other possibilities such as Adams going down well after Baker and Truly went up, but the men Garner saw going up were not Baker and Truly. If you're going to insist that we should ignore all the evidence that clearly says Oswald was the shooter, I'd say you've got a lot of "establishing" to do on this story, and frankly, I don't see how you're going to be able to do that. But please do at least give it a try if you're going to keep calling it "proof."

> I will let the remainder of your post - which consists of logical contortions and twisted reasoning necessitated by stubborn denial - stand without comment as a monument to your own foolishness.

Gosh, thanks; I don't think I could take much more "ass kicking."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #99)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:59 PM

100. reply to #99

Wm Seger - are you noticing that the bubble that surrounds you is getting smaller and smaller with every post you submit?

The deceptive diagram you posted has been floating around for years so it is intriguing to hear your claims that you are the author. The diagram purports to establish an anatomical geometry from which a trajectory angle is produced - except the basic premise of comparison is fraudulent in the first place. Oh wait - it's only an "approximation" with no "accuracy", because "accuracy" is not required because it is only meant to show that something is "possible" when the premise is rigged to begin with. Good one.

re: Victoria Adams

The Warren Commission, in the guise of staff lawyer David Belin, engaged in all the technical cartwheels you've been spinning, and could not resolve their central problem: they could not get their man down the stairs to the 2nd floor. So they decided to change their witness' story, over her objections, inserting words she did not say into the record, and hiding crucial information that establishes their dishonesty in this matter from public view.

Since you are now assuming a weary tone after your arguments have consistently shown to be wanting, I will briefly review some of your "credible evidence":

a) a deceptive 2-frame GIF which purports to explain body movement which occurs in the immediate following frames which are not included

b) a deceptive photograph of two bullets by which a comparison is attempted, even as the author can provide no details as to the accuracy of his experiment and the author admits the experiment was engaged with the results already determined.
The author also uses an arrow to make a claim the author knows, or should know, to be false.

c) a deceptive anatomical comparison diagram which claims to establish a point of reference even as the different size and differing positions of the body establish that any alleged point of reference is a fantasy.

I really don't have a problem with someone trying to argue these points or ginning up all the deceptive "credible evidence" they wish - hey, we all need a hobby - but what I don't understand is why you feel the need to be so dismissive and arrogant as you do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #100)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 08:40 PM

108. Oh, I don't really mind arguing with a brick wall

Last edited Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:14 AM - Edit history (1)

> Wm Seger - are you noticing that the bubble that surrounds you is getting smaller and smaller with every post you submit?

Nope, on the contrary, what I'm noticing is your increasing frustration with being challenged to actually prove the claims you're making and coming up short time after time, so now you're posting more and more of the above type of crap as a lame substitute. I'm also noticing that you seem to be responding to less and less of what I say, and more and more only pretending to address my points when you do respond, which hardly makes me feel like I'm the one in a shrinking bubble. In general, what I've noticed is that the following remains as true as it ever was: Nothing that you claim which appears to be true is actually conclusive of a conspiracy, and you don't seem to be able to actually prove any of the claims that would be conclusive of a conspiracy. The day that changes is the day you guys won't be called conspiracy theorists anymore, and on that same day you will no longer need to be concerned with what William Seger thinks.

> The deceptive diagram you posted has been floating around for years so it is intriguing to hear your claims that you are the author.

Dude, that is my diagram, and it's never been posted anywhere before. I just did it a couple weeks ago, intending to post it in another thread, but I didn't. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has done something similar before, since it's a pretty damned obvious thing to do, and what the photos show is also pretty damned obvious so there's really only one conclusion that can be drawn from them. After you fail to prove what you're alleging that it's not my diagram, an apology would be a nice gesture, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that (A) you don't hesitate to throw around unsubstantiated accusations; (B) after simply making a assertion about the sizes that you can't seem to demonstrate and basically just denying what the diagram clearly shows (and throwing in that false accusation for good measure), you're pretty much finished; because (C) you aren't able to produce a more accurate diagram credibly showing the path you claim.

> The Warren Commission, in the guise of staff lawyer David Belin, engaged in all the technical cartwheels you've been spinning, and could not resolve their central problem: they could not get their man down the stairs to the 2nd floor.

And yet another attempt to poison the well with insinuation and innuendo -- which seems to be one of your favorite substitutes for an actual argument -- but that claim is simple false: There was no reason Oswald couldn't have made it to the lunchroom before Baker. And talk about shrinking bubbles, what you appear to be doing with that comment is to imply that your "proof" is still valid even though you've made absolutely no attempt to address the fatal problem with it: We can't just assume that Adams' and/or Garner's perceptions and/or memories are infallible just so you can claim them as "proof" exonerating Oswald -- not in view of the mountain of evidence against him, and especially not when you have absolutely no alternate suspect or any shred of credible evidence that someone else was on the sixth floor firing Oswald's gun. It's really a shame that you can't appreciate why that's so, but the WC had to resolve a lot of conflicting witness testimony and they did it in exactly the same way we ask juries to do it every day: Compare all the testimony to the physical and documentary evidence, both direct and circumstantial, and derive the story that is best supported by the evidence and makes the most sense. As imperfect as that method is for finding "the truth," it has a solid track record of beating the holy crap out of whatever method is in second place, most especially including the pathological epistemology preferred by conspiracists, which you have so amply demonstrated.

> Since you are now assuming a weary tone after your arguments have consistently shown to be wanting, I will briefly review some of your "credible evidence":

> a) a deceptive 2-frame GIF which purports to explain body movement which occurs in the immediate following frames which are not included


Well, if you wanted more you should have asked, because I have done several versions with multiple frames. Here's one that shows a couple of previous frames (to prove there was no forward motion before frame 313), and several frames after that to show why the back-and-to-left cannot be explained by momentum from the bullet because it comes 1/6 second after the hit and it shows acceleration over several frames, which implies a continued force long after the bullet is gone:



Sorry, but your personal inability to comprehend what the Zapruder film actually shows does not mean that it's not credible evidence of a hit from the rear, and I guess I'll just have to deal with the wearisomeness of needing to repeat that over and over and over.

> b) a deceptive photograph of two bullets by which a comparison is attempted, even as the author can provide no details as to the accuracy of his experiment and the author admits the experiment was engaged with the results already determined.

Neither I nor Lattimer are responsible for your misunderstanding of what the tests proved: The tests proved that conspiracists were simply wrong in claiming that the SBT was impossible -- nothing more and nothing less -- and since those impossibility claims were based on nothing but their imaginations, conspiracists are reduced to just sputtering about it while trying to denigrate Lattimer.

> The author also uses an arrow to make a claim the author knows, or should know, to be false.

Lattimer showed that the base of CE399 and the test bullet were bulged outward at their bases, as would be expected for a partially flattened bullet. The fact that test samples were taken from that bulge in CE399 does not mean that the fragments in Connally didn't come from that same area, as demonstrated by the test bullets which lost some particles from that area. That's just sloppy logic on your part, not a refutation of the evidence.

> c) a deceptive anatomical comparison diagram which claims to establish a point of reference even as the different size and differing positions of the body establish that any alleged point of reference is a fantasy.

But when given every opportunity to prove that claim by demonstrating a better diagram, once again all you've got is denial and hand-waving assertions.

> I really don't have a problem with someone trying to argue these points or ginning up all the deceptive "credible evidence" they wish - hey, we all need a hobby - but what I don't understand is why you feel the need to be so dismissive and arrogant as you do so.

Hmmm, I'm going to refrain from answering that question since that might imply to you that it's actually relevant to anything and give you another opportunity to divert, and also because it would hard to do without violating the terms of service here.

<EDIT TO ADD> Retroactive "snark alert" on deliberately dismissive and arrogant remark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #108)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:14 AM

110. reply to #108

"Dude, that is my diagram"

I've seen that diagram before, if not the exact version on which you claim to have laboured, then ones similar in design and intent. It is sort of the NAA of diagrams, as, like the NAA, its basic underlying premise is a false assumption. The assumption, in the case of the diagram, is that the two photos align in some way. They do not. The figure in left photo is larger than in the right photo. The figure in the right photo should be enlarged and tilted about 30 degrees (according to researcher Pat Speer) to properly align, with another adjustment to compensate for the slight rightward turn of the head as can be seen in the photo. Lacking that, which your diagram indeed does lack, the coloured lines are effectively meaningless because there is no correspondence.

And yet you somehow arrive at conclusions based on a diagram which can't have anything to add to any conversation because its basic assumptions are incorrect.

"There was no reason Oswald couldn't have made it to the lunchroom before Baker."

But he would have been seen or heard on the staircase by Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles. And he wasn't.

"We can't just assume that Adams' and/or Garner's perceptions and/or memories are infallible just so you can claim them as "proof" exonerating Oswald -- not in view of the mountain of evidence against him, and especially not when you have absolutely no alternate suspect…"

So, if I get your drift, corroborated consistent interlocking eyewitness testimony which exonerates a suspect should always be overlooked unless an alternate suspect is produced. That is a fascinating legal concept.

"the WC had to resolve a lot of conflicting witness testimony …"

But there is no conflicting eyewitness testimony in the Victoria Adams situation.
Adams, Styles, and Garner all told the same thing - that Adams and Styles headed to the staircase approximately 30 seconds after the shooting. Officer Baker and Roy
Truly both told of an encounter with Oswald on the second floor about 75 seconds after the shooting. No one testified seeing Oswald headed down to the second floor from the sixth floor shortly after the shooting. In fact, no one testified to seeing Oswald on the sixth floor after 12 noon at all. So where's the conflict?

Oh wait -

"the WC had to resolve a lot of conflicting witness testimony and they did it in exactly the same way we ask juries to do it every day: Compare all the testimony to the physical and documentary evidence, both direct and circumstantial, and derive the story that is best supported by the evidence and makes the most sense."

Oh I see, the intent is to "derive the story" that "makes the most sense". I thought it was to find the truth…

"As imperfect as that method is for finding "the truth," it has a solid track record of beating the holy crap out of whatever method is in second place…"

Really? Have you ever heard of the Ramparts Division of the LAPD? The Latin American death squads? The "War On Drugs"?

"The (Lattimer) tests proved that conspiracists were simply wrong in claiming that the SBT was impossible…"

Lattimer could provide no detail of his experimental method past vague descriptions, so the ability to compare it in any way to the so-called "magic bullet" is impossible and his "tests" are proved as essentially meaningless as your earlier diagram.

"Wm Seger", the credibility issue has been your problem all through this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #110)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:03 PM

115. Credibility issue

> The figure in the right photo should be enlarged and tilted about 30 degrees (according to researcher Pat Speer) to properly align, with another adjustment to compensate for the slight rightward turn of the head as can be seen in the photo.

I have no idea what "another adjustment" you would like to use, but my diagram is tilted about 25 degrees. Plus or minus even 10 degrees either way would make only a small change in the vertical placement of the back wound, anyway, so feel free to use whatever adjustments you like in your own diagram. That leaves your claim that the figure on the right needs to be enlarged. So, let's just enlarge it enough to get the result you want, i.e. at least a level hit, and see what that would look like.



So, does that look about right to you now?

> But he would have been seen or heard on the staircase by Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles. And he wasn't.

Unless, perhaps, they were making too much noise themselves running down the stairs to hear anyone else, or perhaps it just didn't register because of the situation so they don't recall it, or perhaps the timing you would like to use is not all that accurate, or any number of other possibilities, absolutely none of which have you ruled out. Why do I have to keep explaining this over and over?

> But there is no conflicting eyewitness testimony in the Victoria Adams situation.

With Adams, I don't mean testimony conflicting with other testimony, but testimony that implies things not in agreement with other evidence, e.g. that it was Oswald on the sixth floor shooting Oswald's gun, which he had brought to work that morning. The problem which you don't seem to appreciate is that you are not really using Adams as an eyewitness but rather as a non-witness.

> "As imperfect as that method is for finding "the truth," it has a solid track record of beating the holy crap out of whatever method is in second place…"

> Really? Have you ever heard of the Ramparts Division of the LAPD? The Latin American death squads? The "War On Drugs"?


Say what? Those are methods for finding the truth superior to evidence-based reasoning?

> Lattimer... <snip>

Discussed elsewhere.

> "Wm Seger", the credibility issue has been your problem all through this thread.

Ah, and just when I thought you might be ready to crack...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #115)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 07:09 PM

117. reply to #115

Researcher Pat Speer has written at some length on the single bullet theory, including a critique of a very similar diagram to that presented by "Wm Seger". It can be found at http://www.patspeer.com/chapter11%3Athesingle-bullettheory if anyone cares. The diagram as originally presented by "Seger" is meaningless for the reasons previously stated.

"perhaps, they were making too much noise themselves running down the stairs to hear anyone else, or perhaps it just didn't register because of the situation so they don't recall it, or perhaps the timing you would like to use is not all that accurate..."

The actual layout of the TSBD staircase rules out the first, the second is just goofy, and the third is not based on what I "would like to use" but is what the actual participants themselves said. Warren Commission staff lawyer David Belin wrote a memo stating that "we should pin down the time sequence of her running down the stairs", but this never happened. Instead, the Warren Commission refused to do any time tests, even as they did so in every other instance; the Warren Commission refused to depose Sandra Styles who was also on the stairs; and the Warren Commission sought and received a statement from Ms Adams' supervisor Miss Garner which confirmed in detail what Adams had been saying all along. This information was ignored and hidden from the public. The Warren Commission instead said Ms Adams was wrong, though the only evidence of this they could provide was apparently coached testimony from Lovelady (he answers a question before it was asked) which utterly contradicts information he provided earlier.

The depth of your denial on this issue is of a piece with your overall grasp of the evidence in this case.

"testimony that implies things not in agreement with other evidence, e.g. that it was Oswald on the sixth floor shooting"

But there is no evidence Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time, let alone shooting a gun. You keep demanding evidence and dismissing testimony based on an assertion that all "possibilities" have not been ruled out - except when it comes to the theory you prefer, whereby no evidence is required whatsoever. You can't have Oswald on the sixth floor at 12:30 and then in the lunch room on the second floor at 12:31 without having him come down the staircase during the interval. But two people were on the stairs at that same time and they didn't see or hear anything. You really want to impeach these witnesses - just as David Belin did - but you can't, just as David Belin couldn't. The line of reasoning you are now staking runs like this: "we know Victoria Adams was wrong because we know Oswald was firing his gun on the sixth floor". And to reach that position you must contradict yourself and apply a whole new set of parameters by which to consider evidence. You are twisting yourself into a pretzel.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #117)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:04 AM

118. Two words: Bull. Shit.

> Researcher Pat Speer has written at some length on the single bullet theory...

Perhaps you didn't notice that even with his fudging, he wasn't able to get the back wound down to the level of the throat wound. The best he could do was to lower it an inch or so with a version of the right photo that is so large, it makes JFK's head far wider than it is deep, bearing no resemblance to the proportions of a human skull:



Note the ridiculous disclaimer: "Long hair in photo makes head look deceptively large."
And the back wound is still above the neck wound! That's about on par with the analysis Speer did of the Dale Myers' computer model, which is equally laughable.

> The actual layout of the TSBD staircase rules out the first, the second is just goofy, and the third is not based on what I "would like to use" but is what the actual participants themselves said.

In other words, just as I said, you can't rule out any of those possibilities except by dismissing them out-of-hand, and you still can't get your head around the problem of using a non-witness as evidence. Then you say I'm in denial, huh?

> But there is no evidence Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time, let alone shooting a gun.

Right, after bringing his rifle to work and arranging the boxes in the sniper's nest, Oswald gave the rifle to another "white male, early 30s, appeared to be about 5'-10", 165 lbs." and went downstairs to eat his lunch, while the mystery man shot JFK and disappeared into thin air. And we can be sure that's what happened, because Adams didn't hear him on the stair.

That's all I have time for this morning, and it seems we are getting to the point of repeating ourselves, anyway, so allow me to summarize: None of the claims that you have made that appear to be true are conclusive of a conspiracy, and none of your claims that would be conclusive of a conspiracy have been proved.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #118)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:20 PM

119. reply to #118

Pat Speer used measurements which could be explained and duplicated - far more than anything you've ever managed.

"And the back wound is still above the neck wound!"

If you had bothered to read the text you would have no basis to say this, although it is predictable that you would have said it anyway. I at least read what Lattimer had to say before I critiqued him. You just fire off nasty uninformed dismissals.

"you still can't get your head around the problem of using a non-witness as evidence"

Your argument makes no sense, just as it made no sense when you first offered it.

"Oswald gave the rifle to another "white male, early 30s, appeared to be about 5'-10", 165 lbw."

Oswald was 24, 5' 9", and weighed 131lb at his autopsy. The description you quote was attributed to Howard Brennan, although it would have been impossible to determine height or weight from Brennan's position. Descriptions of Oswald as 5'10" and 165lb do appear in documents generated by FBI and CIA well before the assassination.

Here is my summary:
The diagram you presented is meaningless. The circular arguments you offer lead nowhere. Your legal theories on eyewitness testimony, on expert testimony, and use of physical evidence are inadequate at best, if not essentially dishonest. You need to support your weak arguments with a nasty mocking tone.

"Wm Seger", you introduced yourself on this thread as skeptical but open-minded, and gradually it has been revealed that you are a partisan propagandist who spends apparently much of his time working on deceptive diagrams supporting the Single Bullet Theory and reading up on Neutron Activation Analysis. As a propagandist, you are by nature and trade impervious to reason, to argument, to analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #119)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:17 AM

121. But I DID read it, "arguille"

> Pat Speer used measurements which could be explained and duplicated - far more than anything you've ever managed.

And yet he produced a diagram that's absurdly distorted, as is shown by my yellow arrows? It would appear that a more accurate statement would be, "Pat Speer misused measurements..."

> If you had bothered to read the text you would have no basis to say this, although it is predictable that you would have said it anyway.

Wrong again. I read it all the way to the end where he said:

This makes it clear that either 1) the autopsists were incorrect, and claimed a wound roughly 8-9 cm below the bottom tip of the mastoid was 14 cm below the bottom tip of the mastoid, or 2) Kennedy's position in the back wound photo and/or the lateral photo make the wound appear to be higher on the body than it would be in the anatomic position.

This second option seems obvious.


Or maybe 3) Speer is wrong that the measurement was from the bottom of the mastoid process rather than the "bottom tip." Or maybe 4) Speer's guess about where 14 cm would fall on JFK's body is not accurate. But in other words, even without those possibilites, it's "obvious" to Speer that we should simply ignore what the photos clearly show -- even in his distorted version -- and just chalk that up to some distortion of perspective -- even though he's already over-corrected for that -- and instead assume that the 14 cm measurement and his interpretation of it are both accurate. It's "obvious" to Speer we should ignore the photos even though an X-ray shows a nick on the C6 vertebra, which also puts the bullet path above the throat wound (and along the path in my diagram, by the way), and even though Speer can't explain where this supposed distortion is coming from, since he already attempted to correct for the camera angle. And of course it's "obvious" to Speer that his interpretation of the 14 cm is so correct that we can ignore the verbal description of the path from the same autopsy report:

The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. {Empahsis added}


Where does that put the path, "arguille?" Given the absurdity of Speer's diagram, I can't say I'm very impressed with what's "obvious" to Speer. Or to you, since you're still trying to protect your "back-and-to-the-left" delusions by being willfully blind to the forward head-snap and its clear meaning.

> Your argument makes no sense, just as it made no sense when you first offered it.

Well, that just might be why you're a conspiracist and I'm not, which reminds me that I once tried to explain to you that the definition of a "valid" logical inference is that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, in the sense that if the premises are true then the conclusion cannot be false. If that isn't the case, then your logic is faulty, whether or not you can recognize the specific fallacy. Compare that definition to your reasoning that if Adams didn't see or hear Oswald when she went down the stairs, then that means Oswald wasn't on sixth floor. I just gave you three different ways your conclusion could be false, and the only response you could come up with is that you don't think those are possible. You say it "makes no sense" to you that's there is in inherent problem with reasoning based on what someone didn't see when there are reasons why they might not have seen something that did happen, or just might not remember it. Why, exactly, should I be influenced by what "makes no sense" to you if what apparently does make sense to you is not valid logic?

> "Wm Seger", you introduced yourself on this thread as skeptical but open-minded, and gradually it has been revealed that you are a partisan propagandist who spends apparently much of his time working on deceptive diagrams supporting the Single Bullet Theory and reading up on Neutron Activation Analysis. As a propagandist, you are by nature and trade impervious to reason, to argument, to analysis.

I've been a JFK conspiracists twice in my life, "arguille," once after I read a couple of books by conspiracy hustlers in the late 60s, and once after the HSCA and the "acoustic evidence" of a 4th shot. I thought the yarns spun by the hustlers was convincing when I didn't know all the facts and hadn't examined their arguments carefully, and I thought the acoustic analysis was very scientific until I learned that the very premise of it was too flawed for the math to mean anything. Sorry, but I'm older and wiser now, and "open-minded" and "self-delusional" aren't the same thing. You simply do not appreciate how weak your evidence and arguments are, and you will never know how open-minded I am until you actually have something that's convincing. True, after 50 years, I'm not holding my breath, but you never know...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #121)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:09 PM

124. reply to #121

"Wm Seger", your colored arrows do little but presume correspondence where none exists.

"Speer is wrong that the measurement was from the bottom of the mastoid process rather than the "bottom tip."

There is no difference between the two.

"it's "obvious" to Speer that we should simply ignore what the photos clearly show"

The photos, as you presented in your deceptive diagram, show nothing because there is no relationship or correspondence between them. Faced with the collapse of your theory, you decide to attack the messenger, as you sought to diminish Fiester, Dolce, Shaw, etc. - and in all of those cases the crux of your argument is that the above are simply wrong.

"you're still trying to protect your "back-and-to-the-left" delusions by being willfully blind to the forward head-snap and its clear meaning. "

see post #120

"I just gave you three different ways your conclusion could be false, and the only response you could come up with is that you don't think those are possible…"

different way #1 - "perhaps they were making too much noise themselves". The layout of the staircase at the TSBD makes this extremely unlikely (as can be seen in photographs presented in the video). If the fleeing man was ahead of them, he would have been heard as they approached the stairs. If he was behind them he would have been heard as they moved to the next set of stairs on the third or second floor. The Warren Commission had the opportunity to time the movements of Adams and Styles, and help establish a clearer picture, but they refused to do so.

different way #2 - "perhaps it just didn't register because of the situation so they don't recall it" so both of them, independently, suffered some sort of amnesia or sensory deprivation, even as their descriptions of what they did and when they did it were clear, precise, and consistent. Can I point out here that you frequently resort to lectures on "logic" and yet…

different way #3 - "perhaps the timing you would like to use is not all that accurate…" The timing is not mine, it is the clear and consistent recollections of three witnesses. The Warren Commission, through David Belin, recognized the need to "pin down" the timing, but, in the end, they did not do so. They refused to test this timing, even as they did so in every other situation. They refused to even talk to one of the three witnesses (and inferred in the Report that Adams went down the stairs alone). Belin attacked Adams' integrity by inference and coached testimony, and when Garner's statement confirmed in every way that Adams and Styles were on the stairs exactly when the official story needed Oswald to be there, Garner's statement was ignored and hidden from public view until 1998.

It's pretty obvious what relationship the Adams story has to "valid logical inference", even if it is lost on yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #124)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 02:22 PM

127. If you're just going to keep repeating yourself

... then obviously there's nothing to be gained by my repeating myself, but I'll remind you at least this once that you haven't patched up a major hole in your theory: If Adams left the window and headed downstairs 30 seconds after the shooting, then she was only 45 seconds into that trip when Baker says he was on the second floor confronting Oswald. How could she have missed seeing Baker and Truly right behind him? Did she cross 150 feet of storeroom floor and get down 4 flights of stairs in less than 45 seconds? In 3" heels?

I really couldn't care less what a conspiracy hobbiest finds "extremely unlikely" if you find that scenario extremely likely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #127)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 04:47 PM

129. reply to #127

I only repeat myself at your insistence.

"Did she cross 150 feet of storeroom floor and get down 4 flights of stairs in less than 45 seconds?"

Adams and Styles were on the fourth floor and needed to travel 3 flights of stairs to be on the ground floor. Whether this would present a timing challenge against other features of this scenario, such as the presence of Truly and Baker, could have been cleared up if the Warren Commission - as Adams requested - did similar timing tests as they conducted for the alleged fleeing gunman and officer Baker. The Warren Commission refused to do these.

However, you inadvertently raise the issue of the timing in relation to the alleged fleeing gunman, who is the one who had to cross 150 feet or more of warehouse floor amidst stacks of boxes, carefully hide his rifle, travel four flights of stairs, and get inside the lunch room (and have a pneumatic door close behind him), which is a much more compressed time period relative to supposed actions. What's that about likely or unlikely?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #129)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:44 PM

133. "What's that about likely or unlikely?"

For one thing, the distinction between that and "the truth," regardless of how you score the alternatives.

Adams believe she stayed at the window for 30 seconds. How long would you guess the shooter stood there before beginning this arduous journey you describe? I'd say it's "likely" the shooter had a pretty good head start, especially if Adams' 30-second estimate is not as accurate as you want to pretend. That might explain why Adams didn't see the shooter, whether it was Oswald or someone else. I'm still asking you for a timing scenario where Adams "ought" to have seen Oswald but missed Baker and Truly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #133)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 04:34 AM

135. reply to #133

"I'd say it's "likely" the shooter had a pretty good head start"

The "fleeing gunman" was two floors above Adams, and presumably had to wipe the rifle clean of finger prints before carefully placing it in a narrow cavity between tall rows of boxes. The Warren Commission timed all this stuff and was pressed just geting their phantom assassin into the lunch room at the required time in the first place. The presence of Adams and Styles on the staircase severely damaged the likelihood of a fleeing gunman dashing down the stairs. That is why David Belin had to come up with the scenario he did - whereby Adams' timing wasn't off by a few seconds, but by a matter of minutes. David Belin had every opportunity to work through the same questions and scenarios you propose - and by his own words we can presume that he indeed did - but the fact is that the presence of Adams and Styles on the staircase at the time they said they were, a time supported by supervisor Garner, would have necessarily placed them in proximity with the fleeing gunman - but they heard and saw nothing. Belin realized this; you have not yet arrived at this fatal juncture.

The Stroud memo is clear: "after Miss Adams went downstairs she (Miss Garner) saw Mr. Truly and the policeman come up." This document was hidden from the public until 1998.

"I'm still asking you for a timing scenario where Adams "ought" to have seen Oswald but missed Baker and Truly."

Your request is misdirected. It is the Warren Commission which was responsible for establishing timing scenarios, and in this case the Commission refused to do so - even as it applied such resources to every other timing issue related to the TSBD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #124)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 08:49 PM

131. By the way, this...

> The photos, as you presented in your deceptive diagram, show nothing because there is no relationship or correspondence between them. Faced with the collapse of your theory, you decide to attack the messenger, as you sought to diminish Fiester, Dolce, Shaw, etc. -

... is abject bullshit.

The diagram I did was an honest attempt to understand what happened, and I told you how I approximated the relative sizes of the photos. Without actually demonstrating anything "deceptive" about the diagram, you declare that there is, but then instead of substantiating that charge, you linked to Speer's diagram -- which actually is deceptive! -- as your "proof." But no, read it again: I did not just say "the above are simply wrong": I showed you that his diagram is deceptive for an actual reason: The head in the right image is much wider than the depth of the head in the left image. (I could show you another reason, too, if you care to see it.)

But after representing that diagram with the ridiculously large head as the paragon of accuracy and ignoring the obvious problem with it, you declare "there is no relationship or correspondence between" the photos in my diagram, and then you have the chutzpah to say "the crux" of my argument is that "the above are simply wrong." And then, when I point out that even his fat-headed JFK still has the back wound above the throat wound, you accuse me of not reading Speer's lame attempt to wave that inconvenient fact away by simply assuming that the 14 cm (or rather his interpretation of it) cannot be wrong, so there must be some other perspective effect -- one he apparently can't even define, much less demonstrate.

And then after claiming the "collapse of (my) theory" in face of this bullshit, you say that pointing out why Speer's diagram is ridiculous is "attacking the messenger?"

This is the kind of silly stuff that makes this forum such fun.

> and in all of those cases the crux of your argument is that the above are simply wrong.

What hypocrisy. In all of those cases the crux of my arguments has been evidence that you deny and reasons that you apparently do not understand. So be it; it's one thing for you to disagree, but your claim that my "argument is that the above are simply wrong" means that either you have devolved into dishonest rhetoric or your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #131)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 04:53 AM

136. reply to #131

Speer explains a basis for his measurements, which is far more than you ever provided. Your attack on Speer does not account for his calculations, but is instead a superficial visual reading which you somehow describe as an "actual reason". In total, your critique is both vague and revisionist. Your original diagram presented coloured lines which had no correspondence, from which you presumed to draw conclusions which could not, in fact, be drawn. And then you call it "evidence". That's really convincing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #73)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:44 PM

84. Well, that's the problem

You have to watch them WHILE thinking. You watch all of them... every single one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #84)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:47 PM

86. Clicking on your posts, hoping that maybe this time there will be something

... worth the effort is takes to read is a lot like Lucy and the football.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #60)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 09:35 AM

69. Point by point

> a) you made two self-contradictory arguments that 1) witnesses can be wrong about where sounds come from and 2) most people heard shots from the TSBD area.

Say what? Those are not "contradictory arguments"; they're both facts. The fact that witnesses can be wrong about where gunshot sounds came from means that we cannot use the "ear-witnesses" to locate the source of shots, and the fact that the ear-witnesses disagree is just another reason why. We need more reliable evidence to locate the shooter(s).

We have convincing physical evidence that the two known shots that hit JFK and Connally came from behind; that they came from a rifle found in the TSBD; and that they were fired from the 6th floor "sniper's nest."

There is no convincing evidence for another shooter.

If you can actually disprove either of those assertions, then you will actually have something. Until then, you're just blowing smoke like Oliver Stone.

> b) I thought you were joking or being sarcastic by inferring the people may have been running up the knoll to retrieve their parked cars. I would think better of you if you were joking.

In the later movies included in that silly blackops video, yes, I do believe that's exactly what we are seeing. I would think better of you if you attempt an actual rebuttal.

> c) since the autopsy was handled so horrendously, no one really knows where bullets struck JFK.

That's one of the claims that led to the HSCA being established, so it was a major focus, but their findings were:

Since the Warren Commission completed its investigation, two other Government panels have subjected the X-rays and photographs taken during the autopsy on President Kennedy to examination by independent medical experts. A team of forensic pathologists appointed by Attorney general Ramsey Clark in 1968,(9) and a panel retained by the Commission on CIA Activities Within the United States (Rockefeller Commission) in 1975,(10) reached the same basic conclusion: the President was struck by two bullets from behind.
...
The forensic pathology panel {of the HSCA} concluded that President Kennedy was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each of which entered from the rear. 1 The panel further concluded that the President was struck by one bullet that entered in the upper right of the back and exited from the front of the throat, and one bullet that entered in the right rear of the head near the cowlick area and exited from the right side of the head, toward the front. This second bullet caused a massive wound to the President's head upon exit. There is no medical evidence that the President was struck by a bullet entering the front of the head,(19) and the possibility that a bullet could have struck the President and yet left no evidence is extremely remote.


> The backwards movement is obvious and visceral. No one sees that and thinks "oh he was obviously hit from behind" or "oh that is obviously the result of the jet effect which is happening this one time only in the history of the world". No, people see a body reacting to a shot striking from the front. That's why Life Magazine and the Warren Commission both felt they needed to reverse the frames when printing the sequence.

As the old saw goes, I can explain it to you but I can't understand if for you: When the Zapruder film is examined carefully and real physics are applied, it shows that the fatal shot came from behind, and it also shows that the back-and-to-the-left motion happens too late to be explained by momentum from the bullet. It just doesn't matter who or how many people don't understand why that's so or what misconceptions they have formed from a cursory examination and cartoon physics. But whether you understand it or not, the Zapruder film is completely consistent with all the other evidence that the fatal shot came from behind.

> By the way, I forgot to add d) to my three issues at 3PM Dallas time day of the assassination.

d)Dr Perry at Parkland Hospital said during a press conference that the president had suffered a wound of entrance in his throat


Given your apparent knowledge of the subject, I'm pretty sure you know that when he made that statement, he was unaware of the back wound, and that after discussing the back wound with Dr. Humes in Bethesda, Perry agreed that the throat wound was the exit wound. (Unlike certain JFK conspiracy hucksters, Perry apparently dismissed the possibility that both were entrance wounds caused by magic disappearing bullets.) I'd bet that you also know that the throat wound was right at a buttoned shirt collar and tied necktie, which just might explain why the wound might not have looked like a typical exit wound. But no, Perry's statement in the press conference is the story you like and you're sticking to it.

> As to the investigations:
> A couple of Dallas police officers went up to the picket fence area after the shots, and more police officers combed through the railway yard and parking lot, but once the shell casings were discovered shortly after 1 PM the Dallas police did nothing but focus on the TSBD as the sole source of shots.


Spin away, but they investigated those areas and found no evidence to indicate that there had been a shooter there. What exactly would you expect them to do to "focus" on that nothingness -- contemplate their navels?

> The FBI was told to look into all leads... for twenty-four hours. At that point Hoover wrote a memo declaring Oswald the sole assassin and field agents were instructed to stop any investigation not involving Oswald. In that 24 hours the FBI did very little, if anything, related to shots from the knoll area.

Sorry, I can't find any such memo, and I have to suspect that your appraisal of it might be a tad biased.

> The Warren Commission started from the premise that Oswald was the sole shooter and did everything in its power to downplay, suppress, and disappear any contradicting information.

Unspun: The Warren Commission didn't find any credible evidence of a second shooter. Never mind that over the last half-century, the conspiracy hucksters haven't found any credible evidence of a second shooter, either, because we can just blame it on the Commission for "disappearing" all the good stuff.

> The HSCA developed a lot of information pointing to a high level conspiracy and classified most of it, on its way to a weak conclusion that there was "probably" two shooters but the second guy missed and Oswald did it.

After the HSCA report, for the second time in my life I was a JFK conspiracy believer, myself. The acoustic evidence seemed to be scientific enough to count as credible evidence. But that debate has gone back and forth a couple of times now, and the latest study strongly indicates that the study the HSCA relied on in reaching the second-shooter conclusion (and hence the "probable conspiracy" conclusion) was incorrect.

> I pointed out four solid leads or reasons pointing to a shot from the knoll existing at 3PM Dallas time - including eyewitness, photographic,and expert - and they were all ignored and you don't seem to think anything is wrong with that picture.

Hmmm... that's not the way I remember it. Please post these "solid leads or reasons" again and we'll see if I missed any. If so, I'll be happy to give you some feedback.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #69)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 05:02 PM

76. reply to post #69

Only one bullet was established as having been fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano and that was CE399, the so-called "magic bullet". From all appearances it looks as if it had been fired into a bucket of water, and the government's top ballistics expert told them exactly that (the Warren Commission did not ask him to testify and instead found a more compliant witness). CE399 is alleged to have made seven wounds, shattered a rib, and smashed into a wrist bone which is one of the densest in the human body. No recreation of the shooting has ever been able to even come close to producing the lack of damage seen on CE399. Without exception, the bullets have been mangled after striking bone or bone facsimile.

The HSCA's forensic panel made no mention that the different panels examining the medical evidence through the years, all arrived at different conclusions as to where the wounds were in the first place. The dissenting member of the HSCA forensic panel was unable to convince his colleagues that the failure of the single bullet hypothesis alone destroyed the lone assassin myth. The HSCA heard testimony from many witnesses at both Parklands and Bethesda that there was a large defect in the right rear of JFK's head, a defect which does not exist in the medical evidence which these panels keep saying is the final word. The HSCA then made the false claim that the Bethesda witnesses did not see this defect (and thus the Parkland doctors were simply mistaken), and then classified all the testimony showing their statement to be factually untrue. These interviews were not released until the 1990s.

You continue to present an interpretation of the fatal shot based on an appeal to higher knowledge ("real physics"), and yet curtly dismissed the findings of a woman with decades of experience in wound ballistics.

Dr Perry did not come to some new understanding of the throat wound through some collegial discussions with Dr Humes - he told others at the hospital that he got no sleep on the Friday night because he was constantly getting phone calls from Washington pressuring him to change his opinion. Later, a Secret Service agent named Moore was assigned to Dallas to strong-arm Perry into changing his opinion ahead of appearing before the Warren Commission (Moore was successful). The Humes story of a gradual understanding of the throat wound is a lie - as the Bethesda doctors had been told before the autopsy began that the Parklands doctors had identified an entrance wound in the throat. The Bethesda autopsy doctors never tracked the wound from back to front - as is standard protocol and in fact a legal requirement - and they were in fact expressly ordered not to do so. Along with the planting of CE399, that fact is primary proof of both a conspiracy and cover-up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #76)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 08:08 PM

80. In other words, speculation and spin are all you've got

> Only one bullet was established as having been fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano and that was CE399, the so-called "magic bullet".

The Warren Commission and the HSCA were acting in good faith on the neutron activation analysis that said the bullet fragments found in the limo (presumably from the fatal shot) were from the same batch as the "magic" bullet and thus were probably fired from the same gun. A recent study found that that conclusion is not as statistically reliable as the WC and HSCA assumed it was, but contrary to popular opinion among conspiracists, that study did not find any reason to believe that the shot was from a second shooter; it simply said the neutron activation analysis couldn't conclusively rule out that possibility. Once again, you have come up short in actual evidence and attempt to substitute unsubstantiated speculation.

> From all appearances it looks as if it had been fired into a bucket of water, and the government's top ballistics expert told them exactly that (the Warren Commission did not ask him to testify and instead found a more compliant witness). CE399 is alleged to have made seven wounds, shattered a rib, and smashed into a wrist bone which is one of the densest in the human body.

Speculate and spin away, but the single-bullet theory remains the best explanation of the facts. Sorry, but anyone who claims that the bullet could have been flattened on its side from being fired into a bucket of water is an unconvincing "expert." That flattened side is better explained by the theory that it was tumbling after passing through JFK -- a theory that is further substantiated by the elongated wounds in Connally's back and chest, which conspiracists apparently prefer to ignore since it supports the SBT. The irony is that conspiracists denigrate the SBT as the "magic" bullet theory, and then offer all sorts of alternative explanations that would involve magic disappearing bullets, magic curving bullet paths, magic disappearing shooters, and/or psychic conspirators who knew that Connally would end up with a shallow entrance wound with no bullet in it.

> No recreation of the shooting has ever been able to even come close to producing the lack of damage seen on CE399. Without exception, the bullets have been mangled after striking bone or bone facsimile.

In the first place, that claim simple isn't true -- there have been experiments that showed similar results.



The fact that CE-399 wasn't duplicated in the studies you are referring to is unremarkable, considering that those recreations also didn't come close to actually recreating the SBT path through JFK's neck first, which would have slowed the bullet by about half and also set it tumbling before entering Connally. Once again, instead of actual evidence, you substitute speculation about how the bullet "ought" to have looked, and that speculation doesn't even take into account all of the factors involved.

> You continue to present an interpretation of the fatal shot based on an appeal to higher knowledge ("real physics"), and yet curtly dismissed the findings of a woman with decades of experience in wound ballistics.

And that would be because I can't find any indication whatsoever that she knows what she's talking about, which makes it difficult to be impressed by her credentials. Specifically, her offering of videos of gelatin bulging slightly in the direction a bullet came from tells me that she doesn't seem to even be aware of the 2.5" forward head-snap under discussion, much less does she have any physics-based explanation for it. On the other hand, I have repeatedly shown you what I found in my own examination of the film and I have given you simple and irrefutable reasoning for what the film actually shows about the immediate forward head-snap and the later back-and-to-the-left movement. Furthermore, I have provide you with a link to an extremely detailed study done by an actual physicist who noticed the same thing and analyzed it using real physics. You are the one in denial, with nothing to cling to but your classic "appeal to authority" fallacy.

> Dr Perry did not come to some new understanding of the throat wound through some collegial discussions with Dr Humes - he told others at the hospital that he got no sleep on the Friday night because he was constantly getting phone calls from Washington pressuring him to change his opinion. Later, a Secret Service agent named Moore was assigned to Dallas to strong-arm Perry into changing his opinion ahead of appearing before the Warren Commission (Moore was successful). The Humes story of a gradual understanding of the throat wound is a lie - as the Bethesda doctors had been told before the autopsy began that the Parklands doctors had identified an entrance wound in the throat. The Bethesda autopsy doctors never tracked the wound from back to front - as is standard protocol and in fact a legal requirement - and they were in fact expressly ordered not to do so. Along with the planting of CE399, that fact is primary proof of both a conspiracy and cover-up.

Yes, I'm aware of how conspiracists interpret what happened when they view it through their conspiracy-colored bias, but the subject at hand is, what can you actually prove that contradicts the Warren Commission findings? Once again, the answer is that speculation and spin are all you really have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #80)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 11:04 PM

87. "...but the single-bullet theory remains the best explanation of the facts."

Is your reading comprehension really that awful, or is it that you only read a full chosen books? You couldn't have claimed to have read more than what you say you do based on your answers.

I'm really enjoying this ass kicking by arguille. He's familiar and not just well read, but perhaps an author himself.

It doesn't really matter. It's an opportunity for you to learn (and no doubt- a wasted opportunity for that to happen)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #87)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 12:08 AM

88. I'm sure arguille appreciates the cheerleading, but...

... the entire exchange simply illustrates exactly what I've said all along: None of the conspiracist's claims that appear to be true are conclusive of a conspiracy, and none of the claims that would be conclusive of a conspiracy appear to be true.

If you think you can refute that, it isn't too late for you to jump right in there, MMM. You can be the hero that you were hoping arguille would be, but you'll need more than hand-waving assertions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #88)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 12:21 AM

89. You wish a fight over what you should wish to seek...

... which are the facts.

I do not wish to box. I wish for the facts. But, wishing isn't going to be sufficient.

Everybody suffered for what happened 50 years ago and for what the Warren Commission was so awful at doing, conducting an investigation.

I don't care if you don't want to admit it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #89)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 12:50 AM

90. I've been begging for any credible FACTS that refute the WC conclusions

... and all we've seen in this thread is a demonstration of why the major conclusions still stand and why JFK conspiracy theorists are still called conspiracy theorists: They believe implausible theories for no good reason.

I don't care if you don't want to admit it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #80)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 02:54 AM

91. Reply to #80

"The Warren Commission and the HSCA were acting in good faith on the neutron activation analysis..."

This analysis was used by the Commission and other bodies, and by authors such as Vincent Bugliosi, to assert absolute proof of Oswald's guilt as, according to the analysis, all the bullets, including the fragments, could be matched to just one gunman.

"A recent study found that that conclusion is not as statistically reliable as the WC and HSCA assumed it was..."

Several peer-reviewed studies have severely called into question the basic premises of the neutron activation analysis. The FBI stopped using it some years ago. Others, such as the chair of the HSCA Robert Blakey, have taken to calling it "junk science"

"... that study did not find any reason to believe that the shot was from a second shooter; it simply said the neutron activation analysis couldn't conclusively rule out that possibility."

No, what the studies said was that neutron activation analysis was junk science, and so couldn't really be consulted on any issues whatsoever. Fact - the bullet fragments cannot be scientifically matched to CE399. Yet all of the sources which have apparently formed your lone assassin views - Warren Commission, Posner, Bugliosi, et al - used the NAA as positive and even conclusive proof of Oswald's guilt.

"Once again, you have come up short in actual evidence and attempt to substitute unsubstantiated speculation."

You're pointing a speculation finger at me after what you've just said? And ahead of what you are about to say?

"the single-bullet theory remains the best explanation of the facts"

really? and this "explanation" based on a "theory" is also somehow not "speculation", do I get that right? For that matter, what exactly are your "facts"? Is it the "tumbling bullet" which is apparently "substantiated by the elongated wounds in Connally's back"? Or is the "fact", in fact, the fact that you don't seem to know that the "elongated wound" in Connally's back was created by the Parklands doctors in the area surrounding a smaller wound of entrance and that the HSCA's star pathologist misread their notes. That's been generally understood for some time now. And you don't seem to know that Lattimer's experiments have little credibility. By the way, the "protusion of the soft lead core" he makes sure to highlight in his diagram is actually the spot where a sample of the lead core was taken by the FBI for their lab. Lattimer was a urologist by profession, and not a ballistics expert. By comparison, Dr Joseph Dolce was, in 1964, Chairman of the US Army's Wound Ballistics Board and most highly regarded and distinguished. That April, he told the Warren Commission in a private conference that any bullet striking Connally's wrist would as result be seriously deformed and that CE399 could not be a magic bullet. This was after extensive tests were performed. The Warren Commission quickly finished with Dr Dolce and instead turned to an army veterinarian named Olivier who was willing to say the magic bullet was "possible". And this "possibility", a ballistics issue answered weakly by a urologist and a veterinarian, is what you are offering as "fact".



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #91)

Sat Apr 6, 2013, 11:33 PM

96. No offense, of course, but so what?

> This analysis was used by the Commission and other bodies, and by authors such as Vincent Bugliosi, to assert absolute proof of Oswald's guilt as, according to the analysis, all the bullets, including the fragments, could be matched to just one gunman.

And if you completely ignore the NAA (which I generally have since Spiegelman's paper), what do you have? I'm pretty sure you don't mean we should exonerate Oswald because of the new study, since that would be ridiculous, so I have to assume you are trying to imply that it's evidence of a second shooter, which was the actual topic. Uh, no, it isn't.

> No, what the studies said was that neutron activation analysis was junk science, and so couldn't really be consulted on any issues whatsoever.

That's a hyperbolic qualitative characterization of what is essentially a quantitative statistical argument, and what the Randich/Grant study and the Spiegelman et al. study actually claimed to have found was that the confidence level of the conclusion drawn by Guinn for the HSCA study did not reach the customary (but actually arbitrary) level typically accepted for statistical inferencing, and therefore the evidence was not conclusive of only two bullets. But what you seem to be trying to infer from that is basically that if the confidence level is only 80% rather than, say, 95% -- or even if the confidence level is only 53% -- then we have evidence of a second shooter, which is nonsense.

And that's where we are unless further analysis is performed: Guinn's conclusion of only two bullets should not be accepted as "fact," but that is not the same thing as saying that Guinn's conclusion of only two bullets has been proved wrong.

But if you are now quite satisfied with your goalpost-moving, strawman-attacking adventure, I wonder if I can bring your attention back to my actual argument, which is that there is no credible evidence for a second shooter.

> really? and this "explanation" based on a "theory" is also somehow not "speculation", do I get that right?

That's hard to say without knowing what definitions you are using, but my initial impression is no, you probably do not have that quite right. For example, there is no "'explanation' based on a 'theory'" -- the explanation is a theory -- but yes, it's supported by facts and logic, not speculation.

> For that matter, what exactly are your "facts"?

A fair enough request, so here's one version that looks reasonable to me as a starting point:

Based on the official evidence in the John F. Kennedy murder case, all of the following things are true:

1.) President John F. Kennedy and Texas Governor John B. Connally were shot by rifle bullets in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on Friday, November 22, 1963.

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial Number C2766) was located inside a building which overlooked the assassination site (the Texas School Book Depository) when JFK and JBC were being wounded by gunfire.

3.) A nearly-whole bullet (Warren Commission Exhibit #399) was found inside the hospital where JFK and JBC were taken after the shooting. And CE399 was found in a location within the hospital where President Kennedy was never located prior to the bullet being found by Darrell Tomlinson. (Nor was JFK's stretcher ever in the area of the hospital where Tomlinson discovered the bullet.)

4.) Bullet CE399 was positively fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.

5.) Bullet CE399, based on the above points in total, HAD to have been inside Governor Connally's body on 11/22/63.

6.) A man who looked like Lee Harvey Oswald was seen firing a rifle at the President's limousine from a southeast corner window on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository Building. No other gunmen were seen firing any weapons in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd.

7.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found in the upper back or neck of John Kennedy's body. And no significant damage was found inside these areas of JFK's body either.

8.) No bullets (or large bullet fragments) were found inside the body of Governor Connally after the shooting. The only bullet, anywhere, that can possibly be connected with Connally's wounds is Bullet CE399.

9.) Given the point in time when both JFK and JBC were first hit by rifle fire (based on the Abraham Zapruder Film), and given the known location of Governor Connally's back (entrance) wound, and also taking into account the individual points made above -- Bullet CE399 had no choice but to have gone through the body of President Kennedy prior to entering the back of John B. Connally.


I don't see "tumbling bullet" on that list, nor is it necessary, but this is simply disingenuous:

> Is it the "tumbling bullet" which is apparently "substantiated by the elongated wounds in Connally's back"? Or is the "fact", in fact, the fact that you don't seem to know that the "elongated wound" in Connally's back was created by the Parklands doctors in the area surrounding a smaller wound of entrance and that the HSCA's star pathologist misread their notes.

No, I'm not talking about the "3 cm" claim, but rather the 8 x 15 cm "elliptical" wound described by Dr. Shaw. It isn't necessarily the case that the bullet hit squarely sideways, which would create a wound as long as the bullet, 3 cm. If it only rotated about a 30- to 45-degree angle before it hit Connally, then a wound elongated to about 1.5 cm would be expected. If it wasn't tumbling, on the other hand, then the wound should have resembled the wound in JFK's back, a much smaller and rounder 6 x 4 mm. So, yes, I would put "tumbling bullet" on the list and challenge you to do a better job of refuting it.

> And you don't seem to know that Lattimer's experiments have little credibility.

Little credibility among conspiracists? Oh yes, I knew that, but then we're talking about people who judge credibility solely on the story one tells. So? So, when you said, "No recreation of the shooting has ever been able to even come close to producing the lack of damage seen on CE399," what you really meant was, "...except for Lattimer's but that doesn't count because I grant him little credibility?" Okay, I'll keep that in mind as I continue to wade through your claims.

> And this "possibility", a ballistics issue answered weakly by a urologist and a veterinarian, is what you are offering as "fact".

Nope, I certainly didn't offer any "possibility" as a "fact" -- another strawman falls to your mighty rhetorical sword. All the "possibility" means is that conspiracists trying to base any claims solely on the supposed impossibility of the SBT are doomed to failure. Sorry, that just won't do the trick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #96)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 12:58 AM

98. reply to #96

It seems to me that von Pein's list is a perfect exemplar of what "credible evidence" really means to the lone nut buffs.

This is my favourite:

"5) Bullet CE399,based on the above points in total, HAD to have been inside Governor Connally's body on 11/22/63".

Really? Even as 1) no one saw it come out 2) Dr Shaw said at a 3 PM press conference that a bullet remained in Connally's leg at that time (an hour or more after CE399 was said to have been discovered) 3) the nation's top ballistics expert insisted that CE399 could not be the bullet which struck Connally's wrist.

"If it wasn't tumbling, on the other hand, then the wound should have resembled the wound in JFK's back, a much smaller and rounder 6 x 4 mm."

But Dr Shaw himself testified to the Warren Commission that the bullet was either "slightly tumbling" or, more likely, was a tangential hit. He followed up with reasons, based on the wounds of the ribs, why he believed the latter was the best explanation. By the way, the wound in Kennedy's back was too low to support the single-bullet theory in any way. And the autopsy doctors were ordered not to track the wound, which would have established the facts. Tracking the wound was a procedural and legal requirement, and yet they were ordered not to do so.

re: Lattimer's experiment

Lattimer claims that " lead extruded from the rear" of both bullets, but the extruding lead he claims to see in CE399 was actually the place where the FBI scraped lead for their lab tests. He is also dependent on a "tumbling" bullet as a primary factor of his test - which is crucial in reducing the velocity of the bullet such that a strike against the dense wrist bone will do less damage. But, as we have seen via Dr Shaw, the Connally strike was "slightly tumbling" or, more likely, a tangential hit. Lattimer is also extremely vague as to what exactly served as the wrist bone in his experiment. He is also extremely vague as to whether the damage done to his model matched in any way the damage suffered by Connally - five punctures, shattered rib bone, shattered radial bone in wrist. His test was more interested in matching the "lapel flap" seen in frame 224 of the Zapruder film, which most lone gunman theorists claim is the instant of the Single Bullet - except Wm Seger, who insists that any such determination is entirely unscientific and not "credible". Lattimer's lapel flap recreation is entirely based on a tumbling bullet of a greater magnitude than "slightly", which was the observation and measurement of Dr Shaw.

This "tumbling bullet" of a greater magnitude than Dr Shaw's "slightly" was also the heart of your argument in the previous post. So what's that about credibility?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #98)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 05:17 PM

112. Good grief

Sorry, I missed this post Sunday night.

> "5) Bullet CE399,based on the above points in total, HAD to have been inside Governor Connally's body on 11/22/63".

> Really? Even as 1) no one saw it come out


Yes, I believe what von Pein is saying is that if you cannot disprove any of the previous points, then even if no one saw it come out, we can deduce that the bullet was in Connally that day. Of course, that would be a conclusion, and since you did only ask for "facts" feel free to discount that one. But you can't refute any of the previous points by just saying no one saw it come out.

> 2) Dr Shaw said at a 3 PM press conference that a bullet remained in Connally's leg at that time (an hour or more after CE399 was said to have been discovered)

If Shaw knew that nothing had been done to remove the bullet, then it would be reasonable for him to assume it was still in the leg, wouldn't it?

> 3) the nation's top ballistics expert insisted that CE399 could not be the bullet which struck Connally's wrist.

So of course, he's the one who is right and all the others are wrong, huh? But here's a rather curious thing: The reason that many people, including Shaw and Gregory, doubted that CE399 caused all of Connally's wounds (which was because they would have expected the bullet to show more damage) actually supports the single bullet theory! That's because they are probably right that it would have been more damaged if it had directly entered Connally's back without slowing down first. That is to say, conspiracists have it backwards: What we now know from Lattimer's and other tests is that the faster the bullet was traveling when it hit the wrist, the more damage there would have been to the bullet. But if the bullet was slowed down enough before it hit the wrist, it could still have enough energy to break the wrist with minimal damage to the bullet. So CE399 is consistent with the SBT, i.e. the additional slowing came from passing through JFK's neck, whereas a direct hit on Connally would be expected to produce a more damaged bullet.

> But Dr Shaw himself testified to the Warren Commission that the bullet was either "slightly tumbling" or, more likely, was a tangential hit.

And other expert opinions that the bullet was just "slightly tumbling" can be ruled out because... ?

> By the way, the wound in Kennedy's back was too low to support the single-bullet theory in any way.

Sez you. Prove it.

> Lattimer claims that " lead extruded from the rear" of both bullets, but the extruding lead he claims to see in CE399 was actually the place where the FBI scraped lead for their lab tests.

Answered elsewhere: It was lead extruded by the flattening of the bullet and the site of the samples, and the presumed source of the Connally fragments (which is consistent with the NAA analysis); none of which have you disproved.

> He is also dependent on a "tumbling" bullet as a primary factor of his test - which is crucial in reducing the velocity of the bullet such that a strike against the dense wrist bone will do less damage.

Correct, and you still fail to understand the purpose of the experiment: It was not to prove the SBT, but rather to demonstrate that the SBT was possible -- which it did -- which directly contradicts the claim that the SBT didn't happen because it was impossible. Please mull that over before continuing this line.

> His test was more interested in matching the "lapel flap" seen in frame 224 of the Zapruder film, which most lone gunman theorists claim is the instant of the Single Bullet - except Wm Seger, who insists that any such determination is entirely unscientific and not "credible".

What I insist is that such opinion, or even consensus of opinion among whatever arbitrary group you care to name, cannot be promoted to be a "fact" and then use that "fact" plus another such "fact" to "prove" there was a second gunman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #112)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 12:41 AM

113. reply to #112

"Wm Seger", is it more amusing that you continue to maroon yourself on an island of illogical contradiction or that you are so blissfully unaware of your own predicament?

I mean really - John Connally's head surgeon says the bullet was still in his leg and you say: "he made an assumption". The armed forces' top ballistics expert, their esteemed go-to guy, makes an expert opinion based on a series of careful exacting tests and you say: "he doesn't know what he's talking about". When does this become a version of the Monty Python Argument Sketch? Do you realize what you are saying?

For that matter - and this is why I've bothered to reply - do you even understand the concepts which you yourself have introduced? You presented the notion of a "tumbling bullet" as part of your defense of the single bullet theory, and when faced with a reasonable critique, you have doubled down without realizing that you are undermining your own premise.

"if the bullet was slowed down enough before it hit the wrist, it could still have enough energy to break the wrist with minimal damage to the bullet…"

But this theory - which was advanced by people like Lattimer and Guinn - is entirely dependent on the notion of a "tumbling bullet", and not simply that it (allegedly) went through Kennedy's neck. That is, the bullet HAS to tumble to achieve the required diminishing velocity. "Slightly tumbling" doesn't cut it. That's why Guinn seized on the incorrect measurements. That was the big claim that Lattimer made with his experiment that you are so fond of - it, in his mind, established a tumbling bullet and in turn a reduction in velocity. Except, of course, as Dr Shaw noted, Connally's actual wound was consistent with "slight tumbling" at best (and Shaw felt, based on all the information, a tangential strike was the best explanation and so there probably was no tumbling at all).

Do you not understand that you cannot prove anything without properly recreating the actual conditions of the phenomenon you are trying to quantify?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #113)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 03:07 AM

114. More baloney? No thanks

> I mean really - John Connally's head surgeon says the bullet was still in his leg and you say: "he made an assumption". The armed forces' top ballistics expert, their esteemed go-to guy, makes an expert opinion based on a series of careful exacting tests and you say: "he doesn't know what he's talking about". When does this become a version of the Monty Python Argument Sketch? Do you realize what you are saying?

Oh, yes, I realize exactly what I'm saying and what you are attempting to dodge: Yes, I'm saying Shaw could easily have been wrong that the bullet was still in Connally's leg, so I will not let you claim that as a "fact." Yes, I'm saying that even the "armed forces' top ballistics expert" could easily be wrong about how the bullet entered Connally's back (especially since other experts conclude it did hit at some pitched angle) so I will not let you claim that as a "fact."

I'm saying you are failing to prove the premises you want to use for your reasoning, and time after time, it's the same thing with you. This is like the argument that if Garner doesn't recall seeing Oswald, that means Oswald wasn't there. It's like the argument that if someone thinks they see JFK and Connally reacting at different times in the Z film, that means they were hit with different bullets. If you really don't understand why this kind of reasoning is unsound, I doubt I can help, but oh yes, I realize what I am saying.

> Do you not understand that you cannot prove anything without properly recreating the actual conditions of the phenomenon you are trying to quantify?

Allow me to repeat: "(The purpose of the experiment) was not to prove the SBT, but rather to demonstrate that the SBT was possible -- which it did -- which directly contradicts the claim that the SBT didn't happen because it was impossible."

It isn't possible, even in theory, to "prove" the SBT or any other theory. In fact, the purpose of a properly designed scientific experiment should always be to disprove some hypothesis. In this case, it is possible for experiments to disprove the hypothesis that the so-called "pristine" condition of CE399 is impossible after breaking Connally's wrist. Lattimer's tests and others have demonstrated that is not only possible, but expected if a slowed-down bullet is tumbling.

Please address the point or concede it: If conspiracists want to continue claiming that CE399 is an "impossible" result of the SBT, so the SBT must be false, then THEY are the ones with a burden of proof: Prove either that Lattimer is wrong and bullets like CE399 cannot be produced under any conditions, or prove that the conditions under which a bullet like CE399 could be produced did not exist in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #114)

Wed Apr 10, 2013, 02:59 PM

116. reply to #114

"Wm Seger", I think it has been adequately demonstrated that if LHO had been taken to trial the case would have been thrown out within a few hours. J Edgar Hoover told LBJ on the Saturday that the case against Oswald "was not very strong". Dallas Police Chief Curry later admitted that they never could place Oswald on the sixth floor with a rifle in his hand. You are now trying to invert the basic legal foundation of innocent until proven guilty by insisting that the defence, in this case, has the burden of proof. This is after you have pronounced that deriving a "story" is more important than establishing the truth.

"Prove either that Lattimer is wrong and bullets like CE399 cannot be produced under any conditions, or prove that the conditions under which a bullet like CE399 could be produced did not exist in this case. "

The Lattimer test is meaningless because his concepts depend on a "tumbling bullet", and we know from Connally's expert surgeon and his precise measurements of the entry wound that the bullet was not acting in the required way. So, once again, what this means is that no matter what the Lattimer test showed or what you think it showed, it is nonetheless irrelevant because the facts of Connally's wound do not support the corresponding assumptions. Which is the proof - one point of many - that the conditions did not in fact exist. I think this is the third or fourth time this basic point has had to be made.

Besides, Connally's surgeon Dr Shaw stated several times - clearly and unambiguously - at a press conference at 3PM CST November 22, 1963 that a bullet remained in John Connally's leg, and this was an hour or more after CE399 was supposedly found on a stretcher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #116)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 09:29 AM

122. Here we go 'round the mulberry bush

> "Wm Seger", I think it has been adequately demonstrated that if LHO had been taken to trial the case would have been thrown out within a few hours.

And I think that's a bunch of hooey, based on the WC investigation and the HSCA investigation that conspiracists brought about because they wanted a different conclusion. I believe Oswald would have easily been convicted. So there.

> This is after you have pronounced that deriving a "story" is more important than establishing the truth.

"Truth" is it the province of mathematicians, and what religious fanatics and conspiracists call "truth" is a piss-poor substitute. When trying to figure out what happened in Dealey Plaza, the rest of us don't have much choice but to do the best we can using evidence-based reasoning. Recognizing the potential problems with that, the confidence in the "story" so derived might range from "pretty damned sure" to "not sure but if I had to bet on it..." I'm pretty damned sure Oswald shot JFK, but I'm much less sure that there weren't others involved. However, lacking concrete evidence of that -- specifically, lacking credible evidence that can only be explained by a second shooter -- I'll continue to call that "speculation," since that's what the word means, regardless of how cock-sure you are that it's the "truth." Please don't inflict your fuzzy definitions on things I say.

> "Prove either that Lattimer is wrong and bullets like CE399 cannot be produced under any conditions, or prove that the conditions under which a bullet like CE399 could be produced did not exist in this case. "

The Lattimer test is meaningless because his concepts depend on a "tumbling bullet", and we know from Connally's expert surgeon and his precise measurements of the entry wound that the bullet was not acting in the required way. So, once again, what this means is that no matter what the Lattimer test showed or what you think it showed, it is nonetheless irrelevant because the facts of Connally's wound do not support the corresponding assumptions. Which is the proof - one point of many - that the conditions did not in fact exist. I think this is the third or fourth time this basic point has had to be made.


"Proof by assertion" and "assuming the consequent" are thoroughly inadequate responses to my request, but I don't expect you to stop to consider why that's the best you can do.

Besides, Connally's surgeon Dr Shaw stated several times - clearly and unambiguously - at a press conference at 3PM CST November 22, 1963 that a bullet remained in John Connally's leg, and this was an hour or more after CE399 was supposedly found on a stretcher.

Again, if no one had done anything to remove the bullet -- due to more urgent issues like the hole through his lung! -- why would he not assume it was still in there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #122)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 06:02 PM

130. reply to #122

""Proof by assertion" and "assuming the consequent" are thoroughly inadequate responses..."

Um... Dr Shaw's measurements of the Connally back entry wound is not an "assertion". Dr Shaw also discussed what these measurements meant, which is not an "assumption". Lattimer's experiment does not replicate the actual conditions and is thus meaningless.

"if no one had done anything to remove the bullet -- due to more urgent issues like the hole through his lung! -- why would he not assume it was still in there?"

Dr Shires, also at the press conference, also affirmed the bullet was in the leg. Why do you assume that experienced medical personnel would be prone to making assumptions?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #130)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:19 PM

132. Thanks for the video

> Um... Dr Shaw's measurements of the Connally back entry wound is not an "assertion".

Um... correct, that measurement is a (presumed) "fact." The "assertion" is yours: that his "opinion" of the entry angle is a "fact" (even though he didn't seem to be nearly so certain about that as you, and even though you're given no reason to discount the contrary opinions of ballistic experts).

> Dr Shaw also discussed what these measurements meant, which is not an "assumption".

Correct again -- two in a row! -- that would be the "opinion" I mentioned. The "assumption" I'm talking about is again yours: that Shaw is a doctor so his opinion is a fact, the beloved logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority." But you use this assumption as the "reason" for your assertion.

> Lattimer's experiment does not replicate the actual conditions and is thus meaningless.

You can keep saying that if you like, but one possible reason for not understanding what the experiments demonstrated could be your apparent refusal to understand the purpose of the experiments in the first place. Nonetheless, I do believe that when a rational person evaluates conspiracists' claim that CE399 is "impossible" so there must have been a second shooter, then Lattimer's experiments are quite meaningful to anyone wanting an honest answer.

> Dr Shires, also at the press conference, also affirmed the bullet was in the leg. Why do you assume that experienced medical personnel would be prone to making assumptions?

Wow, you found a video that proves my point and you posted it anyway! What a sport! Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #132)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 05:22 AM

137. reply to #132

"The "assertion" is yours: that his "opinion" of the entry angle is a "fact".."

Shaw discussed the wound as a physician should: not presenting an opinion but describing the wound and then describing how the wound could be explained. For the latter, he said there were two possibilities: that a bullet was "slightly tumbling", or that the wound was a tangential strike. Once again - that is not an opinion, that is a description. He went on to describe other features of the wound which would support an understanding of the wound as tangential. This included the track of the bullet to the rib and the damage done to the rib. Stated another way, Dr Shaw, looking at Connally's back entry wound isolated from all other information, could say there were two possible explanations for the features of this wound. But bringing in the other information, he could, based on that specific information, say one of the two explanations was more likely if not probable. And that explanation was a tangential strike.

In all recreations, a tumbling bullet created far more extensive damage to the rib cage than with Connally.

There are no contrary opinions of ballistic experts that have been introduced in this thread. There are no other medical conclusions which contradict Dr Shaw. There are theories of a "tumbling bullet" which are used to support the Single Bullet Theory, but these theories are either based on a misreading of Shaw's measurements, or do not bother to refer to Connally's wounds at all. The Lattimer test is in the latter category.

The Lattimer experiment did not duplicate the actual conditions it is meant to demonstrate and so is effectively meaningless. There is no "honesty" involved.

"Wow, you found a video that proves my point and you posted it anyway!"

Dr Shaw (approx 5 min): The bullet is in the leg, it hasn't been removed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #137)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 03:35 PM

140. Pointless repetition

... but your convoluted attempt to promote Shaw's opinion to be fact is at least humorous.

And just as I said, nothing had been done to remove the bullet because they had far more urgent issues with the chest, so there was nothing unusual about anyone assuming it was still in there. But when they later went to remove it, there was nothing there. I don't suppose you realize it, but that fact torpedoes the argument that you are trying to make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #140)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 09:29 PM

142. reply to #140

" that fact torpedoes the argument that you are trying to make."

What fact? You've made an assumption with nothing to support it other than your own imagination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #142)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:55 AM

144. "What fact?"

The fact that when the doctors went to remove the bullet from the wound, it wasn't there. You're saying that Shaw didn't just assume the bullet was still there, he knew it was, so it must have disappeared before he could remove it. It's really ironic that conspiracists call the SBT a "magic bullet" but then imagine disappearing bullets all over the place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #144)

Sun Apr 21, 2013, 06:04 PM

147. reply to #144

Nurse Audrey Bell retrieved a bullet or bullet fragment from the scene of Connally's surgery and it was identified as coming from Connally's thigh. It was put in a small envelope and handed to Dallas Police officer Bobby Nolan. Nolan handed this to DP Captain Fritz on the evening of the assassination shortly before 8 PM (the "magic bullet CE399 was already in Washington at that time). An FBI report written the next day discusses an interview with Nolan regarding "a bullet fragment removed from the left thigh of Governor Connally".

Nurse Bell also handled four fragments taken from Connally's wrist. (these fragments alone make the Single Bullet Theory a non-starter). Bell passed these to an FBI agent.

The FBI, apparently in an attempt to make the bullet or bullet fragment from Connally's thigh disappear, later claimed that Bell passed the fragments ( now reported by the FBI as a single fragment) to Officer Nolan - thus, according to the FBI, a bullet or fragment removed from Connally's thigh was actually a single fragment from his wrist and it was simply a case of confusion or mistake. But there was no mistake, as analysis of the evidence reveals: a bullet or bullet fragment was retrieved from Connally's thigh at Parklands Hospital.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #147)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:45 AM

148. Yeaaaaaah, THAT'S the ticket

... except of course that neither Bell nor anyone else ever said there was a bullet removed from the thigh wound.

According to the physician who attended to the thigh wound, Shires:

Date: 11-22-63
Pre-Operative Diagnosis: Gunshot Wound, Right Chest, Right Wrist, Left Thigh
Post-Operative Diagnosis: Same
Operation: Exploration and Debridement of Gunshot Wound of Left Thigh. This portion of the operation is involved only with the operation on the left thigh. The chest injury has been dictated by Dr. Shaw, the orthopedic injury to the arm by Dr. Gregory.
Began: 16:00 Ended: 16:20
Anesthetic: General Began: 13:00
Anesthesiologist: Giesecke
Surgeon: Dr. Shires

Assistants: Drs. McClelland, Baxter, and Patmen
Scrub Nurse: Oliver
Circ. Nurse: Deming and Schroeder
Sponge Counts: 1st Correct, PS

Notes:
There was a 1 cm. punctate missile wound over the juncture of the middle and lower third, medial aspect, of the left thigh. X-rays of the thigh and leg revealed a bullet fragment which was imbedded in the body of the femur in the distal third. The leg was prepared with Phisohex and I. O. Prep and was draped in the usual fashion.

Following this the missile wound was excised and the bullet tract was explored. The missile wound was seen to course through the subcutaneous fat and into the vastus medialis. The necrotic fat and muscle were debrided down to the region of the femur. The direction of the missile wound was judged not to be in the course of the femoral vessal, since the wound was distal and anterior to Hunter's canal. Following complete debridement of the wound and irrigation with saline, the wound was felt to be adequately debrided enough so that three simple through-and through, stainless steel Aloe #28 wire sutures were used encompassing skin, subcutaneous tissue, and muscle fascia on both sides. Following this a sterile dressing was applied. The dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial pulses in both legs were quite good. The thoracic procedure had been completed at this time, the debridement of the compound fracture in the arm was still in progress at the time this soft tissue injury repair was completed.


Apparently, Bell was under the impression that one of the tiny fragments she gave Nolan was from the thigh wound -- i.e. the tiny fragment seen in an X-ray -- but there is no record that that fragment was actually removed. Bell was not in a position to have direct knowledge of whether or not it was, so she may have simply assumed it was. Perhaps it was, but trying to claim it was anything near a whole bullet is beyond disingenuous, and I have think you know that.

Once again, when challenged to prove any claim that would be conclusive of a conspiracy, if you respond at all, you seem to think bullshit is an adequate substitute. No, it is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #148)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 03:59 AM

149. reply to #148

Both Dr Shaw and Dr Shires at the press conference reported the bullet was still in Connally's leg. The evidence for this was seen in the x-ray as referred to in the post-operative notes: "X-rays of the thigh and leg revealed a bullet fragment which was imbedded in the body of the femur in the distal third". The notes do not say "tiny fragment", or describe the fragment at all. The doctors would have no basis to say the bullet was still in Connally's leg if the x-rays showed only a "tiny fragment".

Your argument is based on what you think Nurse Bell was "apparently" of "impression", based on your assertion that she was "not in a position to have direct knowledge", but, for a guy throwing terms like "bullshit" around, you don't know jack shit.

For anyone who actually is interested, this article contains enough documentary evidence to put any of "Wm Seger"'s lame rejoinders to shame:
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #149)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 06:43 AM

151. But it IS bullshit, isn't it

Spin this:

(409) Dr. Reynolds' report on Governor Connally's X-rays describes
the X-ray of the left femur and left lower leg:

Film of the shaft of the left femur and of the left lower leg
reveals no fracture in this area. A tiny metallic fragment is
seen in the lower medial aspect of the thigh, in the subcuta-
neous fat. (82)

{Emphasis added}

And for anyone actually interested, make your own judgment about how "tiny":



So which is it, "arguille": Do you not know "jackshit" about the fragment, or are you being deliberately disingenuous?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #151)

Thu Apr 25, 2013, 11:18 PM

153. reply to #151

Thank you for pointing out there was another fragment, albeit small, to join the four fragments taken from Connally's wrist and the other fragment - described as a "bullet" - which dropped or was removed from Connally's thigh. All the more reason that CE399, the "magic bullet", is such an impossible proposition. These fragments also serve as supporting evidence for the findings of Dolce at the Edgewood Arsenal - that any bullet making contact with a wrist bone, as with Connally, always became smashed and scattered fragments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #153)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:00 AM

156. LMAO

> ... and the other fragment - described as a "bullet" - which dropped or was removed from Connally's thigh.

But this "other fragment" appears to be a fragment of your imagination.

> All the more reason that CE399, the "magic bullet", is such an impossible proposition.

What's been very well established is that you have absolutely no sound evidence or logical reason that CE399 is "an impossible proposition." CE399 weighs about 2.2 grains less than the average for that ammo, and the known fragments weigh less than that, regardless of what conspiracy crackpots claim. The elegant visual proof of that comes from another of Lattimer's experiments, cutting 2.1 grains of lead into forty-one slices approximately the size of the fragment in Connally's thigh:

?t=1276378190

> These fragments also serve as supporting evidence for the findings of Dolce at the Edgewood Arsenal - that any bullet making contact with a wrist bone, as with Connally, always became smashed and scattered fragments.

And the Lattimer experiments prove that that doesn't happen if the bullet has been slowed down first and strikes the bone sideways rather than hitting nose first at high speed. It really doesn't matter that you don't understand the significance of that experiment, but nonetheless it gives the lie to your "impossible" claim.

You've got nothing, but you keep posting.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #156)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 04:37 PM

158. reply to #156

"Wm Seger", your feats of argumentation are becoming legendary. While discussing ballistic science you manage to dig a ditch and stand in it, while here you are content to contort yourself into an ever elaborate pretzel.

"this "other fragment" appears to be a fragment of your imagination"

Numerous witnesses discuss a "bullet", or a fragment large enough to be described as a bullet, and associate it with Connally's thigh. These descriptions occur long after CE399 was supposedly already found.

"you have absolutely no sound evidence or logical reason that CE399 is "an impossible proposition."

The Single Bullet Theory can be shown to be inoperable in dozens of different ways. That alone serves as a "logical" reason. An evidentiary basis is provided by, but not limited to, the bullet itself - whereby no properly conducted experiments have ever come close to reproducing the condition of the bullet after doing the damaged it is alleged to have done.

To counter this rather obvious point, you have offered experiments conducted by J Edgar Hoover's urologist - experiments which cannot be reproduced and which were undertaken with the desired results already formulated. In the latest experiment, in all its "elegance", Lattimer once again makes the assertion that CE399 had "extruded lead" at its base, even as it has been established and accepted that this alleged extrusion was the result of scraping the bullet for samples at the FBI lab.So much for the authority of your "expert".

"the Lattimer experiments prove that that doesn't happen if the bullet has been slowed down first and strikes the bone sideways rather than hitting nose first at high speed."

Except in order to get the bullet slowed down enough, Lattimer requires it to exhibit behaviour which did not actually happen during the actual case. And that's why Lattimer's experiments are meaningless.

Although you don't seem to realize it, you arguments are now amounting to this formulation: if the actual evidence was different and more favourable to the SBT, then it could be said that the SBT is not impossible and therefore that proves the SBT.

And that is a long way from the arrogant and dismissive pose by which you first hijacked the thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #158)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 08:56 PM

160. In other words, you have absolutely no sound evidence or logical reason

... that CE399 is "an impossible proposition." If you're just going to repeat yourself, so will I. When given yet another opportunity to prove otherwise, once again all you have are the same hand-waving assertions and ass-backwards "logic" such as:

> The Single Bullet Theory can be shown to be inoperable in dozens of different ways. That alone serves as a "logical" reason.

In other words, the SBT has been disproved because it's been disproved.

> An evidentiary basis is provided by, but not limited to, the bullet itself - whereby no properly conducted experiments have ever come close to reproducing the condition of the bullet after doing the damaged it is alleged to have done.

In other words, the experiments that DID "come close to reproducing the condition of the bullet after doing the damaged it is alleged to have done" must not have been "properly conducted."

> In the latest experiment, in all its "elegance", Lattimer once again makes the assertion that CE399 had "extruded lead" at its base...

It's not an "assertion" that CE399 has extruded lead from its base; it's a simple observation (a.k.a. a "fact"), and it's easily explained by the further observation that the copper casing has been partially flattened. Perhaps you need to look up the word "extrude." After you've done that, if you still don't think lead will be extruded if the case is partially flattened, then I'd really like you to explain how extrusion could be avoided if the volume of the casing has been reduced by the flattening.

> ... even as it has been established and accepted that this alleged extrusion was the result of scraping the bullet for samples at the FBI lab.

Ignoring your confusion about what "extruded" means and the silliness of claiming it was the "result of scraping the bullet," what's been "established and accepted" is that the weight of CE399 BEFORE the samples were taken was about 2.2 grains less than the average for that ammo, and the known fragments almost certainly weigh less than that. Making ridiculously exaggerated guesses about what those tiny fragments weigh and declaring that the there must be more fragments, somewhere, don't change what's been "established and accepted."

> So much for the authority of your "expert".



> Except in order to get the bullet slowed down enough, Lattimer requires it to exhibit behaviour which did not actually happen during the actual case.

In other words, it didn't happen that way because it didn't happen that way.

> Although you don't seem to realize it, you arguments are now amounting to this formulation: if the actual evidence was different and more favourable to the SBT, then it could be said that the SBT is not impossible and therefore that proves the SBT.

Bullshit. What I realized many posts ago was that you simply don't understand any of my arguments, but I'm pretty sure that I haven't stated them so poorly as to justify that gross distortion. Starting from the end, I have never argued that anything "proves the SBT," since that isn't possible except perhaps in the legal sense of "beyond reasonable doubt." What I have argued is that it is the best theory that's been offered to account for the credible evidence (as well as the lack of evidence for any other theory), and we don't need any theory to explain completely imaginary evidence such as additional bullet fragments and an upward path through JFK's neck. I have argued that if the SBT isn't correct, however, then it should be possible to disprove it, as JFK conspiracists have attempted for 45 years, and so far, all you've got is bullshit like the above attempts to blow smoke up people's asses.

That means that (A) you haven't disproved the SBT, and more importantly (B) you haven't offered a better theory. Instead, after blathering endlessly about the SBT being a "magic" bullet, conspiracists propose alternate explanations involving all sorts of disappearing bullets and impossible trajectories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #160)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:07 PM

161. reply to #160

What an appropriately lawyer-esque position to take - "if the SBT isn't correct, however, then it should be possible to disprove it" - as it inverts common legal and scientific principles by insisting that the hypothesis must be proven incorrect, rather than the hypothesis should be proven. This is, of course, the gist of the Warren Commission's findings, though they never did say it outright. The Warren Commission never claimed the SBT was settled; instead it disingenuously claimed that the SBT was not germane to its conclusions - although it was actually central to its conclusions. Warren Commission member Richard Russell saw the SBT for the steaming pile of nonsense it was and insisted that his dissension be in the record. Chief Justice Warren promised that it would be, but it wasn't. The Warren Commission left the defines of the SBT to media assets, supported over time by a small but vocal coterie of lone-nut propagandists.

As a hypothesis, the SBT runs aground with issues like: JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets (as seen in Zapruder films supported by eyewitness accounts); the wound in Kennedy's back is too low; the trajectory doesn't work; Kennedy's wound was never tracked; the damage to Kennedy is not consistent with a passing high-velocity bullet; a bullet or large fragment was retrieved in Connally's hospital room long after CE399 found; FBI receives CE399 before it was actually handed over; ballistics tests show bullet would have been visibly deformed after striking Connally's wrist; Parkland doctors say throat wound was of entry.

The above is just off the top of my head. Any hypothesis which starts from a position as challenged and unlikely (if not impossible) as the SBT, is an extreme fringe concept. And yet, it was presented as the central vital event to support the lone assassin finding. This is why the WC is consistently rejected by a large plurality of the people, and has been for decades.

Why persons like "wm Seger" feel it necessary, almost 50 years after the fact, to not only argue an extreme fringe concept, but to do so arrogantly and aggressively, all the while inverting basic legal and scientific concepts by insisting that the flawed hypothesis must be proven wrong or that the burden of proof requires a competing hypothesis - why they insist on doing this one can only guess. The term "crackpot" might come to mind, but I wouldn't want to drag this forum down into the mud because "wm sever" has already staked that territory out for himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #161)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:53 PM

162. 'Round the barn again

> What an appropriately lawyer-esque position to take - "if the SBT isn't correct, however, then it should be possible to disprove it" - as it inverts common legal and scientific principles by insisting that the hypothesis must be proven incorrect, rather than the hypothesis should be proven

Uh... no, that's exactly backwards, like most of your logic. In science, theories are never considered to be "proved," but they can be disproved. A properly constructed hypothesis must be falsifiable, and a properly designed scientific experiment must have the potential to falsify a prediction of the hypothesis, or it's a worthless experiment. If it does not falsify the hypothesis (and the results can be replicated), then the results are said to "support" the hypothesis in the inductive sense, not to "prove" it in the deductive sense, because that isn't logically possible. However, if replicated results do not match the predictions of the hypothesis, then it's considered to be disproved and can be discarded. It's revealing that a conspiracist doesn't understand this principle; it may be a defining characteristic.

Neither the SBT nor any competing theory can be "proved." However, they can be disproved by the evidence. For example, the hypothesis that the shot that hit JFK's back was at an upward trajectory is disproved by the autopsy photos we've already discussed.



On the other hand, the clear downward trajectory of the bullet path and the relative positions of JFK and Connally -- i.e. the trajectory points straight at Connally's back -- means that this evidence "supports" the SBT.

> JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets (as seen in Zapruder films supported by eyewitness accounts);

It's just a lie to claim that the hits can be "seen" in the Zapruder films, and guesses are not facts. Neither are individual perceptions during those chaotic seconds. Connally thought he was hit by a second shot, but that was based simply on an assumption that the first shot hit JFK. And actually, perhaps it did: This entire line of argument tries to imply that if there really were two separate shots, then there must have been a second shooter. But that invalid logic is based on the dubious assumption that what conspiracists' think they "see" in the Zapruder film -- hits about a second apart -- is correct. If instead the hits were really 3 or 4 seconds apart (as the "ear-witnesses" said!), then both shots could have both been fired by Oswald. As the WC report said, the SBT is not really necessary for their conclusions.

> the wound in Kennedy's back is too low;

No, it isn't, as seen in the photo above, which trumps the drawings and ambiguous verbal descriptions.

> the trajectory doesn't work;

Abject bullshit. It's been repeatedly demonstrated that the trajectory is completely consistent with a single bullet fired from where a shooter was observed firing at the limo.

> Kennedy's wound was never tracked;

Nonsense. There's an entry wound on the back, a nick on the C6 vertebra, and an exit wound on the throat. I'd call that a pretty clear track. What you're trying to say is that the back wound was only probed to a short distance, and the reason for that is stated in the autopsy report -- the muscle had tightened around the wound -- and since the X-rays showed no bullet, there was no need to probe the wound any deeper.

> the damage to Kennedy is not consistent with a passing high-velocity bullet;

That hardly makes enough sense to comment on except to say that it's another hand-waving assertion or abject nonsense, or both. I'd say a hole all the way through his body is pretty consistent with a passing high-velocity bullet.

> a bullet or large fragment was retrieved in Connally's hospital room long after CE399 found;

Sez you, but there is absolutely no evidence of it. On the other hand, the X-ray shows what was in his leg -- a tiny fragment -- and the doctor who attended to that wound made no mention of your imaginary bullet. Thus, the evidence we actually have supports the SBT, whereas there is no real evidence of another bullet.

> FBI receives CE399 before it was actually handed over;

does that mean? Before your imaginary bullet was "handed over?" Actually, this line of "reasoning" simply illustrates how implausible it is that CE399 was planted, when the alleged planter couldn't have possibly known that an "extra" bullet wasn't going to turn up in Connally's body and reveal the hoax. Actually, "implausible" is an understatement.

> ballistics tests show bullet would have been visibly deformed after striking Connally's wrist;

But you blithely declare that the tests the DO show similar deformation were "not properly conducted." Again, for the benefit of anyone who missed it: The Lattimer tests showed that if the bullet had been slowed down first and hit sideways, then it could break the wrist bone and come out looking like CE399. Your repeated hand-waving assertions that that's not what happened are completely baseless as well as being illogical: A slowed-down, tumbling bullet is exactly what would be expected. If the purpose of the experiment was to test the SBT -- e.g. what might happen to a bullet that had already passed through JFK's neck and Connally's torso -- then it's the experiments where a bone was directly hit with a bullet at full speed that was "not properly conducted." In view of the experimental evidence, the minimal damage to CE399, therefore, actually supports the SBT.

> Parkland doctors say throat wound was of entry.

And as they themselves said, they supposed that based strictly on the small size of the wound, which is easily explained by the fact that the bullet exited right at a buttoned shirt collar and tied necktie. Those doctors were apparently not even aware of the back wound, which is clearly an entry wound, and the "theory" that both are entry wounds caused by disappearing bullets is... um, highly implausible.

> The above is just off the top of my head.

Exactly the problem.

> Any hypothesis which starts from a position as challenged and unlikely (if not impossible) as the SBT, is an extreme fringe concept.

That's a bold statement from who has just demonstrated the factual distortions and logical contortions necessary to cast any doubt on it, and then you completely dodge the real issue, which is that you have utterly failed to offer a better theory that actually conforms to the evidence we actually have.

> Why persons like "wm Seger" feel it necessary, almost 50 years after the fact, to not only argue an extreme fringe concept, but to do so arrogantly and aggressively, all the while inverting basic legal and scientific concepts by insisting that the flawed hypothesis must be proven wrong or that the burden of proof requires a competing hypothesis - why they insist on doing this one can only guess.

You're just not paying attention: It's because after 50 years, the SBT is still the theory that best fits the evidence -- perfectly in accordance with "legal concepts" -- and I'm not swayed by hand-waving assertions, imaginary evidence, fuzzy thinking, or your upside-down notion of scientific concepts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #162)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 05:09 PM

165. reply to #162

Here it is the year 2013 and you are spending some portion of your day defending the Single Bullet Theory. What's next? The sun actually revolves around the Earth? That's common sense too.

"Nonsense. There's an entry wound on the back, a nick on the C6 vertebra, and an exit wound on the throat. I'd call that a pretty clear track."
Your interpretation has no medical-legal foundation. There is a routine understood procedure for forensic pathologists to track a wound and it was not done. Dr Finck was confronted on this point and was forced to admit the autopsy doctors were ordered not to track the wound - as was their professional responsibility - and this order came from a ranking military official.

"I'd say a hole all the way through his body is pretty consistent with a passing high-velocity bullet."
There is no evidence to show a "hole passing all the way through his body". Medical literature studying gunshot wounds which do pass through, especially in the neck area, describes damage in much greater severity than was found with JFK. Mannlicher-Carcano weapons in particular, as described in medical literature, create "shredding" "tearing" injuries in a fairly wide cone around the path. Nothing like that damage is seen or was noted.

FBI records show that CE399 was received in Washington about 90 minutes before the Secret Service guy who carried the bullet handed it over.

"The Lattimer tests showed that if the bullet had been slowed down first and hit sideways, then it could break the wrist bone and come out looking like CE399...A slowed-down, tumbling bullet is exactly what would be expected..."
Except the entry wound in Connally's back does not support the notion of a tumbling bullet and so it doesn't matter what Lattimer's experiments showed. Lattimer was also vague as to how he set up and achieved his results, and he does not address the fact that all the Mannlicher-Carcano bullets involved in the Edgewood Arsenal tests were deformed at the head of the bullet after striking bone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #165)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 07:28 PM

167. How about this:

Repeating myself is getting tiresome. It would really help if you would pick any one claim that you think would actually be conclusive of a conspiracy, and then actually substantiate it, and then actually state the argument that you think can be based on that claim. Instead of that, we get more of this stuff:

> There is a routine understood procedure for forensic pathologists to track a wound and it was not done.

(A) You have demonstrated no such "understood procedure," and (B) you have not even attempted any logical argument for why that indicates a conspiracy, anyway. No doubt, the autopsy would have been done much differently if the doctors had anticipated the rise of conspiracy crackpottery, but I can understand why that thought apparently didn't occur to them at the time. The fundamental purpose of an autopsy is to determine the cause of death, and there really wasn't any doubt whatsoever about that.

> There is no evidence to show a "hole passing all the way through his body".

Of course there is! There's an entrance wound in the back, a nick on the C6 vertebra, bruising of the top of the lung, and an exit wound at the throat. Now, do you claim magic disappearing bullets, or do you claim that one of the doctors simply punched holes in the body? Please provide your evidence with your answer.

> Medical literature studying gunshot wounds which do pass through, especially in the neck area, describes damage in much greater severity than was found with JFK. Mannlicher-Carcano weapons in particular, as described in medical literature, create "shredding" "tearing" injuries in a fairly wide cone around the path.

And again and again, no real attempt to substantiate your hand-waving assertions, and no attempt to make a logical argument from them, anyway. If you're trying to claim that this was not a wound caused by that guy who was observed shooting at the limo from the TSBD, then (A) what the hell do you claim it was, and (B) where is your evidence?

> FBI records show that CE399 was received in Washington about 90 minutes before the Secret Service guy who carried the bullet handed it over.

Conspiracy or no, that makes no sense whatsoever. A sane person would suspect that one (or both) of the times that you're comparing is wrong.

> Except the entry wound in Connally's back does not support the notion of a tumbling bullet and so it doesn't matter what Lattimer's experiments showed.

In the first place, yes, it does "support the notion of a tumbling bullet" since it was an "ellipsoid" wound 7mm x 15mm, and repeating your "appeal to authority" fallacy involving Shaw's opinion doesn't change that fact. In the second place, it doesn't really matter how it entered the back, since the issue is whether or not it was tumbling when it exited the torso and hit the wrist bone. Fail.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #26)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 01:49 AM

29. b) Fletcher Prouty worked at the Pentagon

> ... for years and interacted daily with Special Operations and CIA personnel. He can't be curtly dismissed, and he offers substantive reasons for his interpretation of Oswald's background: Atsugi, personal associations, etc

Well, I guess we disagree on what constitutes a "substantive reason," because I can't find any good reason (such as actual evidence) to accept Prouty's speculations as fact. Furthermore, even if Prouty were correct that Oswald was somehow involved with the CIA at some point, that doesn't imply that the CIA assassinated JFK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #29)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 01:59 PM

34. reply to #29

But the point is that the CIA consistently lied about Oswald. Richard Helms testified directly to the Warren Commission that the Agency had no relationship whatsoever with Oswald. The CIA completely controlled the aspects of the Warren Commissions inquiries that touched on their turf, including whitewashing the events in Mexico City. Why would they do that if nothing was amiss?

In the 1970s during the HSCA, the CIA appointed a man named George Joannides to serve as liason with the Committee - without revealing that he was the case officer for the Cuban exile group DRE, who were directly involved with Oswald during the intrigue in New Orleans. Another CIA man was caught breaking into a safe where autopsy materials were stored. A team of investigators finally worked out the Mexico City story, but their report was classified and unavailable to the public until the mid-1990s. The CIA continues to stonewall on document releases - particularly relating to Joannides.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #34)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 06:13 PM

40. And again, my point was...

... even if it were true that Oswald was involved somehow with the CIA (which is not necessarily implied by the CIA's secretiveness), that would not automatically imply that the CIA was in any way involved with the assassination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #40)

Sun Mar 24, 2013, 09:28 PM

44. reply to #40

Except they, at the very least, withheld information and lied to investigators during the murder investigation of a sitting president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #44)

Sun Mar 24, 2013, 10:45 PM

48. Yes, they lie a lot

They lie to conceal sensitive information, but they also lie to conceal illegal activity and fuck-ups and embarrassments. They could even be lying, still, about Oswald. However, if you're going to accuse someone of murder, you need evidence, not speculation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #48)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 01:48 PM

53. reply to #48

Lying to a congressional body is a serious criminal offense. Lying to a congressional body during an investigation concerning the murder of a sitting president is an extremely serious offense and it is surprising to see attempts to downplay or trivialize the issue.

At no point, in the videos or in this discussion have any accusations been made against any CIA agent or officer for the murder of JFK. That is your interpretation. Rather, the point being made is that a biography of the accused assassin was put together by the Warren Commission which specifically indicated that there was no relationship between Oswald and intelligence agencies of the US government - and that determination is expressly untrue. Senator Schweicker of the Church Committee said directly: "the fingerprints of intelligence are all over Oswald".

Intelligent and careful researchers have sifted through the information since the mandated AARB releases and filled in a lot of the picture. Authors such as Bugliosi, who offer prosecutor's briefs, take the Warren Commission at its word on this issue and so refuse to look closely at the information and encourage their readers to turn the same blind eye. You will eventually demand that Oswald's secret agent ID card be produced and without it any talk is useless, but that will be the demand of someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

The point is not that the CIA killed JFK - the point is that the intelligence agencies lied to conceal their relationships with Oswald and that the official biography is BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #53)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 11:39 PM

59. Well, if you think you can prove THAT, then...

... maybe that would be more worthy of your time than conspiracy fantasies. What lies are you accusing them of, please?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #59)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 01:17 AM

61. reply to #59

Two quick examples of CIA lies:

Richard Helms appeared before the Warren Commission and told them directly that the CIA had no interest in Oswald whatsoever and there was no information held by the CIA about Oswald. That is a lie. The CIA had a 201 file since 1960, plus there was all the material about Mexico City. Plus whatever else they got rid of.

The Mexico City office claimed that their surveillance equipment covering the Soviet embassy and Cuban Consulate - all of it - was inoperable during Oswald's alleged visits. They also claim that their phone taps were "routinely erased". Those are both lies, as the HSCA determined.

There is more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #61)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 09:43 AM

70. Which just goes to show...

... that what they were attempting to cover up was any hint of incompetence in their handling of Oswald.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #70)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 05:04 PM

77. reply to #70

You clearly do not know much about what happened in Mexico City.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #26)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 02:30 AM

30. c) Seger dismisses information on Oswald's history and background as unsubstantial

> even as the documentary evidence plays before him. The official story portrayed Oswald as a lone nut completely off the radar, and yet he defects to Russia at exactly the same time false defector programs are initiated by US intelligence agencies, and later Oswald appears in New Orleans to form a chapter of Fair Play for Cuba at exactly the same time as a counter-intelligence program targeting the FPCC is initiated. That's some coincidence.

But it becomes much less of a "coincidence" if there wasn't any "false defector program" in the first place. And once again, there's no "documentary evidence" to support that claim, much less that Oswald was part of it. On the other hand, there is evidence that they were interested in the FPCC, for obvious reasons, but having Oswald form a new chapter in which Oswald was the only known member doesn't seem very productive, does it. Was he just spying on himself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #30)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 02:15 PM

35. reply to #30

But there was a false defector program. The documents discussing exactly that are shown in the video. Specific operations were known as REDCAP and REDSKIN, for example. Oswald threatened to reveal classified information when he attempted to renounce his citizenship - and was posted on top-secret U2 bases as a Marine. Yet he was never investigated or placed under suspicion on his return - in fact, the State Department loaned him the money for his travel.

Same with the FPCC. Specific CIA documents describing the intent to disrupt the organization are shown in the video. Again, how does an unknown loser wind up twice in the right place at the right time relative to classified intelligence programs?

The Warren Commission accepted the word of the CIA and FBI that there were no operational links between Oswald and agencies of the government - but those agencies lied, as was determined by the investigations of the 1970s (Church Committee, HSCA). But all information relating to this was classified and would continue to be classified to this day if Oliver Stone didn't make "JFK".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #35)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 05:49 PM

39. "But there was a false defector program."

> The documents discussing exactly that are shown in the video. Specific operations were known as REDCAP and REDSKIN, for example

Really? Why is it then that the available documentation appears to say that REDCAP was a program to encourage Soviet defections, and REDSKIN was a project to use students and other visitors to the Soviet Union as spies -- nothing about false defector programs except unfounded speculations by certain conspiracists.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #39)

Sun Mar 24, 2013, 09:47 PM

45. reply to #39

In the body of a CIA document dated September 2, 1959, appearing in the video, and referred to in the Bill Simpich article on which the video is based:

"The efforts of the Clandestine Services against the Soviet target will be increased and expanded…Operations designed to monitor the activities of Soviet official personnel and installations (REDCAP)…Operations against the USSR proper…Included in this category are illegal operations mounted into the USSR (REDSOX)…" (illegal operations can be understood as including false defectors)

Oswald was on his way to the USSR within a few weeks of the above. The strange circumstances of his hardship discharge from the Marines, coupled with unlikely facts associated with his European trip, and furthered by the response of the US Embassy in Moscow - all contribute to an understanding that Oswald was involved in a covert mission.

Bill Simpich, by the way, is hardly a "conspiracist" offering "unfounded speculations". He is a careful researcher who thoroughly sources all of his information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #45)

Sun Mar 24, 2013, 11:23 PM

50. "illegal operations can be understood as including false defectors"

In other words, you're simply speculating that they did, despite having no evidence, and then piling on another speculation that Oswald was involved in it. And then, you don't even bother to explain why, even if both your speculations are correct, that would imply that the CIA was involved with the assassination.

It would probably sound better with a spooky one-note sound track. No, wait... it didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #50)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 02:03 PM

54. reply to #50

The Warren Commission held an executive session in late January 1964 to discuss rumours that Oswald was a paid informant for the FBI. Their concern wasn't that the FBI had been less than forthright, their concern was that if this information was ever confirmed or made public then a genie would be out of the bottle, so to speak, and the American people would expressly reject the lone gunman story and that the powers that be (the Commission, the FBI, the CIA) would lose the ability to control the shape of the investigation.

That goes for information that Oswald had a relationship with the CIA as well, or military intelligence, or any other other agency. Point being - the official story is predicated on Oswald being a lone nut who no one could predict would just snap one day, but that story depends on false or misleading information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #54)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 10:31 PM

57. Baloney. Here's a link to the minutes of that meeting

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10391&relPageId=2

The version of the meeting that you are peddling is based solely on conspiracists glomming onto one sentence in the following paragraph and taking it completely out of context:

The Chief Justice then explained the role of the committee. He placed emphasis on the importance of quenching rumors, and precluding future speculation such as that which has surrounded the death of Lincoln. He emphasized that the Commission needed to determine the truth, whatever that might be.


Quenching rumors, arguille, not suppressing facts, and the proof that that's what he meant is the immediately following sentence, which conspiracists prefer to ignore. Warren apparently was of the same opinion as me that bullshit never did anyone any good, and in the previous paragraph, Warren gave one pragmatic example of why "quenching rumors" was important: One set of conspiracy theories blamed foreign governments of the conspiracy, which had the potential of leading to a war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #57)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:12 AM

62. reply to #57

You've referenced the wrong executive session. On January 22, 1964 a discussion was held of rumours that Oswald was a paid FBI informant ; which included lead staff lawyer Rankin stating that "I am confident that the FBI would never admit it, and I presume their records will never show it".

Rankin later adds: "…if that were true and it ever came out and could be established, then you would have people think that there was a conspiracy to accomplish this assassination that nothing the Commission did or anybody could dissipate."

By the way, Chief Warren's "pragmatic" example resulted from LBJ's strong-arming him into the job, by exactly a scenario of nuclear war and forty million dead. The "set of conspiracy theories" blaming foreign governments was the Mexico City transcripts pulled from CIA files the day of the assassination linking Oswald to the KGB's Western Hemisphere so-called "assassination expert". But the Oswald in the transcripts was an imposter - as J Edgar Hoover knew and so informed LBJ. But LBJ did not tell Warren of the impersonation. The conspiracy theories originated with the CIA's Mexico City station, and relied on an Oswald impersonator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #62)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:03 AM

71. "*IF* that were true and it ever came out and could be established"

... then, yes, I think Rankin was correct in predicting that many people would jump to a conclusion of a conspiracy, even though it doesn't logically follow that if Oswald was a paid FBI informant then the assassination must have been a conspiracy.

But, sorry, no such fact was ever established, anyway. Perhaps that's because Rankin was also right that the FBI would never admit or keep records proving it, or perhaps that's simply because Oswald wasn't a paid informant. Speculation isn't evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #71)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 04:23 PM

75. reply to #71

But apologists for the official story want to have it both ways - that the investigations were exhaustive, thorough, turned over every stone, the investigating bodies and agencies were above reproach....AND....the FBI-CIA etc would never give up their secrets and that the FBI-CIA-DPD were incompetent at times and individuals made lots of mistakes.

One of the reasons that any involvement between Oswald and a government intelligence or policing agency was dynamite in the eyes of the Commission was that the full weight of the US government had already been placed behind the statement made solemnly to the American people that there was absolutely no such relationship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #75)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 08:59 PM

83. Actually, what I'm claiming is...

... that the efforts to exonerate Oswald are pathetic, and the attempts to implicate additional shooters are unconvincing because they lack credible evidence. It would be really great if you could deal with those claims rather than attacking a straw man.

And thanks for the spin and speculation, but no thanks; I can read what's in meeting notes and interpret it for myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #71)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 05:07 PM

78. also to #71

By the way, what was the source for your statement about Warren being concerned with rumours which might spark a war? As disinformation nuggets go, that one is a classic! Where did you get it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #78)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 08:10 PM

81. The minutes of the first Commission meeting, and I provided the link (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #26)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 02:55 AM

31. d) Mexico City

> whatever happened there, the CIA's handling of their own files showed that, as they would admit much later, the agency had an "operational interest" in Oswald. This is not what the official story tells us. Oswald's background was deliberately covered up by the Warren Commission, and agencies such as the CIA practiced lies and deceptions with this subject. There would have been no need for such a cover-up if the official story was actually true. It is not.

And, of course, if any part of the "official story" is wrong, that means there was a conspiracy, huh?

The CIA had an "operational interest" in Oswald because he had defected to Russia and when he returned, he started that pro-Castro FPCC chapter. Trying to infer a conspiracy involving the CIA from that makes no sense at all. To conspiracists, everything that happened or didn't happen implies a conspiracy, but in this case the documentation you're referring to actually makes is less plausible that the CIA was involved in any such conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #31)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 02:33 PM

36. reply to #31

The CIA claimed to have absolutely no interest in Oswald - even though they indeed should have.

The cover-up in New Orleans centred around the fact that Oswald was frequently seen in the company of right wing figures with intelligence backgrounds and connections, specifically based in the office of Guy Banister.

The cover-up in Mexico City was based on multiple "Oswald" appearances at the Cuban Consulate and Russian Embassy, visits which seemed to indicate he was desperate to get a visa to visit Cuba. The CIA lied to say none of their surveillance equipment was working when "Oswald" made these visits. However, a tape recording of an "Oswald" telephone call to the Russian embassy - a call that seemingly linked Oswald with a purported KGB "assassination expert" - was heard by FBI agents who declared that the voice was not Oswald's. This same recording, and its transcript, had been hidden for seven weeks and then sprung on the day of the assassination to tie the President's alleged killer with the Russians and the Cubans. But it was an imposter. Why was an imposter linking Oswald to the Russians and Cubans seven weeks before the assassination?

The CIA's pattern of lies, deceptions, and imposters becomes extremely curious in light of the provable fact that Oswald was framed for the assassination of JFK. The CIA, a large organization, may not be ultimately responsible, but people associated with the Counter Intelligence office consistently over many years displayed guilty knowledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #36)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 06:15 PM

41. "the provable fact that Oswald was framed"

If that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #26)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 03:30 AM

32. e) spooky one-note music.

It's a rather monotonous message, too: We keep getting promised reasons "why the Warren Commission may be the greatest fraud perpetrated on the American pubic," but all we seem to get is smoke blown up the ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #32)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 02:50 PM

37. reply to #32

The Warren Commission was a political body designed to deceive the American people over the true circumstances of the unconstitutional removal of a popular president. A Justice Department memo discussing the formation of the Commission is explicit on its purpose.

The cover-up continues fifty years later. All major American media have been complicit and continue to be so. But there is simply too much information now available to maintain the fiction that "Oswald did it." I suppose this anniversary year will feature a sort of last gasp of reiteration of the official story, but the holes in that story are now too obvious and the fact of a massive cover-up are too blatant.

The original critics had the basic story of Oswald's frame-up figured out by 1967-68, but the full weight of the US establishment has managed to maintain some degree of doubt for all these decades. The Warren Commission, HSCA, and other materials were still meant to be locked up for a few more decades, but the "JFK" movie scotched that and now there is far too much information - especially on the cover-up - to maintain the fiction any longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #37)

Sat Mar 23, 2013, 06:21 PM

42. Sez you



Talk like that is what led to public pressure for the HSCA, which concluded that the Warren Commission had arrived at the only conclusions that could be supported by the credible evidence. The books by Posner and Bugliosi go into great detail about why that's so.

On the other hand, we have people like you making wild-eyed, hand-waving assertions and unsubstantiated accusations while slandering anyone who says otherwise.

After 50 years, that's still where we are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #42)

Sun Mar 24, 2013, 10:43 PM

47. reply to #42

Posner's book was hastily assembled to serve as a counter to Oliver Stone's film. Its pulpy writing style and looseness with the historical record has been roundly criticized and today even Warren Commission supporters back away from supporting it as anything but a poorly constructed prosecutor's brief.

Bugliosi's book is generally well considered for its depth of detail and accumulated fact, but it also is a prosecutor's brief and has been harshly criticized for what it leaves out. Bugliosi also discredits his presentation by finding no fault with the performances of the Dallas police, the FBI, and the autopsy doctors - not to mention his tendency to heap gratuitous insults onto the critical community, many of them easy targets. Jim DiEugenio wrote a book-length deconstruction of Bugliosi's book (see the CTKA website), and its reputation and credibility has been seriously diminished since. I believe it to be the "last gasp" of the official story, as the weight of the information now public showing both a high-level conspiracy and cover-up is overwhelming.

I am not surprised that you cite both authors as a similar haughty tone infects your posts, as is also a tendency to dismiss arguments before really understanding them. That is, your mind seems to be made up and you are solely in "attack" mode.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #47)

Sun Mar 24, 2013, 11:13 PM

49. But I'm giving you every opportunity to change my mind

... and to correct any misunderstandings you think you see in what I'm saying. But you've made claims you can't substantiate, and since you're accusing people of murder and complicity, that should draw an "attack" mode response from anyone who believes that bullshit never did anyone any good. But, no, the only thing my mind is "made up" about is that I need at least one good reason to believe that anyone other than Oswald shot JFK or was involved in it. Do you have one?

Stone's movie is a fantasy, unsupported by any credible evidence. Nit-pick either book all you like -- and indeed JFK conspiracists know more trivia than Trekkies -- and try to poison the well by disparaging the authors, but the main story still emerges unscathed: All the credible evidence says Oswald shot JFK, and no credible evidence implicates anyone else. Speculation is not evidence.

It's notable that after 50 years, conspiracists haven't gathered enough credible evidence to even convince each other what happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #49)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 02:27 PM

55. reply to #49

I haven't accused anyone of murder. There are overwhelming indications of complicity, namely a pattern of lies, obfuscation, and behaviour indicative of guilty knowledge.

Good reasons? A deceitful biography designed to cover-up the accused assassin's history of covert relationships with government intelligence agencies. CE399 was planted. There were more grains of bullet in Connally's body than missing from CE399. Dr Shaw at Parklands stated that a bullet remained in Connally's leg two hours after that bullet was supposedly found on a stretcher. The autopsy was curtailed by senior military officials to prevent proper tracking of the bullet paths. Oswald was fingered as the lone assassin, with no confederates, within three hours of the shooting, long before he was even charged and long before any of the evidence was associated with him in any fashion. Oswald was not on the sixth floor when the shooting happened and the Warren Commission knew it had witnesses proving it and suppressed that information. That's right off the top of my head and there are a lot more.

But you are now resorting to a rhetorical device, like Posner and Bugliosi, wrapped in the demand for "credible evidence", with yourselves self-appointed as the judges of what constitutes "credible". I've seen this script many times before: "credible" is anything which backs up the predetermined official story. Everything else is a "fantasy" or "speculation". And so you will bluster on, hoping the sum of your bluff will deflect attention from the fact that you are defending falsehood and prevarication, and doing so without a full grasp of what you are even talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #55)

Mon Mar 25, 2013, 09:37 PM

56. Baloney. It's not a "rhetorical device" to demand FACT-based DEDUCTIVE reasoning

So that's the first problem is that your list contains a lot of imaginary "facts" such as:

  • CE399 was planted
  • There were more grains of bullet in Connally's body than missing from CE399
  • Oswald was not on the sixth floor when the shooting happened...
  • ... and the Warren Commission knew it had witnesses proving it and suppressed that information.


Since the truth of a deductive argument depends only on the soundness of the premises and the validity of the logical inference, any arguments that proceed from the above "facts" are not sound, so there's nothing to be gained by examining them for logical validity.

As for the validity of arguments where the premises are at least plausible if not proven, the other problem is that conspiracists as a group strongly favor inductive reasoning over deductive (for reasons that are pretty danged obvious). The problem with inductive reasoning, which conspiracists seem to be blissfully unaware of, is that it's deductively "invalid" in the sense that the conclusion could be false even if the premises are true. Not only can they be wrong, but they frequently are. With inductive reasoning, instead of questioning the logical validity (since there is none), the question is if the argument is "convincing" or "probably true," which is a highly subjective question. Since a conclusion of conspiracy seems to be their starting point, there's nothing remarkable about the fact that conspiracists can convince themselves (if not even other conspiracists) that there speculations are "probably true" (and then in short order promote them to be "definitely true" just because that sounds better). Of course, if they could find sound, fact-based and logically valid deductive reasons for believing that there was a conspiracy, then it wouldn't really matter where they started. But they simply haven't, and dubious "facts" and weak inductive arguments are not an acceptable substitute.

The situation here is not symmetric: The case against Oswald IS the "official story" because it's the one best supported by the actual evidence. If you want to claim it isn't true, then the burden of proof is on you, and offering speculations as facts doesn't do the trick, nor will dubious inductive arguments. Simply claiming that all the evidence we have must be fake won't do it, either, if you can't prove it. Since human perception and human memory are both fallible, pitting witnesses against each other and deciding who is right or telling the truth based solely on the story they tell, rather than correlating with the physical and documentary evidence, doesn't do the trick. And accusing people of participating in a cover-up simply because you don't like the story they tell or because they reached different conclusions after their own examination of the facts will certainly not turn things in your favor.

After 50 years, it's still the same issue: Can you or can you not make a case that at least resembles evidence-based reasoning? "Rhetorical device," indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #56)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 02:33 AM

63. reply to #56

as to the top of my head list from post #55 - there's nothing imaginary about those points, reasons, or "facts". each of them is provably true using multiple layers of evidence. each of them lay waste to a coupling of "actual evidence" and "official story". so spare us the deductive reasoning cut and pastes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #63)

Fri Mar 29, 2013, 06:47 AM

68. Well now...

I think Billy does a fairly good job in deductive cut and paste.

So, I'll give him that credit, anyway...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #63)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:13 AM

72. Prove any one of them, then

I bet I will be able to copy-n-paste a response to what you will offer as your proof, since it's all been addressed over and over and over. (Given your response here, I think it's safe to presume that you won't understand why the proofs you copy-n-paste are logically inadequate, but convincing you of that isn't actually the objective, anyway.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Original post)

Fri Mar 29, 2013, 06:28 AM

65. Made it to 1:38 in first video

before i knew it was completely untrue and thoroughly debunked crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Riftaxe (Reply #65)

Fri Mar 29, 2013, 06:46 AM

67. Wow!....

Case solved!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Original post)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 01:49 PM

101. In the intro video, they say his head moved back when he was shot,

suggesting that he wasn't shot from behind, but the blood spray clearly comes out the front of his head, which suggests to me that he was actually shot from behind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #101)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:37 PM

102. Shhhhh!

That simple fact is to be ignored and explained away by "the CIA/FBI/DPD/MOB/SECRET SERVICE/BIG OIL/SOMEONE'S MOM" clearly alerted the film.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #102)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:44 PM

103. I have only watched the first first video and half of the second, so they might address that point.

I have absolutely no training in crime forensics, so my view point isn't an educated evaluation, but I just don't see how the blood spray would shoot out from the front of his head if he wasn't shot from behind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #103)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:52 PM

104. You should check this out as well

Since it clearly showed his head moved forward...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11354406#post7

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #104)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 02:59 PM

105. That does look like his head moved forward to me.

I try to open minded about these things, and I just don't see how he could have been shot from any other direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #105)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 04:23 PM

106. reply to ZombieHorde

What the Zapruder film, and the other two films which feature the final fatal shot, show is that the President's body is driven violently back into his seat. This has led the vast majority of persons to, at the very least, suspect that the shot originated from the front of the limousine. This suspicion is bolstered by the fact that blood and brain tissue also flew back behind the President's position, onto the trunk of the limousine and also across motorcycle officers positioned behind. Mrs Kennedy was trying to retrieve a piece of the President's skull from the trunk of the limousine - which can be seen in the films. Additionally, the closest eyewitnesses all felt the shots originated from the picket fence area in front of the President. And, additionally, dozens of witnesses who attended to or saw the President's body after the shooting, many of whom were trained medical personnel, saw a large blowout in the right rear of JFK's head.

The true facts should have been clearly ascertained by the autopsy, but the autopsy did not do this and was so poorly handled that the government itself has had to convene no less than three later panels trying to determine what happened. All of these panels have come to differing and sometimes contradictory conclusions - even to the point of where, exactly, the shots struck. It remains a point of contention five decades later. To contrast, the doctors attending Governor Connally were careful and precise in their measurements and descriptions and there has been absolutely no controversy as to the nature or position of his wounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #106)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 05:28 PM

107. "It remains a point of contention five decades later."

No it doesn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #107)

Mon Apr 8, 2013, 10:51 PM

109. It does remain a point of contention...

Unless your point of reference is infinitesimally narrow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrMickeysMom (Reply #109)

Tue Apr 9, 2013, 11:47 AM

111. Well, I suppose the earth being round remains a point of contention since some believe it is flat...

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

So, technically I suppose you are right.
As long as someone, somewhere believes something there is no evidence for, it remains a point of contention...at least for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #105)

Thu Apr 11, 2013, 11:44 PM

120. head movement and blood spatter

This is from Chapter 7 of Sherry Fiester's book "Enemy Of The Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination". It answers ZombieHorde's inquiries, and provides a rejoinder to "Wm Seger"'s two frame GIF and multiple postings on the "real physics" of the head shot.

First two quotes are from Karger, Bernd. (2008). Forensic Ballistics. In Tsokos, Michael (Ed.), Forensic Pathology Reviews (Vol. 5). New Jersey: Humana Press.

When the bullet strikes the skull, the velocity abruptly slows, thereby transferring kinetic energy to the target. This primary transfer of energy causes the target to move minutely into the force and against the line of fire, quickly followed by movement with the force, and in the continued direction, of the moving bullet (Karger, 2008).

Velocity and mass determine the bullet’s kinetic energy, and the wounding potential relies on the efficient transfer of that kinetic energy to tissues. Pressure builds, and as the projectile navigates the head, there are only the entrance wound and any consequent fractures for release of that pressure. Therefore, within three to five milliseconds blood is expelled out of the hole from which the bullet entered as back spatter (Karger, 2008).

Blood spatter from gunshot wounds are divided into two categories, forward spatter and backspatter. Forward spatter ejected from the exit wound and travels in the same direction as the bullet. Backspatter ejected from the entrance wound travels against the line of fire, back towards the shooter…The prominent blood spatter pattern in Zapruder Frame 313 corresponds in every measurable manner with back spatter. The blood observed in the Zapruder film displays the pattern shape of back spatter. It also extends from the wound area a distance that is characteristic of back spatter. The timing for the pattern creation and the dissipation rate identifies it as back spatter. In fact, all available information concerning the blood spatter pattern in the Zapruder film corresponds in every measurable manner with back spatter replicated in forensic laboratories and described in peer-reviewed publications since the late 1980s. (Fiester)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #120)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 12:26 PM

123. In other words, Fiester has NO CLUE the 2.5" forward head-snap even happened

... much less does she have an explanation for it. Nor does she explain why this momentum transfer would be delayed by 1/6 second, much less have any explanation for why it shows acceleration that can only come from a continued force.

In short, her opinions about splatter patterns do not even begin to address any of the issues that you are so determined to ignore.

<EDIT> You asked for more than the 2 gifs and you got it.

And, for ZombieHorde if not you, here are the physics of the head shot as analyzed by a physicist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #123)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:26 PM

125. reply to #123

The forward head snap is explained by Bernd Karger from the textbook "Forensic Ballistics":

"When the bullet strikes the skull, the velocity abruptly slows, thereby transferring kinetic energy to the target. This primary transfer of energy causes the target to move minutely into the force and against the line of fire, quickly followed by movement with the force, and in the continued direction, of the moving bullet (Karger, 2008)"

Fiester's descriptions of back spatter explain exactly what is observed in the relevant frame of the Zapruder film.

The concepts developed in Fiester's book are established by specialists in ballistics and forensic analysis. You, instead, offer a paper by Ken Rahn whose field of speciality is atmospheric physics and oceanography, and who admits to undertaking his analysis with a conclusion already established in his mind.

This is of a pattern: previously you rejected the opinions of a senior ballistics expert in favor of concepts developed by J Edgar Hoover's urologist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #125)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:59 PM

126. "move minutely into the force" is NOT a 2.5" head-snap

If there was any ambiguity about what Fiester was talking about, it was demonstrated by the videos she presented: She was talking about that "minute" bulge in the gelatin, immediately after the bullet entered, which was gone by the time the bullet exited the. That is not the 2.5" head-snap; Fiester does not address that at all, apparently because she is unaware of it, just like you and most conspiracists.

This it the pattern: You don't understand this issue, and you are determined not to because it will kill one of your favorite fantasies about the Z film showing a hit from the front.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #126)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 03:20 PM

128. reply to #126

"That is not the 2.5" head-snap; Fiester does not address that at all, apparently because she is unaware of it…"

Chapter Seven of Fiester's book, which runs over 30 pages, is entirely about the forward head snap. After noting that "Rifle bullets carry between 1100 to 3300 foot pounds of force;…" Fiester demonstrates -

"The higher a projectile’s velocity upon impact, the more kinetic energy is available to transfer to the target. The amount of kinetic energy transferred to a target increases with faster projectile deceleration. This initial transfer of energy causes the target to swell or move minutely into the force and against the line of fire. The greater the transferred energy, the more pronounced the forward movement (Karger, 2008; Coupland, 2011; Radford, 2009)."

Let's repeat: The greater the transferred energy, the more pronounced the forward movement . Fiester refers to recent experiments (Ervin, 2011), whereby a gelatine block had a "forward snap" of 2 inches , which you insist cannot happen.

"Current forensic research indicates the forward movement of Kennedy’s head follow by a rearward movement is consistent with a single gunshot to the head from the front. Research by Karger (2008), Radford, (2009) and Coupland (2011) prove initial transfer of energy causes the target to swell or move minutely into the force and against the line of fire." ( Fiester p 264)

These peer-reviewed observations by actual forensic ballistic specialists are supported by the back-spatter pattern observed in the Zapruder film. Your position is informed solely by a paper written by atmospheric physicist which does not address any of the above information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #128)

Fri Apr 12, 2013, 10:48 PM

134. "swell or move minutely into the force" is NOT a 2.5" forward head-snap

> Let's repeat: The greater the transferred energy, the more pronounced the forward movement . Fiester refers to recent experiments (Ervin, 2011), whereby a gelatine block had a "forward snap" of 2 inches , which you insist cannot happen.

Yes, I do. Prove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #134)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 01:33 PM

138. reply to #134

I have neither the facility, expertise, or enthusiasm to "prove" anything related to the ballistics evidence - that is why we consult those persons who do. Your response to Fiester has been exactly the same as your response to any information which challenges your narrow viewpoint: denial coupled with an aggressive, if ill-informed counterattack.

In this case, the "proof" you seek had been right in front of you all along, in the form of videos Fiester linked to in the forum post you used to initially trash her. The two videos featuring impacts from higher velocity bullets are quite striking and provide all the visual evidence necessary to show 1) the phenomenon Fiester describes, which is a reiteration of settled contemporary ballistic science, is real 2) just like she said, the impact from a higher velocity round creates a comparatively large bulge back in the direction of the shot's origin.



The Ken Rahn paper you have used to assert a "real" or "true" explanation does not account for this information. This is not the author's fault, as the paper is about fifteen years old, and ballistic science has moved a long way since then. However, you "Wm Seger" have aggressively assumed to embody the "true" or "real" facts of this case - and repeatedly the sources of your conclusions have been shown to be wanting.

By the way, the Warren Commission knew that ballistics tests were done at Edgewood Arsenal which showed pretty much the same thing - a momentary movement back towards the shot. The Commission chose to ignore this information, and no mention of these experiments appear anywhere in their published materials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #138)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 02:56 PM

139. Yep, that's exactly the same thing Fiester was talking about

... which is NOT anything like the 2.5" forward head-snap. The only thing I've seen her discuss and demonstrate with similar videos is that same thing, which is basically a hydraulic effect: The bullet creates a pressure wave in the viscous gel that propagates in all directions, including making the gel bulge back toward the gun. That pressure wave is indeed the source of back-splatter from a bullet hit. But, as clearly seen in your own evidence, since that pressure wave is in all directions, it does not and cannot result in the entire block being thrown back toward the gun! As clearly seen in your own evidence, the net movement of the block is in the direction of the bullet.

Furthermore, JFK's "ballistic gel" was enclosed inside a skull, which the bullet had to pass through twice, and skulls don't behave very hydraulically. They behave more like billiard balls: The force applied by a blow to the skull will accelerate the head along a vector from the contact point through the center of mass. The net result is more like an egg, which is that while some of the energy of the bullet will go into throwing material in all directions, the momentum transferred to the remaining mass cannot be back toward the gun.

Coincidentally, last night I watched the Discovery Channel's "Inside the Target Car" show. As you probably know (but I didn't), they simulated head shots from different directions using realistically modeled heads. You probably also know what they concluded about the grassy knoll theory, but here are two frames from the test simulating a 6th-floor TSBD hit:



How about that: a forward head-snap.

Q.E.D.

> ... and repeatedly the sources of your conclusions have been shown to be wanting.

Good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #139)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 09:25 PM

141. reply to #139

Seger refutes contemporary ballistic science - as understood by peer-reviewed papers and duplicated experiments - and he's got a screen grab from "Inside The Target Car" to prove it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #141)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 09:45 AM

143. What's refuted is your bizarre interpretation of "contemporary ballistic science"

You've shown us is that a gel block will "swell and move minutely into the force" for a couple of milliseconds because of the pressure wave going in all directions. You have not shown us a gel block jumping 2 inches back toward the gun. Not only have you failed to demonstrate that remarkable phenomenon, you apparently have no logical, physics-based explanation for it. Instead, you attempt to support your claim with an "appeal to authority" fallacy, which is bad enough, but then you apparently can't even show your "authority" actually saying what you claim.

On the other hand, the Discovery Channel video shows exactly what a rational person would expect when a bullet hits a head from behind, and you would have to call up all your extra reserves of willful blindness to not see the similarity to the Zapruder film.

And let's not forget that you still have no explanation whatsoever for why momentum from the bullet would wait 1/6 second before pushing the head back and to the left and then show acceleration for several frames. Nor will you ever be able to produce a rational explanation for that, because it's utter nonsense. Whatever caused that motion, it wasn't the bullet.

Beyond any doubt, the Zapruder film shows that JFK was shot from behind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #143)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 04:20 AM

150. reply to #143

"you attempt to support your claim with an "appeal to authority" fallacy"

the "appeal to authority" fallacy comes into play when one of the following two factors is absent:

The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.

In this case, an expert or authority has been put forth, namely Sherry Fiester. She has several decades experience as a Certified Crime Scene Investigator, and has testified as a court certified expert in crime scene investigation in numerous districts, and also instructs on these matters. Her concepts pertaining to the effects of bullet strikes are widely shared by her colleagues and the science on which these concepts are based appear in medical textbooks used widely.

So, clearly, the "appeal to authority fallacy" is not in play in any of my comments.

Is it too cruel to point out that you, "Wm Seger", have used a paper to support your views that you described as true or real physics, discussing wound ballistics, but written by an atmospheric physicist with no legitimate expert support. And that you also challenged the views of the top ballistics expert of the era who conducted extensive replicated tests which showed the single bullet theory to be ridiculous - you challenged him with the results of a vague experiment conducted by J Edgar Hoover's urologist.

Really. Have you no shame.

Oh, wait. You're a propagandist. You have no shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #150)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 07:06 AM

152. You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper

> the "appeal to authority" fallacy comes into play when one of the following two factors is absent:
> The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
> There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.


In the first place, your definition is wrong. The "appeal to authority" fallacy is an argument of this from: X says P is true; X is an authority; therefore, P is true." That's the exact form of the argument you are making.

In the second place, both of your "factors" are absent, because you persist in disingenuously misrepresenting the "P" actually under discussion. It is the 2.5" snap of JFK's head seen in the Zapruder film, not a gel block "swelling or moving minutely into the force" a couple of millimeters for a couple of milliseconds. Again, you have not yet presented any evidence of any "authority" demonstrating that JFK's head could snap 2.5" toward the gun, or even attempting to explain any such phenomenon, so the assertion that there a "consensus among legitimate experts" that such an imaginary phenomenon explains what we see in the Zapruder film is abject bullshit.

> Is it too cruel to point out that you, "Wm Seger", have used a paper to support your views that you described as true or real physics, discussing wound ballistics, but written by an atmospheric physicist with no legitimate expert support.

Is it too cruel to point out to you. "arguille", that the physics discussed in the paper are accessible to the average high school student? Here, you are completely ignoring both the logic and simple math of the paper and instead making the equally fallacious converse of the appeal to authority fallacy: X says P is true; X is not an expert; therefore P is not true. And again, you ignore that the paper actually addresses the 2.5" snap with real physics, whereas you have presented absolutely nothing that actually does that.

Furthermore, you apparently hope that all this smoke you're blowing will hide what we all can clearly see in the two gifs I posted, which is that both common sense and the "atmospheric physicist" are correct, while your bizarre interpretation of what a "ballistics expert" says is simply nonsense:



> Really. Have you no shame.
> Oh, wait. You're a propagandist. You have no shame.


And you are a Grade A Hypocrite, but let's stick to actual argument for just a while longer:

1. Do you or do you not actually have an "expert" who can either explain or demonstrate how JFK's head could possibly snap 2.5" toward the gun? So far, you haven't even shown that your claimed expert is even aware of that snap, much less has an explanation for it.

2. Can you or can you not explain why that yet-to-be-presented theory fails to explain what we clearly see in the two gifs?

3. Have you ever heard of the "first rule of holes?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #152)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 12:05 AM

154. Reply to #152

"Wm Seger", you don't understand the appeal to authority fallacy. The formula "X says P is true; X is an authority; therefore, P is true" is a fallacy ONLY after:

one of the following two factors is absent:
> The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
> There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.

It was shown that both of the above factors are adequately covered, and therefore there is no fallacy to criticize.

It was then , cruelly, shown that, in fact, the appeal to authority fallacy appearing in this thread is found solely, and in at least two instances, in your own posts.

"you persist in disingenuously misrepresenting the "P" actually under discussion. It is the 2.5" snap of JFK's head..."

That is completely incorrect. I brought forth Fiester's work - particularly Chapter 7 of her book which deals specifically in detail with the forward snap, and which argues, based on contemporary ballistic science, that the quick forward movement followed by the
sharp movement back into the seat was indicative of a shot from the front. And then she backs up the science behind this claim with excerpts from medical literature which say the same thing.

"you ignore that the paper actually addresses the 2.5" snap with real physics, whereas you have presented absolutely nothing that actually does that..."

Again, the physics paper you cite was written by a man who specializes in atmospheric physics and not ballistic science. The ballistic scientists quoted by Fiester, all credentialed people, say that ballistic science says that the shot likely came from the front.

"both common sense and the "atmospheric physicist" are correct, while your bizarre interpretation of what a "ballistics expert" says is simply nonsense"

But I haven't interpreted anything. I've reported what Fiester says in her book, which is backed up by credentialed ballistic scientists and the specific information also appears in textbooks.

"Do you or do you not actually have an "expert" who can either explain or demonstrate how JFK's head could possibly snap 2.5" toward the gun? So far, you haven't even shown that your claimed expert is even aware of that snap, much less has an explanation for it."

Well, obviously, you have made yet another completely incorrect statement. I have provided an expert, and even a consensus of legitimate experts, and you have presented your denial of that.

From Fiester "Enemy Of The Truth"

"Current forensic research indicates the forward movement of Kennedy’s head follow by a rearward movement is consistent with a single gunshot to the head from the front. Research by Karger (2008), Radford, (2009) and Coupland (2011) prove initial transfer of energy causes the target to swell or move minutely into the force and against the line of fire. This phenomenon is readily observed in internet videos depicting high-speed recordings of ballistic gelatin, and explained in forensic research that addresses wound ballistics."

Fiester notes that the greater the velocity of the shot, the more pronounced the forward movement. The gelatin block in the video is obviously fixed in place to facilitate the filming, and so any attempt to compare it to a human body is meaningless. The phenomenon which Fiester is referring is the bulge back towards the source of the shot just as the bullet enters. "Real physics" might suggest that such a phenomenon would result in the forward snap as seen in the Zapruder film. It also explains the rapid movement back into the seat which everyone can see. Proponents of "shot from rear" do not readily have a convincing explanation of why Kennedy's body would be driven back into the seat which such force.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #154)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 02:20 AM

155. I really don't understand why you keep responding if that's the best you can do

Your pointless repetition of failed arguments is becoming rather boring. Would you please either address these videos or stop wasting my time:



The quote from Fiester is the very reason that I say she seems to be oblivious to the fact that there was a 2.5" forward head-snap that needs to be explained, and the videos of a gel block "swell(ing) or mov(ing) minutely into the force" simply reinforces that impression. You say (but haven't demonstrated), that somewhere else she does address that snap, but it really doesn't matter: If she actually does think that's what would happen, the videos above prove that she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about -- which, I have to assume, is why you are so determined to not even acknowledge their existence.

The "appeal to authority" fallacy -- which I accurately defined and which you persist in offering as an argument anyway -- is a logical fallacy even if the person offering the opinion is an "authority," because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, which is because even "authorities" can be wrong. (As Carl Sagan liked to say, there are no authorities in science.) But if that "authority" offers counter-intuitive claims that are easily refuted by actual experiments, as I have shown, and the best you can do is keep asserting the same fallacy, then "bullshit" would be a more accurate characterization than "fallacy."

You have presented nothing whatsoever that addresses that forward snap -- neither a demonstration of it nor a logical reason why any sane person would expect it to be back toward the gun. Showing a gel block swell a couple of millimeters while the bullet is still passing through it and causing a hydraulic shock wave falls absurdly short of what's required, and your mindless repetition of your logical fallacy does absolutely nothing to address that shortcoming. If you're going to persist in pretending that it does, then I see no reason to waste any more time trying to explain why it does not. If you post that "swell or move minutely" nonsense again without addressing the glaring lack of actual substance in your argument and again ignore the above videos, then I will simply post them again without comment. If you just wanna play "last post wins" I bet I will win, but I'm sure the whole board would prefer that you either actually address the actual issue with something resembling a cogent argument, or please stop wasting everyone's time simply pretending to.

> It also explains the rapid movement back into the seat which everyone can see. Proponents of "shot from rear" do not readily have a convincing explanation of why Kennedy's body would be driven back into the seat which such force.

Abject bullshit, and more pointless repetition of a failed argument while completely avoiding the refutation that's already been presented. You have not produced any demonstration or logical reason for why momentum from a bullet would wait 1/6 second before taking effect, and then cause the head to accelerate over several frames. Nor will you ever be able to, because it's absurd. If you don't understand why that's so, then apparently you didn't pay attention in high school physics. As I said, I believe the most plausible explanation for the back-and-to-the-left movement is a muscle spasm, but it isn't really necessary to identify the cause to conclusively say that it was not caused by momentum from the bullet, because momentum transfer (and thus the acceleration from it) would be instantaneous and could only happen while the bullet was passing through the head.

If this is the best you can do, I believe MrMickeysMom needs to send for reinforcements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #155)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 03:24 PM

157. reply to #155

"Wm Seger" - you have dug yourself a ditch and now you are standing in it. Anyone following this thread is at this moment saying to themselves "oh look. Seger's standing in a ditch."

"Fiester … seems to be oblivious to the fact that there was a 2.5" forward head-snap that needs to be explained"

I have told you several times that Fiester specifically addresses the "forward head snap", and in fact much of Chapter Seven of her book is about it. Your stubborness on this issue is baffling because you are clearly wrong, just as you are clearly wrong on the definition of the appeal to authority fallacy. Being occasionally wrong is part of being human, but insisting on being wrong - as you are doing - is cause for concern. Seger, I am concerned for you, standing in that ditch ...

"You have presented nothing whatsoever that addresses that forward snap…"

Except Chapter Seven of Fiester's book, in which she quotes such people as Bernd Karger who, in his publication "Forensic Ballistics" says: "When the bullet strikes the skull, the velocity abruptly slows, thereby transferring kinetic energy to the target. This primary transfer of energy causes the target to move minutely into the force and against the line of fire, quickly followed by movement with the force, and in the continued direction, of the moving bullet (Karger, 2008).

You have rejected this analysis based, apparently, on a dispute with the term "move minutely" - although it was also stated that this movement was conditioned on the velocity of the striking bullet and that high velocity rounds cause a more pronounced movement. If you wish to dispute contemporary ballistic science, go ahead - but you'll need a little more than a frame capture from a Discovery Channel show.

"the videos above prove that she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about…"

Really? A red object resembling the cap of a football helmet, sitting atop a rigid stick, receiving a gunshot which in no way replicates the conditions seen in the Zapruder film? Why don't you let your GIF run another few frames so we can see the torso slam violently back into the seat? Oh right, because that didn't happen. Just like the entire right side of JFK's head did not explode as your "proof" has it.

"I believe the most plausible explanation for the back-and-to-the-left movement is a muscle spasm, but it isn't really necessary to identify the cause to conclusively say that it was not caused by momentum from the bullet…"

Except your understanding of the physics involved requires refuting or denying contemporary ballistic science, which has established that your conclusive statements are simply wrong. You can sneer at Fiester all you want, but her observations are backed up by papers written by recognized authorities in these matters. Fiester's analysis is also supported by blood spatter characteristics as seen in the Zapruder film, and it explains the rapid movement back into the seat.

Your analysis is based on a paper written by someone with no specialized expertise in ballistic science, backed up by several frames from a TV show which features a red cap sitting on a stick with results quite unlike anything seen in the JFK evidence, and which can only offer, if anything, a limited and constrained explanation of one facet of the phenomenon under discussion.

In light of that, your need to pound your chest and stamp your feet is understandable - but you are still standing in the ditch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #157)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 07:19 PM

159. ...




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #157)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 01:43 PM

163. "Ballistics & Forensic Experts on the JFK Head Shot"

Compiled by Joel Grant

Alfred G. Olivier, DVM to Rockefeller Commission:

Q. What is your opinion, based upon the expertise that you have acquired in these 18 years at the Edgewood Arsenal in wound ballistics, with respect to the question of the direction from which the bullet came that struck the President in the head?

A. Well, the President in 313, the head appears to have moved slightly forward from the previous frame. Now, I say appears, because unless you measured this precisely you don't know. But it appears to have moved slightly.

And this would not be inconsistent with the momentum of the bullet being transferred to the head. Whereas I said a bullet cannot knock a person down or move a body in any violent way, it could conceivably move the head a little bit. We fired at human skulls filled with gelatin sitting on the table, and they would roll off the table. And this apparent side movement of the head is in the correct direction if the bullet came from the book depository.

Q. That is, from the rear of the President?

A. From the rear of the President.

Q. Now, then, what can you tell us with respect to the subsequent action of the President's head and body after that initial apparent slight movement forward?

A. There could be two reasons for it. One reason, there is a jet of blood and brain material from the head, some bone seemed to fly up in the air, but the bulk of it appears to fly forward and maybe slightly to the right. This gives an indication that that is possibly in the direction that the bullet exited from the skull.

Q. Now, was there any movement of the President's head and body associated with that?

A. That material going in that direction would have a tendency as a result of this jet effect to push the head in the other direction. This was demonstrated by Louis Alvarez in California several years ago by shooting melons. When you could get a jet of honeydew melon going out the front, the melon would roll toward the gun, showing that there is some movement from this jet effect.

Q. That also a moderate movement?

A. That would be moderate, yes. Now, most of the movement you see of the President moving backwards and his body moving sideward I believe is a neuromuscular reaction.


Dr. Werner Spitz to the Rockefeller Commission:

Q. May I ask this, then. Do you have any opinion, based upon your observing several times the Zapruder motion picture film, as to whether that film indicates that the President was struck by a bullet fired from the right front of the Presidential car?

A. No, the President was struck from the back both times, the one in the back and the one in the head definitely indicated that.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William Seger (Reply #163)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 04:29 PM

164. reply to #163

Alfred G. Olivier was the army veterinarian who stepped up to tell the Warren Commission what it wanted to hear after they struck out with top ballistics expert Dolce.

The authority of his opinion is staggering: "this would not be inconsistent..."; "it could conceivably...";"this apparent side movement..."; "(t)his gives an indication that that is possibly..."

But I guess the honeydew melon experiment seals the deal.

That's the ticket - a fourth string witness and a honeydew melon experiment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #164)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 05:15 PM

166. No, this is the ticket:

"Fourth string witness" supported by logic, physics, and experimental evidence; Feister supported by hand-waving appeal to authority fallacy.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #157)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 11:56 PM

168. BTW, Re: Fiester as an "expert"

In searching to see if I could find anything by Fiester where she actually seemed to be aware of the 2.5" forward snap (since you can't seem to find one), I came across this thread on the JFK History Forum where a poster named Robert Harris questions Fiester's conclusion about where the "second shooter" must have been located. (Bolo Boffin brought up these same points in another thread.)

One thing I noticed is that Fiester is not actually a ballistics expert, as you disingenuously claimed, but rather as a "certified crime scene investigator" who claims, "My expertise is in crime scene reconstruction, which includes trajectory reconstruction." But given that claim of expertise, it's rather remarkable (and not in a good way) that, as Harris points out, neither of the two shooter locations she posits is physically possible: The overpass is not high enough for a shot to clear the windshield, and from the "south knoll," Jackie would have blocked the shot. Harris demonstrates the first point with some clear language and simple geometry, but Fiester didn't understand it. Instead she apparently thought he was making some point about a presumed entry/exit angle. When he explained it again, she disappeared from the thread.

So, your "expert" is not really an expert in the field you claim, and in the field that she does claim expertise in, she doesn't appear to be very good at it.

Fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #141)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 02:33 PM

146. "Seger refutes contemporary ballistic science" with another video

A hit from the front on a ballistic test head.



(The preview frame for this video is pretty gross, so I'm not going to link to it. Search YouTube for "Sniper Rifle Ballistic Test! | Zombie Go Boom" and you'll find it. This is the first shot.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arguille (Reply #138)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 01:05 PM

145. And by the way....

> By the way, the Warren Commission knew that ballistics tests were done at Edgewood Arsenal which showed pretty much the same thing - a momentary movement back towards the shot.

After looking into this claim, I'm calling bullshit on it, too. Prove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread