Cold Case: JFK – NOVA program now online

[cpwm17]

Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2013, 09:50 PM - Edit history (1)

This show was made by scientists rather than conspiracy mongers so their conclusions may not be what some people want to hear:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html

They left out the fact that JFK's head did go forward at bullet impact, but it is only a one hour show so they couldn't cover everything.

[tridim]

1. I thought it was fun when they didn't test the penetration capability...

of the single, tumbling bullet that penetrated Connelly three times after exiting JFK's chest.

Just trust us, it still had enough momentum!!!!1111

[cpwm17]

3. Bullets can have a lot of power

Your laughing smiley can't change that fact.

The bullet that hit JFK was traveling straight and entered from the back, as shown by the bullet-wipe present on the back of JFK's clothing. The bullet that hit Connelly was traveling sideways (as shown by the shape of the bullet hole in Connelly's clothing) and left no bullet-wipe on his clothing. That is great evidence that the bullet had already traveled through another object, and the trajectory to Connelly leads straight back to JFK.

[tridim]

4. Fine, then they should have shown the test.

They had the apparatus set up and ready to go, but instead just ended the segment. Why?

The tumbling bullet had to penetrate Connelly's entire abdomen, his wrist and his leg, after moving completely through JFK's chest. My guess is that they did the experiment and it failed consistently.

Lame... and brought to you by the Charles Koch Foundation, BTW.

[cpwm17]

7. Great, now the folks that made this program are part of your great big conspiracy theory.

Your assertions that the bullet couldn't have traveled that far doesn't equal evidence.

The show did give actual evidence that the bullet did in fact travel through both JFK and Connelly. Science works through evidence and not blind assertions.

[Logical]

43. Let them love their make believe. n-t

[mattclearing]

253. What conspiracy theory?

All I see is someone complaining that these so-called scientists didn't even bother to follow through on their experiment.

[The Midway Rebel]

255. You missed this part of the post then...

where the poster said this.

"Lame... and brought to you by the Charles Koch Foundation, BTW."

That is a debate tactic called poisoning the well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

It is an informal logical fallacy.

As some have said, guilt by association in unAmerican.

[mattclearing]

257. No, I didn't.

Are you defending the Koch Brothers, or just desperate for something to cast as a conspiracy?

[The Midway Rebel]

258. Yes perfect.

You are the example tonight.

[rusty fender]

65. And it had to be pristine after its journey

including hitting Connally's wrist bone

[kestrel91316]

82. They discussed the condition of the bullet and explained everything including the exact way it

deformed and why.

[The Midway Rebel]

16. Completely believable.

Human beings are mostly water. About 60%. Giant bags of leaking water. It oozes out of our pores, eyes, nose, and it is in our breath.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body

If the bullet hit soft tissue (mostly water), until it hit and shattered Connaly's wrist and embedded in his thigh, it is completely believable that one bullet made seven wounds.

The more CTers argue with science, the more they look like they are clinging to a religious belief.

[tridim]

18. Great, then they should have shown the test.

If they had, there would be no question.

Like everyone, my rib cage is made up of two layers of bone, cartilage and muscle. It is not a "bag of water".

I am 100% science driven, which is why I wanted to see the science, and why I so was upset when they hid the results.

[The Midway Rebel]

20. I never said your ribs were mostly water. I said your whole body is.

Nice try to dodge the science. And yeah, humans are pretty much bags of water. Deny all you want.

You think they hid the results? Really? Based on what science?

[kestrel91316]

83. We much have watched different shows because they showed all the bullet tests on the show I watched.

[stopbush]

40. I've seen exactly that test performed on other TV shows that deal with

the forensic evidence in the case.

The show I saw even had simulated bone in the torsi of JFK and Connally.

And, yes, the bullet had plenty of momentum.

I'll try to find the name/a link for that program. Being a raging CTist, you won't be happy once you've viewed it.

[oswaldactedalone]

175. That was an awesome show

and showed clearly how the bullet would have hit both Kennedy and Connally and emerged generally intact.

I gave up the conspiracy stuff around '04 and this demonstration confirmed no conspiracy.

[Logical]

42. LOL, so you do not believe one bullet did it? Now that cracks me up! nt

[NutmegYankee]

50. Ever notice that no one who knows guns doubts that?

Ever wonder why?

[struggle4progress]

79. NOVA showed that the bullet was able to penetrate nearly three feet of wood block

with hardly any damage. NOVA showed that prior to entering tissue the bullet was not expected to tumble. NOVA showed that the tumbling would be expected to begin, at earliest, only immediately before the first exit of the bullet from tissue

It is natural to expect that tissue is much easier to penetrate than wood block, so that a bullet beginning to tumble after (say) a foot or less of tissue still packs a helluva punch. The distance from Kennedy to Connally was short, so air resistance can't have had much impact on the bullets penetrating power. That bullet supposedly passed through Connally's torso (another foot or less of tissue) and wrist (perhaps two inches of tissue) before damaging Connally's thigh

The bullet-wound of Connally's thigh has generally been regarded as superficial: WCR took the view that the bullet was so weakly embedded in his thigh that it simply fell from the thigh onto a hospital stretcher -- entirely consistent with your idea that it must have lost its punch by them

NOVA noted oval-shaped entrance damage to the back of Connally's coat, consistent with a tumbling bullet. NOVA noted lead fragments in Connally's wrist and consistent protrusion of interior lead from the bullet generally regarded as having penetrated both Kennedy and Connally. That sure looks to be a consistent story

[kestrel91316]

81. They completely explained Connelly's wounds.

[OregonBlue]

2. I saw it and was pretty satified that it was Oswald alone. Before watching it I thought it might

have been a conspiracy but they even had a very good explanation for why Arlen Specter's magic bullet theory was probably true. Not that Specter would have known much about the type of bullet used but they actually tested the same type of bullet (Italian) and it did exactly what Specter speculated it could have done. So I'm not nearly as suspicious.

[cpwm17]

9. Thanks for being open to the evidence n/t

[left is right]

29. I found Nova's forensic explanation pretty compelling

I had always leaned toward LHO and JR being part of a conspiracy until I heard one report day that JR came to the police station that Sunday morning with his beloved dachshund in the car. A close friend claimed that the dog was his whole life and JR would have never left his dog in the car alone had he gone to the police station with the intent of assassinating LHO. That seemed entirely reasonable bur this information only caused small doubt. The Nova episode has pushed me even farther into non-conspiracy territory.

[The Midway Rebel]

33. I thought so too.

I too was once a CTer, however, after watching these debates rage at DU for years, I have come to believe more in the hard science and forensic evidence that point to LHO as the lone conspirator.

The CTers theories begin to contradict themselves after a while and they selectively look at non evidence as actual evidence while choosing to ignore the science. Much like a religious fanatics, they make blind leaps of faith and do not like their views questioned.

The ballistic expert on that program just added to the mountain of evidence that all points at LHO.

[duffyduff]

55. It's not a "magic bullet" anyway. It is easy to see the trajectory of the bullet

that it hit both JFK and Connally. Now we have the forensics showing this beyond dispute and that it came from the sixth floor of the Book Depository.

People need to let go of the conspiracy silliness. It's just ridiculous anybody believes in it after all of these years.

[Mr.Bill]

126. The only way it could be a magic bullet

would be if it disappeared into thin air after exiting JFK's throat.

[Ace Acme]

135. Exited the throat?

Didn't one of the doctors say that was a tracheotomy incision? I thought exit wounds were supposed to be big gaping affairs.

[Mr.Bill]

138. The tracheotomy incision obliterated the exit wound.

No bullet was ever found in JFK's body.
There was a hole in his necktie from the bullet .

[Ace Acme]

141. How did a tracheotomy incision obliterate a big gaping exit wound? nt

[Mr.Bill]

150. Who said it was a big gaping wound?

The PBS show clearly showed that the special barrel shape of the bullet gave it increased stability from the rifling as opposed to a pointed bullet more common in other rifles. High speed film showed the bullet not tumbling until it exited the test tissue. The entrance wound on Connaly was oval which would be consistent with a bullet that was beginning to tumble. The bullet was also fully jacketed which kept it intact instead of mushrooming. The bullet that hit JFK in the upper back (the first shot) clearly exited the body, because it was not found in the body.

If you didn't see the PBS show, I'm sorry, but I'm not enough of a typist to explain everything they said on the show here. See if you can view the show somehow, and I'm sure you will see what I'm talking about.

[Ace Acme]

152. Oh, so the bullet only started to tumble after it exited the throat.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Mr.Bill]

156. That would be correct.

Show me any evidence to the contrary. Show me they found the bullet in JFK's body. Show me the doctor who says it was a big gaping wound. I'm done arguing with your ignorance and your imagination.

Have a good evening.

[Ace Acme]

159. So what made the bullet start to tumble AFTER it left the body?

I'm interested in how your mind works.

[Mr.Bill]

161. Watch the show. I'm not going to type it's entire content for you.

[Ace Acme]

162. Does the show say the bullet started to tumble after it exited the throat?

Oh, I get it. The necktie! The necktie made the bullet tumble! Is that what the show says?

The bullet was so slowed down by JFK's soft tissue that the necktie made it tumble, and then it speeded up so it could cause 5 wounds in Connally. That must be it.

[Mr.Bill]

163. You're being silly now.

We are done. Go play with someone else.

[Ace Acme]

167. The silliness is not mine. Do you think the necktie caused the bullet to spin? nt

[The Midway Rebel]

181. Have you seen the Cold Case documentary?

With a silly question like that it is obviously you have not.

[stopbush]

213. If you really want to know, it had to do with the release of pressure through the exit wound.

In the Nova special, the tests - which were filmed with cameras shooting at 20,000 fps - showed the bullets exiting the test material, and beginning to yaw about 3 feet after exiting said test material (it's fascinating to watch, BTW). That's about the distance that was between JFK & Connally.

BTW - the people running the tests were surprised when the bullet behaved that way upon exit. They hadn't expected that.

Some of the interesting supporting tests they ran through ballistic jelly and other materials - one material that was elastic enough to move back into form after the bullet exited, another material that was stiffer and didn't move back but left a bullet track that was expanding as it exited - clearly showed the build-up of pressure within the material and the release of the same on exiting.

It was also informative to see the results of shooting that 6.5 bullet into pine blocks - the bullet travelled about three feet through the blocks with NO deformation at the nose or sides and with NO yaw or variation from the straight line of entry. Of course, that's exactly what full metal jacketed bullets are designed to do.

But then, you're not the kind of person who has an interest in science, so you won't bother to watch. But the above IS the answer to your facetious question.

[OregonBlue]

187. You really should go and watch the piece. This was not a regular bullet. It was an Italian one that

responds to the rifling in the barrel differently. It did not perform in the same manner as we are used to with American made rifles and bullets. The test were pretty conclusive. I gotta say, I was very surprised. I was a total believer in the conspiracy but that program, which was very up front and straightforward lead me to question that.

I'm not saying it's not possible but I now have serious doubts about a conspiracy.

[Ace Acme]

190. The suspicion of multiple shooters does not rest on the magic bullet controversy nt

[cpwm17]

196. Why don't you watch the show?

The bullet actually would turn sideways after traveling through the simulated human body for a little distance, but before it exited. They consistently got the same results. This matched the evidence from the actual assassination.

Connelly was hit with a sideways traveling bullet which left no residue, but the bullet that hit JFK was traveling straight and left residue on the back of JFK's clothing, indicating the initial entry point of the bullet. A line from Connelly, through JFK, leads straight to Oswald's position in the Texas School Book Depository.

[Ace Acme]

223. How do you obscure an exit wound from a sideways bullet

with a tracheotomy?

[cpwm17]

224. You've made some seventy comments on this thread concerning a NOVA program

and apparently you have still not watched the program. Are you afraid of what you might see?

Why is your mind so closed? The evidence is all there for anyone to know the truth.

The Navy personnel weren't experienced enough to do an adequate forensic autopsy.

[Ace Acme]

225. Why should I be afraid of a TV show?

So far, the people who are recommending it are showing themselves to be so irrational that they are contrary indicators.

Why was the Forensic Autopsy of the Century left to allegedly inexperienced Navy personnel?
Why won't you answer my question? Didn't the show explain it?

[zappaman]

227. You should watch the show, Abe.

You might learn something!

[Ace Acme]

228. A show recommended by irrational people is likely to be an irrational show. nt

[zappaman]

229. "irrational people"

Who are referring to, Abe?

[Ace Acme]

231. The kind who think "snork" and smilies makes an argument. nt

[zappaman]

232. LOL!

I take that as a compliment coming from you, Abe.

Thanks for calling me and other DUers "irrational people" for not supporting your "rational views".

[Ace Acme]

234. Thanks for proving my point. nt

[zappaman]

235. You're most welcome, "Ace".

Hope you are enjoying your latest stay here.

[kestrel91316]

84. Ditto here.

[JDPriestly]

112. That Oswald may have been the only sharpshooter on that day does not mean that he "acted alone."

I think that focusing on whether Oswald killed Kennedy may distract from bigger questions about what may have happened on and before and after the moment of Kennedy's death.

I will watch the Nova show, but the details of the shooting are not the only issues in the case.

I have no particular theory about this, but here is an interesting article that raises the curiosity and whets the imagination of any person who lived in 1963 and was old enough and engaged enough to follow what was going on at the time of the Kennedy assassination.

We don't have all the answers. That is all I can say. This is a curious story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_de_Mohrenschildt

[JaneyVee]

5. What was Oswalds motive? Was he perhaps hired by someone?

[Archae]

6. Quite simple.

Oswald was a very pro-Castro leftist.

Kennedy was openly anti-Castro.

[duffyduff]

56. Easier than that: Oswald was felt he was a loser and had delusions he wanted to be remembered

in history. He failed at everything he tried up to November 22, 1963. He tried the nonsense with Gen. Walker, but that failed.

The opportunity came up with JFK coming to Dallas, and Oswald, holding a temporary position at the book warehouse, took advantage of the opportunity.

Oswald was batshit crazy, and he in turn was killed by a batshit crazy individual.

That's really all it ever was.

[Ace Acme]

62. If that's all there is, then why are the files secret for 75 years?

Last edited Wed Nov 20, 2013, 06:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Or is that all just a joke? They'll open the boxes and find notes "Ha ha! Made ya look!"?

[stopbush]

94. You realize that a lot of the records being kept secret

deal with taxes and other financial information of the Kennedys et al.

There's no smoking gun here, just a respect for people's privacy.

You're right: the reaction in 2017 is going to be, "made ya look!"

[Ace Acme]

96. You know what's in the secret files! You must be very well connected!

It always amuses me when people claim knowledge they can not possibly have. Are they so stupid they think we believe them? Are they so stupid they don't know we can't believe them?

[The Midway Rebel]

107. And BOOM there it is.

This is the part of the debate where a CTer accuses a CT denyer of being a part of the conspiracy. Never fails at DU. A Hollywood writer could not have scripted any better. Bonus points for the oblique personal attack suggesting the other poster is stupid.

Watching these debates inevitably turn to this over the years is but one of the things that finally convinced me to change my mind about a conspiracy. That and accumulated irrefutable forensic science. Ad hominem attacks do not convince anyone and only expose you as having no counter argument.

[Ace Acme]

110. The Confirmation Biased think every click is a BOOM.

Do you seriously think I was seriously suggesting that what's his face knows, as he claims, what is in the files and not in the files?

No, I was making the point that there's no way that what's his face knows, as he claims, what is in the files and not in the files.

It's not an ad hominem attack to point out that claims to impossible knowledge are an unintelligent argument.

[The Midway Rebel]

115. So confirmation bias applies to everyone?

Except you? Sorry, but I cannot help but see that as more personal attack.

[Ace Acme]

118. If every correction is a personal attack, then no correction is permitted.

If I have exhibited confirmation bias, by all means point it out.

Your beliefs that I am a conspiracy theorist, and that I have accused what's-his-face of being in on the conspiracy theory, is confirmation bias squared. And pointing that out is not a personal attack. It is a correction of your faulty argument.

[The Midway Rebel]

120. I did point it out.

Your personal attacks all over this thread area fine display of confirmation bias. You denial of the Zapruder film down thread is the epitome of confirmation bias. If you do not agree with the evidence, you claim it is faked.

[Ace Acme]

121. I never denied the Zapruder film.

I denied that your anonymous Belgian analyst's rendition of it was authenticated.

[stopbush]

114. It always amuses me when people talk through their hats, as you are doing now.

Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2013, 04:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Assassination Records Review Board

The Act established, as an independent agency, the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) to consider and render decisions when a U.S. government office sought to postpone the disclosure of assassination records. The Board met for four years, from October 1, 1994 to September 30, 1998. When the Act was passed in 1992, 98 percent of all Warren Commission documents had been released to the public. By the time the Board disbanded, all Warren Commission documents, except income tax returns, had been released to the public, with only minor redactions. Redacted text includes the names of living intelligence sources, intelligence gathering methods still used today and not commonly known, and purely private matters. The Kennedy autopsy photographs and X-rays were never part of the Warren Commission records and were deeded separately to the National Archives by the Kennedy family in 1966 under restricted conditions. The JFK Records Act specifically excluded those records. - Source - ARRB Final Report, pg 2

BTW - if you don't trust/believe the government, why would you believe that there are any secret files at all?

[nyquil_man]

8. What madness drives anyone to kill another human being,

whether it's a President or a classroom full of children?

[CANDO]

15. Oswald was a goofy character

He was obviously a leftist. He tried renouncing his citizenship and obtaining Russian. Moscow refused his attempt. Friends of his said he had an obsession to do something so astounding that history would remember him for. He is suspected of shooting into the home of an Army General (right wing) he hated in an attempt to assassinate him. One bullet missed the General by an inch.

[The Midway Rebel]

23. This explains more than the pure conjecture that he was hired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Just saw this online

One thing that caught my attention at the very end - someone is describing how the nerves would have fired and caused the back to arch as the bullet went through the brain. But as he describes it, he arches his own back straight back. Then they show the Zapruder film again and it's clear that only Kennedy's left side is arching.

But that makes sense. Only the right half of Kennedy's brain is damaged. So it would be only the left side that reacts.

Further, a shot from the grassy knoll would have damaged both sides of his brain and caused Kennedy's complete back to arch back. He would have gone straight back and we'd all be here fifty years later talking about the second shooter on the overpass.

[cpwm17]

12. That's a good catch concerning JFK's arching back

Next time I watch the Zapruder film I'll look for it.

[solarhydrocan]

11. It would be silly to think the CIA could have had a part in this...

Everyone knows they only do wet work in other countries

The United States has been involved in and assisted in the overthrow of foreign governments (more recently termed "regime change&quot without the overt use of U.S. military force. Often, such operations are tasked to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Regime change has been attempted through direct involvement of U.S. operatives, the funding and training of insurgency groups within these countries, anti-regime propaganda campaigns, coups d'état, and other activities usually conducted as operations by the CIA. The U.S. has also accomplished regime change by direct military action, such as following the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 and the U.S.-led military invasion of Iraq in 2003.

2 During the Cold War

2.1 Communist states 1944–89
2.2 Syria 1949
2.3 Iran 1953
2.4 Guatemala 1954
2.5 Tibet 1955–70s
2.6 Indonesia 1958
2.7 Cuba 1959
2.8 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960–65
2.9 Iraq 1960–63
2.10 Dominican Republic 1961
2.11 South Vietnam 1963
2.12 Brazil 1964
2.13 Ghana 1966
2.14 Chile 1970–73
2.15 Argentina 1976
2.16 Afghanistan 1979–89
2.17 Turkey 1980
2.18 Poland 1980–81
2.19 Nicaragua 1981–90
--2.19.1 Destablization through CIA Assets
--2.19.2 Arming the Contras
2.20 Cambodia 1980–95
2.21 Angola 1980s
2.22 Philippines 1986

3 Since the end of the Cold War

3.1 Iraq 1992–96
3.2 Afghanistan 2001
3.3 Venezuela 2002
3.4 Iraq 2002–03
3.5 Haiti 2004
3.6 Gaza Strip 2006–present
3.7 Somalia 2006–07
3.8 Iran 2005–present
3.9 Libya 2011
3.10 Syria 2012–present
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions

Trained killers wouldn't even think of operating on US soil.

And none of this will ever come back around.
Because the US is Exceptional.

Those who question the right of the US to treat the rest of the world like a junkyard are Un American.

Operation 40 was a Central Intelligence Agency-sponsored undercover operation in the early 1960s, which was active in the United States and the Caribbean (including Cuba), Central America, and Mexico.

It was approved by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in March 1960, after the January 1959 Cuban Revolution, and was presided over by Vice-president Richard Nixon.

The group included Frank Sturgis (who would later become one of the Watergate burglars); Felix Rodriguez (a CIA officer who later was involved in the capture and summary execution of Che Guevara); Luis Posada Carriles (held in the US in 2010 on charges of illegal immigration, he is demanded by Venezuela for his key role in the execution of the 1976 Cubana Flight 455 bombing); Orlando Bosch (founder of the counterrevolutionary Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations, that organized the 1976 murder of Chilean former minister Orlando Letelier); Rafael 'Chi Chi' Quintero; Virgilio Paz Romero; Pedro Luis Diaz Lanz; Bernard Barker; Porter Goss; and Barry Seal. Members took part in the April 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion directed against the government of Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro.



Operation 40 had 86 employees in 1961, of which 37 were trained as case officers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_40

USA USA USA!

[cpwm17]

14. Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower

I own the book: http://www.amazon.com/Rogue-State-Guide-Worlds-Superpower/dp/1567513743

Anyone that is paying attention should know that the US Government is full of sociopaths. But that is not evidence that anyone other than Oswald killed JFK.

We could use the knowledge of where the sociopaths occupy positions of power to help determine the guilty parties if there is actual evidence for a particular crime being committed by powerful people. No such evidence exits, so information about the CIA's bad deeds is totally irrelevant.

[The Midway Rebel]

17. Great history lesson, but that does not prove anyone other than LHO fired the shots.

We are not the guys in white hats. Quell shock.

Did you see the show? Care to comment of the forensic science that the OP addressed?

[Ace Acme]

63. Expecting proof before there's been a proper investigation is unreasonable. nt

[The Midway Rebel]

66. Don't tell me.

Tell the CTers.

Did you see the Cold Case documentary? Care to comment on the forensic evidence presented.

[Ace Acme]

67. Haven't seen it. I'm not particularly interested in the Magic Bullet theory.

I'll buy that if Connolly had his hand on his knee and was twisting around, it's possible.

I resent that one theory being used as a proxy for the whole JFK case, though. Why can't we see the documents?

[The Midway Rebel]

69. That's cool.

I am not really interested in hearing conspiracy theories.

What documents haven't we seen?

[Ace Acme]

70. The documents that will remain classified for another 25 years. nt

[The Midway Rebel]

74. Got a link? Something academic or peer reviewed? I always hear CTers talk about the secret files.

I think they are mostly mythical.

I believe 97% of the docs are public, a few remain sealed because its CIA shit. I do not believe a smoking gun will emerge from the remaining 3% of documents released in 25 years. (You said 75 years upthread fwiw.)

One thing is sure. Its a relatively safe bet for CTers to claim secrets are still locked up.

[Samantha]

53. Kudos to you for your wonderful post

Excellent.

Sam

[avaistheone1]

13. Yes, and scientists led the HSCA to the conclusion of conspiracy in the death of President Kennedy.

[The Midway Rebel]

19. That evidence has been more recently been rebuked based on science too.

The dictabelt evidence has been reexamined and found to be faulty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictabelt_evidence_relating_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy




Science, unlike CTers, science always adapts to accept new facts and data.

[avaistheone1]

21. An entry in wikipedia does not rebuke the HSCA findings.

[The Midway Rebel]

22. I did not say it did. I said the science did.

"The Justice Department reviewed the HSCA report and the National Academy of Science's study of the acoustical evidence. It reported to the Judiciary Committee on March 28, 1988 and rebuked the HSCA's conclusion of a probable conspiracy.[34]
In 2003, an independent researcher named Michael O'Dell reported that both the National Academy and Dr. Thomas had used incorrect timelines because they assumed the Dictabelt ran continuously. When corrected, these showed the impulses happened too late to be the real shots even with Thomas's alternative synchronization. In addition, he showed that, due to a mathematical misunderstanding and the presence of a known impulse pattern in the background noise, there never was a 95% or higher probability of a shot from the grassy knoll.[35]
A November 2003 analysis paid for by the cable television channel Court TV concluded that the gunshot sounds did not match test gunshot recordings fired in Dealey Plaza any better than random noise.[36] In December 2003, Thomas responded by pointing out what he claimed were errors in the November 2003 Court TV analysis."

This is from the article you apparently did not bother to read before you attacked it.

[avaistheone1]

24. There are scientists who disagree with the scientists you quoted.

The HSCA findings of conspiracy still stand. What do you mean be rebuke? No one, not even the Judiciary Committee has changed those findings.

Furthermore, I think all the Kennedy, MLK, and RFK records should be immediately, and the HSCA committee's work should be resumed. The American people deserve the truth about all of these assassinations.

[The Midway Rebel]

25. I am sure you will provide some links to those scientists who disagree with that evidence.

And no, the HSCA findings do not stand in the light of the new scientific evidence.

The dictabelt evidence the HSCA based their decision on was found to be faulty. Therefore, their findings were wrong. Sorry if you cannot grok that.

I do not know why you are trying to conflate the facts of the JFK assassination with those of RFK and MLK. Its almost like you are avoiding the facts under discussion here.

Deny the science all you want, you just look like you are clinging to a religious belief.

But we agree, the American people deserve the truth. LHO acted alone, however, very few, including you, seem willing to hear it.

[avaistheone1]

26. Any scientist can conduct experiments and state their studies are best.

Where are the peer reviewed studies of the scientists who you believe have the most accurate information?

Where is a statement from HSCA accepting rebuke from your favored scientists?

[The Midway Rebel]

28. Yes ANY scientist can, but any scientist did not.

Is this peer reviewable enough for you?

http://www.thekennedyhalfcentury.com/pdf/Kennedy-Half-Century-Audio-Research.pdf

The HSCA disbanded after they produced their faulty report. They would have to raise people from the dead to reform the committee and CTers still would likely not believe them.

[avaistheone1]

30. This is the original study that Sabato himself bought and paid for - for his own book.

Where are the peer scientific reviews of Sabato's study?

Oh and by the way until a committee is formed with the same scope and authority as the HSCA, the HSCA findings still stand.

[The Midway Rebel]

32. Says you.

And all the other CTers.

And it still does not overcome the scientific evidence that says LHO acted alone.

The HSCSA is not privileged to deny science and neither are you and all the other CTers.

[meanit]

51. The Warren Commission was not privileged to deny science either

but that's not a problem for you and it's supporters is it....?
The HSCSA still stands.

[The Midway Rebel]

52. Perhaps you could point to the evidence ignored by the WCR.

Otherwise you are blathering about nothing.

The HSCA confirms the single bullet theory.

Are you agreeing with it?

[meanit]

59. The flaws of the WCR are well known, such as the Magic Bullet theory for one,

no matter how many Aussies fire rifles into meat-bags.
But the bigger point is that despite the numerous credible problems with the WCR, you and many others here insist that the report is absolute and anybody who questions it is basically a screwball. Yet some of the conclusions reached by the HSCA, a bona-fide governmental investigative body with a mission similar to the WC, is dismissed as utter bullshit and the ones who believe it, as fools.

Blathering indeed.

[The Midway Rebel]

61. You should fact check yourself before blathering further.

The HSCA agreed with the WCR about the single bullet. You do not get to pick and choose facts to suit your personal CT.

And both WCR and HSCA were a "bona-fide governmental investigative body." So you have no point there.

I'll ask again so you can blather some more: So what are the problems that you find with the WCR? Any specifics you'd like to discuss?

Did you see the Cold Case video? Are you going to watch it? Or, are you going to blather about meat bags some more and claim you know what truth is without the information in the Cold Case documentary?

You will have to show me where I claimed the WCR is absolute and called anyone who questioned it a screwball, otherwise, you are still blathering and attacking me with false accusations.

Also, show me where I completely dismissed all the findings of the HSCA.

[meanit]

75. I never mentioned if the HSCA did or didn't agree with the WCR about the single bullet.

Don't put words in my mouth.

And no kidding the WCR and the HSCA were both "bona-fide governmental investigative bodies". That's what I said. Neither bodies' conclusions trumps the other.

Sorry, I don't agree with the Cold Case's conclusions, but I never claimed to have "the truth" either.
Again, your projection, not mine.

You also apparently dismiss the possible conspiracy conclusion of the HSCA, not all the findings.

And no, you never called anyone "a screwball", I was speaking figuratively, but the condescending and arrogant attitude about other possibilities people may have as CT's certainly implies that. Re-read your posts.

[The Midway Rebel]

77. So if I understand you correctly...

You believe the HSCA when they say conspiracy, but disagree with both the HSCA and the WCR when they claim single bullet. Is that about right?

And what about the Cold Case documentary do you find unbelievable?

And I reread my post in this thread and my snark is par for DU. Believers in the conclusions of the WCR are called blind, conservatives, idiots, stupid, part of the conspiracy, and all manner of personal attacks. Shall I find you some links to those posts? Jack Riddler's poll shows we are the vast minority here on DU. You will see in this thread I have taken a few personal attacks. It takes a thick skin to hang out here.

[stopbush]

49. All that "stands" is that they got it wrong.

What a pathetic attempt to justify disbelieving scientific research.

BTW - there are a lot of crazy laws that are still "standing" around this country, but nobody goes around trying to enforce them.

[stopbush]

31. You're grasping at CT straws.

Give it up to science.

[stopbush]

47. The HSCA would need to reconvene to issue a statement accepting the rebuke.

Many of those people are now dead, so how do they reconvene?

You're throwing out a red herring.

BTW - science is science in spite of opinions like yours. Science changes when new evidence comes to light, unlike your sorry embrace of the discredited "evidence" cited by the HSCA.

In your world, any scientific idea that Sir Isaac Newton got wrong stands until and unless he can come back from the dead and "accept the rebuke" of modern science. Until then, it remains a fact, in spite of what modern science has to say.

That IS what you're proposing, is it not?

[Bolo Boffin]

27. This recent study isn't Wikipedia.

http://www.thekennedyhalfcentury.com/pdf/Kennedy-Half-Century-Audio-Research.pdf

The motorcycle record on the Dictabelt was two miles away from Dealey Plaza. It cannot be a recording of the assassination. So the conspiracy conclusion of the HSCA was wrong.

[nyquil_man]

36. After a decade and a half of investigations into the crime,

including one by a sitting District Attorney, who claimed in 1967 that he and his staff had solved the case and had evidence of a conspiracy beyond the shadow of a doubt, the only piece of evidence the HSCA found even remotely credible was a sound impulse.

What's more, the sound impulse was supposed to have been picked up by the stuck microphone of HB McLain which, once he was actually allowed to listen to the Dictabelt recording, he was certain wasn't his.

When I came out, he asked "Is that your mike that's stuck?" and I replied that it wasn't. "Why?"

I told him, "It's a three-wheeler that's stuck."

You can tell very clearly the difference between the sound of a solo motorcycle that we rode and a three-wheel motorcycle; it's the daylight and dark. The solo engine has kind of a thump to it: CHUKE.. CHUKE.. CHUKE.., while the three-wheeler has more of a thrashing sound.. AAANG.. AAANG.. AAANG! You could hear this all on the tapes, but the people in Washington didn't listen. They were trying to tell us what it was.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jaynes/mclain.htm

[Logical]

44. And there are scientists who say the world is 3000 years old. So what?? n-t

[yurbud]

216. I think we're supposed to forget that ever happened, like the Saudi pages of the Joint Congressional

Inquiry into 9/11.

[KurtNYC]

34. I saw another one of these recently where they had a team in Australia

which specializes in land mine research, build replicas of Kennedy's torso, Connally's torso and Connally's wrist and thigh, all separate. Then they positioned them as they would have to line up to be hit by one bullet. They got a shot through all of them BUT the bullet just spills out of the fake Connally wrist and bounces off his thigh. The bullet is badly mis-shapen which they attribute to it hitting several fake ribs. Contrast this to Bullet 399 which shows no signs of hitting anything with density or being out of symmetry.

Connally, his wife and other witnesses believe that he was hit about a half second after JFK is hit through the throat. In the Zapruder film you can see that he doesn't slump until he is turning back to his left. The bullet that hits him make a keyhole entry wound so it isn't the clean hit that can take a second to feel. Connally absorbs much of the energy of the projectile, as was shown in the Australian recreation.

The Zapruder film shows JFK's head going backward with the impact of the head shot as we have all seen for ourselves way too many times. Secret Service immediately went up the hill after being hit by part of the shot and tissue. ZApruder himself said th4e shot came form behind his position. The WCR published frames 314 and 315 in reverse order but that has been cleared up as a printing error. JFK's head goes backward and so does the stuff that comes out.

Here are a variety of object moving backward and/or spraying to the exit side as they are hit by bullets. Under the law's of physics Kennedy's head is no different:

[The Midway Rebel]

35. None of those objects was anything like a human skull traveling a 11-12 mph away from the shooter.

And Zapruder frames 312-313 clearly show a violent head snap forward. His chin looks like it bounces off his chest before "back and to the left."

That gif. file of Zapruder 312-313 has been posted half a dozen time this week.

And what makes Australian "land mine researchers" qualified forensic scientists?

[HangOnKids]

37. How about about a few more attacks on CTers?

You seem especially good at that. Keep on Rebel you are a fucking hoot!

[The Midway Rebel]

38. Pot. Kettle. Black.

So have you seen the Cold Case program? Care to talk about the evidence? Or, are you just here for the snark?

[HangOnKids]

39. I am here to laugh

Thanks for helping that cause.

[The Midway Rebel]

41. Sure you are.

Are you sure you don't want to talk about the evidence? If not, why? Afraid of having your beliefs challenged?

These personal attacks really do not help CTers prove their case, but thanks for adding to the evidence piling up right here at DU that when cornered with evidence that says LHO acted alone, that's what CTers do; they attack the messenger.

But do carry on, your personal attacks on me will not change the fact the LHO acted alone.

[KurtNYC]

57. 313 is blurred, the SecSrvc to the left rear of the car were splattered and they

went to the knoll in pursuit of the shooter(s).

The documentary was done in 2004 by the Discovery Channel and was the most expensive and elaborate recreations yet done. The test was designed in part by Dr Alexander Krstic and this is the company:

http://www.tnesystems.com/media.html

Complete doc is here, their segment starts around 0:52:00

The test bullet is distorted sideways because it enters the fake Connally torso sideways creating the keyhole entry wound, very much like the one observed on Connally. 399 is symmetrical.

Thread on Josiah Thompson, author of "Six Seconds in Dallas", where he details the mistake of frame 313 -- "Untrue Facts..." is here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017159342

[The Midway Rebel]

58. The motorcycle cop was sprayed too.

That is what one would expect from a an exploding human skull traveling forward at 11-12 mph. Once some of that blood, bone and brain was thrown into the air above the windshield, it was stationary relative to the SS agent and the cop. They drove and walked into the mist of tissue. Everyone in the car forward of JFK was sprayed too.

A shot from the grassy knoll would have gone through JFK and hit Jacquie. Where is the bullet or bullet fragments form that grassy knoll shot? Why have no bullets or bullet fragments been found that came from a gun other than the one LHO fired that day? You apparently have not watched the video in the OP because the ballistics expert perfectly explains why some people heard more than three shots and why some thought the shots came from the grassy knoll.

As for the documentary in your post, expensive and elaborate does not make recreations correct. If expensive and elaborate were the hallmarks of good science we would value Rube Goldberg more than Einstein. That and we have only your word that the video you show is the "most expensive and elaborate."

CE-399 is far from symmetrical. It is flattened and warped.

One persons opinion of the Zapruder film does not change the fact that ALL of the forensic evidence points at LHO.

ETA I just watched that video of J. Thompson. He has absolutely no scientific basis for the claim he makes at 10:25 and a frontal shot completely ignores the autopsy and ex-rays. Also the dictabelt evidence is bogus and had been proven so.

[cpwm17]

60. I watched the program

Their results from recreating the "single bullet theory" was close to what happened in real life. It's difficult to exactly duplicate what happen in real life since they can't shoot real humans, and while shooting through multiple objects, the difference of a millimeter here and a millimeter there can significantly change the results.

The bullet obviously came from behind: http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm

[Ace Acme]

64. There's no snap forward. Frame 313 is blurred, Zapruder jumped. nt

[The Midway Rebel]

68. Evidence that Zapruder jumped is questionable.

Just the opinion of one guy that says he did so and there is not much science behind it.

You can see JFKs chin press down to his chest as the bullet exits his skull.

Not to mention that to believe in a shot from the front we have to ignore the autopsy, x-rays and other forensic science that says a shot came from the TSBD.

Did you see the Cold Case documentary? Care to comment on the evidence it presented?

[Ace Acme]

71. Frame 313 is smeared. You can see the difference between 312 and 313. Check the highlights. nt

[The Midway Rebel]

86. Smear schmear.

I am watching the frames and I see a forward motion of JFKs head relative to Jacquie's face regardless of the smear. His chin hit his chest.

http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm

[Ace Acme]

88. You can see the highlights smeared for several inches in 313. nt

[The Midway Rebel]

91. What about that smear?

I am looking at Jacquie's face relative to the position of JFK's head in 312 and 313. And I expect a smear in 313 as JFKs head snaps forward at virtually the same speed as the bullet.

[Ace Acme]

97. The smear of the highlights in 313 is not present in the same highlights in 312.

Why do you have so much invested in the "nothing to see here, move it on" stance? What kind of person wants to obstruct a complete and honest examination of the facts?

[The Midway Rebel]

189. I never said that, nor implied that.

In fact if you read the thread I encourage reasoned debate based on the forensic evidence. But you keeping making it personal. Instead of talking about the facts, you want to talk about the people talking about the facts. So I'll turn this around and ask you, "What kind of person is willing to ignore the forensic science in the JFK assassination and questions the motives of those who do want to look at the evidence?"

[Ace Acme]

192. Your Belgian website is anonymous work

Anonymous science is not good science, and your inability to recognize that torpedoes your credibility.

[The Midway Rebel]

198. Yes, you have pointed that out like five times now.

And in a display of my open mindedness and willingness to discuss the forensic science that is verifiable I said I was willing to throw that piece out four times now.

I also asked you for what you consider valid evidence and yet you continue with this tact along with personal attacks. You act as if fearful of looking at something that might challenge your beliefs.



Seen the Cold Case documentary yet?

[Bolo Boffin]

207. Someone with the psuedonym "Ace Acme" is knocking anonymous work?

Really?

[Ace Acme]

208. Only a fool would accept my animations at face value.

Anonymous science is bad science.

[Bolo Boffin]

209. And there we have it, ladies and gentlemen!

Thank you, try the veal, and be sure to tip your waiter.

[Ace Acme]

218. Anonymous science is bad science.

I can put forth an argument anonymously that stands on its own merits--is it supported by evidence, is it internally consistent, does it cite its sources?

If I put up easily-faked evidence anonymously, only a fool would waste any time on it. It has no merits--except it may perhaps tickle your confirmation bias and feed your credulity. Like I said, your anonymous Belgian website might just as well show pictures of flying saucers or Nazi military bases on the moon.

Thanks for showing what your judgments are worth.

[cpwm17]

72. You're wrong

http://users.skynet.be/mar/Eng/Headshot/back&left-eng.htm

Even by using the most generous view for skeptics of frames 312 to 313, JFK's head still significantly snapped forward. It's unmistakable.

[Ace Acme]

85. Says an anonymous internet poster

Do you believe every glitzy animation on the web?

[zappaman]

87. I believe my eyes.

Do you not believe yours?


Smeared!

[Ace Acme]

89. It's not your eyes, it's an animation on the internet.

Do you believe every animation you see on the internet?

[zappaman]

93. "it's an animation on the internet."

[The Midway Rebel]

90. Its not an animation.

It's the Zapruder film.

And thinly veiled personal attacks do not help you argue your case.

[Ace Acme]

100. It's a 2-frame animation that is alleged to be from the Zapruder film.

But since it comes from an anonymous internet poster, we can not verify that it is what it purports to be. Any fool with free graphics software can take screen caps from the Zapruder film and change them and stick lines on them and make a 2-frame animation. And those who are victims of their own confirmation bias will assume that they're true and correct.

[The Midway Rebel]

102. Good grief.

Alleged? Really? That's your argument? That's the product of your critical thinking, that the two frames under discussion is a cartoon? Well if that evidence is faked, it is all faked.



I can't argue with that kind of cynicism.

[Ace Acme]

105. Not cynicism--rigor. I happen to know how easy it would be to alter the images.

Your reliance on the claims of an anonymous internet poster is quite credulous and irresponsible.

This guy, who has a name, has a different opinion:

[The Midway Rebel]

113. These personal attacks suck.

Now I'm credulous and irresponsible as well as stupid . Wow.

I thought you said the Zapruder film was a cartoon? You can't have it both ways.

How about this university professor who says the same thing about 312-313? Is he credulous and irresponsible as well as stupid too?

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

[Ace Acme]

127. I never said the Zapruder film was a cartoon.

When you guys play dumb there's no reason to engage.

[The Midway Rebel]

132. Sorry, "animation".

And I am sure you can prove that the frames under discussion are an animation since that is your claim. And, it is so easy to do maybe you can make one of your own and tell us how were were duped.

[Ace Acme]

133. I never said the Zapruder film was an animation.

Your inability to distinguish between primary (Zapruder) and secondary (the Belgian website) sources is quite baffling? Did you graduate from high school?

[The Midway Rebel]

136. More personal attacks. What else you got?

I see the same forward head snap here.

[Ace Acme]

137. More anonymous unauthenticated "evidence" from you.

Have you got anything? Do you believe everything you see on the internet? And you think we should too?

[The Midway Rebel]

145. OK I'll play your game.

First you will have to tell us what in your world counts as "authenticated evidence". How about the ballistic tests in the Cold Case documentary? Any comments? What about x-rays and autopsy reports? Do they count? Bullet fragments?

Oh, and am I allowed to hurl insults as you have in this thread?

[Ace Acme]

151. Now you change the subject.

You have asserted that a very-easily fabricated animation featured on an anonymous website should be taken as authenticated evidence.

And rather than explain why it should be taken as authenticated evidence, you change the subject to
ballistic tests, x-rays, autopsy reports, bullet fragments, and insults.

Am I take that as an acknowledgement that you can not explain why the animation should be regarded as authenticated?

[The Midway Rebel]

158. Sure, you can take it however you want.

As long as I may consider your failure to discuss the facts of the documentary discussed in the OP, forensic evidence, or provide us with what you deem authenticated evidence as a retreat from your argument.

[Ace Acme]

160. More changing the subject I see.

So you won't admit that the Belgian animation can not be authenticated?

How can I trust people who cite dodgy sources and refuse to admit when they are wrong?

[The Midway Rebel]

165. OK, I am willing to throw that out.

Care to talk about the forensic and ballistic evidence in the Cold Case documentary?

[Ace Acme]

168. No. I have no interest in the magic bullet. nt

[The Midway Rebel]

170. Or, forensic evidence that indicates there was no magic bullet.

There. I finished your sentence for you.

[Ace Acme]

172. Oh there was no bullet that caused 7 wounds?

That's a new one on me. What was it, a Directed Energy Weapon from outer space?

[The Midway Rebel]

186. Yes, there was a single bullet that caused seven wounds. No magic, only physics.

So do you believe in the magic bullet, or not?

[Spider Jerusalem]

92. There's an obvious snap forward

the position of Kennedy's head relative to the interior of the limo, the inside door handle, etc shows a very noticeable forward movement. Jackie didn't move. You can see it in this:

[Ace Acme]

101. Do you always rely on anonymous internet posters as expert witnesses? nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

104. No, I'm relying on the obvious evidence right before my eyes.

If you want an "expert witness", how about the late Richard Feynman? I suppose a Nobel Prize-winning physicist probably meets your criteria for "expert".

Conspiracy theorist David Lifton took still frames from the film to Feynman at Cal Tech in 1965; Feynman focused on frames 312 (right before the headshot) and 313 (the moment of impact of the headshot) and observed the forward movement. (Further, more recent analysis confirms it; when frame 313 is sharpened to remove the blur? The forward motion is still there. When frame 312 is blurred by the same amount? The forward motion is still there.)

[Ace Acme]

106. You're relying on the "obvious evidence" of an unauthenticated video sample.

In doing so you demonstrate your credulity and your irresponsibility, thank you very much.

Sharpening to remove the blur is not the point. A sharpened smear is still a smear, representing lateral movement of the camera, as is so well discussed here:

[Spider Jerusalem]

109. No, I'm not.

Because the exact same thing was observed in stills from the original frames. You have no idea what you are talking about. (And the shot clearly came from behind; the forensic evidence of the autopsy is wholly consistent with a shot from behind and wholly inconsistent with a shot from anywhere else.)

[Ace Acme]

111. Whose stills? Your epistemic incompetence is showing. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

116. Completely irrelevant.

Stills from the copy of the film held in the National Archives, not that that matters. The argument that "the film was altered" is not consistent with the fact that the autopsy evidence supports a shot from behind; there was a crater around the bullet hole on the inside back of his skull. This is known as "bevelling"; it is always a sign of an entry wound, not an exit wound. Go and shoot a plate-glass window with an air rifle and see what happens; a crater will form on the side opposite the impact. Same principle. And the argument that "the autopsy photos are faked/the body was altered" is completely inconsistent with the fact that the body was under constant guard every step of the way from Parkland to Bethesda and the autopsy photos have been confirmed as authentic by the HSCA review panel.

[Ace Acme]

125. I never said the film was altered.

When you're so far off the beam in the opening, there's no reason to read any further.

[The Midway Rebel]

117. So add incompetence to stupid, credulous, and irresponsible.

You might as well quit while you are ahead.

[Ace Acme]

128. It's incompetent to credulously accept unauthenticated evidence. nt

[William Seger]

184. Nope, the smear is not "well discussed" in that video

He is simply wrong, but you have credulously accepted it because of your own confirmation bias.

Yes, frame 313 is blurred by camera motion, but that doesn't mean that you can assume that any "horizontal elongation" is a result of that motion. The forward snap cannot be explained by the camera motion for a simple reason that he completely missed, but which was already taken into account in the gif that was posted (and many others):



Notice that the white lines at Connally's head, Jackie's hat and left arm, and the door handle are all set to be on the right end of those motion blurs, such that all the blur of those objects is toward the left. It isn't possible to say from just these two frames whether the right end of those blurs the beginning or the end of the exposure for frame 313, but we can say one thing: No motion blur caused by camera motion can be towards the right of where an object is in frame 312; all the camera motion blur is towards the left.

Now think about what that means for the hypothesis that the forward head snap is an illusion caused by the motion blur. (No, seriously, think about it before replying.)

[The Midway Rebel]

185. Kicking for Ace Acme. nt

[Ace Acme]

194. What kind of camera was Zapruder using, and how did the shutter work?`

Was it a horizontal shutter?

Arguing these points amongst anonymous ideologues is a waste of time. We need a complete, honest investigation. Why are you laboring so to obstruct it?

[William Seger]

206. Bell & Howell 414PD

... which has a rotating disk shutter with an open sector of about 170 degrees.

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the point I made about the direction of the blur.

If the two frames are aligned such that the right end of any one of the blur streaks in 313 lines up with the right edge of the unblurred image of the same object in 312, then ALL the motion blurs in 313 will be toward the left of those same objects in 312. That's because the camera's motion will have the same effect on the entire frame, not different effects on different parts of the frame. If that logic isn't good enough for you, then please note that the gif shows white lines on FOUR blur streaks that are all toward the left, so the alignment could have been done with any one of them.

If you understand that principle, then you should understand why the forward snap of JFK's head cannot be explained by camera motion blur, because that would imply an impossible blur streak toward the right.

Furthermore, the PROOF is that if Thompson were correct, then we would see exactly the same "illusion" of a forward snap of Connally's head, but we don't. We can clearly see the leftward motion blur of the back of Connally's head, as expected.

I claim that this is simply valid reasoning based on sound facts, "Ace," and I claim that even we "anonymous ideologues" can do that properly, and I claim that all I'm trying to "obstruct" is the propagation of bullshit. If you think you can refute what I'm saying, have at it, but judging by your performance on the Creative Speculation board, you will now want to continue a never-ending thread where you completely ignore each of these points and instead keep repeating the same irrelevancies over and over and over in the mistaken belief that you're not wrong as long as you refuse to admit it. If that's what you want to do, then please don't pollute GD with it; bring it over to CS.

[Ace Acme]

233. I'll leave the thinking to people who have real names, "William"

Us anonymous internet posters should stick to verifiable facts.

[zappaman]

238. Good idea, Abe.

[stopbush]

45. It means nothing that the bullet was "badly misshapen" in the Australian test you mention.

Last edited Wed Nov 20, 2013, 01:30 AM - Edit history (1)

Anybody running such a test is tasked with the almost-impossible job of trying to recreate the event as closely as possible, including whether the bullet hit bone, and if it hit bone, how much and at what angle. That wasn't a concern for Oswald when he took his shots. But for the forensic team trying to recreate the shot, it is a concern.

They're firing from 88 yards, sometimes at a moving target. If they're off by a millimeter, the bullet is going to behave differently than it did going through JFK & Connally. Being off a bit means that the bullet may hit simulated bone that CE399 didn't hit.

I can't believe you'd put that forward as some kind of "a-HA!" moment to cast doubt on the SBT.

The best these tests can offer is proof of high probability/possibility that one theory or another is worth considering. In that respect, the tests you mention add a lot of cred to the single bullet theory - or fact - as it were.

[nyquil_man]

46. Good point.

It's hard to replicate ineptitude. Oswald was aiming for the head and it took him three tries to hit it.

I'd imagine it would be pretty difficult for an expert shooter to recreate Hinckley's shooting, too, especially the shot which ricocheted into Reagan.

[stopbush]

48. Exactly. But don't tell that to the CTists. It might spoil their holiday.

[duffyduff]

54. I'll take a look at it. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

73. Nova Huh? Did they include the core columns this time?

PBS just ain't what it used to be...

[Ace Acme]

76. There were no core columns. Everybody knows that.

The center of the building was a hollow steel shaft. It says so in the official report.

[zappaman]

78. This bunny cage experiment may help you understand better...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x56836

[Ace Acme]

98. Maybe it helps you understand something; I doubt your understanding is true

The 9/11 Commission said that the core of the towers was a "hollow steel shaft".

Do you deny that fact?

[kestrel91316]

80. No, they covered very nicely how the head shot made his head move BACK like it did.

His head went forward before the head shot in response to the first shot, which came from behind and exited his anterior neck.

EXCELLENT forensic evaluation of the facts using new technology, and the whole thing really was simple. Three shots, two impacts (one involving Kennedy AND Connolley, the "magic bullet&quot .

Everyone should watch this. We'd have a lot less of the conspiracy nonsense if they did.

I still think Poppy Bush had something to do with it though. I just don't think anybody other than Oswald did any shooting.

[stopbush]

95. What's really amazing is that the findings of the WCR stand up to advances in science,

especially the leaps forward in forensics.

If the WC had faked the evidence or their testing, they would have done so using technologies available in 1964. One would have to assume that any fakery from 1964 would have been revealed by the advances in science over the past 50 years, for the simple fact that fakers in 1964 would have no idea what they would be up against from science 50 years later, and any fake would be easy to spot (think Lance Armstrong having to finally admit to cheating when he was shown that new tests had been able to detect his cheating from years ago, cheating that tests done at the time he was cheating weren't able to catch).

But the opposite is true in the case of the WC: science continues to confirm their conclusions.

[Ace Acme]

99. Interesting that you seem unable to distinguish

between evidence and testing (one one hand) and conclusions (on the other).

[The Midway Rebel]

103. What else you got besides personal attack?

Besides a denial of the evidence that does not agree with your personal fantasy of a CT.

[Ace Acme]

108. What makes you think I have a conspiracy theory?

I haven't advanced any theory.

There is a conspiracy fact--a conspiracy to lock away the files for another 25 years.

If a lone nut did it, what's to hide for 75 years?

[Spider Jerusalem]

119. The names of US agents and informants in places like Cuba, for one thing.

Some of whom are probably still alive. The US government would have relied on such agents to reliably inform them that "no, it wasn't Fidel", "no, it wasn't the KGB" and so on, at a time when there was a very real worry among members of the US government that there may in fact have been a Communist conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy (because of Oswald's known Communist sympathies and history as a defector). Had there been, it's something that could have led to war (given the contemporary tensions, nuclear war), so it was a very real concern.

[Ace Acme]

123. Do you think those names were given to the Warren Commission?

They were probably redacted in the original. You're really stretching.

[The Midway Rebel]

122. Your blatant denial of the forensic evidence suggests you have a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy fact you claim?



No sir, no sign of a confirmation bias in that statement.

[Ace Acme]

124. It's not a conspiracy to hide evidence from the public for 75 years?

Thanks for showing where you come from.

I didn't deny any forensic evidence. I pointed out that the evidence of the Belgian website is unauthenticated.

[Spider Jerusalem]

129. No, it's not.

Most countries have a hundred-year rule for sensitive information. And the evidence of that website is in fact as authenticated. Unless you're going to argue that the film was faked, or that the forensics of the autopsy (which show a shot from behind, confirmed by the Clark panel review, confirmed by the HSCA forensic panel review, et cetera ad infinitum) were faked. The forward snap (first observed on close examination, again, in 1965) is a fact consistent with and supported by the forensic evidence showing a shot from behind and the ballistics evidence showing that bullet fragments recovered from the limo were fired from Oswald's rifle (and therefore from the TSBD, and therefore from behind). If there were any evidence whatever supporting a different shooter, a different weapon, or a frontal shot, then this could be said to be "unauthenticated"; in light of the evidence supporting it, calling it "unauthenticated" is frankly risible.

[Ace Acme]

130. What is sensitive about the assassination if a lone nut did it?

Thanks for showing where you're coming from.

Who says the Belgian website evidence is authenticated? You? An anonymous internet poster? And you expect to be believed? Is that your level of epistemic competence?

[Spider Jerusalem]

131. The names of US agents and informants in Cuba, Russia, et cetera are sensitive, clearly

and would probably be among the "JFK-related" documents still classified. Unless you happen to think that the public interest is served by exposing the names of US agents and informants who may still be alive or have living family members against whom reprisals may be carried out.

[Ace Acme]

134. Those names were surely redacted before the Commission even got the document.

Come on. What kind of analyst are you?

Who says the Belgian website evidence is authenticated? You? An anonymous internet poster? And you expect to be believed? Is that your level of epistemic competence?

[Spider Jerusalem]

140. Independent analysis, for one:

...Six Seconds in Dallas by Josiah Thompson, in which Thompson treated the whole head snap issue in considerable depth, though ultimately incorrectly.163 Thompson’s book pointed out that Kennedy’s head was propelled slightly forward between Z312 and Z313 (the frame in which blood and tissue are seen spraying forward from the president’s head).

Thompson’s observation was confirmed when in 1975 CBS asked Itek Corporation, a Massachusetts photo optics company, to study the original Zapruder film using the most advanced photo analysis techniques and instrumentation then available. (CBS had purchased, from Zapruder’s heirs, the right to use the original for analysis purposes.) Over several months, Itek, with a staff of a dozen specialists, studied the film. Among the many findings in its ninety-four-page report to CBS in 1976, Itek proved that before the president’s head snap to the rear commenced at Z314 and continued until Z321, “at [Zapruder frames] 312–313 [the president’s] head goes forward approximately 2.3 inches, his shoulder about 1.1 inches.”164 Although at one point Itek’s report says that “frame 313 is the frame in which the President is fatally struck in the head,” it is clear from the report that Itek’s experts believed the shot struck at frame 312, at another point saying, “Prior to impact at frame 312,” and referring “to the impact at frames 312–313.”

(From Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History&quot (extensive citations and references to underlying sources)

See also here:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2512&dat=19751126&id=IiRIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SwANAAAAIBAJ&pg=886,4177375

[Ace Acme]

142. So you're claiming a 1976 study authenticated the Belgian website?

Is that your level of epistemic competence?

[Spider Jerusalem]

143. It authenticated the information presented.

Which amounts to the same thing. It's a documented and authenticated fact that Kennedy's head moved forward at the moment of the headshot. Arguing otherwise is arguing from ignorance.

[Ace Acme]

146. I guess you didn't get the memo. Josiah Thompson says he was wrong.

Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2013, 08:56 PM - Edit history (1)

[Spider Jerusalem]

148. Which doesn't contradict the conclusions of the Itek analysis.

Or for that matter of Feynman's analysis. Cherry-picking for things that support a conspiracy argument? And you have thre barefaced cheek to toss around "epistemic competence"? Hah.

[Ace Acme]

153. I'm not making any claims. I'm just poking holes in yours. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

154. No, you aren't.

you may think you are, but you're only succeeding in showing yourself up as rather ridiculous.

[Ace Acme]

157. That's an empty claim. Thanks for playing. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

173. Not really, no

presented with evidence what do you do? "oh but Josiah Thompson has changed his mind!...never mind about the independent photographic analysis that reached identical conclusions, I'm just going to ignore that because it doesn't fit with the argument I want to make." Which is, you know, ridiculous. (And the claim that "no, what was measured was the blur"? Doesn't hold up.)

Five frames, approximately 0.28 sec. Note relative positions of passengers and driver relative to establishing lines.



Blowup of 312-313, note gap in 313 relative to 312 (which, by the way, is precisely what Feynman measured, what the Itek analysis measured, is consistent with the nature of the wounds as determined at autopsy, and is consistent with the fact that the spray of blood, brain tissue and bone fragments from the headshot is all forward and not back):

[Ace Acme]

177. You seem to have no concept of sourcing your documentation

Anybody can make pictures.

You might as well be showing pictures of flying saucers.

[Spider Jerusalem]

182. .....

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

The images are from the Zapruder film. Their authenticity is easily verifiable by reference with images of individual frames from the same which are readily available. The ready availability, wide dissemination, and notoriety of the film make any alteration from the version available to the public readily detectable and obvious. Your questioning of the "source" of the images is frankly absurd, the source should be obvious.

[Ace Acme]

193. Verifiable by whom? The website author is anonymous.

Anonymous science is not trustworthy science.

[Spider Jerusalem]

197. Says a 9/11 truther.

[Ace Acme]

199. So are you changing the subject, or attempting to refute an

irrefutable fact by employing an implicit ad hominem attack?

Honestly, you guys would make a better case if you'd just keep quiet.

[zappaman]

200. Oh Abe...

"Honestly, you guys would make a better case if you'd just keep quiet."

[Spider Jerusalem]

202. Pointing out that your claims to "science" are absurd.

And it's not just an "anonymous website author". It's careful photographic analysis. Refute the findings of that analysis. For that matter, address the findings of that analysis. All you've done so far is ignore it. (It's not anonymous, by the way.)

[Ace Acme]

221. Your false dichotomy is irrational.

I have no interest in refuting the easily-faked animations of anonymous analysts.

It's anonymous. You are very confused.

[Spider Jerusalem]

239. Itek isn't anonymous

address that rather than evading and ignoring it.

[Ace Acme]

246. You are, and Thompson appears to repudiate Itek. Try providing a

credible authority that endorses Itek.

[Spider Jerusalem]

248. Thompson has no credentials or expertise in forensics or photo analysis.

His refutation of Itek is therefore no better or more credible than any anonymous individual's.

[Ace Acme]

250. Thompson is an expert on the assassination with a reputation to uphold.

He's also a philosopher.

[Spider Jerusalem]

251. Which doesn't qualify him as a photographic analyst.

Other people with better credentials disagree with him.

[Ace Acme]

252. Anonymous web authors have better credentials than Thompson? nt

[The Midway Rebel]

139. More personal attack.

Thanks for showing where you are coming from too.

[Ace Acme]

144. What personal attack?

What is sensitive about the assassination if a lone nut did it? What personal attack?

Thanks for showing where you're coming from. What personal attack?

Who says the Belgian website evidence is authenticated? You? An anonymous internet poster? And you expect to be believed? Is that your level of epistemic competence? What personal attack?

[The Midway Rebel]

149. This one.

This is one of several in this thread where you accuse a poster of incompetence.

You wrote, "Is that your level of epistemic competence?"

Although indirect, and not as direct where you asked if I graduated high school up thread, its a personal attack and unnecessary to make your case.

[Ace Acme]

155. That's a question, not an attack.

Asking if you had graduated high school was a legitimate question when you seemed unable to distinguish between primary and secondary sources. And I'll note that you did not answer.

[The Midway Rebel]

164. I have an AA...

And dual BAs, one in US History and another in Secondary Ed, and I am presently completing a MA in US history with thesis at an R-1 university. Not that it's any of your business but you seem curious about that at least.

Yeah, I think I know the difference between primary and secondary sources. I also know a personal attack when I see it.

You wrote, "And I'll note that you did not answer." See that. That's a personal attack. You do that a frequently.

[Ace Acme]

166. What kind of historian would expect us to believe the claimed credentials

of an anonymous internet poster?

Noting that you did not answer a question is a personal attack?

If so, then surely your erroneous claims that I am engaging in personal attack are also a personal attack.

I really don't understand why you guys should be so hysterically defensive about the Warren Report.

[The Midway Rebel]

169. So, when I point out your personal attack you consider that a personal attack.

[Ace Acme]

171. More dodging. What kind of historian would expect us to believe the claimed

credentials of an anonymous internet poster?

[The Midway Rebel]

174. And more personal attack.

I said I was willing to throw it out up thread and discuss the evidence that was covered in the Cold Case documentary. But you said you chose to ignore the WCR and forensic science that says LHO acted alone. Are you ignorant? (See I can do personal attacks to. How do you like it??

[Ace Acme]

178. No, I'm not ignorant. Thanks for asking!

I understand that no reasonable, educated person can possibly expect any reasonable, educated person to accept the claimed credentials of an anonymous internet poster.

You don't.

[The Midway Rebel]

180. I said I was willing to throw it out twice now. Make this the third.

One more and you really will start appear ignorant.


Care to discuss the evidence presented in the Cold Case documentary? Or will you dodge it...again.

[Spider Jerusalem]

176. Ad hominem.

Address the evidence and/or the underlying source. The underlying source in this case is the Zapruder film itself. The evidence of forward motion is supported by independent analysis. "Credentials" don't enter into it.

[Ace Acme]

179. Your persistent inability to distinguish between the Zapruder film itself and a Belgian

website author's page of alleged screen caps from the Zapruder film itself only shows that you're wasting my time.

[Spider Jerusalem]

183. Easily verifiable as being images from the Zapruder film.

And we've gone beyond the "Belgian website". Address if you will the findings of the Itek analysis that reached the same conclusion. Or have you forgotten about that?

[Ace Acme]

191. Easily verified by whom? By confirmation biased zealots? nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

195. By anyone with access to the film.

Which in his day and age is anyone. There are multiple sources for individual frames. The only person here with any confirmation bias would be you. (And again, address the Itek analysis, rather than evading it and trying to make it about something else.)

[Ace Acme]

201. I'll suppose that Josiah Thomson is aware of the Itek

And is not impressed.

[Spider Jerusalem]

203. What are Josiah Thompson's credentials?

Is he a photographic expert? Is he a forensic scientist? No? Because photographic experts and forensic scientists examining the evidence have reached vastly different conclusions. For someone so obsessed with "credible evidence" you seem to be relying on a singularly weak source.

[Ace Acme]

204. If you don't know, you don't know much about the JFK hit. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

205. I know, but do you?

You're the one citing him as a source.

[Ace Acme]

210. He's an expert on the JFK hit.

I cited him for nothing more than his own opinion. Do you believe him to be ignorant of the Itek that you are citing as a source?

[Spider Jerusalem]

211. He's not a forensic scientist. He's not a photographic expert.

And he uncritically accepts the long-since debunked dictabelt recording as evidence of conspiracy. This calls his expertise into question.

[Ace Acme]

219. Neither is your anonymous Belgian website author.

Gee--employ differing standards much?

You didn't answer the question. Is he ignorant of the Itek?

[Spider Jerusalem]

240. We're not talking about that anymore.

We're talking about the analysis by Itek that found the same thing. Do keep up.

[Ace Acme]

241. Why aren't we talking about your inauthenticated anonymous web author anymore?

Because it's too embarrassing to your case?

You haven't answered the question. Do you claim that Josiah Thompson is ignorant of Itek?

[Spider Jerusalem]

242. No, we're talking about Itek because it reaches the exact same conclusions.

And Josiah Thompson is apparently ignorant of quite a lot (the analysis of the Dictabelt recording that shows it wasn't from a motorcycle in Dealey Plaza, for instance).

[Ace Acme]

243. Says an anonymous internet poster who cites no authorities. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

244. I provided a citation.

It is not my problem if you choose to ignore them. Just don't pretend to any sort of intellectual rigour when you do so.

[Ace Acme]

245. Oh, so you cited a Big Fat Bible we're s'posed to read cover to cover? nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

247. ...

http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1226546

[Ace Acme]

249. Nice try at phishing. You must think I'm stupid. nt

[William Seger]

217. That video actually PROVES he's incompetent at photo analysis

... yet you continue to try to pass it off as expert opinion after you've been shown why he's dead wrong. Your pretense of possessing superior objectivity is laughable.

[Ace Acme]

220. When did you show why he's wrong? I seem to have missed that part.

Must have been when I was rolling on the floor laughing.

[William Seger]

226. In the same post where I said I'm not gonna play your stupid games in GD

But yes, you do seem to miss a lot, so here ya go: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024032622#post206

And since you have (by default) conceded that you don't have a cogent response to it but want to play stupid games anyway, this will be my last reply to you in this thread.

[Ace Acme]

230. A self-referential re-iterative loop is where you showed why Thompson was wrong?

Thanks for showing where you're coming from.

[davidpdx]

147. Thanks for posting the link

To those outside the US, you might want to look on a certain Kick Ass site to find it.

[librechik]

188. BTW, Koch Brothers own Nova for the last few years.

Just keep that in mind while evaluating this episode. The Koch's wouldn't have broadcast anything they disapprove of.

[ancianita]

212. Oh, crap. Will no one rid us of these turbulent deceivers.

[Logical]

214. Nova is a great show. Please point out how it changed with the Koch sponsorship. n-t

[librechik]

236. that would take too long to answer. Try this: In principle are you in favor of just one sponsor

one corporate sponsor with very questionable and controversial social views, for a so called public television program? Even the choice of subject matter is gamed, believe me.

[Logical]

237. Nice try, I love Nova, watch all of them, name your BEST CASE of them changing the content...

that the producers wanted to present to something non-scientific.

[The Midway Rebel]

215. Seems to me the Koch's would pimp CT rather than the hard science.

They want that distrust of the government fostered by many who believe in CTs.

And Koch Bros. sponsorship was the first thing I noticed about the program. It did not, however, poison the well for me, so to speak.

[Ace Acme]

222. How do you know what the Koch brothers want?

The fortune-telling of anonymous internet posters is a waste of time.

[The Midway Rebel]

254. Because they are my uncles and they told me.

They also told me the name of the gunman on the= grassy knoll.


His name was....SHIT!

I have to go. A big black car just pulled into my drive and it looks like a bunch of MIBs are piling out of it.

[BootinUp]

256. kick