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
| 10 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| I've never seen any of these videos, you have my attention | |
8 (80%) |
|
| 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 | |
2 (20%) |
|
| Still need evidence to convince me of single bullet, lone gunman theory | |
0 (0%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
(From the thread you deleted)
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.
... 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?
How surprising!
Cheers to you, eomer!
Due to posting separate posts for the different chapters.
I'm just trolling for hearts! 
Or does the OP know when they have nothing, it's better to back away???
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.
you love to be slapped with the truth.
But blackopradio.com is an excellent spokesman!
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.
... 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."
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...
A vacation!
> 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.
"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.
> 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.
> 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."
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.
> 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...
> 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.
> 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.
> 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:
...
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> "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?
Spin this:
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?
> ... 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.
... 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.
> 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.
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.
Case solved! 
... 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.
> 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?"
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.
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.
"Fourth string witness" supported by logic, physics, and experimental evidence; Feister supported by hand-waving appeal to authority fallacy.
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.)
