|
Post by echnaton on Jan 17, 2012 10:02:45 GMT -4
Connally must have loved Johnson very much to accept such a role. He loved Johnson so much that he left the Democratic party for the Nixon administration when Johnson's term as President failed. Maybe he was a plant from the Kennedy/Nixon/space/industrial complex that hoaxed the moon landings. Or something like that. It seems I am unable to address the topic without ridicule. It must be time for me to stop reading the thread and move on.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 17, 2012 14:33:40 GMT -4
I read others' bits but not Playdor's. It's soothing to know that the intelligent people see through the flimflammery and to the reality. Evidence and logic state that there was a single gunman firing from the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository. Further evidence shows that the man was Lee Harvey Oswald. I sympathize with Marina, who didn't want to believe her husband could do such a thing, but it's worth pointing out that she certainly did believe it in 1963. Robert Oswald believed it all along--as did Robert Kennedy, contrary to the lies people have told saying that he didn't. Almost everyone with a vested interest in the case acknowledged that Lee did it. It's only people who don't who take the time to play games with the facts.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 17, 2012 15:15:21 GMT -4
you people seem to believe and spout so many lies that i doubt you have any idea what a truth actually looks like. Perhaps you need to join me in a hiatus from this topic before a infraction is issued for being insulting.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 17, 2012 15:28:04 GMT -4
Hearsay about what other people claim Bobby Kennedy believed is pretty flimsy evidence, compared to the fact that not ONCE did Bobby publicly state he had anything other than belief that Oswald, and he alone, murdered his beloved brother.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 17, 2012 17:07:00 GMT -4
playdor - I CAN SEE PEOPLE LOOKING UP in that photo. The agents are looking around, trying to see where the noise came from.
It is a still photo of the moment after the shots, when people are still in the "what the heck was THAT?" stage.
Now, you admit that shots were fired in Dealey Plaza. Why do you think that people "would not be startled or alarmed" afterwards? Was every single person in the plaza in on it? Or, is it just possible that what you seem to expect to see (I don't know, maybe people waving their hands in the air and running in circles) is not what really happens in such a situation? And that a still shot will likely not pick out the movement of the crowd that does happen?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 17, 2012 17:47:19 GMT -4
Continued failure/refusal to address the explanations for the anomalies in the film noted yet again.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 17, 2012 17:52:52 GMT -4
Where's the bullet hole?
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 17, 2012 18:12:50 GMT -4
Right over the roof of the car, you can see people looking up.
If you possibly could get a larger or clearer photo, you might be able to see it better. Just as a larger and clearer photo shows no bullet hole.
And again - you say no one is agitated in the photo. If this is after several gunshots, why are you proposing that would be so?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 17, 2012 23:42:53 GMT -4
PhantomWolf in the windshield and in the front of JFK's neck bullet hole or background. anyone have a very high res Altgens 7 they could post...thanks Lopok at the edge of the "hole" and the contour of JKF's shoulder and neck. Amazing how the "hole" follows it isn't it? The "hole" is a light coloured top being worn by someone behind JFK.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 17, 2012 23:48:17 GMT -4
gunshot...i believe there was 1 shot fired to this point. it most probably was from the grassy knoll, thru the windshield into the front of JFK's neck. Now that is a magic bullet. You are proposing that a bullet shot from the grassy knoll did more than a 90 degree turn in mid air, then went through the left hand side of the windshield without fragmenting, passed between the governer and his wife, and hit JFK, who was in the right hand back seat, in the neck? That would have to be the shot of the millenia.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 17, 2012 23:55:39 GMT -4
PhantomWolf i know and i agree with you, it could appear to be background. is it possible to know for sure? I think that given that it's in the wrong place for the crack which is seen in other photos taken later (it's too close to the rear vision mirror,) it's the wrong size (the crack is a lot smaller,) and the shape is clearly defined by Kennedy's shoulder and neck, the only logical conclusion has to be that it is something behind him and not a hole in the windscreen.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 18, 2012 0:44:15 GMT -4
read last night that there were 59 witnesses that gave testimonies to the FBI that claimed the limo actually stopped....actually came to a full stop...imagine that. impossible right? So where did that '59' figure come from? I can't find it in the Warren Commission report or anywhere else. Out of curiosity, how many people said the limousine did not stop? One was photographer James Altgens, who was especially close to the car. Or do you count only those who support your desired conclusion? In general, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Gerald Posner gives an example: the Titanic survivors who could not agree whether the huge ship broke up before sinking. That's why objective evidence like the Zapruder film is so important. I think you know this, so you completely ignored our previous discussion of why the Z-film couldn't have been tampered with. It clearly shows the limousine slowing down without stopping. That explains how some people farther away could have seen the tail lights come on and the motorcycles pull ahead, and think it had stopped. Nonetheless, Greer was extremely anguished by his own reaction as I'm sure he would be now by the utterly absurd allegation that he shot JFK himself.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 18, 2012 0:59:01 GMT -4
The evidence is there or not...put up or shut up please detail exactly which people are looking at the TSBD and which ones are looking up You haven't read anything I've said, have you? For comparison, look at this picture made about 2 minutes before the assassination: mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/limo_motorcade.htmUnlike Altgens' picture taken after Oswald's second shot, there is absolutely no doubt as to who is the center of attention. (Well, okay. They could be looking at either JFK or Jackie.)
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 18, 2012 1:41:03 GMT -4
Thank you. Aside from this not being a list of 59 formally testifying witnesses, I note that many use terms like "paused" (which is ambiguous) or actually say that the limousine slowed without stopping before the fatal shot, which we know to be true. Many of these observers were themselves moving in the motorcade some distance behind JFK, so they could easily have perceived its relative motion toward them as actual stopping. As I've already said, witnesses like Altgens who were standing near the car said that it slowed but never stopped. All this says far more about human perception than reality since we know for a fact from at least four films (not just Zapruder's) that the limousine never stopped at any time during the assassination. So what's your point, anyway? As with Apollo, you seem to think that by poking holes in the official record you can expect us to accept as fact whatever crazy alternative theory you happen to be promoting. It just doesn't work that way. Especially in a major event like this one there will always be contradictions and discrepancies, especially in subjective testimony, because of the fundamental limitations of human perception. So you collect as much evidence as you can and you find an explanation that fits as much of it as possible. And when you do that with the JFK assassination, you get one that's remarkably close to the one produced by the Warren Commission. If the WC deserves criticism, it's that they were too timid in coming to conclusions when they were only strongly, but not overwhelming supported by the evidence. For example, they said only that "the weight of the evidence" indicates that 3 shots were fired, even though the evidence could be said to be absolutely conclusive on this point. They don't even conclude that the same bullet that passed through JFK's neck went on to hit Gov Connally, even though that is also the inescapable conclusion from all the evidence. (But they do conclude that all of the shots hitting both men were fired from the 6th floor corner window of the TSBD, which is the essential point.)
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 18, 2012 2:05:06 GMT -4
ka9q please embarrass yourself and confirm that the people i have circled are the ones that you are claiming as the people who having heard 2 shots and are now alerted and looking for where the reports came from. You got most of them, but you missed the black man in a fedora standing just to our left of the TSBD entrance and clearly looking up. No, I don't agree. Inasmuch as we can't see their eyes we cannot tell exactly where they are looking, only where they are facing. But we can tell they're not looking at JFK or Jackie, the couple they all came and patiently waited to see. As I showed from another picture taken 2 minutes earlier, one could certainly expect these people to be looking directly at the first couple, including observers whom the Kennedys had already passed. Only something very significant and unexpected -- like gunshots -- could account for their turning away at this time. Although Altgens' #6 is one of the most iconic images of the assassination, we have far more to go on. We have the autopsy results, which clearly showed all the shots hitting JFK coming from above, behind and the right. We have the testimony of the many people who heard the shots, with the single largest group saying they seemed to come from the upper floors of the TSBD. Admittedly, many were very confused by the echoes within Dealy Plaza and couldn't really tell where the shots came from. This included Abraham Zapruder, standing on a pedestal close to the "grassy knoll" where the conspirators like to hypothesize a second gunman. Wouldn't you expect him to have noticed someone firing a rifile just a few feet behind him? We have the smaller group of witnesses who actually saw the gun in the window. And we have three of Oswald's co-workers in the windows just one floor under him, close enough to hear him working the bolt and the shells falling to the floor! Since you seem to like witness testimony, why do you completely ignore them? We have much more. As with Apollo deniers, you think you can pick each piece of evidence in isolation and force it to fit whatever crazy theory you like today. It doesn't work that way. Whatever explanation you have must fit all of the evidence, and it must do it better than any other explanation. Right -- because they were startled by loud and completely unexpected gunshots!
|
|