|
Post by ka9q on Jan 19, 2012 8:38:10 GMT -4
just came to me chew on this awhile LBJ fear over comes him as the motorcade reaches elm, he imagines that he might also be a target on elm, trust issues, so he ducks down and hides. the ss trail car sees that LBJ has mysteriously disappeared so what do they do, immediately stop the car and start to get out to investigate. You haven't even read the Warren Commission report you claim is so faulty, have you? If you had, you'd know what happened in LBJ's car during the assassination. The driver was a member of the Texas Highway Patrol. The head of LBJ's Secret Service detail, Rufus W. Youngblood, rode in the right front seat. In the rear seat, left to right, was Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough; LBJ's wife Lady Bird; and LBJ. When the first shot was fired, Youngblood spun around, hit LBJ on the shoulder, yelled at everyone in the back seat to get down, and vaulted over the seat. The only unresolved detail was the exact moment that Youngblood went over the seat onto LBJ; he was not sure that he did so immediately after the first shot but LBJ said he did. Why is any of this such a surprise? This was an assassination, fer chrissakes! An unknown sniper was shooting at the President of the United States. As Vice President, your only real official responsibility is to take over if the President dies in office. It doesn't take a genius to realize this makes you the sniper's obvious next target. So LBJ "disappeared" under his Secret Service agent, doing exactly what he was supposed to do under the circumstances. Playdor, you sound like a schoolkid bluffing his way through a report on a book that he obviously hadn't read, with the novel excuse that it was all probably fabricated anyway. You just keep making it up as you go along, and you've proved ourself completely non-serious about finding the best hypothesis for all the evidence. You're just wasting everyone's time.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 18, 2012 9:04:32 GMT -4
ya i saw him, if you look at the hi res version, it is someone holding a child, he or she is behind the child, appear to also be looking for LBJ, where did he go? I give up. It's obvious you're not at all interested in a serious conversation. You can believe whatever you like about the JFK assassination. Work yourself into a righteous paranoid frenzy for all I care. Fortunately, history still records the event more accurately.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 18, 2012 4:07:39 GMT -4
ka9q the devil IS in the details Which you conveniently ignore, along with the main points. You tell me. You're the conspiracy theorist who, whenever he gets pinned down on one "issue", jumps quickly to another. Which "issue" are we discussing now? No, because the limo never stopped while shots are being fired. Now I know you're just yanking our chains because Specter questions Greer about what happened on Elm St in great detail. His questioning starts on page 112 of Vol II. On page 117, the questioning reaches the turn onto Elm St and continues to page 132 after discussing not only the shooting itself but the race to the hospital, moving the victims into the emergency room, the stay at the hospital, the trip back to Washington and the forensic examination of the limousine. There were many questions about the features of the car itself because Greer was so familiar with it. Maybe you're working with a "Warren Commission Report" other than the one generally recognized as having been commissioned by the President of the United States into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 18, 2012 3:40:25 GMT -4
ka9q if you look at this representation of the atlgen6 photo assuming it may be correct the TSBD is WELL behind the bystanders from this point of view there can be no doubt that the bystanders are looking toward LBJ limo, if they look puzzled, it probably is because LBJ is hiding. Hardly. They are behaving exactly as I would expect confused, startled people to behave after two unexpected rifle shots had been fired over their heads from the 6th floor corner window of the TSBD. Some look instinctively for the source of the shots, others are stunned and don't do anything. What would you do? Again, hardly. Yet again, hardly! We see three agents on the followup car turned completely around, one more turned partly around, and a fourth (Hill) about to jump off and dash to the limousine. When asked why, they all said they heard shots coming from behind them and to the right. Note that the followup car also carried two passengers in the jumpseats. They were not agents, not in a position to jump out to help, and could hardly be expected to do so.
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
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 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 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 17, 2012 3:29:49 GMT -4
now you have 4.5 - 5.5 plus seconds where the SS agents fail to react, after Connally and JFK are wounded. are you ok with this? Fail to react how? By spraying everyone in Dealy Plaza with machine gun fire? What exactly would you have had them do within the limitations of the human mind and body? The agents looked but saw nothing as confirmed by Altgens' photo. (I really recommend that you get a copy larger than a postage stamp.) That's hardly surprising since Oswald had the full element of surprise and plenty of time to hide himself in one of many identical-looking windows in a plaza with many masonry walls forming an echo chamber. Are you even bothering to read what anyone else says here? I could have sworn that just yesterday I pointed out the people in the Altgens photo who are all turned away from JFK, looking back at the corner of the TSBD? And yes, even up. Oh god. Connally reacted because he got shot. His wife reacted because she was right next to him and realized what was happening. I suppose for completeness you should say that JFK reacted too. So did Jackie, though her reaction wasn't especially helpful. She was a 34-year-old first lady, not a professional personal protection agent. You keep citing the Zapruder film. Now if you were to actually bother to watch it yourself you just might notice an agent, Clint Hill, leaping off the left front running board of the followup car and running for the presidential limousine. He stumbles and nearly trips as the limousine accelerates, but he climbs onto the trunk and pushes Jackie (who had climbed onto the trunk) back in her seat. He saves her from quite likely being run over at a considerable risk of the same happening to him. Then he shields both her and JFK with his own body until they reached Parkland Hospital. Other witnesses and pictures confirm him clinging to the trunk of the car all the way to the hospital at extremely high speed. Do you consider that "basically watching"? The simple fact is that Secret Service agents are human beings with all the usual human limitations. JFK specifically asked that they not hide him from the public. They protested, but he was the boss and they had to comply. This made it difficult for them to do their jobs, especially by getting quickly from the followup car to the limousine, but JFK was fatalistic about it. Eventually his luck ran out. He died, and they got blamed for it. I'm too tired of your nonsense to rebut the rest of your comment here, but that doesn't mean I haven't taken notice of it. There are plenty of entirely logical explanations for what you call "stand downs" (i.e., that the only actual "stand downs" were those JFK requested himself so as to not block his view of the public). So I won't repeat them here, at least not yet. Say what? Are you trying so hard to pin this on anyone but Oswald that the overwhelming evidence of his guilt -- of two murders, not just one -- is meaningless? In the same way that Nixon controlled the information about the Watergate break-in, or Clinton controlled the information about his private consensual sexual affairs with Monica Lewinsky? Dear god, do you need a lesson in common sense to figure this out or what? Like it or not, there are some pretty sick people in this country who do some extremely (self) destructive things that don't make sense to rational people. Fortunately they're a small minority, and most of them remain safely anonymous through a simple lack of opportunity. But when the most powerful man in the world, arguably possessing the largest ego in the world, repeatedly exposes himself (!) in an open convertible to vast numbers of people all around the world, sooner or later his luck will run out. He will, by pure chance, encounter one of those sick souls with both the means and the opportunity to make his permanent mark on the world. Besides the one Lee Harvey Oswald that we know about, there were probably hundreds of other Oswalds who never happened to get a job in a building along a street that would later be chosen for a JFK motorcade. And that's the only reason we know Lee Harvey Oswald's name, not one of those hundreds of other Oswalds.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 16, 2012 18:36:24 GMT -4
Greer turns, path is clear...he shoots JFK in the right temple, blowing the right back side of JFK's head off. Well...I guess this finally shows just how out to lunch you really are. I've heard of the claim that JFK's driver delivered the final shot, based apparently on a low-res version of the Z-film. And I've seen YT videos by other conspiracists firmly shooting this one down, so to speak, with better copies of the Z-film. I guess some ideas are beyond the pale even for conspiracy theorists... just as child molestation is beyond the pale even for most criminals...
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 16, 2012 18:23:56 GMT -4
Its commanding officer, among others, complained bitterly that his unit was not used in protection along with the Secret Service after he had keen told that the services of his unit would not be needed. On more than one occasion he called his headquarters and called Washington to correct this "oversight." So what exactly does this prove other than that anyone with any connection to presidential protection was extremely upset by the assassination and second-guessing everything they and the Secret Service had done? Most famously, SS agent Clint Hill. Mike Wallace's 1975 interview showed that he still hadn't come to terms with his inability to prevent what had happened a dozen years earlier. It didn't matter that every rational and objective analysis says he did the best he humanly could, or that he arguably did far more than any other agent that day. At least his boss thought so when they and Jackie Kennedy gave him an award for heroism. Playdor, I know it's easy for you to forget while you're playing your conspiracy games that there were real live human beings involved in all this. So I thought I'd remind you.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 16, 2012 18:01:17 GMT -4
i have not been avoiding the discussion on JC but... One crucial factor is determining exactly when JC is injured. what i have been trying to illustrate to the board is that no one can determine when he actually is hit. Bullsh*t. I've told you several times exactly when JBC and JFK are both hit; JFK for the first time, JBC for the only time: Z-film frame 224, just as JFK emerges from behind the sign. You can even see both of them react simultaneously to the shot. JFK's shoulders jerk forward and his arms snap up to a level position. JBC's coat lapel momentarily flips up and his hat (held in his right hand) jumps. All these motions are near instantaneous, faster than either man could perform them voluntarily -- because Oswald's second shot had just struck them both. Experts testified to the Warren Commission and other investigators that it is not at all unusual for gunshot victims under extreme stress to go quite some time -- even minutes -- before realizing they've been shot. JBC was a victim of this shooting. So is it surprising that his precise memory of such a traumatic event might be off by a grand total of half a second? With such a small discrepancy between subjective and objective evidence, we go with the the objective evidence: Z-film frame 224. Wrong. He's well out of position by then. Wrong. Wrong. Well, he did end up in Nellie's lap after 290. But he was hit at 224. Just so this won't be a completely unproductive rehash of basic facts you refuse to accept, why don't we introduce a new one? Lee Harvey Oswald's own brother, Robert, says that if he had any information that his brother was innocent he'd be shouting it from the rooftops. But he has absolutely no doubt whatsoever that his brother did it. Alone. Since you like to put so much emphasis on the motives and statements of all the people connected to the principals, why don't we discuss this one? Is Robert railroading his own brother? This should be fun...
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 16, 2012 17:09:04 GMT -4
IF "you" could imagine this to be a conspiracy who would have been in a position to control and get away with it? the guy at the top after the assassination - LBJ All completely irrelevant, because a claimed motive is not proof of anything.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 16, 2012 10:48:50 GMT -4
It always struck me that if there was a conspiracy, and said conspiracy required more than one shooter in order to make sure of completing the job, but required only one shooter to pin the blame on, then the obvious solution was to place both of them in the same window of the TSBD. Good point, but then (as you say) you'd make it very obvious that more than one person was involved. It still seems better to... Bingo. And even if you limit yourself to a single shooter to make a conspiracy less obvious, you could still do many things to increase his (and your) chances of success. You could give Oswald a better rifle; a better scope; more (and better) ammunition; more practice; a better escape plan; and so on. But these possibilities were intensely investigated and no evidence of any outside help to Oswald was found, either before or after the assassination. For a while I thought that the only credible deviation from the official, generally accepted "lone nut" story was that someone might have put Oswald up to it. But the more you learn about him and his upbringing, personality and past behavior, especially his prior attempt to kill General Walker in April 1963, it becomes obvious that he is the very last person you'd expect to take direction from anyone else. We'll never know, but I do think it possible that Oswald had vague notions of going back to the Cuban embassy in Mexico City after the assassination, announcing himself and asking what more he had to do for Uncle Fidel to finally give him a visa and welcome him into his glorious Revolution. I believe a few crazies have made non-credible claims to have been involved, but without any evidence to back them up.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jan 16, 2012 4:56:45 GMT -4
Goldberg. But all JFK conspiracy theories tend toward the Goldbergian. No one wants to go with "it was someone else in the shooter's nest," which is the most logical way to start your conspiracy theory. It always has to be angles ruled out by either ballistics or logic. Exactly. You should label this as "Gillianren's Principle" or something similar. These conspiracy theories are always unbelievably complex or even bizarre. To say nothing of simply uninformed by the evidence. Many people have thought about (and some have dramatized) Oswald's trial had he survived to face one. The job of any defense attorney, besides ensuring due process for his client, is to suggest alternate explanations for the evidence that at least one juror might consider to rise to the level of reasonable doubt. Suppose you're that defense attorney. You're about to become the second most despised person in America, but someone has got to do it -- it's the way our system works. Do you immediately let loose with dozens of wild fantasies about the CIA, FBI, organized crime, the Secret Service, RFK, LBJ, Fidel Castro, Jack Ruby and the Russians? Do you hypothesize unseen extra shooters firing from places where they'd surely be noticed -- who still miss? Of course not. You complain that the circus atmosphere in the Dallas Police Department that weekend made it impossible to give your client a fair trial. You file all sorts of procedural motions, trying to delay the trial date as long as possible. When that day does come, you raise all sorts of simple hypotheticals. You can't deny that the shooting used Oswald's rifle - the ballistics evidence is overwhelming - so you suggest that someone stole it. You argue that Howard Brennan, in his understandably upset state, could have seen someone other than Oswald in the window. And so on and so on. You don't really expect anyone to believe you, but all you have to do is to raise a doubt in one juror's mind...and it has happened...*cough*OJ*cough*... But then you also have to explain away the dozen or so witnesses who clearly saw your client shoot officer Tippit or running away immediately afterwards as he reloaded his revolver. So... you go to Oswald and ask him to seek a plea bargain, one that you know the District Attorney won't offer because they have an iron-clad case and they'll become the most despised people in America if they end the case -- in Texas! -- with anything less than a death sentence... Basically, you're screwed. But at least they don't hang the losing attorney too...
|
|