|
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 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 Jason Thompson on Jan 18, 2012 4:13:26 GMT -4
Ongoing refusal to address the responses to your film anomalies noted yet again. Playdor, when people take time to respond to your posts it is polite to at least acknowledge the fact.
|
|
|
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 twik on Jan 18, 2012 9:09:28 GMT -4
playdor, if you were in an open car, and people started shooting at people around you, would you not try to get out of the line of fire (that is, "hide", in your words)?
I still don't know what you expect people to have done instead of what they did do. LBJ should, if he were innocent of involvement, stand up in the car and scream "NO! Take me instead!"? Nelly Connally should have thrown herself over the President to take the bullets for him? The crowd should have ... what, exactly? Other than some look at the motorcade, some look around to try and localize the sound of the shot, others just stand frozen by astonishment - what exactly?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jan 18, 2012 11:58:15 GMT -4
This is not a case of "If I ran the zoo ...", more like "If the chimps were throwing faces at my head ...".
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 18, 2012 14:06:47 GMT -4
Playdor, in all the time you spent writing those posts, you could have addressed the fact that a number of people have responded to your film 'anomalies'. Why do you consistently refuse to do so?
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 18, 2012 14:52:32 GMT -4
I'm afraid I'm not following you. Specter asked the speed, and was answered. How further could it have been answered?
I'm sure at the time he realized someone was shooting at the limo, Greer had other things on his mind than looking at the speedometer.
playdor, have you ever been the witness to a crime, and had to answer questions about it afterwards? It is amazing what you do and do not remember. If you do not accept the Zapruder film as evidence, then there will never be any conclusion as to whether Greer slowed or not, because it is all based on people's fallible perceptions and memories.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 18, 2012 17:19:39 GMT -4
So, if Specter had asked him different questions, Greer would have been forced to spill the beans right there?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 18, 2012 17:55:47 GMT -4
Playdor, The problem you are facing here is that you are trying to force eye witness testimony into your version of events as it it is some form of gold standard and unimpeachable. Let's look at the "59 people said the car stopped" claim. In fact your link is to "The car slowed" not "the car stopped", but let's break down the numbers. Of the 59, 10 either never stated if the car stopped or slowed, but rather stated that the car accelerated away. 22 say it slowed, nearly stopped, braked, or weren't sure if it stopped or not. 27 say that it stopped, however only 6 of them say this happened during the shooting, 14 of them say that the car stopped after all of the shoots had been fired. From what is given from the other 11, it's not possible to tell if they meant during or after. No one claims that car stopped prior to the first shot. In all, of the people that felt the car slowed or stopped and stated when, 25 said it happened after the shooting, and 14 said it was during the shooting. About now it should be clear that many of your witnesses, who all saw the same thing, actually disagree with each other. We have some saying that the car slowed during the shooting (8), some that it stopped during the shooting (6), some that it slowed after the shooting (11), and still others (14) who say that it stopped after the shooting. They clearly can't all be right. This is the thing about eye wittiness testimony, it's notoriously bad. There have been a lot of studies into it, and the general conclusion is that while useful, it needs to be considered with a serious grain of salt because it relies on two things in which humans are very poor with, perception, and memory. This is why when photos and film disagree with eye-wittiness testimony, the rational person will generally discount the eye wittiness rather than jumping to the conclusion that the photos and film have been tapered with. It is far more likely that the eye witnesses are wrong in their details than that the film was magically altered. As long as you mainly rely on eye wittiness testimony, which is well known to be an extremely flawed type of evidence, and ignore the physical evidence (or claim the physical evidence was tampered with because it doesn't match the eye-witnesses,) you're not going to get anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 18, 2012 18:09:12 GMT -4
If one does not believe that the Zapruder film was altered by Magical Photoshop version 0.1, one does not have to ask eyewitnesses about the movement of the car, because it's all there on film. That gives a much better indication than people's memories.
Recently, I knocked a glass bottle over. My perception is that the bottle fell in extreme slow motion - however, that is perception, not reality. I suspect that the bystanders *felt* that the car stopped, because their senses went into hyperalert, and they experienced the "time slowing down" effect.
I doubt this will convince you of anything, because you will believe that anything that contradicts your viewpoint is faked, lies, etc. I shan't bother arguing further - anyone who believes that John Connally happily sat in a car waiting for a potentially fatal back shot is not going to be convinced by any logic.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jan 18, 2012 21:06:24 GMT -4
This is not a case of "If I ran the zoo ...", more like "If the chimps were throwing faces at my head ...". Faces? Man, you got some hella twisted zoos in your neck of the woods. That there is some seriously next level horror movie type stuff right there.
|
|
|
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 twik on Jan 19, 2012 8:55:13 GMT -4
"Pictures don't lie?"
Except, I suppose, when you don't like what they show - then they've been mysteriously tampered with.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 19, 2012 9:15:58 GMT -4
i just got bored with the technical jargon when they were explaining and explaining how it was done and i fast forwarded the videos. should have guessed there was going to be a quiz on the information afterwards. Yes, you should. If you bring such arguments to the discussion it is your responsibility to support them. No, that is not acceptable. You claimed they were altered, you will defend or retract that claim. I certainly will not 'leave you alone'. You don't get to dodge your responsibilities as a proponent of the ideas that easily. How do you know they are not looking? Do you expect everyone to have their eyes front, all facing him as he passes? Why? Do you think they might be talking to each other as well. Do you think they might be looking at the other vehicles? Basically you are saying that a crowd of individuals must behave as you think they should or there is something suspect. Name them Then see how fast you can snap your head round. I know I can do it in considerably less than 1 second, and I'm pretty sure you cold too. No, it is not. You still fail to understand the difference between fact and circumstance. He did snap his head round quickly, he did not rapidly put his foot on the accelerator. That does not mean he could not put his foot down just as fast. And by the way, how would you react to hearing shots when in a convoy of vehicles and in the middle of a crowd of frigthened and confused people? Would flooring the accelerator realy be the best thing to do in those circumstances? Please prove that the background is stretched and not simply a result of the limo being in motion and the camera being in motion. This is a handheld movie camera. All sorts of motion effects will be apparent in it. If you follow a moving vehicle with a camera then the background will stretch in relation to the vehicle in the foreground as a matter of course. Then don't bring them to the discussion. So far you are just throwing everything you can in and hoping some will stick, then crying about how unfair it is when you are challenged on the points YOU raised. If you can't defend or discuss them, leave them out and concentrate on what you can defend. Show me one such example. So why did that not occur to you as an explanation for the example you posted of people in the background suddenly going from moving to still? You're just not thinking about what you're saying and just throwing all sorts of crap out, aren't you? That's why we're not taking you as seriously as perhaps you'd like, playdor. You may have some interesting points that require discussion and thought, but they are so mired in the rest of the obvious claptrap you throw in to bulk up your post count that no-one believes you have actually done any critical thinking about this at all, thus undermining you. I don't want to beat you up, I want you to be an adult and actually enggage in discussion, defending your arguments rather than just throwing crap at the wall. If you can't defend them don't post them. Tough. If you would rather talk about that then why mention anything else at all? You bring these points to the discussion, not us. If you don't want to discuss them don't mention them in the first place. If you do mention them, expect people to start discussing with you. You pick and choose your topics before you make your posts, not once you have posted them and then realised you might have made a mistake.
|
|