Discussion:
The Ultimate In "SBT" Denial
Add Reply
David Von Pein
2018-07-14 20:48:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html

Excerpt....

JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.

Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.

As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
is:

a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.

b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.

That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.

It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.

And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?

And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?

Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....

http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
bigdog
2018-07-15 18:02:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-16 11:27:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
No, it doesn't. You are falsifying evidence to make it ft your
predetermined conclusion.

The OP was slightly wrong in his method, but accidentally mentioned
something that most WC defenders overlook. The blurred frames.
The HSCA concluded that blurred frames indicate a reaction to hearing a
shot. Their blur analysis suggests that Kennedy was hit at about frame
Z-210 which matches a shot on the tape and then Connally at about frame
Z-230. Connally himself said that he was not hit by the bullet that hit
JFK as he had time to react and then he was hit by a bullet he didn't
hear at about frame Z-230. This matches up well with the jiggle analysis
if you realize that the grassy knoll shot hit at Z-312.6.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/headshot.txt
Post by bigdog
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Well, if you think it is so important why didn't you link to a site
showing them? Duh!

BTW, it's not just the timing that makes this SBT physically impossible
it's also the fact that the WC and its defenders have to LIE about the
positions of the men and the locations of the wounds.
When you have to LIE you know you're wrong.
n***@gmail.com
2018-07-17 00:46:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Different, simultaneous bullets. That's where some have already gone.
After looking at DVP's frames I don't know where else they can go. Of
course, there is no evidence of a second shooter or a second rifle. But
these folks have given huge swaths of their lives to Oswald's innocence
and they are too old now to see the truth in the Zapruder film. Mark
bigdog
2018-07-17 22:00:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Different, simultaneous bullets. That's where some have already gone.
After looking at DVP's frames I don't know where else they can go. Of
course, there is no evidence of a second shooter or a second rifle. But
these folks have given huge swaths of their lives to Oswald's innocence
and they are too old now to see the truth in the Zapruder film. Mark
I suspect that many of the Oswald deniers deep down know he was guilty but
after all these years can't bring themselves to admit it. You would think
that even if they are too proud to admit they have been wrong all these
years they would at least be honest with themselves. When you constantly
are forced to come up with one bizarre explanation after another, it ought
to dawn on you that your premise is faulty.
n***@gmail.com
2018-07-19 02:20:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Different, simultaneous bullets. That's where some have already gone.
After looking at DVP's frames I don't know where else they can go. Of
course, there is no evidence of a second shooter or a second rifle. But
these folks have given huge swaths of their lives to Oswald's innocence
and they are too old now to see the truth in the Zapruder film. Mark
I suspect that many of the Oswald deniers deep down know he was guilty but
after all these years can't bring themselves to admit it. You would think
that even if they are too proud to admit they have been wrong all these
years they would at least be honest with themselves. When you constantly
are forced to come up with one bizarre explanation after another, it ought
to dawn on you that your premise is faulty.
I agree. It's probable that some of them know deep down. Instead of
saying "too old now to see the truth," I should written: too old now to
ADMIT the truth.

Mark
mainframetech
2018-07-19 23:50:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Different, simultaneous bullets. That's where some have already gone.
After looking at DVP's frames I don't know where else they can go. Of
course, there is no evidence of a second shooter or a second rifle. But
these folks have given huge swaths of their lives to Oswald's innocence
and they are too old now to see the truth in the Zapruder film. Mark
I suspect that many of the Oswald deniers deep down know he was guilty but
after all these years can't bring themselves to admit it. You would think
that even if they are too proud to admit they have been wrong all these
years they would at least be honest with themselves. When you constantly
are forced to come up with one bizarre explanation after another, it ought
to dawn on you that your premise is faulty.
I agree. It's probable that some of them know deep down. Instead of
saying "too old now to see the truth," I should written: too old now to
ADMIT the truth.
Mark
I see you're still hiding from the sworn testimony, documents and
statements of the people who were there and saw the events happen.

Chris
mainframetech
2018-07-19 17:50:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Different, simultaneous bullets. That's where some have already gone.
After looking at DVP's frames I don't know where else they can go. Of
course, there is no evidence of a second shooter or a second rifle. But
these folks have given huge swaths of their lives to Oswald's innocence
and they are too old now to see the truth in the Zapruder film. Mark
I suspect that many of the Oswald deniers deep down know he was guilty but
after all these years can't bring themselves to admit it. You would think
that even if they are too proud to admit they have been wrong all these
years they would at least be honest with themselves. When you constantly
are forced to come up with one bizarre explanation after another, it ought
to dawn on you that your premise is faulty.
Sounds like the WCR faithful trying anything to make the evidence of
other scenarios go away.

Chris
mainframetech
2018-07-18 00:23:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Different, simultaneous bullets. That's where some have already gone.
After looking at DVP's frames I don't know where else they can go. Of
course, there is no evidence of a second shooter or a second rifle. But
these folks have given huge swaths of their lives to Oswald's innocence
and they are too old now to see the truth in the Zapruder film. Mark
I have to tell you that much proof has been put forward as to the
alteration of the Z-film. There was an eyewitness to the original film,
and he was "shocked" at what changes were made to it. As well, Douglas
Horne spent hundreds of pages in his "Inside the ARRB" where he worked for
years. Horne proved how the alteration as done in 1963, and who did it
and where. Witness names and all. His volume 4 of 5 is where he put the
information. As well, here is an eyewitness:

https://vimeo.com/102327635

And there are independent film analyses here:




Chris
bigdog
2018-07-18 22:20:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Different, simultaneous bullets. That's where some have already gone.
After looking at DVP's frames I don't know where else they can go. Of
course, there is no evidence of a second shooter or a second rifle. But
these folks have given huge swaths of their lives to Oswald's innocence
and they are too old now to see the truth in the Zapruder film. Mark
I have to tell you that much proof has been put forward as to the
alteration of the Z-film. There was an eyewitness to the...
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
mainframetech
2018-07-20 00:31:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Different, simultaneous bullets. That's where some have already gone.
After looking at DVP's frames I don't know where else they can go. Of
course, there is no evidence of a second shooter or a second rifle. But
these folks have given huge swaths of their lives to Oswald's innocence
and they are too old now to see the truth in the Zapruder film. Mark
I have to tell you that much proof has been put forward as to the
alteration of the Z-film. There was an eyewitness to the...
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
So you are so afraid of the information that I put out that you had to
erase it to keep anyone from checking it out. Sad, as your hero would
say. I'll replace it for you. First, the eyewitness to the original
Z-film:

https://vimeo.com/102327635

Next, the independent analyses:

http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE

The truth can't be covered up so easily.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-20 22:38:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Different, simultaneous bullets. That's where some have already gone.
After looking at DVP's frames I don't know where else they can go. Of
course, there is no evidence of a second shooter or a second rifle. But
these folks have given huge swaths of their lives to Oswald's innocence
and they are too old now to see the truth in the Zapruder film. Mark
I have to tell you that much proof has been put forward as to the
alteration of the Z-film. There was an eyewitness to the...
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
So you are so afraid of the information that I put out that you had to
erase it to keep anyone from checking it out. Sad, as your hero would
say. I'll replace it for you. First, the eyewitness to the original
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
mainframetech
2018-07-22 18:32:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Different, simultaneous bullets. That's where some have already gone.
After looking at DVP's frames I don't know where else they can go. Of
course, there is no evidence of a second shooter or a second rifle. But
these folks have given huge swaths of their lives to Oswald's innocence
and they are too old now to see the truth in the Zapruder film. Mark
I have to tell you that much proof has been put forward as to the
alteration of the Z-film. There was an eyewitness to the...
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
So you are so afraid of the information that I put out that you had to
erase it to keep anyone from checking it out. Sad, as your hero would
say. I'll replace it for you. First, the eyewitness to the original
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Ah! The typical LN!

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-18 22:24:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Different, simultaneous bullets. That's where some have already gone.
After looking at DVP's frames I don't know where else they can go. Of
course, there is no evidence of a second shooter or a second rifle. But
these folks have given huge swaths of their lives to Oswald's innocence
and they are too old now to see the truth in the Zapruder film. Mark
I have to tell you that much proof has been put forward as to the
alteration of the Z-film. There was an eyewitness to the original film,
and he was "shocked" at what changes were made to it. As well, Douglas
Horne spent hundreds of pages in his "Inside the ARRB" where he worked for
years. Horne proved how the alteration as done in 1963, and who did it
and where. Witness names and all. His volume 4 of 5 is where he put the
https://vimeo.com/102327635
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
Chris
Which copy?
The Zapruder film is authentic.
n***@gmail.com
2018-07-19 02:15:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Different, simultaneous bullets. That's where some have already gone.
After looking at DVP's frames I don't know where else they can go. Of
course, there is no evidence of a second shooter or a second rifle. But
these folks have given huge swaths of their lives to Oswald's innocence
and they are too old now to see the truth in the Zapruder film. Mark
I have to tell you that much proof has been put forward as to the
alteration of the Z-film. There was an eyewitness to the original film,
and he was "shocked" at what changes were made to it. As well, Douglas
Horne spent hundreds of pages in his "Inside the ARRB" where he worked for
years. Horne proved how the alteration as done in 1963, and who did it
and where. Witness names and all. His volume 4 of 5 is where he put the
https://vimeo.com/102327635
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
Chris
I've heard and seen all that before. Talk to Marsh.

Bottomline: Was Mr. Zapruder lying when he said his film had not been
altered?

Mark
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-19 23:45:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Different, simultaneous bullets. That's where some have already gone.
After looking at DVP's frames I don't know where else they can go. Of
course, there is no evidence of a second shooter or a second rifle. But
these folks have given huge swaths of their lives to Oswald's innocence
and they are too old now to see the truth in the Zapruder film. Mark
I have to tell you that much proof has been put forward as to the
alteration of the Z-film. There was an eyewitness to the original film,
and he was "shocked" at what changes were made to it. As well, Douglas
Horne spent hundreds of pages in his "Inside the ARRB" where he worked for
years. Horne proved how the alteration as done in 1963, and who did it
and where. Witness names and all. His volume 4 of 5 is where he put the
https://vimeo.com/102327635
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
Chris
I've heard and seen all that before. Talk to Marsh.
Bottomline: Was Mr. Zapruder lying when he said his film had not been
altered?
How could he know? Which copy?
Post by n***@gmail.com
Mark
mainframetech
2018-07-19 23:52:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Different, simultaneous bullets. That's where some have already gone.
After looking at DVP's frames I don't know where else they can go. Of
course, there is no evidence of a second shooter or a second rifle. But
these folks have given huge swaths of their lives to Oswald's innocence
and they are too old now to see the truth in the Zapruder film. Mark
I have to tell you that much proof has been put forward as to the
alteration of the Z-film. There was an eyewitness to the original film,
and he was "shocked" at what changes were made to it. As well, Douglas
Horne spent hundreds of pages in his "Inside the ARRB" where he worked for
years. Horne proved how the alteration as done in 1963, and who did it
and where. Witness names and all. His volume 4 of 5 is where he put the
https://vimeo.com/102327635
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
Chris
I've heard and seen all that before. Talk to Marsh.
Bottomline: Was Mr. Zapruder lying when he said his film had not been
altered?
Mark
Bottom of the bottom line: Mr. Zapruder may not even have been aware
of the alteration.

Chris
n***@gmail.com
2018-07-20 17:31:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Different, simultaneous bullets. That's where some have already gone.
After looking at DVP's frames I don't know where else they can go. Of
course, there is no evidence of a second shooter or a second rifle. But
these folks have given huge swaths of their lives to Oswald's innocence
and they are too old now to see the truth in the Zapruder film. Mark
I have to tell you that much proof has been put forward as to the
alteration of the Z-film. There was an eyewitness to the original film,
and he was "shocked" at what changes were made to it. As well, Douglas
Horne spent hundreds of pages in his "Inside the ARRB" where he worked for
years. Horne proved how the alteration as done in 1963, and who did it
and where. Witness names and all. His volume 4 of 5 is where he put the
https://vimeo.com/102327635
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
Chris
I've heard and seen all that before. Talk to Marsh.
Bottomline: Was Mr. Zapruder lying when he said his film had not been
altered?
Mark
Bottom of the bottom line: Mr. Zapruder may not even have been aware
of the alteration.
Chris
Whatever you say, Chris. Mark
mainframetech
2018-07-22 18:33:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Different, simultaneous bullets. That's where some have already gone.
After looking at DVP's frames I don't know where else they can go. Of
course, there is no evidence of a second shooter or a second rifle. But
these folks have given huge swaths of their lives to Oswald's innocence
and they are too old now to see the truth in the Zapruder film. Mark
I have to tell you that much proof has been put forward as to the
alteration of the Z-film. There was an eyewitness to the original film,
and he was "shocked" at what changes were made to it. As well, Douglas
Horne spent hundreds of pages in his "Inside the ARRB" where he worked for
years. Horne proved how the alteration as done in 1963, and who did it
and where. Witness names and all. His volume 4 of 5 is where he put the
https://vimeo.com/102327635
http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE
Chris
I've heard and seen all that before. Talk to Marsh.
Bottomline: Was Mr. Zapruder lying when he said his film had not been
altered?
Mark
Bottom of the bottom line: Mr. Zapruder may not even have been aware
of the alteration.
Chris
Whatever you say, Chris. Mark
Thank you, and if you want backup for that, there's the 4th volume of 5
of "Inside the ARRB" by Douglas Horne, who spent hundreds of pages proving
the alteration of the Z-film, and including witnesses from the CIA and
documents and equipment used to alter film in 1963.

Of course, if there's proof of what I say, then you would want to go
right away and look at that proof, to see if you've made a mistake.
You'd want to look at evidence and no just your opinion, right?

Chris
mainframetech
2018-07-17 17:03:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Since there were many shots into Dealey Plaza that day fired at a
signal, it's not a "remarkable coincidence" at all that multiple bullets
arrived around the same time, and struck the 2 people.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-18 04:51:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Since there were many shots into Dealey Plaza that day fired at a
signal, it's not a "remarkable coincidence" at all that multiple bullets
arrived around the same time, and struck the 2 people.
Apparently one of those bullets magically disappeared.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-19 21:44:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Since there were many shots into Dealey Plaza that day fired at a
signal, it's not a "remarkable coincidence" at all that multiple bullets
arrived around the same time, and struck the 2 people.
Apparently one of those bullets magically disappeared.
Is that from the shot you WC defenders said missed?
Please show it to me. Was it the Lester bullet?
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-18 18:56:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned because it coincides
perfectly with JFK's sudden upward movement of his arms. Thanks to your
webpage which toggles between Z224-225 and then from Z225-226 we are able
to see JFK's right hand was still moving downward at Z224-225 then
suddenly his arms jerk upwards at Z225-226 and we see Connally's injured
right arm jerk upward at that same instant in perfect unison with JFK's
arm movement. I wish everyone could see these enhanced frames and the
simultaneous reactions of JFK and JBC. If they could, there would be few
SBT doubters. It is the best evidence that JFK and JBC were hit at the
same instant. It would be a remarkable coincidence if they reacted at the
same instant to different bullets.
Since there were many shots into Dealey Plaza that day fired at a
signal, it's not a "remarkable coincidence" at all that multiple bullets
arrived around the same time, and struck the 2 people.
Chris
There was no signal and the shots were not coordinated.

How can any shooter miss hitting EVERYTHING on the planet?
d***@gmail.com
2018-07-22 18:40:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Since there were many shots into Dealey Plaza that day fired at a
signal, it's not a "remarkable coincidence" at all that multiple bullets
arrived around the same time, and struck the 2 people.
Chris
Yet, the only bullet and fragments that were recoverable and testable all
were connected to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano. All those other bullets
(and fragments) disappeared, I guess.

Of course, this is where you come up with some convoluted scheme on the
part of the architects of the conspiracy where they removed or swapped out
all the non-Carcano bullets/fragments - right? Beat you to it!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
mainframetech
2018-07-23 21:24:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Since there were many shots into Dealey Plaza that day fired at a
signal, it's not a "remarkable coincidence" at all that multiple bullets
arrived around the same time, and struck the 2 people.
Chris
Yet, the only bullet and fragments that were recoverable and testable all
were connected to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano. All those other bullets
(and fragments) disappeared, I guess.
Of course, this is where you come up with some convoluted scheme on the
part of the architects of the conspiracy where they removed or swapped out
all the non-Carcano bullets/fragments - right? Beat you to it!
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Of course not! That would be a dumb idea! However, I hav eno probem
listing some of the shots into Dealey Plaza and then asking you to tell me
if they were caused by something else besides shots fired. Here we go:

First, we have a minimum of 2 shots that struck JFK. Then at least
one that hit Connally, then we have the one that struck the right hand
curb seen by Officer 'Steve' Ellis. Next we have the one that struck the
curb near James Tague over to the left where he was standing, that caused
cement chip to hit his cheek, cutting him. Now one of the more obvious
shots was the one that struck over the limo windshield in the chrome bar
there. And we can't forget the shot that went through the left windshield
seen by 6 eyewitnesses.

And let's not forget the 2 gouges in the midfield grass seen by Wayne
and Edna Hartman, who were told by a cop that they were from bullets.
Now tell me, were they caused by something else besides shots fired, and
if so what?

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-24 21:16:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Since there were many shots into Dealey Plaza that day fired at a
signal, it's not a "remarkable coincidence" at all that multiple bullets
arrived around the same time, and struck the 2 people.
Chris
Yet, the only bullet and fragments that were recoverable and testable all
were connected to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano. All those other bullets
(and fragments) disappeared, I guess.
Of course, this is where you come up with some convoluted scheme on the
part of the architects of the conspiracy where they removed or swapped out
all the non-Carcano bullets/fragments - right? Beat you to it!
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Of course not! That would be a dumb idea! However, I hav eno probem
listing some of the shots into Dealey Plaza and then asking you to tell me
First, we have a minimum of 2 shots that struck JFK.
So far, so good.
Post by mainframetech
Then at least one that hit Connally,
Which also was one of the 2 that hit JFK.
Post by mainframetech
then we have the one that struck the right hand
curb seen by Officer 'Steve' Ellis.
If that was a bullet strike, it was the Oswald's first shot.
Post by mainframetech
Next we have the one that struck the
curb near James Tague over to the left where he was standing, that caused
cement chip to hit his cheek, cutting him.
Some have theorized it was a ricochet from the missed shot while others
have theorized that was a fragment from the head shot. Neither theory has
been proved nor disproven so therefore that is not proof of an additional
shot.
Post by mainframetech
Now one of the more obvious
shots was the one that struck over the limo windshield in the chrome bar
there. And we can't forget the shot that went through the left windshield
seen by 6 eyewitnesses.
This is where your poor ability to weigh evidence comes in. The dent in
the chrome bar does not establish an additional shot. Only three of your
six witnesses actually said the bullet hole went through the windshield
and one of them (or the lawyer who claimed he said that) as a proven liar.
The other two were simply mistaken. In any event it does not prove another
shot since the SS agent who hand hands on access to the limo and the
windshield said the outer surface of the glass was smooth indicating the
inner surface had been struck by a missile which didn't penetrate through
to the outer surface.
Post by mainframetech
And let's not forget the 2 gouges in the midfield grass seen by Wayne
and Edna Hartman, who were told by a cop that they were from bullets.
Now tell me, were they caused by something else besides shots fired, and
if so what?
Two gouges in the infield grass do not prove they were from gunshots just
because some flatfoot said they were. It would be rather silly to think
that there would be two missed shots side by side if a shooter fired two
shots at a moving target.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-25 17:11:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Since there were many shots into Dealey Plaza that day fired at a
signal, it's not a "remarkable coincidence" at all that multiple bullets
arrived around the same time, and struck the 2 people.
Chris
Yet, the only bullet and fragments that were recoverable and testable all
were connected to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano. All those other bullets
(and fragments) disappeared, I guess.
Of course, this is where you come up with some convoluted scheme on the
part of the architects of the conspiracy where they removed or swapped out
all the non-Carcano bullets/fragments - right? Beat you to it!
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Of course not! That would be a dumb idea! However, I hav eno probem
listing some of the shots into Dealey Plaza and then asking you to tell me
First, we have a minimum of 2 shots that struck JFK.
So far, so good.
Post by mainframetech
Then at least one that hit Connally,
Which also was one of the 2 that hit JFK.
Post by mainframetech
then we have the one that struck the right hand
curb seen by Officer 'Steve' Ellis.
If that was a bullet strike, it was the Oswald's first shot.
Post by mainframetech
Next we have the one that struck the
curb near James Tague over to the left where he was standing, that caused
cement chip to hit his cheek, cutting him.
Some have theorized it was a ricochet from the missed shot while others
have theorized that was a fragment from the head shot. Neither theory has
been proved nor disproven so therefore that is not proof of an additional
shot.
Post by mainframetech
Now one of the more obvious
shots was the one that struck over the limo windshield in the chrome bar
there. And we can't forget the shot that went through the left windshield
seen by 6 eyewitnesses.
This is where your poor ability to weigh evidence comes in. The dent in
the chrome bar does not establish an additional shot. Only three of your
six witnesses actually said the bullet hole went through the windshield
and one of them (or the lawyer who claimed he said that) as a proven liar.
The other two were simply mistaken. In any event it does not prove another
shot since the SS agent who hand hands on access to the limo and the
windshield said the outer surface of the glass was smooth indicating the
inner surface had been struck by a missile which didn't penetrate through
to the outer surface.
Post by mainframetech
And let's not forget the 2 gouges in the midfield grass seen by Wayne
and Edna Hartman, who were told by a cop that they were from bullets.
Now tell me, were they caused by something else besides shots fired, and
if so what?
Two gouges in the infield grass do not prove they were from gunshots just
because some flatfoot said they were. It would be rather silly to think
that there would be two missed shots side by side if a shooter fired two
shots at a moving target.
How about the dent of the chrome topping? Do you say that was always
there?

How about the smashed in rearview mirror? Do you say it was always like
that?

How about the mark on the curb near Tague? Do you say that mark was always
there?

How far are will to go to cover up evidence?
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-24 14:18:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Since there were many shots into Dealey Plaza that day fired at a
signal, it's not a "remarkable coincidence" at all that multiple bullets
arrived around the same time, and struck the 2 people.
Chris
Yet, the only bullet and fragments that were recoverable and testable all
were connected to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano. All those other bullets
(and fragments) disappeared, I guess.
Except for the one I pointed out which did not seem to match the others?
Where did that one come from?
Post by d***@gmail.com
Of course, this is where you come up with some convoluted scheme on the
part of the architects of the conspiracy where they removed or swapped out
all the non-Carcano bullets/fragments - right? Beat you to it!
Did you ever find the bullet from that shot you said missed?
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
d***@gmail.com
2018-07-22 02:01:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned
I'm not so sure that it's "the clincher" - but, along with other things
easily seen in the Zapruder film, it's obvious Connally has been hit just
as Kennedy is reacting.

What has always baffled me over the years is this: Many conspiracy
theorists often bring up the point that IF Connally were hit in the wrist
as he was, he could have never held on to the hat.

Several things on that silly point:

1. How do you know that this type of wrist injury would cause one to lose
grip as opposed to "freeze" or "tighten" their grip? Are you
neurologists?

2. You're not denying that Connally was, indeed, hit in the wrist with a
bullet - are you? If not, what's your point?

3. Since we know, for a fact, that Connally WAS hit in the wrist - and
that we NEVER see him let go of his Stetson hat at any time throughout
the Zapruder film ... then, you MUST be wrong. Apparently one CAN
continue holding on to something after being shot in the wrist.
Ironically, the Zapruder film PROVES that point.

Nellie Connally: "He always had that hat somewhere. He had the hat in his
hand when I pulled him over and crouched him down and he was holding that
hat up against him."

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
mainframetech
2018-07-23 01:28:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned
I'm not so sure that it's "the clincher" - but, along with other things
easily seen in the Zapruder film, it's obvious Connally has been hit just
as Kennedy is reacting.
What has always baffled me over the years is this: Many conspiracy
theorists often bring up the point that IF Connally were hit in the wrist
as he was, he could have never held on to the hat.
1. How do you know that this type of wrist injury would cause one to lose
grip as opposed to "freeze" or "tighten" their grip? Are you
neurologists?
2. You're not denying that Connally was, indeed, hit in the wrist with a
bullet - are you? If not, what's your point?
3. Since we know, for a fact, that Connally WAS hit in the wrist - and
that we NEVER see him let go of his Stetson hat at any time throughout
the Zapruder film ... then, you MUST be wrong. Apparently one CAN
continue holding on to something after being shot in the wrist.
Ironically, the Zapruder film PROVES that point.
Nellie Connally: "He always had that hat somewhere. He had the hat in his
hand when I pulled him over and crouched him down and he was holding that
hat up against him."
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
The Z-film cannot be relied upon to show us the truth about a shot
that supposedly hit both JFK and Connally. Fortunately, there are other
bits of evidence that prove that the rather odd THEORY of the SBT is
nothing more than a made up gimmick to explain the number of injuries and
the lack of more than 3 empty bullet shells.

In reality, there were far more than 3 bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza
that day. I've listed them in the past, and can do so again for those
interested. It seems that many people are victims of the old saw 'seeing
is believing' which went bad right about when technology came into the
recording of events. We're very prone to believing what we see, and yet
technology is able to show us some absolutely amazing (though impossible)
sights.

For those really interested in the validity of the Z-film, you might
want to read the 4th volume of 5 of "Inside the ARRB" by Douglas Horne,
but if you're a dyed in the wool LN, don't bother, it will only upset you.
Horne has spent hundreds of pages explaining how the Z-film was altered,
and presents the CIA witnesses who were part of the job. As well the
equipment that was used to alter film in 1963 is shown and discussed.
Arguments from well known experts are easily debunked as well.

Here area a few bits and pieces for the truly interested person.
First, a witness to the original Z-film who was shocked to see the
alterations made in the newer version of the film:

https://vimeo.com/102327635

Skip forward to se the witness to the original film.

Here are independent analyses, which no one has been able to prove
incorrect:

http://youtu.be/AAtEdEaXBtQ
http://youtu.be/XCigDMyHisE

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-24 14:18:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
The hat flip is the clincher as far as I am concerned
I'm not so sure that it's "the clincher" - but, along with other things
easily seen in the Zapruder film, it's obvious Connally has been hit just
as Kennedy is reacting.
But don't you have to claim that JFK was hit first, not at the same time?
Post by d***@gmail.com
What has always baffled me over the years is this: Many conspiracy
theorists often bring up the point that IF Connally were hit in the wrist
as he was, he could have never held on to the hat.
1. How do you know that this type of wrist injury would cause one to lose
grip as opposed to "freeze" or "tighten" their grip? Are you
neurologists?
I like your way out of this. So when Connally was wheeled into the
operating room he was still holding onto his hat and they had to cut it
away?
Post by d***@gmail.com
2. You're not denying that Connally was, indeed, hit in the wrist with a
bullet - are you? If not, what's your point?
3. Since we know, for a fact, that Connally WAS hit in the wrist - and
that we NEVER see him let go of his Stetson hat at any time throughout
Again, why should we SEE that? SHOW me Connally still holding his hat.
I forget what they call that in Classical Latin Rhetoric. The Gods MUST
exist because you can't see them.
Post by d***@gmail.com
the Zapruder film ... then, you MUST be wrong. Apparently one CAN
continue holding on to something after being shot in the wrist.
Sometimes you can.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Ironically, the Zapruder film PROVES that point.
It SHOWS Connally holding onto his hat?
Post by d***@gmail.com
Nellie Connally: "He always had that hat somewhere. He had the hat in his
hand when I pulled him over and crouched him down and he was holding that
hat up against him."
And where did he have his hat when he wasn't holding it?
Maybe he hid it in the robe compartment?
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-15 21:55:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
I love how you cherrypick and distort arguments.
Guccifer 2.0 must be so proud of you.
F. Nagcon
2018-07-18 04:53:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are
suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate
that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree
something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is
very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence
of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally,
because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly
or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be
fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the
truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these
two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his
left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a
reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a
change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's
left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to
Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and
you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning
his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been
injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally
has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling,
to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to
ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's
shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to
believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left.
Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance
of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's
moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And
the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And
the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you
pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and
is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip
--------------


I was always convinced that Connolly caught a
bullet in his hat, like a butterfly in a net.

fn.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-19 21:44:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by F. Nagcon
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip
--------------
I was always convinced that Connolly caught a bullet in his hat, like a
butterfly in a net.
fn.
Funny. Is that what your abbreviation is supposed to mean?
Not sure what your alias is supposed to mean.
But we've heard that joke so many times. You need something fresh.
Do you believe the bullet then went into CONNALLY's [SIC] thigh?
If so, maybe he pulled it out on the way to the hospital.
Hence the famous line: Out Damn Bullet! ;]>
Allan G. Johnson
2018-07-15 23:47:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
What a softball that is, thanks for hitting that one out of the park.
It is also a perfect example of a CTer afflicted with their common disease
of CONFIRMATION BIAS. They only see things that may suggest their belief
in a conspiracy and don't want to see or acknowledge actual evidence and
proof there was not. They don't see the forest because there are too many
trees in the way.
mainframetech
2018-07-17 17:02:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Allan G. Johnson
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
What a softball that is, thanks for hitting that one out of the park.
It is also a perfect example of a CTer afflicted with their common disease
of CONFIRMATION BIAS. They only see things that may suggest their belief
in a conspiracy and don't want to see or acknowledge actual evidence and
proof there was not. They don't see the forest because there are too many
trees in the way.
Oh Brother! All this nitpicking on a little bit of the case. Al for
nothing. Since it was shown that the back wound bullet never left the
body of JFK through the throat wound, there is NO WAY that the SBT was
real, it was just a WC lawyer's trick to account for all the bullets that
struck 2 men.

Paul O'Connor who was a Navy Technologist and a member of the Bethesda
autopsy team SAW inside the body that the bullet never left the body of
JFK. He saw also that the pathologists also saw that same proof that the
SBT was phony. I can give you his exact words if needed, let me know.
But for now, you're wasting your time with all the bitsy little figuring
of an SBT that didn't happen. Another Technologist also corroborated his
statement.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-18 04:51:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Allan G. Johnson
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
What a softball that is, thanks for hitting that one out of the park.
It is also a perfect example of a CTer afflicted with their common disease
of CONFIRMATION BIAS. They only see things that may suggest their belief
in a conspiracy and don't want to see or acknowledge actual evidence and
proof there was not. They don't see the forest because there are too many
trees in the way.
Oh Brother! All this nitpicking on a little bit of the case. Al for
nothing. Since it was shown that the back wound bullet never left the
body of JFK through the throat wound, there is NO WAY that the SBT was
real, it was just a WC lawyer's trick to account for all the bullets that
struck 2 men.
Paul O'Connor who was a Navy Technologist and a member of the Bethesda
autopsy team SAW inside the body that the bullet never left the body of
JFK. He saw also that the pathologists also saw that same proof that the
SBT was phony. I can give you his exact words if needed, let me know.
But for now, you're wasting your time with all the bitsy little figuring
of an SBT that didn't happen. Another Technologist also corroborated his
statement.
Why do you keep posting this nonsense? Nobody is buying it. Nobody with a
brain in their head is going to put more faith in the opinion of a techie
with limited training and experience over the pathologists who performed
the autopsies and teams of high qualified medical examiners who reviewed
their work and concurred with the finding that JFK was shot twice from
behind and that the bullet that entered his back exited from his throat.
It is a no doubter to anybody who is able to weigh evidence.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-19 21:45:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Allan G. Johnson
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
What a softball that is, thanks for hitting that one out of the park.
It is also a perfect example of a CTer afflicted with their common disease
of CONFIRMATION BIAS. They only see things that may suggest their belief
in a conspiracy and don't want to see or acknowledge actual evidence and
proof there was not. They don't see the forest because there are too many
trees in the way.
Oh Brother! All this nitpicking on a little bit of the case. Al for
nothing. Since it was shown that the back wound bullet never left the
body of JFK through the throat wound, there is NO WAY that the SBT was
real, it was just a WC lawyer's trick to account for all the bullets that
struck 2 men.
Paul O'Connor who was a Navy Technologist and a member of the Bethesda
autopsy team SAW inside the body that the bullet never left the body of
JFK. He saw also that the pathologists also saw that same proof that the
SBT was phony. I can give you his exact words if needed, let me know.
But for now, you're wasting your time with all the bitsy little figuring
of an SBT that didn't happen. Another Technologist also corroborated his
statement.
Why do you keep posting this nonsense? Nobody is buying it. Nobody with a
brain in their head is going to put more faith in the opinion of a techie
with limited training and experience over the pathologists who performed
the autopsies and teams of high qualified medical examiners who reviewed
their work and concurred with the finding that JFK was shot twice from
behind and that the bullet that entered his back exited from his throat.
It is a no doubter to anybody who is able to weigh evidence.
And yet you disqualify Cyril Wecht and he's performed more autopsies
than all of them.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-18 18:56:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Allan G. Johnson
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
What a softball that is, thanks for hitting that one out of the park.
It is also a perfect example of a CTer afflicted with their common disease
of CONFIRMATION BIAS. They only see things that may suggest their belief
in a conspiracy and don't want to see or acknowledge actual evidence and
proof there was not. They don't see the forest because there are too many
trees in the way.
Oh Brother! All this nitpicking on a little bit of the case. Al for
nothing. Since it was shown that the back wound bullet never left the
body of JFK through the throat wound, there is NO WAY that the SBT was
real, it was just a WC lawyer's trick to account for all the bullets that
struck 2 men.
Paul O'Connor who was a Navy Technologist and a member of the Bethesda
autopsy team SAW inside the body that the bullet never left the body of
Not really. He did not see a bullet still inside the body.
You are making up crap.
Post by mainframetech
JFK. He saw also that the pathologists also saw that same proof that the
SBT was phony. I can give you his exact words if needed, let me know.
They did not yet need a SBT. Hoover didn't need no damn stinkin SBT.
Only when Specter finally got to see the Zapruder film did he realize
that they needed a SBT to avoid saying conspiracy.
Post by mainframetech
But for now, you're wasting your time with all the bitsy little figuring
of an SBT that didn't happen. Another Technologist also corroborated his
statement.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-17 21:07:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Allan G. Johnson
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
What a softball that is, thanks for hitting that one out of the park.
It is also a perfect example of a CTer afflicted with their common disease
of CONFIRMATION BIAS. They only see things that may suggest their belief
in a conspiracy and don't want to see or acknowledge actual evidence and
proof there was not. They don't see the forest because there are too many
trees in the way.
Silly. I was the one who authenticated the Zapruder film.
And it proves conspiracy.
I do not claim that the autopsy photos are fake.
They prove conspiracy.

I constantly have to disprove the Alterationists, who hurt our cause of
looking for the Truth.

All you can do is make personal attacks to defend your cover-up.
mainframetech
2018-07-15 23:49:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.

"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."

From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf


So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-16 22:30:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
As long as you are going to rely on the least qualified people on the
staff at Bethesda to tell you what happened, you aren't going to know the
truth of what happened. The medical examiners said the bullet exited and a
couple technicians said it did and you choose to believe the latter even
though the conclusions of the former have been validated by every
qualified medical examiner who has ever looked at the evidence. You
couldn't be sillier in your approach if you tried.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-17 21:52:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
As long as you are going to rely on the least qualified people on the
staff at Bethesda to tell you what happened, you aren't going to know the
truth of what happened. The medical examiners said the bullet exited and a
couple technicians said it did and you choose to believe the latter even
though the conclusions of the former have been validated by every
qualified medical examiner who has ever looked at the evidence. You
couldn't be sillier in your approach if you tried.
Silly. You just said they all agreed that the bullet exited. Including the
two technicians. So, what are you arguing about?

You think your morons are more qualified than his morons? Your morons said
ICE BULLET not his.
mainframetech
2018-07-18 00:27:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
As long as you are going to rely on the least qualified people on the
staff at Bethesda to tell you what happened, you aren't going to know the
truth of what happened. The medical examiners said the bullet exited and a
couple technicians said it did and you choose to believe the latter even
though the conclusions of the former have been validated by every
qualified medical examiner who has ever looked at the evidence. You
couldn't be sillier in your approach if you tried.
I do NOT rely on the Technologists for their 'findings', I rely on
them for what they saw, the same as any eyewitness. So their level of
knowledge was not a concern. Since in overview there was clearly a
conspiracy, the officers would be the ones contacted by the plotters to
fake the autopsy report (AR). Not the enlisted men, who for a while were
under an order of silence. Both Technologists corroborate each other in
what they saw, and O'Connor also saw that the pathologists SAW the proof
that the bullet never left the body of JFK, which killed the SBT, and in
turn killed the 'lone nut' theory.

Chris
David Von Pein
2018-07-16 22:35:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all.
How do you "get rid of" something that is so obviously true?

Good luck.
Post by mainframetech
Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-17 21:53:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all.
How do you "get rid of" something that is so obviously true?
Good luck.
Do you have any argument here or you just like to bluster?
So if you say it's obvious that the Earth is flat we just have to take
your word for it?
Post by David Von Pein
Post by mainframetech
Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
mainframetech
2018-07-18 00:26:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all.
How do you "get rid of" something that is so obviously true?
Good luck.
See below. It was the easiest thing going to get rid of the stupid
SBT. Just get eyewitnesses that saw the proof.
Post by David Von Pein
Post by mainframetech
Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plaza
that day.
Chris
BT George
2018-07-20 00:49:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all.
How do you "get rid of" something that is so obviously true?
Good luck.
Self well wishing? Chris needs to, since he will need all the luck he can
get to convince anyone else with an eye for critical thinking using his
"everything was faked" except the witnesses who agree with my beliefs
methodology.
Post by mainframetech
See below. It was the easiest thing going to get rid of the stupid
SBT. Just get eyewitnesses that saw the proof.
As I said, his methodolgy is as simple as it is self-insulating against
any conceivable correction by demonstrable *hard* evidence. He would much
rather pretend that:

(1) Gun purchase and delivery records, numerous films and pictures of the
motorcade and autopsy, and ballistics and finger/palm print analysis and
evidence was all faked.

(2) Numerous government officials high and low, federal, state, and city,
military and civilian, all coordinated, and knowingly lied to cover up the
murder of the POTUS.

(3) Numerous recognized forensic, anthropological, photographic, and
document examination experts either blundered in re-vetting the evidence
in the years since the WC closed up shop, and/or also knowingly helped
carried out the cover up.

(4) Any witnesses whose testimony more closely matches the "official
story" were either mistaken or lying too.

*BUT* witnesses who give recollections that contradict that story (even if
the recollections are put in writing 15-30 or more years after the fact)
are to be believed as all costs!

...Yepper. That's a "reasonable" and "fact based" approach if I ever saw
one!
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by mainframetech
Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plaza
that day.
Chris
mainframetech
2018-07-20 23:59:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all.
How do you "get rid of" something that is so obviously true?
Good luck.
Self well wishing? Chris needs to, since he will need all the luck he can
get to convince anyone else with an eye for critical thinking using his
"everything was faked" except the witnesses who agree with my beliefs
methodology.
Ah, here we go! The LN self congratulations parade. LNs telling each
other how clever and wise they are. Of course, completely ignoring sworn
testimony and documents, but what the heck, it's fun to dump on some CTs
for fun. I have to tell you I don't rely on luck. I rely on sworn
testimony, documents and statements of those that were present at the
events spoken about in the case. I see where the happy LNs have used the
autopsy photos as proof of various things in the case, and I have to laugh
at the obvious problems of many of those 'leaked' photos.

Let's take the one that shows the BOH of JFK. Try and use the
instructions from Humes or Boswell to find the bullet holes in the BOH in
that one. I'll chuckle while you keep looking in vain, and I know the
photo is plenty clear enough to see a bullet hole if one was there. But
to make it worse, that photo had a drawing done of it by Ida Dox, who
copied it supposedly as exactly as possible. The laugh comes in when we
see that Ida has put in the bullet hole right where they told her to put
it, because it sure isn't in the photo that was copied! Here's the photo:

Loading Image...

And here's the Dox drawing of that photo:

Loading Image...

What a yock! How many LNs do you suppose have believed that photo for
the last 50 years, and ardently fought any CTs who thought it was altered!
But there's no bullet hole there! And on top of that, the photo was
altered because there's a list right here in the forum of over 39
eyewitnesses that said they saw clearly a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK,
right where that photo was taken! Of course the happy LNs will try to
pretend that there was some excuse, like the photo was fuzzy (check for
yourself, it's not), or just ignore the evidence. Some will avoid looking
altogether and try to blame me for the false claims I'm making! And never
know the truth.

It's as if LNs just never got the word that photos could be altered in
1963. So their logic bumps disappear and they can't see the OBVIOUS.
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
See below. It was the easiest thing going to get rid of the stupid
SBT. Just get eyewitnesses that saw the proof.
As I said, his methodolgy is as simple as it is self-insulating against
any conceivable correction by demonstrable *hard* evidence. He would much
(1) Gun purchase and delivery records, numerous films and pictures of the
motorcade and autopsy, and ballistics and finger/palm print analysis and
evidence was all faked.
WRONG! The information showing that an MC rifle was sold to Oswald
is fine by me, and I believe he bought it for a purpose. Just not to
shoot anyone with it. So that statement is wrong. Amazing the things
that get said that aren't true. I believe all the fingerprints of Oswald
that are on the rifle and boxes in the 'nest' are legitimate, so you're
wrong on that too. I believe many of the photos and films of the
motorcade are mostly true also. I've seen proof that some of the Z-film
was altered, but that came from eyewitnesses to the original film who also
were CIA witnesses.

So there is very little in that list of things that I considered fake.
The rifle was Oswald's and he worked at the TSBD. So a lot of what was
said was just plain made up, as LNs tend to do when they don't know what's
up.
Post by BT George
(2) Numerous government officials high and low, federal, state, and city,
military and civilian, all coordinated, and knowingly lied to cover up the
murder of the POTUS.
WRONG again. How can you be so wrong so often? I think the DPD was
as honest or corrupt as any town's police dept. Not more or less. And
when the FBI came into the case early on, for the most part the local cops
deferred to them. There were a few people in various organizations that
were in the plot to murder JFK, but not whole organizations. Say about 20
on the front side and 30 on the back side. and that number hasn't changed
since my first look at the case. However, I believe that a number of
Mafia shooters were involved beyond those numbers, and a number of FBI
agents helped cover up many clues and statements to push the 'lone nut'
theory that was handed down by Hoover. But they were unaware of the plot.
Post by BT George
(3) Numerous recognized forensic, anthropological, photographic, and
document examination experts either blundered in re-vetting the evidence
in the years since the WC closed up shop, and/or also knowingly helped
carried out the cover up.
WRONG again! Where in the world do you get this stuff? NO EXPERTS
"knowingly helped" to cover up anything, other than the pathologists at
the autopsy, and they were ordered to tell a certain story in the Autopsy
Report. All the 'experts' that were later involved in looking over the
data they were allowed to see from the autopsy, were shown only what would
lead them to believe the cause of death as it had been stated by the
pathologists. They assumed from that info what the cause of death was.
Post by BT George
(4) Any witnesses whose testimony more closely matches the "official
story" were either mistaken or lying too.
WRONG of course! Many statements were honest and could be believed.
The only places where you will find me disbelieving is where I can prove
someone was lying.
Post by BT George
*BUT* witnesses who give recollections that contradict that story (even if
the recollections are put in writing 15-30 or more years after the fact)
are to be believed as all costs!
Nope, there is an overall view of the crime, and from that point of
view, one can see clearly that the crime was a conspiracy to murder.
With that in mind, many of the facts of the case begin to look very
different. In my view, the vast majority of eyewitness testimony is
corroborated and so is more to be believed whatever it's age.
Post by BT George
...Yepper. That's a "reasonable" and "fact based" approach if I ever saw
one!
So we've found that your narrative is phony from the word go, but I've
corrected much of it. and if you ever want to actually deal in facts of
the case, let me know.
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by mainframetech
Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plaza
that day.
Chris
BT George
2018-07-24 21:20:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all.
How do you "get rid of" something that is so obviously true?
Good luck.
Self well wishing? Chris needs to, since he will need all the luck he can
get to convince anyone else with an eye for critical thinking using his
"everything was faked" except the witnesses who agree with my beliefs
methodology.
Ah, here we go! The LN self congratulations parade. LNs telling each
other how clever and wise they are. Of course, completely ignoring sworn
testimony and documents, but what the heck, it's fun to dump on some CTs
for fun. I have to tell you I don't rely on luck. I rely on sworn
testimony, documents and statements of those that were present at the
events spoken about in the case. I see where the happy LNs have used the
autopsy photos as proof of various things in the case, and I have to laugh
at the obvious problems of many of those 'leaked' photos.
Sure. "Problems" so "obvious that none (zero) of the the Foresic
Professionals who have viewed the photos (both in and outside of the
public domain) have noticed them! Not even Cyril Wecht who is a
died-in-the-wool CT bu utterly rejects all notion of "body altering" put
out by Lifton/Horne, et. al.
Post by mainframetech
Let's take the one that shows the BOH of JFK. Try and use the
instructions from Humes or Boswell to find the bullet holes in the BOH in
that one. I'll chuckle while you keep looking in vain, and I know the
photo is plenty clear enough to see a bullet hole if one was there. But
to make it worse, that photo had a drawing done of it by Ida Dox, who
copied it supposedly as exactly as possible. The laugh comes in when we
see that Ida has put in the bullet hole right where they told her to put
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
I have no idea what you are babling about, since what you linked to
clearly shows the red spot near the Cowlick that was held by the various
Panels that looked at it post-autopsy have said was the bullet entrance
wound. Again even Wecht did did not disagree. But here is another view of
it which I think shows the red spot a bit more vividly:

Loading Image...


Now as to it differing than from the autopsist description I fully agree.
Moreover, I agree that there is a mystery there that needs to be resolved.
I have gone into this numerous times here, so you need only search: BT
George and the Cowlick or EOP entry and I am quite sure you will quickly
acertain my thouhts on that.

I have no good explanation for where the red spot entrance wound appears
to be on the BOH photo vs. where the significant *majority* of the other
evidence places it. (E.g., the original and crystal clear versions in the
NA of the Lateral X-ray and F10 photo were reviewed by Sturdivan/Zimmerman
who both stated that these leave little or no doubt in thier minds that
the entrance wound was much closer to the EOP as the original Autopsists
described, than where it at least *appears* to be in the BOH photo---and I
am not convinced of John Canal's attempts at resolution.) But I in *no*
way believe the multiply reviewed/re-vetted autopsy evidence is faked or
altered, nor that the body itself was altered.
Post by mainframetech
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1eAF6xNtTsY/T6b3bOQ7wgI/AAAAAAAAIkk/sfjIkGhcrRQ/s702/Dox-Drawing-Of-JFK-Autopsy-Photo.jpg
What a yock! How many LNs do you suppose have believed that photo for
the last 50 years, and ardently fought any CTs who thought it was altered!
But there's no bullet hole there! And on top of that, the photo was
altered because there's a list right here in the forum of over 39
eyewitnesses that said they saw clearly a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK,
right where that photo was taken! Of course the happy LNs will try to
pretend that there was some excuse, like the photo was fuzzy (check for
yourself, it's not), or just ignore the evidence. Some will avoid looking
altogether and try to blame me for the false claims I'm making! And never
know the truth.
It's as if LNs just never got the word that photos could be altered in
1963. So their logic bumps disappear and they can't see the OBVIOUS.
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
See below. It was the easiest thing going to get rid of the stupid
SBT. Just get eyewitnesses that saw the proof.
As I said, his methodolgy is as simple as it is self-insulating against
any conceivable correction by demonstrable *hard* evidence. He would much
(1) Gun purchase and delivery records, numerous films and pictures of the
motorcade and autopsy, and ballistics and finger/palm print analysis and
evidence was all faked.
WRONG! The information showing that an MC rifle was sold to Oswald
is fine by me, and I believe he bought it for a purpose. Just not to
shoot anyone with it. So that statement is wrong. Amazing the things
that get said that aren't true. I believe all the fingerprints of Oswald
that are on the rifle and boxes in the 'nest' are legitimate, so you're
wrong on that too.
Uhhh sure. Which is why you accept them as proof of his guilt, right?
Oh that's right. You think *they* a real, but the *scene* was staged to
frame him. Please tell the good folks out there how such shenanigans were
pulled off without involving the same type of far-fetched chicanery I
described above.

I believe many of the photos and films of the
Post by mainframetech
motorcade are mostly true also. I've seen proof that some of the Z-film
was altered, but that came from eyewitnesses to the original film who also
were CIA witnesses.
...IOW, I am dead *right* that in all *substance* that you think the
photographic evidnce has been faked accordingly.
Post by mainframetech
So there is very little in that list of things that I considered fake.
The rifle was Oswald's and he worked at the TSBD. So a lot of what was
said was just plain made up, as LNs tend to do when they don't know what's
up.
I'll let the good lurkers/viewers out there decide just how much of what I
said can be fairly called "made up".
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
(2) Numerous government officials high and low, federal, state, and city,
military and civilian, all coordinated, and knowingly lied to cover up the
murder of the POTUS.
WRONG again. How can you be so wrong so often?
LOL! This Pot meet Kettle moment brought to you by Chris/Mainframetech!

I think the DPD was
Post by mainframetech
as honest or corrupt as any town's police dept. Not more or less.
...Well since they did a lot to help frame the Patsy by staging the crime
scene and pursuing Oswald's guilt from a very early stage when he,
himself, claimed they were using him as Patsy for having lived in the
Soviet Union, when at stake was finding the "real) killer(s) of the POTUS,
I'd say you must think most police departments are pretty corrupt Chris!

And
Post by mainframetech
when the FBI came into the case early on, for the most part the local cops
deferred to them. There were a few people in various organizations that
were in the plot to murder JFK, but not whole organizations. Say about 20
on the front side and 30 on the back side. and that number hasn't changed
since my first look at the case. However, I believe that a number of
Mafia shooters were involved beyond those numbers, and a number of FBI
agents helped cover up many clues and statements to push the 'lone nut'
theory that was handed down by Hoover. But they were unaware of the plot.
In short, you have a *minumum* of 20 actors in "various organizations" not
even counting Mafia hitmen. I guess you'll have to forgive me for
thinking you have pretty wide-ranging plot with a lot of loose lips that
could sink ships from a *very* early stage.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
(3) Numerous recognized forensic, anthropological, photographic, and
document examination experts either blundered in re-vetting the evidence
in the years since the WC closed up shop, and/or also knowingly helped
carried out the cover up.
WRONG again! Where in the world do you get this stuff? NO EXPERTS
"knowingly helped" to cover up anything, other than the pathologists at
the autopsy, and they were ordered to tell a certain story in the Autopsy
Report. All the 'experts' that were later involved in looking over the
data they were allowed to see from the autopsy, were shown only what would
lead them to believe the cause of death as it had been stated by the
pathologists. They assumed from that info what the cause of death was.
So you deny willing involvement, but *not* where I said the part about
"either blundered in..." And there is no two ways about it. All of the
above were recognized as bona fide experts, and for them all to come away
and not spot the fakery that you and others---cleaver amatuer sluths that
you are---managed to figure out, involved a lot of "blundering" if I ever
saw it pure and simple.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
(4) Any witnesses whose testimony more closely matches the "official
story" were either mistaken or lying too.
WRONG of course! Many statements were honest and could be believed.
The only places where you will find me disbelieving is where I can prove
someone was lying.
You need to read a bit more carfully. I didn't you thought they all were
necessarily "lying" I said, "either *mistaken* or lying..." So since you
do reject such "contra" witness statements and acknowledge you found some
to be outright lying, tell me again where my statement is seriously in
error?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
*BUT* witnesses who give recollections that contradict that story (even if
the recollections are put in writing 15-30 or more years after the fact)
are to be believed as all costs!
Nope, there is an overall view of the crime, and from that point of
view, one can see clearly that the crime was a conspiracy to murder.
With that in mind, many of the facts of the case begin to look very
different. In my view, the vast majority of eyewitness testimony is
corroborated and so is more to be believed whatever it's age.
So IOW, you approach the case and the witness statements having determined
the "overall view of the crime" was "a conspiracy to commit murder" and it
is at *that* point that one can see clearly see that "facts of the case
begin to look very different." Excuse me, but I think that is the cart
before the horse. The overall view of the crime should only be formed
after weighing all the *facts* independent of a desired outcome.

That means assigning relative weights to the available *evidence*. Find
me any credibly modern case study of how crimes should be investigated and
solved that places equal or greater weight upon witness statements (even
early ones; still less those obtained years later) than on any available
*hard* evidence that can be examined and vetted by trained experts, and
maybe I'll say you are onto something. ...But until then you will have
sail alone on the good ship "USS No Good Evidence or Rationale". :-)
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
...Yepper. That's a "reasonable" and "fact based" approach if I ever saw
one!
So we've found that your narrative is phony from the word go, but I've
corrected much of it. and if you ever want to actually deal in facts of
the case, let me know.
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by mainframetech
Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plaza
that day.
Chris
bigdog
2018-07-25 12:16:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 5:20:49 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:

(previous posts snipped for brevity and clarity)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lLWqbNL8Zgo/UYraEfUOHfI/AAAAAAAAuis/RtjG5B8TugM/s1600/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_BOH.jpg

In his HSCA testimony, Humes did create some confusion when he denied the
red spot was the entry wound. Not sure why he did that. One of the
criticisms I've heard of the original autopsy is that measurements were
not taken from standard reference points which an experienced forensic
medical examiner would have done. (Wecht has been very vocal about that).
This has created disagreement as to whether the original placement of the
wound or the HSCA placement is the correct one. Whichever is correct, both
are compatible with the shot having been fired from the sniper's nest in
the TSBD. I believe the photo you have posted does show the entrance
wound. My reason for believing that is the presence of the ruler. If that
is not the entrance wound in the picture. What reason would there be for
posing a picture with a ruler in it?
mainframetech
2018-07-26 02:17:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
(previous posts snipped for brevity and clarity)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lLWqbNL8Zgo/UYraEfUOHfI/AAAAAAAAuis/RtjG5B8TugM/s1600/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_BOH.jpg
In his HSCA testimony, Humes did create some confusion when he denied the
red spot was the entry wound. Not sure why he did that. One of the
criticisms I've heard of the original autopsy is that measurements were
not taken from standard reference points which an experienced forensic
medical examiner would have done. (Wecht has been very vocal about that).
This has created disagreement as to whether the original placement of the
wound or the HSCA placement is the correct one. Whichever is correct, both
are compatible with the shot having been fired from the sniper's nest in
the TSBD. I believe the photo you have posted does show the entrance
wound. My reason for believing that is the presence of the ruler. If that
is not the entrance wound in the picture. What reason would there be for
posing a picture with a ruler in it?
He denied it because this time he was telling the truth. He had seen
the body and the red spot, and the scalp underneath it and saw there was
no bullet hole in the skull to match.

So you will believe there is a bullet hole just because they put a
ruler in the photo? I have to talk to you about your belief in any old
thing that's said as evidence.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-25 17:12:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all.
How do you "get rid of" something that is so obviously true?
Good luck.
Self well wishing? Chris needs to, since he will need all the luck he can
get to convince anyone else with an eye for critical thinking using his
"everything was faked" except the witnesses who agree with my beliefs
methodology.
Ah, here we go! The LN self congratulations parade. LNs telling each
other how clever and wise they are. Of course, completely ignoring sworn
testimony and documents, but what the heck, it's fun to dump on some CTs
for fun. I have to tell you I don't rely on luck. I rely on sworn
testimony, documents and statements of those that were present at the
events spoken about in the case. I see where the happy LNs have used the
autopsy photos as proof of various things in the case, and I have to laugh
at the obvious problems of many of those 'leaked' photos.
Sure. "Problems" so "obvious that none (zero) of the the Foresic
Professionals who have viewed the photos (both in and outside of the
public domain) have noticed them! Not even Cyril Wecht who is a
Are you talking about the professionals who didn't notice the bullet hole
in the forehead? Are they related to the professionals who called a dab of
fat tissue on top ot the head an EXIT wound?

Or the professional who called a blood clot a bullet wound?

Or the professionals who didn't notice that the reatview mirror was
smashed in? Argument by Authority can be used in some cases, but in this
one. Maybe you can try Argument by the Three Stooges.
Post by BT George
died-in-the-wool CT bu utterly rejects all notion of "body altering" put
out by Lifton/Horne, et. al.
Post by mainframetech
Let's take the one that shows the BOH of JFK. Try and use the
instructions from Humes or Boswell to find the bullet holes in the BOH in
that one. I'll chuckle while you keep looking in vain, and I know the
photo is plenty clear enough to see a bullet hole if one was there. But
to make it worse, that photo had a drawing done of it by Ida Dox, who
copied it supposedly as exactly as possible. The laugh comes in when we
see that Ida has put in the bullet hole right where they told her to put
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
I have no idea what you are babling about, since what you linked to
clearly shows the red spot near the Cowlick that was held by the various
Panels that looked at it post-autopsy have said was the bullet entrance
wound. Again even Wecht did did not disagree. But here is another view of
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lLWqbNL8Zgo/UYraEfUOHfI/AAAAAAAAuis/RtjG5B8TugM/s1600/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_BOH.jpg
Now as to it differing than from the autopsist description I fully agree.
Moreover, I agree that there is a mystery there that needs to be resolved.
I have gone into this numerous times here, so you need only search: BT
George and the Cowlick or EOP entry and I am quite sure you will quickly
acertain my thouhts on that.
I have no good explanation for where the red spot entrance wound appears
to be on the BOH photo vs. where the significant *majority* of the other
evidence places it. (E.g., the original and crystal clear versions in the
NA of the Lateral X-ray and F10 photo were reviewed by Sturdivan/Zimmerman
who both stated that these leave little or no doubt in thier minds that
the entrance wound was much closer to the EOP as the original Autopsists
described, than where it at least *appears* to be in the BOH photo---and I
am not convinced of John Canal's attempts at resolution.) But I in *no*
way believe the multiply reviewed/re-vetted autopsy evidence is faked or
altered, nor that the body itself was altered.
Post by mainframetech
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1eAF6xNtTsY/T6b3bOQ7wgI/AAAAAAAAIkk/sfjIkGhcrRQ/s702/Dox-Drawing-Of-JFK-Autopsy-Photo.jpg
What a yock! How many LNs do you suppose have believed that photo for
the last 50 years, and ardently fought any CTs who thought it was altered!
But there's no bullet hole there! And on top of that, the photo was
altered because there's a list right here in the forum of over 39
eyewitnesses that said they saw clearly a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK,
right where that photo was taken! Of course the happy LNs will try to
pretend that there was some excuse, like the photo was fuzzy (check for
yourself, it's not), or just ignore the evidence. Some will avoid looking
altogether and try to blame me for the false claims I'm making! And never
know the truth.
It's as if LNs just never got the word that photos could be altered in
1963. So their logic bumps disappear and they can't see the OBVIOUS.
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
See below. It was the easiest thing going to get rid of the stupid
SBT. Just get eyewitnesses that saw the proof.
As I said, his methodolgy is as simple as it is self-insulating against
any conceivable correction by demonstrable *hard* evidence. He would much
(1) Gun purchase and delivery records, numerous films and pictures of the
motorcade and autopsy, and ballistics and finger/palm print analysis and
evidence was all faked.
WRONG! The information showing that an MC rifle was sold to Oswald
is fine by me, and I believe he bought it for a purpose. Just not to
shoot anyone with it. So that statement is wrong. Amazing the things
that get said that aren't true. I believe all the fingerprints of Oswald
that are on the rifle and boxes in the 'nest' are legitimate, so you're
wrong on that too.
Uhhh sure. Which is why you accept them as proof of his guilt, right?
Oh that's right. You think *they* a real, but the *scene* was staged to
frame him. Please tell the good folks out there how such shenanigans were
pulled off without involving the same type of far-fetched chicanery I
described above.
I believe many of the photos and films of the
Post by mainframetech
motorcade are mostly true also. I've seen proof that some of the Z-film
was altered, but that came from eyewitnesses to the original film who also
were CIA witnesses.
...IOW, I am dead *right* that in all *substance* that you think the
photographic evidnce has been faked accordingly.
Post by mainframetech
So there is very little in that list of things that I considered fake.
The rifle was Oswald's and he worked at the TSBD. So a lot of what was
said was just plain made up, as LNs tend to do when they don't know what's
up.
I'll let the good lurkers/viewers out there decide just how much of what I
said can be fairly called "made up".
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
(2) Numerous government officials high and low, federal, state, and city,
military and civilian, all coordinated, and knowingly lied to cover up the
murder of the POTUS.
WRONG again. How can you be so wrong so often?
LOL! This Pot meet Kettle moment brought to you by Chris/Mainframetech!
I think the DPD was
Post by mainframetech
as honest or corrupt as any town's police dept. Not more or less.
...Well since they did a lot to help frame the Patsy by staging the crime
scene and pursuing Oswald's guilt from a very early stage when he,
himself, claimed they were using him as Patsy for having lived in the
Soviet Union, when at stake was finding the "real) killer(s) of the POTUS,
I'd say you must think most police departments are pretty corrupt Chris!
And
Post by mainframetech
when the FBI came into the case early on, for the most part the local cops
deferred to them. There were a few people in various organizations that
were in the plot to murder JFK, but not whole organizations. Say about 20
on the front side and 30 on the back side. and that number hasn't changed
since my first look at the case. However, I believe that a number of
Mafia shooters were involved beyond those numbers, and a number of FBI
agents helped cover up many clues and statements to push the 'lone nut'
theory that was handed down by Hoover. But they were unaware of the plot.
In short, you have a *minumum* of 20 actors in "various organizations" not
even counting Mafia hitmen. I guess you'll have to forgive me for
thinking you have pretty wide-ranging plot with a lot of loose lips that
could sink ships from a *very* early stage.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
(3) Numerous recognized forensic, anthropological, photographic, and
document examination experts either blundered in re-vetting the evidence
in the years since the WC closed up shop, and/or also knowingly helped
carried out the cover up.
WRONG again! Where in the world do you get this stuff? NO EXPERTS
"knowingly helped" to cover up anything, other than the pathologists at
the autopsy, and they were ordered to tell a certain story in the Autopsy
Report. All the 'experts' that were later involved in looking over the
data they were allowed to see from the autopsy, were shown only what would
lead them to believe the cause of death as it had been stated by the
pathologists. They assumed from that info what the cause of death was.
So you deny willing involvement, but *not* where I said the part about
"either blundered in..." And there is no two ways about it. All of the
above were recognized as bona fide experts, and for them all to come away
and not spot the fakery that you and others---cleaver amatuer sluths that
you are---managed to figure out, involved a lot of "blundering" if I ever
saw it pure and simple.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
(4) Any witnesses whose testimony more closely matches the "official
story" were either mistaken or lying too.
WRONG of course! Many statements were honest and could be believed.
The only places where you will find me disbelieving is where I can prove
someone was lying.
You need to read a bit more carfully. I didn't you thought they all were
necessarily "lying" I said, "either *mistaken* or lying..." So since you
do reject such "contra" witness statements and acknowledge you found some
to be outright lying, tell me again where my statement is seriously in
error?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
*BUT* witnesses who give recollections that contradict that story (even if
the recollections are put in writing 15-30 or more years after the fact)
are to be believed as all costs!
Nope, there is an overall view of the crime, and from that point of
view, one can see clearly that the crime was a conspiracy to murder.
With that in mind, many of the facts of the case begin to look very
different. In my view, the vast majority of eyewitness testimony is
corroborated and so is more to be believed whatever it's age.
So IOW, you approach the case and the witness statements having determined
the "overall view of the crime" was "a conspiracy to commit murder" and it
is at *that* point that one can see clearly see that "facts of the case
begin to look very different." Excuse me, but I think that is the cart
before the horse. The overall view of the crime should only be formed
after weighing all the *facts* independent of a desired outcome.
That means assigning relative weights to the available *evidence*. Find
me any credibly modern case study of how crimes should be investigated and
solved that places equal or greater weight upon witness statements (even
early ones; still less those obtained years later) than on any available
*hard* evidence that can be examined and vetted by trained experts, and
maybe I'll say you are onto something. ...But until then you will have
sail alone on the good ship "USS No Good Evidence or Rationale". :-)
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
...Yepper. That's a "reasonable" and "fact based" approach if I ever saw
one!
So we've found that your narrative is phony from the word go, but I've
corrected much of it. and if you ever want to actually deal in facts of
the case, let me know.
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by mainframetech
Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plaza
that day.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-25 17:12:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all.
How do you "get rid of" something that is so obviously true?
Good luck.
Self well wishing? Chris needs to, since he will need all the luck he can
get to convince anyone else with an eye for critical thinking using his
"everything was faked" except the witnesses who agree with my beliefs
methodology.
Ah, here we go! The LN self congratulations parade. LNs telling each
other how clever and wise they are. Of course, completely ignoring sworn
testimony and documents, but what the heck, it's fun to dump on some CTs
for fun. I have to tell you I don't rely on luck. I rely on sworn
testimony, documents and statements of those that were present at the
events spoken about in the case. I see where the happy LNs have used the
autopsy photos as proof of various things in the case, and I have to laugh
at the obvious problems of many of those 'leaked' photos.
Sure. "Problems" so "obvious that none (zero) of the the Foresic
Professionals who have viewed the photos (both in and outside of the
public domain) have noticed them! Not even Cyril Wecht who is a
died-in-the-wool CT bu utterly rejects all notion of "body altering" put
out by Lifton/Horne, et. al.
So do I.
The autopsy photos are genuine and they prove conspiracy.
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Let's take the one that shows the BOH of JFK. Try and use the
instructions from Humes or Boswell to find the bullet holes in the BOH in
that one. I'll chuckle while you keep looking in vain, and I know the
photo is plenty clear enough to see a bullet hole if one was there. But
to make it worse, that photo had a drawing done of it by Ida Dox, who
copied it supposedly as exactly as possible. The laugh comes in when we
see that Ida has put in the bullet hole right where they told her to put
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
I have no idea what you are babling about, since what you linked to
clearly shows the red spot near the Cowlick that was held by the various
Panels that looked at it post-autopsy have said was the bullet entrance
wound. Again even Wecht did did not disagree. But here is another view of
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lLWqbNL8Zgo/UYraEfUOHfI/AAAAAAAAuis/RtjG5B8TugM/s1600/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_BOH.jpg
Now as to it differing than from the autopsist description I fully agree.
Moreover, I agree that there is a mystery there that needs to be resolved.
I have gone into this numerous times here, so you need only search: BT
George and the Cowlick or EOP entry and I am quite sure you will quickly
acertain my thouhts on that.
I have no good explanation for where the red spot entrance wound appears
to be on the BOH photo vs. where the significant *majority* of the other
evidence places it. (E.g., the original and crystal clear versions in the
NA of the Lateral X-ray and F10 photo were reviewed by Sturdivan/Zimmerman
who both stated that these leave little or no doubt in thier minds that
the entrance wound was much closer to the EOP as the original Autopsists
described, than where it at least *appears* to be in the BOH photo---and I
am not convinced of John Canal's attempts at resolution.) But I in *no*
way believe the multiply reviewed/re-vetted autopsy evidence is faked or
altered, nor that the body itself was altered.
Post by mainframetech
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1eAF6xNtTsY/T6b3bOQ7wgI/AAAAAAAAIkk/sfjIkGhcrRQ/s702/Dox-Drawing-Of-JFK-Autopsy-Photo.jpg
What a yock! How many LNs do you suppose have believed that photo for
the last 50 years, and ardently fought any CTs who thought it was altered!
But there's no bullet hole there! And on top of that, the photo was
altered because there's a list right here in the forum of over 39
eyewitnesses that said they saw clearly a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK,
right where that photo was taken! Of course the happy LNs will try to
pretend that there was some excuse, like the photo was fuzzy (check for
yourself, it's not), or just ignore the evidence. Some will avoid looking
altogether and try to blame me for the false claims I'm making! And never
know the truth.
It's as if LNs just never got the word that photos could be altered in
1963. So their logic bumps disappear and they can't see the OBVIOUS.
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
See below. It was the easiest thing going to get rid of the stupid
SBT. Just get eyewitnesses that saw the proof.
As I said, his methodolgy is as simple as it is self-insulating against
any conceivable correction by demonstrable *hard* evidence. He would much
(1) Gun purchase and delivery records, numerous films and pictures of the
motorcade and autopsy, and ballistics and finger/palm print analysis and
evidence was all faked.
WRONG! The information showing that an MC rifle was sold to Oswald
is fine by me, and I believe he bought it for a purpose. Just not to
shoot anyone with it. So that statement is wrong. Amazing the things
that get said that aren't true. I believe all the fingerprints of Oswald
that are on the rifle and boxes in the 'nest' are legitimate, so you're
wrong on that too.
Uhhh sure. Which is why you accept them as proof of his guilt, right?
Oh that's right. You think *they* a real, but the *scene* was staged to
frame him. Please tell the good folks out there how such shenanigans were
pulled off without involving the same type of far-fetched chicanery I
described above.
I believe many of the photos and films of the
Post by mainframetech
motorcade are mostly true also. I've seen proof that some of the Z-film
was altered, but that came from eyewitnesses to the original film who also
were CIA witnesses.
...IOW, I am dead *right* that in all *substance* that you think the
photographic evidnce has been faked accordingly.
Post by mainframetech
So there is very little in that list of things that I considered fake.
The rifle was Oswald's and he worked at the TSBD. So a lot of what was
said was just plain made up, as LNs tend to do when they don't know what's
up.
I'll let the good lurkers/viewers out there decide just how much of what I
said can be fairly called "made up".
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
(2) Numerous government officials high and low, federal, state, and city,
military and civilian, all coordinated, and knowingly lied to cover up the
murder of the POTUS.
WRONG again. How can you be so wrong so often?
LOL! This Pot meet Kettle moment brought to you by Chris/Mainframetech!
I think the DPD was
Post by mainframetech
as honest or corrupt as any town's police dept. Not more or less.
...Well since they did a lot to help frame the Patsy by staging the crime
scene and pursuing Oswald's guilt from a very early stage when he,
himself, claimed they were using him as Patsy for having lived in the
Soviet Union, when at stake was finding the "real) killer(s) of the POTUS,
I'd say you must think most police departments are pretty corrupt Chris!
And
Post by mainframetech
when the FBI came into the case early on, for the most part the local cops
deferred to them. There were a few people in various organizations that
were in the plot to murder JFK, but not whole organizations. Say about 20
on the front side and 30 on the back side. and that number hasn't changed
since my first look at the case. However, I believe that a number of
Mafia shooters were involved beyond those numbers, and a number of FBI
agents helped cover up many clues and statements to push the 'lone nut'
theory that was handed down by Hoover. But they were unaware of the plot.
In short, you have a *minumum* of 20 actors in "various organizations" not
even counting Mafia hitmen. I guess you'll have to forgive me for
thinking you have pretty wide-ranging plot with a lot of loose lips that
could sink ships from a *very* early stage.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
(3) Numerous recognized forensic, anthropological, photographic, and
document examination experts either blundered in re-vetting the evidence
in the years since the WC closed up shop, and/or also knowingly helped
carried out the cover up.
WRONG again! Where in the world do you get this stuff? NO EXPERTS
"knowingly helped" to cover up anything, other than the pathologists at
the autopsy, and they were ordered to tell a certain story in the Autopsy
Report. All the 'experts' that were later involved in looking over the
data they were allowed to see from the autopsy, were shown only what would
lead them to believe the cause of death as it had been stated by the
pathologists. They assumed from that info what the cause of death was.
So you deny willing involvement, but *not* where I said the part about
"either blundered in..." And there is no two ways about it. All of the
above were recognized as bona fide experts, and for them all to come away
and not spot the fakery that you and others---cleaver amatuer sluths that
you are---managed to figure out, involved a lot of "blundering" if I ever
saw it pure and simple.
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
(4) Any witnesses whose testimony more closely matches the "official
story" were either mistaken or lying too.
WRONG of course! Many statements were honest and could be believed.
The only places where you will find me disbelieving is where I can prove
someone was lying.
You need to read a bit more carfully. I didn't you thought they all were
necessarily "lying" I said, "either *mistaken* or lying..." So since you
do reject such "contra" witness statements and acknowledge you found some
to be outright lying, tell me again where my statement is seriously in
error?
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
*BUT* witnesses who give recollections that contradict that story (even if
the recollections are put in writing 15-30 or more years after the fact)
are to be believed as all costs!
Nope, there is an overall view of the crime, and from that point of
view, one can see clearly that the crime was a conspiracy to murder.
With that in mind, many of the facts of the case begin to look very
different. In my view, the vast majority of eyewitness testimony is
corroborated and so is more to be believed whatever it's age.
So IOW, you approach the case and the witness statements having determined
the "overall view of the crime" was "a conspiracy to commit murder" and it
is at *that* point that one can see clearly see that "facts of the case
begin to look very different." Excuse me, but I think that is the cart
before the horse. The overall view of the crime should only be formed
after weighing all the *facts* independent of a desired outcome.
That means assigning relative weights to the available *evidence*. Find
me any credibly modern case study of how crimes should be investigated and
solved that places equal or greater weight upon witness statements (even
early ones; still less those obtained years later) than on any available
*hard* evidence that can be examined and vetted by trained experts, and
maybe I'll say you are onto something. ...But until then you will have
sail alone on the good ship "USS No Good Evidence or Rationale". :-)
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
...Yepper. That's a "reasonable" and "fact based" approach if I ever saw
one!
So we've found that your narrative is phony from the word go, but I've
corrected much of it. and if you ever want to actually deal in facts of
the case, let me know.
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by mainframetech
Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plaza
that day.
Chris
mainframetech
2018-07-26 02:20:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all.
How do you "get rid of" something that is so obviously true?
Good luck.
Self well wishing? Chris needs to, since he will need all the luck he can
get to convince anyone else with an eye for critical thinking using his
"everything was faked" except the witnesses who agree with my beliefs
methodology.
Ah, here we go! The LN self congratulations parade. LNs telling each
other how clever and wise they are. Of course, completely ignoring sworn
testimony and documents, but what the heck, it's fun to dump on some CTs
for fun. I have to tell you I don't rely on luck. I rely on sworn
testimony, documents and statements of those that were present at the
events spoken about in the case. I see where the happy LNs have used the
autopsy photos as proof of various things in the case, and I have to laugh
at the obvious problems of many of those 'leaked' photos.
Sure. "Problems" so "obvious that none (zero) of the the Foresic
Professionals who have viewed the photos (both in and outside of the
public domain) have noticed them! Not even Cyril Wecht who is a
died-in-the-wool CT bu utterly rejects all notion of "body altering" put
out by Lifton/Horne, et. al.
Well, by now you've seen much of the sworn testimony and documents
that I've put out as backup for what I believe. What is your specific
argument about any of it? I'll be happy to answer any reasonable
question.
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Let's take the one that shows the BOH of JFK. Try and use the
instructions from Humes or Boswell to find the bullet holes in the BOH in
that one. I'll chuckle while you keep looking in vain, and I know the
photo is plenty clear enough to see a bullet hole if one was there. But
to make it worse, that photo had a drawing done of it by Ida Dox, who
copied it supposedly as exactly as possible. The laugh comes in when we
see that Ida has put in the bullet hole right where they told her to put
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
I have no idea what you are babling about, since what you linked to
clearly shows the red spot near the Cowlick that was held by the various
Panels that looked at it post-autopsy have said was the bullet entrance
wound. Again even Wecht did did not disagree. But here is another view of
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lLWqbNL8Zgo/UYraEfUOHfI/AAAAAAAAuis/RtjG5B8TugM/s1600/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_BOH.jpg
Interesting! You must not have done any research on that image. I
showed Humes' statement that the 'red spot' was NOTHING, and that he had
looked under the scalp and there was no matching hole in the skull. If
you need the text, let me know. And remember, Humes was there seeing the
scalp and not photos. I just spoke with John and he pointed me to the
location where the HSCA described the bullet hole in the BOH, and they
actually used the Dox DRAWING to show the location of the bullet ole.
THAT one shows a bullet hole where the 'red spot' used to be, so maybe
that's where you got the idea, from the panels. Here's another clue about
that photo...Thee is a list here of over 39 eyewitnesses to a 'large hole'
in the BOH of JFK, but it doesn't appear in the photo! Do you think
someone was playing around with the evidence?
Post by BT George
Now as to it differing than from the autopsist description I fully agree.
Moreover, I agree that there is a mystery there that needs to be resolved.
I have gone into this numerous times here, so you need only search: BT
George and the Cowlick or EOP entry and I am quite sure you will quickly
acertain my thouhts on that.
I have no good explanation for where the red spot entrance wound appears
to be on the BOH photo vs. where the significant *majority* of the other
evidence places it. (E.g., the original and crystal clear versions in the
NA of the Lateral X-ray and F10 photo were reviewed by Sturdivan/Zimmerman
who both stated that these leave little or no doubt in thier minds that
the entrance wound was much closer to the EOP as the original Autopsists
described, than where it at least *appears* to be in the BOH photo---and I
am not convinced of John Canal's attempts at resolution.) But I in *no*
way believe the multiply reviewed/re-vetted autopsy evidence is faked or
altered, nor that the body itself was altered.
See above.
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1eAF6xNtTsY/T6b3bOQ7wgI/AAAAAAAAIkk/sfjIkGhcrRQ/s702/Dox-Drawing-Of-JFK-Autopsy-Photo.jpg
What a yock! How many LNs do you suppose have believed that photo for
the last 50 years, and ardently fought any CTs who thought it was altered!
But there's no bullet hole there! And on top of that, the photo was
altered because there's a list right here in the forum of over 39
eyewitnesses that said they saw clearly a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK,
right where that photo was taken! Of course the happy LNs will try to
pretend that there was some excuse, like the photo was fuzzy (check for
yourself, it's not), or just ignore the evidence. Some will avoid looking
altogether and try to blame me for the false claims I'm making! And never
know the truth.
It's as if LNs just never got the word that photos could be altered in
1963. So their logic bumps disappear and they can't see the OBVIOUS.
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
See below. It was the easiest thing going to get rid of the stupid
SBT. Just get eyewitnesses that saw the proof.
As I said, his methodolgy is as simple as it is self-insulating against
any conceivable correction by demonstrable *hard* evidence. He would much
(1) Gun purchase and delivery records, numerous films and pictures of the
motorcade and autopsy, and ballistics and finger/palm print analysis and
evidence was all faked.
WRONG! The information showing that an MC rifle was sold to Oswald
is fine by me, and I believe he bought it for a purpose. Just not to
shoot anyone with it. So that statement is wrong. Amazing the things
that get said that aren't true. I believe all the fingerprints of Oswald
that are on the rifle and boxes in the 'nest' are legitimate, so you're
wrong on that too.
Uhhh sure. Which is why you accept them as proof of his guilt, right?
Oh that's right. You think *they* a real, but the *scene* was staged to
frame him. Please tell the good folks out there how such shenanigans were
pulled off without involving the same type of far-fetched chicanery I
described above.
I don't think the 'nest' was staged to frame Oswald. I believe he was
the 'patsy' from before the day of the killing. One scenario was that
Oswald wanted to get in with various groups and report to the FBI on what
they were doing. He got into this group and they had him bring in his MC
rifle and stack some boxes. He probably thought it was going to be some
tactic to scare politicians, like Connally. But whatever it was, he was
fooled up to the final moments when 2 men began shooting from the 6th
floor of the TSBD. One story has said that he was 'frozen' and just sat
there, which if it happened, would be when he realized this was all to
kill JFK, who he had said he "liked" and thought he was a "Great Leader".

After the shooting, the villains left and left Oswald there. He
figured out that he was the 'patsy', and he hightailed it out of there.
Post by BT George
I believe many of the photos and films of the
Post by mainframetech
motorcade are mostly true also. I've seen proof that some of the Z-film
was altered, but that came from eyewitnesses to the original film who also
were CIA witnesses.
...IOW, I am dead *right* that in all *substance* that you think the
photographic evidnce has been faked accordingly.
Post by mainframetech
So there is very little in that list of things that I considered fake.
The rifle was Oswald's and he worked at the TSBD. So a lot of what was
said was just plain made up, as LNs tend to do when they don't know what's
up.
I'll let the good lurkers/viewers out there decide just how much of what I
said can be fairly called "made up".
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
(2) Numerous government officials high and low, federal, state, and city,
military and civilian, all coordinated, and knowingly lied to cover up the
murder of the POTUS.
WRONG again. How can you be so wrong so often?
LOL! This Pot meet Kettle moment brought to you by Chris/Mainframetech!
I think the DPD was
Post by mainframetech
as honest or corrupt as any town's police dept. Not more or less.
...Well since they did a lot to help frame the Patsy by staging the crime
scene and pursuing Oswald's guilt from a very early stage when he,
himself, claimed they were using him as Patsy for having lived in the
Soviet Union, when at stake was finding the "real) killer(s) of the POTUS,
I'd say you must think most police departments are pretty corrupt Chris!
Nope. That varies with the attitudes of the higher ups.
Post by BT George
And
Post by mainframetech
when the FBI came into the case early on, for the most part the local cops
deferred to them. There were a few people in various organizations that
were in the plot to murder JFK, but not whole organizations. Say about 20
on the front side and 30 on the back side. and that number hasn't changed
since my first look at the case. However, I believe that a number of
Mafia shooters were involved beyond those numbers, and a number of FBI
agents helped cover up many clues and statements to push the 'lone nut'
theory that was handed down by Hoover. But they were unaware of the plot.
In short, you have a *minumum* of 20 actors in "various organizations" not
even counting Mafia hitmen. I guess you'll have to forgive me for
thinking you have pretty wide-ranging plot with a lot of loose lips that
could sink ships from a *very* early stage.
In 1963 there weren't too many Mafia shooters that would rat on their
bosses. And by now there have been a few people that have come out of
their shell and told their stories, but fear would keep most undercover.
BTW, the Mafia didn't really have hit men in the plot, those guys usually
walked up behind someone and shot them in the head, then the heart when
they fell. Not much long distance shooting.
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
(3) Numerous recognized forensic, anthropological, photographic, and
document examination experts either blundered in re-vetting the evidence
in the years since the WC closed up shop, and/or also knowingly helped
carried out the cover up.
WRONG again! Where in the world do you get this stuff? NO EXPERTS
"knowingly helped" to cover up anything, other than the pathologists at
the autopsy, and they were ordered to tell a certain story in the Autopsy
Report. All the 'experts' that were later involved in looking over the
data they were allowed to see from the autopsy, were shown only what would
lead them to believe the cause of death as it had been stated by the
pathologists. They assumed from that info what the cause of death was.
So you deny willing involvement, but *not* where I said the part about
"either blundered in..."
I believe there were 20 willing people at the front of the killing, and
30 at the back of the killing, and the 20 was part of the 30. No one else
was aware of the plot.
Post by BT George
And there is no two ways about it. All of the
above were recognized as bona fide experts, and for them all to come away
and not spot the fakery that you and others---cleaver amatuer sluths that
you are---managed to figure out, involved a lot of "blundering" if I ever
saw it pure and simple.
Not really. I'm finding out that the medical panels that were
elected to get into the data and make conclusions weren't shown the
complete sets of photos or X-rays. They were misled! The HSCA itself
actually showed the Dox Drawing of the BOH and used it to describe the BOH
wound! The real they didn't dare show because it had no bullet hole in
it!
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
(4) Any witnesses whose testimony more closely matches the "official
story" were either mistaken or lying too.
WRONG of course! Many statements were honest and could be believed.
The only places where you will find me disbelieving is where I can prove
someone was lying.
You need to read a bit more carfully. I didn't you thought they all were
necessarily "lying" I said, "either *mistaken* or lying..." So since you
do reject such "contra" witness statements and acknowledge you found some
to be outright lying, tell me again where my statement is seriously in
error?
Your statement was too broad. There were often honest statements and
only certain places where lying was done, like in the Autopsy Report (AR).
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
*BUT* witnesses who give recollections that contradict that story (even if
the recollections are put in writing 15-30 or more years after the fact)
are to be believed as all costs!
Nope, there is an overall view of the crime, and from that point of
view, one can see clearly that the crime was a conspiracy to murder.
With that in mind, many of the facts of the case begin to look very
different. In my view, the vast majority of eyewitness testimony is
corroborated and so is more to be believed whatever it's age.
So IOW, you approach the case and the witness statements having determined
the "overall view of the crime" was "a conspiracy to commit murder" and it
is at *that* point that one can see clearly see that "facts of the case
begin to look very different." Excuse me, but I think that is the cart
before the horse. The overall view of the crime should only be formed
after weighing all the *facts* independent of a desired outcome.
Look at it like an amateur detective. You form various scenarios and
see if the evidence fits it. You also follow evidence and see where it
takes you without a scenario. You don't settle on a single scenario and
work that one only. You're constantly renewing your ideas, seeing if the
old scenarios still fit, and so forth.
Post by BT George
That means assigning relative weights to the available *evidence*. Find
me any credibly modern case study of how crimes should be investigated and
solved that places equal or greater weight upon witness statements (even
early ones; still less those obtained years later) than on any available
*hard* evidence that can be examined and vetted by trained experts, and
maybe I'll say you are onto something. ...But until then you will have
sail alone on the good ship "USS No Good Evidence or Rationale". :-)
So even though I have sworn testimony and documents and statements from
the witnesses, you think that I'm wasting my time? That only a few
scenarios fit ALL the data?
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
...Yepper. That's a "reasonable" and "fact based" approach if I ever saw
one!
So we've found that your narrative is phony from the word go, but I've
corrected much of it. and if you ever want to actually deal in facts of
the case, let me know.
Odd you would say that since that's the main thing I have dealt with.
I guess your afraid of proof, evidence, sworn testimony, and etc. You've
managed to ignore all of it.
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by BT George
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by mainframetech
Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plaza
that day.
Chris

n***@gmail.com
2018-07-16 22:40:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
Chris take a look at DVP's Zapruder frames 224 to 226 and tell us what
you think Connally is reacting to.

Mark
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-17 21:53:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
Chris take a look at DVP's Zapruder frames 224 to 226 and tell us what
you think Connally is reacting to.
Mark
Where? No link.
Maybe Connally is reacting to hearing the bullet that had just hit JFK.
Maybe you never read what Connally actually said he was reacting to.
Or maybe you just like to call him a liar. Is that your only way out?


http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.htm


We heard a shot. I turned to my left -- I was sitting in the jump seat --

I turned to my left to look in the back seat. The President was slumped.

Ah, he had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit,

and I knew I'd been hit badly.

He heard a shot and turned to look back. As he turned he was hit.
End of SBT. He had enough time between shots to react.
n***@gmail.com
2018-07-19 02:16:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
Chris take a look at DVP's Zapruder frames 224 to 226 and tell us what
you think Connally is reacting to.
Mark
Where? No link.
Maybe Connally is reacting to hearing the bullet that had just hit JFK.
Maybe you never read what Connally actually said he was reacting to.
Or maybe you just like to call him a liar. Is that your only way out?
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.htm
We heard a shot. I turned to my left -- I was sitting in the jump seat --
I turned to my left to look in the back seat. The President was slumped.
Ah, he had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit,
and I knew I'd been hit badly.
He heard a shot and turned to look back. As he turned he was hit.
End of SBT. He had enough time between shots to react.
The links provided by DVP in his post that started off this Topic. But
you have to take the time to read and look.

In 1967 on CBS News:

CONNALLY: "The only way I could ever reconcile my memory of what
happened and what occurred, with respect to the One-Bullet Theory...it had
to be the SECOND bullet that might have hit us both."

EDDIE BAKER: "Do you believe, Governor Connally, that the first bullet
could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the third one hit
President Kennedy?"

CONNALLY: "That's possible. That's possible."

Mark
John McAdams
2018-07-19 02:19:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
We heard a shot. I turned to my left -- I was sitting in the jump seat --
I turned to my left to look in the back seat. The President was slumped.
Ah, he had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit,
and I knew I'd been hit badly.
He heard a shot and turned to look back. As he turned he was hit.
End of SBT. He had enough time between shots to react.
The links provided by DVP in his post that started off this Topic. But
you have to take the time to read and look.
CONNALLY: "The only way I could ever reconcile my memory of what
happened and what occurred, with respect to the One-Bullet Theory...it had
to be the SECOND bullet that might have hit us both."
EDDIE BAKER: "Do you believe, Governor Connally, that the first bullet
could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the third one hit
President Kennedy?"
CONNALLY: "That's possible. That's possible."
But then he adds "the best witness I know" (meaning Nellie) doesn't
agree with that.

Connally's *own testimony* is perfectly consistent with the SBT. A
good husband, he sticks up for his wife.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-07-19 23:51:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
We heard a shot. I turned to my left -- I was sitting in the jump seat --
I turned to my left to look in the back seat. The President was slumped.
Ah, he had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit,
and I knew I'd been hit badly.
He heard a shot and turned to look back. As he turned he was hit.
End of SBT. He had enough time between shots to react.
The links provided by DVP in his post that started off this Topic. But
you have to take the time to read and look.
CONNALLY: "The only way I could ever reconcile my memory of what
happened and what occurred, with respect to the One-Bullet Theory...it had
to be the SECOND bullet that might have hit us both."
EDDIE BAKER: "Do you believe, Governor Connally, that the first bullet
could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the third one hit
President Kennedy?"
CONNALLY: "That's possible. That's possible."
But then he adds "the best witness I know" (meaning Nellie) doesn't
agree with that.
Connally's *own testimony* is perfectly consistent with the SBT. A
good husband, he sticks up for his wife.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
A shame he wasn't at the autopsy and looking down into the body of JFK
and seeing the proof that they all saw that evening. Not only did Paul
O'Connor describe what he saw, but he was corroborated by the other
Technologist James Jenkins. And on top of that, the wound that was seen
on the forehead of JFK was not mentioned in the Autopsy Report (AR), since
it would have caused a very different cause of death to be concluded.
The proof was that the SBT was fiction, made up to accommodate the many
bullet wounds, and small amount of shells in the TSBD (3).

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-20 17:31:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
We heard a shot. I turned to my left -- I was sitting in the jump seat --
I turned to my left to look in the back seat. The President was slumped.
Ah, he had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit,
and I knew I'd been hit badly.
He heard a shot and turned to look back. As he turned he was hit.
End of SBT. He had enough time between shots to react.
The links provided by DVP in his post that started off this Topic. But
you have to take the time to read and look.
CONNALLY: "The only way I could ever reconcile my memory of what
happened and what occurred, with respect to the One-Bullet Theory...it had
to be the SECOND bullet that might have hit us both."
EDDIE BAKER: "Do you believe, Governor Connally, that the first bullet
could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the third one hit
President Kennedy?"
CONNALLY: "That's possible. That's possible."
But then he adds "the best witness I know" (meaning Nellie) doesn't
agree with that.
Connally's *own testimony* is perfectly consistent with the SBT. A
good husband, he sticks up for his wife.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
A shame he wasn't at the autopsy and looking down into the body of JFK
and seeing the proof that they all saw that evening. Not only did Paul
O'Connor describe what he saw, but he was corroborated by the other
Technologist James Jenkins. And on top of that, the wound that was seen
on the forehead of JFK was not mentioned in the Autopsy Report (AR), since
it would have caused a very different cause of death to be concluded.
The proof was that the SBT was fiction, made up to accommodate the many
bullet wounds, and small amount of shells in the TSBD (3).
Why would they mention a wound that wasn't there?
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-21 14:24:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
We heard a shot. I turned to my left -- I was sitting in the jump seat --
I turned to my left to look in the back seat. The President was slumped.
Ah, he had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit,
and I knew I'd been hit badly.
He heard a shot and turned to look back. As he turned he was hit.
End of SBT. He had enough time between shots to react.
The links provided by DVP in his post that started off this Topic. But
you have to take the time to read and look.
CONNALLY: "The only way I could ever reconcile my memory of what
happened and what occurred, with respect to the One-Bullet Theory...it had
to be the SECOND bullet that might have hit us both."
EDDIE BAKER: "Do you believe, Governor Connally, that the first bullet
could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the third one hit
President Kennedy?"
CONNALLY: "That's possible. That's possible."
But then he adds "the best witness I know" (meaning Nellie) doesn't
agree with that.
Connally's *own testimony* is perfectly consistent with the SBT. A
good husband, he sticks up for his wife.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
A shame he wasn't at the autopsy and looking down into the body of JFK
and seeing the proof that they all saw that evening. Not only did Paul
O'Connor describe what he saw, but he was corroborated by the other
Technologist James Jenkins. And on top of that, the wound that was seen
on the forehead of JFK was not mentioned in the Autopsy Report (AR), since
it would have caused a very different cause of death to be concluded.
The proof was that the SBT was fiction, made up to accommodate the many
bullet wounds, and small amount of shells in the TSBD (3).
Why would they mention a wound that wasn't there?
Why would they mention a would they couldn't explain?
Maybe he did in the original autopsy report and then was ordered to take
it out.
mainframetech
2018-07-22 18:32:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
We heard a shot. I turned to my left -- I was sitting in the jump seat --
I turned to my left to look in the back seat. The President was slumped.
Ah, he had said nothing. Almost simultaneously, as I turned, I was hit,
and I knew I'd been hit badly.
He heard a shot and turned to look back. As he turned he was hit.
End of SBT. He had enough time between shots to react.
The links provided by DVP in his post that started off this Topic. But
you have to take the time to read and look.
CONNALLY: "The only way I could ever reconcile my memory of what
happened and what occurred, with respect to the One-Bullet Theory...it had
to be the SECOND bullet that might have hit us both."
EDDIE BAKER: "Do you believe, Governor Connally, that the first bullet
could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the third one hit
President Kennedy?"
CONNALLY: "That's possible. That's possible."
But then he adds "the best witness I know" (meaning Nellie) doesn't
agree with that.
Connally's *own testimony* is perfectly consistent with the SBT. A
good husband, he sticks up for his wife.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
A shame he wasn't at the autopsy and looking down into the body of JFK
and seeing the proof that they all saw that evening. Not only did Paul
O'Connor describe what he saw, but he was corroborated by the other
Technologist James Jenkins. And on top of that, the wound that was seen
on the forehead of JFK was not mentioned in the Autopsy Report (AR), since
it would have caused a very different cause of death to be concluded.
The proof was that the SBT was fiction, made up to accommodate the many
bullet wounds, and small amount of shells in the TSBD (3).
Why would they mention a wound that wasn't there?
Amazing that after being told so many times that you still pretend to
have forgotten. If the wound you mean is the one on the forehead/temple
area, they didn't dare mention it because it suggests a shot from the
front, which would mean a conspiracy with the shooter from the TSBD. It
can be seen by anyone that is not an LN...they have a strange disease that
causes evidence to look like anything unimportant.

Chris
mainframetech
2018-07-18 00:25:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
Chris take a look at DVP's Zapruder frames 224 to 226 and tell us what
you think Connally is reacting to.
Mark
I looked, but it's not clear to me. Since I know there were multiple
weapons firing into the plaza on a signal, there could well be many
bullets fired at the same time, or close enough to be unsure of what
bullet(s) did what damage. I rely on the results seen in the autopsy,
which clearly said the back wound bullet that was supposed to come out the
throat wound never left the body of JFK through the throat wound. I've
shown the statement of Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist and autopsy team
member, and on what he saw:

"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."

From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf

So the bullet never left the body through the throat wound, and
therefore the SBT is so much hogwash.

Chris
n***@gmail.com
2018-07-19 02:15:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
Chris take a look at DVP's Zapruder frames 224 to 226 and tell us what
you think Connally is reacting to.
Mark
I looked, but it's not clear to me. Since I know there were multiple
weapons firing into the plaza on a signal, there could well be many
bullets fired at the same time, or close enough to be unsure of what
bullet(s) did what damage. I rely on the results seen in the autopsy,
which clearly said the back wound bullet that was supposed to come out the
throat wound never left the body of JFK through the throat wound. I've
shown the statement of Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist and autopsy team
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So the bullet never left the body through the throat wound, and
therefore the SBT is so much hogwash.
Chris
All your arguments have been thrashed soundly by BD, with a lot more
patience than I have.

Mark
mainframetech
2018-07-19 23:52:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
Chris take a look at DVP's Zapruder frames 224 to 226 and tell us what
you think Connally is reacting to.
Mark
I looked, but it's not clear to me. Since I know there were multiple
weapons firing into the plaza on a signal, there could well be many
bullets fired at the same time, or close enough to be unsure of what
bullet(s) did what damage. I rely on the results seen in the autopsy,
which clearly said the back wound bullet that was supposed to come out the
throat wound never left the body of JFK through the throat wound. I've
shown the statement of Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist and autopsy team
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So the bullet never left the body through the throat wound, and
therefore the SBT is so much hogwash.
Chris
All your arguments have been thrashed soundly by BD, with a lot more
patience than I have.
Mark
Interesting that you bother to read my version of events if you think
they're not valid. You need to get behind bd and hope he will lead you in
the right path. For me, he has made nothing but mistakes and has avoided
all sorts of sworn testimony, documents and statements of eye witnesses so
that he can pretend the WCR was right. Let me know when you want any
backup for what I've said. I'll be happy to provide it for you.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-20 00:47:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
Chris take a look at DVP's Zapruder frames 224 to 226 and tell us what
you think Connally is reacting to.
Mark
I looked, but it's not clear to me. Since I know there were multiple
weapons firing into the plaza on a signal, there could well be many
bullets fired at the same time, or close enough to be unsure of what
bullet(s) did what damage. I rely on the results seen in the autopsy,
which clearly said the back wound bullet that was supposed to come out the
throat wound never left the body of JFK through the throat wound. I've
shown the statement of Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist and autopsy team
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So the bullet never left the body through the throat wound, and
therefore the SBT is so much hogwash.
Chris
All your arguments have been thrashed soundly by BD, with a lot more
patience than I have.
It's not really patience. As I have told Chris in the past, I do this for
amusement only. I used to think participating in these online discussion
groups was actually accomplishing something worthwhile but eventually I
came to realize the universe of participants in any one of them is so
small it isn't going to move the needle of public opinion to any
significant degree. Still it's fun to engage in the dialog.
mainframetech
2018-07-21 00:00:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
Chris take a look at DVP's Zapruder frames 224 to 226 and tell us what
you think Connally is reacting to.
Mark
I looked, but it's not clear to me. Since I know there were multiple
weapons firing into the plaza on a signal, there could well be many
bullets fired at the same time, or close enough to be unsure of what
bullet(s) did what damage. I rely on the results seen in the autopsy,
which clearly said the back wound bullet that was supposed to come out the
throat wound never left the body of JFK through the throat wound. I've
shown the statement of Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist and autopsy team
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So the bullet never left the body through the throat wound, and
therefore the SBT is so much hogwash.
Chris
All your arguments have been thrashed soundly by BD, with a lot more
patience than I have.
It's not really patience. As I have told Chris in the past, I do this for
amusement only. I used to think participating in these online discussion
groups was actually accomplishing something worthwhile but eventually I
came to realize the universe of participants in any one of them is so
small it isn't going to move the needle of public opinion to any
significant degree. Still it's fun to engage in the dialog.
As I told bd many times, if you're here to laugh at others, it's not
really a decent expenditure of your time. Getting your kicks at the
expense of others is definitely an immoral act.

By paying attention to sworn testimony, documents and statements of
the eyewitnesses, especially when corroborated, we might solve the crime,
since it's been shown that it wasn't a single 'lone nut' killer. But
simply making fun of others jest ain't cool.

Chris
Bud
2018-07-22 01:59:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
Chris take a look at DVP's Zapruder frames 224 to 226 and tell us what
you think Connally is reacting to.
Mark
I looked, but it's not clear to me. Since I know there were multiple
weapons firing into the plaza on a signal, there could well be many
bullets fired at the same time, or close enough to be unsure of what
bullet(s) did what damage. I rely on the results seen in the autopsy,
which clearly said the back wound bullet that was supposed to come out the
throat wound never left the body of JFK through the throat wound. I've
shown the statement of Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist and autopsy team
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So the bullet never left the body through the throat wound, and
therefore the SBT is so much hogwash.
Chris
All your arguments have been thrashed soundly by BD, with a lot more
patience than I have.
It's not really patience. As I have told Chris in the past, I do this for
amusement only. I used to think participating in these online discussion
groups was actually accomplishing something worthwhile but eventually I
came to realize the universe of participants in any one of them is so
small it isn't going to move the needle of public opinion to any
significant degree. Still it's fun to engage in the dialog.
As I told bd many times, if you're here to laugh at others, it's not
really a decent expenditure of your time. Getting your kicks at the
expense of others is definitely an immoral act.
Tell that to politicians.
Post by mainframetech
By paying attention to sworn testimony, documents and statements of
the eyewitnesses, especially when corroborated, we might solve the crime,
since it's been shown that it wasn't a single 'lone nut' killer. But
simply making fun of others jest ain't cool.
It might help if you stopped saying things like "we might solve the
crime".
mainframetech
2018-07-23 01:29:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
Chris take a look at DVP's Zapruder frames 224 to 226 and tell us what
you think Connally is reacting to.
Mark
I looked, but it's not clear to me. Since I know there were multiple
weapons firing into the plaza on a signal, there could well be many
bullets fired at the same time, or close enough to be unsure of what
bullet(s) did what damage. I rely on the results seen in the autopsy,
which clearly said the back wound bullet that was supposed to come out the
throat wound never left the body of JFK through the throat wound. I've
shown the statement of Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist and autopsy team
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So the bullet never left the body through the throat wound, and
therefore the SBT is so much hogwash.
Chris
All your arguments have been thrashed soundly by BD, with a lot more
patience than I have.
It's not really patience. As I have told Chris in the past, I do this for
amusement only. I used to think participating in these online discussion
groups was actually accomplishing something worthwhile but eventually I
came to realize the universe of participants in any one of them is so
small it isn't going to move the needle of public opinion to any
significant degree. Still it's fun to engage in the dialog.
As I told bd many times, if you're here to laugh at others, it's not
really a decent expenditure of your time. Getting your kicks at the
expense of others is definitely an immoral act.
Tell that to politicians.
Post by mainframetech
By paying attention to sworn testimony, documents and statements of
the eyewitnesses, especially when corroborated, we might solve the crime,
since it's been shown that it wasn't a single 'lone nut' killer. But
simply making fun of others jest ain't cool.
It might help if you stopped saying things like "we might solve the
crime".
I'm sure you hate to hear that it's our responsibility to do such
things. To follow up on our government and check them out and see if they
are playing straight with us, and correct them when they stray. I'm sure
you'd rather sit back on your couch and snuffle pizza and watch the latest
reality show. But some of us see the responsibility and would like to
carry it out. In my case by making certain facts known to others. If you
don't like to hear these things, I suggest you move along and not click on
these posts.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-24 05:18:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Bud
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
Chris take a look at DVP's Zapruder frames 224 to 226 and tell us what
you think Connally is reacting to.
Mark
I looked, but it's not clear to me. Since I know there were multiple
weapons firing into the plaza on a signal, there could well be many
bullets fired at the same time, or close enough to be unsure of what
bullet(s) did what damage. I rely on the results seen in the autopsy,
which clearly said the back wound bullet that was supposed to come out the
throat wound never left the body of JFK through the throat wound. I've
shown the statement of Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist and autopsy team
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So the bullet never left the body through the throat wound, and
therefore the SBT is so much hogwash.
Chris
All your arguments have been thrashed soundly by BD, with a lot more
patience than I have.
It's not really patience. As I have told Chris in the past, I do this for
amusement only. I used to think participating in these online discussion
groups was actually accomplishing something worthwhile but eventually I
came to realize the universe of participants in any one of them is so
small it isn't going to move the needle of public opinion to any
significant degree. Still it's fun to engage in the dialog.
As I told bd many times, if you're here to laugh at others, it's not
really a decent expenditure of your time. Getting your kicks at the
expense of others is definitely an immoral act.
Tell that to politicians.
Post by mainframetech
By paying attention to sworn testimony, documents and statements of
the eyewitnesses, especially when corroborated, we might solve the crime,
since it's been shown that it wasn't a single 'lone nut' killer. But
simply making fun of others jest ain't cool.
It might help if you stopped saying things like "we might solve the
crime".
I'm sure you hate to hear that it's our responsibility to do such
things. To follow up on our government and check them out and see if they
are playing straight with us, and correct them when they stray. I'm sure
you'd rather sit back on your couch and snuffle pizza and watch the latest
reality show. But some of us see the responsibility and would like to
carry it out. In my case by making certain facts known to others. If you
don't like to hear these things, I suggest you move along and not click on
these posts.
You are far more entertaining than any reality show on TV.

Even if you had any facts to share with others, you aren't going to do it
in this discussion group. We have maybe a few dozen regular posters and
who knows how many lurkers but I would be it's not much more than a
hundred. Perhaps your greatest delusion is that you think you are actually
accomplishing something worthwhile here.
mainframetech
2018-07-25 01:40:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Bud
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
Chris take a look at DVP's Zapruder frames 224 to 226 and tell us what
you think Connally is reacting to.
Mark
I looked, but it's not clear to me. Since I know there were multiple
weapons firing into the plaza on a signal, there could well be many
bullets fired at the same time, or close enough to be unsure of what
bullet(s) did what damage. I rely on the results seen in the autopsy,
which clearly said the back wound bullet that was supposed to come out the
throat wound never left the body of JFK through the throat wound. I've
shown the statement of Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist and autopsy team
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So the bullet never left the body through the throat wound, and
therefore the SBT is so much hogwash.
Chris
All your arguments have been thrashed soundly by BD, with a lot more
patience than I have.
It's not really patience. As I have told Chris in the past, I do this for
amusement only. I used to think participating in these online discussion
groups was actually accomplishing something worthwhile but eventually I
came to realize the universe of participants in any one of them is so
small it isn't going to move the needle of public opinion to any
significant degree. Still it's fun to engage in the dialog.
As I told bd many times, if you're here to laugh at others, it's not
really a decent expenditure of your time. Getting your kicks at the
expense of others is definitely an immoral act.
Tell that to politicians.
Post by mainframetech
By paying attention to sworn testimony, documents and statements of
the eyewitnesses, especially when corroborated, we might solve the crime,
since it's been shown that it wasn't a single 'lone nut' killer. But
simply making fun of others jest ain't cool.
It might help if you stopped saying things like "we might solve the
crime".
I'm sure you hate to hear that it's our responsibility to do such
things. To follow up on our government and check them out and see if they
are playing straight with us, and correct them when they stray. I'm sure
you'd rather sit back on your couch and snuffle pizza and watch the latest
reality show. But some of us see the responsibility and would like to
carry it out. In my case by making certain facts known to others. If you
don't like to hear these things, I suggest you move along and not click on
these posts.
You are far more entertaining than any reality show on TV.
Even if you had any facts to share with others, you aren't going to do it
in this discussion group. We have maybe a few dozen regular posters and
who knows how many lurkers but I would be it's not much more than a
hundred. Perhaps your greatest delusion is that you think you are actually
accomplishing something worthwhile here.
I'm sure you believe you're doing nothing to further the situation of
Americans as well. But putting the truth out is a useful task. There are
many facts that you are OBVIOUSLY unaware, and so you will go on arguing
for nothing but a laugh and an attempt to recover lost ego.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-26 01:49:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Bud
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
Chris take a look at DVP's Zapruder frames 224 to 226 and tell us what
you think Connally is reacting to.
Mark
I looked, but it's not clear to me. Since I know there were multiple
weapons firing into the plaza on a signal, there could well be many
bullets fired at the same time, or close enough to be unsure of what
bullet(s) did what damage. I rely on the results seen in the autopsy,
which clearly said the back wound bullet that was supposed to come out the
throat wound never left the body of JFK through the throat wound. I've
shown the statement of Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist and autopsy team
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So the bullet never left the body through the throat wound, and
therefore the SBT is so much hogwash.
Chris
All your arguments have been thrashed soundly by BD, with a lot more
patience than I have.
It's not really patience. As I have told Chris in the past, I do this for
amusement only. I used to think participating in these online discussion
groups was actually accomplishing something worthwhile but eventually I
came to realize the universe of participants in any one of them is so
small it isn't going to move the needle of public opinion to any
significant degree. Still it's fun to engage in the dialog.
As I told bd many times, if you're here to laugh at others, it's not
really a decent expenditure of your time. Getting your kicks at the
expense of others is definitely an immoral act.
Tell that to politicians.
Post by mainframetech
By paying attention to sworn testimony, documents and statements of
the eyewitnesses, especially when corroborated, we might solve the crime,
since it's been shown that it wasn't a single 'lone nut' killer. But
simply making fun of others jest ain't cool.
It might help if you stopped saying things like "we might solve the
crime".
I'm sure you hate to hear that it's our responsibility to do such
things. To follow up on our government and check them out and see if they
are playing straight with us, and correct them when they stray. I'm sure
you'd rather sit back on your couch and snuffle pizza and watch the latest
reality show. But some of us see the responsibility and would like to
carry it out. In my case by making certain facts known to others. If you
don't like to hear these things, I suggest you move along and not click on
these posts.
You are far more entertaining than any reality show on TV.
Even if you had any facts to share with others, you aren't going to do it
in this discussion group. We have maybe a few dozen regular posters and
who knows how many lurkers but I would be it's not much more than a
hundred. Perhaps your greatest delusion is that you think you are actually
accomplishing something worthwhile here.
I'm sure you believe you're doing nothing to further the situation of
Americans as well.
That's not my job. That's their job.
Post by mainframetech
But putting the truth out is a useful task.
So why do you waste so much time posting nonsense instead.
Post by mainframetech
There are
many facts that you are OBVIOUSLY unaware, and so you will go on arguing
for nothing but a laugh and an attempt to recover lost ego.
Right. My ego is in tatters. In the words of an old country music song, "I
don't know whether to kill myself or go bowling.".

https://funnyshit.com.au/25cw_songs.html
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-25 12:13:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Bud
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
Chris take a look at DVP's Zapruder frames 224 to 226 and tell us what
you think Connally is reacting to.
Mark
I looked, but it's not clear to me. Since I know there were multiple
weapons firing into the plaza on a signal, there could well be many
bullets fired at the same time, or close enough to be unsure of what
bullet(s) did what damage. I rely on the results seen in the autopsy,
which clearly said the back wound bullet that was supposed to come out the
throat wound never left the body of JFK through the throat wound. I've
shown the statement of Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist and autopsy team
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So the bullet never left the body through the throat wound, and
therefore the SBT is so much hogwash.
Chris
All your arguments have been thrashed soundly by BD, with a lot more
patience than I have.
It's not really patience. As I have told Chris in the past, I do this for
amusement only. I used to think participating in these online discussion
groups was actually accomplishing something worthwhile but eventually I
came to realize the universe of participants in any one of them is so
small it isn't going to move the needle of public opinion to any
significant degree. Still it's fun to engage in the dialog.
As I told bd many times, if you're here to laugh at others, it's not
really a decent expenditure of your time. Getting your kicks at the
expense of others is definitely an immoral act.
Tell that to politicians.
Post by mainframetech
By paying attention to sworn testimony, documents and statements of
the eyewitnesses, especially when corroborated, we might solve the crime,
since it's been shown that it wasn't a single 'lone nut' killer. But
simply making fun of others jest ain't cool.
It might help if you stopped saying things like "we might solve the
crime".
I'm sure you hate to hear that it's our responsibility to do such
things. To follow up on our government and check them out and see if they
are playing straight with us, and correct them when they stray. I'm sure
you'd rather sit back on your couch and snuffle pizza and watch the latest
reality show. But some of us see the responsibility and would like to
carry it out. In my case by making certain facts known to others. If you
don't like to hear these things, I suggest you move along and not click on
these posts.
You are far more entertaining than any reality show on TV.
Even if you had any facts to share with others, you aren't going to do it
in this discussion group. We have maybe a few dozen regular posters and
who knows how many lurkers but I would be it's not much more than a
hundred. Perhaps your greatest delusion is that you think you are actually
accomplishing something worthwhile here.
Excuse me? It was discussion groups NOT like this one where we organized
and formed the HSCA, which got action.

Out of the dozen or so regulars almost all work for the cover-up. Do you
rememnber Tiananmen Square? The lone man who stopped all those tanks?
That's me HERE.

I know I'm outnumbered, but I have something on my side that you don't
have. The files. The Truth. You can run over The People with your tanks,
but the Truth will come out.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-24 14:19:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Bud
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
Chris take a look at DVP's Zapruder frames 224 to 226 and tell us what
you think Connally is reacting to.
Mark
I looked, but it's not clear to me. Since I know there were multiple
weapons firing into the plaza on a signal, there could well be many
bullets fired at the same time, or close enough to be unsure of what
bullet(s) did what damage. I rely on the results seen in the autopsy,
which clearly said the back wound bullet that was supposed to come out the
throat wound never left the body of JFK through the throat wound. I've
shown the statement of Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist and autopsy team
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles???the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So the bullet never left the body through the throat wound, and
therefore the SBT is so much hogwash.
Chris
All your arguments have been thrashed soundly by BD, with a lot more
patience than I have.
It's not really patience. As I have told Chris in the past, I do this for
amusement only. I used to think participating in these online discussion
groups was actually accomplishing something worthwhile but eventually I
came to realize the universe of participants in any one of them is so
small it isn't going to move the needle of public opinion to any
significant degree. Still it's fun to engage in the dialog.
As I told bd many times, if you're here to laugh at others, it's not
really a decent expenditure of your time. Getting your kicks at the
expense of others is definitely an immoral act.
Tell that to politicians.
Post by mainframetech
By paying attention to sworn testimony, documents and statements of
the eyewitnesses, especially when corroborated, we might solve the crime,
since it's been shown that it wasn't a single 'lone nut' killer. But
simply making fun of others jest ain't cool.
It might help if you stopped saying things like "we might solve the
crime".
I'm sure you hate to hear that it's our responsibility to do such
things. To follow up on our government and check them out and see if they
That's why it is the citizens job to hold our government accountable.
That's why we formed the HSCA which proved the conspiracy and got the JFK
Records Act and ARRB which forced out more documents. If we didn't have
the support of the American people none of that would have happened.
Ignore the Trumpies who don't believe in Democracy.
Post by mainframetech
are playing straight with us, and correct them when they stray. I'm sure
you'd rather sit back on your couch and snuffle pizza and watch the latest
reality show. But some of us see the responsibility and would like to
carry it out. In my case by making certain facts known to others. If you
don't like to hear these things, I suggest you move along and not click on
these posts.
Chris
Jason Burke
2018-07-22 21:20:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all. Following is the statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
Online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw. That the bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound. Therefore there was no SBT and the Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
Chris take a look at DVP's Zapruder frames 224 to 226 and tell us what
you think Connally is reacting to.
Mark
I looked, but it's not clear to me. Since I know there were multiple
weapons firing into the plaza on a signal, there could well be many
bullets fired at the same time, or close enough to be unsure of what
bullet(s) did what damage. I rely on the results seen in the autopsy,
which clearly said the back wound bullet that was supposed to come out the
throat wound never left the body of JFK through the throat wound. I've
shown the statement of Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist and autopsy team
"O'Connor: We started out with a rigid probe and found that it only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
online at: https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
So the bullet never left the body through the throat wound, and
therefore the SBT is so much hogwash.
Chris
All your arguments have been thrashed soundly by BD, with a lot more
patience than I have.
It's not really patience. As I have told Chris in the past, I do this for
amusement only. I used to think participating in these online discussion
groups was actually accomplishing something worthwhile but eventually I
came to realize the universe of participants in any one of them is so
small it isn't going to move the needle of public opinion to any
significant degree. Still it's fun to engage in the dialog.
As I told bd many times, if you're here to laugh at others, it's not
really a decent expenditure of your time. Getting your kicks at the
expense of others is definitely an immoral act.
By paying attention to sworn testimony, documents and statements of
the eyewitnesses, especially when corroborated, we might solve the crime,
since it's been shown that it wasn't a single 'lone nut' killer. But
simply making fun of others jest ain't cool.
Chris
Dang, dude. Stop whining.
You folks have nothing - and will never have anything.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-24 14:24:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by bigdog
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
    Let's get rid of this SBT once and for all.  Following is the
statement
made by Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist, and member of the Bethesda
autopsy team.
"O'Connor:  We started out with a rigid probe and found that it
only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
 From "In the Eye of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
     So even the pathologists saw what O'Connor saw.  That the
bullet from
the upper back wound never left the body of JFK, and so could never have come
out of the throat wound.  Therefore there was no SBT and the
Autopsy Report
was phonied up to cover up that there were multiple gunshots in the plazja
that day.
Chris
  Chris take a look at DVP's Zapruder frames 224 to 226 and tell
us what
you think Connally is reacting to.
Mark
     I looked, but it's not clear to me.  Since I know there were
multiple
weapons firing into the plaza on a signal, there could well be many
bullets fired at the same time, or close enough to be unsure of what
bullet(s) did what damage.  I rely on the results seen in the autopsy,
which clearly said the back wound bullet that was supposed to come out the
throat wound never left the body of JFK through the throat wound.
I've
shown the statement of Paul O'Connor, Navy Technologist and autopsy team
"O'Connor:  We started out with a rigid probe and found that it
only went
in so far. I'd say maybe an inch and a quarter. It didn't go any further
than that. So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found
out that the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal
muscles—the muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in
through the muscles, didn't touch any of the ribs, arched
downwards, hit
the back of the pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and
back. It bounced off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and
stopped. Went through the ribs and stopped (photo 10). So we didn't know
the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later. That's what
happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and found out it
didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come out the other
side of the body.
Law: You can be reasonably sure of that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."
From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, pages 40-41
https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf
     So the bullet never left the body through the throat wound, and
therefore the SBT is so much hogwash.
Chris
    All your arguments have been thrashed soundly by BD, with a lot
more
patience than I have.
It's not really patience. As I have told Chris in the past, I do this for
amusement only. I used to think participating in these online discussion
groups was actually accomplishing something worthwhile but eventually I
came to realize the universe of participants in any one of them is so
small it isn't going to move the needle of public opinion to any
significant degree. Still it's fun to engage in the dialog.
    As I told bd many times, if you're here to laugh at others, it's not
really a decent expenditure of your time.  Getting your kicks at the
expense of others is definitely an immoral act.
     By paying attention to sworn testimony, documents and statements of
the eyewitnesses, especially when corroborated, we might solve the crime,
since it's been shown that it wasn't a single 'lone nut' killer.  But
simply making fun of others jest ain't cool.
Chris
Dang, dude. Stop whining.
You folks have nothing - and will never have anything.
We have the HSCA which proved conspiracy. You have the WC which was
ordered to cover up the conspiracy.
n***@gmail.com
2018-07-16 11:31:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Random thoughts after reading the debate.

1) I don't think the CTs thought the video evidence of the SBT would be
presented in the fashion you did.

2) Then, they refused to believe what their eyes were seeing and went
into denial with really silly explanations.

3) Interesting how one CT stopped arguing what the video was showing and
tried to divert by injecting that Connally did not believe in the
SBT.

4) Gotta love how you were denied posting rights not because you
violated any rule, but because he did not like what you were saying.

Mark
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-17 21:08:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Random thoughts after reading the debate.
1) I don't think the CTs thought the video evidence of the SBT would be
presented in the fashion you did.
You seem to be new to this case, so you do not realize that we've seen
such presentations hundreds of times and they are all LIES. YOU pretend to
be a WC defender. But if you really want to be a WC defender and part of
the cover-up of the murder of our President you are required to LIE at
least twice in every message you post. Are you up for that challenge?
Post by n***@gmail.com
2) Then, they refused to believe what their eyes were seeing and went
into denial with really silly explanations.
Like what? Because we object to the lies being foisted on us by the
cover-up? We are not allowed to protest?
Post by n***@gmail.com
3) Interesting how one CT stopped arguing what the video was showing and
tried to divert by injecting that Connally did not believe in the
SBT.
Who? Not brave enough to name names?
You are afraid to debate people one on one.
So you do random driveby shootings.
Post by n***@gmail.com
4) Gotta love how you were denied posting rights not because you
violated any rule, but because he did not like what you were saying.
Since you are new here you don't know what the rules are and you do not
know that McAdams makes up new rules every day based on what he had for
lunch that day.

It may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of
cheese, a fragment of underdone potato.

I had to warn him one day that the clams were off.



And you do not know that McAdams was so broke that he had to download a
free message filter which was Cockney and defective so IT banned common
expressions. He did not do it intentionally. It was just a case of
incompetence.
Post by n***@gmail.com
Mark
n***@gmail.com
2018-07-19 02:25:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Random thoughts after reading the debate.
1) I don't think the CTs thought the video evidence of the SBT would be
presented in the fashion you did.
You seem to be new to this case, so you do not realize that we've seen
such presentations hundreds of times and they are all LIES. YOU pretend to
be a WC defender. But if you really want to be a WC defender and part of
the cover-up of the murder of our President you are required to LIE at
least twice in every message you post. Are you up for that challenge?
I've seen them on here before. What I've also seen is how riled up you
get each time. Can't imagine why.

Mark
InsideSparta
2018-07-16 23:03:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
DVP basically emasculated the CT's. It's downright comical to read through
their excuses and "explanations" to try and justify how the visual
evidence provided in the Z-film somehow doesn't represent the reality of
their world.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-17 21:53:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
DVP basically emasculated the CT's. It's downright comical to read through
their excuses and "explanations" to try and justify how the visual
evidence provided in the Z-film somehow doesn't represent the reality of
their world.
No, he didn't. He just proved that you conspiracy guys stick together.
You have to, there are so few of you left.
Jason Burke
2018-07-18 18:57:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by InsideSparta
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
DVP basically emasculated the CT's. It's downright comical to read through
their excuses and "explanations" to try and justify how the visual
evidence provided in the Z-film somehow doesn't represent the reality of
their world.
No, he didn't. He just proved that you conspiracy guys stick together.
You have to, there are so few of you left.
Oh, goody! Anthony Anthony has seen the light.
Well, either that or he's got some reading comprehension problems.
mainframetech
2018-07-18 00:24:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by InsideSparta
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
DVP basically emasculated the CT's. It's downright comical to read through
their excuses and "explanations" to try and justify how the visual
evidence provided in the Z-film somehow doesn't represent the reality of
their world.
Simple. DVP hasn't been able to emasculate even a hamster, much less
any CTs. See the previous post, where it's shown how silly the THEORY of
the 'single bullet' was. There you will see the real eyewitness events
and NOT THEORY.

Chris
Jason Burke
2018-07-19 02:03:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by InsideSparta
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
DVP basically emasculated the CT's. It's downright comical to read through
their excuses and "explanations" to try and justify how the visual
evidence provided in the Z-film somehow doesn't represent the reality of
their world.
Simple. DVP hasn't been able to emasculate even a hamster, much less
any CTs. See the previous post, where it's shown how silly the THEORY of
the 'single bullet' was. There you will see the real eyewitness events
and NOT THEORY.
Chris
So, you still gots nuffin', eh, Chris?
Ace Kefford
2018-07-17 17:06:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
They see, but they are blind. I don't know how anyone can still make the
claim that Connally is not showing a reaction in those frames.
Unfortunately no reaction by Connalley was an early claim of the original
buffs, some in good faith based on looking at still frames in isolation,
and as we know once the buffs make a claim a good chunk won't ever drop
it. Oswald in the doorway, anyone?
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-18 18:57:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
They see, but they are blind. I don't know how anyone can still make the
claim that Connally is not showing a reaction in those frames.
Yeah, Connally reacted? So what? He HEARD a shot and was startled.
Post by Ace Kefford
Unfortunately no reaction by Connalley was an early claim of the original
buffs, some in good faith based on looking at still frames in isolation,
Which buffs claimed that Connally NEVER reacted?
Post by Ace Kefford
and as we know once the buffs make a claim a good chunk won't ever drop
it. Oswald in the doorway, anyone?
That's not wacky enough. Why not try the aliens bit?
David Von Pein
2018-07-19 18:02:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
They see, but they are blind. I don't know how anyone can still make the
claim that Connally is not showing a reaction in those frames.
Yeah, Connally reacted? So what? He HEARD a shot and was startled.
And you think ALL of the stuff we see John B. Connally doing between Z224
and Z230 are the results of him merely HEARING a gunshot (e.g., flinching,
mouth opening, lapel bulging, AND THE ARM/HAT FLIP), right Tony? (And
remember that that ARM FLIP is the SAME arm (wrist) that WAS wounded
during the shooting. Just a coincidence, right?)

Thanks, Tony, for again proving my point about CTers exhibiting "The
Ultimate In SBT Denial" whenever they view these clips from Abraham
Zapruder's home movie....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ace Kefford
Unfortunately no reaction by Connalley was an early claim of the original
buffs, some in good faith based on looking at still frames in isolation,
Which buffs claimed that Connally NEVER reacted?
Post by Ace Kefford
and as we know once the buffs make a claim a good chunk won't ever drop
it. Oswald in the doorway, anyone?
That's not wacky enough. Why not try the aliens bit?
mainframetech
2018-07-21 00:00:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
They see, but they are blind. I don't know how anyone can still make the
claim that Connally is not showing a reaction in those frames.
Yeah, Connally reacted? So what? He HEARD a shot and was startled.
And you think ALL of the stuff we see John B. Connally doing between Z224
and Z230 are the results of him merely HEARING a gunshot (e.g., flinching,
mouth opening, lapel bulging, AND THE ARM/HAT FLIP), right Tony? (And
remember that that ARM FLIP is the SAME arm (wrist) that WAS wounded
during the shooting. Just a coincidence, right?)
Thanks, Tony, for again proving my point about CTers exhibiting "The
Ultimate In SBT Denial" whenever they view these clips from Abraham
Zapruder's home movie....
Who you kidding? With all the bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza, there's
no doubt of the multiple weapons fired into the plaza. And that means
that a second weapon could easily hit Connally separately from JFK. That
has to be the answer, since the SBT was proved to be false. They saw in
the body during the autopsy that the back wound bullet never left the body
of JFK through the throat wound.
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ace Kefford
Unfortunately no reaction by Connalley was an early claim of the original
buffs, some in good faith based on looking at still frames in isolation,
Which buffs claimed that Connally NEVER reacted?
Post by Ace Kefford
and as we know once the buffs make a claim a good chunk won't ever drop
it. Oswald in the doorway, anyone?
That's not wacky enough. Why not try the aliens bit?
LNs will try anything to avoid the truth. The SBT was a phony idea
when it was hatched by a WC lawyer to accommodate too many wounds and not
enough empty shells in the TSBD.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-22 18:36:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by David Von Pein
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
They see, but they are blind. I don't know how anyone can still make the
claim that Connally is not showing a reaction in those frames.
Yeah, Connally reacted? So what? He HEARD a shot and was startled.
And you think ALL of the stuff we see John B. Connally doing between Z224
and Z230 are the results of him merely HEARING a gunshot (e.g., flinching,
mouth opening, lapel bulging, AND THE ARM/HAT FLIP), right Tony? (And
remember that that ARM FLIP is the SAME arm (wrist) that WAS wounded
during the shooting. Just a coincidence, right?)
Thanks, Tony, for again proving my point about CTers exhibiting "The
Ultimate In SBT Denial" whenever they view these clips from Abraham
Zapruder's home movie....
Who you kidding? With all the bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza, there's
no doubt of the multiple weapons fired into the plaza. And that means
that a second weapon could easily hit Connally separately from JFK. That
has to be the answer, since the SBT was proved to be false. They saw in
the body during the autopsy that the back wound bullet never left the body
of JFK through the throat wound.
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Ace Kefford
Unfortunately no reaction by Connalley was an early claim of the original
buffs, some in good faith based on looking at still frames in isolation,
Which buffs claimed that Connally NEVER reacted?
Post by Ace Kefford
and as we know once the buffs make a claim a good chunk won't ever drop
it. Oswald in the doorway, anyone?
That's not wacky enough. Why not try the aliens bit?
LNs will try anything to avoid the truth. The SBT was a phony idea
when it was hatched by a WC lawyer to accommodate too many wounds and not
enough empty shells in the TSBD.
Chris
No, you are wrong about that. You weren't there at the time. Hoover didn't
need no damn stinkin SBT. He did not see the Zapruder film. Most people
didn't. There was no problem with the wounds. The WC thought that Hoover
was right and was planning to say Three Shots, Three Hits, NO MISSES.

Then some smartass Lawyer named Arlen Specter was actually allowed to look
at the Zapruder film and figured out that JFK could not be hit before
frame 210 and Connally could not be hit after frame 241. That did not
allow enough time for one rifle, Oswald's rifle to fire both shots,
according to the tests they had done. That meant 2 shooters and that
proves conspiracy, and that causes WWIII. The ONLY way out is to claim
that one shot hit both men at the same time. They were not sure which
frame, because we can't see the two men when they are behind the sign.
Later WC defenders refined it down to about 224/225, but even then some
still disagree about the exact frame. Within 10 frames is close enough for
a WC defender. But it was never about the wounds, only the timing.
n***@gmail.com
2018-07-18 00:15:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The irony abounds here. They argue that Connally can't be seen to be
reacting to anything because the frames are "blurred." Blurred or not,
it's obvious to an open-minded person that Connally is clearly reacting to
something that is causing him great discomfort.

But this same mindset tried to sell us on the "badge man" and the "black
dog man" based on shadows and light. Mark
mainframetech
2018-07-19 17:50:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The irony abounds here. They argue that Connally can't be seen to be
reacting to anything because the frames are "blurred." Blurred or not,
it's obvious to an open-minded person that Connally is clearly reacting to
something that is causing him great discomfort.
But this same mindset tried to sell us on the "badge man" and the "black
dog man" based on shadows and light. Mark
Connally is welcome to react to a bullet, since we know he was hit by
one. But don't try to get away with the 'single bullet' THEORY. That's
been shown to be false.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-20 16:16:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The irony abounds here. They argue that Connally can't be seen to be
reacting to anything because the frames are "blurred." Blurred or not,
it's obvious to an open-minded person that Connally is clearly reacting to
something that is causing him great discomfort.
But this same mindset tried to sell us on the "badge man" and the "black
dog man" based on shadows and light. Mark
Connally is welcome to react to a bullet, since we know he was hit by
one. But don't try to get away with the 'single bullet' THEORY. That's
been shown to be false.
The way people have shown the earth to be flat and the moon landings to
have been faked.
mainframetech
2018-07-22 18:33:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The irony abounds here. They argue that Connally can't be seen to be
reacting to anything because the frames are "blurred." Blurred or not,
it's obvious to an open-minded person that Connally is clearly reacting to
something that is causing him great discomfort.
But this same mindset tried to sell us on the "badge man" and the "black
dog man" based on shadows and light. Mark
Connally is welcome to react to a bullet, since we know he was hit by
one. But don't try to get away with the 'single bullet' THEORY. That's
been shown to be false.
The way people have shown the earth to be flat and the moon landings to
have been faked.
Naah. Those are Conspiracy theories, like in the WCR.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-24 14:24:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The irony abounds here. They argue that Connally can't be seen to be
reacting to anything because the frames are "blurred." Blurred or not,
it's obvious to an open-minded person that Connally is clearly reacting to
something that is causing him great discomfort.
But this same mindset tried to sell us on the "badge man" and the "black
dog man" based on shadows and light. Mark
Connally is welcome to react to a bullet, since we know he was hit by
one. But don't try to get away with the 'single bullet' THEORY. That's
been shown to be false.
The way people have shown the earth to be flat and the moon landings to
have been faked.
Naah. Those are Conspiracy theories, like in the WCR.
How is the Flat Earth myth a conspiracy?
Post by mainframetech
Chris
BT George
2018-07-25 01:36:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by n***@gmail.com
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
The irony abounds here. They argue that Connally can't be seen to be
reacting to anything because the frames are "blurred." Blurred or not,
it's obvious to an open-minded person that Connally is clearly reacting to
something that is causing him great discomfort.
But this same mindset tried to sell us on the "badge man" and the "black
dog man" based on shadows and light. Mark
Connally is welcome to react to a bullet, since we know he was hit by
one. But don't try to get away with the 'single bullet' THEORY. That's
been shown to be false.
The way people have shown the earth to be flat and the moon landings to
have been faked.
Naah. Those are Conspiracy theories, like in the WCR.
How is the Flat Earth myth a conspiracy?
Because you can't believe in a flat Earth without believing in a
conspiracy far more massive than even the one Chris' dreams would require.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-22 18:36:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It's been so many years since i studied Latin that I forget what they call
that trick. I guess nowadays the kids call it MOVING the Goalposts. I call
it conflating. We were talking about frames 224 and 225. Now you bring in
frame 230. 230 is when I say Connally wwas hit and when the WC lawyers and
Connally said he was hit. But you say that we all must be kooks.

If you actually look at the Zapruder film you can see that Connally is
turning much earlier than frame 224 so to be honest you would have to
claim that Connally was shot whenever he was turning. That may be up to 10
times. Or just admit that someone turning in his seat does not mean he was
just shot. Nah, you'd never admit ANYTHING.
Post by David Von Pein
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
Yeah, I once saw YOU shrug your shoulders and I was not sensitive enough
to know that YOU had just been shot. You must be extremely sensitive. ;]>
Post by David Von Pein
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
I wrote a whole article about Connally turning.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.htm


Maybe you were afraid to read it. Yes, if you visit my Web site your
name will automatically be put on a Watchlist, but only on the Radicals
watchlist not on the terrorists Watchlist. Maybe if you're lucky, on the
FBI Watchlist.
Post by David Von Pein
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
His tie doesn't move. His body moves.
What about the lapel flip? Can't we waste 20 more years on that?
Post by David Von Pein
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
Connally said when he heard the first shot he yelled out.
Most people have to OPEN their mouths to yell.
Post by David Von Pein
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Maybe you're seeing WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE.
Post by David Von Pein
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Says the SCIENCE denial expert.
Do you think Global Warming is a Hoax? Climate change?
David Von Pein
2018-07-23 13:52:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It's been so many years since i studied Latin that I forget what they call
that trick. I guess nowadays the kids call it MOVING the Goalposts. I call
it conflating. We were talking about frames 224 and 225. Now you bring in
frame 230. 230 is when I say Connally wwas hit and when the WC lawyers and
Connally said he was hit. But you say that we all must be kooks.
If you actually look at the Zapruder film you can see that Connally is
turning much earlier than frame 224 so to be honest you would have to
claim that Connally was shot whenever he was turning. That may be up to 10
times. Or just admit that someone turning in his seat does not mean he was
just shot. Nah, you'd never admit ANYTHING.
Post by David Von Pein
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
Yeah, I once saw YOU shrug your shoulders and I was not sensitive enough
to know that YOU had just been shot. You must be extremely sensitive. ;]>
Post by David Von Pein
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
I wrote a whole article about Connally turning.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Connally.htm
Maybe you were afraid to read it. Yes, if you visit my Web site your
name will automatically be put on a Watchlist, but only on the Radicals
watchlist not on the terrorists Watchlist. Maybe if you're lucky, on the
FBI Watchlist.
Post by David Von Pein
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
His tie doesn't move. His body moves.
What about the lapel flip? Can't we waste 20 more years on that?
Post by David Von Pein
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
Connally said when he heard the first shot he yelled out.
Most people have to OPEN their mouths to yell.
Post by David Von Pein
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Maybe you're seeing WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE.
Post by David Von Pein
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Says the SCIENCE denial expert.
Do you think Global Warming is a Hoax? Climate change?
More excuses and "Ultimate SBT Denial" being exhibited by W. Anthony Marsh
of Cambridge, I see. Gee, what a shocker!

For anyone wanting some "SBT Reality" (instead of the usual Denial), here
are my links once again:

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Single-Bullet-Theory
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-25 12:11:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
What I am always struck by is the amazing hypocrisy of the WC defenders.
If a conspiracy kook says that a bullet from the front thrust JFK's head
back and to the left, the WC defenders say that is physically impossible
so we must all be kooks. Yet when Itek claimed that a bullet from behind
thrust JFK's head forward 2.3 inches in half a Zapruder frame the WC
defenders hailed that as proof of a shot from behind.

Now the WC kooks are claiming that they SEE a bullet move Connally at
frame 224/225 or that they can SEE a bullet flip his hat. Pure Hypocrisy
on every issue.

They never argue based on evidence, only on bias.
Post by David Von Pein
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Now if you're really clever you can talk about dermatomes and a bullet
exciting a specific nerve to cause a specific part of the body to make a
reflex action.
Post by David Von Pein
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-25 12:12:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html
Excerpt....
There is a serious problem here. You are suggesting that these
frames--especially from 225 to 228--demonstrate that Connally has been
struck and is reacting to that. I agree something extremely strange is
going on -- but what is causing this reaction is very blurred frames being
run one after the other. It is the consequence of the blurred frames that
suggest Connally is wounded. It is not Connally, because basically in
these frames it is impossible to see him clearly or indeed what he is
doing.
Now 224 into 225 really did puzzle me. To be fair, I did wonder if indeed
we were seeing a reaction by Connally. And the truth is that you are
seeing a reaction by John Connally between these two frames. Between 224
and 225 Connally turns around 20 degrees to his left. That is what you are
seeing. The change in the left shoulder is not a reaction to the bullet --
it is a movement by Connally to his left and a change in the position of
Connally's shoulder. It may look like Connally's left shoulder is
flinching, but actually it is being turned to Connally's left as he is
turning his body left.
As I pointed out to you in an earlier post--and you did agree with
me--between 224 and 230 John Connally is turning his body to his left.
What allows you to think that Connally has been injured in these frames
a) that 20-degree turn between 224 and 225.
b) the total blurred distortion in frames 226-228.
That is why it is being suggested that Connally has been wounded, when
actually Connally is turning to his left.
This is hilarious. And absolutely mind-boggling, to boot. The levels of
total denial the CTers will rise to in order to ignore the obvious signs
of John Connally being in distress in Z225-Z230.
It couldn't be more obvious that Connally's shoulders are shrugging from a
flinch starting at Z225, and yet I'm supposed to believe it only looks
that way because JBC is turning to his left. Does EVERY "left turn" made
by all limo occupants give the false appearance of "shoulder shrugging",
James? Get real.
And I guess you still want to ignore Connally's moving tie, eh? Is his tie
bulging outward due to his "left turn" too? And the startled look that we
can see on his face starting in Z225 too? And the opening of the mouth?
Are none of these things enough to give you pause to even consider the
possibility that Connally has just been shot and is reacting to that shot
in an involuntary manner starting at Z225?
And then there's the hat flip at Z226 too. Are we really to believe that
JBC's arm-raising is also NOT indicative of Connally reacting to a
bullet---even when we know JBC was struck by a bullet in that very SAME
right arm/wrist that's flipping upward ultra-fast at Z226? You're not
going to pass off the hat/arm flip as "video distortion" too, are you Jim?
Are you trying to say that a bullet hitting a specific part of the body
causes it to move? I thought that was a no-no for you WC defenders. You
say a bullet hitting JFK in the head from the front can NOT move the head
back. Hypocrite. Why don't you try claiming that the bullet hit a nerve
and caused a reflex reaction. Yeah, that's it. People will fall for that
as long as YOU are the one putting it out.
Post by David Von Pein
Lots more SBT Denial here (and at the link above)....
http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT
Loading...